This is——
Free Ports Bill, 1985: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
On a point of order, can a Minister of State be nominated to one of these committees about which we have just heard? The Minister of State, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, has been appointed and I wonder if he can be appointed.
I do not want to go back on that as we have disposed of it.
If we have disposed of something we should not have disposed of, could we have heads of Government coming back into the House making further apologies to us? I would like to clear it up now.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Section 1 defines the terms used in the Bill.
Section 1 (a) reads: ...wholly manufactured or produced in the customs territory of the Community without the addition of goods from countries——
I cannot hear the Deputy as there is something wrong with the amplification system.
Deputies who are not interested in this debate and who wish to have a conversation should leave the House and have it some place else.
Section 1 (a) reads:
...wholly manufactured or produced in the customs territory of the Community without the addition of goods from countries or territories which are not part of the customs territory of the Community,
Will the Minister expand on the meaning of "customs territory"? There are states which make arrangements with the European Community and I would like if the Minister would give a list of the countries covered by the term "customs territory". Is Algeria, where there are some arrangements with Turkey, included? There are other arrangements with other groups of countries, so a list of the countries covered by the term "customs territory" would be appreciated. It is important that the House should know exactly what areas are covered.
The wording of these definitions follows the format used in Community legislation. Community goods includes goods wholly manufactured or produced in the Community. However, under Community customs rules, Community goods also includes goods manufactured or produced in third countries, provided goods have been released for free circulation, which means that the relevant import formalities have been complied with and also the import charges. As far as the Community customs rules are concerned, it is Community countries only.
In other words, the term "customs territory of the Community" does not take in other areas — for instance, in Africa — which may have certain customs arrangements with a member of the Community?
No, the customs territory of the Community is defined under EC law and basically it refers to member states. Third countries are not members of the customs territory of the Community, but goods coming in after having paid the various duties and been released for free circulation——
That refers to section 1 (b).
Basically speaking, it refers simply to the Community countries.
The Minister will be aware that member states have an arrangement with other countries in various areas. Does this mean that third country agreements between members of the Community, and especially with the new applicants or new members of the Community, are not included?
It means Community members. Goods coming in can come in under various terms and once they are in the Community then they are classified as Community goods.
Does that mean that the existing Community arrangements with member states mean that third country goods can come in under those arrangements?
This is dealing to a great extent with third countries. The whole concept of the Free Ports Bill is dealing with goods coming in and going out and various arrangements are made within the Bill for this.
What is the position within the Community territory of the new tax free zone being established on the mainland of Europe on the Belgian-Luxembourg border? My understanding is that the type of legislation we are introducing is designed to help the peripheral regions of the Community to eliminate the disparities which exist. I understand this new territory is being established there. Can the Minister tell me what bearing this will have and if there can be trading between those two areas, or can there be a common operation? From a Community point of view it is stepping back very much when you see mainland Europe trying to introduce these tax free areas. They are not helping the peripheral regions. What effect will that have on the port we are talking about on the Cork scene?
There are a number of special concessions under this for peripheral areas. They are very strictly governed by EC regulations. The type of regulations being introduced here are in conformity with EC legislation. There is nothing special that can be done in this area but we are operating very strictly within the legislation laid down by the EC.
I was not suggesting that there was anything for peripheral areas but the fact that it was referring to Ireland could help peripheral areas. The question I was asking was: are the types of areas in mainland Europe I am referring to excluded? The section says, "wholly manufactured or produced in the customs territory of the Community". Is this new zone within the customs territory of the Community or is it not if there are special concessions on tax free and duty free? Does that come within the customs territory outlined in the Bill? I suggest it does not.
As far as exports from the particular zone the Deputy is talking about into the rest of the Community are concerned, they are governed by a whole series of regulations which are the same as goods leaving the free port to be set up at Ringaskiddy, depending on what treatment has been given to them there and depending on whether they came for inward processing or for processing under customs control. The position is that any movement of goods coming out of any other free port area and coming in to that free port area will be governed by the rules there. If goods are brought into the free port area for re-export to third countries, then there will not be any duty, as such, on them. If they are brought in with the possibility of some of them going into the Community area, they will be subject to the various rules applying as if they had come from third countries.
On page 3, line 5 it states:
"Non-Community goods" means goods other than Community goods, including... goods which, while satisfying the conditions laid down for Community goods, are re-imported into the customs territory of the Community after having been exported from that territory.
That makes clear enough reading in this kind of context where the purpose seems to be to confuse by terminology, but it is the bit I left out that I would like the Minister to comment on. It states, "without prejudice to the agreements concluded by the Community with countries which are not member states of the Community for the purposes of the Community transit procedure". I should like the Minister to comment on that because it relates back to the question I raised originally about customs territory. What exactly does that mean?
The wording in the definition follows the format currently used in Community legislation. Non-Community goods are essentially goods other than Community goods, as mentioned earlier by the Deputy. The definition is complicated because it must also cover goods originally qualifying as Community goods which were exported from the Community and are now being re-imported. Under Community customs rules such goods are prima facie treated as non-Community goods. There is a further consideration also. Community goods are frequently moved in transit through non-Community countries. For example, in going from Germany to Italy through Switzerland such goods, notwithstanding the fact that they have left the Community and are returning to it, continue to be regarded as Community goods. Goods produced in another third country free zone are not Community goods unless released for circulation.
I see the example given by the Minister of goods from Germany to Italy via Switzerland. I should like the Minister to list some of the agreements without prejudice to the agreements concluded by the Community with countries which are not member states of the Community for the purpose of the Community transit procedure. The Minister mentioned Switzerland. Are there other countries which have such agreements with the EC either in the context of transit or otherwise?
Yes. Another example of this is Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia in the context of Greece?
Yes.
Goods travelling from, say, Germany to Greece. Is there an Austrian one as well?
Yes, as I understand it. The Deputy will recall at the meeting of the Transport Commission the question of Austria looking for repayments as far as its roads are concerned. Austria is very much on the traffic routes.
They have a commission, too.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
Section 2 enables the Minister to establish or vary the limits of a free port by order made with the consent of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. In this respect I would like to point out that, as the Deputies will be aware, there is a change in name and title of the Ministry for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to Ministry for Industry and Commerce which is effective from today. Therefore, a number of amendments of a technical nature will be necessary to the Bill. These arise in sections 2, 3, 4 and 6. We are working on these now and we will have them for Report Stage.
I knew that the word "Tourism" was excluded and that that part of the brief has been allocated to somebody else. Is the word "Trade" also gone?
Yes, it is now Minister for Industry and Commerce.
And "Trade" and "Tourism" have been taken out?
They are of a technical nature and we will have them on Report Stage.
