We are now dealing with item No. 2. I welcome the Minister to the House.
Private Business. - Turf Development Bill, 1988: Committee and Final Stages.
I am sorry about the mix up over the time. I seem to have delayed the Seanad somewhat and I wish to apologise to the House for that.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 (2) states: "The Board may promote and take part in the formation or establishment of a company". I would like to come back to my main question on the operation of this Bill. It is to ask the Minister, does it really mean they can take part in and promote the formation of a company provided you agree with them and provided the Minister for Finance agrees? Or does it mean that they can act like any other board running a company? Can they make and take decisions about which they are responsible and which they can implement, or does the decision to participate mean that they must also come back to the Minister for approval?
As is laid out in section 3, the consent of the Minister is required for the establishment of sub-boards. The Minister is the main shareholder on behalf of the community. I am sure the House would agree that it would be appropriate in the event of a major decision to establish sub-boards which would have powers delegated to them from the main board and which would act as if they were the main board in the areas of operation which was designated for them, that such an important decision would necessarily require the consent of the main shareholder. It is provided for in the legislation that the Minister's consent will be required.
I am not talking about the sub-boards; we are on section 2. Under section 2 (6) the exercise of power by the board is subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance after consultation with any other Minister. This is operation by Cabinet. We now have in this section several Ministers involved. We have the Minister for Energy, the Minister for Finance and such other Ministers who in the opinion of the Minister, having regard to the functions of that Minister, ought to be consulted. In effect, this is privatisation by Cabinet. It certainly seems to me a very clumsy way of operating a company. I do not understand why this is required in this section of the Bill. What kind of fail safe can the Minister give to us here today in terms of how he intends exercising that power?
I welcome this legislation, as the Minister is aware. I would like to see it as progressive and positive, but I do not see how it can be those things, because on the one hand we are giving them power and on the other hand we are putting restraints on them. If they feel under the terms that they wish to form or establish a new company, what is the process, what happens? Does every decision of the board have to go to the Minister? The reason I put this is because section 2 contains this provision, as do section 4 and one of the other sections later on in the Bill. How is this board going to operate? There is a board meeting, they decide we want to form a company, what is the next step in that process? Does every decision about company formation, every decision about setting up a sub-board, every decision about engaging in new activities etc., have to go to the Cabinet or to the Minister? What are the decisions that this board can make of its volition, what powers does the board have? I fail to find them and I cannot see how it is going to operate.
The position in regard to companies, which is the point the Senator is raising, is simply as is stated here: that, if the main board decide for good commercial reasons that they wish to establish another company, the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance in that case is required. I am sure that the majority of Senators here would accept that that would be quite a normal requirement to be provided for in legislation in order to protect the interest of the shareholder. I do not see any difficulty in it. The Senator is dramatising it and referring to privatisation. In fact, it is the opposite; it is the Minister being asked to consent to the establishment of a company by a State company. It is the formation of another State company, which is not moving in the direction of privatisation, which is staying within the realm of State companies.
Apologies. I meant to say to "nationalisation" rather than "privatisation". I meant nationalisation under Cabinet.
This is a power the Government are anxious to give to Bord na Móna in order to give them greater opportunity to participate in the market place and to facilitate the expansion of the company; that, if the main board so decide it would be of benefit to them to have a separate company promoting a certain one of their products or an associate product or an activity which was related to their main core business, they should be free to do so.
This is a progressive step within the State ownership of the company and I cannot understand why the Senator would have any particular difficulty with it. It is something the workers, management, worker directors and others in Bord na Móna are all very anxious to have established. They are very anxious that this legislation would be passed so that they could avail of the extensive new powers being made available to Bord na Móna under the Bill. It seems to me to be fairly straightforward. I do not see any difficulties in it. If the Senator wishes to refer to any specific difficulties he may see arising from it, I would be pleased to consider the matter.
I know now I have raised an issue of importance because I have not got the answer to the question. I will deal with some of the matters that have been raised. I know exactly what the workers and what everybody else wanted. What they wanted was as set out in section 2 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). What they did not want, and I will explain why — to use some of the Minister's own phrases in his response to me — if they consider for good commercial reasons they want to establish a new company, if they feel they might expand in the direction of setting up a new company, if they feel that a separate company would be a progressive way to go forward, they should be free to do so. Those are the Minister's words and they are my words also and that is also the view of all the people who have made submissions. None of those things, however, can happen because the company can do all the market studies they wish to do, make all the assessments they wish, and they can come up with the answers at the end of the day, but they cannot make that decision. They are not free to do so until, unless and with all the exceptions provided under subsection (6) — the Minister for Finance has to say "Yes, we agree with you" and the Minister for Energy has to say "Yes, we agree with you" and any other Minister who you feel ought to be consulted has also to say "yes". Are we saying that all the Departments of State should be tied up in making the commercial decisions which the Minister says are important?
I would like to make a distinction before the Minister comes back on the issue — I am not objecting, I am supporting all the proposals in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) etc. I think it is very progressive and so does everybody. We do not need to discuss them. There is a need to say again to me that everybody is in favour of those, because so am I. There is no argument about that. I want to know the list of people who are in favour of having that power restricted by having to go and say "Bhfuil cead againn" to the Minister for Energy or the Minister for Finance and any other Minister whom he feels ought to be consulted. It is on that specific point — section 2 (6) — that I wish to raise the question.
Where there is reference to the functions of any Minister other than the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance, where it is considered that they ought to be consulted, one can foresee a situation where it might be necessary to consult another Minister where the board were proposing to form a company or to take steps which were in the area of responsibility of another Minister. I could think of Industry and Commerce, for instance, in some cases because of the commercial aspect of the Bill under discussion and Bord na Móna's activities taking into account the substantial new functions being allocated to the board under the Bill, in such circumstances it is appropriate that the Minister, as the major shareholder, would have to be consulted in the matter and his consent given. It is normal also that, where the Minister for Finance is also possibly going to be the guarantor of any new company, his consent would also be involved and any other Minister would only be involved if the activities proposed impinged on the responsibilities of another Minister. I expect it is unlikely that such a situation would arise but it is important to provide for it when one is writing the legislation.
One can start looking into these provisions and imagine extreme situations, but it is important to accept that the practical application of the section refers to approval of broad strategies. It is not, and would not be, the intention of any Minister to be involved in the specific detail of each and every single decision. That is a matter for practical application. I think the history of State companies in this country has shown that a good working relationship can be successfully established between the Minister, who has ultimate responsibility for the company on behalf of the State, and the management and workers within the company and the way in which the company is operated. I do not see that it would present any difficulties. The type of powers that are being extended here are ones that will greatly help this company.
Could I just say I am the first to appreciate that you have to take each semi-State or State company individually. You cannot take them together and make a decision on that. I am also very much in favour of the idea of consultation. This appeals to me in the sense that the Minister says that he will have to be consulted. I am not sure whether he means before the boards embark on their initiatives or whether it is at the stage when they have already done the research etc. and it is ready for presentation to the Minister for his consent or otherwise. I am a little bit confused about that. I must say, however, that the idea of the Minister keeping some control over this semi-State board appeals to me. It might not appeal to me in the case of another board, but it appeals to me in the sense that it is a greater protection against an immediate rush into privatisation. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but that is the way I see it.
Because of the way it is defined in subsection (6) I believe it is difficult to accept for people who have pursued joint consultation down through the years. I know you cannot have prior consultation and agreement, but the question of consultation could be defined in a different way. I am in favour of control in that I see it as a protection against privatisation. I wonder if the Minister could clarify at what stage these consultations would take place. Would it be at the stage when all the research is done, when the market has been tested, or do they have to enter into an agreement and get the consent of the Minister before they embark on this kind of research and, to some extent, development?
If one reads the powers that have been extended one can well imagine at what stage the Minister's consent would be required. The board may promote and take part in the formation or establishment of a company. So, if the board, having duly considered the matter, arrives at a point where it makes a decision that it wishes to promote or take part in the formation or establishment of a company, then it notifies the Minister and seeks his consent at that point and, having received it, would proceed to do what it had chosen, whether it be the formation or establishment of a company. The same applies in each of the other cases. Once the board has made its decision that it wanted to do a certain thing under the powers given to it in this section, it would then present its provision to the Minister.
