Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jul 1959

Vol. 176 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

I do not know if it is on this section or Section 3 that I want to raise a particular point. I do not think it matters in either event. The Minister and I had some discussion on Second Reading and the Minister was courteous enough to write me a letter afterwards, a letter with which I totally disagree and, being as I am, I said so. The Minister wrote me a further letter but I still disagree totally and entirely with the legal view put forward by him. However, I do not think it matters very much because the Minister, as I understand, has the matter of administration laid down and got an admission that, whatever the view of the law is, what I want to ensure is to be carried out in practice.

In my view, as the law stands— the Minister disagrees with me but I still think my view is correct—there is nothing in any statute to prevent the Industrial Credit Company entering into commitments beyond the extension of capital and powers to borrow given in these two sections of the Bill. I think that is a bad thing in a statute, but, whether it is bad or not, theoretically, it does not matter in practice if it is laid down as a matter of administrative principle that the total commitments of the company, actual and contingent, are not to exceed the limit set out in this Bill.

The accounts of the Industrial Credit Company are available once a year and the Minister was good enough to send me a copy of the last accounts. I think they were up to 31st October of last year. I should now like the Minister—and I gave notice that I would ask him on this section—what was the amount on the last convenient date, shall we say, 30th June last, of the liabilities of the company, contingent under guarantee, and the amount of the commitments of the Company, set out in the same way as was set out in the balance sheet of 31st October last?

I want to raise the point which I raised on the Second Stage of this Bill, and which the Minister then undertook to examine. That was the question as to what is the amount of the guarantee which it is being alleged the Industrial Credit Company gave to the Dutch shipbuilding enterprise? Various figures have been mentioned when this matter was discussed among groups throughout the city. On the last day, I sought to get some information from the Minister as to what extent the public purse was being committed by that guarantee. My question is not just a vexatious inquiry. The purpose of it is to ascertain to what extent the company has pledged the nation's credit to help this enterprise.

I wish it every possible success, but I hold that the Dáil as the guardian of the people's money ought to know to what extent that money is being pledged for the development of this enterprise. If the Dáil and the Government can openly, both through Parliament and through the Press, announce the amount of guarantees they have given to, for example, the Avoca copper mines, and publicly declare the amount so guaranteed, I know of no reason why there should be any secrecy about informing the Dáil, and the public generally, about the amount of money guaranteed to the Cork shipbuilding enterprise. I see no reason why there should be any concealment of the amount of the guarantee.

If the project is a good one and it is being helped by the Industrial Credit Company, it is all to the credit of the Industrial Credit Company that they have so helped an enterprise which promises to be a prosperous and economically rewarding undertaking. For the life of me, I cannot see what advantage is gained by witholding the information and I hope, having looked into the matter, the Minister will now tell us what is the amount of the guarantee. If there is none, well and good. Let us say so. If there is, I think the Minister ought to tell the community to what extent their credit has been pledged in order to further this enterprise.

Would the Minister clarify the point raised by Deputy Sweetman? I did not see the letter which the Minister wrote to Deputy Sweetman and I was not quite satisfied when discussing this Bill last week on Second Reading that the amount of moneys under guarantee were taken into consideration in assessing the total limit of £15,000,000. Is that correct? Secondly, I would ask the Minister, with reference to the point mentioned by Deputy Norton, is there any limit to the sum which the Industrial Credit Company can advance to any one undertaking? I expressed the view on the Second Stage that very large advances, like that given to the Avoca mines, should be by way of State guarantee and not come under the aegis of the Industrial Credit Company.

The latest figure which I have from the Industrial Credit Company of commitments and contingent liabilities is for 30th April, and at that date it is £7.4 million.

What is?

The commitments and contingent liabilities.

Can the Minister not split them as they are split in the balance sheet? Contingent liabilities are first and commitments second.

The figure for commitments to provide financial assistance to industrial concerns amounts to £7.26 million and contingent liability in respect of guarantees £150,000.

I do not want to be discourteous to the Minister but I should like to be clear about this. On the 31st October last the amount due on guarantee was £366,000. Are we to understand that has been reduced in the interim?

Yes, it has been reduced to £150,000. I think some of that, if not all, was paid in in the mean time. What Deputy Sweetman wrote to me about was that he felt that the Company was not legally bound to keep within the limits provided by legislation. I do not know about that point but, at any rate, I got a very definite statement from them and it is their procedure to keep within the limits and they have no intention of departing from that procedure.

The point raised by Deputy Norton was, of course, the old point. First of all, I should perhaps say in the case of the copper mines, it was not money from the Industrial Credit Company. Any State guarantee must be published and must, in fact, be approved by the House. That is a different matter because the amount in that case must be stated, but we are dealing here with the Industrial Credit Company and as I pointed out on the Second Stage of the Bill I regard the Industrial Credit Company as an ordinary credit company.

I am sure that if we had private banks here or even joint stock banks that were prepared to do this business of, first of all, promoting and floating companies and lending money to companies and taking shares in companies, on a satisfactory basis so that no new concern worth while could claim that they were unable to get credit, this legislation would not have been brought in. It was brought in to set up a company to do that type of business which it was felt by the Dáil was not being done satisfactorily up to that time. It was regarded as a credit company in that sense. Any person looking for credit to a bank or to a credit company is as a rule— some of them may not mind—very anxious to have their business kept confidential and they would object, I am sure, to having information given publicly of the amounts subscribed by the Credit Company by way of shares, by way of loan or by way of guarantee. I feel we must, therefore, regard this company as a credit company and we must regard its transactions as confidential and not to be published.

I do not think I have any more to say. I am not accusing Deputy Norton of raising this in a vexatious way but it is a different form of approach and I think I have to hold, as far as I am concerned, that it is a credit company and therefore its transactions must be treated as confidential.

This is an astonishing situation into which we are now drifting. I always understood that the Industrial Credit Company was originally established as an underwriting company to underwrite capital issues where otherwise underwriting facilities would not be available and to underwrite such issues as it might seem quite clear would take a long time to market. I think it is so and that the Industrial Credit Company caried in its portfolio a large part of the capital of the Cement Company. I can recall an occasion upon which they were urged, in order to make capital available for underwriting work, to liquidate some of their existing holdings which the passage of time had made saleable and which the company had gone on carrying in their portfolio. That was done, and ownership was transferred to the public on the sale of the securities and the resultant capital used for further underwriting operations.

I may misunderstand the Minister and if I do I should like to be corrected. This Bill significantly increases the capital of the company and significantly raises the power of the company to raise or borrow money by means of debenture or otherwise, and extends the limit of guarantee by the Minister from £5,000,000 to £15,000,000. In the light of these developments, is it seriously suggested that Dáil Éireann, which provides all the money, should be told their credit is to be drawn upon almost indefinitely and they must not ask for whom, or by whom? That does not seem to me to make sense at all.

The figures, as far as we can get them, show, if you look at the Industrial Credit Company's accounts for the period ending 31st October, 1958, the commitments in respect of undertakings by the company to provide financial assistance to industrial concerns amounted at that date to £2.56 million. I understand from the Minister that the corresponding figure on the 30th April, 1959, is £7.26 million. Are we to infer from that, or does the Minister say he is not prepared to tell us, that the eventuality has transpired, which was at one time thought unlikely, that the Verolme interests, having announced their intention to invest substantially in Cork harbour shipbuilding installations if the Dutch Government would allow the export of capital, have now discovered that the Dutch Government will not allow the export of any capital and that in fact what is happening is that the Verolme interests are investing our capital in a shipyard at Cork? Is that the situation? I am getting some help from the Deputy Lord Mayor of Cork who says that is not the situation Would it not be much simpler if some authority were to speak with authority and tell us what the situation is?

Manifestly, the Minister must see that once this matter was raised on the Second Stage of the Bill and was further raised here, at some stage information must be made available to the public. Or does the Minister agree with that? Does he seriously say that we can proceed on the basis that nobody will know what the financing of the project in Cork is? I cannot imagine, and I certainly dissent emphatically from the proposition, that there is to be unlimited lending powers and powers of guarantee which in fact, if not in theory, must ultimately be underwritten by the Exchequer for which this House is ultimately responsible without this House having the right at any stage to get any information as to the transaction involved.

I would, therefore, ask the Minister categorically two questions: Does the figure £7.26 million which he gives us as the correct figure for the 30th April 1959, in respect of commitments in respect of undertakings by the Industrial Credit Company to provide financial assistance to industrial concerns include whatever capital may be required for the Cork dockyard project? Does the Minister now inform the House that hereafter information about large capital transactions of this character, financed from the resources of the Industrial Credit Company, are not to be made available to Dáil Éireann but are to be regarded as confidential and unascertainable by any authority or committee of this House?

The fact that the Minister has not denied that the Industrial Credit Company, and ultimately the State, are accepting liability in respect of the Cork shipbuilding project is clear evidence that, in fact, liability has been assumed by the Industrial Credit Company. For the life of me, I cannot understand why transactions with the people's money, with the money of the State, are being enshrouded in such secrecy. Nor can I understand why it is desirable to invest this whole transaction with such mystery because that can only do an immense amount of harm. It is an extraordinary situation that Deputies can ascertain how every penny of State money is expended by the Government in their far-flung activities right through the economic field and right through the whole mechanism of Governmental expenditure, but cannot ascertain what may happen, or what happened, in respect of moneys where the Industrial Credit Company give a guarantee and which they may be required to fulfil at a later stage. That guarantee may have to be fulfilled by the introduction of an Estimate or legislation in this House to provide for the payment of the sum so guaranteed in the event of the guaranteed enterprise not being a success.

