Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1933

Vol. 17 No. 6

Industrial Credit Bill, 1933 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Industrial Credit Bill, 1933 be read a Second Time."

When introducing this Bill in the Dáil I pointed out that it was to make provision for the formation and registration of a company having for its principal object the provision of industrial credit. I went on to point out that there were three ways in which such credit might be provided. The first, which relates to the ordinary short term credit or accommodation which a concern might require from day to day, is generally provided by joint stock banks or other agents in the form of an overdraft. The second is a guarantee which might be given by any corporation or organisation, in our case, generally the State, as a backing for certain specific forms of share issue, which acts as an inducement either to banks, financial houses or others who wish to be assured of the safety of their capital, and a certain return thereon, to invest in the undertaking. The third is that form of credit which a new undertaking generally requires during its initial and development stages. In other countries that form of credit is provided by underwriting syndicates, by issuing houses and financial houses. It is not a form of credit that banks here, and I think quite properly, find themselves in a position to extend with any freedom or any liberality. As a general rule the speculative element in the new enterprise is too great, and apart altogether from that, if credit is to fulfil any useful purpose, it must be long-term credit. Banks naturally are chary of committing themselves to the principle that their funds, and the funds of their depositors, which are generally placed with them for very short terms, can be mortgaged or involved over considerable periods. In the case of States or communities where the financial organisation has been fully developed, the hesitation of banks to involve themselves for long-term industrial undertakings of any magnitude, or in any risk, is not a great drawback, because there are other organisations specially devised for the purpose which will intervene to fill the gap.

In our case, however, there is not at the moment existing any organisation of that kind. Our general public are cautious and timorous in regard, particularly, to native enterprise. Those of them who speculate and those of them who invest seem to prefer to entrust their capital to concerns abroad. In many cases they entrust it to well-established concerns, but in many cases, also, as the experience of the last five years has taught us, they invest it in undertakings the outcome of which, to say the least, is uncertain. In pursuance of its general industrial policy, the Government finds it necessary to have initiated here large manufacturing ventures of a novel kind. It is the desire of the Government that the Irish public should participate as fully as possible in financing these enterprises. The Government would like to see the Irish banks take an adequate share in that task, but, at the same time, the Government has to have regard to two very natural factors. In the first place, people generally may not have the same faith in the future of these enterprises that the Government have, and they might not feel themselves competent to undertake whatever risk there might be in financing these undertakings. The Government has also to have regard to the fact that the existing joint stock banks would naturally be uneasy and alarmed if the Government were to approach them with a request in the making of which there might be implied an element of coercion—an element of coercion which the Government could not, in conscience, exercise, and which those responsible for the management of these concerns and the safety of the funds entrusted to them would naturally resent. Accordingly, another method had to be devised to finance these undertakings at the outset. If the public come into them and if the banks come into them, they will come in of their free will. The Government, while it is anxious to have regard to that principle, is, at the same time, concerned to ensure that these undertakings, which it considers necessary for the fulfilment of its general industrial policy, should not be allowed to fail for lack of funds, and that the initiation of them should not be deferred because it is difficult for them to secure funds. This Industrial Credit Bill, under which it is proposed to launch an undertaking to be known as the Industrial Credit Company, is the means which the Government has devised for allowing the public and existing financial houses to participate in the financing of these new enterprises to the extent which they deem, in their own judgment, wise. At the same time, if what they feel they can do falls short of what is required, the Government will be able to come in and make good that deficiency out of the State funds. That is the general purpose of the Bill. I do not know whether or not the House has studied the matter in detail, but I shall briefly go through the sections.

Section 1 is the definition section. Section 2 provides for the establishment of a company for the purposes I have indicated. Under Section 3 the Minister for Finance is empowered to lend £15,000 to the company for the purpose of defraying preliminary expenses. In that connection I should like to point out that this will not involve any ultimate loss to the Exchequer, as with a capital of £5,000,000 the stamp duty will amount to £12,500 and the fees payable in the companies' offices will amount to about £60. The remainder of the sum will be available to meet the cost of printing, legal and other formation expenses. Under Section 4 the authority of the Minister for each additional issue of share capital is required. It is necessary that the Minister should have some control over the issue of capital of the company, as he may ultimately have to foot the bill for any losses the company may suffer. It is, therefore, essential that he should be informed, whenever a new issue is contemplated, of the purposes to which the proceeds of that issue will be devoted, so that he may, in the first place, satisfy himself whether it is one in which, in view of the provisions of Section 5, he should sanction the investment of State funds, and, secondly, to ensure that the issue will be made under such conditions as will not involve the Exchequer in too heavy a burden. Section 5 authorises the Minister to take up the balance of the issued capital of the company which may remain unsubscribed by the public. It is very difficult to predict the exact liability which will fall on the Exchequer in this connection, but it is not contemplated by any means that the whole of the authorised capital of the company should be offered immediately for public subscription. It will be only issued from time to time in such amounts as may be required for the immediate business of the company. It will be noticed, in connection with this section, that no provision is made for direct application by the Minister for shares in the company. This function is confined to the underwriting of such issues as the company may, from time to time, make. On the Committee Stage, I may introduce an amendment to give the Minister power to apply for shares in the first instance. Section 6 is the usual charging section. It charges the moneys required by the Minister for the purchase of shares in the company on the Central Fund, and it gives him power, if he raises a loan for the provision of such money, to charge the principal and interest on such loans on the Central Fund. Section 7 requires the Minister to pay into the Exchequer all the moneys received by him in respect of shares of the company. Section 8 confers on the Minister the usual rights enjoyed by every shareholder in the company. In this connection, however, I should like to point out a provision which will not normally be found in the articles of association of a company. These articles, as the House is, no doubt, aware, generally provide that no person shall be appointed a proxy for another unless he is a member of the company, except in the case of a proxy appointed by a corporation. Under this section the Minister will be able to choose his proxies from outside the members of the company. That is necessary, because the Minister may sometimes desire to act through the officials of his Department. Section 9 empowers the Minister to hold the shares of a company as long as he thinks fit, and to dispose of them when he thinks fit. I should like to point out that the Minister will exercise this power with extreme caution. There will be no likelihood that the Minister will suddenly unload any shares held by him on the market, thereby causing their price to fall, or that he will do anything that would be in any way injurious to the public interest. At the same time, it is felt that if the Minister at any time desires to sell these shares, which he has come into in the same way as any member of the general public would come into them, he should have the same right to dispose of them as any private shareholder would. The proceeds of such a sale as the Minister might make under the section would, of course, go into the Exchequer. Section 10 renders invalid any alterations in the memorandum or articles of association of the company which might be made without the previous consent of the Minister for Finance so long as he holds shares in the company. It is also required that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be consulted before any alteration is made. These two provisions are considered necessary to secure that the Ministerial policy responsible for bringing the company into being will not be overruled by the company so long as the Minister for Finance is identified with the company. Section 11 is a very important section from the point of view of the Oireachtas and the general administration of the company. It provides that within 90 days after the end of each accounting year the company shall furnish to the Minister a balance sheet for that year, duly audited by an auditor of the company, and also a profit and loss account for the same period, similarly audited. Under sub-section (2) the balance sheet and profit and loss account are to be drawn up in manner prescribed by regulations to be made under the section, and they are to contain, in addition to any matter required by these regulations, a summary of the capital assets and liabilities of the company, together with such particulars as will disclose the nature of such assets and liabilities and the manner in which the value of the assets was arrived at. Sub-section (3) imposes on the company the duty of furnishing to the Minister such further information or explanations as he shall think proper to require in respect of any balance sheet or any profit and loss account furnished pursuant to the section. Sub-section (4) provides that a copy of every balance sheet and profit and loss account furnished to the Minister shall be laid by him before each House of the Oireachtas within one month after such balance sheet and profit and loss account have been furnished. Sub-section (5) is a penal sub-section. It provides that if the company makes any default in complying with any of the provisions of this section, it and each and every director, manager and other officer of the company who knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the said default shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for every day during which the default continues. Sub-section (6) gives the Minister general power to make regulations affecting any matter referred to in the section.

