Seanad debates

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Forestry (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

7:00 pm

Photo of Tony KilleenTony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I appreciate the sentiments underlying the proposed amendment. At the current rate, Coillte's borrowing will still be under €200 million. If this legislation is passed we will provide an additional €200 million which will enable Coillte to proceed with all its strategic plans. The provisions of section 24(2) of the 1988 Act will remain in place. I do not want to send out a signal to Coillte that in the short to medium term we will engage in the temporary borrowing facility. I would much prefer if, for the future, it operated within the provisions of section 24(1)(b) of the 1988 Act which is the ordinary borrowing requirement.

I remind Members that setting the limit at €400 million does not entitle Coillte to go out tomorrow and extend its borrowings to that level. For each piece of new infrastructure in respect of its borrowing it is required to make its case to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the first instance and, subsequently, to have it examined by the Department of Finance. There is a very strong set of balances in that regard. I am entirely satisfied with the checks and balances already in place but I do not wish to send out a signal that I am interested in hearing about any temporary borrowings from Coillte in the future.

When we come to debate the substantive Bill, about which I told Members earlier, if the Senator wishes to revisit this issue I would be happy to consider it in that context where I think it might be more appropriate. The second part of the amendment deals with accounting practices and how clearly they should be shown in the annual accounts. There is a requirement that the levels of borrowing at the beginning and end of the year be set out clearly in the annual report. Those of us who are not accountants sometimes do not see this clearly but we do have the facility to have it examined as we always do within the Department.

Senator Coffey mentioned the issue of oversight. My strong view is that the most appropriate and most effective method of oversight available to the Oireachtas is that bodies such as Coillte should appear before the Joint Committee on Agriculture Fisheries and Food, which it does every year or whenever it is invited, as it did last October. Some of my colleagues in the other House were of the view that the discussions which were engaged in in October 2009 could have been more open and issues such as this could have been flagged more clearly. Coillte did indicate that there were issues about its borrowings but, perhaps, it was not as clear as Members would have wished. I believe the oversight provisions in the Oireachtas committee system are by far the most practical and are solid in any event. Since in the accounting practices that apply to the annual report they are already provided for, the second part of the amendment is superfluous and I certainly do not want to go down the road of the first part of the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.