I dissent entirely from the proposition that where a company is established by means of a guarantee from the Industrial Credit Company, that transaction, involving the people's money, should be kept a secret from the Dáil and that the people should be kept in ignorance of the extent to which their credit has been pledged in respect of that guarantee because, as I said, if the company which gets the guarantee defaults, this House will have the responsibility of levying taxation on the people to make good the guarantee.

The analogy of a private bank has nothing whatever to do with this business, in my opinion. Governmental expenditure, except in respect of £6,000 for the Secret Service, has always been the subject of question and answer in the Dáil and we were always able to get full information. Now a new institution is being vested with powers which, according to the Minister, entitle it to traffic in the people's money and which will give no account whatever to the Dáil, or the people, of the manner in which the people's money and credit are being pledged. I dissent from that proposition entirely. If a body like the St. Patrick's Copper Mines in Avoca can go to the Government for something in the vicinity of £1 million or £1½ million and that fact is publicly proclaimed, I see no reason why a foreign shipbuilding enterprise which comes here to engage in, no doubt, profitable activities and finds it necessary to approach the Irish people for money—because that is what they are doing although the approach is made to the Industrial Credit Company—should not be glad to say publicly that the Irish people have taken on this guarantee.

What is the need for secrecy? If our people are good and kind enough to guarantee the money why is the fact not acknowledged? Our people do not, I am sure, want it concealed, and why should the beneficiaries seek any concealment of the fact that they were treated with this impressive financial generosity by our people, acting through the Industrial Credit Company? It is clear from the Minister's attitude that he is not going to give the information and I, therefore, want to put one question to him. Will the Minister deny the statements which are in circulation in this city and elsewhere, that the Industrial Credit Company has guaranteed £5 million to the Dutch shipbuilding enterprise at Cork? Will the Minister deny that? If it is denied, well and good, but are we then to assume that no guarantee whatever has been given to the Dutch enterprise?

I am as anxious as previous speakers to know what guarantee was given by the Industrial Credit Company in respect of the Cork dockyard, but I disagree entirely with the suggestion that the business of the Industrial Credit Company should be open to discussion by way of question and answer in this House. It would be an extremely bad development if a concern borrowing money from the Industrial Credit Company should have its affairs discussed in this House.

I hold the view that the Industrial Credit Company should not in effect undertake business of this type and that where a major loan involving £1 million, £2 million or £3 million is to be undertaken, or given, the proper procedure is that it should be given by way of State guarantee and the Minister should come to the House for approval of the sum involved. I do not think that the Industrial Credit Company's affairs should be discussed, nor do I think the Minister should be obliged to give information as to the sum involved. In saying that I may say I am as curious as anybody else as to what is involved. It is disturbing that these rumours or suggestions are circulating in the country that the sum involved runs to the figure of £4 million or £5 million. The way to tackle it is not to open up the affairs of the Industrial Credit Company to discussion, but to change the procedure.

I should like to ask a question on that point. The former trade loans section of the Department of Industry and Commerce was closed down about two years ago and its functions transferred to the Industrial Credit Company. Was it possible before that section was closed down to get information regarding loans made under the Trade Loans Guarantee Acts?

Yes; by quarterly statements laid on the Table of the Dáil.

The point is that by transferring the functions of the trade loans section of the Department of Industry and Commerce—the transactions of which had to be made known to the House—to the Industrial Credit Company, we immediately closed up a source of information to the House. That is wrong procedure. It would have been far better to deal with the type of loans which the trade loans section formerly undertook, by way of State guarantee in the same way as the Avoca Copper Mines loan— a substantial loan—was handled.

Might I ask the Minister has he any objection to my quoting a paragraph from the correspondence we have had? If he regards it——

"No" means no objection, not no quotation?

I have no objection.

We saw "Yes" before "No" quite recently.

Do not bring that ghost up again.

In the discussion I had with the Minister in correspondence on the legal position the Minister in the last letter said to me:—

The amount of £2,932,052, while not perhaps available within the existing resources of the country on 31st October last, was well within the statutory limitations on the loan and share capital of the company.

That was so. The Minister has now told us that the comparative figure now is £7,410,000 and that, as far as I can see, was, in the Minister's own words, not within the statutory limitation. The sum of £7.41 million was not within the statutory limitations until this Bill was passed. If that is so, if I am correct in that——

No. The company had liberty to raise £5 million by way of capital and £5 million by way of loan so they had £10 million at their disposal.

They had power to raise £5 million by way of capital. They already had raised £2 million.

I am not sure about that point.

It is a question of subtraction. If I am wrong in saying that £7.41 million was in excess of the statutory limitations with what had gone already, as I understand the situation it is that one must take the amount of the guarantees and the amount of the commitments and add that amount of £7.41 million to what was already there and, by adding it to what was already there, I think you exceed the statutory limit. I find it a bit difficult to understand what is being done on the 30th April because you cannot take all the figures as available on the 31st October as being exactly transferable to the 30th April. On the 31st October last, £2 million of capital had been issued. A sum of £1,800,000 of bank loan had been obtained. That comes to £3,800,000. If you add £3,800,000 to £7,400,000 you exceed the £10,000,000 which the Minister suggests was available as to £5 million capital and £5 million loan.

On the face of it, it would seem that the commitments and guarantees were in excess of the statutory limitations on the 31st October last. It may be that sometimes things are done in anticipation of legislation which should not technically be done but they are done with the consent of the Minister concerned so as to enable certain plans to mature before they are finally passed by this House. That has objections, too, but that course would be far less objectionable than any deliberate excess of the statutory limitations.

Apart from that technical aspect of it, I want to put the matter back where it was when we were increasing the capital of the Industrial Credit Company on the last occasion. I think that was the occasion but certainly there was an occasion when we deliberately changed over from the trade loan basis to the Industrial Credit Company basis. We were most specifically assured here at that time that the reason it was being done was because the system of trade loan examination, of trade loan committees, and so on, was a cumbersome system and that it took too long.

We were told also at that time that it involved a good deal of overlapping and duplication. Deputy Norton can, from his experience, correct me if I am wrong. An application was examined first by a trade loan committee. Then the report of that trade loan committee was vetted by the Department of Industry and Commerce and then, having been vetted by the trade loan committee and the Department of Industry and Commerce, if it got through that net, it came to the Department of Finance and was vetted by the staff there.

The whole case made to us was that these three vettings constituted a cumbersome system, that it was undesirable and that it should be cut away. There was never any suggestion under any circumstances that the large type of case would be covered up—I use the words "covered up" without any unpleasant intent—by the new procedure. I shall go further. I have not had an opportunity of checking it but I think the Minister for Finance can quite easily check it up through his advisers. I think when the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or perhaps the Minister for Finance, came into this House and got express approval for the Avoca Copper Mines Guarantee it was on the stated basis by him that it was undesirable to utilise legislation as it was there for big cases of that kind.

That is my recollection, too.

I think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce——

I think so, too.

My recollection is not absolutely certain but it was the most specific reason in the incorporation of a specific order and statutory commission in respect of the Avoca Copper Mines. The rumours we hear in relation to the Verolme project far exceed the amount specified in the Avoca Copper Mines. If a member of the Government, and particularly the present Taoiseach, considers it desirable to come to the House and to state in respect of the Avoca Copper Mines that the House and the country should be told the amount involved in that case, and have an opportunity of passing judgment on it, why have the Government now changed their mind in relation to the other project?

Is it not the obvious solution that a limitation should be laid down in this House that no guarantee or no commitment of the people's money in any single case will be taken without express authority of the Dáil, perhaps by some type of Tabling Order? Nobody wants to fiddle about in respect of trifling cases but when we are dealing with cases, say, of more than £250,000 the House and the country have the right to know how its funds are being pledged in cases of that size. If the House and the country are not told in respect of cases of that size then I am afraid there will be an atmosphere that is unhealthy in the extreme.

I want the Minister specifically to give the House the reason why the procedure has now been changed from what his colleague, the present Taoiseach, said before was desirable.

This company was formed originally as an operating company but at the same time it had power to give loans and did in fact give loans from the beginning. Therefore, the character of this company has not been changed very much as a result of any amending legislation. Its annual accounts are published, as Deputies are aware. They are presented to the Dáil. They show the total investments, loans, commitments, liabilities, and so on. On the last occasion when we were speaking here I undertook to discuss with the company whether it would be possible to make these headings more informative than they are. That is as much as I could undertake to do now.

As regards the question of Parliamentary control, raised by Deputy Norton, Parliamentary control was exercised in passing the Bill which gave the Industrial Credit Company powers to do certain things. That was done under the authority of Parliament.

I do not think Parliament ever appreciated that loans of this magnitude would be made when it gave that authority. I for one did not appreciate it.

Was Parliament acquainted with the fact that it was likely that a £5 million guarantee would be given?

I am talking about the general principle underlying the industrial credit legislation and the powers that were given under it. Parliamentary control was exercised in giving this company discretion to make loans and to underwrite the shares of companies, and so on. There is no generosity exercised by the company in any way. The company exercises its judgment or discretion as to whether they would be justified in taking shares in a company, guaranteeing a loan to a company or making a loan to a company. It is all done on a business basis and the company has actually succeeded in paying its way in carrying out its duties.

