Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Stock Transfer Bill, 1963—Second Stage.

I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main object of the Bill is to simplify the transfer procedure for fully paid up registered securities. Up to the present the law relating to the transfer of securities has been the same here as in Britain, but legislation recently enacted in that country under the title of the Stock Transfer Act, 1963— which came into operation on 28th October, 1963—introduces reforms which will simplify transfer procedure there. The British Act implements the principal recommendations of a committee representative of the London Stock Exchange, the Bank of England and the other leading institutions of the City of London concerned with stocks and shares.

The Dublin Stock Exchange has represented that similar legislation should be introduced here as soon as possible so as to enable uniformity of transfer procedure to be restored throughout Ireland and Britain. Meanwhile, Irish stockbrokers are obliged to operate two transfer procedures— the existing procedure for Irish securities and the new simplified procedure for British securities—which give rise to some confusion. Apart from this consideration the reform is desirable in itself. The extension of the simplified procedure to Irish securities would result in considerable saving of time for stockbrokers, banks and registrars of stocks and shares as well as for the investing public. Indeed, the slowness and complexity of the present transfer system is often cited as a factor which discourages prospective investors. As it is obviously desirable to restore uniformity of stock transfer procedure here and in Britain the present Bill follows the lines of the British Stock Transfer Act, 1963.

The main provisions governing the new stock transfer procedure are set out in section 2 of the Bill and are:

(i) future transfers of securities to which the Bill applies will be under hand and not by deed—a new form of transfer for general use is introduced;

(ii) the person to whom securities are transferred need not in future sign the instrument of transfer;

(iii) the signature of the transferor need not be witnessed;

and

(iv) a transferor whose holding has been sold on a stock exchange will not have to execute more than a single transfer form even where parts of the holding have been sold to different buyers. A new form to be executed by the broker is introduced for such cases.

The Bill applies to fully paid up transferable registered securities except securities of a company limited by guarantee or an unlimited company. The Bill does not apply to partly paid up shares as it would obviously be undesirable that securities with a liability attaching to them could be transferred to a person without his acknowledgment, by his signature on the form of transfer, of the obligation being undertaken.

Section 3 provides that the Bill has effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment or instrument, such as articles of association, relating to the transfer of securities. Section 4 provides against the evasion of stamp duty by means of the circulation of transfers in which the name of the transferee has not been inserted. Power is being taken in section 5 of the Bill to permit of the amendment of the new transfer forms by way of regulations. Under section 6 such regulations and also regulations made under section 1 determining the Stock Exchanges to be recognised for the purposes of the Bill, will be required to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I have outlined the provisions of the Bill and I am satisfied that it will provide an improvement in the procedure for transferring securities and that it will recommend itself to the House.

There is a further point which I would like to mention. Deputies, in nothing that the procedure set out in this Bill amends the share transfer procedure contained in the Companies Bill, 1963, may wonder why the latter Bill was not suitably amended. Because of the complexity of the Companies Bill and as the Stock Transfer Bill, which covers a wider range of securities than company shares, introduces a new principle it was considered desirable to have the new transfer system discussed separately. For that reason the Companies Bill was not amended. However, in view of the fact that there will be a time lag in bringing into operation the Companies Bill which is in the final stages of being enacted, I propose to introduce an amendment at the Committee Stage of the Stock Transfer Bill to ensure that the new transfer procedure will override the transfer procedure contained in the Companies Bill.

I agree with the Minister it is desirable as far as possible to have the system in operation here working side by side with the system operating in Britain. To that extent, the Minister and I are in complete agreement. Indeed, if the Minister did not change the system here to bring it into line, there would be a danger that he would lose substantially in duty on the transfer of stocks. The fact that there were different systems must mean to some extent that the transfer of stock, whether the vendor or the purchaser was resident in this country or not, would be stamped in the country where the new system was operating rather than here.

Having said that, it ends as far as Irish industrial securities are concerned, any advantage there is in this Bill over existing law. The main object of this form of transfer is to avoid the necessity for a signature of transfer by the purchaser and the time-wasting procedure that used to go along with that circumstance. The correspondence that had to take place between the stockbroker for the purchaser and his client wasted unnecessarily a great deal of time and money and there was often a quite unnecessary delay if the purchaser was not immediately available.

Clearly, with the new Bill, in the case of Irish industrial securities, that must go on because the purchaser must give the company a certificate under the Control of Manufactures Acts and it is necessary for the purchaser, accordingly, to sign the appropriate certificate and for the stockbroker to get from each purchaser in respect of each block of shares purchased a certificate in the form required by the Act. There will not therefore be any saving, or any productivity, if I might use the word here, in regard to Irish industrial securities. Indeed, many people feel that in the day of freer trade, the restriction that is there should pass.

I entirely agree it is right to provide in the Bill that where there is a call on a share, the signature of the purchaser is required. It would be quite wrong if a person could be registered in respect of a share with a call and be forced to pay a call without being appraised of it, the evidence of his having been so appraised being his signature.