It will be seen that this section, together with Sections 4 and 10 of the Schedule, raises the question of the powers of the Minister in relation to the company. In connection with that, I would like to make it clear that it is not intended that the company will be subject to any petty restrictions or to close Ministerial control, but merely that the Minister should have supervisory powers over its general policy. The necessity for this follows naturally from the fact that the company is being created by the State and will be an institution of national importance. It is suggested that that position will continue to exist, even if the Minister should dispose of all his shares in the company in view of the manner in which the company came into existence.

Where is that provided for?

In Section 11. The balance sheet and other relevant information in regard to the company which the Minister may require shall be furnished by the company and its officers on demand. I said this section was very important from the point of view of the control of the Oireachtas over the policy of the company generally. It would enable the Oireachtas to scrutinise, if they felt that the circumstances warranted such scrutiny, the operations of this company very closely. If there was any general suspicion that the company was not being properly managed, or that it was not properly discharging the functions for which it was established and which have been conferred upon it, then it would be open to any member of the Oireachtas to question the Minister, either on the Minister's Vote or by way of Parliamentary question, as to the operations of the company, and in that way would ensure, if it were considered in the public interest that it should be so, that the company should be brought under the searchlight of public opinion, and that those responsible for the direction of the company may be called to public account for whatever they had done or had failed to do.

The Schedule sets out the principal provisions which have to be complied with by the memorandum and articles of association of the company. Paragraph (c) of Part II of the memorandum of association sets out:—

"that the principal objects of the company shall include the acquisition, underwriting, holding, selling and otherwise dealing of or with shares, stocks, debentures, and other securities issued by any company, registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, whose principal object is the carrying on in Saorstát Eireann of any trade or industry, and shall also include the lending or advancing money upon such security as the directors of the company may think proper to any person engaged in or proposing to engage in Saorstát Eireann in any trade or industry for the purposes of establishing, carrying on. or extending such trade or industry."

It may appear to members of the Seanad, from the terms of the particular paragraph that I have just read, that the activities of the company will cover a very wide field. I should like to emphasise that its main function will be that of an underwriting organisation. As I pointed out already in the opening part of my speech, the lack of such an institution in this country has been, in the opinion of the Government, a very great obstacle in the way of developing new industrial enterprises. Underwriting institutions have existed in Great Britain for a considerable period. They are an accepted part of the machinery of investment there. The advantages of an underwriting company for this country would be two-fold: one, big undertakings such as the Government are contemplating at the moment, are handicapped by lack of capital, for the want of the wealthy individuals or groups which exist, for instance, in Great Britain. They would receive from this institution the necessary assistance, and, concurrently with this, it is felt that the establishment of this company will attract the notice of small investors here, and that these, of whom there is a considerable number in the Free State, will be encouraged to interest themselves in Irish industry either through the medium of this undertaking, by participation in it as shareholders, or by approaching it, and asking it to supplement their own investments in those cases where they are insufficient for the purposes of the projects which they have in mind. One of the effects which would follow upon this latter development, that of interesting small investors here, would be that there would be a diminution in the volume of pure savings and an increase in the volume of invested savings which, from the point of view of the provision of employment and a development of our industries would be a very welcome development. Paragraph (d) of the Schedule provides "that the liability of the members of the company shall be limited." Paragraph (e) sets out:

"that the amount of the share capital of the company shall be five million pounds which shall be divided into shares of one pound each or such other denomination or such denominations as shall be specified in the said memorandum.

The articles of association are required to provide—

"(a) that, so long as the Minister holds not less than one half (in nominal value) of the issued shares of the company—

(i) in case the number of the directors of the company is seven, four of the said directors shall be nominated by the Minister from time to time as occasion requires,

(ii) in case the number of directors of the company is five, three of the said directors shall be nominated by the Minister from time to time as occasion requires,

(iii) the chairman of the directors shall be nominated from time to time by the Minister from amongst the directors nominated by him;

Paragraph (b) provides:

"that the company shall have power for the purposes of the company to raise money by means of debentures, subject however as follows:—

(i) the amount so raised shall not exceed at any time the paid up share capital of the company, and

(ii) the said power shall not, without the consent of the Minister, be exercisable at any time while the Minister holds more than one-half (in nominal value) of the issued shares of the company."

Paragraph (c) stipulates:

"that, so long as the Minister holds any shares of the company, no person shall be capable of being appointed auditor of the company unless the approval of the Minister to the nomination of such person to the office of auditor has been given."

Those, in brief, are the provisions of the Bill and the purpose which the Government have in mind in seeking to establish it. I think, if the provisions of the measure are carefully studied and if their full implications are thought out, it will be found that every safeguard, consistent with the proper fulfilment by the company of the expectations which we are reposing in it, has been introduced into the Bill to ensure that whatever investments the State may make in this concern will be subject always to the supervision, first of the Minister and, through him, of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas, at any time, can demand from him information or explanations which will enable it to satisfy itself that the concern is being properly managed and wisely directed.

I suppose what the Minister said in regard to this Bill and the industries that it is concerned with is all governed by the statement he made that these industries must not be allowed to fail because of the industrial policy of the Government. The Government are establishing this so-called underwriting organisation to issue shares and to get capital for various industries. The capital which this underwriting organisation is to have the power to handle is £5,000,000 of Saorstát money. Section 6 of the Bill makes it clear that if there are any losses on the commitments entered into, then these are to be charged on the Central Fund. That means that the State will have to find the money eventually. Therefore, what this Bill amounts to is this: an investment by this industrial company of £5,000,000 of Saorstát money. This is called an underwriting organisation. Now an underwriting organisation is concerned, primarily, with underwriting only. That is its business. Underwriters, in the discharge of their obligations, see to it that the company they are underwriting is a sound one; that it is a company whose shares when put on the market will be bought by the public. All that the underwriter does is to make arrangements to float those shares on the market for the company issuing them. The underwriters will suffer no loss whatever if the shares of the company they underwrite are taken up by the public. The profits they make will be the commissions they get on their underwriting. The underwriters sustain a loss if the public do not take up the shares of a company when offered on the market. The position of an underwriting company in such a case is that it has to supply the capital which it has undertaken to raise for the company with which it made a bargain. The underwriters become liable to pay up all the money which they undertook to provide by their underwriting. As I read this Bill, the Government is going to step in and take up that part of the business of an underwriting company. All the shares which the underwriting company cannot issue will be taken up by the Government, and with Saorstát money chargeable on the Central Fund.

I think that is a fair description of what the Bill proposes. The Minister says that the banks will not undertake this part of the business because it means long loans. The banks are perfectly willing to do underwriting business of an ordinary nature and they frequently do it. If any good company comes to the banks and says "We want to raise so much capital; here are the shares we intend to issue to the public. We want you to underwrite these shares," the bank will look into the concern and ascertain whether it is or is not likely to be prosperous and whether the shares are likely to be taken up. If they think that the shares are likely to be taken up, they will underwrite the shares and they will be issued to the public and that will be the end of the banking transaction. If a bank blunders and takes shares in a company which the public will not back up, the bank's money will then have to be paid over to the company and the bank will have a big debt owing to it by the company. That is the kind of underwriting which cautious and correct dealing banks will not undertake. They will not undertake underwriting the shares of a concern which they do not think will commend itself to the public, and for which the public will not supply the money. It is quite easy, therefore, to see what this Bill is designed to meet. It is to meet the difficulty that these companies which are going to be floated will not be able to offer shares to the public which the public would take up. It is not an ordinary underwriting affair. This is a company which is given the power here to draw up to £5,000,000 and to supply the money which will not be supplied, I take it, by the public because, if the public would supply this money, there would be no need whatever for this Bill. It is because the public will not supply the money that this Bill is required and this underwriting company is supplied with £5,000,000 of Saorstát money.