I wish to make it clear to Senators that it is not, and never would be, the intention of the Minister to stifle initiative or to clog up with a lot of red tape the operation of a commercial State-sponsored body. I think in practice one would see that that has not been the position. It has been the tradition that Ministers have sought to stay well removed from the day-to-day activities of any State boards. It would be frowned upon in this House and in the other House if it was seen that a Minister was exercising his powers unduly and interfering in the day-to-day commercial operation of one of the State companies, whether it be the ESB, CIE, Bord na Móna or whatever. Happily, the tradition has been the opposite, even though Members in the other House often question Ministers about minute details which the Minister would have no responsibility for or wish to be involved in the day-to-day management of a State company.
These are only broad safeguards. There is no new intention here to move in to have excessive daily control or excessive control in any fashion over the operation of the board. It is merely a protection for the taxpayers of this country, who have invested in these companies and the Minister is their shareholder and acting on their behalf. It is only a reasonable precaution that is being taken. The decisions will be taken by the relevant Minister at a point when the board has made its mind up as to what it is going to do, having fully assessed the particular project and made its proposals to him. In practice, I would expect that in 95 per cent of cases one would find that the Minister was approving of what was put before him by the board. As we know, in practice these things do not emerge out of the sky and land on the Minister's desk; there is a system whereby there is contact and communication and it is known in the various Departments what major proposals are under discussion. I would suggest to the Senators that they have no need to fear these proposals but should welcome them.
I am afraid the more the Minister says the more alarmed we should become about this section. He has just said he feels there is no reason to believe the Minister will exercise powers unduly under this section and goes on to reply on the tradition of Ministers not doing so. I think that is a very dangerous way to legislate. The first thing that indicates to me is that the powers are excessive and can be abused and that we should have protections against that. I am talking about bad Ministers, not good Ministers. There is no inference——
There is no such thing as a bad Minister.
There is no such thing as a bad Minister in this House at the moment. I am talking about what we are legislating for. We are legislating to protect us from bad Ministers in the future and we are talking about legislating against an abuse of power. The more the Minister said he relied on the tradition of Ministers not abusing power the more alarmed we should become, because it seems to me there is obviously, by his own admission, an opening there for an abuse of such powers by a Minister.
This section starts off very well. The general thrust of it is something with which I think, everybody in the House is in agreement: that Bord na Móna should have more scope for initiative in the various areas specified but I cannot for the life of me see why subsection (6) is in there, because it says quite specifically: "The exercise by the Board of any power conferred by this section shall be subject to consent of the Minister...." Then it gives any power whatsoever at any time. It is just not good enough to say he will not exercise it in practice. It is down there in black and white that he can.
The Minister has already told us that every single time the board decides to do this they have to go to the Minister for approval. This is an extraordinarily clumsy way of running a business. It is not the normal way business is run or private business is run, because normally the Minister, as the main shareholder, having appointed the board — and we have to remember that the Minister not only appoints the board but he then has to get the board's permission to do anything, which is a most unusual way of doing things — says that when they have to make any decisions at all the board has to come back to him. It seems to me that the board, having been rubberstamped by the Minister, then has to go and have all its decisions rubberstamped by the Minister, and it has absolutely no freedom whatsoever.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider putting some sort of a time limit on this. I notice that in this section, which is causing a great deal of concern, it says that not only would he have to be consulted but also the Minister for Finance would have to be consulted and any other Minister whom he thinks suitable would have to be consulted. This is an extraordinarily clumsy, delaying, inept way of running any sort of business, because a lot of the decisions and recommendations made by the board should be for immediate approval or disapproval. It seems to me that this is some sort of recipe for delay and for tying the hands of the board and making sure that it does not compete properly because it has to go through procedures which in private industry and private enterprise are absolutely unnecessary. What is going to happen here is that the Minister is going to sit on the decision and think about consulting another Minister who may be too busy or may be away or he may have to go through civil servants. In effect, the initiative taken by the board will lapse because of bureaucracy and red tape, which of course may not be there but could be there. Would the Minister consider saying yes, maybe it should be considered by himself but there should be a time limit on it?
I cannot for the life of me understand the argument made by Senator Ross. If we were in a situation where Bord na Móna had acted in a highly irresponsible fashion and had amassed massive debts and liabilities for taxpayers in this country, can he not imagine the situation where he would be calling on the relevant Minister — in this case the Minister for Energy — to appear here in this House to answer why he was not exercising his responsibilities and why he allowed this to happen while he was the Minister?
That is precisely the kind of safeguard that should be in the Bill.
Exactly. That is what this is. The purpose of this clause in this Bill is to stop Bord na Móna abusing their powers, not to stop the Minister. The Minister is here to act on behalf of the Senators and the Deputies and the people in this country on behalf of the State.
Do you not trust them? When the Minister appoints the board he must trust the board.
Of course, the Minister appoints some of the members of the board; other members of the board are appointed by the workers — the worker directors. I think a quite extraordinary suggestion is being made now in this House: that legislation should be enacted which would allow a State company a free hand, despite the fact that the Minister for Finance guarantees the borrowings and finances of the State companies, without having any provision whereby control would be exercised. I am merely indicating here that it is not the intention, and never has been, to have excessive interference. These are just normal safety precautions that any good piece of legislation would need to provide for in order to deal with the exceptional and the extraordinary happening, which hopefully may never happen. It is prudent to make this provision in the Bill. I absolutely refute the suggestion that we should have a Bill without these safety precautions in it, without placing the responsibility where it lies in the ultimate, which is with the Minister.
I would like to welcome these powers. The whole objective of this Bill is to give Bord na Móna the opportunity to become a modern company operating under the present very changed market conditions and very changed circumstances we have at present. It is also a company which for various reasons, historical and economic, has had a very difficult time over the past two or three years and which is now, with the co-operation of the management and the workers, making excellent efforts and showing quite considerable promise of development in so far as it is possible in the particular circumstances relating to that company.
I am very glad to see the Government bringing in these powers. If Bord na Móna is to develop it needs the sort of powers that are given here. I do not think it will cause the House any argument about the particular powers concerned. I must say it is beyond me to even understand the arguments which have been suggested from the far side of the House. We would be totally irresponsible if we were to have a situation in which these powers were confirmed carte blanche without the Minister having, quite rightly, the responsibility at the end of the day for the exercise of these very wide-ranging powers. The fact that he may not necessarily do so, and probably will never do so, either on a day-to-day basis or even over considerably longer periods, does not in any way abrogate his responsibility to ensure from the taxpayer's point of view that he has got these powers.
Maybe I will just spell out some of the difficulties which Senator Conroy and the Minister have difficulty understanding. It seems strange to be doing this in a week where the Minister's own party are taking credit for making sure a similar abuse does not happen in another place in another area.
We will stick to the Turf Bill now.
Excuse me. May I continue? I will now spell out for Senator Conroy a classic example of what this type of legislation does in the marketplace but before spelling it out I want to make this quite clear: I believe in accountability; I believe there should be accountability for irresponsible action and that the Bill should contain that. I think Senator Conroy should not have wasted the time of the House by going back over subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) with which we all agree. We are simply talking about subsection (6). We also agree there should be accountability; the objection is that every decision of the board should be accountable.
The Minister is stating that irresponsibility should not be allowed to take place. It is, of course, something everybody would agree also. The Minister's statement that these things do not come out of the sky brings to mind a classic example of how precisely this type of legislation has been abused by this Government in another Ministry. If I take the example of Aer Lingus, who saw that their most commercial route was the Dublin-London route, and the main thrust of their operation is on that route, and saw that, in terms of developing that route, the only way in which they could see themselves developing was in the area of the new airport at Stansted in north London. They did market research over a period of three and a half years to establish that they could increase their profitability and the commercial aspect of their enterprises. Having done the market research, having invested a lot of money, and also having tendered for certain slots for take off and landing at the airport, having done all that — the guts of five years' work — eventually it was approved by the board, the marketing had begun on it, and the Minister pulled the plug on it and gave the operation to another company, a private company.
That is precisely why I believe these powers can be and indeed may well be abused in the future. When will it be abused? It will be abused if the semi-State company looks like becoming more commercially viable than those in the private sector with whom it is in competition. That is what we have seen in RTE, in Aer Lingus, and we will certainly see it in Bord na Móna also if the same thing happens.
Those of us who are part of the public sector in whatever way want to insist on a number of things. First, that the semi-State sector is viable, whether it be Bord na Móna or anywhere else. Secondly, that there are no constraints on it; thirdly, that it brings something into the Exchequer that can be useful to all of us and fourthly that it should be held responsible and that the legislation should insist that it be responsible.