As regards this company in Cork, I do not intend to deny or affirm that anything has been done for this company because I am long enough in politics to know that an astute politician like Deputy Norton would get all the information he wants by getting denials from me up to a certain level. What he wants the information for, I do not know. Deputy Norton says that withholding information from the public will do harm but surely the Deputy is not so naïve as to think that his conjectures and insinuations will not do harm. Surely raising a matter like this and suggesting this company is getting large amounts and putting nothing in itself, and so on, will not do very much good.

I made no mention about what they put in. I do not know what they put in.

It will not do much good for any cause. I tried to keep to the principle of the case and to leave out individual cases. I have tried to adhere to the principle that we must regard this as a credit company, that we must regard its transactions as confidential and that therefore we cannot get any information.

A question has been raised today which was not raised before, that perhaps there should have been a limit imposed so that the company would not have discretion to go above a certain amount. That is a new proposal. There might be some justification for that and it is a matter that could be considered. In any case, it will not, naturally, influence anything done in the past and if they have given a guarantee to any company, that will stand whatever legislation we may bring in of that type to put a limit on any loan or guarantee they might give in the future.

As regards trade loans, as I explained last year when bringing in the Industrial Credit Bill there were trade loans under consideration in the Department and the Department proposed to continue to deal with those loans until they saw them through. I am not sure if they have all been seen through but when everything is handed over to the Industrial Credit Company, I may have somebody asking me why such and such a trade loan was granted. However, there may be certain transactions still going on in the Department of Industry and Commerce when this business is handed over to the company. They do not intend to guarantee a loan but they make a loan, which is a simple matter.

A point was raised by Deputy Sweetman in regard to the total assets at the disposal of the company and the total of its loans and guarantees. It had £15 million actually at its disposal. They were entitled under the legislation to raise £5 million by way of share capital, £5 million by way of guarantee from the Minister for Finance and £5 million by way of debenture, which is £15 million altogether.

You did not give them a guarantee for £5 million.

I am not sure how much.

I do not think you have given them any guarantee.

We did, yes.

Anyway, I am taking it this way. I can say this definitely: they were told by me they would get any money they needed as far as I was concerned and they could interpret that to mean I would guarantee up to £5 million, if they needed it. They had that definite guarantee, and against that £15 million they had committed themselves to a total of £10.2 million, as pointed out by Deputy Sweetman. I think the company's board is very conscious of the limit to which they can go in regard to the total capital they are enabled to raise and the total guarantee they are entitled to call upon. They are very conscious of the fact that they must not exceed that.

Could the Minister make it clear what will be the position after this Bill is passed? The company will have £10 million of capital— am I correct?

£15 million direct borrowing power and £5 million guarantee, making £30 million. What has happened to the £5 million guarantee?

The amount will be £25 million because there was £5 million by way of debenture before. That is merged into the £15 million. The total after this Bill goes through will be £10 million by way of capital and £5 million by way of loan.

And the guaranteed £5 million is gone?

The unguaranteed £5 million.

The Minister said a moment ago when replying to my point that before this Bill goes through, there is £5 million capital, £5 million debenture and £5 million guarantee from the Minister. That is £15 million.

This Bill, on the face of it, appears to be increasing the capital from £5 million to £10 million and it appears, on the face of it, to be increasing the existing borrowing power of £5 million on debenture to £15 million and leaving the £5 million guarantee. That would make £30 million.

No. It is £10 million and £15 million. At the present time if they were to raise debentures, they would not be guaranteed. Their power to raise debentures is gone in this Bill.

I have not made myself clear. We are quite clear that the share capital is £5 million and it will be increased to £10 million. The Minister states there is at present power to raise £5 million by debentures and power for the company to raise a separate £5 million by guarantee from the Minister for Finance. Is that correct?

Yes. The £10,000,000 has become £15,000,000 now.

That £10,000,000 becomes £15,000,000? Why? Because Section (d) is an extension, is it not, for the debenture part of it and does not change? Perhaps, I should wait to discuss this technically under Section 3 but it is easier to clear the whole lot now. Where is the phraseology in regard to the additional power? The Minister says that the company had to raise £5,000,000 under guarantee by him. That does not seem to be here.

Is there a guarantee in connection with employment either in the building stage or in the permanent stage? In view of the expenditure of this money is the Company giving any guarantee in connection with the number temporarily or permanently employed?

I could not answer that question. I think the procedure is this. If a company is about to start business, it makes its case to the Industrial Credit Company. It states its prospects and the employment it proposes to give and so on. I do not think there would be a guarantee in regard to the employment.

I think we should get those guarantees here in this House, particularly when there is such a large sum of money involved. I think that the guarantees in connection with the employment of our people whom we are anxious to stop from emigrating should be given in this House and not through any private body. The people should know.

Hear, hear!

This matter is of considerable importance. It seems to me now that if this Bill is approved and the Minister's statements are not challenged, we shall be told later that we approved of this mechanism whereby the Industrial Credit Company can give private guarantees committing the people and the Government and that we consented to a situation of that kind. I, for one, am not going to consent to it. Where the people's money is involved and where there is a liability on the people ultimately to pay that guarantee into which the Industrial Credit Company enters on their behalf, then the public and the public representatives in the Dáil are entitled to know for what amount of money their credit has been pledged.

I cannot for the life of me understand the secrecy about the business at all. Previously, we had the Trade Loans Guarantee Act under which trade loans guarantees could be given. The trade loan guarantees and the amount of guarantee so given were publicised by a quarterly statement which was circulated to the Dáil and laid on the Table of the House. The existence of it was proclaimed in the White Paper. Deputies could look at these statements from time to time and see the amount of money so guaranteed. In addition to that, statements were published indicating the amount of these guarantees that had been repaid from time to time. Of course, on top of that, whenever the person or firm so guaranteed defaulted, the Minister had to come to this House with a Supplementary Estimate and say that that investment was bad news and that the guarantee would have to be fulfilled. The House was asked to pass a Supplementary Estimate in order to make good the amount lost in the guarantees so given.

Now, for reasons of expedition and efficiency the trade loan guarantees procedure has been eliminated. Instead, the Industrial Credit Company is dealing with the type of guarantee for which the Trade Loans Guarantee Act was originally established with this difference—that once you go to the Industrial Credit Company for a guarantee, you go there in secrecy. Nothing whatever is known about the conditions under which the guarantee is given, the amount of the guarantee or the period of the guarantee.

That is now offered to us in substitution of a method whereby the people, through their representatives in Parliament, could know precisely the amount of money which they were committed to make good in the event of default by the firm or undertaking so guaranteed. I cannot understand why it is a correct and proper procedure for the Avoca copper mines, for example—I just mention that because it occurs to my mind—to make an application for a guarantee from the State, have that application publicly announced and have the amount of the guarantee publicly declared. Yet that firm could carry on its activities in the ordinary way but when you come to this other undertaking—this Bill concerns the method by which the people's money is being committed and pledged—the shipbuilding undertaking—it might be any other kind of undertaking—complete secrecy is observed.

There is no public proclamation of the amount they seek. There is no indication as to the extent of the guarantee they are giving themselves as collateral security for what is being offered to them. There is no indication as to the duration of the guarantee or any other conditions in connection with safeguarding the public guarantee and the implied public commitment. Why is there one kind of treatment for one firm—it is assumed that the Avoca copper mines can transact their business satisfactorily and efficiently with all the publicity—while in the case of this company it is assumed that it would wreck the whole company to declare the amount of the guarantee?

I think the Minister has made a weak case for this new discriminatory procedure under which applications dealt with by the Industrial Credit Company will be surrounded by secrecy whilst, in the case I have mentioned, the floodlight of publicity was turned on the activities of the firm. In the case of the Avoca copper mines, I think the Minister at the time said that this Company had gone to an Insurance Company; that the Insurance Company was prepared to make an advance to them of the amount necessary to tide them over whatever difficulties they then foresaw but that the Insurance Company itself wanted the State to stand in and back their advance. To that extent, it was a kind of second guarantee but why should one firm be able to get this private secretive kind of treatment, whereas in the other cases the affairs of the companies concerned are subjected to the floodlight of publicity?

The Minister made no case for the scheme of secrecy over which he is now prepared to stand. It is quite possible for a situation to arise in which the people will never know of the extent of the guarantees given by the Industrial Credit Company but it is fantastic that in a small country like this we could create a piece of machinery which can pledge the people's credit in one company for approximately £5,000,000 and the representatives of the people in the Dáil will not be told whether there is any pledge, what is the amount of the pledge and the conditions under which the pledge has been given. That is not democratic control of the people's money and I, for one, am not prepared to endorse it.

I think it will be considered desirable to encourage this industry. The repair and building of ships has been a great tradition in Cork harbour. I played some part in encouraging the promoters of this company in its early stages. I have no personal interest whatever in it, apart from that association with those who are coming here to promote a very welcome enterprise for our harbour and the country. As it is a commercial proposition, depending on, I presume, the contracts they may get for the repair of ships and for the building of new ships, I do not see that it serves any purpose to demand any guarantee as to the actual labour content, beyond estimations, which are always desirable in these cases, in the course of the negotiations.

There is not much point in bringing in an enterprise if it is not to have a substantial labour content in its operations. It is undesirable that these points should be raised at this stage. I know of cases where enterprises were actually driven away by queries and statements of that kind. The principal point, at any rate, is that a start has been made, that a floating crane and a wharfside crane of a type not in Cork harbour before, have been erected; that some preliminary works have been undertaken and that a financial umbrella cover to enable that to go ahead has been, I think, mutually agreed upon. I do not know that——

Can the Deputy tell us more about the umbrella?

