Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Nov 1977

Vol. 301 No. 8

Control of Exports (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1956 (Continuance) Bill, 1977: Second Stage and Subsequent Stages.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

I move : "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Control of Exports (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1956, which was enacted originally for a period of three years and has since been renewed in normal course, at the end of each three-year period will expire on 31st December, 1977.

The purpose of this Bill is to continue the 1956 Act in force until 31st December, 1982, and to provide that the penalty prescribed in section 3 (4) of the Act in respect of the offence of making a false or misleading statement or representation to the Minister for the purpose of obtaining an export licence, shall be increased from £100 to £500.

The Act empowers the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy to prohibit by order the export of industrial goods save under a licence issued by him. Such orders have a life of 12 months only and may be annulled by resolution of either House of the Oieachtas at any time during this period. Control is at present in force on a range of goods under the Control of Exports Order, 1977, and the Control of Exports (Southern Rhodesia) Order, 1977.

As a member state of the EEC, Ireland is obliged to comply with the requirements of Community law relating to trade with third countries in ferrous and non-ferrous wastes and scraps. The supplies of iron and steel scrap and of waste and scrap of aluminium and lead arising in this country are essential to the needs of home users; it is in our interest, therefore, to apply the Community restriction on the shipment of these scrap materials to third countries.

Export control on goods classified as strategic is not operated at Community level. Each member state of the European Economic Community regulates the movement of such goods under national legislation and the proposed Bill enables this country to continue to do likewise. Ireland's participation in international strategic export control arrangements derives essentially from this country's requirements of supplies of high technology materials and components needed by the more sophisticated industries established here. It is considered essential, therefore, that the Minister should continue to control the export of goods of a strategic character in order to ensure, on the one hand, continued access to the materials and components referred to and, on the other hand, that employment may be fully maintained in the plants where they are utilised and in any similar plants which may be established here from time to time.

For the following reasons, therefore, I consider it necessary for the Minister to have continuing powers to maintain the existing export controls and to enact the appropriate legislation for the purpose:

(a) to comply with our obligations under Community law as expressed in EEC Regulation No. 2603/69 to restrict, for the benefit of Irish and other Community processors, shipment of scrap metals to third countries and to ensure conditions of comparative price stability for these scraps in the home and Community markets.

(b) to ensure that strategic materials, for example, arms, ammunition, military and naval stores, certain military aircraft, computers, and so on—are not exported from or through this country to undesirable destinations abroad in accordance with requirements of the international export control to which Ireland subscribes.

(c) to enable the Government to realise a general foreign policy aim of preventing the export of strategic or potentially strategic goods to areas where they could contribute to an increase in international tension or provide support for the apartheid policies of the Government of South Africa or other similar repressive régimes.

(d) to comply with the mandatory resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council requiring member states to prevent the exportation of goods to Southern Rhodesia.

(e) to have immediately a means of dealing quickly with any emergency which might denude the country of essential materials before corrective legislation could be enacted.

When the 1956 Act was last renewed in 1974 its validity was extended for a period of three years and nine months terminating on 31st December, 1977. Since the commitments mentioned will continue for the foreseeable future, it is considered that the Act should be extended for a period of five years on this occasion. This would not alter an essential feature of the 1956 Act, that is, that the need for the powers which it confers would be reviewed by the Oireachtas from time to time.

Orders made by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy under the Act provides that goods, the export of which is so controlled, may not be exported except under the authority of a licence granted by the Minister. Section 3 (4) of the Act states that "Every person who, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person a licence, makes any statement or representation which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material respect shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds". It is considered that £100 is not now an adequate penalty for offences of this kind, having regard to the fall in the value of money since 1956 and because a more effective deterrent is needed to discourage misrepresentation particularly in the realm of strategic goods where money values are often substantial. In these circumstances, a fine not exceeding £500 for the offence described at section 3 (4) of the Act is not considered an excessive penalty and section 2 of the Bill provides for such a penalty.

For the reasons mentioned I commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. O'Toole

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a necessity to have this legislation continued. It has been on the Statute Book now for 21 years and, in that time, I understand has been renewed at three-yearly intervals. The necessity for having it renewed arises because section 7 (2) of the 1956 Act states:

This Act shall continue in force for a period of three years and shall then expire.

In those 21 years it has been found necessary to continue and retain this legislation. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it is logical to assume that it will be necessary also in the foreseeable future. Indeed it is logical to assume it will be necessary because of certain circumstances. In the light of that I wonder if it would not be possible to repeal section 7 (2) of the 1956 Act and thereby obviate the necessity of having to come into the House to renew the legislation every three years or, as is the case now, every five years.