This is not making it responsible. This is company rule by Cabinet. That is what we have here. I will give the Minister one example, and if he needs a few more I can give four more examples just like the Aer Lingus and Stansted instance. It is a classic example. I would like to hear how that kind of thing could not happen under this. It is precisely the same operation which I do not want to see happening. In the same way as advertising may be capped in RTE, in the same way as routes may be taken from Aer Lingus, I do not want to see a move in on Bord na Móna when it gets involved in some commercially viable enterprise. That is my opposition to it.
May I first say I do not need any lectures from Senator O'Toole on wasting the time of the House and I would be grateful if he could refrain from such comments.
The powers in this Bill are very necessary for a Minister. This is a situation in which the taxpayers' money is involved and I fail to see how we could responsibly allow a Bill to go through this House without having these powers.
I do not think I got an answer to my question from the Minister. Let us say we understand his point of view. Let us say we understand the principles behind what the Minister is saying. We have got to remember that the semi-State bodies boards are appointed by the Minister. We have got to remember he has that degree of control over them already. We have also got to remember, if he is going to insist on these powers, that there is no parallel I know of in the private sector where a board, having made a decision, has to go back to the shareholders for approval about every single decision on matters of this sort. If the Minister insists on doing this it means that the board, if it is competing with anybody, is competing with its hands tied behind its back. It also means in effect, that he is politicising the decisions of the board. He should at least put some limits on ministerial power. This is really a blanket section, which gives the Minister unlimited powers to interfere, obstruct and stop, not to initiate.
There is no time limit whatsoever. What will happen is that the board will come to the Minister and say: "We want to do this, can we do it?" Will the Minister give us an assurance that at least he will take a decision within a certain time? It is no good coming back and saying: "Of course in practice it will be done on a normal commercial basis". It simply will not because the actual powers in this section cannot be exercised quickly. If the Minister has to consult all other relevant Ministers it will take weeks, if not months. It will be a great excuse for him to delay. I do not like seeing political control in State companies. I do not like seeing political control over decisions by State companies. I am not making any improper suggestions but it leaves room for improper decisions on a political basis. That is what I prefer not to see. Having appointed a board, which I would prefer not to see in the first place, it is utterly wrong that a Minister should then come back and be open to the accusation of making a political decision. Would the Minister consider putting limits on it?
It has been adequately explained by the Minister that what is involved is the protection of shareholders who are taxpayers. As far as I am concerned, inaccurate statements have been made. One is that the Minister appoints the board. He does not appoint all the members of the board. There is an opportunity for others to appoint people to that board. It has been said that it is a constraint. If you want to say that protection for the public is a constraint then you are misusing the word. Is the argument being put forward by Seantors, not by Senator Harte who has dealt with this in a very balanced way, to privatise Bord na Móna? That seems to be what they are saying.
If I thought this legislation was protecting the taxpayer I would be the first to shout for it. I would like someone to explain how reducing the routes of Aer Lingus protected the taxpayer or how reducing the amount of advertising on RTE protected the taxpayer. I am not the slightest bit worried about that aspect of it. There has been a double-think on State industry and the double-think is simply this: when it is not working well it is described by parties like those on the far side of the House as being a drain on the State and something we should get rid of. I can give some examples for instance, the objection to the ESB selling coal. I could go through every semi-State company and as soon as they become involved in a commercial activity somebody from a major party says "Block it". We will let them do everything except become involved in commercial activity.
This provision is not there to protect the taxpayer. If it was I would be highly supportive of it but it is quite the reverse. It is an abuse of the taxpayers and I have seen that happen when there was an attempt made to block the ESB selling coal. That was not done by the Government but they were involved in other cases of Aer Lingus expanding their routes into London and Munich and having their oldest and most traditional route to Liverpool, their first ever route, taken from them. It was seen last week in the attempt to cap income from advertising on RTE. This is not protecting the taxpayers; it is standing on them. This is bleeding the taxpayer a bit more so that those people in the private sector can get greater profits.
I fully support the line taken by Senator Harte. That would be my own line if what we had here was accountability and responsibility. That is precisely what we would be supporting but the Minister said this never would be used to stop a commercially viable proposition. They are the words the Minister used; "Never would be" is what I have written down though I am not sure how he finished the sentence. But if it never would be used, why is it there? If it never would be used to do anything that I am worried about, why do we need it? Why do we not just have accountability? On a point of information and I stand to be corrected on this, I understand the Minister appoints all the members of the board of Bord na Móna. The workers elect a person but the Minister appoints the people. That is my understanding of the legislation.
The system of dealing with taxpayers' money is precisely what we are talking about. I believe in accountability and responsibility. People should be accountable and held responsible but that is not what this section does.
Ba mhaith liom rud beag a rá faoin aireacht agus faoi dhualgais an Aire san chás seo. Tá a fhios ag an Aire i leith Údarás na Gaeltachta, mar shampla, go bhfuil níos mó ná leath den bhord san tofa go daonlathach. Tá faitíos orm agus labhair mé faoi seo nuair a bhíomar ag plé an Bhille faoi Institiúid na Mara — I suggested very strongly during that debate that there should be an independent type of board, go mbeadh sé sin ceadaithe, agus go mbeadh bord dá leithéid ag feidhmiú, but that did not happen. I also see in this section that the Minister is going to have full and total control. Deireann daoine go bhfuil sé sin ceart agus gur chóir go mbeadh iomlán comhachta ag an Aire san réimse Stáit a bhfuil baint aige leis. Níl mise á throid sin ar chor ar bith, ach tabharfaidh mé sampla beag amháin.
I will give one small example to show what can happen when a Minister gets a grip, even on a board like Údarás na Gaeltachta, where seven of its members are democratically elected by Gaeltacht people and six are appointed by the Minister. Given that status, the Minister for the Gaeltacht in time gone by when Pádraig Flynn was Aire don Ghaeltacht, he brought in a rule and regulation whereby up to then Údarás na Gaeltachta as a board, elected or otherwise, had full control over spending power and budgetary allocation. Thug seisean rud beag simplí isteach, in by the back door, something very small, insignificant at the time. It was not seen by management or by board members but at the end of the day, if you got a grant from Bord na Móna or from Údarás na Gaeltachta to build a hen house or put up a four foot wall, no matter how small the capital expense involved, you had to get the written permission of the Minister for the Gaeltacht. That was brought in under the guise of being helpful and doing something positive. I can see the same thing ag teacht os ár gcomhair anseo. Ag deireadh an lae beidh an comhacht iomlán ag an Aire agus ní bheidh san bhord seo ach cineál stampa — a rubber stamp. Is é an trua é nach mbeidh an bord seo neamhspleách. Sin an fáth go bhfuil imní orm go bhfuil an fhoráil seo ann. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh an oiread neamhspleáchais acu — the amount of independence for this board to be successful. They are going into private ventures and will be competing with other companies. If they do not get this type of independence and have to run to the Minister every time asking if they can do this, that or the other, ní bheadh aon rath ar bhord dá leithéid. Ag an am seo, fiú amháin, Bord na Móna are unable to compete favourably with English companies when they are selling briquettes on the English market as a result of the constraints that are placed on them. Agus tá sé déanta anseo arís ag an Acht seo go bhfuil bac ar an mbord. Ba mhaith liom go ndéanfadh an tAire machnamh láidir air sin, go mbeadh an bord seo neamhspleách, chomh fada is féidir, agus go mbeadh sé le feiceáil go bhfuil sé neamhspleách.
Nuair a chuala mé an Seanadóir Ó Foighil ag labhairt faoi Údarás na Gaeltachta agus na rudaí a tharla sna blianta atá caite, cheap mé go raibh sé chun eolas a thabhairt don Teach faoin rud a rinne an tAire O'Toole ón a pháirtí féin nuair a bhí sé ina Aire Gaeltachta, nuair a chuir sé an cathaoirleach agus leath an bhoird ar leataobh de bharr cúiseanna suaracha, agus ní dhearna sé sin mórán maitheasa do Údarás na Gaeltachta. Is breá liom bheith ag cloisteáil faoi na daoine atá tofa ag muintir na nGaeltachtaí don Údarás, mar bhí mé féin páirteach sa chinneadh sin nuair a bhí mé sa Rialtas. Sin rud a bhfuil mé an-bhródúil as nuair a fuair muintir na nGaeltachtaí seans go mbeadh daoine tofa faoin chóras daonlathach atá againn chun smaointe agus tuairimí ghnáthmhuintir na nGaeltachtaí a chur chun cinn ag an mbord, rud nach raibh ar fáil roimhe sin. Mar sin, ó thaobh an daonlathais de, ar aon nós, bhí páirt mhór agam féin san iarracht chun é sin a bhaint amach.