Can the Deputy give us more information on that point?

I do not know whether any final arrangements have been made financially, beyond that——

Except the umbrella.

——for the preliminary works.

Deputy MacCarthy and Deputy Corry can fight out amongst themselves the desirability of raising, at this stage, guarantees as to the content of employment. I am concerned much more with the principle and I am not very much concerned with the details of any agreement that may have been entered into between the Industrial Credit Company, the Government and the Verolme interests, but I think there is a very important principle at stake, that is, the ultimate financial control by Dáil Eireann of the resources of the Irish Exchequer. That is the point I am concerned about.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is now Taoiseach, felt it his duty in relation to the private company of the Avoca Copper Mines to come to this House for specific authority to provide a substantial loan to that company. It was something in the order of £4 million. Was that not the amount involved?

One and one quarter million pounds.

One and one quarter million pounds, and he felt that that sum was of a character that imposed on him a duty to come to Dáil Eireann and get specific authority for it. I want to go a step further. If this procedure is to be acknowledged, I think the whole financial control of Dáil Eireann can be short-circuited. Only a couple of days ago, we were dealing with the Air Navigation Bill in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Taoiseach, applied to the House for authority to raise the capital of Aerlinte to £10 million in contemplation of an outlay of approximately £6 million in respect of jet aircraft.

As far as I understand, the Minister for Finance contends that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had not wished to come and defend that proposition before Dáil Eireann, all he need have done was to get an individual to float a company to operate transatlantic air services and then send that individual to the Industrial Credit Company who would have guaranteed him—in the poetic words of Deputy MacCarthy—by an umbrella and would have said to him: "Go away and buy the jet aircraft and if you have not got the money, we will provide it."

Surely that is not a desirable development? The danger of all these procedures is that one drifts slowly step by step into a position that was never contemplated in the initial stages. The Minister for Finance now says that the Industrial Credit Company was first established as an underwriting company but it had borrowing powers. My distinct recollection—and I have a pretty clear recollection of it—was that that matter was very comprehensively reviewed about 1949 and 1950. Certainly, the view of the Department of Finance at that time was that the Industrial Credit Company was primarily an underwriting company. I have a distinct recollection of the Industrial Credit Company being pressed at that time to realise a large volume of securities which they had and which were not negotiable at first but which in the course of time became negotiable. They were disposed of on the Stock Exchange and the resources were put back into the Industrial Credit Company and used to back subsequent underwriting enterprises. My recollection was that at that time the lending powers of the Industrial Credit Company were practically moribund and were not used.

Subsequently a development arose in which the lending powers were revived and used on a very limited scale. As I understood it, the revival was designed to permit of the Industrial Credit Company assisting small private companies who were not in a position to float share issues and thus avail of the underwriting facilities of the Industrial Credit Company, and those powers began to be used.

Now we have reached a stage in which the Industrial Credit Company feels entitled, under its general authority, to avail of Deputy MacCarthy's agreeable euphemism and that is to raise an umbrella. But we have reached the stage at which Dáil Éireann can be told, not by the Minister for Finance but by Deputy MacCarthy, that there is an umbrella raised but if the Opposition asks the Minister for Finance what is the nature of the umbrella, the answer is: "That is a secret and you should not ask; it is inimical to the project that you should ask." Why is it inimical to a project in Cork that that query should be asked when it was not in the least inimical when it was asked in relation to the Avoca Copper Mines undertaking?

Because the project is in its initial stages and still in the course of negotiations.

Well, now, the mystery grows thicker and thicker. I am told by the Minister for Finance that the commitments in respect of undertakings by the Industrial Credit Company to provide financial assistance to industrial concerns is now £7.26 millions. Deputy MacCarthy tells me that no agreement has been made at all. Deputy Corry implies that an agreement has been made and he wants to know is there a condition in it imposing an obligation on the borrowing firm to provide a certain content of Irish employment in the enterprise.

Did the Deputy ever hear of anything being wrong with Deputy Corry's tongue that he could not talk for himself?

Surely when Deputy Corry talks, he expects somebody to listen to him? In any case, we have now three different stories which seem to me to make a complete farce of our whole procedure. I want to say emphatically that if the effect of this Bill is as I believe it to be, to provide a means for the Minister for Finance and the Government to avoid submitting to Dáil Éireann, for approval, undertakings which deeply involve the Exchequer, I strenuously object to the provisions of this Bill and wish to be recorded as doing so.

I ask the Minister the same question as Deputy Norton asked. If the procedure in respect of the Avoca Copper Mines was proper—and that was the procedure adopted by the Minister's Government—why does he seek to adopt an entirely different and secret procedure in regard to the Cork enterprise?

The third question I want to ask him is this: If he feels inhibited from giving the House any specific figure in regard to the guarantees made available to this project in Cork, is he free to tell the House what relation exists, what proportion exists, between the investment of this firm's own capital in this enterprise and the amount of the guarantee or advance made by the Irish Government to this enterprise?

Fourthly, is he in a position to say to us at this stage that, whatever advances the Irish Government may make to this enterprise, at no stage will a situation exist in which it will present itself to the public as a private enterprise, when in fact the bulk of the capital is money provided from public funds, through the medium of the Industrial Credit Company?

I am afraid that a lot of water has gone under the bridge already. I have in mind the establishment here of something called an Industrial Development Authority. As I said here before, I know of two industries in my constituency, one of which went to the trouble of finding out why the export of their goods or the market for their goods abroad, suddenly ceased, and then came back here, started to put their industry in proper order and applied to this Industrial Development Authority for the usual grant that is supposed to accompany these things, and for a loan. I admit the employment would not be very great, but in a country town, it meant a lot. If there were something between 35 and 40 to be guaranteed employment in the industry, that is a lot in a country town where there is a fairly big circle of unemployed. That guarantee was given, but the grant was refused and the loan was refused, and I was refused the right of a Deputy to bring that matter up here for discussion, because in the case of the Industrial Development Authority nobody here was responsible for it. I had the same experience some five or six months ago, in connection with another industry in the town of Fermoy.

The Deputy seems to be getting away from the section. This provides for an increase in the capital of the Company.

Yes, this is a departure from it. I see no use in taking the argument that something is being done now that was not done before. The Industrial Development Authority is not responsible to this House, democratically elected, for anything they do. They can do it or refuse to do it and nobody can get any information about it, as they are in what I may call a closed cell.

I am deeply concerned about this matter, as it is in my constituency. I know the amount of employment which has been given fairly constantly there since Irish Shipping took over. I am deeply concerned, as are all Deputies, with stemming the tide of emigration. As far as my responsibility goes, and backed by the confidence of my people for the past 32 years, I have no hesitation in regard to any guarantee that can be given, so long as I know that the result of that guarantee will be that so many hundred Irish people will be employed at home, who otherwise would have to go to a foreign country. That should be the underlying principle of any money expended here.

I am concerned with the employment which will be given. If any firm came along to apply for an amount like £5,000,000, surely they told somebody something as to the amount of permanent employment they would give for that money. I take it that would be the underlying principle which would concern any people and any Government, as to the manner in which the money was to be expended. It is all very well for Deputy MacCarthy, who represents a different constituency. I know a big firm which came in. I also know there were 50 people employed there who are not employed today—they were dismissed last week. I am deeply concerned about this as far as employment is concerned. That is why I am anxious to know what statement was made in regard to first, the employment to be given in the construction of the dock and, secondly, the permanent employment to be given afterwards.

I know it is a big thing and can mean a lot to the people if it succeeds, but I remember other things also. I saw the old dock built and I saw the employment given there in the building of it. I remember, when I came into this House as a young fellow, the guarantees that were asked in regard to employment in it. If any Deputy cares to go to the trouble of going back to the records for 1927, 1928 and 1929, he will find that something like 55 per cent. of the wages was to be subsidised by the Government. Those are things to be looked at. I saw that dockyard afterwards sold for scrap and a gentleman here in Dublin making at least £30,000 or £40,000 out of it.

That does not arise.

This is a dockyard being started again in the same spot and I am deeply concerned about it, from the point of view of employment of my people locally in their own country. I should like to hear something from the Minister about the number to be employed in this. Is there any estimate of the number? I remember an estimate given here by the present Taoiseach a few months ago, when making a statement here, I think on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce or something of that description. That was an estimate of something around 1,800. This will be a big thing for the future of the country. It will probably mean that 1,800 families will be kept at home. I would be prepared to go to any lengths to have that, but I should like to know, in the open, where we stand.

Deputy MacCarthy mentioned that this was just an ordinary commercial transaction. I suggest the whole kernel of the discussion is that it is not an ordinary commercial transaction. This is what has been termed an umbrella guarantee so that, in the event of the promoter of the dockyard venture, Mr. Verolme, not being able to take funds out of Holland, the Industrial Credit Company would supply the deficit. That is not the type of transaction I visualised that the Industrial Credit Company— at least as I understood its functions in the past—should undertake. If assistance to Avoca and the Dundalk Engineering Company—two projects which come to mind—was discussed and approved here, the same procedure should have been followed in connection with the Cork Dockyard project.