On the substance of section 2 (1), during Second Stage the Minister said that of course it was an enabling Bill, which it is, and that no specific location for a free port was mentioned. Nevertheless, he said that the purpose was to enable a free port to be set up at Cork, and he went on to say that the land area to be enclosed in the free port had not been definitely decided on. An area in the immediate vicinity of Ringaskiddy was mentioned. Can the Minister say at this stage whether a firm decision has been made with regard to the enclosed area at Cork?
The primary purpose of this subsection is to establish a free port at Ringaskiddy, County Cork, as Deputy Wilson said. At this moment there are no plans to establish any other free ports. The initial area designated as a free port at Ringaskiddy itself will be comparatively small.
Thirty acres?
That is correct. The answer to what the Deputy asked in simple terms is "No". The fact is that Cork Harbour Commissioners have proposed the designation of a 30-acre site at Ringaskiddy, and this will be beside the car ferry and near the deep water berth which will be completed in 1986. The commissioners have proposed that they should develop this site in conjunction with private interests. Another possibility would be the provision and development of a site elsewhere in the Ringaskiddy area by private interests. The Deputies will be aware that Cork Harbour Commissioners have taken some initiative in this respect but no final decision has been made. It will depend entirely on who runs the free port as to exactly where it will be.
Ringaskiddy has been mentioned on Second Stage, but in view of the representations made by the different Deputies from Wexford, including me, who spoke on Second Stage, have the Department considered Rosslare Harbour? The development committee there were one of the first to put forward the concept of a free port for that area in view of the alarming unemployment in that county and the other areas that were pointed out on Second Stage. Has the Minister given any consideration to Rosslare Harbour?
As I stated on Second Stage, this is enabling legislation and when this gets on to the Statute Book it will be possible to have free ports in any area; but at this moment the only one under consideration is Ringaskiddy. As I explained also, it will be very useful, without attempting to make any party point, to see what kind of experience we will have in Cork. That will be generally accepted. The Deputy may be aware that developments across the channel in the free ports designated there have not been as rapid or successful as had been anticipated. Therefore, we would be very wise to concentrate initially on Ringaskiddy and see what developments are there and what improvements can be done and how we can best utilise this new institution in that area. We can learn an enormous amount. As I understand it, the British have already learned from their free port areas that if they were doing things again, it might not be in precisely the same way.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that we have had a great deal of speculation about large industries being brought into the Ringaskiddy area. It is unrealistic to think that 30 acres would allow development of those industries. The impression is being given that very large industries will be coming on stream when Ringaskiddy is ready. Can the Minister tell us if the 1,000 acres owned by the IDA is still under consideration by the Government or being designated as a free port as well as the 30 acres of the Cork Harbour Commissioners?
We hope that there will be industries, as we hope will be happening again all around the country. However, there is no limitation to the area of space which can be designated for a free port, and it can be in several areas. The various parts of it need not be contiguous, and that is an important element in it. There is provision for, if necessary, expanding the free port. Once it is on the ground and it is found necessary to have extra acreage for a free port I hope that the experience of Cork will demand that it be expanded.
I am disappointed that the Minister has stated that Rosslare Harbour is not under consideration at present. While I have regard to the problems in Cork and I wish success to Ringaskiddy, the problems of Wexford and other areas in relation to unemployment should have been considered. The Minister might say that one free port must be a success before another can be set up, but I cannot understand why we cannot have two free ports nominated at present. Surely two up and running would not be too many whether they are successful or failures. I am disappointed that Rosslare Harbour is not being considered with Ringaskiddy and that we cannot have two free ports at present.
Ringaskiddy obviously is thought to have considerable potential and a great deal of work has been done in it. Let me point out again that this is enabling legislation and once it is there, it is then a matter for other areas to put forward a good and compelling case in regard to the possibilities for their areas. Naturally, if it is seen that there are possibilities in the free port and that it is working well, then these will be considered. It is not just Rosslare that has asked for it; so also has Greenore because of the special problems of the Border area. It need not be confined to a sea port, it can be in any area. There are a number of areas that feel that they could also benefit. However, it would be very wise for us in this case, in what is a relatively new venture, to examine the success rate of Ringaskiddy — and I have no doubt it will be a success. We have closely examined what has happened in Britain and there has been very little development in many of the British free port areas. If Rosslare could be patient and learn from what happens in Ringaskiddy, advantages might be confirmed which are not at present in the enabling legislation.
The patience of Rosslare has run out.
I agree with one point that the Minister made and that is that the British situation has not been as encouraging as one would have thought at one time. Nobody in this House would regard the enabling legislation setting up free ports, for example, that in Ringaskiddy, as solving all the ills of the Cork area — far from it. However, any worthwhile contribution that it would make would be hopeful.
One always likes to claim credit and my question in the House last week luckily resurrected this Bill and had the result of Committee and other Stages of the Bill being taken in the House this week, for which I am glad. Second Stage was taken, I think, in November and the Bill seemed to be lying dormant until I raised the question. As a Corkman, I am glad to take that credit. I shall continue to press the Minister and want answers to some questions from him. He has said that there will not yet be any designation of an area. Have there been any ongoing discussions between his Department and the Cork Harbour Commissioners regarding the bringing to fruition of the designation of that area? I hope the situation will not be that having left Second Stage of the Bill on the shelf for three months we will take Committee and remaining Stages and then start discussions on the making and implementing of regulations which would empower the harbour commissioners or some other body to develop the free port. I want the Minister to tell the House what progress has been made in the intervening period.
I have some experience of difficulties between Departments causing undue and unnecessary delay. It is normal in legislation that the Minister for Finance be included. I have often complained about that because it means that the power base still lies in Merrion Street. Eventually, it can be Merrion Street that will dictate what happens with regard to the regulations on the free port. Involved are the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce — or whatever he is called now, reshuffles happen so quickly that it might be a different title before the regulations are made. This will cause undue delay.
What discussions have taken place between the Minister's Department and the Department of Industry and Commerce and how near are they to reaching agreement? What discussions have taken place with the Department of Finance and how near are we to reaching agreement on that? This enabling legislation is basically the product of the task force set up in the late days of January and early February of 1984 to examine the serious job situation in Cork more than two years ago. In May of that year they reported. While we never saw a copy of that report, we know that it contained recommendations to set up a free port at Ringaskiddy. Ringaskiddy free port is welcome and will probably be helpful but will not solve all the problems of that area.
I am asking specific questions to avoid further delay. I do not want matters to drag out for another two years before all the details are finalised. Once this Bill goes through the House and is signed by the President, I hope that the regulations can then be made immediately, that discussions have reached the stage where everybody will know what regulations need to be made and that the finalising of the designated area in Cork can be proceeded with. Otherwise we are talking of a delay of another year or so that we in Cork cannot afford. I would like some reassurances and some indication of a timetable. Can the Minister give an approximate date when he will designate Ringaskiddy as a free port? Everybody can then go ahead and encourage industrial development there.
