I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This Bill is in the usual form. It is designed to continue the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, 1924, for another period of twelve months. From various sources suggestions have been made for the amendment of the Act, and apart from these suggestions, the Government had under consideration alternative methods by which the State might give financial assistance to industrial development, but it has not been found practicable to formulate any alternative proposals for submission to the Dáil. It is, therefore, desired to continue the Act. There are some applications pending under it. It is desired that an opportunity should be given for an examination of these applications and the giving of guarantees under the Act, if the applications are found to warrant such action. Apart from applications which have not yet reached the Advisory Committee, and which are in various stages of preparation, there are four applications which have been approved and which are awaiting the completion of legal formalities. There are other applications which are at present under consideration, either in the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Finance, and in respect of which no decision has yet been arrived at. Altogether it is considered desirable that the Act should not be allowed to expire on the 31st of the month, but should continue for another twelve months.
Public Business. - Trade Loans (Guarantee) (Amendment) Bill, 1932—Second Stage.
What were the suggestions as to the amendment of the Act that were made and found impossible?
I would not like to say that now. Quite a variety of suggestions were received, some good and some bad.
The bad ones mainly your own when in Opposition?
Not necessarily.
There is no objection to the continuance of the Act, but I think the plea made for the continuance of it, even for a year, might have been accompanied by a little bit more detail. The only information we have is that there are four applications which have reached a somewhat advanced stage, and that is the beginning and the end of the information given.
It would be desirable to know before the Second Reading debate concludes what amount of money out of the original amount set aside as possible guarantees has been in fact engaged. What amount of money engaged has in fact been lost? What other applications are there besides those which have passed all stages, including the legal formalities, dividing those into the ones which, as the Minister said, did not come before the Advisory Committee because they are at present the subject of examination first of all in the Department of Industry and Commerce? And what is the number of those which have not reached the Committee because they are being subjected to preliminary examination in the Department of Finance? It would be useful to know also if any applications are pending before the Advisory Committee, if any have passed out of the Departmental sphere at the moment and are before the Advisory Committee. I think the House might get some useful information if we could learn if any of the applications which had reached an advanced stage previously and which had been accepted by those proposing certain schemes have been changed in any radical way; whether in other words there has been any indication on the part of people previously making an application which was favourably considered even to the point of the completion of legal formalities that these people are now rather anxious to withdraw, and if so, what is the reason stated for their anxiety to withdraw at present?
The Minister has alluded to the point of the amendments that were suggested. I suppose this Bill hardly ever came for consideration before the House in the Minister's own time in Opposition that he did not almost as a matter of form—and I think now that it was merely as a matter of form—put down one amendment and that was that the limitation of the guarantee in regard to capital moneys should be withdrawn and that there should be no restriction on the use of State money and therefore, on the guarantee of the use of State credit for raising capital. It used to be pointed out to the Minister in these days that there were no fixed assets on which these guarantees could be given by the State. Apparently he has now taken another view of the matter, that the use of State credit as a guarantee for securing working capital is not a feasible proposition. That was the one big amendment suggested by the Minister himself in former days. It will be interesting to see why he has now come to a different conclusion and what alternative he has in view for getting rid of the defects which he used to allege were so glaring in this Act.
There were certain other amendments the Minister used to suggest somewhat of a minor character. He has alluded to the matter himself, that there were amendments made for the improvement of the Act or at least for changing the Act but for some reason or another these have not appeared. They are not being proposed, and I for one would be glad to know whether any of these things are being simply postponed so that their details may be worked out in some new piece of legislation or whether they have been explored and have been discarded as being outside the scope of even the Minister's own optimism.
I should like to know from the Minister whether any applications made under the Act have come from a firm that has already received a guarantee and secondly, whether an application for a guarantee has come from any of the industrial concerns which manufacture the goods tariffed recently.
The total amount guaranteed under the Act was £320,340. The total of the sums issued out of the Central Fund in respect of these guarantees was £215,900 16s. 6d. In respect of applications which had reached an advanced stage and which in fact required only legal formalities on the day on which the change of Government took place, no indication of any change in the intention of the applicants has been received in respect of three cases. In the case of one application, that of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, I understand the matter of proceeding with the application for their guarantee is being reconsidered in the light of the situation created by the new import duties. What the decision of the Commissioners in that respect is likely to be I do not know.
Can the Minister say what the phrase "in the light of the new import duties" exactly means? Does it mean that the Harbour revenue as a result of these import duties is likely to be insufficient to justify the expenditure of the money applied for?
Apparently that is what the Commissioners contemplate. They are examining their position in the light of the new situation. I do not think the Commissioners will abandon the idea of harbour development entirely. They may decide to go ahead with some smaller undertakings than were originally contemplated. As regards the amendments which were suggested to the Bill and particularly the amendment to which the Deputy referred, I do not think that any change of attitude can be said to have taken place.
I am not accepting the accuracy of the Deputy's statement that amendments on the lines indicated by him had been put down automatically every year by members of this Party when in Opposition. It seems to me that in quite a number of cases which have come to my notice there would be good grounds for giving a guarantee even for money for the purpose of working capital. In these cases, there would have been adequate assets as a security against the guarantee. However, the intention is to have the whole question of financing industry examined and before any amendments are effected in this Act to consider, whether or not a wider or a different scheme might not be found to be more workable. Deputy Cosgrave asked me some question of which I was unable to take a note.
The first question I asked was whether any application had come from a firm or concern which had previously got a guarantee; and the second was, whether an application had been made from any industrial concerns manufacturing any of the 63 items which have been recently tariffed.
I know of no recent application from any firms which previously received a guarantee. Some applications have been received from firms proposing to engage in the tariffed industries, but what particular stage these applications have reached I could not indicate. Some of them are only in the very tentative stage represented by a letter to the Department followed up by the attempt to get the application put into the precise from which the Department desires. However, no additional application other than those which were pending at the date on which the change of Government took place have reached the advanced stage at which a guarantee is likely to be given.
The Minister could surely state something in regard to the four applications which had reached an advanced stage. One of them, the Limerick case, is in abeyance at the moment. What was the amount of the applications in the other three cases?
One was for £8,500; another for £6,000; and another for £23,000.
May I take it from the last answer that no fresh applications have been received since the change of Government, no applications that have reached an advanced stage?
Some applications were received and reached the stage of being rejected.
Could the Minister say how many applications have been remade to the Department, that is, applications which had been previously rejected?
None—at least, none to my knowledge. It is quite possible that some of the applications which were summarily rejected had been summarily rejected before. I have not searched the files to find out whether that is so.
Would the Minister make a search?
I do not think there were.
Will the Minister see that steps are taken to expedite decisions in regard to these applications? It seems to me that it takes a woefully long time to take a decision on these applications. Many firms have their patience exhausted before a decision is reached.
It is true that very long periods have elapsed between the making of applications and the announcement of the Government's decision in respect to them. I have been considering whether within the framework of the Bill it is not possible to speed up the formalities, but generally speaking I think that slow procedure is a necessary consequence of the Bill, and is one of the defects of this particular method of giving assistance.
Before the Minister gives judgment on that, will he see whether, on examination, the delay may not be due mainly to the applicants themselves, rather than to the machinery necessary or to any delay in the Department?
I think the Deputy knows that there were cases where there were considerable delays.
There were considerable delays, but they were due to certain financial restrictions which the parties applying could not comply with, but which experience had shown to be necessary.