We are in the uncomfortable position of being asked to pass this Bill, substantially increasing the capital and the borrowing power of the Industrial Credit Company, not knowing in the future for what purpose these moneys will be expended. In effect, an additional guarantee or subvention or assistance in one form or another could be given to the very same project in Cork. It is quite possible that if the company were started with a capital of £1 million, the Industrial Credit Company, of its own volition, could give another £2 million. It is also possible that they might not be called on to give any money to it, if the necessary funds can be got out of Holland, but they have given this umbrella guarantee and I take it that the Minister stands over it.

I should like to ask the Minister has there been any contact between the Minister for Finance and the Industrial Credit Company in respect of the Cork Dockyard transaction. Has this umbrella guarantee been given completely on the authority of the directors of the Industrial Credit Company without any advice, encouragement or suggestions emanating either from the Minister's Department or the Department of Industry and Commerce?

In regard to my remark about the umbrella guarantee, I feel Deputy Russell has gone much further than I intended. It is just a preliminary arrangement so that the initial work may be started on the dockyard building, pending fuller negotiations and an ultimate agreement.

I am sorry if I took the Deputy up incorrectly, but I do not think that is the intention of the guarantee.

Perhaps the Minister could give us some information on that? Has there been any definite commitment in respect of the project or not?

I have not asked the Industrial Credit Company for any information whatever and neither have they referred anything to me for my advice or authority. I have no reason to believe that this is anything but an ordinary commercial transaction. What that commercial transaction may be and how much they intend to lend, I do not know, but we should not assume it is not an ordinary commercial transaction. They are an independent body. They do not seek advice and I do not think they take advice from a Minister either. I have not tried them but I do not believe they would. Probably my predecessor would say the same—that he does not know whether they take advice or not.

Does the Minister want me to answer that question now?

I shall answer it in a minute.

In regard to Deputy Sweetman's point about the amount of money available to the company now and what will be available if the Bill is passed, the position at the moment is that they can raise £5 million in shares, £5 million in loans guaranteed by the Minister for Finance and £5 million in debentures not guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. That is £15 million. When this Bill goes through, they will be in a position to raise £10 million in shares, £15 million both in debentures not guaranteed by the Minister for Finance, loans guaranteed by the Minister for Finance and —a new item—loans given to the company by the Minister for Finance. There is no power for the Minister to give loans at the moment, but he can do so, if this Bill is passed. That makes a total of £25 million.

The Avoca Mines have been mentioned. There was, of course, a difference in procedure. The reason the Avoca Mines loan came before the Dáil was that a State guarantee was given. Under the Act a State guarantee must be covered by a resolution of the Dáil. I do not know whether the Avoca Mines ever applied to the Industrial Credit Company or, if they applied, whether they were refused or not. At any rate, the procedure adopted by them was to get a State guarantee and that had to be brought before the Dáil.

Industrial development depends on many factors, but a very important one is capital. The commercial banks here have always held that they were not the proper medium through which capital should be subscribed by way of shares to companies or through which long term loans should be made. In fact, last year, they agreed to make a loan to the Industrial Credit Company to carry on that particular type of business in which they did not interest themselves. It only goes to show that there is a need for an institution of this kind to deal with the financing of public companies, whether by way of share capital or loan.

This company was set up many years ago. There is no change whatever in either principle or policy in this amending Bill. Whatever policy was pursued before is the policy being pursued now, and whatever powers they had to make loans without reference to the Minister are there still. They were there, as a matter of fact, when Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce from 1954 to 1957 and he never raised the slightest objection.

They never did anything of that kind when Deputy Norton was there.

I know the Deputy had many other things to engage him and he did not pay attention to things like this at all. He has become very solicitous now about the rights of the people since he has come to sit over on those benches. There is no use in Deputies trying to make an attack on the Government by saying that they are secretly providing for a loan to certain companies and in that way trying to score the petty political points Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon live on.

£5 million of the people's money is no penny.

Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon do not mind that in their attack on the Government they are throwing a veil of suspicion over this company.

The Minister is throwing the suspicion over them.

Deputy Norton would not be a bit sorry if this company said they would not go on.

That is a falsehood.

And a dirty falsehood at that.

It is a falsehood typical of the Minister, but the Minister will get away with no blackguarding here today. He can make up his mind on that.

Personalities should cease.

Hear, hear!

Does the Chair hear only the Opposition and not the Minister? Did the Chair hear the Minister's remark in which he accused me of deliberate sabotage?

The Deputy should not lose his temper in that way.

The person who lost his temper was the Minister.

We have been here for an hour and a half now and Deputy Norton has spent that hour and a half attacking the Government.

That is not true. Other people spoke, including Deputies on the Minister's own benches.

The Deputy attacked the Government for providing, as he alleged, secret finance for a company which is to start in Cork. He does not mind in the least making that attack and, of course, Deputy Dillon also——

And I, too. I stand over everything said by both Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Dillon does not mind in the least the fact that he should throw suspicion on the bona fides of this company.

And the Minister is trying to smother the tones of suspicion.

I am sure Deputy Dillon knows what he is talking about and I cannot understand why he should try now to give the impression that there is a change of principle as compared with what was the practice hitherto.

There is a change. There was a change when the trade loan arrangements were cancelled for this.

That was not done under this Bill.

This would never have been done——

Now Deputy Sweetman is trying to evade the issue, like his colleagues. There is nothing about trade loans in this Bill at all.

Of course not, because the Minister misled the House on the last Bill.

I am quite sure I did not mislead the House.

I am positive the Minister did.

I told the House what was being done in the last Bill; the Industrial Credit Company were taking over the trade loans.

Is that not a new principle and is this Bill not making provision for that new principle?

The Deputy cannot make out a new principle even if he tries. He will have to stick to the arguments already made. Would he be at least a little bit more careful in his attacks on the Government so that he will not do harm to other people?

"Don't hit me now with the child in my arms."

He is trying to mislead the people as to the facts. He is trying to get the people to accept that there is a shady company starting in Cork and the Government are giving them money to enable them to operate. That is the impression he is trying to create. That may do more harm to other people than it will do to the Government.

No one used the word "shady" except the Minister.

That is the impression that is being created.

Nobody made any suggestion that there was any criticism of the company involved, except the Minister. The Minister started by saying that I should know that the directors of the Industrial Credit Company, in relation to a matter of this kind, did not discuss it with him. I want to say quite categorically that that statement is untrue.

Not with me.

I want to say quite categorically that, if the Minister does not know that a representative of the Industrial Credit Company would discuss with him and his Department a problem involving £5,000,000, the Minister does not know what is happening in his Department. And he should know. Of course the Industrial Credit Company do not seek formal sanction in relation to these projects.

That is right.

They are not meant to under the law. But, when the Minister gets up here and says quite categorically, as he did a moment ago, that he did not know what the Industrial Credit Company were doing in that respect, and that no Minister for Finance would have known it, I want to say quite categorically that, from my knowledge of the manner in which the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Industrial Credit Company operated during the three years in which I was Minister for Finance, the Minister is not telling the House or the country the truth.

I am telling the House what my practice is. Evidently the Deputy had a different practice. He interfered with the Company and interfered with their decisions. If he did not like their decisions he evidently tried to get them to change them. I have never done that.

I want to make it quite clear that I regard it, and always will regard it, as the duty of the Industrial Credit Company, when they are dealing with a sum of £5,000,000, to have in such circumstances consultation with the Government, whether it be a Government of which I am a member or the Government of which the Minister is a member. It should always be done.

The Minister in that last outburst has been guilty of the most contemptible misrepresentation. It is hard to believe that it was accidental. It is hard to believe that it was made in the heat of the moment. The Minister is deliberately attempting to misrepresent the attitude of certain Deputies here. So far as I am concerned, I am looking at this matter not from the standpoint of the enterprise concerned. I wish it well. I wish every other such enterprise well. It is just an accident that this happens to be a shipbuilding firm. It could be any other kind of firm. It may in future be some other kind of firm.

The net point at issue here is that, while the Minister says certain Deputies are making ‘penny' points, if the information available in this city is correct the people's credit is being committed to the extent of £5,000,000. while the Minister may not notice any difference between one penny and £5,000,000, the fact of the matter is that the people may ultimately be called upon to make good the full extent of the guarantee. A number of enterprises in this country were previously guaranteed under legislation and the people had to make good the money by taxation. They may have to do the same here, or at some future date with some other enterprise.

The net point is that, if the people's credit is being pledged to the extent of £5,000,000, as is being alleged, in connection with this enterprise, then we ought to know from the Government —Parliament ought to know—to what extent and under what conditions the people's credit is being pledged. Nobody wants to harm this enterprise. The Minister wants now to make this an issue between Deputies and the enterprise. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The issue is between the Deputies and the Minister and the Minister's method of administration. We are entitled in this House, as representatives of the people, to know to what extent and under what conditions the people's credit is being pledged, in relation to this enterprise, just as we shall be entitled to know in respect of future enterprises which will, presumably, be treated in the same secretive way.

I see nothing wrong with the Industrial Credit Company taking pride in whatever guarantee they have prudently given. So far as the enterprise is concerned, it ought to be pleased that there was an Irish finance house willing to give such a guarantee, a guarantee which apparently it could not get from any bank in the Netherlands. But they can get it here. If we give it, we are entitled to say that these facilities are available to people, not merely to one but to all, and we ought to blazon that forth as an attraction to induce people to establish industries here. But Parliament should at all times be told and the consent of Parliament should at all times be secured. Parliament should at all times be told, even if it only means acquainting Parliament of what is being done. There should be no question of cloaking what the Industrial Credit Company is doing.