Deputy Fitzgerald claims credit for getting Committee Stage of this Bill on to the floor of the House today. My attitude since going into politics has been and is that I do not care who claims credit for anything as long as there are good results. Getting this enabling legislation through would be a good result, particularly for Cork but for any other areas that might be involved afterwards.
There are discussions being held with the Cork Harbour Commissioners. Deputies will be aware that the commissioners have had submissions from parties interested in the project and there is a closing date for submissions of 21 March. The commissioners are in consultation with the Department of Communications. I must say that they have been very active and have given an interesting outline of the possibilities of a free port at Cork. I must congratulate them on their efforts so far in this respect.
There are three parties involved, the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Finance and Communications and the case might be made that this legislation could equally be brought to the House by Industry and Commerce or by Finance. However, Communications is the moving Department in this case. Following Second Stage debate here, the various points made by Deputy Wilson and others were conveyed to the Department of Finance and that Department is active in working out the regulations. I can assure the Deputies that in regard to getting the regulation from the Department of Finance as soon as this Bill is through, there will be no difficulties. Work is being done on the regulations. It is not a question of waiting for the passage of the Bill. So far as we can, we shall be pressing forward with a view to getting all the regulations and concerns dealing with the free port in train as quickly as possible. The concept is a good one but I should like to see its value at this time. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, it is not the answer to all the problems of Ringaskiddy or Cork, but it should be some help.
Other parts of the country will be looking on anxiously to see if this project produces good results and if they will be in a position to follow. There should be no hold-up in the regulations once the Bill goes through.
Could the Minister give an approximate date?
That depends on how quickly we get the Bill through the Seanad, also.
Would it be three months?
If I can get the Bill through this House today, with the cooperation of the Opposition, I will get it on to the floor of the Seanad as quickly as possible after that.
Three months?
I just cannot give an estimation on that. We must see who are going to be the authority there and how the Cork Harbour Commissioners fare with the interested parties. That has to be decided and there may be a hold-up in that respect. I believe that the commissioners are pressing forward and that there will not be very much delay.
There will be no advantage in having a free port in Cork city if the regulations governing its operation are too restrictive. The main area to be considered here is finance. The effectiveness of the free port will depend very much on the regulations to be framed by the Revenue Commissioners. The main purpose of the Bill is to give Cork a breath of fresh air, to ease the effects of the depression that has hit the county and city with high unemployment. The task force was set up at the insistence of the Opposition, of Deputy Gene Fitzgerald in particular, whose aim was to defend the city and county of Cork. That force tried to devise ways and means to get over the severe economic conditions in Cork. If we do not see the Revenue Commissioners' regulations in the House——
That would be more appropriate on section 14.
This will be a very busy year for Cork, with extra wells being bored off the southern coast——
I have allowed the Deputy much latitude but I will not allow a Second Stage debate.
The equipment for drilling off the coast will come into Cork because of the free port facilities.
We are dealing with section 2.
The port will be used for the importation of cars from Japan.
Section 4 might be the appropriate section if the Deputy wishes to raise these matters.
We have a large volume of imports in the Cork region for the chemical industry and for the co-operatives.
This has nothing to do with the free port.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 34, after "Tourism" to insert "and, with the consent of such person or persons who represent companies or local authorities participating in the control and management of each free port".
This will be inserted after the technical amendment proposed by the Minister. The House will recall that on Second Stage there were various references to the control and management of the free port. There were two broad divisions here, those who advocated a total free market enterprise and those who suggested the involvement of the Government, the local authorities or the Cork Harbour Commissioners.
We had a look at the evolution of the free port a idea in Britain where the Government, for ideological reasons, indicated that there would be no involvement by the State, that the free ports would be run privately for profit by private companies. As one would expect, the most successful free port in the world is that at Miami which is privately owned. I wish my amendment to be taken in the context of that discussion on whether the control and management of this free port should be at local or national level. I said on Second Stage that one of the free ports in Scotland had involvement of a local authority in control and management.
My amendment wishes the insertion of "and, with the consent of such person or persons who represent companies or local authorities participating in the control and management of each free port". I inserted the word "companies" because in a sense the harbour commissioners are not a local authority in the accepted sense of the word. I do not know if the Minister has any hang up about the ideology on this—some members of the Government would go for full blown private enterprise and others for State or local authority involvement.
There has been criticism of over centralisation in the way we run our affairs. In that sense, the amendment would be beneficial. There have been token suggestions that we should transfer back to local areas more responsibility for running the affairs of their regions. One of the advantages of accepting the amendment would be that local experts would be there to give their advice and support in the control and management of the free port. I urge the House to approve of the amendment and the Minister to accept it.
The section provides:
(1) Each free port established under this Act shall be under the control and management of such person or persons as may be designated by order by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.
The purpose of the section is to give the Minister control of the arrangements for the operating and management of the free port. To make it necessary for the Minister to have the consent of the companies or local authorities participating in the management of each free port would dilute such control and would not be wise. The area outlined is very wide. A free port might be controlled by a company and no doubt local authorities, harbour commissioners and such people would have strong representation on the company controlling the port.
I appreciate what the Deputy is seeking to achieve. I see the value of the points he is making so far as local participation and input are concerned and the value of that as distinct from remote control, but there will be ample scope in the various organisations which will develop first of all in Ringaskiddy and in any other free port to meet, broadly speaking, what the Deputy is seeking. I am not in a position to accept the amendment but I think the fears expressed by the Deputy are unfounded and that much of what he wants to achieve can be achieved through the management structure.
I support Deputy Wilson's amendment. As it stands, section 3 leaves it completely in the hands of the Minister. This would leave organisations in Cork such as the Cork Harbour Commissioners, the Cork County Council or Cork Corporation, if they were involved, completely powerless. Deputy Wilson is right in saying these bodies should be mentioned in the Bill to ensure that they are entitled by law to representation in the management and control of the free port areas.
I want to support very strongly Deputy Wilson's amendment. It has been an age old custom in this House that on the Committee Stage of Bills, if reasonable and useful amendments are proposed from the Opposition side, serious consideration is given to them often, perhaps, against the advice of the Minister's advisers. A decision must be taken by the Minister in the interests of the people. I believe Deputy Wilson's amendment is essential to the efficient working of a free port authority. Assuming that in the port we are talking about Cork Harbour Commissioners will be the governing body or the authority, it would be preposterous to appoint people without their consent. Cork Harbour Commissioners have been an excellent body of people over the years. They have had chairmen drawn from many political persuasions, all excellent, committed, dedicated people within their terms of office. The same can be said of all their staff.
