Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Dec 1970

Vol. 250 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Exchange Control (Continuance) Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of the Bill is to continue the Exchange Control Act, 1954, in operation for a further period of four years. That Act is due to expire on 31st December, 1970.

Exchange control has been in force to a varying degree since 1939, when sterling ceased to be freely convertible into other currencies. The imposition of restrictions on the convertibility of that currency made it necessary for us, in common with the other sterling area countries, to control our payments to and receipts from non-sterling countries. This control was necessary to help safeguard the foreign exchange reserves of the sterling area to which we have access for our requirements of foreign currencies. Foreign exchange has been readily available to Irish residents for all bona fide current payments for a number of years but control of capital transfers continues to be necessary.

Exchange control was first operated under emergency legislation. This was replaced in 1954 by the Exchange Control Act. The Act was expressed to expire on 31st December, 1958, as it was hoped that the need for control would have ceased by that time. As this hope was not realised, the operation of the Act was extended in 1958 and again in 1962 and 1966.

The 1954 Act gives power to control:—

payments to and payments on behalf of persons resident outside the sterling area;

dealings in gold and foreign exchange;

dealings in and the export of foreign currency securities and unregistered sterling securities;

dealings in sterling area securities on behalf of persons resident outside the area;

the export of currency notes and the manner of payment for goods exported outside the sterling area.

The Act also empowers the Minister for Finance to specify foreign currencies which must be sold to a bank so that they may come into the common pool. It further contains power to require the deposit of foreign currency securities and unregistered sterling securities with an authorised depository but it has not been found necessary to bring these latter provisions into operation.

The Act provides for the grant of exemptions by regulations from compliance with requirements of the Act and for the giving of general or limited permissions to carry out transactions. These provisions are being operated so that, as I have said already, all current payments may now be made by Irish residents and such supervision as is applied is designed to ensure that current transactions are not used as a cover for unauthorised capital transfers.

As regards capital payments, persons wishing to make direct or portfolio investments outside the sterling area are not generally permitted to transfer capital for this purpose at the official rate of exchange. Investment currency may be purchased for the purpose but this currency usually stands at a substantial premium over the official exchange rates. Sales of foreign currency securities are permitted but are subject to compliance with certain conditions.

The day-to-day administration of exchange control is in the hands of the Central Bank to which it was delegated in 1965.

The House may expect me to comment on exchange control in relation to the EEC. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent us from meeting the obligations of membership of the EEC. The Treaty of Rome requires member states to abolish progressively restrictions on capital movements between themselves to the extent necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the Common Market. The progress in this direction to date by the Community has not gone greatly beyond what is permitted under our current exchange control practice. The EEC have, however, liberalised certain transactions which are still subject to close control under our practice. The principal transactions which they have liberalised are direct investment in business undertakings and the purchase of publicly quoted securities.

Under our exchange control legislation as it is proposed to continue it in the Bill we will be able to give effect to EEC liberalisation measures as desired. This can be done by making suitable amending regulations and giving necessary permissions. As far as can be foreseen at present, the legislation should be adequate vis-à-vis the EEC. It may, however, emerge that changes will be necessary or desirable in the light of the terms settled for entry into the Community or of developments in the Community itself.

Whatever the future may hold, there is no immediate prospect that sterling will become freely convertible on capital account. It is clear that we need to retain the 1954 Exchange Control Act. I am asking the House to agree to its extension for a further period of four years and I recommend the Bill for approval on this basis.

There is no great objection to this Bill, save in one respect. There is control under the present exchange control arrangement over dealings in gold where ordinary citizens are concerned. In a single short paragraph the Parliamentary Secretary said:

The day-to-day administration of exchange control is in the hands of the Central Bank to which it was delegated in 1965.

I have no objection at all to that. The truth is there has been little or no exchange control as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned for quite a long time.

