I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 2, line 38, after "Tionscal" to add "and which has at any time been named by the Minister by order which the Minister is hereby empowered to make."
While I may disagree with some things Deputy Corish has just said on the first amendment, there are certain other things with which I would entirely agree. In my view it is quite essential that we succeed in getting it accepted by our own people that the facilities available for the development of industry are available for Irish people just as they are for foreigners, on exactly the same terms. I want to make it quite clear that in saying that I am not suggesting that they are not. We know what the position is, but we must get it accepted by our own people. It is important that that should be done as well as ensuring that we do what we possibly can to induce further industries to come and settle here.
Deputy Corish mentioned Dundalk. The Government had a job to do in Dundalk, but my objection at the time was that they did not go about it the right way. My objection was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us it was a private enterprise transaction, which it never was. My objection was that the Government forced—and I used the word "forced" deliberately — the Industrial Credit Company to cover up, under the guise that it was a commercially viable proposition, what never was a commercially viable proposition.
It was a State rescue operation and should have been tackled by the Government under that heading, openly and avowedly. There should not have been any shilly-shallying by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by the Minister for Finance, in trying to maintain that it was an ordinary commercial loan which could be granted on a commercial basis. It was a State rescue operation and should have been treated as such. If it had been treated as such, and open as such to the wind of criticism, I think more permanent employment would have resulted from the expenditure involved.
I want to be quite clear that if there is any necessity to have a State rescue operation in the future, or if there is a State initiation operation, it should be treated openly and above board. Therefore, the concerns should be named as the Aviation Development Limited and the Industrial Engineering Company Limited are named in the Bill. We could then discuss whether they are sound propositions, and whether portion of the pool of national capital should be put into those concerns. Personally, I would not restrict at all the concerns that could be assisted to concerns which have got a grant from Foras Tionscal or under the Industrial Grants Act but I would insist that they be named in an order by the Minister which would be put on the Table of the House. In that way, it would be all clear and above-board.
It is absolutely essential, if we are to avoid the type of suspicion that is going around, that we have some type of open commitment by the Government that they feel as a matter of Government policy that doing something in relation to that company is desirable. If the Government of the day are prepared to ensure that a company is assisted then they should be prepared to come out openly and say so by means of an order such as I suggest and, in addition to that, the company concerned should feel that it has nothing to hide and that the task is one that everybody would agree is a proper operation. However, to try to suggest, as has been suggested up to this, that the Industrial Credit Company has in certain instances given loans on a purely commercial basis, when we all know it is entirely untrue that they were given on a commercial basis, is wrong and degrading for this House. It creates suspicion and prevents Irish people in industry feeling they are getting a fair deal.
Let me take an example. I know of one case where, on the information I am able to get in the Companies Office, the people concerned have put in £87,000 and £4,600,000 of State money has been or is to be invested in that concern. It seems to me quite improper, quite wrong, that that lack of balance would be made. It means that the private enterprise people concerned have put less than 2½ per cent of the capital into the concern. I know they are foreigners and I am saying nothing about that. They have had a managing director down there who was as straight as a die, in my opinion, and who has done a first-class job. They have a managing director there, a foreigner, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting but who I am sure is absolutely straightforward and knows his job. There is also a solicitor who is a director. I am not making any criticism personally of him because I know he would not be a party to anything that is wrong. My criticism is that a situation should be established in which £87,000 is put up by one person and £4,600,000 is put up by the State. If the concern loses, the State lose their money. If it wins and turns out all right, the person concerned takes all the benefit. Admittedly, it is in the national interest if it succeeds because there will be valuable employment for the men concerned in that area but there is a lack of balance in the private enterprise investment and the State investment that should never have been allowed.
However, as I say, I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong to make such an investment. I am arguing that the Government that directed—and I use the word "directed" deliberately —the Industrial Credit Company to make such an investment should have had the courage to say they were doing it as a matter of Government policy and done it in the proper way and not pretend and hide behind the skirts of the Industrial Credit Company, saying the money was being put up by the Industrial Credit Company because everybody knows the directors of that concern are commercial men of the utmost probity who would not make a loan in the ordinary case unless they were absolutely satisfied they were doing it on a commercial viability basis.
I guarantee that the Minister could not produce a resolution or an expression of opinion, if you like, from that company denying they were directed by the Government to do that. If the Government want that done, if it is necessary to have that done in the national interest, they should come here and say so openly, put the matters on the Table. If it is done in that way the people's money will be invested in a more long-term, secure way both from the point of view of the return and permanent employment, and we shall not have the suspicion that undoubtedly exists throughout the country that if you are an Irishman you will not get as good terms as if you are a foreigner. I do not believe that is true but I want that suspicion killed. One of the ways of killing it is to ensure that any company that is to get facilities under this Bill by direction of the Government will get them by being named in an order. Ninety-nine times out of a 100 the order will go through without anybody saying anything about it because we on this side of the House will make our own inquiries and will more than likely be satisfied. There may be the odd one per cent of cases in which we may feel further investigation is needed here and that can be done by tabling a motion as I have provided here.
If there were a provision that the company would be named by means of an order being tabled, I would not in any way restrict the operation of this section as the Minister himself has restricted it by the definition of a State-assisted industrial company. It is infinitely more important for this House to know what is going on than to define the company concerned that is going to be assisted in the manner in which the Minister has defined it. I would far prefer to be able to name the concerns in the Bill. I accept the Minister's statement that he cannot see for the future what exactly the concerns are likely to be. Therefore, the method of naming it by administrative order is the appropriate one.