Whether there would be private interests in any free port structure, it is important that those people or the local authorities should be able to say "yes" to the people being appointed. If a Minister appoints people whom those bodies do not regard as suitable or acceptable it could damage or destroy the concept we are all trying to support. For the most part we are talking about places outside Dublin. All Governments over the years have been too protective of the greater Dublin scene. I say that about our administration too, most of whom are drawn from the provinces but they seem to forget that. We talk in Europe about the need for regional development, and it is very badly needed there where there is a whole bureaucratic central structure, but even within our own country we have the same problem.
If a free port is being established in Ringaskiddy it is to be the beacon or the light that we hope will burn brightly and which we can follow with Rosslare and Greenore and maybe in the future somewhere in the Minister's own constituency, but on the success or failure of Ringaskiddy will hang what happens for the future. It would be unforgiveable for the Minister not to accept Deputy Wilson's amendment. If the Minister does not accept the exact wording, he should accept the principle of the amendment. Whatever advice the Minister gets he will regret it if he does not accept that amendment or its principles. He represents a constituency outside Dublin and he should attempt to start involving the regions. It is imperative that he should accept this very wise amendment. He should not be seen as another Minister establishing all the powers in Dublin for the Cork port, the Rosslare port, the Greenore port and so on. There should be some say by the people directly responsible, by the people who are on the ground, far removed from the central authority in Dublin. This amendment is in the interests of the provinces.
I agree with what the Deputy said at the beginning of his contribution, that a reasonable amendment should always be considered and that the purpose of the discussion in the Dáil, particularly on Committee Stage, is to improve Bills as they go along. Indeed, as a Dáil watcher for many years I always noticed that many things which appeared to be reasonable were not taken on board by the moving Minister.
On this occasion there are difficulties and I do not think that this amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. To begin with, any group of people can make a proposal and no doubt local authorities, harbour commissioners and so on will be involved in free ports. Until such time as the Minister has given the control and management to a person or persons, there are no such people as the people who represent companies or local authorities participating in the control and management of each free port so it would be impossible to incorporate that amendment as tabled.
The Cork Harbour Commissioners have a special interest in this legislation and in the formation of the authority to run the free port. In a briefing letter they state that a formal application had been made to the Minister for Communications to permit the commissioners to advertise for prospective partners to form the free port company and that this consent was still awaited. The fact that the commissioners are anxious to be in there in control and management and that they wanted to advertise for prospective partners would indicate a very strong interest at local level. It indicates that they expect that at local level there will be other local authorities, whether Cork Corporation, as mentioned by Deputy Ahern, or Cork County Council. There is even a possibility of the Industrial Development Authority having an interest in doing that, although that would be more centralised. I presume it would be the IDA at local level, with the local knowledge and expertise, that would be interested. The local personnel could possibly be involved in the control and management because, as has been stated, the thrust should be for industrial development in the area of the manufacture of goods. That seems to be the hope for some kind of industrial revival in Cork after the disastrous experience of the last few years, for which we hold the Government responsible.
If the Minister, a civilised person who would not abuse any power, reads subsection (1) carefully he will see that it give immense power to the Minister. It states:
Each free port established under this Act shall be under the control and management of such person or persons as may be designated by order by the Minister...
That concentrates in the Minister's hands immense power. In other words, if he says that a certain person should be appointed, then he is; and it does not matter what views or ideas for development—we should remember that control and management is essential for development—the people with the local expertise and knowledge have. His fiat makes the decision.
While my amendment could not be called a radical one it is at least an attempt to dilute this excessive power in subsection (1). I do not want this diluted for the sake of dilution. My amendment has the positive aspect that the knowledge of people, the knowledge of management and of control in the context of Cork, as we are talking about Cork, should be available to make the free port a success. What is true of Cork could be true of Rosslare, as mentioned by Deputy Browne, of Greenore, as mentioned by Deputy Kirk, or any of the other areas spotlighted during the Second Stage debate. I should like to point out the fact that the Government have not been found wanting in appointing their own supporters to various positions. I do not wish to emphasise that too much or to be party political about it. However, human nature being what it is, there is always the danger that if local knowledge and expertise in control and management is not brought to bear in some way on the appointment of control and management, then there will be something lacking and we will have less than the best control and management.
I regard Deputy Wilson's amendment as essential for the success—it would be wrong of me to use the word "failure" in this regard—of the Cork free port. It is important that there should be the consent of the participants in the control of the board. Understandably, I know Cork better than other areas and, perhaps, I know it better than some of the officials advising the Minister. Cork has gone through a very difficult time and one thing that must be admired about the people there is their resilience. Last year Cork celebrated its 800th anniversary and, following its success, an effort was made by a group of local people to establish what is now known as the Cork Enterprise Board. Those people were anxious to maintain some of the momentum generated by the success of last year's celebrations. The Government, very kindly, decided to give financial support to that board. I am convinced that for a free port to be successful it is desirable that those appointed to manage or control that board should be appointed with the consent of the participating bodies or people. If we continue to be governed from Merrion Street in Dublin the regions will continue to die. We will then have Dublin growing and growing. That must be faced up to.
Contrary to the advice being offered to the Minister, I must emphasise that the spirit of the amendment before the House will improve the management of the free port. The Minister will not always be in charge of the Department; and I am not suggesting that he would dream of doing anything wrong in regard to appointments, but the temptation can often be great. However, a Minister in the future may appoint people who are totally unacceptable and unsuitable and who will prove to be a millstone around the development of that free port. That is the last thing we want to happen. If such people can only be appointed with the consent of the participating bodies who are committed to the success of the venture then the person would never be unacceptable or unsuitable. The person chosen in such a way would make worthwhile contributions to the venture.
Regardless of the advice the Minister may be receiving I assure him that there is a great need for what we are advocating. Even if the Minister does not like the wording, he should at least accept the spirit of the proposal. I am not sure as to how technically that could be incorporated in the Bill but what Deputy Wilson proposes is essential to the success of the free ports. From our experience we are all aware that those concerned mainly with the success of a venture are the people on the ground, those who know what they are talking about, who are experienced and those who have seen many Dublin-generated ventures fade and disappear. The Minister should at least give the people of Cork the opportunity of deciding who should govern the new port authority. By acting in this way the Minister will be doing himself a favour also, because it will be remembered that the civil servants did not try to strangle the venture by holding the reins. I am appealing to the Minister to accept the advice from this side of the House.
I add my voice to what both Deputies Wilson and Fitzgerald have said. Deputy Fitzgerald hit the nail on the head when he referred to control from the centre. We have had examples of this in my area in the past number of years in factories and businesses. The control emanated from the centre while the operations at ground level were all but ignored and eventually failed.
