On another occasion, I said it may be a matter of importance to remind this House that it is the elected House in a country that is still supposed to be run democratically. It is supposed to be a House that disposes of whatever business comes before it by methods of argument and reason, and I hope argument may prevail here. If argument does prevail here some illumination of this complicated measure that is supposed to be here for disposal by the House will, I hope, be given to the public. At the risk of being tiresome I want to say that again. I want to point out that its function, and not merely its function but almost the sole duty of this House, is to debate matters and to hear the reasons for and against measures advanced here so that if argument does prevail, there will outside this House be well-educated opinion on the measures. Knowing that Ministers will never advance proposals without feeling that they can justify themselves to the community by argument, one would have thought that a measure of this sort ought to have been debated with the greatest frankness, that all the cards would be tabled, that statistics would be revealed and that the position as to the relative strength or weakness of the companies in relation to one another or the relation of one group of companies to the other group would be put before the House and that the House would get an opportunity of coming to definite and sound conclusions.
From my knowledge of the insurance business derived from an examination of the administrative side, I did realise that the frankness which ought to attend an ordinary debate would not attend this one; that there were details that could not be promulgated to this House. Therefore, realising that there was no hope of getting the type of debate that one would associate with an important measure of this kind, I did make the suggestion of a Select Committee in order to have our minds illuminated. With the confidence that would flow out from that, those people who count themselves important people in the insurance world would realise that this measure was being handled properly and, even though some people might say there were certain matters not dealt with, they would realise that there was a watchful eye being kept on a situation which, if not watched, might degenerate into one of greater weakness than the present situation, and that watchfulness and that safeguarding would be so applied as to bring about a strong and a good position. Hence, I ask this House to refuse to give a Second Reading to this measure until a Select Committee has been appointed to inquire into and to report on the whole question of insurance. And that Select Committee could inquire in secret, if need be, on certain points and could have its deliberations in the open on certain points that could be discussed with the utmost frankness.
It is quite evident that there are certain misapprehensions about this Bill, that there is undoubtedly a great deal of anxiety about it, and that there is almost complete obscurity as to what it means. I will just take three Deputies whom I heard speaking here. Deputy Norton blesses this Bill—if it goes further than what he thinks it does. It stops short, he says, of what is desirable. Why will the Deputy approve a measure that stops short of what he thinks is desirable? If he were informed, he might be told that to go to the further point in the present circumstances would be wrong. But he has not that information; he has no such assurance. He told us that the Bill may create a company capable of doing the entire insurance business of the country. He apparently has his doubts. The Minister has not given him any reassurance. Could he get the reassurance anywhere else?
Deputy Kennedy would bless this Bill, would approve it completely, if he thought that the income of English companies was going to be diverted to the Irish group. He asked, does this Bill give this assurance? He, too, has his doubts. The Minister for Agriculture, thrown in to support the argument, tells us the Bill is the best that any good Government—and, of course, the present Government is the best that could be thought of—could produce. Why? I do not think I ridicule his reasoning by saying it amounted to this, that insurance is an intricate business, therefore Fianna Fáil must interfere with it. The Fianna Fáil bull does not like going into a china shop unless the production is delicate and rare. The experience of the Minister for Agriculture, as revealed to the people, is undoubtedly that—that the more intricate a business, the more inviting it is to him to interfere and the greater the mess he makes of it, I suppose, it is only the more proof to him that he was right in his first conclusion, and that was that the matter was intricate.
But that is the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture on this. It is an intricate business; therefore the Government must control it. The only question, he said, is what is the proper type of control. I waited, pencil in hand, to get the answer to that, and then he said he had the greatest confidence that the present proposals were the best that could be thought of. I suppose that the Minister, who had touch in a very intimate way with insurance business, knows very well that certain matters cannot be brought forward in this House. He apparently thinks it sufficient on a far-reaching proposal of this type simply to say this is the best that can be done. Is there anything that has been said that could give anybody confidence that it is a good Bill, even in the circumstances as revealed? Can anybody say that the proposals are definitely going to bring about a better situation? Can anybody advance to the further point and say the proposals are the best that can be submitted and that they will have the best possible effect?
