Amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1 and both may be discussed together.
Industrial Development Bill, 1995: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—The First Schedule to the Act of 1993 is hereby amended by the substitution, for paragraph 1 (2) thereof, of the following:
‘(2) IDA Ireland and Forbairt shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property or any interest therein. Forfás shall from the passing of this Act transfer to IDA Ireland and Forbairt all property and land it currently holds together with associated budgets, property, income and staff.
(3) IDA Ireland and Forbairt shall have powers to enter into arrangements with the private sector to provide land and buildings and any other amenities or rights to use or have possession of any kind of property and to enter into financial arrangements necessary to secure the development sought.'.".
I am pleased that section 3 of the Bill gives back to the IDA the power to hold and acquire property which the organisation promoting foreign investment always had. Since the split of the agencies, the IDA was not in a position to offer an integrated package combining finance, buildings and land. Investors had to go to another agency, Forfás, and it was an unnecessary duplication. However, section 3 should be further extended than it is in the Bill.
The purpose of my amendment is to transfer property and land now in the hands of Forfás to the IDA and Forbairt with budget allocations, property, income and staff related to those properties and lands. The IDA and Forbairt would also have clear powers to enter arrangements with the private sector to provide land and buildings and to enter financial arrangements to secure the development sought. I spoke about this on Second Stage and said that in the past, vast numbers of advance factories, as they were then called, were built and in many cases remained unoccupied. They were vandalised and security guards had to be installed. We do not want to go back to those days. However, I understand that the IDA and Forbairt find it difficult to locate suitable premises as part of a package when putting together packages for prospective investors. This is becoming a restraint on the IDA and it should have the flexibility to make deals with the private sector so that some of the risks of advance factories could be shared.
I support the amendment. We had a problem ten months ago when a firm in Monaghan was moved to a vacant factory in another county. When we reacted against it we encountered difficulties. Neither the IDA nor Forbairt could deal with it. We asked that cluster units — which were ideal — which had lain idle for a long time be made available to these people. The matter was eventually resolved, after much difficulty, and the cluster units were sold to the industrialist involved. At county enterprise board level we had discussed a number of vacant cluster units throughout the county and we felt that at least in some instances they should be made available to the county enterprise boards or that the boards should know the position so that if an entrepreneur needed space we could give him access to those units. There is no point in having cluster units if they cannot be used. Some of them have been vacant so long that they have been forgotten about by those who have responsibility for finding occupants for them, if possible. I agree with our spokesperson that the IDA and Forbairt should have some power in respect of the property.
Amendment No. 2 states:
In page 4, line 2, after "property", to insert "real or personal".
This is to make it clear that the provision applies both to real and personal property. It is normal to make that clear in these kind of provisions which enable an agency to hold or dispose of land or other property.
While it is difficult when there are many agencies to deal with, we had total and complete co-operation from Forfás to deal with the situation in question. The difficulty was resolved satisfactorily and I am happy that the Minister is taking steps to make the situation clearer in his Bill.
I do not have a problem in principle with Deputy O'Rourke's amendment which provides that the IDA and Forbairt would have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land and that Forfás would transfer its property to one or other of those agencies. That is the intention of this section, I propose to accept the thrust of what the Deputy is providing, and return on Report Stage with an amendment after consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. There are difficulties in that the Deputy's amendment, if accepted at face value, would suggest that Forfás had no power to hold anything and that would not be our intention. We want to give the two subsidiary boards more flexibility in this area so I will come back on Report Stage to deal with that.
In respect of the second part of the Deputy's amendment, I am advised that we have all the necessary powers under section 16 of the 1986 Act to deal with joint promotions or involving the private sector in such deals. That section allows "... any act or thing which may be necessary or incidental to the doing of anything which the authorities by preceding paragraphs is authorised to do." In other words it can make any such arrangements which are subsidiary to its constructing and adapting of buildings and other works and providing services and facilities in connection with land. Inherent in section 16 of the 1986 Act is the flexibility to deal with advance factories and involve the private sector. Having such an involvement is an active policy of the agencies. That element is unnecessary.
In respect of Deputy O'Malley's proposal, I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that "real or personal" is already comprehended in the definition of land or property in the interpretation of the Act of 1937 and that the amendment is unnecessary.
I thank the Minister for taking on board the substance of my amendment to paragraph 1 (2) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1993. He will return to us with a wording on Report Stage. We will then return to the thrust of it, which encompasses the current as well as the present position of properties and lands held.
With regard to that portion of amendment No. 1 which addresses the inclusion of paragraph 1 (3), the Minister said this was already encompassed in section 16 of the 1986 Act. This involves allowing State agencies to interact with other groups, public or private, to follow the thrust of what I wanted in paragraph 1 (3). State agencies could work with private developers, who would take some of the risk in the erection of an advance factory, rather than have the State bear the whole burden. I want to be clear on this because it is a matter which has often been put to me. Do State agencies have that power already?
They do. The vast majority of advance factories have been erected by the private sector.
Are we increasingly looking to have it done that way?
Yes.
The Minister is to return on Report Stage with an amendment to paragraph 1 (2) of the 1993 Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.