I want to speak now about the sale of gold by the Central Bank. The Central Bank has control and, having that control, it proceeded to sell about £25 million worth of our gold reserves, if my memory serves me correctly, over a period of about 18 months. These are not the sort of people to whom I would give this power, not for one moment. The ordinary citizen cannot buy or sell gold and, because of that, there is the inference to be drawn that gold is a very valuable commodity. The belief in gold by humanity did not start yesterday or the day before, whereas the belief that we are going into the EEC did start a year or two ago. I do not know why the greater part of our gold reserves, small though they are, are being sold for paper to other countries by the Central Bank. They might at least have waited until they were quite sure of the outcome of the present international struggle which goes on continuously and in which the International Monetary Fund was on the verge of being defeated by the French two years ago. We might criticise how certain things are put in the Bill but people are entitled to put things as they wish to put them; it is not a matter to which I object greatly. I would have much more faith in the Central Bank of Ireland as exchange controllers if they did not sell at a price, in terms of dollars, which was fixed many years ago. They would be quite within their rights to sell that gold on the free market; they would have got a substantially higher price for it. I am objecting to their parting with our small gold holdings just the same as the Bank of Ireland parted with the previous Irish gold reserves.

We are told that we got 7 per cent on the money and that the price of gold would need to double over 14 or 15 years to cover that kind of "loss". Other countries talk about their gold reserves; it is a matter of continuous comment. Therefore, in my opinion it is a most serious matter. If the balance of payments should go really wrong, it would be very important indeed for this country, in certain circumstances, to have even £25 million worth of gold. It might be worth £50 million or £100 million within the next decade.

I agree with Deputy O'Donovan that there is no objection to this Bill and that the power sought should be given to the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, as far as can be foreseen, legislation should be adequate vis-à-vis the EEC. I do not know what is in mind in that regard. Discussions are taking place and probably decisions are being aimed at in relation to the whole monetary policy inside Europe. Not being members of the EEC, we can take no part in these discussions and certainly we can play no part in whatever decisions may be arrived at. It is well to appreciate that the aim of the present discussions is the making of tentative decisions—apparently to be guide lines for the future. As a candidate country for membership, we should seek the fullest information as to the nature of these discussions and the nature of the proposals with regard to monetary policy as it will effect Europe and inevitably affect us should we become members of the EEC.

It is not satisfactory to have a position, as disclosed in this House last week by the Minister for External Affairs, that we have not sought even observer status at the Werner Commission discussions in progress at the moment arising out of the Werner report. I should like to feel that the Government are carefully watching developments. They are aimed at providing eventually in Europe liquidity of money and of capital. That may be a desirable aim but the manner in which it will be achieved is necessarily of concern to us. Pending such a situation, the need for continued exchange control exists. As the present Act expires at the end of this month, I do not think the four years now sought is unreasonable and certainly this Bill will have our agreement.

Knowing that the present Act will expire at the end of this month, why did the Government wait until this 11½th hour to introduce this Bill? Next, what is the reason for a period of four years? The Minister says it would be easy to bring in amendments if we got into the EEC. It would be much better for us not to get into the EEC but, if Britain goes in, we have no option. If we go in, what arrangements or what proposals are being made to try to streamline the exchange control? There is a big fight going on in the EEC over finance in general—the system of currency and, indeed, the system of exchange control in the various countries. Surely the Minister should have told us the difficulties so far as what is happening in the EEC at the moment is concerned vis-à-vis our plans? What measures does he propose to take to streamline, if that should be necessary?

If this Bill is not enacted before 1st January, 1971, it could cause quite an upheaval in this country. Anything could have happened to prevent its passage through this Parliament. It is rather peculiar that this Bill should come before us at the last minute. Is there some peculiar reason for this procedure? On the face of it, this is not good enough; it should not be presented at the last minute with the warning that it must become law within the next two-and-a-half weeks.

The Minister for Finance has said that gold does not earn interest, and that is all they are interested in. It seems a very illogical argument. Why do we not sell all the gold reserves in that case? What is the balance of gold reserves held by the Central Bank on our behalf?

I am also concerned about foreign banks located in Ireland and about whether controls are exercised over capital transfers through foreign banks.

Are we satisfied sufficient control exists? I also wonder is it an offence to sell gold coins. The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputies will, perhaps, be aware that gold coins are constantly being sold at auctions in Ireland. Is this an offence and, if so, what is being done about it? I am also wondering what gold we made available for gold medallions that were sold to commemorate the 1916 Rising and which were £50 or £55 at the time and which are now fetching over £130 and which are being sold regularly in Dublin. If selling gold coins is an offence the law is being ignored constantly because these coins are being bought and sold every day of the week. Also, how much of this gold used for medallions and so on is going abroad and is there control over it?