One would imagine from listening to some Senators that every decision that Bord na Móna wanted to make would require the consent of the Minister. We are talking about something which is very fundamental and of extreme importance from the point of view of the development of Bord na Móna. What we are proposing here is to give this State company the power to form new companies. We are extending the remit of a State company. One would imagine, listening to the arguments being made, that we were going in the opposite direction. It is only reasonable that where the taxpayer is guaranteeing, through the State, the funds of Bord na Móna there should be some control over major decisions which may be made by the board in the area of the expansion of its activities.
The formation of a new company is a major decision for Bord na Móna and, in such a case, it is only normal and necessary that the legislation would build in the safeguard that the Minister's consent would be required. It is only in these limited cases where the board is making exceptional decisions that the consent of the Minister is required. Normal democratic procedures would require that accountability would rest with the Minister where such a major shift was being made. It is the Minister who has brought this legislation. It is the Minister for Energy and the Government of the day who are proposing the extension of the powers of Bord na Móna. The Government are anxious to increase the opportunities for expansion within this State company and I would have expected support for that from the quarters that are criticising section 2 (b).
I cannot understand the reference made by Senator Ross to the private sector. I ask the Senator if there is any situation in the private sector where the borrowings of a private company are guaranteed by the taxpayers? There is no parallel. We are talking about a State company whose funding is provided by the State and the responsibility lies with the State to protect that investment on behalf of the taxpayer.
Exactly.
Is there any——
I would like to answer the Minister's question.
This section has been debated extensively. There is now a fair amount of repetition.
I appreciate what the Minister said, that the purpose of this section is to protect the shareholders who are the taxpayers. That is desirable. On the other hand, Senators O'Toole and Ross said that in their experience ministerial involvement in semi-State bodies has not been very beneficial in relation to the taxpayer in recent times. The one case we can quote is where the Minister for Communications attempted to totally undermine the role of a semi-State body, namely, RTE. It is a question of getting the playing pitch right, where you protect the interests of the shareholder——
The Senator is borrowing his words.
I am, but we have had a variety of playing pitches. There seems to be all sorts of hills and hollows in the playing pitches and they never seem to become level, particularly when the Minister is involved. That is what we are concerned about. The Minister should have control because we are talking about taxpayers' money. We are talking about accountability and a possible situation where a board could perhaps privatise itself if it was not subject to some control. We are talking about another situation also and that is where a semi-State body can become shackled in its operations. Recently an action was taken by ministerial directive to shackle a semi-State body for the benefit of a private company. That is the danger here. Why did the Minister see fit to put in this provision? Would not the overall principles governing the Principal Act have sufficed to ensure that there would be relevant and satisfactory accountability in relation to the operations of the board as a whole?
The point made by Senator Costello was in the first Bill. My colleague and former Senator, Helena McAuliffe, is in the Visitors Gallery. I would like to recognise her presence in the Chamber and that of all her friends.
Acting Chairman
That is not in order.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 26, after "determine." to insert "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.".
The whole area of accountability in relation to the board and its activities is connected with what we have been discussing in subsection (6). It seems reasonable to suggest that there would be worker directors representation on the sub-boards. In Bord na Móna there are 12 directors on the board four of whom are elected. The others are appointed by the Minister. If we establish sub-boards with three to six people on them, it would seem reasonable that at least one elected person who is participating in the activities of Bord na Móna should be selected to serve on them.
I expressed concern earlier that there may be fragmentation of the activities of the board. I hope that what the Minister suggests will lead to a more efficient and effective operation and to a greater diversification of activities. In order to guard against possible fragmentation, it is highly desirable that we should ensure that there is properly elected democratic representation on the sub-boards. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment as being of benefit to the legislation.
The intention behind the amendment would seem to limit the power of the board by insisting that such and such a person should be in it. It is excellent that there should be worker participation and if the board so decides that would be useful but that we should have legislation stating that a sub-board, effectively a sub-committee should have to have a particular person or persons on it would seem to be interfering with the day-to-day operations of the board.
It is the intention of the board that at least one of the worker directors be appointed to any sub-board which may be established. The establishment of any sub-board under this legislation is subject to the approval of the Minister for Energy and it would be open to the Minister to require that a worker director be appointed before giving his approval. Given the board's intentions in regard to this matter, I do not expect it would be necessary to take such a step. I do not believe it is necessary to write this into legislation because nobody has any objections to it. It is the intention that worker directors would have representation on each of the sub-boards. As Senator Conroy has said, it is a matter for the main board. That is the intention and, as Minister, it would be my intention. I find it difficult to foresee a situation where at any time a sub-board such as this would be formed without having one of the worker directors on it.
Is an intention permanent enough? The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. I listened to the discussion on subsection (6) and welcome the fact that Bord na Móna, one of the oldest semi-State companies, is to be given power to diversify. I welcome that section because of the employment factor.
The Minister is genuinely interested in developing Bord na Móna and bringing it into the nineties. The workers in Bord na Móna have accepted the role of the worker director because he is on the ground and knows what is going on. He can have a substantial input into the workings of the board. An intention in this case is not sufficient and the Minister could strengthen his argument by agreeing to the amendment. Perhaps some of the senior directors in Bord na Móna might not be interested in having worker participation on the sub-boards? I would welcome the Minister's reply on that. I know he is aware that it is important but it is not incorporated in the Bill.
I endorse what the Senator said. We are constantly getting legislation of this sort before us and constantly having nice, good, well-intentioned Ministers telling us that things were not happening in practice which were actually in the Bill. Here, again, the Minister with the best will in the world is saying: "It is my intention to do this". If it is his intention to do it, I cannot see why he just does not put it down in black and white. Why it is not there in the small print? That would remove from him any accusation of backsliding on it or bad will on it. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment. He obviously agrees with it and declares it is his intention to do it anyway. It is not good enough to say when legislation is brought before this House that in theory it will work this way but in practice will work a different way. It is not good enough not to bind the Minister's successors to whatever his intention is today and for the next four or five years. His successors must be bound by the legislation and the only way to do that is by writing in worker participation into the Bill. I cannot understand — and it leaves me with some suspicion — why the Government cannot put in this provision.
I acknowledge the Minister's good will in the matter but the Minister will not be the relevant person in relation to the establishment of the sub-boards. The section states that the board may, subject to the consent of the Minister from time to time, establish one or more sub-boards and may delegate to such sub-board, etc. The Minister may wish that the board would appoint a worker director but there is nothing to state that he will direct the board to do so. While he might have the good intention of wishing that the board would appoint a worker director, his good intention does not hold sway when the sub-boards are being established.
That is the flaw in what the Minister said. The Minister will not be Minister ad infinitum so there is no way he could bind future Ministers. The point is that the board makes the appointment and can make the decision as it thinks fit. It is desirable that there should be worker participation if we are to protect the interests of the shareholders, the company and the workers themselves who have formed Bord na Móna and developed it for almost half a century. They are the people who should and must be represented.
I ask the Minister to take on board what has been said on this amendment. If he does not accept the amendment as it is he should come back on Report Stage with an amendment incorporating the principle of this amendment, although perhaps in different wording, that a worker director be a member of every sub-board.
We have no objection to a worker director being a member of each of the sub-boards but we have some slight concern that it should be put into legislation and be a rigid obligation for all time.
Why would the Senator be afraid of that?
It is often very difficult to anticipate future circumstances. The Minister has stated that it is his intention that any such sub-board should include worker participation. We all agree that the participation of workers in the recent developments and renaissance of Bord na Móna has been extremely good. We have no objection in principle to it. I just find it slightly contradictory that a few moments ago we had Members on the other side of the House objecting to the board being bound, that they must do this and saying that they could not necessarily rely on that situation. Now we have before us an excellent amendment but one in which we are slightly binding the board. For my own part I have no objection to it. I would be happy to support it.
I would like to clarify my position on subsection (6). I welcome the initiative, inventiveness and the desire for creativity within Bord na Móna to ensure that they can further diversify if you are in agreement with the intention and agree with the worker participation in this new development in Bord na Móna and the sub-boards, surely it can be extended into the sub-boards? It is not a matter of pride or a matter of one side trying to beat the other side on what should be in or should not be in. I am thinking of the benefit it will be at sub-board level that we will still have the same worker director as was on the original State board, which has already shown its worth in the accomplishments in Bord na Móna. It is only a minor detail but it should be written into the Bill and I will persist in that attitude.