We will have the same problems with free ports if all the decisions are to be in the hands of a central authority. I accept that there will be consultations but if section 3 is enacted as it is the decisions will be taken by the Minister of the day without necessarily his having the consent of local authorities or of local representative bodies. Without the goodwill of local authorities and other local interested bodies the chances of success of any venture are much less than if that goodwill is present. If Deputy Wilson's amendment is not accepted there will be the danger that the legislation will dilute the goodwill in every area and will not give a proper chance for the free ports to begin and develop as they might. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to reconsider his position and to accept the amendment.
I have accepted already the spirit of what is being said. A very good example of what is happening is that Cork Harbour Commissioners are trying to organise a package for the control and management of the free port. I do not think the Deputies would object to those people having control but let us forget about Cork for the moment and consider a situation that could arise in any area where two rival organisations were seeking control of the operation with the Minister considering both bodies. In such circumstances what the Deputies, by reason of the amendment, would be asking is that the Minister obtain the consent of such persons who represent companies or local authorities participating in the control and management of each free port. I do not think that this would be possible. There is a certain illogicality in the proposal. I have no doubt that there will be liaison with the local authorities concerned in this matter. They have a very important role to play but I would not wish to seek to influence what might happen in the Cork area. I know that some local authorities are very interested in the free port development and they would have an important role to play in that regard. Assuming that some body corporate would be in charge of the Cork free port when established, they would have their own structure there and would be running the port. I do not think there would be any great objection to that.
There is no lack of logic in the amendment. In order to indicate that there might be a lack of logic, it was significant that the Minister took as a hypothesis that the Cork Harbour Commissioners would be involved in the control and management of the free port, but the wording in the Bill does not bestow that right on the Minister. The provision is that each free port established under the legislation shall be under the control and management of such person or persons as may be designated by order of the Minister. We are all aware of the colossal sums of money made by barristers in interpreting Acts of the Oireachtas. The words in this Bill are the only words that count when it comes to the point that the Minister must name the persons who are to control and manage a free port.
I wish to make a number of other points in favour of this amendment. The Cork Harbour Commissioners have been mentioned fairly widely. In their briefing they indicated that there may be a push to have local authority rates reduced by two-thirds during the first ten years after the setting up of the free port. If that is so, the House can see the wisdom of my amendment in the context of Cork Corporation or Cork County Council being involved in the consent to the control and management structure set up by the Minister.
In addition, the harbour commissioners mentioned at point 9 in their submission that other statutory authorities providing services to the free port be permitted at their discretion to provide similar reductions in the cost of their services. It is easy to understand how important it would be to have a local input at that level. If control and management is divorced from that kind of scene, it is less effective in persuading those who provide services to give favourable rates as happens elsewhere in the provision of those services.
Another point that arises is the question of relocation. If there is local involvement by way of consent in the control and management structuring there is less danger of relocation. I indicated at Second Stage that in the dismal context of manufacturing industry, particularly in Cork, there is very little left to relocate. However, the point is that if there is local involvement at the control and management level there is less likelihood of relocation because there will be someone there to stand up and say, "we cannot have that industry taken out of the area because to relocate it would affect very badly the economy of the area. We intend fighting to have it maintained." That would put an emphasis on the establishment of new green field industry in the free port area. All of these arguments tend to underline the wisdom of the amendment which I strongly urge the Minister to accept.
This amendment has been fairly well debated and as we have to close at 1.30 p.m.——
I presume the Ceann Comhairle told the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that it has been well debated. I think the Minister was about to rise to reply.
I have run out of arguments and as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle says, it has been debated at some length now. The new point made by Deputy Wilson was that there might be a danger of relocation of a free port and then the Minister would have to give his consent to the new area and if there were any relocations it would obviously be on economic grounds. It is not realistic to suggest that the Minister's powers should be restricted in this way. I am confident that there will be total liaision because the goodwill of the local authorities will be necessary for the success of free ports in many parts of the country. Despite the arguments advanced, the introduction of the amendment suggested would not improve the Bill in any way.
I do not accept what the Minister has said about the diminution of powers. This would strengthen the Minister's powers. Central administration might regard it as a diminution of power because consent will now be required from the people on the ground. The Minister's powers are increased and strengthened because the Minister would be far more powerful if he had the consent of the local interests designed to make a success of this project. There is no question of the Minister's powers being diminished because the involvement of the local people will make a greater success of this venture. The Minister's powers will be diminished if he does not accept the amendment because the local vital interests will not have a say. Throughout Europe there is too much central government and the regions are being neglected. Nobody has a greater interest in the regions than the people living there. There is no question that Deputy Wilson's amendment will diminish the Minister's powers. It will strengthen the Minister's powers because it will make the Minister's actions more effective, with the consent of the local people. That is where strength lies; it is strength on the ground, not strength on paper.
His constituency being where it is, the Minister knows that there is a very strong move to involve local people in important economic and social procedures. This has come from a rise in sophistication at local level, in areas away from the metropolis. Once, most of the expertise in economic and industrial matters was concentrated in the capital city. Now, with the provision of various educational facilities particularly in the technological field all around the country, the level of expertise has risen. For that reason, if the Minister accepts this amendment he will be on the same wavelength as most of the people at European level and at local level including, for example, the former head of the Institute of Public Administration who asserted that we are falling down in not giving more of an input to local organisations, statutory or otherwise.
By rejecting this amendment the Government and the Minister are again insulting the local authorities. The Minister should reconsider this insult to the local authorities.
Is Deputy Wilson pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Brennan, Séamus
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
I would have some doubt about section 3 (2) in that it gives what I regard as excessive powers to the Minister. Section 3 (2) states:
The Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, by order amend or revoke an order made under this section.
I should like the Minister to expand a little on section 3 (2) to indicate what specifically "an order" means. Section 3 (1) uses the phrase "such person or persons as may be designated by order by the Minister...". Does section 3 (2) give the Minister absolute power to sack the board of management, to put it in its starkest terms?
The purpose of this subsection is to enable the arrangements for the control and management of the free port to be revised or placed on a new footing should changed circumstances so require. Section 2 provides for the designation of free port areas and once such an area is established it will continue to be a free port, with allowance for modification of its limits. Section 3 deals with the operator-manager of the free port. It is necessary to provide for revocation of orders where, for example, an operation might go into liquidation. It goes without saying that it will not be feasible to have a free port without having an operator-manager. Accordingly if an order under section 3 is revoked it follows that a new order would have to come into effect immediately to ensure that a free port under section 2 could continue to function.
The Minister is taking power there to remove the management of the free port with one stroke of the pen. If that is so and as the word "order" is used only in the context of control or management in section 3 (1), the Minister is getting too much unrestrained and undiluted power in section 3 (2).