While one might argue that the discussion that ensures as a result of having to come in to renew the legislation is a good thing I do not think that opportunity would be denied the House because I understand that the Minister must come in when issuing orders anyway, when Members would be afforded an opportunity from time to time of discussing matters they feel are important. I have the suspicion that anything one finds and cannot understand in legislation, or which is incomprehensible for some reason, will be found to be a direct cog from British law. I can quite understand why Britain would need that kind of provision. They are involved in the export of strategic goods and so on, and there may be a reason for continuing or discontinuing this kind of legislation at any given time there. However, here we find ourselves facing a different set of circumstances. For example, the Bill, if when enacted on a permanent basis, was found to be unnecessary anymore, it could be repealed and that would be the end of the story. However, that is not important, in that successive Governments have used this Act in the interests of the general public.

This type of legislation is a good thing in that it is a reiteration of the right of this House to place the national interest before that of the individual. The private individual is not altogether subdued in that his voice will be heard also, as the Minister must come to the House and give reasons for issuing orders or prohibiting the export of goods. That would help a great deal because people are in the dark in so far as they do not know what materials or commodities are prevented from being exported under the terms of the Bill. It would help to get the matter into perspective if we had a list or some idea of the items involved. I appreciate that that list could change from time to time. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to give us some idea of the items whose export is prohibited under the provisions of the Bill.

Concerning the consequences of our accession to the EEC I wonder where we stand with regard to harmonisation of legislation. Reading the debates, which were very short, I understand that our control on non-ferrous metal scrap ended in July, 1975, and our control of iron and steel scrap will end in December, 1977. Does that mean that we are obliged to refrain from placing these specific commodities under the control of the Bill?

I should like also to refer to an aspect of the Bill which is topical at present because, apart from disallowing exports of commodities needed at home for different reasons, the Minister has power in the Bill to prohibit exports of commodities because of their destination. With regard to the latter point, that is, the prohibition on export because of the destination of the commodity, we are adhering to international agreements, in many cases, to those concerning economic sanctions, as is the case, for example, in regard to Southern Rhodesia. We are party to agreements but we find that in many cases other parties to the same agreements are in breach of them. I am not commenting on the validity or otherwise of economic sanctions as a concept. But we find ourselves being good boys while other countries find loopholes. While the concept enshrined in these agreements is commendable for different reasons, we all know they are not kept.

I should like to mention one other aspect of the same matter. There is the following paragraph in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement:

(c) to enable the Government to realise a general foreign policy aim of preventing the export of strategic or potentially strategic goods to areas where they could contribute to an increase in international tension or provide support for the apartheid policies of the Government of South Africa or other similar repressive regimes.

On the question of South Africa which has been the subject recently of comment on the international level, I should like to know the policy of the Government in relation to trade with that country. The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned specifically strategic commodities but I should like to broaden that. I should like to know the position with regard to the pattern of trade and the policy with regard to trade generally.

There has been a disturbing pattern over the past few years with regard to the ratio of exports to imports. If we consider the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 a pattern emerges which should be considered in the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's comment regarding strategic goods. I have made inquiries with Córas Tráchtála. They tell me their instructions are not to promote trade in South Africa; they have not got an office there. However, on studying the pattern of trade in the last three years it is obvious that trade is going on. I am not saying whether I condone this trade or not, but I am saying that I am disturbed at the pattern of trade.

In 1974 we exported £7 million worth and our imports were £6.1 million. In 1976 we exported £5.5 million and our imports totalled £8.5 million. In the current year figures are available for the nine-month period to the end of September; we exported £4.5 million and imports amounted to £9 million. On a 12-month basis that would indicate exports of £6 million and imports in the region of £12 million. The ratio is 2:1 as against a 1:1 ratio some three years ago. Purely from the imbalance point of view this is a disturbing feature and is a matter that might be considered by the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to hear her comments on this point.

I am in total agreement with the continuation of this measure. I should like to get the information I asked for and a comment on the Government's policy with regard to trade generally with South Africa, apart from strategic trade.

Mr. B. Desmond

I support this Bill. It is of major importance in relation to the control of exports. I suppose many Irish people do not realise that our annual exports are in the region of £2,400 million. This figure relates to the past 12 months, to the end of October, 1977. It is important that there should be careful controls. In the economic sense many people are attuned more to import controls than to export controls. I am glad that the categories mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary will continue to be included in this Bill.

I support the assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary that certain military strategic materials such as arms, ammunition, military and naval stores, certain military aircraft, computers and so on, will not be exported from or through this country to undesirable destinations abroad. I am pleased that we continue to subscribe to such international export controls.

The Parliamentary Secretary's constituency colleague, the Minister for Defence, has announced that the Government propose to have constructed here armoured personnel carriers to be used by the Army. I have read on many occasions the proposition that this would be an ideal export. The carrier in question appears to be a matter of great joy in particular to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. He has referred to the Timoney armoured personnel carrier here on so many occasions that I began to wonder if he had a little toy carrier at home.

There is a serious point to be made about this matter. While I support the construction and design of such a carrier for our internal security forces, as an Irish parliamentarian I am damned if I would support the export of such carriers. There has been a strong nuance in some of the comments made by the Minister that we should export the design to Belgium and have it constructed by other powers and that, hey presto, one of the big revenue producing products would be a few thousand Timoney armoured personnel carriers careering around undesirable places throughout the world.