One can see, therefore, why the Minister says that neither the public nor the banks are likely to assist these enterprises. I think that is his excuse for getting the £5,000,000 for this company, but I do not think that if these facts are so, it is quite fair to call this company an underwriting organisation. I do not think it is an underwriting organisation at all. It is an organisation to which is given £5,000,000 by the Government to promote enterprises for the purpose of carrying out the industrial policy of the Government. The industrial policy of the Government is to promote enterprises and manufactures here, and it is evident that if these enterprises were of such a nature that the public would back them up, that process would be going on. I am sure that if these sound enterprises coming in here were to approach the banks and say: "We wish to issue so much stock or shares; there are our articles of association, our profits and everything else. Will you undertake to underwrite them and we will issue the shares to the public?" an Irish bank, I think, would do this job of underwriting perfectly well. Therefore, it is not fair to call this an underwriting organisation. It is a promoting organisation in respect of various companies connected with industries which the Government wishes to be established in the Free State. I am afraid we will find out, when we come to look at the chances of success of these industries and when the shares come to be offered to the public that they are all industries depending for their success in the Free State on tariffs. Each of these industries would probably have been established here long ago if it did not need tariffs to support it. Now the tariffs are on and, as the public are probably paying more for the goods which these industries manufacture, there is a margin of profit in the Free State for industries of this nature which did not exist before the tariffs were put on. That is, I take it, the policy of the Government.

Here we have an extraordinary state of affairs. We are to have Government money in these industries which depend for their success on tariffs imposed by the Government, and if they do not pay with the tariffs which are at present in existence, the Government has power to impose tariffs that will make them pay. That is rather a serious consideration for the public in this country. It is not only the £5,000,000 we are talking about but the steps that will be taken by the Government to ensure that profits are earned on that amount. What will make those profits? They will be made by the price which the public in the Free State will pay for the productions of these various manufactories. I think that is perfectly clear. Here we are entrusting the Government with £5,000,000 of our money to promote industries in respect of which the Government has complete power to ensure their success or otherwise and the public, either by losing their money if the industries do not pay or by making them pay by excess prices which they are going to pay for the articles because they are produced here, are going to pay the whole cost of this Bill. The benefit to be derived from that, from the Government point of view, undoubtedly is that a lot more people will be employed. We have not had a word as to the amount of employment that will be given to compensate for the investment of £5,000,000 or the probable increase in the price of a great many of the articles which are going to be produced.

These are really the considerations which occur to anyone who looks at this Bill. If we are going into business, does anyone think that even my friend the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Minister for Finance, both of whom are loaded down with duties to an extent to which, I think, the most able man could possibly be, could have any real control of this £5,000,000 or of the company? They are to appoint directors and the intention, apparently, is to ensure that the companies which are to be promoted will follow out the industrial policy of the Government. The industrial policy of the Government is one thing; the industrial policy of business people who wish to make money out of the business they are entering is a totally different thing, and I do not think they should ever be mixed. I do not think that any of us who have been in business for a long time have ever seen Government interference in any business being successful. Taking into consideration the fact that the directors are to act entirely under the control of two hard-worked Ministers who are to be the controllers and the fact that the industries are to be such as suit them and their political ideas, I must say that the ordinary individual will not expect such a company to make a great deal of money and, as I say, there then enters this other danger that these same Ministers and the Government in command, who have this sum of £5,000,000 given to them, have the power to make that company pay by their tariff system with the people paying the cost of the tariff. I am sorry to say that I cannot think that this is a safe Bill in respect of which the country should risk £5,000,000. Section 4 says:

No issue of the share capital of the Company (other than share capital issued to subscribers of the Memorandum of Association of the Company) shall be made at any time, unless the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has authorised such issue.

Then the Minister is given power to underwrite the issue. That is the section to which I referred before, Section 5:

The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he may think fit, agree with the Company that, if any shares in the Company about to be offered at any time for subscription are not within a specific time taken up by the public, he will take up and pay for such shares or some specified proportion thereof.

How is he going to pay for them? Section 6 sets out in its first sub-section:

All moneys from time to time required to meet payments required to be made by the Minister to the Company in respect of any shares taken up by him under this Act shall be charged on and paid out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.

That is to say, the Central Fund which we taxpayers of the Free State keep up. If these enterprises do not succeed, and if this £5,000,000 goes west, we would be "broke". Presumably there will be borrowings, there will be a loan issued to raise this £5,000,000. The liability of that loan is on the citizens of the Free State, and if the scheme is not a success, we will have £5,000,000 added to our public debt, and we will have to pay sinking fund and interest on it. The scheme cannot succeed unless it has a Government guarantee behind it and unless the revenues and resources of the Free State are at the back of the whole thing.

Of course, there is the usual clause that the Minister can borrow, and under sub-section (2) of Section 6 the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister any sum or sums to meet the sum charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof. That is to enable the revenue and other property of the Saorstát to be pledged to meet this. Then we have a sub-section which states that "any money raised by securities issued under this section shall be placed to credit of the account of the Exchequer and shall form part of the Central Fund and be available in any manner in which such fund is available." The dividends received by the Minister are to be paid into the Exchequer. Further, it is provided that the Minister may, so long as he holds any of the shares, exercise all or any of the rights and powers from time to time exercisable by the holder of such shares, and, if he so thinks proper, can exercise such rights or powers by his attorney. Nobody can say that the Minister would do these things in his individual capacity, so he appoints somebody to act for him. Under Section 8 the Minister may, so long as he holds any of the shares of the company, exercise all or any of the rights and powers from time to time exercisable by the holder of such shares. The Minister is going to provide rights for himself which do not ordinarily apply to the shareholders in an ordinary company, for, I think, most of us know that the shareholders in a company have precious little to say to what the directors do. The only right they have against the directors is to put them out. In this case you could not put the Minister out of possession at all. It, therefore, looks to me as if a Minister is going to acquire certain rights which are not applicable to the holding of shares in an ordinary company.

Again, there is the question of the sale of the shares. We know something in the Free State about the selling of shares in large quantities. When this industrial company gets to work the Minister practically supplies the whole of the money, and then he wants to sell these shares, say 500,000 or 1,000,000 shares, in the company. It is a very difficult thing to get these shares sold in the country. If it were known that 500,000 shares were to be available for sale, the price of the shares, we all know, would fall tremendously. It would be a very difficult matter in present conditions for the Government to float the different shares which they had acquired, under this Bill, in the share market of the Free State. That will mean that State money will be tied up, in that way, for a long time. The articles of association are governed by various Acts, but a great deal will depend on our attitude when we see the articles of association of this loan company, this underwriting organisation. We will then see what they are allowed to do. They are not produced to be criticised, and to think that you can say what an organisation like that is going to do, when you do not know the articles of association, is futile. The Oireachtas is asked to pass a Bill to give five millions to a company, the articles of association of which they have not seen, a company which is only generally described in the Bill before it. The company, of course, must comply with the provisions regarding a profit and loss account and a balance sheet. There are regulations already laid down with which every public company must comply, in preparing a balance sheet and a profit and loss account. I do not think the Minister would suggest that there should be any different provisions in regard to this company.

I gather from sub-section (c) of the Schedule that the principal object of the company "shall include the acquisition, underwriting, holding, selling and otherwise dealing of or with shares, stocks, debentures and other securities issued by any company registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924 whose principal object is the carrying on in Saorstát Eireann of any trade or industry, and shall also include the lending or advancing money upon such security as the directors of the company may think proper to any person engaged in or proposing to engage in Saorstát Eireann in any trade or industry for the purposes of establishing, carrying on or extending such trade or industry." If you select four or five individuals as the directors of a company, with £5,000,000 of Saorstát money to spend, and anybody is to be allowed to apply to them who desires to establish an industry, it may be all very fine, but I do not think much money of private individuals will be lent to them in the Free State as long as they have these powers. They are tremendous powers. No doubt in the Articles of Association these powers will be elaborated. The liability of the members of the company shall be limited. What to? The members of the company are the taxpayers of the Free State and £5,000,000 is the liability which you will have to foot. Then the amount of the share capital is £5,000,000. We are told that the Articles of Association shall specify the number of directors and that the the number of directors may be seven or five, to be appointed by the Minister for the time being. This is merely an ordinary criticism of the provisions of the Bill, such as ordinary businessmen would make if it came before us with a request that we should lend money to this underwriting organisation. Of course it will get money because the credit of the Saorstát and the credit of the Government lie behind it but that we should think that this is anything but State borrowing and State promotion of industries, is nonsense really.