I am particularly interested in a number of points in connection with this matter as a member of the Executive of the Irish Council of the European Movement and, particularly the section which relates to the Treaty of Rome and the obligations we shall have when that Treaty arises. I am glad the Minister made the observation, which indeed the House would expect him to make, as to the effect of this legislation in the context of the European money market when that position arises.

The Minister makes the point that there is nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent us from meeting the obligations of EEC membership and he states that the treaty of Rome requires member States to abolish progressively restrictions on capital movements between themselves to the extent necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the Common Market. I was very glad to hear the Minister make that comment because that was one of the particular considerations I was asked to bring forward when this matter came before the House. A number of my constituents were concerned about it. The situation is not altogether clarified in the Minister's statement but at least we know that when we have to meet our obligations under the legislation provided by the Treaty of Rome, capital and its movement will be well taken care of.

I should also like to have some comment on the powers which the 1954 Act gives to control payments to and on behalf of persons resident outside the sterling area, dealings in gold and foreign exchange. I do not pretend to be an economist but when I heard Deputy O'Connell mentioning gold, particularly sovereigns and so on, I agreed with him in that there is a movement or some sort of attempt being made to allow those sovereigns or their equivalents out of the country and I think this is wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary might not have the full facts at his disposal now but there should be an answer to Deputy O'Connell's questions which would answer mine also.

In regard to dealings in, and the export of foreign currency securities and unregistered sterling securities on behalf of persons resident outside the State, this Act empowers the administration to specify the sort of currency that must be sold to a bank to come within the common pool. The Act contains power to require the deposit of foreign currency securities and unregistered sterling securities with an authorised repository. This is another question that might give rise to an answer which the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give when replying. I am not addressing him because I am sure the House understands it may be difficult for him to do so but, what is an authorised depository within the meaning of this legislation?

It is fair to point out that this legislation covers dealings by Irish nationals and makes clear provision that if they seek permission to indulge in or operate in the foreign currency market they must seek this permission. There should not be too much restriction in that regard. It is important also that there should be a reply to this question. The State takes control of the day-to-day administration of exchange control which is in the hands of the Central Bank. This was delegated to the Central Bank in 1965. I assume the present legislation leaves control with the Central Bank. That is as it should be. I should be particularly glad to have clarified, not necessarily now but in the very near future before we must enter into very serious obligations under the Treaty of Rome, the full effects these obligations will have on the Irish £1. This is a very serious consideration which should be given serious thought as should the answers to this question. I did not intend intervening on this Bill which is not in my line, so to speak, but a number of my constituents were worried in regard to it and, apart from any general interest which Deputies like myself might have in this very important legislation, that is why I decided to speak.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education.

Is this a precedent? I am not objecting to the Parliamentary Secretary but is it not usual for a Minister to reply?

I do not think there is a precedent up to this point but if there is I do not intend to set any further precedent after this point.

No, but precedents once established are precedents.

That is why I say I do not think there is a precedent up to this point.

But the Parliamentary Secretary is creating a precedent.

If I am, it is very reluctantly I do so.

Has the Chair a ruling to make?

A Money Resolution must be moved by a Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary is in order in dealing with the matter otherwise.

And the Bill?

The Bill may be taken by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Minister may move the Second Reading?

It may even be moved by any Member of the House.

Is it creating a precedent for a Bill to be moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, go through the House and be concluded by a Parliamentary Secretary? Deputy O'Kennedy knows I have the greatest respect for him but I am asking for information.

I understand the precedent was previously created at the time when the late Dr. Ward moved a Bill, and also before that.

I want to make one point clear, if I may. The Minister, as the House is aware, is at a very important consultation at this point in time.

I was only explaining the matter to the House.

It is just as well to put it on record, for the benefit of Deputy Tully, that the Minister is at a very important consultation.

May I make the comment that I am not offering any disparaging remarks about Deputy O'Kennedy. He is doing an excellent job but I feel this is a terribly important thing and one tends to treat it as being less than important if the Minister for one reason or another is not here to deal with it.

Again, by way of observation, and as the Deputy is aware, any Member in the House may move a Bill.