Could information on that not be given to a Select Committee, and could a group of Deputies not have that assurance given them, not have the likely effects put before them? Could leave not be given to people, who do not understand what the result of this Bill is likely to be, to go before the Select Committee and make their case for and against the measure? At least have some sort of decently-informed public opinion, even a small group, on the matter. I have always been informed that a certain number of people, hearing of the good of this or that, the knowledge will percolate and spread. If you give those whose fortunes are going to be affected by this an opportunity to make their case, they will at least have the satisfaction that they got a fair hearing and they got a chance to present, in relation to the specific proposals, their detailed consideration and their detailed counter proposals.
Deputy Norton thought this Bill was good in two points. As regards industrial insurance proposals, what did the Minister tell him? "While the provisions of the Bill affecting this particular class of assurance are comprehensive and far-reaching, they do not involve any drastic changes in the practice of the companies transacting such business. In general, the system and method of industrial assurance business, as conducted in this country, are already largely in conformity with what are now proposed to be made matters of a statutory obligation." The Deputy had not read that. Deputy Norton was under the impression that industrial assurance was being treated in somewhat of a revolutionary fashion, but the Minister assured him that was not so.
Deputy Norton went on to say that he was sorry there had not been a further proposal with regard to nationalisation. I am sorry his colleague, Deputy Davin, was not in the House at that moment. They appear to be the last two people keen on nationalising anything, and I am sorry they could not have been present, even as silent auditors, at the Ard Fheis yesterday. I do not think it would be possible to get Deputy Davin silent on such a matter. He would have broken either silence or a blood-vessel if he heard the Minister, who used to speak the same sort of rubbish as Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin do still about nationalisation—if he had heard him give his considered views on that. It was only an echo of what he said at a meeting in Trinity College during the last six weeks. Surely the Minister realises, apart from the details of the measure, that there is certainly amazement over the proposals in this Bill. Does he not know, so far as Irish companies are concerned, that there is a certain state of bewildered and angry disappointment over the Bill, while on the part of the English companies there is, on the contrary, a sense of almost incredulous relief and rather timid joy as to what is proposed. No doubt the Minister remembers that on one occasion not so long ago, when he broke the bread and took the salt of a particular insurance company at a dinner they gave, he referred to these outside insurance companies as little alien outposts set down in this country; that they were people who would neither subscribe to the funds of this country nor invest in anything that it had to offer; that they would not employ Irishmen as their employees, and would not even print their circulars on Irish notepaper. That was rubbish, incidentally, and the Minister apparently thought better of it. But he did say that. When the Minister was in the middle of that insurance company, at which, at any rate, he thought fit to speak of alien outposts, had he in mind, or had he really contemplated, that there was to be brought into the Dáil a measure of this kind and that it was in emergence?
There are certain things that I suppose the veil cannot be lifted from. The Minister set down a warning that if a committee was set up to go into the activities of these companies, that investigation might entail very serious consequences indeed. If the Minister thinks that, with his sense of responsibility, I am not going into the tablets of my memory to relate things that might be debated here upon that subject. He has the responsibility at the moment. But there are things he revealed. What about the proposal to divide the business? We are told that there are certain desirable reforms that ought not to be delayed merely because of the inconvenience that might be caused to companies doing both classes of business. Can the Minister justify that statement on the ground of temporary inconvenience—if not here, can he justify it elsewhere? Has the Minister ever considered the proposal that, inasmuch as certain of the English companies have already made that division of their business, Irish companies, who have not yet reached this particular decided stage of development, might, with five or six years warning, be in a position to do so? When this was going on, had the Minister realised the desirable end in view when he said that assets should be kept separate, and that "it is intended to prohibit the practice of borrowing on the security of assets representing life assurance funds?" Why does he say now that it is necessary to make this clear-cut division? Would the justification for that be to say that it would only cause temporary inconvenience? It will only cause temporary inconvenience to very strongly solidified offices, which, in practice, have come up to that point. Is he quite certain that this particular imposition, with others—it is the accumulation of these impositions that matters—will not cause a great deal more than temporary inconvenience? He says again with regard to the furnishing of certain particulars:
"Assurance companies will be required to furnish to the Minister more detailed information concerning their transactions and affairs than is contained in the accounts and returns they make at present."
Here we have his conclusion on that matter without any argument or statement of the strength of the different companies, without any statistical information given to this House as to their ability to assume the financial burden that this will place upon them. That shows that he believes that this imposition will not impose any undue strain upon these offices. Suppose it does not impose a strain, will the publication of the particulars help or will they impede these particular companies? Which companies will it be likely to impede? Will the furnishing of these particulars, as a statutory return, help as an advertisement in favour of certain companies and against others? Is this a time, without notice, without giving them an opportunity of putting their houses better in order, to impose this particular burden whether by way of publicity or by way of financial strain upon these companies? Is this the time to impose that burden upon them?