I must say I largely agree with the Senator, but my query was——
The Senator cannot put that query to me.
The situation is that we have four worker directors and it is very likely that we will finish up with three sub-boards. As Senator Conroy said, there is no objection whatsoever. Therefore, it would be a sensible development if the Minister were to make the amendment rather than us having an argument over something about which there is no real argument or even putting it to a vote. There is no need to vote on something when you have everybody in agreement. I urge the Minister to listen to what Senator Costello said with regard to Report Stage to see if he could do something on it. I have one other minor question and I hope it does not throw the nice pattern we have at the moment out of gear. Is there any good reason why the board can only appoint members of the board to the sub-board?
The reason is because the sub-board would have delegated to them some of the functions of the main board. They would be acting as the board when they make decisions that that power would be delegated to them. In those circumstances the Government did not think it was appropriate that any other persons should be appointed to sub-boards other than those who were actually members of the main board. As I said here in regard to this amendment, it is the intention of the board, it is the intention of this Minister that worker directors would be represented on each of the sub-boards that we know it is proposed to establish. We are really arguing about whether it is necessary to write it into legislation, whether it is appropriate to single out one particular category to ensure that that category will be represented on the sub-boards, bearing in mind that there are four worker directors on the main board. I cannot really see any situation arising where they would not have a representative on each of the sub-boards.
We had a discussion on this matter in the other House, I have looked at it since then and have considered it. If the House feels strongly about it I am prepared to change my position on it and to have it written into the legislation, if that is the wish of the House. I greatly admire the contribution the worker directors have made in the State companies to which they have been appointed, particularly in the case of Bord na Móna, where many difficult commercial and personnel decisions had to be made in recent times. The contribution of the worker directors has been outstanding to that company and in this Bill, I want to create the conditions where that company can have good prospects for their commercial future.
The company have a lot of difficulties arising out of the heavy debt which they are now involved in and which is creating a problem, which I said on Second Stage is not specifically a matter for discussion here because it is still under consideration. The circumstances have to be worked out where Bord na Móna will be in a position to thrive and to avail of the commercial opportunities that present themselves. I am thinking in particular of the situation in Dublin with the new order in regard to bituminous coal and the opportunities that present themselves abroad for the expansion of the peat moss division of Bord na Móna. In deference to the opinions that have been expressed here, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
We are very pleased the Minister has agreed to take on board our suggestion and that we will see the results of it on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(m) ensure that all its activities are conducted in such a manner as to afford maximum protection for the environment both locally and nationally.".
The amendment is in line with what I said earlier on Second Stage that I would like to see some protection for the environment and that all legislation in relation to matters of this nature should at this time have some provision to ensure that there is environmental protection. My amendment states that the board should ensure that all its activities are conducted in such a manner as to afford maximum protection for the environment both locally and nationally. That is a caveat that a semi-State body which deals with our indigenous natural resources — peat being, perhaps, our most famous resource that is being exploited so successfully — should now take into consideration the possible fall-out and the implications in relation to the ecology and the environment.
We have a lot of cutaway bogs at present and indeed this section refers specifically to their commercial exploitation. We have areas where afforestation is taking place and where, there can be many problems in relation to the right mix of trees that are used which can lead to pollution problems in relation to wildlife and fish. We have a situation where blanket bogs and moorlands which were natural habitats not just of native wildlife but the world's wildlife have been drained, have been planted, have been used and are being used in a manner that is not conductive to environmental protection. I can give a couple of examples of this. For example, the Clara bog, a huge soak bog, as it is called, is in danger of being damaged. In an article in The Sunday Tribune last month, Dr. Peter Foss of the Irish Peatlands Conservation Council in relation to the eastern side of the bog being badly damaged when Bord na Móna started to drain it said that the cutting that is taking place is endangering the bog and that there is a danger of an entire habitat being washed away. He also said Bord na Móna are talking about establishing an interpretative centre but that by the time this is done we might have no bog at all. He said it is a habitat for an enormous quantity of wildlife.
Another example is in relation to a statement by An Taisce that in the west of Ireland 35 per cent of the original area of blanket bog has either been cut away or has been afforested. All sorts of wildlife and the natural habitat are affected. There is, for example, no planning permission required in relation to afforestation once the unit of afforestation is not more than 200 hectares. This is what is happening in the commercial exploitation of cutaway bog at the present time.
I am concerned that we have some of the most unique wildlife habitats in the world related to our peatlands and we are in the context of this Bill specifically referring to exploitation of cutaway bog, or other activities that Bord na Móna have not been engaged in at the present time. We are talking about thousands and thousands of acres of land and at the present time we do not have the necessary environmental protection measures in the legislation. It would be a very reasonable thing for the Minister at this point to consider introducing an amendment of that nature that would provide for that environmental protection. I commend the amendment to the Minister.
I would like to add my voice to Senator Joe Costello on the need to accept this amendment. I have a particular reason for this. I come from an area which can boast of Lough Derg, which is second only to the Lakes of Killarney as a tourist development area and whose potential has not been realised. Unfortunately, we suffer from a pollutant that is entering the upper end of the lough at Portumna. It has been proved conclusively that this residue emanates from turf development on the northern end of the River Shannon. All the people in my area, and also the people in the mid-west who recognise Lough Derg as having vast tourist potential, appreciate the damage that is being done by this unfortunate residue which is flowing down uncontrolled into the lower basin of Lough Derg and causing tremendous damage to the environment of the lake. An Taisce, Bord Fáilte, Shannonside, Clare County Council, Galway County Council and North Tipperary County Council are all agreed that Bord na Móna are the main culprit in the pollution of Lough Derg. As local authorities we can only do so much to prevent pollution and to bring to the notice of the people concerned the damage that is being done. Unless someone takes this serious problem on board what we have to offer to tourism in the mid-west, in particular north Tipperary, will be lost.
We have a major plan on board for a major development of tourism in the region and the heart of that development is Lough Derg. If we cannot clean the scourge of pollution which Bord na Móna have created in Lough Derg, our plan and all the money which we intend spending will be for nought. For that particular reason I fully support this amendment. I presume the Minister is aware of the serious complaints that have been lodged and submitted to Bord na Móna by all concerned. It is not a vested interest. The interest is the development of tourism. I live six miles from Lough Derg and I am very proud of the fact that we have something to offer international tourism but it needs the protection of the State and the people involved need to be assured that Bord na Móna are made fully aware of the damage they have done so far to the environment of Lough Derg and the lower Shannon.
Arís, ba mhaith liom aird an Aire Fuinnimh a dhíriú ar an gceist seo, mar it is a question of balance. Unfortunately, people in the west of Ireland will suffer for the sins of Bord na Móna because every right-minded citizen will be for environmental protection, as long as there is balance. There is a balance involved, a social balance, an economic balance and environmental balance. There is no doubt that Bord na Móna down through the years have destroyed thousands and thousands of acres from the point of view of the environment. There is no getting beyond that. It has been done.
The people in the west of Ireland were slow to develop their areas. Now when we have something going for us we have to pay for the sins of those in the midlands and on the east coast. We are asked here to have maximum protection for the environment both locally and nationally. I am not disputing that, but I am disputing the question of balance that is being talked and preached about in this country at this time. We talk about the Green Presidency, we talk about the environment but when we are speaking about that, ba chóir dúinn, dar liomsa, é sin a chur i gcomhthéacs daoine atá ag iarraidh maireachtáil agus fanacht beo agus slí bheatha a bhaint amach. People must live, people must warm themselves and must have fires, people must use the boglands.
An eminent environmentalist, David Bellamy, castigated publicly a very energetic group of people in the west of Ireland in Clifden because they wanted to develop a small airport for the exact same thing that Senator Ryan has spoken of, to help them out in a tourist venture. Mr. Bellamy spoke about people who dreamt of building a small airport right on the periphery of the town of Clifden in an area where there are 24,000 acres of blanket bog. We are talking about balance here. Between 50 and 100 acres were involved for development, people were putting up £500,000 of their own money to do something for an area which is completely isolated and denuded of population. He said that the people were stupid and vandals to even think of that. These are the very words he used publicly.
We must deal with that in the context of this amendment. I am certainly for environmental protection and I am certainly for the idea that we protect wildlife, their habitat and so on but it must be done in a balanced way without people of the stature of David Bellamy coming in to tell us in the west of Ireland that we are stupid and vandals to want to develop a small segment on the periphery of a bog and outside a town. Unfortunately, in our great race to be Green and to be environmentalists we are beginning to forget about the social conditions of the people in that area where 75 per cent are medical card holders and over 80 per cent of the very small farmers there are living on the poverty line or below it. These are the facts.