I do not like the way the Minister has chosen to deal in this Bill with its impact on the Companies Bill. One thing very strongly in favour of the Companies Bill is that it is now a completely consolidated code. It was finally passed out of this House about three hours ago and within that time we are proposing, not to re-consolidate or re-amend it, but to override it. I cannot think of a worse example of legislation ever having been introduced here. I shall wait to comment on the exact form of the amendment when we see it on Committee Stage but, as a piece of bad workmanship in legislation, the method the Minister is adopting takes the biscuit.

The Companies Bill occupied the time of the Commission for, I think, eight or nine years. It came to this House and occupied the time of a Special Committee of the House for a long number of sessions. It then went through the House again and a Special Committee of the Seanad examined it and after all that, the Minister now comes here with this Bill and proceeds to tell his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the members of the Committee who worked hard on the Bill, that he is going to introduce something that will override the transfer procedure in the Companies Bill.

I am amazed at the Minister providing such a bad example. Even at this late hour, it would be possible to remedy the situation by a one-line new Companies Bill to be introduced on Thursday—and we shall give the Minister all stages on Thursday—so that the appropriate amendments to meet this Bill would be incorporated in the Companies Bill and we could have one document dealing with company law from now on, instead of two, as will be the case.

Over the years, it has been suggested that the Department and the Minister for Finance live in an ivory tower isolated from the rest of the community. It certainly seems there is not very much collaboration or even much contact between the Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is really a scandalous piece of cynicism to endeavour to deal with this Bill in this way. It is not as if this new procedure came unbeknown to the Minister. He was given pretty good advance warning of it on the other side of the sea. It came into force, as he said, on 28th October and if he were speaking to his colleague, and were not at daggers drawn with him, would it not have been possible since then to whisper a word in his ear and say: "You have done a good job on the Companies Bill, colleague, but will you do it in step with me and we shall clear both together?"

The Minister must remember also that the Stock Transfer Bill did not come without notice in this House. If he goes back on his records, he will see that I urged him in a question some six months ago to introduce this very Bill. He told me then—I have not the exact date but it was in the summer— that it was not necessary, that he had no representations, that nobody apparently needed it. It was common talk outside at the time that it would be necessary to run the two procedures side by side but apparently the ivory tower succeeds in blotting out anything except what the people there want to hear. The Minister has now got himself into such a mess in this regard that all he can do is give notice today that he is going to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to override the biggest consolidation Bill that was ever passed through this House.

The Minister should have another look at it and not disgrace himself and the office he holds, as well as the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I agree with the Deputy that if we did not make this change in the system, as provided for in this Bill, we should be likely to lose revenue in stamps on the transfer of Irish stocks because people might be inclined to deal on the London Stock Exchange instead of the Dublin Exchange as the transfer would be easier to manage. That was one of the main reasons why the Bill was brought in, in addition to conveniencing the stockbroker and so on.

The Deputy is also right in saying that as long as the Control of Manufactures Acts are there and the obligations under them remain, the transferee will have to sign his name. He will have to sign his name in any case before the stock is registered with whatever company to which it belongs.

He will not have to sign the transfer except under the Control of Manufactures Acts?

I am not sure about that point.

I feel sure of it.

If I transfer stock, let us say, to the Deputy in any Irish company, I thought perhaps that the Deputy would have to acknowledge that, before it could be registered in a register. The main point made by the Deputy is covered by this amendment which I propose to bring in. The difficulty there is that the Companies Bill may not come into operation for some time. If it came into operation immediately, this Bill might not be necessary, but I am not sure of that. The Deputy will notice that section 3, subsection (1) says:

Section 2 of this Act shall have effect in relation to the transfer of any securities to which that section applies notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment or instrument ...

If the Companies Bill had been law, I think this Bill might not have been necessary—I am not certain of that— because it would apply to that Act like any other Act. It says:

... to the contrary in any enactment ...

The fact that the Companies Act will not be in operation for some time after this Bill is passed made it necessary to amend one or the other. There was consultation about this and it appeared to me necessary to amend the Companies Act, to make reference to a Bill which was not law. This Bill was not introduced when the Companies Bill was going through the House and one or other had to be dealt with. The real difficulty is that the two Bills were going through at the same time. If one had gone before the other, there would have been no trouble.

I am glad you acknowledge that. If the Minister had taken my advice, some of the problem would not have arisen.

The Deputy's advice?

When I asked you to bring in this Bill.

There is a slight amendment I would mention to the Deputy at the moment so that he will have it in mind: after the word "enactment" in the third line of subsection (1) of section 3 to insert "including the Companies Act, 1963". That is the amendment and it would appear to be necessary in all the circumstances.

The forms in the Companies Act passed today are out of date now. You are killing them. This kills the form that is in Table A.

As I said in the debate, if the Companies Bill had been law at the time we brought this Bill in, this amendment might not be necessary.

It does not change the issue. The Companies Act is supposed to be law for the future, and now it is not to be.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11th December, 1963.
Top
Share