The Minister takes power to wind up companies which appear to be insolvent. He does not think it could be seriously contended that the Government should tranquilly allow an insolvent company to continue in insurance business? I asked the Minister for Agriculture, if he thinks this is so good a Bill, would it not be a better Bill by being post-dated? We have at any rate revealed here— although we are not supposed to breathe the word "insolvency" in regard to any company—that if any company is insolvent or nearly insolvent, the Government is going to stand behind it. Once that decision was taken, what harm is there in allowing that company to engage in life insurance business, if the Government has taken such a decision as it has, and has decided that State resources must be behind such a company because of the disaster that would occur if any company went broke. If the State takes that decision they will have to determine what companies are insolvent and what companies are not and, in that connection, is the State intervention likely to be more advantageous to the companies now than later? Is the State intervention likely to be more of a sacrifice if the State knew of it now than at a later time? Why is this being chosen as the appropriate moment? What makes this the time for entering upon this business as long as the State is determined that insurance companies will be protected by Government intervention in a financial way? What is there to make undesirable the continuance of the present situation? Can the Minister tell this House or could he tell a Committee whether there has been any change in the carrying on of insurance business in this country in the last ten years? Has there been any progress made? Has there been any set-back recently? And, if not, have the companies themselves considered that the linking of their companies together in groups is going to leave them in as advantageous a position as that proposal would put them in some years hence?
I could not understand the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture in this matter of State aid. He objected apparently to somebody who said in this House that the getting of the loan of money did not put a company, if we can consider the possibility of insolvency, in any securer position, and that it would be an additional debt because whatever was given by the Government would appear in the balance sheet as new capital; there was an entirely new situation. Unless the capital is not to be repayable—and I shudder at that idea—surely there is a liability? If there is a liability then the argument that the Minister was endeavouring to counter seems to go. At any rate he told us that the Government is going to come to the aid of insurance and that they are doing this by joining one or two not very healthy companies together, and that thereby there will be better results. Might there not be better results later when these companies have developed towards a more healthy point and have become more robust in the way of financial health? The Minister seemed to me to deny that the economies that are likely to be effected will take place at the expense of the staffs. If not, how will they take place? The Minister has told us that, with regard to staff, he does not think the provisions of this Bill will result in any number of persons losing employment. Taken by itself, that is a strong statement, but caution creeps into the next phrase, where he says: "and it is my intention that persons who are dependent for their livelihoods on insurance employment and who are affected by the measure will be fairly dealt with." If the Minister thinks that nobody is going to lose employment, there was not the same necessity for caution. The caution creeps in, nevertheless, when he says that it is his intention that persons who are dependent for their livelihoods on insurance employment, and who are affected by the measure, will be fairly dealt with. I think that here we are getting perilously near the phrase used in the transport code about people occupied continuously and whole-time in the operation of certain matters. The Minister knows very well that there are very few people employed whole-time in the insurance business; or at least he knows that such people are not likely to be affected, and that the people who are likely to be affected are those people who are engaged in the insurance business as a part-time occupation. They will certainly lose, and a considerable number of them will lose.
If the Minister tells us that there are going to be economies, and at the same time says that the economies are not going to be economies at the expense of staff, where are they going to occur? Will I be told that there is sufficient business to keep a big number of companies alive here, and, if that is not so, do the proposals in this Bill seek seriously to limit the effective competition for insurance business merely in order to secure the amalgamation of one or two companies, and particularly to secure the amalgamation of one or two weak companies, and leave all the strong companies still agitating and fighting for business? It is not likely to make it a profitable enterprise for, say, the junction of two weak companies to enter into, with the stern competition of these strong companies still operating against them; and there will still be a waste of money because there is a considerable waste already in the fight for business. We are told, however, that there are going to be economies, or at least that there must be economies because there is a new situation. On the face of it, the joining of a few companies in that way does not seem to be good business in itself, and if there are not going to be economies effected by the deprivation of the livelihoods of these people, where will the economies come from?
