Is there any provision being made for the payment of compensation to a manufacturer or potential exporter of any strategic material in respect of which the Minister decides to grant a licence prohibiting export?
Control of Exports Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
There is not.
If there is financial loss incurred by the manufacturer or the potential exporter, is it not reasonable and equitable that there be some framework whereby restitution can be made?
As the Deputy is probably aware, a prohibition on the export of any commodity would be determined in the main by our international obligations and also in the context of any material being strategic, not strategic necessarily in the military sense but in the industrial sense such as scrap metal, the exportation of which would be regarded as being against financial interest. The only exceptions would be in the event of certain national emergencies such as an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease when the Minister for Agriculture would prohibit the shipment of cattle. There has never been any provision so far as I am aware for the payment of any compensation in such cases.
I have in mind the question of the exportation of technological instrumentation. If an operator here devised a technological advance that was capable of being exported and sold to another jurisdiction, one that might not be favoured by our Government, with the result that a licence to prohibit the exportation would be issued, there could be serious loss of revenue to the developer.
The circumstances outlined by the Deputy would arise only in relation to our international obligations — for instance, conforming with a UN resolution which would prohibit the export of certain materials to a particular area — but such a situation should be well-known to anyone engaged in that type of industry. Therefore, I could not foresee arising the circumstances the Deputy has outlined unless there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the person concerned to try to evade responsibilities.
I will not press the matter further except to say that at the time of the enactment of the Principal Act in 1956 our technological advance had not started. In this new era of technological advance the sort of situation I have outlined could arise.
Subsection (2) provides for consultations with the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning the export of certain materials to specified destinations. Would the Minister indicate how may times since the original Act was enacted has the Minister for Foreign Affairs sought licences to be issued for particular material exports and what kind of destination has he had in mind?
I have not the detailed information that the Deputy seeks but, as I have said previously, obviously they would be destinations which would be covered by European resolutions or other international agreements and also destinations of particular material where, because of our membership of the EEC, an EEC agreement had been reached with regard to the supply to or withholding supplies from particular destinations. The ones that come to mind I know about offhand would be the case of Iran and also the former Rhodesia.
I appreciate the Minister's point of view. A situation could arise in so far as our obligations to the EEC are concerned that would be concerned only with maintaining supply stability in the EEC itself. It is a pretty global arrangement that a business puts a request to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and if he wishes to maintain his good standing in the Community he could bring about a situation where a licence could be granted to prohibit certain exports.
It is in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I assure the Deputy that all aspects of the national interest would be taken into consideration. I do not think the Deputy will accept that that is something one would do lightly.
Subsection (4) concerns the amendment and revoking of orders. Perhaps a register of licences granted and the goods covered by those licences could be kept where it could be inspected by the public. Is that the current situation? If not, would the Minister consider making it the current situation?
On reflection the Deputy may not wish that to be the case since for business reasons industry or business might not wish that kind of information to be made available. The question of licences as granted will be treated as a matter of confidence by the Department for the reason I have stated.
I see the point but I cannot see what difference it would make. If somebody is refused a licence to export particular material to any country I would expect that other exporters would get a similar refusal. Consequently I see no reason why a register of all licences sought, granted or refused could not be held in a place for public inspection. This has been common in the granting of licences under other headings and I see no reason why the Minister would not agree to consider it here.
There is a complete record of the type the Deputy mentions but it is treated as confidential, not so much with regard to where licences have been refused but to where they have been granted, because the applicant would regard it as being desirable for the running of his business that it would not be made available to either competitors or prospective competitors.
Is there in the Department any list of items, be they metal, instrumentation or whatever?
There is a full list.
Is it available to all exporters?
In relation to any particular firm?
No, not to any particular firm. Is there a list of items that would require licences to be sought?
Yes, it is public. It is in the order.
Is it in the order of 1982?
Yes.
Is it available to the general public?
Yes, it is in the order.
Is it a list of particular items that require a licence to be granted?
Yes.
On subsection (5), what procedure is taken in this House to annul an order that might come before it? What procedure is available to a Deputy or anybody else?
Orders are made before the House and — I am subject to correction but I am relying on my experience as a former Whip — I think it is 21 sitting days.
That is right.
Within that time an initiative can be taken to revoke the order.
I think Private Members' Time has been used for that purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On section 3, the Minister at his discretion may issue or refuse a licence. When he is refusing the licence does he normally give the grounds of refusal to the applicant?
Yes, it would be normal to state on what grounds the licence is refused.
On section 3 (2), the conditions that the Minister might apply to any licence granted, could he indicate to the House what monitoring system is used to see that the conditions he might apply to any granting of a licence are complied with?
If a licence was granted subject to certain conditions then a check would be kept by the Department to ensure that these conditions were fulfilled. As the Deputy will see, further on in the Bill there are quite severe penalties for any misrepresentation or false information that might be used in the granting of licences.
On the question of transport to other countries, I take it that a licence may be granted for that also and the material does not have to originate in this country, it could be transported through this country and a licence could be issued for that type of operation. Is there provision in the Department to control the methods and conditions applied to any licences?