One can appreciate the Deputy's comments and I do not take them as any personal reflection on my position. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach explained, the House is probably aware that the Minister is engaged in important consultations. Despite the fact that it is not usual I am merely reviving what apparently was established precedent some time back. I hope I will be able to assist Deputies with regard to some of the matters they have raised. The House has welcomed the Bill and has facilitated its passage.

Before Deputy Andrews goes, surely the Taoiseach announced that this Bill was being deferred? Why is it so important now?

Deputy Tully asked why the Bill was introduced at this 11½th hour? The Bill was introduced last October but the Deputy is as well aware as anybody else that matters arose in recent months in the House here and indeed in recent weeks which held it up.

The Parliamentary Secretary means the gun running?

Since last October. The Deputy need not revive all of that.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean the conspiracy charges?

The Deputy has made enough capital out of that already. The Deputy did not see fit to withdraw some of the charges he put on record then.

What charges?

That of criminal conspiracy. The Deputy knows as well as I know what that means and it still has not been withdrawn, but that is another matter.

I did not prefer any charges of criminal conspiracy. The Taoiseach did.

The Deputy used that expression. The Taoiseach, as the Deputy well knows, preferred no charges. Some one of the experience of Deputy O'Higgins, who knows legal procedures very well, is fully aware that the Taoiseach not only did not but could not prefer charges. The Deputy used that expression in the House in the earlier debate and has not yet seen fit to withdraw it. Now, let us get back to the Bill.

The Tánaiste, on television, was the first man to refer to conspirators.

The Exchange Control Bill.

Was that before or after felon setting?

The Parliamentary Secretary on the Exchange Control Bill.

There is no crisis. Everything is fine.

A number of very delicate and difficult matters were raised regarding international exchange control. Deputy O'Donovan commented on the sale of gold reserves and Deputy O'Connell asked what our present gold reserves are. They are of the order of £6.7 million. It is fair to point out with regard to gold, as has been stated by the Minister on an earlier occasion in the House, that it does not give any income. In fact, the Central Bank instead hold dollars and other foreign currency which give a substantial income but there is more to it than the income. It is also desirable for the diversification of our assets with regard to the international market.

Gold is international.

Of course, and also other currencies are of certain standing on the international market. While the Minister has already explained it I trust that meets that particular point. Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Andrews rightly raised the question of the implications with regard to the EEC monetary policy and whether or not this takes into account the development of that monetary policy. Although I accept the necessity for Deputy O'Higgins's commendations and warnings I am sure he will appreciate that the monetary policy in the EEC is only in its early stages.

They say a common currency by 1980.

This may be. By that time, as the Deputy is well aware, with the assistance of his party, who apparently now recognise that we have to go in if Britain do, we will endeavour to ensure——

We always did.

I am pleased to hear that realistic assessment from the Deputy. We will, of course, as full members, also be consulted with regard to any changes in monetary policy. As far as we understand, in the meantime there is no change in exchange control foreseen. Deputy Dr. O'Connell was concerned about the question of buying and selling gold medallions and matters of that sort. It does not need to be said specifically in the House but we are all aware—if not from our own personal experience possibly from that of some of our friends who are interested in antiques and matters of that sort—that it is not, of course, an offence to sell or to deal internally in antique gold or medals or anything of that sort.

It is an offence in Britain to hold more than one gold coin. Does that apply here?

That may be so in Britain but it is obviously not an offence here.

Therefore, it is perfectly legal to deal in gold here?

There are some qualifications to what I have just said. It is perfectly legal to deal in antique gold here but if permission is required to export gold—the Central Bank deal with all such applications—any dealer who is concerned with the export of gold must first make application to the Central Bank. I can assure the Deputy that, as far as I have ascertained, the dealers have always complied fully with that requirement. I do not know whether the Deputy would suggest that we should or should not—it is not relevant on this Bill in any event—amend our regulations in regard to the internal sale of gold and gold coins. This is a matter which can be clarified later, although I understand there are no such internal restrictions.

Deputy Andrews expressed concern with regard to the EEC effect on our currency, which I have already dealt with. He also wanted to know who is, in fact, an authorised depository. We have no such person here but in England an authorised depository is apparently accepted as being a stockbroker or a bank.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share