I do not go for that kind of export. There is enough bloodshed, suffering and misery in the world without Ireland contributing exports of that nature. In a Press release in the past week the Minister said it was intended to have 200 such armoured personnel carriers for domestic use. I appreciate fully that we will need such carriers for our Army, for Border patrols and for internal security, but I would be utterly opposed to such products being exported. I think that prohibition should be included in the measure we are discussing. It is bad enough to have our own internal security problems without adding to the store of those abroad.

There is a capacity in Ireland to produce such vehicles. The Verolme dockyard has produced naval ships, although I notice the Minister for Fisheries keeps referring to them as boats. Coming from a maritime constituency I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will inform her colleague that the Naval Service has a few ships rather than a few boats, as they are perpetually referred to by the Minister for Fisheries. The Verolme dockyard has produced many excellent ships— I have been on two of them—and they have been well fitted out. We have the capacity to export naval equipment but I hope we will be prepared to put our money where our mouths are. It is great for my constituency colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, to career off to Nairobi or Venezuela or wherever he went recently on an international anti-apartheid conference. At that conference he was most eloquent about how countries should not export arms to South Africa. We must make sure we are not open to accusations of hyprocrisy in that regard. We export goods and materials of a non-military nature to South Africa and we continue to trade to the extent of £6 million or £7 million a year. I wonder if Deputy Andrews is prepared to publish——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must refer to the titles of other Members of the House. That is the rule.

Mr. B. Desmond

My apologies, the Minister of State-designate. Are the Government prepared to publish a list of Irish firms which provide employment—at least 2,000 or 3,000 people have been employed manufacturing goods for export to South Africa down through the years and there are probably or 500 or 600 employed now— and to ensure that those exports are stopped?

If Ireland is opposed to the racialist policies of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, we will have to forego that investment. There are some firms here whose shareholdings are predominantly South African. Whether these firms should continue is very much open to question. In the coming decade there will be an increase in international tensions as the liberation of southern Africa proceeds. I do not think Ireland should find herself at the end of that liberation being accused by the incoming governments of having been very selective in some of her international statements. Therefore I urge that the matter be kept under review.

I support the extent to which the Bill continues to prohibit exports to South Africa and Southern Rhodesia and in that regard our United Nations commitment is being met. In an era when there is so much hypocrisy in relation to trade with those two countries we should keep a very close watch on the situation.

I hold the view that this legislation is necessary. I am glad it is not done just by order but rather that a revised Bill is being brought before the House. I also support the view that the penalty of £100 is derisory and that the increase to £500 is necessary. We should have no difficulty in passing all Stages of this Bill this morning.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I should like to thank Deputy B. Desmond and Deputy O'Toole for welcoming this Bill and to refer to a few points made by them. Deputy O'Toole suggested that perhaps we should repeal section 7 (2) of the Act and make the Act permanent. The powers in this Act were derived from emergency legislation during the war. When the Act was originally introduced it was felt that the powers of the Minister should be subject to review from time to time. Because those powers were very far-reaching, it was felt that a certain amount of control or some restriction on the Minister's power was necessary. The Act was originally enacted during the term of the second Coalition Government. The Deputy spoke about 31st December, 1977, when scrap controls will end. After that date our scrap controls will conform with the Community scrap controls.

Mr. O'Toole

Does that mean we would be obliged to export to member countries within the EEC?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Yes. The Deputy spoke about South Africa at length. There are no restrictions on Irish exports to South Africa except in relation to strategic goods and ferrous and non-ferrous scraps which we control. As regards South Africa, we would conform with any United Nations regulations. The United Nations resolution of 3rd November, 1977, refers to exports of arms and military supplies to South Africa and is mandatory on this country. Our strategic controls are not based on treaty obligations; they stem from mandatory resolutions of the Security Council with which we comply.

Deputy B. Desmond spoke at length about the Timoney personnel carrier. It is nice to know he is pleased that the Minister for Defence has decided that this will be used by the Army.

The export of these to undesirable destinations will not be permitted but we would not restrict the export of these vehicles to Belgium.

Mr. B. Desmond

The essential point I was making is that the transshipment of these arms and carriers to other countries is a notorious practice by arms dealers. Once they are exported from Ireland they can end up in the most undesirable situations. I do not want to prolong the matter but the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that this could happen.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

We are aware of that but we would seek the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs in all cases when exporting such vehicles. Therefore, we feel there is no possibility of their being sent to undesirable destinations.

Deputy O'Toole asked if I could give him a list of exports which are controlled. The list is four pages long —this order was made on 1st July, 1977—and perhaps I might give a few examples—waste and scrap metal of iron and steel, aluminium waste and scrap, waste and copper and copper alloys, lead waste and scrap, aircraft and parts thereof, arms, ammunition, military and naval stores and equipment, chemical elements and compounds, electrical goods and apparatus and parts thereof. This list is very long and if the Deputy wishes I could give him a copy of it.

Mr. O'Toole

I would like a copy of the list, please.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.