A section in the Bill deals with goods that would be just in transit through the country. Reference is made to that in the Bill to ensure that we are not used as a base for bringing it and routing it out to an undesirable destination. As regards monitoring of it, a copy of all documents with reference to the particular commodity or goods is sent to the embassy abroad.
The Minister mentioned goods that might be of a particular nature going to an undesirable destination and the goods might not have originated in this country. Do I take it that that material, strategic or otherwise, would be trans-shipped through this country and stop over here and that we have no particular interest in the country that provided it other than that the servicing or refuelling of its transporters, would be subject to a licence being granted?
Trans-shipment is covered in the definition of "exportation" in section 1. This means that goods landed at an Irish port for loading to another ship for another destination are under customs control which includes strategic export control. Strategic export control has been applied to Shannon free airport since 1976 by way of an order made each year by the Minister for Transport applying control of export orders to Shannon free airport. That is taken into account.
Subsection (5) concerns the fines that may be imposed. While £10,000 sounds a considerable amount, I do not think that sum is prohibitive considering the value of the metals and the technical instrumentation involved. I have no objection to the limit of £10,000 but I ask the Minister if he regards it as adequate considering the vast increase in the value of this type of goods?
What is stated in the subsection is "...£10,000 or three times the value of the goods ... whichever is the greater". It also stipulates that there could be two years imprisonment, that both or either could be applied.
Subsection (9) causes a great deal of concern in that it is a change from what has been regarded as traditional and I should like the Minister to give the House a good reason for altering what had become established practice since the last century. It is proposed now that one can prosecute and follow a prosecution two years after the alleged offence has been committed. In the general interest of the public that needs to be clarified.
This is a most desirable change. As I explained earlier in reply to another matter the Deputy raised, a licence can be granted on the basis of false information and that may not come to light until the period of six months has expired. Because of the nature of the business, the documentation and the ramifications of the export market, it has been found that it is very unlikely to come to light within a period of six months but is more likely to come to light after that time. I am sure the Deputy and the House will agree that where, due to a technicality, people are getting away with this, the law should try to remove that escape hatch from people who are wilfully contravening the law. It would apply only in cases where a deliberate false statement had been made to secure a licence. Quite honestly, I consider this is a most desirable change.
While I have no objection in the circumstances as it involves this kind of operation, I would regard it as an undesirable trend if it were applied to any other prosecution situation. I can see the justification in this case, that it would not readily come to the notice of the Department, but I should not like this to be established as a precedent. The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, has served well and its provisions should not be lightly set aside.
I take the Deputy's point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister indicate the type of situation that might arise where he would consider it desirable to transfer the powers in this Bill to a fellow member in the Cabinet?
For instance, if the matter concerned agricultural produce it might be more effectively exercised by the Minister for Agriculture. It has been the normal practice that the Government can designate a particular Minister to deal with a particular commodity in certain circumstances.
This Bill does not cover agricultural or fishery products. If all the exports that might be considered under this were covered I could see the reason for transferring powers to the Minister for Agriculture or to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry but as they are excluded specifically I cannot see any good reason why the Minister should seek this power.
With the exception of some agricultural products the Bill is all-embracing. There may be circumstances where the export of a certain commodity can be best monitored by a Department directly involved with that commodity and I give the example of agriculture. If the issue arose, for a limited period, pharmaceuticals might be better dealt with by the Department of Health because of their in-depth knowledge of the whole range of pharmaceuticals. For that reason this provision has been inserted in the Bill and to ensure that in the event of certain circumstances arising the most effective arm of Government would monitor the situation for a period.
That relates back to the fundamental question I raised under section 3. I can accept the Minister might have the personnel and expertise in his Department to monitor any particular schedule of conditions that might be attached to any licence he would grant but if he transfers the power, and obviously it would not be a temporary transfer——
It would.
Even in a temporary capacity if power is transferred to another Minister that Ministry might not have the same kind of expertise in the control and monitoring of a licence. It is an inherent weakness in the Bill. It removes from the Minister's Department the supervisory control that one would normally expect to be on a continuing basis.
I will give one example to illustrate the point. In the event of foot and mouth disease, that could be best monitored by the Department of Agriculture. We wish to have the most effective way of implementing any decision that may be taken in the national interest. That is the overriding consideration. While we issue licences so far as exports are concerned, the matter is monitored by the customs people.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister keeps referring back to agriculture because that is not covered by the Bill. It was made abundantly clear in the Principal Act or else on Second Stage when the Minister spoke that this Bill was concerned mainly with strategic materials, scrap metals, ammunitions and technical instrumentation. I should imagine the Minister for Agriculture would have a rather scarce input into that area.
There is an earlier Act — the 1947 Act — which deals mainly with agricultural matters.
Yes, but they are specifically excluded from this Bill.
Not all of them.
In that event, the title of the Bill which is "...to provide for the control of the exportation of goods other than agricultural and fishery products...", would seem to be misnamed. However, that may be a matter for another day. I expect it would be only in the most extreme circumstances that the granting of licences for the export of any materials would be transferred to other Ministers. I take it the Minister's nod of approval indicates the agrees with that? The Minister will agree with me that agriculture and fishery products are not covered specifically except by reference.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.