I move that leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to enable the Minister for Industry and Commerce to grant or guarantee certain classes of loans the application of which is calculated to promote employment, and certain other classes of loans the application of which is calculated to promote a reduction in the retail prices of essential commodities, and to provide for the application of public moneys in or towards the fulfilling of such guarantees and the granting of such loans, and for certain other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
Trade Loans (Guarantee) Bill, 1938—First Stage.
Who introduces this Bill?
I am moving on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
For the purpose of ascertaining some information with regard to it, I propose formally to oppose the introduction of this Bill. So far as I am aware, the greater part of the money guaranteed under similar legislation in the past has been lost or else has been employed in enterprises which have redounded very little to the advantage of the State. The Long Title of this Bill indicates that the purpose for which the money is going to be raised and used under it may be extended. In the circumstances, I think it is very desirable that the public should know, inasmuch as the Bill may not be circulated for some time, what it is the Minister has in his mind. Does he propose to take the powers that will be given him under the Bill to engage in a variety of financial enterprises outside the categories provided for by analogous legislation in the past? A great many people would appear to have lost sight of the fact that this Government——
Is this quite in order?
I suggest it is quite in order.
If the First Reading of a Bill is opposed, the Minister may make a brief statement, and the Deputy opposing may make another brief statement. On this occasion I presume the Deputy intends to make a brief statement, and the Minister will follow.
All I want to provide against is this: This Government has got an unenviable reputation in economics, and the reputation of being a very Hatry in public finance. This Government has embarked on more rotten schemes with public money in the last few years than any other Government in the civilised world. A great proportion of the money put into these rotten schemes has been lost, has gone up the spout. Millions have been lost in that way. Hundreds of thousands are being sunk in alcohol factories.
All this bears no relation to the measure before the House:
What I am anxious to ascertain is what are the loans going to be raised for? Is it for alcohol factories?
Let the Deputy be more specific.
I suggest that an endeavour is being made, through the instrumentality of this Bill, to throw a quick one over on the public. The Government has ample powers under existing legislation to finance every kind of industrial development that was contemplated by Dáil Eireann. Here is an entirely new proposal. What is it for? I am asking is it proposed under this new Bill to authorise the Government to raise money to lend to such rotten concerns as the industrial alcohol factories? I do not think I am going beyond the strict limits of order. I have drawn the attention of the House on many occasions——
It is not correct that, in the case of formal opposition to a measure of this kind, the proper procedure is for the Minister to make a statement and a Deputy to reply?
There is no definite law on the matter, but the custom has been for the introducer of the Bill to make a brief statement and to be followed by some Deputy opposing.
I submit that it is not right for the Deputy to give the impression that so-and-so is going to be in the Bill. Would it not be more advisable if we first heard from the Minister what the Bill is going to contain?
But this is usual from the Deputy.
As I was observing, I want to know whether powers are being sought under this Bill for the purpose of putting more money into rotten concerns like the Industrial Alcohol Company and the other companies which have been set up by the Government to cover their gross ineptitude and——
The Deputy must not, in purporting to oppose the introduction of the measure, make a general attack on Government policy. These matters to which he is referring are quite extraneous.
All I want to know is, are these loans to be given to the rotten companies established by the Government? I will content myself now with asking the Minister to give us full particulars in relation to the purpose of this measure.
I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the Government or of our predecessors as regards their proficiency at financial swindling, as Deputy Dillon has tried to do. This particular legislation—Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts—was introduced many years ago by the last Government. It provided for the building up of the industries of the country. When after a few years that Government came to the conclusion that the industries could not be built up, this particular legislation was dropped. The Government lost a huge amount of money under that legislation. When this Government came into power it provided new legislation and that legislation has been in operation since then. Comparatively very little has been lost under the legislation that was then enacted. It will be found that a very large percentage of the loans made since were repaid or repayable, unlike the position under the previous Government.
"Repayable" is good.
This measure is to revive the powers which have lapsed. Under the Bill it is proposed to continue the same policy that has been pursued—that is to grant loans to new industries where it is thought that a new industry would be desirable for the purpose of giving employment and other reasons. There is no departure whatever from the policy pursued by the Government up to the present.
Is there any proposal to expand by this new legislation the powers which the Government had?
No. There is no such proposal.
I take it that is conditional on the Bill being circulated in time?
Yes, conditional on Deputies having had time to study the measure.