Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I refer back to the issue of inflation, the 1988 Act and the Minister's response to questions put. My understanding of the Forestry Act 1988 is that at any one time the aggregate borrowings of the company should not exceed £80 million or €101.5 million in today's money. The Minister of State stated borrowings had reached €182.5 million in October 2009 and that this is accounted for by inflation. Perhaps I misunderstood the legislation or I am naive but my understanding is the figures set out in the 1988 Act are finite and definitive and that there is no allowance for inflation within the 1988 Act. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong and, if so, I will stand corrected. If borrowings increased beyond the limit at any time between 1988 and 2009 there should have been an amendment to the 1988 Act to facilitate such a change long before now. The importance of the point is that if the Minister of State allowed for inflation or if such a measure were not in the 1988 Act, then the Government should have amended the legislation long before now and this raises a question over any borrowings in excess of €101.5 million in the intervening period. Will the Minister of State clarify this for my satisfaction and understanding?

I refer back to the Fine Gael amendment, which is reasonable because the tone of the debate from the Opposition side of the House has been such to ensure Coillte is subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny. As we stated, Coillte was before the committee and there was no mention of potential for increasing its borrowing requirement at that stage. That throws up a question about the role of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When witnesses from the semi-State sector report to the committee, are they obliged, in the interests of transparency, to let members know what their strategic requirements are, particularly with regard to borrowing? I ask the Minister of State to respond to that.

Questions regarding the remuneration of the chief executive officer and other high-ranking staff were not answered adequately by the Minister of State. There is a question mark over whether the borrowings are for the purposes of remuneration or to meet deficits in the pension. I understand the Minister of State said this would be dealt with in further legislation but it is also pertinent to this Bill, in particular, to the amendment put down by Fine Gael and supported by the Labour Party.

See this speech in context