If this measure were to tend towards a very big movement in the way of amalgamation I would object to it. I think that this country has seen enough of these amalgamations to be weary of them. There never yet has been an amalgamation scheme put up that was not full of the most rosy optimism as to the new situation that would develop as a result of it, and we have yet to see where such amalgamations have brought about anything like the results that, on paper, could be proved to be certain to result from them. It must be remembered also that in a country like this, where there are not so many fields for enterprise, if by Government action certain businesses are collapsed into one huge business, it means that the field for endeavour in this country, small as it is at present, is going to be more limited than ever before. It is a bad policy and it means that even the necessary healthy competition already existing is disappearing. Apart from that, in all these amalgamations, so far, there has been the inevitable effect that certain people will lose their employment. Joined up with that in the country at the moment, you have the demand that any man who loses his employment in anything must get some compensation from the State. If that compensation has got to be given and paid for by the amalgamated company, it is saddled at the start with a burden, and I do not know if the second situation is going to be any better than the first.
The Minister is taking power to fix rates. Let us hope the power will never be exercised, and let us particularly hope that the Minister will not be impelled by the thought that has struck his colleague: that because it is a dangerous matter to meddle with, therefore he ought to run in. There have been dozens of Bills in the last few years in which Ministers have taken power to go into all classes of business—flour milling, maize-meal milling, the slaughtering of cattle, the selling of cattle, and everything conceivable—and all done with the greatest of optimism, with the Ministry well knowing that they are not in any way affecting themselves and that they are playing with other people's money. There was an example quite recently with regard to the slaughtering of cattle. An inspector from the Department of Agriculture was sent to certain people who had made a particular matter their business, and the inspector told them to remember that in the end the Minister for Agriculture would take over this business from them and that they should bear in mind that money or the loss of money was no object. That mentality runs through quite an amount of the legislation which we have, and it makes its reappearance here.
The outside companies were dealt with very sketchily indeed by the Minister. He says:—
"Through their investment policy, they have power to exert a very potent influence upon the financial stability and credit of the country. It is, therefore, desirable that the State should assist in securing that there should be established and maintained native offices, equipped with the necessary resources to undertake a large share of this important business, and that the whole business of insurance should be regulated by legislation to ensure conditions favouring orderly development along sound lines."
May I compliment the Minister, at any rate, on having got away from the "little alien outpost" nonsense? This is mild by comparison. The Minister speaks of their potent influence, but there is not a whisper there of what was so loudly said before, to the effect that they have exercised that influence detrimentally to the people of this country. I do not know what was the evidence for making that statement, but it was made. We are now reduced, however, to their exertion of potent influence; or rather it is said that they have power to exert potent influence.
What does the Minister say of the native companies? It must be remembered that in all this, whatever veils may have to be drawn over certain things, there is no reason why we should not open our eyes to what makes insurance a complicated matter to deal with legislatively in this country, and that is that there is a small number of companies that, from their beginning, have remained in a state that can be described by the word "native"; that there are certain other companies which were started here and operated in that way and then got entangled with other companies, some of which freed themselves from these entanglements; and that there are other companies which are and always have been external companies. The whole insurance position is clouded and involved by that very situation. Now, what does the Minister propose to do? He says that the aim is: "to build up an Irish life assurance company or companies so strong and well-managed and so secured against the possibility of failure that no member of the public will have any hesitation in investing in its policies." That is the end of a paragraph which starts by saying that the great majority of the Irish people would prefer to place their life assurance business with Irish offices subject to the condition that they could get anything like as good results. The Minister says, with regard to the native companies, that there had been unequal terms with which they had to compete, the most obvious one being the matter of money and the great disparity between their limited funds and the vast resources available to their competitors. He points out that another factor is that, owing to their comparatively recent formation, the Saorstát offices are still contending with many of the special difficulties which attend all insurance organisations in the early stages of their development, and that, along with that, there is the high ratio of administrative costs consequent upon the relatively small volume of business transacted by each separate company. He points out that, furthermore, there is the fact that the Irish companies commenced operations in the period of high post-war costs—that the expenses were high. Now, that was all recognised many years ago.
On many occasions the Minister, when standing here in this bench, lectured me on the necessity of scrapping the external companies; that I should recognise these difficulties that he spoke of in that limited way the other day. He asked that there should be an arrangement made, if not immediately certainly within a very short time, to bring about a new situation, and that new situation was the prohibition of the external companies doing any business here, or else—this was his second line—the institution of a system of taxation which would make it less lucrative for these external insurance companies to do business here. The Minister certainly, as far as he could by his speeches, lent volume to the talk that there was in the country about the vast drain out of the country of insurance moneys. It was represented in this House, and through the country, as being an easy matter to prevent insurance companies, external to the State, doing business here, or else to hamper them by differential taxation. We were told that if that was not possible in the life business, it was certainly the easiest thing possible— that it was only timidity that prevented it being done—with regard to general insurance.