It has been stated by the Minister, I have no doubt perfectly correctly, that after he gets this five millions of money he will take care that these industries are not allowed to fail. That Bill is to provide them with £5,000,000 capital to carry out their industrial policy. That is putting it in the most unprejudiced way I can. The real danger is that the Government have the power to make these industries succeed, in the way of earning dividends, by arranging tariffs to suit them. The public have to bear the consequences of these tariffs by paying extra prices for the commodities produced. That, to my mind, is one of the real weaknesses of this Bill. If this were an ordinary business promotion in the ordinary way, and the Government were asking us for £1,000,000 or so, and had put forward a prospectus, I believe it would be possible to think that we were not risking too much, but I do think that it is too big a proposition to ask us for £5,000,000 of Free State money to promote industries about which we are given no further information than that they are to promote the industrial policy of the Government. I do not think the Free State has sufficient money for these experiments. I do not think we can afford to put £5,000,000 more on our borrowing list and foot the Bill on such a scale as that. I think it would have been perfectly legitimate if the Government produced a bill say for £1,000,000.

Like the Industrial Trust Company.

I am not quarrelling over that. I think it would be much better if the Government had brought these industries one by one before us and asked for leave to start them with State money, giving us full information about each industry as it came along. If we did not like the prospects the Dáil could refuse to give them that money. The State would have a check on them. Here however we are asked to sign a cheque for £5,000,000 and we know nothing about the industries which we are supposed to help. We might not approve of them if we had all that information. It is said that the particulars are to be laid on the Table of the House but the money may be gone by that time.

Engagements have been made by this Government but they have been laid before this House too late to say a word on them. I hold that the House should be consulted about these industries one by one, and that we should not be committed to a huge sum like £5,000,000, which I do not believe the Free State can afford. This is adding one more to the burdens we are taking on our shoulders, and which will break us eventually if we are not careful. I think the Government would be well-advised, instead of adopting this method of doing things in a grand and a glorious way, to bring up each industry before the Dáil. Let it be called a Money Bill or anything you like, as far as the Free State is concerned, we can only make the remarks I am making. We would then know where we are going, and we could gauge to what extent employment in this country was going to be helped by each of these industries. All the things which are essential are not in this Bill. I think it is wrong for the Government to go forward with such a proposal as this, in the present state of the country, and to ask for £5,000,000, on the information given here, having regard to the difficulties and dangers ahead, on the chance of making the money ever pay.

I wish to endorse all that Senator Jameson has stated. I know perfectly well—and in this, perhaps, Senator Jameson will not agree with me—that banks in Ireland are not very liberal, especially about taking risks with regard to industry. When you find a cheque for £5,000,000 being handed over to the Ministry I think it is time to pause. There is an institution in my part of the country which finances a very large portion of Ireland. It is known as the Munster and Leinster Bank. The £5,000,000 mentioned in this Bill is five times the capital of the Munster and Leinster Bank. I think £1,000,000 ought to be ample to give the Government to foster, and where possible, to start industries. We have got to bear in mind that these very big industries, which obviously the Government contemplates, will mean an extraordinary large expenditure of money outside this country. Take cement. I have no special knowledge of the subject, but I venture to say that the amount of money spent in bringing machinery to this country for the purpose of setting up cement factories would be colossal, whereas it would be a very large cement factory, from what I have learned, that would employ 400 men. I know of an institution which started recently where the amount of money spent on bringing in machinery was something like £20,000, while the number of people so far employed— and I regret to say at a small wage —is under 100. These things have to be borne in mind because, after all, we may find that out of the £5,000,000 about £4,000,000 may have to be exported.

As Senator Jameson stated, the public will have to pay. Perhaps they pay directly by finding the capital if it is lost, and they pay indirectly if the industries are run on wrong lines or if it is found necessary to keep them alive by putting on heavy tariffs. It has been a puzzle to a good many people to know whether the industries which have been started or extended, in consequence of additional tariffs, have been profitable. I am told that a great many of them are not at all as busy as was expected, and that a great deal of the articles they manufacture are being imported and paid for by the Irish people. I agree with the Minister that there are industries that ought to be subsidised. Perhaps that is the wrong word— there are industries which ought to be supported by the Government. We know that the banks are very conservative and that they take no risks. They look upon these matters entirely from the financier's point of view, having no soul and no patriotism.

And yet they lose money.

It is quite reasonable for the Government to advance, not large sums, but to give advances to men with fairly promising industries. But the Government's difficulty will be this: that, as a rule, these will go into competition with some existing industry and the other people will find it difficult to understand why their competitors are supplied with money. That would be most unfair to the existing people. On the other hand, taking cement, or some of the very large industries, it means that a very large amount of capital indeed has to be expended on the doubtful chance of making money, while there is the further danger that very few people may be employed. I want to point out that the difficulty of having a successful industry established by a public company made up of businessmen is extremely great. I have already stated in this House that I defy anyone to mention a case where a number of men, come together without having knowledge of the business on which they were going to embark, made a success of a manufacturing industry. I do not say in connection with railways, banks or huge national undertakings of that kind that such a company cannot make a concern a success but in the case of the ordinary manufacturer, who hopes to set up a board of directors and all the other paraphernalia of a public company and to make the business a success. I ask the Minister to give me such an instance. I have had pretty good experience and I fail to remember one single instance where such a company made the business a success.

I have not any very definite knowledge of the intentions of the Government regarding this Bill. I have not had an opportunity of reading the debates in the Dáil and I am, therefore, in the position rather of an inquirer. Certainly I hoped and expected to have got very much more acute criticism of the Bill from Senator Jameson. I am afraid I was not very much impressed with his opposition. It seemed to me to end in this, that had this Bill been on a smaller scale, and had it been framed on the lines of the Industrial Credit Corporation it would have received his approval or, at least, it would not have been so objectionable. I do not know whether in the beginning he approved of that organisation or if in its working out it fulfilled what he desired in regard to limitations on the sums of money invested by the State seeing that it was free to invest money in all kinds of industrial undertakings. It would be well to have a rather definite indication from Senator Jameson whether that is the kind of association or organisation that he would approve of in place of this one. Is it a matter simply of amount, £5,000,000 against £500,000 or against £1,000,000? In his opening statement the Minister did not refer to the kind of company that it is proposed to finance out of the £5,000,000, but from the discussion that took place in the Dáil one gathered that there is in mind the financing of cement factories, sugar beet factories, industrial alcohol and possibly the manufacture of paper. These are large industries, which are subject to the criticism that Senator Crosbie directed against them, that is to say, that in each case they would require the importation of a large amount of capital goods. I think that is a sound point of criticism. But it could be directed against the general principle that this country should not engage in large scale industry requiring high capital expenditure.

I do not think there is any real distinction to be drawn, if one is thinking of national economy, between what Senator Jameson described as the public paying the whole cost of this Bill, owing to the imposition of tariffs on the one hand, with possibly an increase of prices on the other hand, and what is in effect a guaranteed dividend. Of course the public pays the whole cost of this Bill. But the public would pay the whole cost of the losses of a bank or of a tariff given to protect a public undertaking that finances any risky industrial experiment. The public in one way or another always pays, so that from the point of view of national economy there is really no distinction to be drawn. If you want to divide the nation, and to speak of this part as being the investing public and another part as the tax paying public and another the consumers then you may want the State to bear the whole cost.