In circumstances where he thinks it necessary the Minister can remove the operator-manager of the free port by order. This order would have to be laid before the House in the ordinary manner.
Does the Minister mean that it could be refused by vote of the House?
That is right.
From my own time as Minister I recognise in this a pitch by the administration to concentrate power. I realise that certain powers are necessary but absolute power like this is something that makes me uneasy. For that reason perhaps we might draw up an amendment on Report Stage, if the Minister feels he could accept an amendment.
I see exactly what is worrying the Deputy. If there were a reasonable amendment which would meet the situation it could perhaps be introduced in the Seanad where there would be more time for consideration, since it is proposed to take Report Stage here later today. It is essential to have these powers because of various difficulties which can arise. We would find ourselves in an extraordinarily difficult situation if these powers did not exist to meet difficulties caused by trading problems or otherwise. I do not believe in the concentration of power. I am a great believer in the most democratic possible form of the exercise of power. If an amendment comes forward I will consider it and see what might be done in that area. Generally speaking, there is no great danger of power being exercised in an excessive or undesirable fashion.
I accept that the powers should be there but it is power without a brake on it which causes me unease. For that reason I think there should be a court of appeal or some way of modifying that power which would have to exist as the Minister said. I will speak to my colleagues in Seanad Éireann, who are interested in this particular area, with a view to introducing, as the Minister said when we are not constrained by time, an amendment to section 3 (2) in order to, in some way, put a brake on the authority given by the Minister in this section.
I would like to continue where Deputy Wilson left off. I would have far less concern about subsection (2) of this section if the Minister had accepted Deputy Wilson's amendment. That would have meant that this subsection, because of the type of people who would be appointed to the authority, would be people with local interest. I do not know how the Minister can say that he is in favour of a great democratic process when he has already refused to accept Deputy Wilson's amendment which would have extended the power to Cork, Greenore, Rosslare, Shannon or anywhere else.
With regard to subsection (1), I am very disappointed that the Minister, representing the north-western region, could not see his way to broaden the scope of the section because I believe section 3 is the kernel of whether or not the free port is a success. I do not care what Minister is there, how good a Minister he is or what civil servants are there. Nobody can do as much for the region as the people of the region, the people who live and work in the region and whose dependants are growing up there. We are going more and more towards central administration with strings coming out from Dublin all the time. This morning is another example. We appealed to the Minister to accept the amendment but he did not. I hope, before the Bill goes to the Seanad, that the Minister will think about the necessity to improve that position.
We have been talking a lot about Ringaskiddy. Surely the people in Cork are best judges of who can run their port to the best possible extent, who can get the greatest value from it? Why do we have to harness all the power, be it in Merrion Street, Kildare Street or anywhere else? This has been happening for 60 years. I have seen the light in that respect. In our time we tried to push through a decentralisation programme. I have no doubt there would be many vested interests who would agitate in relation to this but the regions are being neglected, particularly Cork, where we have suffered a severe setback in a region which was doing particularly well. I am not blaming the Government for that setback. I know there are many reasons for it, such as the development of new technology, but we lost a lot of jobs in that area. I do not know why the Minister has to introduce section 3 in this form, with subsection (1) taking control on a centralised basis and giving me and most of my constituents the impression that the administration do not know what happens beyond Newland's Cross.
I encourage the Minister to take heed of the Fianna Fáil recommendation. I believe this has been a well disciplined debate and the suggestions put forward are very well thought out. I ask the Minister what would happen in the case of Greenore which I believe is an ideal vehicle for the creation of a free port particularly in the light of the success of the recent Anglo-Irish agreement? I believe that Greenore, and Warrenpoint on the other side of Carlingford Lough, provide an ideal avenue for the creation of a free port in the international waters of Carlingford Lough. What would happen in the event of that area being created a free port? Would it be a shared authority? Would the Minister have total powers? I agree with what Deputy Gene Fitzgerald said about needing a decentralisation process. I feel the local authorities should have more concern for their own regions. They should play a prominent part rather than have power centralised in Dublin.
I am anxious to find out what the Minister has in mind in this operation. Could he give us a typical example of what he would see as the ideal board he talks about and under what circumstances this power would be used to take people off the board or to change it around? I agree with the points already made about the necessity to get some representation from people who have been democratically elected onto various authorities which would have some responsibility and influence in this area. I could see a situation developing where you might have people on a particular board with quite an amount of expertise and specialist qualifications but who would have very little tactical experience of dealing with people. This is very essential on a board of this nature where complex issues as well as a variety of issues will arise for discussion and decision and people will be involved in making decisions which will affect a great many people in these areas. It is essential in the boards to be established to control a free port that there is representation from the democratically elected people in the different areas, such as people involved in local authorities.
That has already been discussed.
Yes, but the section is very relevant to what has been said. I would like to get some indication from the Minister about what he feels this board will be and why he needs subsection (2).
With regard to the various points raised, any group or organisation, perhaps a local authority, can come forward and seek to be the people who will run a designated free port. All considerations, economic and otherwise, will be taken into consideration by the Minister in allocating and designating the control and management to whoever is to get it.
Deputy Fitzgerald does not seem to have very much confidence in the Cork Harbour Commissioners. With the Minister's permission they are at the moment testing the market by inviting potential investors in the free port to submit proposals for a possible joint venture. Cork County Council may very well be invited. As I said on Second Stage, and as many Deputies also said, there is possible involvement. Assuming some grouping of that nature, obviously the Cork Harbour Commissioners will have their control group for the free port. I cannot see much wrong with that.
As regards Greenore or any of the other ports put forward, various groupings would get together. It might not be possible to get anyone unless the economic circumstances and the outlook for the activity were good, but assuming they were, you might have competition, you might have individuals, you might have to canvass the local authorities to involve themselves in some way, but then the Minister would have to make his decision as to which grouping or organisation would best run that to the economic advantage of the area. There is no use having organisations who do not use the facility and advantages of a free port to maximum capacity. Therefore, the fears on this are unfounded.
I will have a look at the point raised by Deputy Wilson. He or we may have some suggestions to make on it. I am in sympathy with the general theme underlying his argument but I do not think it would be necessary in this case. However, if I see an amendment that will improve the Bill I will naturally be glad to do that.
Regarding the various orders made, these have to be placed, as in any legislation, before the House. Then it is a matter for the House to decide on them within the designated period.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Wilson. Amendment No. 3 to section 7 is related. By agreement amendments Nos. 2 and 3 can be debated together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 41, after "manufacture." to insert "If a licence is refused to any person, such person has the right of appeal to the High Court.".
The House will have noticed the same motivation in putting down this amendment as motivated the putting down of amendment No. 1. Again there is undiluted power, no safeguard in the power given to the Minister here. The section provides that:
The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, grant or refuse to grant to any person a licence authorising the carrying on within a free port of any trade, business or manufacture.
