When is it proposed to take the Second Stage?
Committee on Finance. - Government Loans (Conversion) Bill, 1951—First and Second Stages.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to make provision for the conversion of Government loans and for incidental matters—(Minister for Finance.)
Now, if the House agrees.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
What is the hurry about it?
The hurry is to get the Bill enacted before the expiration of the period within which the intention to convert must be signified.
What is that date?
7th July, 1951.
We do not want the Minister to travel too fast. He is like a young man in a hurry.
This is a Government of push and go. They pushed you and you went.
Did the Minister say push and go?
Bill read a Second Time?
Is the Minister not going to give any explanation?
Surely Deputies have already been well informed of the purpose of the Bill? However, the immediate purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the conversion of the four National Loans which are to be redeemed on the 15th July, 1951, but the Bill is phrased in general terms so that its provisions will apply to future conversion operations as well. The four loans which fall to be redeemed on 15th July are the 5 per cent. Second National Loan, 1950-1960, the 4½ per cent. Third National Loan, 1950-1970, the 4 per cent. Conversion Loan, 1950-1970, and the 4 per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1950-1960. It will be noted that in every case the first redemption date fell in 1950. Thereafter, as the House will understand, the loans can be redeemed at any time before the final redemption date on giving three months' calendar notice in Iris Oifigiúil. Notice of the Government's intention to redeem the four loans was given on 13th April last, and the matter was referred to in the Budget statement on 2nd May. I think that is sufficient justification for introducing the Bill to the House and for asking the House to give me all stages to-day.
I have not got a copy of the Bill before me, but there is one aspect of it to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. It appears to me that inasmuch as this Bill is designed to be one of general application and therefore calculated to become part of the conversion machinery, it is appropriate to raise the question as to whether it is not perfectly correct, and, I think, desirable, to provide that, where a conversion operation is in contemplation, the holder of stocks to be converted might not, with propriety, be deemed to desire to convert, unless he applies for redemption at par. I should imagine that the vast majority of holders of stock in the normal course of Government conversions which are ordinarily made at the current rates do, in fact, convert.
While no one would for a moment desire to abridge the right of any stockholder to claim cash—and that can be made abundantly clear—it does seem to involve a lot of unnecessary "goings on" to stipulate that everybody who desires to convert shall specifically request to have conversion applied to his particular holding. I know that there is some antediluvian view that the essential quality of the security is in some degree vitiated if everybody is not required to come up and do a pas seul in the Department of Finance if he wants to get conversion, but it appears to me that rational citizens who want conversion and no hugger-mugger about it would much prefer to have conversion effected on the clear understanding that, if they wanted their cash, a ½d. postcard would ensure that it would be paid to them on the due date. I suggest that the Minister might consider introducing that principle into our conversion legislation on a permanent basis. I believe it would save a lot of time and annoyance for harassed taxpayers.
I do not know whether the absence of this provision from the Bill, a provision which formed, I may say, part of the first piece of legislation to regulate the conversion of a Government loan which I introduced in 1935, can be described as antediluvian. If it is antediluvian, I regret it, and I apologise on behalf of my predecessor for the fact that the Bill is of that character. I raised the same question with the Department and was informed that the position is that the prospectus in the case of each loan provided for positive repayment and, therefore, in order that there should be no suggestion that the State did not fulfil its commitments to the original investors and holders of Government securities, it was decided that the holder must take positive steps and ask that his holding should be converted to the new issue. That, I am told, is the position, but it might not be any harm if we passed the Second Reading and dealt with this on Report.
Question put and agreed to.