I am accustomed by long experience to Parliamentary tactics and I think I am not unduly harsh in describing the Minister's behaviour here as corner-boy tactics.

I do not think that expression should be used in connection with the Minister.

I do not think the Minister's references should have been used.

It is a disorderly reference to the Minister.

Do you really think so?

Very well—to the Dr. James Ryan tactics. But I am quite inured to them. They roll off me like water off a duck's back. They do not make the slightest effect on me. The Minister has advanced a truly astonishing proposition; that is, that where the Industrial Credit Company proposes an individual loan of £5,000,000 and has borrowed the entire amount from the Minister for Finance, he would regard it as entirely improper for the Industrial Credit Company to discuss with him the purpose for which they propose to lend that £5,000,000. Now, is that a reasonable proposition? Can any Deputy in his right mind endorse the proposition that we should set up under statute a company which has the right to go to the Minister for Finance, borrow £5,000,000 from him and, if asked by the Minister to what purpose they propose to apply this, reply: "We shall not tell you. You have no business to inquire." If that is the situation, the administration of the Department of Finance has gone mad and, of course, it is not the situation and we all know it is not the situation. The ridiculous part of it is that the Minister is prepared to get up and say that it is the situation and we are all precluded by the rules of order of this House from appropriately describing that statement that he has made to the House.

Certainly, the House should not be bluffed, bullied or insulted by the Minister for Finance into receding from the position that the ultimate control of public finance should remain with Dáil Éireann. I refuse to be blackmailed by allegations that I am concerned to hinder industrial development in this country into receding from the position that this House should retain in its hands the ultimate control of public finance. Therefore, I consider myself not only entitled, but in duty bound, to press on the Minister two queries: (1) If there has been a commitment to provide financial assistance to this industrial concern in Cork, has there been any corresponding commitment by the promoters to invest a corresponding sum in this enterprise? I think we are entitled to know that and we ought to be told. (2) We were informed by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce that, at a certain stage in the preliminary negotiations, the promoters of this enterprise told him that a situation might arise that their abundant supplies of capital would not be available owing to the Dutch Government refusing permission to export it from the Netherlands and that the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Ireland replied to the promoters that, in that event, he would guarantee that the capital would be made available even though the Dutch authorities refused to change their attitude.

I think we here are entitled to inquire how is it possible that the Dutch Government who, I understand, at present control one of the hard currencies of the world, find any difficulty in releasing £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 for an industrial enterprise of this kind when, in their daily transactions, hundreds of millions must be passing in the course of international trade. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Dutch Government could produce any valid justification for withholding investment of such a sum abroad, bearing in mind that in this country, so far as I know, if anyone wanted to invest £2,000,000, £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 abroad in the morning, he is perfectly free to do so, and it is fantastic to compare our financial resources with the resources of the Netherlands.

It may be that if we desired to invest so large a sum in certain continental countries or in the United States of America, permission would have to be got from the Department of Finance but, as between here and Great Britain such a transfer could be made without let or hindrance or between ourselves and, I believe, any member of the Sterling Payments Union. It is very hard to believe that the Dutch Government would have any valid difficulty in making it possible for a Dutch national to transfer a relatively insignificant capital sum of that kind, bearing in mind the total capital investments of the Netherlands population. I wonder if any representations were made by us to the Netherlands Government or if that was considered an appropriate procedure in this situation.

I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister these questions. I have not the slightest doubt that it is not only reasonable but urgently necessary to insist that, in our view, commitments of a substantial character—I accept the figure mentioned by Deputy Sweetman although I do not suppose that any of us would cavil if the Minister wished to vary the sum slightly upwards or downwards from £250,000; but sums in excess of that—should be reported to Dáil Éireann at some stage. Secondly, I think the Minister, if he experiences a difficulty in stating what specific sum is comprised in what Deputy MacCarthy describes as the umbrella, at least should be able to tell us what relation there is between the investment of the promoters of this enterprise and the amount made available to them by the Industrial Credit Company.

Lastly, I would suggest to the Minister that he would abandon the hope that by insolent abuse he will deter any responsible Deputy in this House from saying and continuing to say what he considers it to be his duty to say here.

I just want to say one word.

I should like to say a word on my own behalf. My name was not mentioned by the Minister but I think I can say that, while disagreeing with the proposition that the business of the Industrial Credit Company should be made public, I certainly was as critical as any of the other Deputies who spoke about the method by which this Cork dockyard project was to be financed. I personally would not wish that any criticisms which I made, and which were intended to be in a constructive, if critical, vein, might be construed as either an attack on the Government or in any way desiring to hinder what I hope will be, and what we all hope will be, a very successful project, not only for Cork, but for the country as a whole.

I do not accept the Minister's statement that this is a normal commercial transaction. Any transaction involving what has been termed an umbrella guarantee, that may run into several million pounds, was never, as I understand it, envisaged when the Industrial Credit Company was originally set up and when its status and powers were amended by subsequent legislation, including the Bill which is before us today. I think that is a most unusual transaction and I persist in and repeat my view that that transaction should have been handled by way of State guarantee or under some similar procedure whereby it could be discussed in the House and approval given in the way that we approve Money Bills in the House.

I am deeply disturbed by the attitude which the Minister has taken in this whole matter and I would like to put on record my own personal protest at the conclusions he has apparently drawn from the criticisms I have expressed.

I want to say only one thing. I do not care what the Minister says about me. In politics, one has to acquire a thick skin. What he did say implied that I criticised the chairman and other directors of the Industrial Credit Company. I want to say categorically that the Minister is telling an untruth when he states that the chairman was ever deterred, or interfered with, in the carrying out of his duties.

Deterred—oh, no.

That is what the Minister said a couple of minutes ago. I want to make it quite clear and beyond question that the chairman was never interfered with. I also want to make it quite clear that it is fantastic nonsense to suggest that when the discussions were going on, prior to the preparation of this Bill, the Industrial Credit Company would not disclose to the Department of Finance and to the Department of Industry and Commerce the projects, and the approximate amount of those projects, which made this Bill necessary. That is not suggesting in any way that there was any interference by the Minister or the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the affairs and functions of the company.

I do not so allege, but I do state categorically that it is the duty of the Minister and his advisers, and I am sure it was a duty that was fulfilled, that when the House was to be asked to finance a number of projects, as far as I can see, to the amount of £20 million, the Industrial Development Authority gave to the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce an outline of the projects for which that money was necessary. If they did not, both the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce should and ought to have asked for it before they came in here with such a proposal. I am positive that they did ask for it and that if the Minister looks at his files, he will see the information there.

I do not want to have any misunderstandings about the relationship between the Departments, the Ministers and the Industrial Credit Company. Either I have misunderstood what the Deputy said or he has misunderstood what I said. The Deputy, on a former occasion, complimented me on two of the directors of that Board. It is a rather good board, well able to do its own business. It is a good board, put there in order that it could transact its business in a purely commercial way.

What I did say was that I had never asked them what they were going to do about any certain proposition. I never asked them or tried to influence them in any way or give them any advice and I said that I did not think they would take advice, if I offered it. I know the Departments are in the same position. They have never given advice, nor were they ever asked for it. Whatever the Board have done in the past, they have done without coming to us. I do not deny that if I asked for information about what has been done, I would get it, but I have not asked for it. The Department may have that information but I have never asked for it, and even if I did have the information, I would feel it wrong to give it to the House. I do not think that I need go back on the reasons for that. I have often stated them in the House.

I appealed to Deputy Dillon, when I was speaking before, to consider whether, in making an attack on the Government, he was going to injure other people. He called that corner-boy tactics. A Deputy who cannot give any other answer in debate lowers himself by calling me a corner-boy merely because I asked him to remember that by attacking the Government he might injure people in the way in which he attacked the Government in this case.

That is not what you said. What you said was that it was being done for that purpose.

I do not think so.

Of course it was.

I want to repeat that as far as this Bill is concerned, there is no change in principle or policy. It is wrong to give the impression that this Bill was brought in by the Government to cloak certain transactions.

I do not think that anyone suggested that. I do not think that this Bill is intended for that purpose, though it may have that effect.

It may have that effect in the giving of more money to the company, but it could not be said otherwise that this Bill was in any way a change of policy or principle. The principle and the policy underlying this Industrial Credit Company have been the same from the beginning, and there was no change in the time of the Coalition Governments or in our time but the amount of money going to them has been increasing all the time. It is wrong to give the impression that there is any change of principle or policy in this Bill.

I have stated that I think it would be wrong to make this transaction public. If we were to give way in this case, it is quite obvious that any set of Deputies could come along in a few months' time and raise the question of another company and insist on the information being given. There would be no limit to the demand for information and it would grow until the whole thing became public. I think it would be a great drawback and deterrent to those having dealings with a credit company, if they thought that these transactions might be made public at any time.

Is that not the whole difference between us? Is that not why we are saying to you that when we get into transactions of these dimensions, the right procedure is the Avoca Mines procedure? We want to advance £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to a private company for a specific purpose and thus isolate such a transaction from the ordinary day-to-day dealings of the Industrial Credit Company.

My reply to that is that first of all I do not know it is £5,000,000.

Whatever it is.

In that case you have to name the company but, if you do say: "All right, I shall tell you all about it," what is to prevent Deputies, when we meet in October, saying that there is another company they would like to know all about, and make all these allegations that the companies are putting nothing in, and that the State is supplying all the capital?

