This problem is typical of the difficulties we seem to have encountered from 1993 onwards with regard to these matters. One of the main reasons for the Bill is that the 1993 Act is a mess. It has not been possible to operate it and it has added to the confusion and tension which exists between all the newly created and proliferate agencies. The introduction of this Bill was necessary for them to operate and to try to rectify some of the errors made in 1993.
The 1993 Act was introduced just before the summer recess. It was included in a long list of legislation which, the House was told, needed to be passed in a number of days. It was not properly examined and I warned about this aspect at the time. My warning has been borne out since all these amendments are necessary. The Bill was improved somewhat on Committee Stage in the Select Committee. However, we are in an awful mess now in terms of this amendment.
I am also disappointed that this is the only amendment in the Minister's name. From what he said in the Select Committee, I hoped he would deal with cartain other matters also. He accepted a number of my amendments on Committee Stage but other points, of which this is only one, have not been addressed. This is disappointing.
If this is enacted in a proper form, one of the effects of the amendment will be to turn the 1993 Act of its head. From reading the 1993 Act, it is clear the central holding agency or company was to be Forfás. Under the terms of this amendment, it appears Forfás will not hold anything. This is the direct opposite of what was enacted only two years ago. That seems to be very sloppy indeed. If it was right two years ago, why is it wrong now? Furthermore, if it is thought appropriate to take all property out of the ownership and control of Forfás, why does all property go to the ownership and control of the IDA? In the long term, the more important of the two line agencies from this country's point of view is Forbairt. It has the more difficult task and if it does not succeed, then the industrial development of this country does not succeed.
It is somewhat arbitrary that all the property vested since 1993 in Forfás is now to be vested in the IDA. If there is a difficulty between the two agencies it would be better to allow the land to continue to be vested in Forfás. If the Minister reads the speeches made by his predecessor in 1993 on the Bill, he will find that the idea was that there should be a holding company and that neither of the line agencies should be involved in the holding, ownership or management of property. Their job was to promote, not to be concerned with buying, selling, holding and managing property. That made sense if one was prepared to accept the overall logic of the argument, but that has now been turned on its head.
If in the future Forbairt, as the indigenous agency, wants to make land available to an Irish enterprise, it cannot do it itself nor can it go to its parent company, Forfás, to do it. It has to go to the other line agency, which in a limited sense is its rival, and ask it to provide land for an enterprise that it wishes to establish. There is a conflict of interest, as the Minister must appreciate, because while the system may work most of the time, it may well be that an indigenous company, which Forbairt is promoting, and an overseas company, which the IDA is promoting, both want the same piece of land. The IDA will be the owner of it and the IDA's instinct, a natural one, would be to transfer that land to the company it is promoting.
How is that conflict to be resolved? We have had some examples of it already. We have seen one example in Shannon this summer which causes me a great deal of concern. The IDA against the wishes of Forbairt and SFADCo promoted an overseas company that will have a very serious effect in a very limited market on an entirely Irish owned company which has become a successful world company. This problem will be more frequent when it comes to buying and selling land.
I do not know how section 3 (2) can stand with the other subsections. There is a general power in section 3 (2) to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property or any interest therein, and then in the proposed section 3 (4), which at the very least, should be section 3 (5), it states that
Forfás and each Agency may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land otherwise than in accordance with subsection (1) of section 16 of the Industrial Development Act, 1986, with the express consent of the Minister.
The Minister, explaining that, said cases had arisen where the IDA or Forfás should not be confined to selling land for industrial purposes. I agree. There are instances where pieces of the rather large amount of land they hold would from time to time have to be sold for non-industrial purposes. That would be perfectly valid, but if this power has to be put in here now, it implies that the IDA or Forfás did not have that power to sell for non-industrial purposes, although it has sold land for non-industrial purposes in the past.
The Minister may recall that in 1988 there was a big effort to get the IDA, then the sole agency, to dispose of land. It was under a great deal of pressure to do it. I remember at the time being opposed to selling land at Ballylongford, County Kerry, which I regarded as perhaps the most valuable potential industrial development land in Europe. It is flat land right beside 80 feet of water at low tide. I objected vociferously to the IDA selling that. It was to be sold in part to people who wanted to build a hotel there and in part to local farmers for agricultural purposes. My objections since prevailed and it was not sold in the end, but it sold other property at that time, some of it at quite a low price. If this amendment is necessary, that means the IDA had no power to sell that land. I question that because I believe it had power, but the latter part of this amendment implies it did not.
Section 3 (3) and section 3 (4) will make the conveying of State held property very difficult in future. All that is required is a simple straightforward statement, as there is in 3 (2), that
Forfás and each Agency shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property or any interest therein
without all these limitations in the other sections. If the Government is to overrule the other sections in the 1986 and 1993 Acts, the clear implication is that the IDA did not have power to sell in the past except for the purposes specified in the sections, and that is a very serious matter.
The Minister has not given any explanation of why it is proposed to transfer all the land from Forfás to the IDA two years after it had been transferred to it. He just says that Forbairt agrees with it. The Minister said the IDA is the main body involved in disposing of land or selling it to incoming companies, but Forbairt should be to the forefront of our thoughts and concerns in this House, because the future of Irish industrial development is bound up with whether it succeeds. I do not see why it should be put in a statutory position of playing second fiddle and allowing the IDA to decide everything. Forbairt can only have access to land or development sites if the IDA does not want them for overseas company purposes. That is wrong.
As regards the other amendments, the Minister, and his Department, were good enough to write to me recently on the question of vesting securities in trusts and making investments in trusts. That deals with one of the points I raised and an amendment I tabled on Committee Stage. I was given the name of a specific body, which I cannot recall, that was interested in this and wanted power to take these investments, which I accept. The Minister will recall that there were a number of other such amendments which have not reappeared. I had hoped they would, but I did not table the amendments again. I suppose I will have to have them tabled in the Seanad. It is a pity they were not dealt with.
As far as this is concerned, it is only adding to the confusion. I suggest to the Minister that subsection (3) (2) is enough and that he is only confusing the issue by bringing in these other points because they will raise considerable difficulties when it comes to the technicalities of conveyancing. Not only do they raise difficulties for the future but, by implication, they raise difficulties for the past. If it is thought necessary to include these provisions now, particularly those in subsections (3) and (4), a conveyancer would have to conclude that because the Oireachtas thought it necessary to include them, there was a problem before their inclusion. It is assumed the Oireachtas would not include something which is not necessary.
There have been many sales of land acquired for industrial purposes for non-industrial purposes. I could name such places — for example, Shannon Development sold land in the mid-west region. I recall instances of this coming before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies where land was sold off for housing in County Wicklow, County Wexford and other counties. It would be better if these three proposed subsections were not proceeded with because they will only cause enormous confusion.
If we must have three agencies, it is better that the holding company as envisaged in 1993 should continue to be that and it should not be done through one agency to the detriment of another. I am long enough dealing with such bodies to know that the worst thing we could have is to have two of these agencies at each other's throats. It is not fair to those involved in them that they will be forced into this situation. The Minister can give assurances in good faith, but he does not know as much about this as I do and the way some of these agencies react and interact with one another. If the IDA owns a choice piece of land, a Forbairt customer, no matter how worthy, will never see it. That is wrong and it should not happen. For that reason, I ask the Minister to withdraw these proposed subsections because they confuse the issue.