If there is an environmental issue involved here Bord na Móna have got rid of thousands and thousands of acres of bog. I would advocate that there should be local involvement, give all the cutaway bogs that are still there back to the farmers who owned them in the first place. Bord na Móna got them for a pittance. They are now offering the people of Connemara £10 an acre for bogs. When we were speaking on this Bill before, the Department could give over £500 an acre to Bord na Móna. Ba mhaith liom a chinntuí, má tá an rud seo le bheith istigh i mBille mar seo, go socrófar an cheist seo faoin cothromaíocht. The balance should definitely be taken into consideration. Bord na Móna now, at the end of the day have most of their bogs cut away but they were afraid to venture into the west of Ireland when they were asked over 20 years ago, to come in and develop some of our bogs with the people in the west. We cannot now ask them to be more careful because the damage has been done.
I do not see any great relevance of this subsection because the damage is done, the bogs are nearly cut away. We skipped over the section and it was all agreed. We are going out foreign to help people to cut bogs, to take over bogs, to buy bogs and develop them. Why are we doing this when we cannot develop a small bog in Ireland? We have An Taisce, environmentals, the David Bellamy's of this world down on top of us if a farmer wants to cut some turf for himself.
I support the amendment and appeal to the Minister to take it on board and have it included as part of the Bill. I am not sufficiently confident that Bord na Móna will take the necessary steps to protect our environment. I will highlight one major issue where I find them quite neglectful, that is with regard to allowing millpeat to flow directly into the Shannon and Suck simply because of failure to properly maintain the slush traps which have been provided but, unfortunately, are not properly maintained.
I believe it is important that enshrined in this legislation are the clear aspirations of this House to protect our environment. Of course, I totally agreed with Senator Ó Foighil in so far as I believe there has to be a balanced development. I fully support the sentiments he has expressed with regard to the development at Clifden. I have no doubt an airport there would undoubtedly provide major advantages to the people of that region and improve the tourist development. There has to be a balance between protecting the environment and utilising the assets we have to our best advantage to ensure we get maximum development from them.
I am certain that the interests of the Irish people would be best served by having this amendment taken on board. I believe it is important that cutaway bogs are properly developed. If one drives through the midlands at the present time one will see bogs that Bord na Móna have abandoned. I am not talking about the Derryfada group which is another issue. I am talking about bogs which have been cut out, they have abandoned and look like derelict sites. Many of these bogs should be allocated to the farming community from whom they were taken from in the first place and a balanced development of forestry and agriculture carried out and to ensure that we protect our environment a portion of them should be allocated for that purpose. I appeal to the Minister to take this amendment on board.
Senator Pól Ó Foighil, a Tipperary man now living in Galway, said there should be a balance in what we are doing. Up to this, there has been no balance whatever. What has happened in Lough Derg has been completely uncontrolled. Bord na Móna are the prime semi-State body responsible for the pollution of Lough Derg.
I appreciate what the Senator said about employment. We all want to see men and women working I attended a meeting five years ago in Portumna and there were about 1,000 people in the Westpark. The people in the dock charged with the destruction of Lough Derg were Bord na Móna. The Minister is well aware of the consternation that was caused in east Galway, Clare and north Tipperary over the fact that the biggest culprit in the pollution of Lough Derg was a semi-State body. That is why I believe that if we are to have a balance and control, this amendment should be accepted to ensure that the environment can be protected. We in the mid-west are most anxious to get on with tourist development but there is no good getting on with it if Bord na Móna continue to pollute Lough Derg. I am being parochial but, unfortunately, I have to be.
I believe a great opportunity is being lost on this occasion. Bord na Móna in the recent past engaged in a PR excuse for an hour and a half in the early morning when we enjoyed breakfast and had a chat about their activities and what they were planning for the future. The one thing that appalled me on that occasion was that Bord na Móna considered themselves the authority who had responsibility for extracting a certain commodity from the bogs and commercially marketing that product and after that their responsibility ended. It was quite appalling to have a semi-State body in such a responsible position carrying out activities and depleting the acreage of bog in the country.
I know the Minister has a committee to advise him on the use of cutaway bogs and the use they might be put to in the future but the brief to that committee does not include the restoration of bogs or the return of acreages to bogland. I believe that can be done and it appalls me that Bord na Móna do not realise it is possible to do that. One very senior official in Bord na Móna said the greatest sight to him was to go on a car journey or a train journey from Tralee to some other town to see the great stretches of former boglands now in grass or in agricultural use. That is fine, I do not mind a certain amount of that but it is wrong to put it all into grassland use or into recreational use and allow none of it to return to bogland. I cannot understand how nobody has come up with the suggestion that the water should be left in the boglands to allow the area to remain as bogland. I believe that future generations will not thank us if we reduce our boglands to such a low acreage that we cannot ever revive them. I have seen bogland where the turf is extracted by hand and it continue to be a bog, but where there are machines coming in draining the area——
We cannot have a Second Stage debate on this Stage. I would like the Senator to speak to the amendment.
I appreciate that. Very many people will be disappointed that this opportunity was not grasped to bring home to Bord na Móna that they had a responsibility for the environment. Many people expected in this Bill there would be protection for the environment and provisions to bring home to Bord na Móna that they have this responsibility. The Minister in recent times endeared himself to very many people when he made an announcement regarding the banning of mining on Croagh Patrick and in national parks. Many people expected similar protection in this Bill for our boglands. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment, or, perhaps, he will introduce a stronger amendment on Report Stage, that would allow some of the boglands to continue to be boglands. The Minister has given a brief to the special committee he set up to advise him on four areas in which cutaway bogs can be used I ask him to add a fifth; in other words, that they would consider allowing some of the boglands to revert to their former state. It would be a great pity to lose this opportunity to achieve that objective.
I agree with the amendment because it will indicate to Bord na Móna that they have a responsibility to the environment. Heretofore, their only objective was to extract what they could from boglands and market the product as economically as possible wherever they could. After that, their main concern was to get rid of that land. They should be responsible for ensuring that some of those bogs can be used for hundreds and thousands of years to come.
I commend the amendment to the Minister and he should have no problem with the sentiments expressed in it. I am sure the Minister would approve of visibly affording the maximum protection for the environment, both locally and nationally. It is almost like one of the recommendations about motherhood. The Minister, being a man of logic, and so on, should have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
I am in favour of the amendment as it would be a means of curbing pollution, but, more importantly, I hope it would provide a basis for protecting priceless environmental treasures located in some bogs, particularly in the midlands. It would be appalling if anything were to happen to damage them. There is tremendous potential in those treasures for scientific research and as a tourist attraction in years to come, when we can capitalise on that type of market. There is a tremendous richness there for scientific research and for attracting students from all over the world to study those treasures located in the midlands. There is also remarkable potential in that area from the point of view of the ordinary tourist. For those reasons I hope the Minister will accede to our request in relation to this amendment.
With regard to the protection of the environment, bogs and boglands are a considerable tourist attraction. People from Dublin go down the country or up to Dublin Mountains to cut turf. Many of those people are not doing this because they need turf or for economic reasons; they are doing it primarily for recreational reasons. There is considerable potential here which can be developed. I met a lady from south County Dublin last weekend who told me that she was off to the Dublin Mountains to cut turf and she was looking forward to it greatly.
The Senator is referring to someone from Dublin 4. It is a necessity in the part of the country I come from.
Some of us spent our youth at it. I did it myself and it was out of necessity rather than as a tourist attraction.
They are still doing it.
In times to come — I am sure Senator Honan will agree with me — there will be people like myself, if I do return to Clare, charging very large fees.
Acting Chairman
The Chair has been very lenient with the Senator; I ask him to return to the amendment.
I am sorry, I was distracted. I commend the amendment to the Minister and hope he will accept it.
In relation to preserving the environment, I hope the Minister takes into account that the environment does not only mean the physical environment. In the bogs of the Great Rift Valley of east Africa the bones of our ancestors of thousands of years ago have been found and likewise, in many parts of this country. I am not just talking about Christian religious objects which have been found in our bogs, but about bones; carbon dating can be used to ascertain our background. I hope the Minister will also take into consideration archaeological as well as Christian remains and those as yet undiscovered historical remains could be lost to posterity. That aspect should be included in the amendment.