In discussing this Bill we have to decide whether we desire that industries should be developed in this country and aided by State action or by public action of any kind, or whether, if they are to be developed, they are to be allowed to develop simply by virtue of the initiative of private individuals without any State assistance, tariff or otherwise. The country has for right or wrong decided that assistance should be given for the development of industries. I believe that in the political circumstances, and by the fact that the country has decided to start a political association of its own, it necessarily and inevitably involves it, having an economic organisation of its own. That is to say, that its economy, industrial and agricultural should be autonomous, based on its own foundations, and not continued simply as a branch of the British islands industrial economy or agricultural economy. If we once admit that there must be industrial development then we have to ask ourselves, how is that development to be encouraged. I do not think anyone will doubt the assertion that leaving these matters to the ordinary investing public will mean very doubtful and very slow development. We know that such small development relatively as there has been in the smaller industries has been due to the State assistance given by way of tariffs. In the case of larger industries that are now suggested it seems to me inevitable, especially after Senator Jameson's speech, that there shall have to be some State assistance given to encourage the provision of capital. There is nothing in the Bill which would limit the use of the capital to the greater industries. It might even be, so far as the Bill tells us, that it is going to be confined to the smaller industries at home. But from what I noticed in the Dáil Debates, the intention is that the larger part of the money will be devoted to the financing of the larger industries which are not likely to be financed by the ordinary small investors and small capitalists. That reading of the Bill leads me to an entirely different conclusion from that of Senator Jameson.

The Minister might not be called upon to invest any money in these undertakings. In fact, the banks and the insurance companies might take up all the shares that are offered, and then what would be the position? It would not be very satisfactory at all. The Minister says that the State will be protected because of certain provisions in Section 11, which require that a balance sheet and certain financial statements shall be furnished, but I do not think that that is any protection of the public or of State interests if we are to assume that the company in question will be owned by private investors. The Sugar Beet Company is, I think, bound to do all the things set out in Section 11. Yet, we have been told many times that the Minister has no control over the management or conduct of affairs of that company, so that Section 11 is no protection if the banks and insurance companies take up the whole of the shares in this concern. In that event, how are we to secure that the financing of the cement industry, the sugar beet industry and other industries contemplated will be in accordance with the general policy of the Minister? That loop hole may be filled up by the memorandum and articles of association of the company but, as Senator Jameson has pointed out, they are not before us, and we do not know what the position will be. Senator Jameson is perfectly right in pointing out that those larger companies, at any rate, are going to be fairly secure in their profits not so much by tariffs, as he inferred, but rather by the fact that in two of these cases the industries concerned will be monopolies. It is intended that the whole of the cement requirements of the State will be provided by the manufacturing concerns covered by the Cement Bill which has been before the House. A Sugar Beet Bill has been introduced in the Dáil. When Senator Jameson suggests that each case should be brought up separately and discussed in each House, he is very nearly being met by the introduction of these several Bills, which will give much more information than would be given in a debate on a financial proposition brought before the House. On that point I think that the Senator will have no ground for complaint. If the intention is, as I conceive it to be—to establish a monopoly—these companies will be assured of a profit, because the calculation of requirements is comparatively easy in such things as sugar and not very difficult over a period of years, even in the case of cement.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us in the course of the debate on the Cement Bill, that certain requirements of the Minister would have to be met. He has very important powers to regulate the conduct of that industry—so important, in fact, that I think Senator Comyn referred to them as "grandmotherly." Therefore, the cement industry and, I presume, the sugar beet industry and probably other industries will be fairly well held in control by the Minister. They will be very nearly monopolies, if not wholly so. They will be assured of a profit and, consequently, the risks of this credit company will not be very great. It was pointed out in the Dáil the other day that for the first year or two years, as in the case of some other companies of which we heard, the balance sheet will not show the brightest side. The whole story cannot be told in a balance sheet but the probabilities are that these concerns will be profit-making institutions after the first year or two years. Therefore, the risks of loss to this company will not be very great. It seems to me very likely that the banks, the insurance companies, and these investing corporations will be very glad to take up shares in this kind of company because of the assured profits that will be offered. I should like to see a clause in this Bill or in the Articles of Association limiting the profits, that is to say, that the company should be in the nature of a public utility corporation with a limitation of profits. I should like to see some kind of provision in the Bill which would protect the public, by Ministerial action if necessary, even though the Minister has no shares in the company. It is contemplated, I think, that the whole share capital will not be issued in one block. There, again, I think the invitation will be to these investing organisations to take up this money. I am inclined to wonder whether Senator Jameson's rather pessimistic note here to-day was not just camouflage. Was he not rather inclined to belittle the propects of this organisation, knowing that he was going to use his influence for the taking up of as many shares as possible?

There is a point on which I should like to have some explanation from the Minister. Again, it may depend upon the articles of association. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the company, once it is floated, using its capital to acquire stocks and shares in existing companies. Whether that is the intention or whether the Minister is going to exercise any control in that regard, I do not know. I should like to know at what point the Minister's control, direct or indirect, will cease. The State is going to pay for the flotation and, on my surmise, the banks and insurance companies will be saved £15,000. Once the company is floated, the first directors will have to be appointed. Are we to understand that they will be appointed, in the first instance, by the Minister? How is the Oireachtas to be informed as to the original organisation of the company and the names of its directors? Is all that to be in the memorandum of association? If so, I agree with Senator Jameson that the memorandum and articles of association ought to be a schedule to this Bill. I think that was so in the case of the Industrial Credit Corporation and I am not sure that it was not so in the case of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. But that by the way. It seems to me that the Bill does not contain sufficient safeguards for the community interests if it comes about that the whole of the issue is taken up by the banks and the insurance companies. I should like to see the Bill amended so as to give us that safeguard.

In my opinion, this is the most important measure that has come before Parliament for a long time. For that reason, I think it is unfortunate that, under the terms of our Constitution, we should have to discuss this matter with the limitations attaching to a Money Bill. The wide range of the discussion, so far, shows that the measure covers much wider scope that we usually associate with a Money Bill. However, we are faced with this limitation in a matter which I regard as of first rate importance—important not only with regard to the amount of State funds which will be involved but because of the basic, economic principles which are embodied in the measure. Let us consider for a moment the setting in which this Bill is before us. Nobody can doubt that it is an entirely new departure. One would imagine that when the State is embarking on a totally new enterprise of this kind, there would be the usual preliminary inquiry. I know that it is the fashion to belittle caution, inquiry and investigation but surely this whole question of industrial credit should, in the first instance, have been examined by people with some knowledge of the subject. It is not a thing to be taken up light-heartedly, thinking that one knows all about it. It is easy to say that everybody wants money, that the country is starved for money and that you do not care where the money is spent. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister is approaching the matter in that spirit but I am rather concerned that the Minister, for his own protection and in fulfilment of the trust he bears, did not have the most careful inquiry made. If the Government contemplated a measure of this kind when they came into office, why did they not ask the bankers and people in business to assist them by inquiry into first of all the shortage of industrial credit—which I think is a matter of very great doubt—and, secondly, how it could be best supplied? Not a bit of it. This Bill comes out of the official locker. We do not know anything about its genesis or how it was incubated. We have it before us now with its novel provisions. Think for a moment of the very alarming fragments of experience we have had. Hitherto, we had experience of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, under which two-thirds of the money was lost. We had experience of the Industrial Trust. I do not suppose the Minister would care, even if he could, to lay bare its misfortunes. Might not that happen again? Why do we ever make a bad debt or lose our money in investments? Wisdom is gained ex post facto but we do lose money on our investments, even with the greatest precautions. Then there is the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I think if you were to go into that you would find a fair amount of frozen money, and if one may venture to prophecy a large amount of the money in it will remain frozen for all time. In ten or 20 years' time we may look forward to the writing-off of a certain measure, large or small, of State liability in that concern.

This Bill is, first of all, based on the assumption that there is a shortage of capital, that the public are shy, that there is a large amount of sound business waiting to be developed which the public, for some malign reason or lack of confidence that is suggested in the new State, will not support. I venture to say that is a total misconception of the position. In the case of any existing company, if it were to come along and say that it wanted new money—a company that was able to show to prudent investors a record of profits and success over a period of years which had encouraged it to expand into new lines of business—I venture to say the investing public in this country would supply that money. But it is a totally different story where there is a lack of experience. During the war I met a gentleman who had a huge scheme for rationalising industries of all sorts: agriculture with brewing, distilling with something else, and so on. He had a plan for placing the industries of the country on a rational logical basis or, to make Senator Johnson a present of the word, on a socialistic basis. He wanted to borrow money for building a cement factory—for a key commodity. He was a person who was absolutely full of brain waves, but with not a vestige of experience. We all know that investors do not lose their money with their eyes open. They do not advance their money to people who come along with all kinds of patriotic ideas and all kinds of pious hopes.