Note the change. On Friday last the Minister said:—
"I say at once that no Government could undertake the risks associated with such a course."
That is, the course of either prohibiting the external companies from operating in life business or differentiating against them by taxation. The Minister went on to say:—
"It might easily result in heavy losses to many of our people and produce a very serious financial crisis."
Now, that is a considerable reversal of public form on the part of the Minister. Has he any reason to offer people why he has abandoned his old views? Is it that he was ignorant when he spoke previously and knows more about it now and does not like to admit that? Has he any other reason to offer? Can he say why this would be attended by disaster? Can he say that there would be the likelihood of very heavy financial risks and serious loss, and if he can answer that on life—and there is an easier case to be made there—what about the second point? At first sight it would seem a comparatively less difficult matter to give Saorstát companies a monopoly of general insurance business arising in the Saorstát than in the case of life business. From the purely legislative point of view that is undoubtedly the case, but then caution crept in again and, remember, this has got to be placed against the old vociferations about the drain of money from the country and the necessity for stopping this awful hæmorrhage: how easy it would be to do that and how unpatriotic it was not to do it.
And now reason enters. It is a question whether the gains to be secured are proportionate to the risks involved and whether what is desired cannot be achieved without all manner of risks. What are the risks? Does the Minister not think it his duty to the representative body in the State to say what the risks are. Can he set against that the gains? Is it possible that the gains are less now, in his view, than what at one time they seemed likely to be, or is it just the balance of convenience? Surely that is a point on which some enlightenment should be given to the House. Is it not a point upon which, in the matter of general insurance business, leaving life out for the moment, we should be told if there is to be a progressive policy of excluding one type of company from the community and throwing the business to another type of insurance society. Surely that is a matter upon which the insurance societies themselves might be allowed to say their say to a select number of Deputies from the House who can either agree or disagree. But certainly such a committee could extract from them the best information they have at their disposal and, in that way, enable Deputies to come to a proper conclusion on the matter.
The Minister thinks that he will get a Saorstát company. He is going to get it with the operation of this peculiar reinsurance clause. I think it was the third shot that was always in the locker of the Minister when talking in a pompous way on insurance matters: that if you could not interfere in life business and if you were too timid, too cowardly, and too unpatriotic to do anything about the general insurance business that, surely, there was the great outstanding matter of reinsurance: that some Irish company should be allowed a grip of that, and that if an Irish company did not do it, then the Government should step in. And so the Government, if not exactly stepping in, it has tip-toed in, and there is this reinsurance provision.
Under this provision there is to be a reinsurance company set up, and to it all the Irish companies must, in the first instance, offer their business. Now, why they must I do not know. If this reinsurance is going to benefit both the community and the reinsuring company, surely it might be left a matter of choice to the individual companies, particularly when they are told that the vast majority of their policy holders are inclined to favour insurance in an Irish company rather than in any other company. But we have got to introduce compulsion, and all business must be offered for reinsurance to this company. The point has been stressed in favour of that by the Minister for Agriculture that this company may cede back some business. What benefit is that going to be? I would take it that the insurance company operating at the moment carries whatever risk it thinks it is fit to bear and reinsures the rest. Why will it be in any better way to offer reinsurance made to it if all insurance has been ceded, in the first instance, to the reinsurance company? That seemed to be stressed by the Minister for Agriculture as if it were some benefit.
The Minister himself has told us why it would not be possible to permit the whole of the insurance to be retained here because, on fire alone, he said, the risk covered must be in the neighbourhood of £400,000,000. Deputy Beckett's statement to-day was that the figure is not £400,000,000 on fire alone but at least £600,000,000. So, we could not carry that, and, therefore, the reinsurance company is to be allowed to carry, not that sum, surely, but some fraction of it. The rest will be reinsured abroad as heretofore. It was said from some side of the House to be a good thing that that should happen. What is going to be the new situation? The reinsurance company will have the offer of all the business. It will skim the cream and hold that, and it will pass on the rest.