That is too cool. It is a simple "grant or refuse"; nothing else. It is not in accordance with usual practice to give that kind of power to a Minister without having some restraint on him. An interesting point is that management has been covered by section 3 (1) and (2) and do not seem to have any function here with regard to the granting or refusal of a licence to a person to carry on a business or manufacture. Again, although in accordance with section 3 the Minister has put in place a management structure, nevertheless in section 4 what one would have thought might be a function of management, or if not at least one in which management should have a strong consultancy role, the Minister is simply arrogating to himself, that is the power to grant or refuse. For that reason I urge strongly that this amendment be accepted. We have section 4 (1) here and perhaps from a format point of view my amendment should be section 4 (2). I urge the House to support this amendment or alternatively to ask the Minister to accept it. It is a generally accepted democratic principle that there should be a right of appeal. Again, I go along with the Minister when he says that such powers should exist. I can see that the Minister or management should be in a position to refuse a licence. Someone could come along with a ready, instant plan to make small atomic bombs or napalm, with plenty of people to argue that it would give employment and so on. I am picking those as extreme examples to indicate that I agree with the Minister, as he stated when discussing section 3, that the powers should be there. My contention is that those powers should be diluted by putting in a provision that there should be an appeal to the High Court.
I want to make it quite clear that I am not against the Minister having the power or the power resting in the board of management, which would seem to be just as appropriate, but the Minister's say-so should not be the final arbiter. If the person feels that he or she has a grievance that person should be in a position to appeal in the High Court. For that reason I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
The amendment in the name of Deputy Wilson asks that if a licence is refused to any person, such person has the right to appeal to the High Court. That possibility exists already. The Minister's decision under this section to refuse a licence may be challenged in the High Court, as for example, not being in accordance with natural justice, or on similar grounds. This position obtains generally in law as regards ministerial decisions. That covers both the amendments. The same goes for the amendment to section 7 which seeks to substitute "provided always that an appeal may be made in the High Court, or..." In both of these cases the person who might feel aggrieved can go to the High Court.
As the Deputy pointed out, there is a need in this section for the Minister to have power to be responsible for deciding on applications for licences. It would not be right if control over the type of applicants or businesses licensed to operate within the free port should rest elsewhere than with the Minister in view of the serious implications that exist for the Exchequer, the operations of the Revenue Commissioners and industrial location policy inherent in the licensing function. As mentioned by the Deputy and by many others during Second Stage, the intention of the free port concept is that it would generate extra economic activity rather than a transfer of that activity from some other part of the State to the free zone.
To take all those things into consideration, it is necessary to have the power proposed in the Bill. The same goes for section 7 which we will be coming to. As I said already the right of referral of a decision to the High Court exists already.
I am not satisfied that people involved should have to rely on that broad philosophic area under which a case might lie from the point of view of natural justice. My amendment wants a specific subsection if necessary, section 4 (2), numbering what is already in the Bill as subsection (1). I want a statement to that effect. The Minister said, rightly, that the right to appeal exists in natural justice. If it is made more specific by statute, the person's rights will be strong. On the basis that the rights will be stronger as a result of incorporation in statute I urge this. I ask the Minister whether he has in his brief examples of cases taken against a Minister on the basis of an infringement of natural justice and specifically if he has one in the area of industrial development, manufacturing and so on.
I have not got that in my brief. The Deputy will be aware that we got the amendments only this morning so we were unable to arrange for it.
Perhaps the Minister will have that for the next stage.
Yes. We foreshadowed it in the brief to a certain extent, but not in detail. I am assured that it is an unnecessary provision. No similar provision is inserted in legislation conveying the right of a person who feels aggrieved to go to the High Court in the ordinary way. I am assured that there are full rights there already and that this amendment could not strengthen the case when it comes to the High Court or strengthen the existing possibility of its going to the High Court.
I agree with the Minister's statement that it is necessary to have power to grant or to refuse a licence to any person. However, while I know that the present Minister and Minister of State would not abuse this power, an unscrupulous Minister who might be in control, because he did not like the political colour of the applicant, could find enough reasons to refuse to grant such a licence. Under natural justice that person might be afraid to take the chance to go to the High Court, but if those rights were enshrined in the Bill he would be in a stronger position and less unwilling to take the chance, especially when one considers the exorbitant cost of legal fees. That is enough to deter any but the most well off. It is essential that the right of appeal be enshrined in the Bill.
I should like to support Deputy Ahern's statement. To give total power to the Minister could pave the way for political favouritism on the part of the Minister of the day. That would be very undesirable. We all saw the problems which were created some years before the institution of An Bord Pleanála where political chicanery or favouritism was wrongfully shown by the then Minister for the Environment in relation to planning. Many of that Minister's planning decisions are now showing up in an unfavourable light and things like that could recur. This section would give too much room for political expectations from the Minister of the day. I ask the Minister to re-examine this section with extreme caution.
The Minister does not have absolute power. I understand that there is not in the general body of legislation a specific provision such as that being sought in Deputy Wilson's amendment. I know that we are criticised on occasion, particularly by Deputy Kelly, for following slavishly, precedents in other legislation and sometimes copying the precise wording. I agree that we should not have to follow slavishly what is there already and, if I think we can improve this, we should do so. However, I am told that this insertion would not improve on the situation an iota for the person who was refused a licence on grounds that he did no think valid or appropriate in his case. Under those circumstances Deputy Wilson's amendment would not make this better legislation.
There is a certain lack of logic in the approach of the Minister in that he says that a person who is refused a licence or whose licence is revoked, as mentioned in section 7, could go to the High Court on the basis of natural justice. If that is so, why is he taking such a stand against this specific right being written into the Bill? If it does not make any difference, according to the Minister's thesis and as far as the manufacturing citizen is concerned, why not have it specifically stated in aid of the citizen? I am urging the Minister, with all the power I can muster, to accept my amendment. As he says, it does not materially affect the legal status of the person but it does help in that it indicates that, if the Minister refuses, there is another resort specifically stated in the Act available to an appellant.
Deputy Ahern and Deputy McGahon both referred to the possibility of a Minister who refused a licence or revoked one already in existence being accused of exercising political judgment in such a refusal or revocation. I am afraid that a climate of opinion has been created, not entirely due to the activities of politicians, in which that kind of accusation will be made even where there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support it. For that reason I again urge the Minister to accept this simple amendment to sections 4 and 7, and that it be specifically stated that there is an appeal to the High Court. Leaving out the whole juridical philosophical area where natural justice begins to apply, it looks as if the Minister is taking to himself too much power and not giving the individual concerned the right of appeal.