Certain responsibilities lie with Bord na Móna with regard to the development of bogs and other responsibilities lie with the Office of Public Works in regard to conservation of bogs. I remind the House that Bord na Móna own only 10 per cent of Irish boglands.
Senator McMahon expressed regret that I had not included in the terms of reference of the special committee which was to advise on the disposal of cutaway bogs a provision to take environmental matters into account. He mentioned there were only four requirements which this committee would consider. I would like to refer him to the terms of reference of the committee. There are five areas which they were asked to look at specifically and the fifth one is to take into account, in particular, amenity and environmental considerations.
That does not include returning some of the boglands to bog.
It includes the environmental and amenity aspect of the boglands which will, in some cases result in recommendations that some of those bogs should revert to their natural state.
I am glad to hear that.
The main interest, of course, is in the disposal of those cutaway bogs which can be developed as grasslands and in the argument regarding farming and forestry use. That is the main area which the committee is being asked to look at but it is also being asked to look at other aspects, including amenity and environmental aspects which will be an important part of its work.
I want to make it clear that the Minister for Energy has no direct function in relation to the conservation of boglands. Because I am dealing with the Turf Bill and Bord na Móna it may seem I have some responsibility in that area but I do not. That is the responsibility of the Wildlife Service which is part of the Office of Public Works and, therefore, under the aegis of the Minister for Finance. Bord na Móna currently own less than 10 per cent of Irish boglands. Their position is that they have recognised over the years that their development operations can have serious consequences for the preservation of wildlife and rare vegetation. To minimise this effect, Bord na Móna have, in conjunction with other interested bodies, compiled lists of peatlands worthy of conservation. Discussions are ongoing between Bord na Móna and the Wildlife Service of the Office of Public Works concerning these bogs. Bord na Móna have handed over or retained over 2,000 hectares for conservation purposes and have desisted from acquiring a further 1,000 hectares because of the conservation potential of those lands. The most recent bog to be handed over was Clara Bog in County Offaly which comprised 496 hectares.
Research is being carried out in Bord na Móna into the question of silt pollution of milled peat. Previous harvesting methods allowed for the loss of much peat bog at the harvesting stage. The change-over that is now taking place to the haku system of collecting peat and bringing it to a central point will eliminate a lot of that loss and hopefully, of most of the milled peat that found its way into drains which, as has rightly been pointed out, was a cause for concern as it was finding its way into our major river systems. I would be concerned if that damage were to continue. If there is any evidence of that, I would be pleased to draw it to the attention of the chairman or managing director of Bord na Móna. We must be ever-vigilant in protecting our waterways. The idea that we could be spending money on harvesting milled peat for it to float down our rivers and destroying them, would indicate gross inefficiency and, obviously, would add unnecessary cost to the final product.
The board, management and work-force of Bord na Móna are concerned about cost efficiencies within the board and are adapting to new harvesting methods to eliminate waste and introduce more efficient methods of harvesting their product. I hope that those new methods will eliminate problems that existed in the past. In relation to slush traps, Bord na Móna have a duty to maintain them in good condition, to keep them clean and to ensure that none of this peat floats into the river systems.
Obviously, the Senators are aware of my concern and interest in the environment. I am interested in contributing to protecting our environment, in making balanced decisions and using balanced legislation to assist in that matter. We have a task of marrying growth and development with a strict environmental regime and I am happy that the new Environmental Protection Agency, which is to be established by the Government, will have powers to ensure that Bord na Móna's operations—as, indeed those of any other commercial bodies — are carried out in a way which will afford protection for the environment. I am satisfied that Bord na Móna are fully aware of their environmental obligations and of the serious implications of their activities if negligence is allowed to creep in. I am satisfied they strive to ensure that those activities are carried out in a manner which causes the least possible damage to the environment. Having said that, I am aware that there have been mistakes in the past and some damage has been done. I hope that situation will not arise again.
In regard to the amendment, which I am asked to accept by Senators Costello, Upton, Ryan and Harte, I have no reason to object to it if the House believe it is necessary. It is not very strong in the context in which it has been suggested but if the House consider it appropriate that we should make a reference in this way to the need for the board to conduct their affairs in a manner which would at all times take into consideration the proper protection, or appropriate protection, of the environment, both locally and nationally, I have no objection to having a clause to that effect inserted in the Bill. If the Senators who are proposing the amendment would agree to the following slight change, I could accept it. In other words, that the word "maximum" be changed to "appropriate" in the second line and that the word "and" be added at the end because that is required to keep the section effective as regards paragraph (b). Will the Senators proposing this amendment agree to amend the Bill to include the new section 8 (2) (m) to read as follows: "ensure that all its activities are conducted in such a manner as to afford appropriate protection for the environment both locally and nationally and..."?
I thank the Minister for his interest in the amendment and for agreeing to it. Will he take up with Bord na Móna the problem of the pollution of Lough Derg? He may think that the problem has ceased but it has not. The pollution of Lough Derg is a matter of grave concern to the mid-west. The Minister mentioned the Office of Public Works but the people who created the problem are Bord na Móna and they are the people who should resolve it. Steps will have to be taken in this regard if we are to pursue tourism in the mid-west region. Bord na Móna will have to be brought to task for the damage they have done and obliged to cease the pollution of the River Shannon in Lough Derg.
Apart from that, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment but I want to emphasise that the people in the mid-west region are very concerned about that problem.
What does the Senator want me to do in regard to the pollution?
Bord na Móna are only too well aware of the complaints from the mid-west region. We have had several meetings and as I said already——
What does the Senator want me to do?
The Minister has responsibility for Bord na Móna and I want him to convey to them the concern and anxiety of the people of the mid-west region over the continued pollution of Lough Derg which is a major tourist development area. We are in the process of developing a tourist plan for the area and I am asking the Minister, smiling or not smiling, to do something about stopping that pollution.
The only reason I am smiling is that earlier in the debate there was much noise about the Minister interfering too much with Bord na Móna and seeking powers which would interfere with the board.
I accept the Minister's responsibility.
The Senator should make representations in this matter direct to the chairman, who is a friend of his, and the managing director and I am satisfied he will get a satisfactory response. It is not appropriate that I should interfere in the day-to-day management of Bord na Móna, as I said at the outset of the debate. There are important matters in regard to the formation of new companies which were provided for in this Bill, where it is appropriate that the Minister should be involved. Bord na Móna will be acquainted with all that has been said in this debate and they will take due note of it.
The debate today has proved one thing and that is that the Seanad is worthwhile. I am asking the Minister as the Minister with responsibility for Bord na Móna to convey to them the concern of the people of the mid-west region.
I am happy to do what the Senator has asked me.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to take this amendment on board. I endorse the sentiments expressed by Senator Ryan because I am familiar with the problem he has referred to. It starts further up the Shannon and Suck and I would appreciate if the Minister would inform Bord na Móna of this House's dissatisfaction with the manner in which they have maintained their silt traps and at the level of pollution that has taken place in the Shannon and Suck. A short time ago a cruiser ran aground on a mud bank, a bank of silt, in the Shannon.
I am glad that Senator Ryan has complimented the Minister. Is it not great that after a few hours we have found that Ministers have common sense, that they listen to us and that we can rely on them to put proper legislation through? Senator O'Toole missed a lot of it.
I did not miss any of it, I listened to every word. I must compliment the Minister for turning the argument around. There was nothing in section 2 which would give the Minister power to do what he was asked to do. In fairness to the Minister, touché.
I compliment the Minister on the way he received the comments made. However, perhaps at a future date he would consider ensuring that a percentage of cutaway bogs would be returned to bogland. I ask him to enshrine that in some order or Act so that we can be certain that all the cutaway bogs will not be used for purposes other than boglands and that a percentage of them will revert to boglands. That will mean a continuation of our boglands for future generations.
I must point out to Senator McMahon that there is a contradiction in what he is saying. If it is a cutaway bog then the bog, by definition, is gone and it is not bogland as we know it or want to preserve it. Amenity and environmental considerations will be taken into account by this committee in regard to all cutaway bogs. Some of those bogs will not be useful for grassland, some will not be useful for forestry and some will not have any productive use and will, of necessity, become amenity areas and sites for environmental works. The committee have been asked to look at that aspect and to make recommendations in regard to the cutaway bogs which do not have the potential for other developments. I do not want to give the Senator the impression that we could preserve as bogland something that has been cut away.