That is the reason, I suggest, why the public are shy at all. They are shy to pour out their money into new untried enterprises. The Minister himself knows what is going on to-day: that, where there is a sound business money is being found privately. What happened in the case of the tobacco industry? Firms came along and financed it. There are other instances of the kind that one could quote. I would like the Minister to show cases where any sound enterprise has ever been starved for want of capital. The Minister may quote the experiences of ten years ago when the public was not very ready to come forward to support the sugar beet industry. I think those who did not support it at the time were very sorry afterwards that they missed the opportunity. That company made good. It has a fine record to show, and if it wanted more money to-day it could get it easily. Of course it does not want any money from the public, because it has its own resources.

I suggest to the Minister that, first of all, there is no shortage of money for sound business and, secondly, that it is most dangerous for the State to step in and supply money where the investing public, who have plenty of money at the present time—look at the cheapness of money at the present time —is reluctant to do so. Its reluctance is due to very good reasons; shyness and lack of confidence in new and untried enterprises. I suggest it is far more the business of the Government to give the public that confidence and so get the public to invest rather than to come along with this Bill. In this measure the Government are taking all the powers of a financial house, of an issuing house, of an under-writing house and even of a holding company. I propose to deal with the question of a holding company later. The Minister himself gave the whole case away when he said that these are untried experimental measures, the outcome of which is uncertain, as he said himself. I suggest it is sheer gambling on the part of the State to come in and finance ventures, the outlook of which is uncertain.

Now I would like to deal with one aspect of this new company's powers. As we know, it is taking the power of under-writing, and that implies the holding of shares if the ordinary investing public fail to take them up. I can see a position arising where, possibly, the State will have a controlling power not only in this company, but a controlling power in what I may call 51 per cent. of the subsidiaries. There is every possibility if the optimistic spirit that is behind this Bill, encouraged by £5,000,000 of public money, is allowed to operate that you will have the State controlling, through a majority holding, a number of subsidiary enterprises in various industrial concerns. I think that it is a very big and a very bold step to take under a Bill which, on the face of it, appears rather an innocent Bill. In the Dáil I think only one amendment was moved to it, while it occupied only a fraction of the parliamentary time that was devoted to discussing newspaper finance. It is a measure which is going to create, I should say, almost a revolution in our established—I do not for a moment say as perhaps Senator Johnson would say discredited—system of finance that has brought us where we are, and which in spite of everything else, has produced commodities to excess. When Senator Johnson talks about the inadequacy of production it has to be remembered that now goods are being destroyed.

There is not too much production in this country.

Does the Senator suggest that there is a shortage of production in this country with eggs selling at 4d. and 5d. a dozen, and cattle being sold at prices which represent an enormous loss to the producers?

Capital has not much to do with the production of eggs.

Of course it has. What is capital? The Senator's coat is capital and his pen is capital. Service is capital just as much as stocks and shares. Of course, everything is capital. Everything that we own, in one form or another, is capital. At the moment, I suggest we need not go into the metaphysics of economic definitions. What I want to put before the House is this: the State will control this under-writing, and then as a holding company, we will find it possibly having a majority of control in other businesses. I suggest to Senators that you can do quite a lot with £5,000,000. You can go quite a long way in your invasions into the established economic system.

I want to put this to the Minister: Why were the Trustee Acts ever devised? They were not devised in a malicious or capricious spirit. These Trustee Acts were devised in the interests of minors and others who are not able to look after their own affairs: to protect them against the ordinary uncertainty of investment. Under these Acts, certain categories of securities were set out to protect the uninformed and the uninitiated. Might I suggest to the Minister that the State should be just as careful of the moneys of its citizens as trustees are of the moneys they hold under Trust Acts? Whatever limitations may be allowed to trustees to invest outside of strict trust securities, I suggest it is unheard of that they should be allowed to go uncontrolled into any form of industrial enterprise. Here we have a proposal dealing with the production of industrial alcohol, for one thing. That is a thing that is untried here and is entirely speculative. The point that I want to emphasise is, that with no past history, no record of established business and of profits earned, the State is going to take the power, and I have no doubt will use the power, and be pressed to use power, to enter into all sorts of enterprises. I can see suitors beseeching the Minister to get the company to use their power to experiment in every sort of conceivable production.

I would suggest to the Minister even at this stage that we might go easy, that we might start with the commitments that the Minister himself has outlined in more or less definite terms, with the sugar beet industry for which, I think, he said £2,000,000 was required, and with cement for which, I understand, £1,000,000 is required. That gives a total of £3,000,000. I suggest that is quite enough to make a start with. The Minister will not be confined in his industrial finance to this sum of £3,000,000 because he has the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts to supply the odds and ends. Having made good on the £3,000,000 the Minister can then come back to the House and ask for further powers. Of course, I know the Minister will reply that if the public come along none of this money will be wanted by the State. From our point of view, once this Bill becomes law we shall have handed over to the Government £5,000,000 to spend in practically any way they like, with just the sort of control that shareholders have over a board of directors, and Senators know how much that is really worth in practice. It will be not more in this case. The balance sheet will come at the end of the year but it probably will not give all the information that people want. We all know from experience how hard it is, when concerns are in difficulties, to get all the information to which one is properly entitled. It will be said, with some justification, when the occasion arises, that it is not in the public interest, and I imagine that might be said about the Industrial Trust Company—it is not in the public interest to tell the whole story. We have to bring our own practical knowledge of the world to bear on these things. In theory, the answer is "Oh, yes, that is because we do not choose to use our powers and because we have not got the driving force we should possess" but, in practice, what happens is that there is always a good reason why the whole thing should not be laid bare. We have the assurances of the Minister but, after all, they are only Ministerial assurances which are not binding on all Governments and they have not been given, and, I think, rightly so, in anything but very general terms. The Minister has £5,000,000 to spend, or to use as he likes, to supplement this lack of public confidence and, as I say, to put into a thing which he would call a sound scheme but which I say would possibly be a wild-cat scheme. I defy anybody to differentiate between a sound and a wild-cat scheme. A scheme is only wild-cat as a result of experience. They are all sound at first or considered sound by the investing public. How else would people get all they do get? You will not persuade me that these directors whom the Minister chooses to appoint will be any wiser than bank directors and others who, with all the precautions they take, lose money ever day and go on losing money. They cannot help it.

There is this aspect of the question and, I think, a very dangerous aspect indeed. There will, naturally, be what I shall call political and Government prestige involved in this enterprise. Naturally, nobody will like to admit failure so long as it can be covered up. One knows that Ministers when talking alone frequently say: "It will be very awkward to let this come before the Dáil." Is not that a cliché in administrative thought? That is the trouble—that this has to go before Parliament—and impotent as Parliament may be, it is awkward to have the thing discussed. I think that Senator Foran thought that I was rather a nuisance on the Hospitals Bill and I think that, little harm as we did, they would much rather not have it discussed and, naturally, if these things are not on the top of the wave, the Minister or the Government of the day will not want them discussed. Our present Minister may not always be here. I may say that I think he is quite as nice as any other Minister and, perhaps, nicer than some—I am speaking personally now and not politically—and I do not wish at all to see him go. He may say to himself: "This is very awkward and we must, if possible, avoid discredit." And how easier can discredit be avoided than that the Government should have control? In the matter of sugar beet they have the control, and the way to avoid discredit there, under the cover of a monopoly, is to make such price to the public as will cover up losses. The same applies to cement. They have taken power to fix the price of cement, and there you have a perfectly natural development—the State in business forced to cover up its losses and acting like any other human being. And who is paying?—the public. Senator Johnson will have us believe that, under a Socialistic scheme, a Government can do business quite well and we can get all the efficiency we get under private enterprise, but I suggest that the old-fashioned and well-tried method of freedom and competition and allowing that competition to regulate prices is preferable. Who can say that competition has driven prices to famine level in these days? I think that the system which has come through so far is triumphant. That is what I feel will happen. The State will get this power on these companies, not really on the holding company, but on a certain number of the subsidiaries. It will then, by regulating prices, keep itself afloat as long as it can at the expense of the public.