There is a certain illogicality, to use the Deputy's words, in Deputy Wilson's argument because, if it does not make a bit of difference, why then include it?
I spent most of my time explaining why.
The Deputy's original argument was my statement that it makes no difference, so why not then include it?
I say it does make a difference.
I am aware of that, but the Deputy began his argument on this occasion by saying that there was illogicality in my argument.
So there is.
I am saying that if it makes no difference, why include it?
The Minister has not listened at all to my case, or that of Deputy McGahon and Deputy Ahern.
I have listened to all the cases put forward. I reiterate the argument that provision exists for access to the High Court if a person feels aggrieved and wronged with regard to refusal of a licence or revocation of one. The proposed amendment is unnecessary.
I must say I am more than disappointed with this Minister, for whose reputation and ability I have the highest respect. He is accepting a brief from his officials, who naturally — and I am not criticising them — want to concentrate power in the Department. He does not want that power even to appear to be diluted. I want to push this amendment as strongly as I can and to a vote.
I support Deputy Wilson. I am very concerned that this section will leave the way open to grave abuse of the nature outlined by Deputy Wilson. I agree with what he says about the perception that the public have regarding political favouritism. I am very uneasy about it and I should like to see the Minister accepting the arguments from the other side so that people will have a reasonable means of appeal. I am not happy with the system that gives total power to the Minister in a Bill of this nature. I should prefer to see the establishment of a responsible authority emanating from the county in which the port is located. That would be the most democratic method.
This provision is there already and it would be bad law to start duplicating in the manner suggested.
All the Minister is relying on is precedent. He is merely saying that this has been the practice in Bills of this kind. Deputies McGahon and M. Ahern have said that is not a sufficient argument to justify rejecting the case we made. As a reasonable person, the Minister should accept the logic of Deputy Wilson's argument which would give protection to the people involved. If it became clear that all power was vested in the Minister, very few citizens would be prepared to take on the Government.
I, too, ask the Minister to accept the amendment. If there is precedent, it may not have been correct down through the years because we have had favouritism and patronage which have not been in the interests of the country. It would be open to any Minister to say that out of three or four applicants one was a member of his party and he would accept that application. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the people who might want to become involved in free ports and who would have a role to play in their management that this amendment would be accepted.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
On the section, I will not delay the House because under section 7 much the same line as we have been pushing since we started consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill comes up. I just want to express my disappointment that the Minister did not see fit to accept the amendment because I think the time has come when the Members of this House will have to take cognisance of this tendency to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers. I will have something more to say about that on section 7.
Question put and agreed.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
Will the Minister be mentioning technical amendments in regard to that?
I propose to introduce technical amendments on Report Stage.
The attention of the House, even if we cannot effect anything should be called to the terms of subsection (1) which states:
The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, attach to a licence such conditions as he thinks proper, including conditions in regard to the date, fixed by the Minister after consultation with the licensee, on or before which the licensee shall begin to carry on within a free port the trade, business or manufacture authorised by the licence.
I am anxious to indicate to the House the exact words in the Bill — it is the exact words that will count — which are to the effect that the Minister may attach to a licence such conditions as he thinks proper. Again, there is this arrogation of power. Subsection (2) states:
A licensee who does not comply with a condition attached to the licence shall, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable, be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
Again, the power is displayed without any safeguards. I will not make any further comment on this section because section 7 is very much in the heart of that matter again.
The provision in subsection (1) enables the Minister to attach conditions to a licence. The provision concerning a date by which a business must commence is designed very much to avoid any licensee leaving a licence in effect unused due to his failure to commence the operations envisaged. The power as outlined in the section is very necessary in that case. Other conditions could be attached to a licence at the request of the Revenue Commissioners to regulate the proper Customs documentation and procedure within a free port and might require a particular licensee to meet requirements in that regard deriving from the nature of his business. Deputy Wilson has reiterated his concern about the concentration of power but for the good running of the free ports this type of power is necessary and I have the utmost confidence that it will be carried out very fairly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
We have already debated amendment No. 3 that arises on this section.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1) (a), line 20, to delete "or" and substitute "provided always that an appeal may be made to the High Court, or".
I want to make a further comment on this amendment which I regard as very important on the same basis as the appeal already made not merely by me but by my colleagues Deputies Ahern, Browne and McGahon. I want to concentrate the attention of the House on the wording in the Bill which is to the effect that the Minister may at his discretion revoke a licence if he is satisfied that there has been a breach of the conditions attached to the licence or the licensee is convicted of an offence against the Customs Acts. I agree that powers should exist, whether exercised by the Minister or the management of a free port is a matter for separate debate, but the Bill states that the Minister may at his discretion revoke a licence if he is satisfied that there has been a breach of the condition attached to the licence. As a management structure is catered for in section 3 (1) it is quite possible that the management should be given a say with regard to whether a breach of a condition has taken place. The Minister should be asked to take into account views other than his own with regard to whether a breach of a condition has taken place.
Subsection (1) (b) states that the Minister may revoke a licence if the licensee is convicted of an offence against the Customs Acts. That is a bald general statement. Those of us who live in Border areas will know — if Greenore was designated a free port it would be particularly significant for that area — that there are very minor Customs offences. Does the Minister mean that if a person is caught with a can of Harp in excess of the limit, or a small consignment, that his licence to manufacture could be revoked? The Minister has power at any time to vary the conditions attached to a licence. Admittedly, the people who put the heads of the Bill together realised they were going a little too far and in subsection (3) of this section inserted a bit of a gesture towards the philosophy I have been putting before the House all day. That subsection states:
Before revoking a licence, the Minister shall give not less than twenty-one days' notice of his intention to the licensee and shall consider any representations made to him by the licensee.
Again, the Minister is the final court of appeal. I appeal to the Minister to accept that there should be a possibility of an appeal to the High Court. It would do a great deal for the Bill. It will be very positive in its indication to a citizen of what his rights are prescinding from what the Minister said about the natural justice area of our legal system. It will also lift the slur from the Minister's shoulders, a slur which people are all too willing to cast on a politician, very often with little grounds for doing so. I urge the Minister to accept my amendment and allow an appeal to the High Court from the Minister's unaided decision to be put in place.
I agree with much of what Deputy Wilson has said. I must express my apprehension at the total power given to a Minister in these circumstances. Clause (b) states that the Minister may revoke a licence if the licensee is convicted of an offence against the Customs Acts and that provision is likely to rear its head every day if Greenore is declared a free port, as I hope it will be. Like Deputy Wilson I would be fearful of the consequences for a manufacturer in the area.
In compliance with the order made this morning I am now putting the question: Free Ports Bill, 1985 that the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is Reported to the House; that the amendments set down by the Minister for Communications to the Bill on Report are hereby made to the Bill, and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.