I know it requires an indepth study. What really prevents cutaway bog from returning to bog is the drainage; the water has been taken out. Land that is drained improves. Bogs that are hand-cut and where there is no drainage continue to be boglands. They have been cut for hundreds of years and are still growing. I could take the Minister to an area not ten miles from here where I saw bogs cut by hand in the forties.
Acting Chairman
I must instruct the Senator that this is not relevant to the amendment.
When the bog has not been drained it continues to grow as the heather bogs continue to grow. That has happened in the Dublin Mountains, not too far from my own home.
As I proposed the amendment — and before everyone else accepts it — I should be allowed to express my opinion.
Acting Chairman
There is something I want to say on it for the information of all. Before it is agreed, should not "and" in line 20 also be deleted as it is a consequential change in accepting the amendment? Is that agreed?
Yes, that would be the intention. I am delighted the Minister has agreed to take this amendment on board and the change he proposes from "maximum" to "appropriate" is quite justified. I have no problem at all with that. Neither do I have a problem in the context of whether this amendment goes in precisely where I intended it. In other words, as subsection (m) it could be put in a different section if the Minister saw fit, after giving further consideration to it. Indeed, it could be put in at the end of the section, before section 9, if that would be more applicable. I am delighted the Minister has accepted the amendment.
I was a bit concerned about his earlier remarks in regard to the separation of powers between Bord na Móna and the Office of Public Works because I noticed that the Office of Public Works, for example, in relation to Clara Bog have expressed their concern. They have criticised the way Bord na Móna have acted in relation to it even though Bord na Móna have now purchased two-thirds of it for a national heritage centre. They are concerned that the bog will be destroyed before it could become a national heritage centre; in other words, the activities of Bord na Móna have already caused many problems in relation to this area. I do not think one can say that one group are concerned with the environmental side and that another office or semi-State body are concerned with the exploitation or production of peat. Bord na Móna have a duty to take reasonable care. What we are saying here is that many matters relate to the environment in terms of cutaway bogs. The activities of Bord na Móna, in general, are relevant and it is appropriate that that is acknowledged in this Bill. It is a worthwhile amendment in relation to this new legislation.
Finally, the amendment does not in any way interfere with what Senator Ó Foighil said about balance. We accept the idea of commercial development, production and the creation of jobs. We are concerned about getting the balance right. It is not one or the other; it is a combination of all that gives the right balance, and, of course, that gives the right environmental and ecological balance. I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, paragraph (b), 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.".
Having got the Minister to agree more or less to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, perhaps, without further discussion, he might accept amendment No. 3 also. Amendment No. 3 again relates to cutaway bogs. Subsection (4) states that any power conferred on the board in relation to cutaway bogs shall only be exercised in accordance with such general directions as may be laid down from time to time by the Minister. Amendment No. 3 states that 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. The amendment seeks to give a simple check to the Oireachtas in relation to what directives are given by the Minister in the context of cutaway bog.
We are talking here about large quantities of land, thousands of acres. There is a variety of land available from agriculture, natural habitats, heritage, forestry and so on. The House is entitled to know what the intentions are and there is not obstacle put in the way of the Minister. It is only asking that the Minister inform the House. It is a purposeful, positive development and unless it comes back in any form in the period of 21 days then it simply goes ahead as intended. It is important that the House has that extra check. It is not an interfering check; it simply seeks to know what Bord na Móna are doing downstream with their commercial activities or their secondary operation. It seeks to ensure that all the social, environmental and commercial implications are looked into or may be looked into. I simply ask the Minister to allow the House to have the last word, so to speak. The Minister is the man who will make the directives but the House may have the last word in simply inspecting them and if it sees something unusual or exceptional then it may put a motion to the contrary. The amendment does not in any sense seek to interfere with the operation or the powers of the Minister.
I, too, would like to support the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 3. It is only right and appropriate that the Houses of the Oireachtas would be aware of what orders, if any, the Minister was giving with regard to the change in use or as to how cutaway bogs would be used. It is a simple matter that this information should be circulated. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment and facilitate the Members of the Oireachtas in knowing precisely what was happening and what was taking place.
I would like the House to recall that the Bill I inherited had a section in it which provided that cutaway bog would be made available for forestry development, that the forestry section would have the right of choice in regard to that matter, and that whatever lands they deemed were appropriate for forestry purposes would be made available to them. I did not think that that was an appropriate way in which to deal with this important matter.
The amount of cutaway bog that will become available over the next 30 to 40 years is enormous. It has been said that it is going to be as much as an Irish county. Therefore, it is important that whatever policy decisions are made in this area after careful consideration of all the facts and examination of every possible option, should be sound ones. For that purpose, I established a special committee of experts who have been meeting and who have accepted submissions from about 40 different groups and individuals, including all the main farming organisations. The committee will report to me before the end of the year. The House is asking here that whatever decision I make in regard to this matter, should not be enforced until procedure requiring 21 sitting days and a motion being passed in either House of the Oireachtas has been gone through. I do not think that is appropriate at all.
The purpose of the subsection is to enable the Minister of the day to make decisions on policy in relation to the usage of cutaway bog arising from the report of the committee of experts I set up. They have been asked to examine this matter and to make recommendations. Anybody who wished to make submissions to that body was invited by way of public advertisement to do so and I am pleased so many people did. I do not think it would be appropriate to specify in this legislation that any directive which the Minister might issue should require a further resolution of the House before coming into effect.
The issuing of directives of this nature falls within the ordinary decision-making functions of the Minister for Energy. That is not to say, of course, that I would not be anxious to ensure that this House and the other House were fully informed of any decisions I would make in regard to this matter. Any Government policy is well publicised and made known to the Members of both Houses and I could be called here to answer for any particular policy decision I was making in this area and I would be delighted to come here and explain any policy decision that I was making in this or, indeed, any other area. That is the appropriate way to deal with the matter.
It would be highly inappropriate and unnecessarily cumbersome, and would make the Minister absolutely ineffectual, if one was to extend this principle. People are elected to office to make decisions and to achieve certain policy objectives. If the House is to take that power from the Minister, or to add this kind of cumbersome arrangement, then very little decision-making would apply in the various Departments. It is the whole principle of this that cannot be conceded, because it is more or less saying that a Minister should not be allowed to implement his policies. He is answerable for his policies, by all means. He must come before either House, if asked to do so, to explain his policies. He can be criticised publicly, either inside or outside the House, for his policy decisions. He can be rejected at a subsequent election but, for God's sake, do not tie down a Minister with these kind of cumbersome arrangements, where any decision he makes has a kind of stop put on it for an inordinate period of time. It is totally impractical.
Having been delighted to accept the other two sensible amendments, I am sorry I could not possibly accept this one.
This is a sensible amendment as well. The first point the Minister made is one of the reasons the amendment is here, namely, the quantity of land we are talking about. The Minister said it is the size of a county of Ireland. One twenty-sixth of our native heritage is to be disposed in this manner, which is an enormous amount of land. If it is to be disposed of it is important that it be disposed of correctly. I am not suggesting that all of the Minister's directives would not be implemented with proper consultation and with the benefit of the opinion of experts.
The Minister said he was willing to come to this House, but there is no mechanism for him to come to this House unless we put a mechanism into the legislation. This mechanism is not a blocking mechanism. It is a facilitating mechanism. Land the size of an entire county is now coming onstream in relation to cutaway bog but the Oireachtas is going to have no say about it. It would merely be subject to a general directive of the Minister. Notice that it is a "general directive"; we are not talking about specific directives. We are talking about a general statement of policies in relation to the use of cutaway bog. That does not mean that 21 days is cumbersome, if we are talking about day-to-day decisions in very specific detail. That is a different matter. We are talking about general directives.
There is no good reason why the Minister should say that this is a cumbersome process. It is a reasonable process. There is no in-built impediment to the Minister going ahead with it. It is a facilitating process. If there is something seriously wrong, as seen by the House — not in relation to the present Minister but in relation to any Minister of the day — it is important that that extra facility be left and that it be included in the Bill.
I have seen a lot of legislation go through here and there is no way that one could accept this amendment and force a Minister to come in with it within 21 sitting days. The Minister has made it quite clear how cumbersome it would be and that it could not be accepted. The Senator said that there is no mechanism to bring in a Minister if one is not happy about something he is doing or not doing. There is, and nobody has used it better than the Senator in a short time. Senator Costello has used motions, Adjournment debates and all the rest. Fair play to him; he learned fast. I am delighted the Minister was so lenient and agreed to the other two amendments, but there is no way this would work with any Bill, in this case or in future legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.