Did they put nothing in themselves?

That is the allegation.

I did not make it. I never heard it.

I understand that was the allegation.

They are doing well if they did that.

I would argue the point that we would be compelled to divulge a second one, and then a third one, and the whole thing would then become a big problem.

Not if you dealt only with substantial transactions.

The Avoca development was under this system.

I want to get back to a calm atmosphere if I can. This Bill, if you like, makes effective a change in policy and the Bill itself is the change in policy. The policy was there, clearly and specifically laid down by the Minister's colleague, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Taoiseach. It was on that policy that the Trade Loan Guarantee procedure was dropped. The policy was clearly expressed by the present Taoiseach, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that in respect of a transaction of the size of the Avoca Mines transaction it was proper to come to this House and not to deal with it through the ordinary channels. That is the whole case I am making in respect of this Bill.

The trade loan procedure was dropped because it was too cumbersome, on the policy then laid down by the present Taoiseach, and it was fair enough to drop the cumbersome trade loan procedure on the policy laid down that big cases, such as the Avoca Mines case, were going to come to this House. It was on that basis that the trade loan procedure was dropped and that the Avoca Mines was written into the State Guarantees Bill. That was fair enough. One might have had argument from time to time as to what was a big case, to use the present Taoiseach's words. That was obviously a matter of argument, a matter of opinion. There could be two opinions but my whole objection to this Bill is that the policy has been changed and now, because of the manner in which this Bill is phrased—not because of the amounts but because of the manner—and the way the transaction is to be carried out, we are moving away from the policy that was there before. The policy that was there before was that the Industrial Credit Company dealt with the small cases and it was Trade Loan Guarantees which dealt with bigger ones, though they very often also dealt with small cases.

It was the other way around, I think.

Some big trade loan guarantees came up from time to time. The policy has also been taken by this House, over the years, that in relation to certain dealings with State moneys it was necessary, in the formation of all of these State-sponsored bodies, to get specific legislation for them rather than rely on the powers contained in the Companies Act. Now the situation is that we are not to have the process involved in the State Guarantees Act, that we are not to have the process involved in the Trade Loan Guarantees Act, and that we are to have everything done under those two Acts heretofore done by the Industrial Credit Company without anyone ever being told. Is that not a fact? I think that is a bad procedure.

I entirely agree, as I said dozens of times, that up to the point of negotiation it may be undesirable to give such information but, when a point of definition comes, when there are very substantial sums of public money involved, I think the Taoiseach was entirely right, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, in saying that he was coming to the House in the case of the Avoca Copper Mines because it was desirable that a transaction of that size should be disclosed to the House. Mind you, in the case of the Avoca Copper Mines it could have been done under the existing law without coming to the House, but he was right to come to the House. All that I ask, all that my colleagues ask, is that the same policy would be continued and, if it is not being continued, specific reasons should be given to satisfy us and the public as to why it is not being continued.

Could we get from the Minister this explanation? He will not tell us whether this company is getting a guarantee, or whether they are putting any money in themselves, and he will not deny that the company got a guarantee for £5,000,000. Will he answer this one question: who is responsible for seeking secrecy in connection with this matter? Is it the case that the Industrial Credit Company do not want to disclose to anybody, including Parliament, that they pledged £5,000,000 of the nation's credit, or is a firm coming in here— this firm today and there may be others from time to time—that can make a request to the Industrial Credit Company saying: "Please guarantee us for £1,000,000 or £5,000,000 but do not let your Parliament know and do not, under any circumstances, tell your people that you are guaranteeing us the money?"

Is that the principle for which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are standing, that the potential industrialist, no matter from what country in the world he comes, can say to the Industrial Credit Company: "Guarantee me for £1,000,000 or £5,000,000 and do not disclose that to your Parliament, to your people, or to the Minister for Finance for the time being, if he asks you anything about it"? Is that to be Ministerial policy for the future? If that is represented to be Parliamentary control over State funds and State moneys it is indistinguishable from the kind of things that are done where no Parliament functions.

I suggest there is a third reason to which Deputy Norton has not adverted, and which it is in the power of the Minister himself to remedy. I think the Minister has got himself into this mess. He has got himself into this tangle of apparent secrecy because he himself has adopted the wrong procedure. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister's view that you cannot ask the Industrial Credit Company, under its new functions of being the virtual universal distributor of industrial credit, to reveal all the details of each individual transaction it undertakes, but the Minister says now that if he gives Parliament the information and the facts about one isolated large transaction, that would become a precedent and, on that precedent, he will be pressed to tell us ultimately about all the transactions, down to the very smallest in which the Industrial Credit Company engages, and that will manifestly make the operations of the Industrial Credit Company impossible.

I believe if the Minister would adopt Deputy Sweetman's suggestion and say: "I have given a direction to the Industrial Credit Company that they are not to give guarantees or enter into transactions in excess of a certain sum without specific authority from me" a great deal of the difficulty that has arisen would be overcome, especially if he went on to say that: "In respect of enterprises requiring large sums, I propose to adopt the procedure adumbrated by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of the Avoca mines—that is, where the State is asked to guarantee or provide a sum in excess of a certain figure, I shall come to Dáil Éireann and through the appropriate procedure ask their specific authority for a guarantee of these dimensions." Then there will be no grumble. I believe that there may not have been any specific or urgent request from the promoter, nor any stipulation by the Board of the Industrial Credit Company to maintain secrecy. I think the Minister has created the difficulty for himself because he says: "If I do not maintain secrecy in this case which I have allowed to be handled by the Industrial Credit Company, where is the limit to be drawn? Every transaction will be investigated by Parliament."

I suggest if the third course is the correct one he has the remedy in his own hands. I do not believe anybody here is concerned to be unreasonable or to say to him: "Here we are at the end of our Parliamentary session. You cannot take steps to remedy that here and now." If the Minister said that he accepted the view that we ought to have some limit on confidence, that he proposed to separate this transaction from all others and, in the ordinary fashion, proposed to apply the same procedure to it as was applied to the Avoca mines business, the House, having differentiated this from all other transactions, and that he would give the House certain limited information and when he brought forward legislation on the Avoca mines lines in the autumn he would give any further information the House wanted, I believe everybody would be quite content. I do not think anybody here claims, or pretends to insist, that the House should investigate closely every individual transaction of the Industrial Credit Company no matter what its size or circumstances.

The positive proof of that is that the House never discussed any advances under the Trades Loans (Guarantee) Act.

No, and never wanted to. I think that probably the Minister has got himself into this tangle. If that is the situation he has a remedy which is perfectly simple and which will allay everybody's anxieties and restore the agreed situation to which, as far as I know, everybody in all parts of the House has been an assenting Party. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that without getting cross with anybody and, in so far as he can, insulting anybody, he should consider a reasonable via media which would remove all our difficulties and restore an atmosphere of calm instead of the atmosphere of considerable acrimony which he has sought to engender.

Let us not be confused about the Avoca mines. The Avoca mines got a loan from a certain finance company on condition that the State would guarantee it. Under the law, the Dáil had to be told about that; there was no deliberate change between one case and the other. Under the law, the case we are discussing now need not have been discussed.

I think the Minister is wrong because I believe they could have operated under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act and they could have been given the money there. The then Tánaiste made it clear that that was so at that time.

That may be so, but the agreement between the mine company and the insurance company concerned was for a State guarantee. That is how it came to me. Having considered it, I said I was prepared to give that, but I said it meant it would have to be scheduled under the State Guarantees Act and that meant a resolution in the Dáil.

But otherwise the Minister could have given it under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act instead of giving it under the State Guarantees Act, without coming to the Dáil.

That may be so, but I do not agree with Deputy Sweetman that larger loans were given under the State Guarantees Act than were given by the Industrial Credit Company— that is in connection with another thing. I think if Deputies looked back over the amount of money given by way of trade loans over the last four or five years they would see it was extremely small—I think about £200,000 over five years or something small anyway. So far as I know I understand fairly large loans were given over the years by the Industrial Credit Company. However, that is only giving my opinion as against the Deputy's and it has no great significance.

Just to get the record right—I did not think these were in loans. I think the bigger loans given by the Industrial Credit Company were given by way of underwriting capital.

No, I do not think so but that is only my impression and it is of no great importance. I want to make one other point against this. Suppose I were driven to this—which, I may say, I am not—I would put a clause into this Bill, or a Bill next Autumn, to the effect that details of any loan or guarantee over £1 million, say, would be eventually laid on the Table of the House. First, when it is laid on the Table does it not really mean that the 147 Members of the Dáil have to go through the same consideration as the six or seven sitting on the Board as to whether it should be given or not? I do not see the object of that, unless the Dáil will have the option, at least, of discussing the matter and saying it should or should not be given. We shall have some Deputies saying it should be given and some saying it should not and you will have the same sort of discussion as you would have by a board of directors as to whether the loan should be given or not. No doubt that would be very detrimental to the proposition concerned.

Secondly, if I were dealing with it, is it not obvious that a person might come along in six months' time and want £50,000 for a very desirable proposition? He wants to go to the Industrial Credit Company but his friend says to him: "Do not go; that will be made public in six months' time." He will say: "No, not when it is not more than £1 million." Then the friend will say: "The Minister had to give in on that limit of £1 million and to the next Parliament he will have to give in to a limit of £800,000 or £500,000. It will all be published; there is no doubt about that." I am sure that would be a consideration with applicants in the future—the fact that we had decided to make this thing public at all. The only cure, as far as I can see, is to exclude them altogether and say the company will not lend more than a certain figure and have it done another way. That, probably, would be a method of doing it but to me the rule suggested for them is a very bad one.