Will the rest be passed on at the old rates? Will there be any change? If so, in what better position are we, after that has been accomplished, than we were before? Then the Ministry are going to intervene. The Minister for Finance is going to guarantee. A grand guarantee it is. Section 83 is the best example of "Heads I win, and tails you are up a gum-tree," ever revealed in any assembly. The Minister will guarantee, "but no right of action shall lie against the Government of Saorstát Eireann under such guarantee or otherwise in respect of any liability on foot of such contract," for ten years. The peculiar situation revealed is that in fire alone there is a risk of anything up to £400,000,000. It is going to benefit this country that the reinsurance corporation, backed by the Government will take some of it. It has got to be a very small portion of the total, and when it does back it, those who have insured with that particular insurance company are told that for ten years the Minister has guaranteed a certain amount but that they cannot enforce that guarantee by action. What good is the guarantee? I am sure that is the reason why this offer of insurance business for reinsurance is made satisfactory. If anybody had any belief in good effects from the State coming in with State backing for the company, nobody would consider it of any good if ten years had to elapse. For ten years the Minister will solemnly pretend that he is backing a particular form of business. He is going to try to help this insurance company until eventually it is able to carry a big proportion of the £400,000,000 per annum risk with regard to fire. But for ten years, if anything happened, and if the funds of the company were not sufficient to stand the burden, the Minister could stand aloof and say: "I gave you my guarantee, and for ten years my fingers are crossed." That is represented in this measure as if some benefit was given. These are matters that can be openly discussed here, and even discussed openly in the way I have tried to discuss them.
The House has not before it the details required for the proper consideration of the measure. We do not know the strength of the different companies, we do not know how far one group of companies can stand as against another and against heavy and probably increased competition in the future. We do not know what percentage of the risks is covered in this country by each of them. We do not know how far, say, the native companies are in a better position for the last ten years. We do not know how far they are encroaching on territory that used to be occupied by extern companies. We do not know what discussions they have had, one with the other. We do not know what is the position with regard to their employees. We do not know how far economies will be possible by the cutting off from people of certain additions to their livelihood. The whole debate has been conducted under a cloud, and possibly would have to be conducted under a cloud in this House, meeting as it is, as the first deliberative assembly in the country. At any rate, there is one way in which information could be given, and that is by having this matter referred to a committee. After this measure is passed—if it is passed with the present procedure— there is going to be a complete sense of dissatisfaction operating with quite a number of companies, because they have not got an opportunity of explaining through a select group of Deputies what their position is, and how they will be affected adversely by the proposals in this measure. It is possible, notwithstanding what the Government said about their own measure, that a series of better proposals might result from the deliberations of such a committee, even conducted in secrecy, than what is now before us. The Minister is in an advantageous position. He might warn the people of the evil results that would follow from publicity, or he could tell us that this was the best that could be done. We have not the information with which this whole matter should be argued.
If they have good reasons for interfering now rather than at some other time, he could have given them, if not here, to a body meeting upstairs. I cannot see why this proposal to have this matter referred to a committee should be referred to as a hostile movement against these proposals. If the Ministry get a chance to give a clear explanation of the whole difficulties of the insurance position, and to tell us what is the immediate urgency of this, there will be satisfaction, particularly if it can be proved that contrary to the views of internal companies, it is clearly meant for their benefit and will work out to their benefit. Will not the Minister then be in a better position and have much greater help in carrying the proposals to fruition than if he has to operate against a group of people who believe that the Minister will not explain because he cannot do so; and that he has not attempted to justify them because there is no justification for them? All that could be relieved, if not completely removed, by some proposal such as I have put down. I believe the Government would then get their measure just as quickly. There is information available in the Department of Industry and Commerce, as well as in reports since 1923. There were actually two other reports. If one takes it by the individuals who reported there are about five reports. Surely it is easy to get information and to have these reports brought up to date. It only means getting extra figures for three years, and possibly the views of a certain number of people. It will not take any great length of time. The matter is easy enough to explain with the figures before a committee. If a company liked to come along, seeing that there are not many native companies, which are the ones peculiarly affected, it would not take much time. As far as the other companies are concerned they could be dealt with by group delegation. I do not think that would impede the Bill. There is no reason and no special warrant for hastening this measure. The Minister did not seem anxious to get any limited time. I believe this Bill would be better considered, and that there would be greater satisfaction, and that it would be passed as speedily if the amendment were accepted. Before it goes too far I suggest that the Minister might signify, even before he carries the Second Reading, that all information will be available for Deputies as a whole or within limits, or without limits, before a select group. If the Second Reading passes I do not think the Minister can give that information which I think is essential in the whole business, the right of the companies to be represented and to make their own case. Surely that is a thing that any companies operating here, that got the encomiums that the Minister bestowed upon them, are entitled to get now before the proposals go too far.