Senator Johnson dealt with a point which I think showed a very considerable misconception of economics. Senator Johnson said that it is quite possible—I think he said "almost easy"—to forecast the requirements of certain key commodities like cement and sugar. I suggest that it is by no means easy. The margin of consumption in an article like sugar between a state of prosperity and a state of depression is very great, and there is just that margin of, perhaps. 25 per cent. increase or lessening of the consuming power, according to the wage earning and wealth of the consuming classes, that makes all the difference to a company of this kind. The same applies to building. What assurance have we that the consumption of cement under a lavish scheme of State expenditure on housing and, also, under very considerable private enterprise demand for housing is going to continue? I suggest that it is an attitude that is totally wrong and totally dangerous that you can, by statistics, go back over past years and lay down a curve and say, "That is the curve, possibly increasing our on the same level, and we can lay our plans and business on those lines." Every business man knows that that is fatal and that is why business is such a curious, flexible, intangible affair, and that is why it has become the prerogative of people who are free to come and go and who will not be tied by any fixed hard rules, and that is why you have excessive production at one time and insufficient production at another. It is that very attempt that Senator Johnson made to stereotype the demand for the future that shows the danger of a Government or doctrinairies or people who have not been brought up to understand business embarking on it at all.

I should like the Minister to give us some conception of the debenture capital. I, personally, knowing a little about Government finance, but only a very little, am puzzled as to the whole of these debenture provisions. Debenture capital, as a rule, is a sort of prior lien charge used in business, very often, when they are in difficulties, to create a better form of security than that of share capital. It is not capital at all, as we know. It is a form of loan, and I am a little concerned that the power to issue debentures will not be used to the prejudice of the State capital. When debentures are issued they naturally rank in advance of State money. I see smiles all round and I am very glad that I should be so amusing, but I suggest that, in some cases, they are rather smiles of blissful ignorance. This is a matter of very great complexity. It is a new thing that has been started without investigation, and it is a thing that, instead of being taken in a light-hearted spirit, should be taken as a matter for serious concern and study. In this debenture question, which appears to some Senators to be rather a matter of passing interest, there is a big principle involved. If this debenture issue is to be exploited and to be used to the extent of capital, the total commitments will then be £10,000,000. It will be in advance of the State capital and to the prejudice of the State capital, and will put the State holding, if you put it that way, in further jeopardy. I should like to ask the Minister—I suppose he cannot tell us because the Articles of Association are not published—whether it is intended to get a quotation on the Stock Exchange for these shares, or whether they are going to be freely marketable? I can see the State, now that it is interfering in enterprise, going in for a kind of holding up motive, and it is said that the State is not desirous that these shares should be freely passed on to the public. I suggest that that is rather in conflict with our original ideas, but I think there is a grave danger that the Government may not find it convenient to market these shares, and I think we should have an assurance that these shares will be quoted on the Stock Exchange and will be freely marketable to the public. I am afraid that owing to pressure of other work, I have been unable to give this measure the close study it deserves. I say again that it is, I think, most unfortunate that it comes before us under the limitations of a Money Bill. It should be the subject of the most close investigation by people with a knowledge of finance before it was ever published. The adventures of Government hitherto in the region of finance and other projects has been most unfortunate and, generally, I view this Bill with the greatest uneasiness.

[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]

Senator Sir John Keane referred to this Bill as a new departure. Undoubtedly it is, and we have yet to see whether it is an economic experiment or a rather wild financial venture. At any rate, one could be very spectacular if one had £5,000,000 of someone else's money to handle. I want to say that in so far as this Bill can be used as an intelligent and effective means of industrial stimulation in this country, I think it is to be welcomed. Senator Johnson asked a question which raises the principle behind this Bill and which is the basis of State economic policy. He said that we would have to decide whether industrial development here should proceed with State aid or whether it should be purely a matter of private enterprise. That is a very serious consideration. My view of the State as a factor in economic development has not changed much, if at all, from what it has always been since I took an intelligent, or what I considered to be an intelligent, interest in the economic affairs of this country.

I believe that there is a problem to be faced and, broadly speaking, that problem is this: how is the natural growth of population in this State to be provided for and how is the natural proportion of that growth of population to be retained within the State? I am not going to enter into a long dissertation on this. I shall summarise my ideas in this way, that it has been demonstrated, I think, beyond question that the land, agriculture, cannot absorb or cannot retain that natural growth of population which a healthy nation or State should absorb and retain, that some auxiliary source of occupation is necessary to provide a livelihood for that proportion of the people, and that that can only be secured by industrial development.

In so far as the function of the State is concerned, my opinion always has been that the function of the State is to liberate the resources of the State to enable private enterprise to be in a position to utilise them for the general advantage. I think that there is no alternative to that operation of the State other than the sheer aloofness of the State on the one hand or a Communist State on the other—a stage-managed State life. I certainly favour neither one nor the other of these alternatives and I say that so far as I can judge this Bill it is leading definitely and inevitably to State-managed industries. I have very grave doubts of the wisdom or the prospects of success of that. Anyone who has had any actual experience of business —I am dealing with that aspect of business known as manufacturing industry—knows that the success of any manufacture is bound up with some individual having personal control and a personal interest in its success. By an extraordinarily lavish output of money, you may get some result from a committee of men who attempt to galvanise industry into activity, but the evidence forthcoming from all countries where there has been real sound industrial development shows that this industrial development has been pioneered by men whose own livelihood was in the business and who owned and developed that business.

The State functioned at times to make circumstances congenial to the development of the industry, but not a single one of such successful enterprises, if the State had intervened and took control in the manner in which this Bill proposes that the State should intervene and control, would have been a success. The Minister complains that people are cautious and timid about their investments. Can it be wondered at that they are? Is it not likely, if the present economic policy of the Government continues, that the investing public will soon not have any money to invest for any purposes whatever? I do not want to mix politics with business. I have always deprecated the hinging on of some political party to the economic life of the nation. Mixing politics in business is a thing which never has been successful.

Why have professional politicians so?

I fail to understand the relevance of that remark unless the Senator is prepared to make some confession of his own in regard to the position of a professional politician.

Something to gain and nothing to lose.

If I am making any statements or arguments which he considers defective, he will have an opportunity of referring to them afterwards.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.

What I want to say is this: that everything points to the industrial development projected by this Bill leading to State management of industry, management by a political party, the political party in power. The Minister has the nomination of directors in this company and he will probably have the same power in regard to subsidiary companies. Anyone who has experience of the world knows how easy it is for a plausible individual to impress on an uninformed individual, his capacity to do certain things. If a man who happens to be of the political persuasion of the Minister comes along and is able to persuade the Minister that he has a tremendous capacity for business, I am sure that he will not be left out of consideration for an appointment as a director. I say that if any element of that kind enters into the projects that are to be operated under the Bill, it will be fatal to the success of the Bill.

The one thing we do not want at any rate is that it will be a failure and that there will be £5,000,000 lost to the country. If it is a failure, the loss will not be limited to £5,000,000, because as somebody has already pointed out, if things are not proving successful, in order to avert failure the Minister might think it well to spend another few millions in an effort to recover the money already lost. I say that if what is projected by this Bill is conducted on the lines which I fear will be attempted nothing can prevent failure attending an enterprise established on such lines. Nothing can prevent financial loss or what will be even worse, the creation of an atmosphere of lack of confidence in the possibilities of industrial development.