Does that not come hard to us from the present Minister for Finance? We fought him for three days in this House to persuade him that retrospective action should not be allowed in fiduciary matters. Surely we are the last people to whom the Minister should say a situation might arise in which people would have got ground for saying: "In a year, he will go back on the transaction."

I said that in regard to new applicants. Somebody will say to new applicants: "Beware; it will have to be published some time."

It never could happen that a transaction consummated with the Minister for Industry and Commerce or with anybody else on certain terms could have these terms unilaterally changed by resolution of this Parliament. That would be unthinkable. Certainly on this side of the House, we have indicated that principle most energetically.

I shall go a long way with the Minister in saying that the confidential character of the transactions with the Industrial Credit Company should be sacrosanct. That is why I think it is necessary to say to the Dáil: "You are giving this Board of Directors wide discretion but the understanding is that they will not go beyond a certain point, be it £250,000 or £300,000." If something arises where in respect of which a very large sum is required, then the Government will approach the Dáil and place the facts before us. I should be prepared to say that if people require so large a sum, they must not ask for that degree of confidence. If Imperial Chemical Industries want to raise £5 million or £10 million, they must publish a prospectus and, unless they give the fullest possible information, they are liable to prosecution.

I remember one old gentleman whose family were ship owners in England—he had the most respectable antecedents—who wanted to get a couple of millions from the people of England and, because he did not give every jot and tittle of information in his prospectus, he got six months in jail. Is that not so? If people want large sums of money from the public, either by way of subscription or through the conduit pipe of Parliament, it is not unreasonable to ask them to lay all the facts before the public and, on the merit of those facts, to seek public finance.

That is the essential difference which I have often laboured in this House, between a public company which can see its way to approaching the public for finance, either by way of subscription to shares or Government loan, and the position of a small family company which does not feel free to open up its confidential affairs to the public and to float stock. I have often argued with the Minister for Finance that provision should be made for such a company. I think, by analogy, the Industrial Credit Company should have discretion within a certain limit to meet the financial requirements of industrial enterprises in this country, but that where those requirements exceed a certain sum, then the particular company should be required to provide the same information to the public, as any public company, in Great Britain or Ireland or anywhere else which is making an offer of shares, is required to make.

I think the Minister for Finance is unconsciously adumbrating a very revolutionary and dangerous principle. He says that if we require the board of this company to submit for approval to Dáil Éireann any transaction in excess of £1 million, to take a round figure, what would happen is that there would be the same kind of discussion among the 147 Deputies here as that which took place between the seven members of the board. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you might as well wind up Dáil Éireann altogether.

Or the board, one or the other.

I shall not comment on the source of that suggestion. I was going to pursue the point that by analogy, the decisions of the Government are reviewed in Dáil Éireann, and the difference between our system of government and the authoritarian systems of government is that we have a Parliament and they have not. If we are to follow the Minister's thought to its logical conclusion, there is not any need for Parliament at all. Backed by the wisdom of a distinguished Civil Service, the Government could take all the decisions for us, and we will bow our heads in respectful assent and, in the knowledge of the wise advice the Government have, abdicate our claim to make our voices heard. That is not a course of conduct which I am prepared to recommend to the people of the country.

It is not presumption on our part to suggest that where transactions in public money reach a certain size, it is reasonable for this Dáil to claim the right to review the decision of a board of directors or of the Government. I am not asking the Minister to bring any decision of this board of directors before Dáil Éireann. I see his difficulty. He says: "If I bring one, I may ultimately be required to bring them all." Therefore I say to him: Do not bring them, but do not authorise this board to operate any transactions of these dimensions. Leave to this board transactions of moderate dimensions in respect of which we are prepared to make a global delegation of our rights, that is to say, we will give a global sum of money on the understanding that they do not deal with individual cases in excess of a certain limit and we leave them a discretion within that global sum. If you want to advance large sums to individual companies or to guarantee large sums to individual companies, come to Dáil Éireann under another procedure and impose upon a company which seeks that larger accommodation exactly the same obligation as they would be required by company law to discharge if they sought that accommodation by way of the issue of shares to the public.

Would there be any objection in practice to requiring the Industrial Credit Company, where transactions of a very substantial or unusual character are involved, to consult with the Minister? I should be adverse to putting down any maximum figure, say, £250,000, because there might be some worthwhile development for which an advance of £300,000 was required. It is very hard to have a line of demarcation in regard to sums of money. There might be a principle, if not written into the Bill, at least implied, that, where very substantial sums of money are involved or guarantees of an unusual character carrying certain contingencies, the board would be required to consult with the Minister to decide whether, in fact, it was competent or desirable that it should undertake that type of business, with the Minister the deciding factor in the case. If he decided it was the type of business they should underwrite, the scheme would be proceeded with and if not, he would proceed by State guarantee or otherwise to find the finance.

The Minister says if he gives way in this instance, he will have to bring all such cases, irrespective of the amount of guarantee, to the House and that in the House then, the 146 Deputies will subject the application to the same process as it was subjected to by the Industrial Credit Company. That is the case made by the Minister against giving way at all in this matter. May I invite his attention to what has happened under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts? Trade loan guarantees have been given from time to time and an announcement of the fact that they have been given is laid on the Table of the House. Nobody has ever come here with a motion to disapprove of them. In 30 years' membership of the Dáil. I do not remember anybody questioning the giving of a guarantee. It has been taken as automatic, the assumption being that the application has been pretty well processed and that the people have been informed through their public representatives and through the papers on the Table of the House, which are open to the Press, that the guarantee has been given in the name of the people. I do not mind saying that if in these circumstances there had been resort to that procedure, there would be much less complaint, and indeed there might be no complaint whatever about the guarantee which is stated to have been given in this case.

The mistake the Minister is making, in my view, the difficult position which he is seeking to defend, is that a body set up in the public's name, paid out of the public purse by taxes paid by the people, claims the right to say to the people and to the representatives of Parliament: "We shall not tell you to what extent we have committed you in the form of guarantees." Everybody here wants to promote industrial development whether it be shipbuilding, mining or any other field of activity.

I think the Minister does a great disservice to the unity of outlook on that issue by alleging that some people are interested in sabotaging industrial development, as he did today. We are all interested in promoting industrial development. If an announcement had been made publicly that this guarantee of £5 million had been given by the Industrial Credit Company, certainly, speaking for myself, I would have accepted the view that the Industrial Credit Company must have satisfied themselves before they committed themselves to a guarantee of that kind.

I doubt if the matter would have been discussed in the Dáil but I would not see any reason why, as in the case of the Avoca Mines, it should not be discussed in the Dáil. If the people come here either with a fragmentary sum of money or no money and say to the Irish taxpayer and the Irish Exchequer: "Give us £5 million to start a certain undertaking", it is not unreasonable to say that, if they are operating on the public cheque-book, Parliament ought to know the circumstances under which the guarantee is given and the conditions under which it is given. If they have private money, let them do what they like so long as they comply with legislative requirements. If they want to borrow money from private banks or private lending institutions let them do that and have all the secrecy they like. But if they say: "Write us a cheque for £5 million or guarantee us at the banks for £5 million", it is not unreasonable in a democratic State that that matter should be reported to Parliament. I do not mind small amounts but, where the amount is large, as apparently it is in this instance, then Parliament ought to be asked to approve.

There are two advantages. The first is that it ensures that the Industrial Credit Company will thoroughly process the application because it is liable to public examination and the second is that it compels the other people seeking the loan or the guarantee to act responsibly in a matter of this kind and permits the Minister for Industry and Commerce to compel them to act responsibly because he can tell them: "This must be debated by Parliament and it must be of the kind that Parliament is likely to approve."

We are entitled to some protection against the entrepreneur who is willing to industrialise this country to the last Irish pound and who has nothing to lose himself. I do not believe, in this instance, that the matter would even have been challenged in the House if there had been a public declaration that the guarantee was given. Everybody would want the application to be processed. However, when the Minister sets up the protocol that you cannot even tell that the guarantee has been given, or the amount, then I think the Minister has rightly drawn fire. I imagine that if Fianna Fáil Deputies were sitting on the Opposition benches it is the point of view they would put from these benches.

All we are asking in this matter is that the people and the people's representatives should be told publicly the extent to which their credit is being pledged and the conditions under which their credit is being pledged. If they are told that, I do not think they will quarrel about it unless credit has been pledged for an undertaking which is of very doubtful origin and of very doubtful direction.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

I want an amendment inserted. If the Minister will take the amendment verbally I shall hand it to him now. It reads:

Before line 16, in page 3, to insert the following new section:

No part of the funds authorised under this Act shall be advanced to a person in such a manner that the total advances so made to that person will exceed one million pounds.

Where is the amendment to be inserted?

It is a new Section.

I have no objection to the Deputy's moving the amendment but I do not accept it.

The Minister made clear that he would not accept the amendment. I want to have it on the records of the House because we feel there should be a different procedure in respect of large amounts. I am not suggesting that the wording of the draft amendment is perfect. I only wrote it there and then.

Where is it intended to go?

To add a new Section after Section 6—on the Report Stage.

Does the Deputy wish the amendment to be put?

Yes.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

Top
Share