I should like to ask whether the Committee mentioned in Section 2 of the Principal Act has been set up.
Approved Investments (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Committee.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
It has.
Has the Minister got any report from them?
They have reported on about six applications, principally by the Dublin Corporation, for the registration of certain stocks suitable for investments for certain purposes. If the Deputy would like to have them, I can give him the names of the members of the Committee. The Chairman, under the Act, must be the Chairman of the Currency Commission, Mr. Brennan. The other members are: Mr. Justice Johnson, nominated by the Chief Justice; Mr. G.B. Symes, the President of the Stock Exchange, nominated by the Stock Exchange Committee; Mr. John P. Butler, Director of the National Bank, Limited, nominated by the Banks Standing Committee, and Mr. J.J. MacElligott, Secretary, Department of Finance, nominated by the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister state what was the reason for the delay? They got two years under the Act, but apparently the work has not been done. Can he give any reason for the delay?
First of all, nothing could be done until the Dáil approved of the setting up of the Committee. Then the various interests had to be approached, and it was only after the nominations were made and the assent of the persons nominated had been formally secured, that the necessary statutory notice could be issued setting up the Committee.
Was the Committee only recently set up?
Oh, no; it was set up on the 12th of February, 1934.
If the Minister were to give us the dates of the Dáil's approval and the passing of the Act, it would obviate the necessity of a discussion.
On that question I do not want to withhold any information which might be legitimately given.
It might shorten the business if the Minister would give the dates of the Dáil's approval, for instance. How long does it take these people to make up their minds?
The Act was passed on the 29th September, 1933. Regulations had then to be made under Section 2 of the Act prescribing the manner in which the shareholding banks should nominate their representative on the Investments Advisory Committee. As the preparation of these regulations involved consultation with each of the eight shareholding banks, the regulations were not in final form until the beginning of November, 1933. They were formally made on the 16th November, 1933. In the interval the Chief Justice and the Stock Exchange were consulted as to their nominees on the Investments Advisory Committee. On the 12th February, 1934, the committee was formally constituted by the Minister for Finance and held its first meeting on the 5th March, 1934. After the constitution of the committee, the preparation of the further regulations required under Section 7 of the Act was put in hands by the Department of Finance. These regulations prescribed the form and manner in which application was to be made to the Minister for Finance for the approval of securities under Section 7 of the Act. This is a Second Reading statement I may say, but I am making it at the Deputy's request. The draft of these regulations was agreed to by the Investments Advisory Committee on the 10th September, 1934, and the regulations were made on the 29th September, 1934. A notice was published in Iris Oifigiúil stating that the regulations had been made and that copies of the prescribed form could be obtained on application to the Department of Finance. Since then the committee has been at work but it will be understood that practically every new application at this stage involves prolonged and somewhat more detailed consideration as to the procedure to be adopted in dealing with it because it is only now that the practical procedure is being determined by the committee. Therefore, there has naturally been a certain amount of time taken up in laying down the lines upon which future applications will be dealt with.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Minister may by order, whenever and so often as he shall think proper, extend by such period as he shall think fit and shall specify in such order all or any of the following periods, that is to say, the several periods of four years from the passing of the Principal Act respectively mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 6 and sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and the period of four years and six months from the passing of the Principal Act mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 36, to delete the words "by order," and in line 37, after the word "proper" to insert the words "by order made after consultation with the Chair-of the Investments Advisory Committee."
The amendment merely provides that before extending by Order for a further period of years the periods — four years or four and a half years, as the case may be — specified in the preceding sections, the Minister must consult the Chairman of the Investments Advisory Committee. As the House is already aware, in accordance with the terms of Section 2 of the Principal Act, the Chairman of the Currency Commission is Chairman of the Investments Advisory Committee, and is the only one of the five members of that Committee in regard to whose appointment there is no choice. The amendment will ensure that both the Committee and the Currency Commission will be consulted before the Minister exercises his power under the section, and will obviate any appearance that the Minister is arbitrarily disposing of the time and energies of the Chairman of the two bodies.
There is no provision in this amendment for anything in the nature of an agreement. There is for consultation I will admit. Is it likely if there is a conflict of opinion between the Minister and the Committee that there will be agreement?
I think the Deputy will agree with me that a Minister who is anxious to have this Committee functioning properly is not likely to override the firm opinion of the person upon whom the duties of Chairman will devolve if the Order is made extending the period. I think, after all, that we must realise that unless the Committee is willing to co-operate in a matter of this sort it would be futile to extend the period by Order.
The Minister's mind has undergone a considerable change since I was in office. What I often said on that occasion was that I could not conceive any Minister then acting in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the business. The Minister is falling into the same frame of mind as I had at that particular time. But precautions must be taken in respect to the future. My own view with regard to our financial business generally is that it will require very close attention to prevent such catastrophic events as occurred elsewhere. I want the Minister to look into this with a view of seeing whether or not something stronger than the amendment that is in is not advisable. Can the Minister conceive a Minister for Finance not being in agreement with the Committee — leave himself out of it absolutely now — and making an order, after speaking to the Committee and after consultation with them, with which they will not agree?
The Minister can only make an order to prolong the existence of the Committee.
I know, but the Committee, to some extent, has a curb on the actions of the Minister for Finance and the question of discretion in regard to certain investments, and I take it that, if the Committee were unwilling to act in a case like that, the Minister, having a freer hand, would not be disposed to press the order unduly. The Committee is a body in which there is quorum. Let us assume that there is a person unable or unlikely to act, or something of that kind, whose successor might not agree with the advice given, and suppose there is an endeavour to give an order. I want the thing examined so as to see whether or not there is a danger in this. The Bill, and its predecessor, is certainly no credit to the Minister. Within two years we have an amendment. Surely to goodness, these things could have been foreseen. Has every Bill introduced by the Minister to be amended within a certain period of time?
If the Deputy wants to discuss the question of credit or discredit attached to this Bill. I am afraid we would have to say disagreeable things to one another, because this Bill, in my opinion, is introduced 12 years too late. It should have been introduced during the term of office of the previous administration. I pointed out on the first occasion that it was purely tentative and experimental and that it was only being given currency for a period of two years, but that, at the end of that time, we would have to reconsider it. Since then, the Banking Commission has been set up, and I do not think it is desirable to change the existing procedure until at least we have had an opportunity of considering the report of the Banking Commission which, I am sure, will deal with the activities of this Committee. That is one of the justifications for prolonging it, and the other justification was that the experience of it is short and we did not have time to enable this experiment to be worked out. After all, even if the members are capable of prescience in the way the Deputy suggests, none of us can visualise the future for all time, and I do not think there is any great discredit if we say now that it will take longer than two years before any conclusions can be drawn with regard to this experiment. However, in deference to what the Deputy says, I shall consider what he has said on the matter between now and Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to; Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23rd July, 1935.