I say that the State has a part to play in stimulating industrial enterprise, and a great part, one that should not be considered from the point of view of Party politics. It is because I think that this is inevitably going to lead to judgment of an enterprise from a political point of view, that I think the Minister should hesitate before he proceeds with this Bill. At any rate I hope that it will not be rushed through the Oireachtas without very full consideration. Senator Johnson deprecated some of the criticism of Senator Jameson. I think that criticism of Senator Jameson was very well warranted. It disclosed defects in the Bill which must be remedied if this Bill is not going to do anything but wreck the further hopes of this country. I think there was a good deal of ground for Senator Sir John Keane's regret that this is a Money Bill, and therefore a Bill to which we are not allowed to move amendments. It is the sort of Bill which goes to the foundations, the basic fundamentals of the economic life of this State. We or those responsible for making the laws of this State should have an opportunity of analysing these proposals and, if necessary, making changes. Above all, we should have adequate time to digest the proposals and try to turn the Bill into some kind of useful shape, if it is to be proceeded with at all.

I wish to say a few words with regard to the effect that the provisions of the Bill may have on an industry in which I and a great many other farmers are interested. That is the sugar beet industry. It is proposed to establish three sugar beet factories with a capital of £2,000,000 and requiring a subsidy of about £1,500,000 annually. It has been suggested that the State will not pay the subsidy, that it will be paid by the farmers in the reduced price they will get for their beet and by the people generally, by an increase in the price of sugar. As a practical beet grower, I can say that the price paid for beet by the Carlow factory leaves the farmer a bare margin of profit at present. Of course it is notorious that state-managed industries are always uneconomical, wasteful and badly managed. The Carlow factory is managed by Continental experts.

This Bill does not set out to set up a factory.

These Continental experts are interested because of the money invested in it. The factory is the most efficient in this or any other country. There is less waste there than in probably any other factory of the kind. I wish Senators who have not visited it would go and see it. The establishment of three beet factories might have the effect of injuring one very well managed and very useful factory. A good deal of money has to be contributed by the people under this Bill. I am only drawing attention to that aspect of the question. The general proposals of the Bill have been dealt with. The beet growers cannot bear any further reduction in the price. I do not think my friends on the Labour Benches will agree that the poor, and especially the children of the poor, to whom sugar is a necessity, can pay an increased price for sugar.

There is nothing in this Bill about that.

Senator Miss Browne has brought out a point that I intended to raise. I think that at one time Senator Milroy and other people in this House opposed Irish capitalists for the lack of interest they showed in Irish concerns.

As the Senator has mentioned my name, can he give the date? I would ask him to submit his authority for the statement.

I know that the Senator was one of a number of people who advocated Irish industry and denounced Irish capitalists for having their money invested in foreign concerns.

Mention the date.

15th September, 1928.

What did I say?

I will read it to-morrow.

Senator Miss Browne forced the statement from me when she told us about the beautiful factory in Carlow, and regretted that Irish money was being put into other factories, in order to prevent money being sent to Belgium and other places.

I did not suggest any such thing.

As I understood it that was the tenor of the Senator's argument. The investment of Irish money abroad gives employment to foreign workers. While I do not stand here as an authority on finance I dealt in my time with as large sums of money as many of the people who pose as expert financiers, and I got good results. I am interested in a certain corporation which has £18,000 invested in this country and from which we get a good return. We have no desire whatever to invest abroad. Compare that with some of the people here who pose as authorities on finance and ask them what they lost through Hatry and others. One would imagine that these champions of finance would welcome the action of the Government in giving a hand to protect them from themselves.

Not in the least.

Can any Senator give us an idea of how much Irish money was lost in the Hatry business alone?

Bank of Ireland money.

I am mentioning this as a common, ordinary worker who is supposed, as Senator Sir John Keane would indicate, to be blissful in his ignorance. In these cases "where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." As to the Senator's objection to interference by the State in industry, I would refer him to the lines in "The Deserted Village":—

"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

This appears to me to be a very sound and sensible Bill, the object of which is to help Irish industry while at the same time showing that there is security for the investor, where he can get a better return on his capital than if it were invested in Brazil or some foreign country.

The statements made by the various speakers were very interesting, although some of them were contradictory. We had Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Jameson both arguing, as far as I could understand, from opposite view points. On the one hand, Senator Jameson deplored the idea of the Government investing such an amount of money in this country, while on the other hand, Senator Sir John Keane stated that there was any amount of money available for investment by private investors. That is essentially true. I am very glad to see that Senator Sir John Keane now admits that more money is available for investment in Irish industries now than in the past. That goes to show that Senator Sir John Keane admits that there is a good deal to be said for the tariff policy, which he so strenuously opposed during the last 12 or 18 months.

I am sure the House will admit that there has never been such keenness on the part of the people to support Irish goods as there has been within the last decade. That being so, and with the industries that are already established working at full pressure, the private investor with a keen eye to investing his money to the best advantage is very anxious to put it into Irish industries. He is very anxious to withdraw his money from foreign countries and from concerns which are shaky, because of the depression that exists all over the world. The Irish investor sees security here. He sees great enthusiasm for the use of Irish goods and consequently he has better security, without any State guarantee than he could get in any other country. At the height of this enthusiasm the Government brings in a Bill of this description, not as far as I know with the intention of investing £5,000,000 directly in industry, but with the intention of being in the position to step in when they float this company, if the amount required to carry it on successfully is not subscribed. Surely if as Senator Sir John Keane stated, money is very plentiful the bulk of the £5,000,000 will be subscribed.

What guarantee is there of that?

The guarantee that the Senator mentioned, that money was never so plentiful for investment.

There is no guarantee.

When people suggest that there is a shortage of money that is a total misconception.

May I explain my point? I said that there was plenty of money available for investment, but there is no guarantee that the investment offered will be profitable or will satisfy the investor.

That is more or less what I explained in another way. Irish industries already established are working at full pressure. Owing to the enthusiasm and the keenness of the Irish people for Irish goods the Irish investor has now the greatest security for his money.

What is the necessity for this Bill then?

For the factories that are going to be established when the company is floated, if any of the £5,000,000 is not subscribed the Government will be in a position to provide the balance. Why should the Government set out to establish these industries unless they are in a position to put them through? The Cumann na nGaedheal Government failed to do so for ten years.

I though we were not going to discuss politics.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

When speaking about the ten years of Cumann na nGaedheal Government Senator Milroy seemed very enthusiastic when referring to the politicians and to the business men. The reason for the failures and the loss of money that happened under the previous régime was, as Senator Milroy knows, that they were more concerned with appointments for political supporters than with the finances which would make a success of industries. Anybody who has had experience of approaching either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce within the last 12 months knows that it was necessary to put up a practical scheme, and to show that it might be a success. Otherwise no money was forthcoming for anything started as a gamble. Every scheme had to bear the fullest investigation before any public money was put into it. These are the admitted facts. Undoubtedly in tackling this question the Government undertook a titanic task. It is work that cannot be undertaken lightly. Nevertheless, with the monopoly that is given here and a guaranteed market, nowhere is there such good security for investing £5,000,000 by private investors.

As an argument against the success of the sugar beet enterprise, Senator Sir John Keane said that owing to the depression, people are not likely to buy as much sugar as when times were prosperous. If there is depression, is it not better to try to check that depression by developing the industrial arm? It seems to me that this is a bold stroke on the part of the Government to face this big issue by going ahead with this enterprise. It will lay the foundation of further developments, and will give security not alone to Irish investors, but to others who will come along, and in that way it will bring success and prosperity to this country.

This Bill has been debated at such length that I do not propose to go into the various points, but I think quite unintentionally Senator MacEllin gave the impression in his speech that the appointments to various posts in companies which received a trade loan guarantee were made politically. Now, I cannot speak for every company, but I think I do for a considerable number of them, and it is utterly and entirely untrue. The appointments were made in every case by the directors of the companies concerned. I would not like to allow pass uncontradicted this suggestion that the appointments were made by the Government of the day to these responsible positions in cases where there was a trade loan. Although I have some knowledge of various companies, I was only actually connected with one and in that case I was chairman of the company, and the managing director was my friend, Senator Connolly. No question of politics ever arose, either on the part of the management, or the Government, or on the part of any one connected with it, and I think it would be a great mistake to allow to pass here the suggestion that the matter of politics entered into it. I am certain that the appointments were not made a matter of political jobbery or choice. The Ministry simply said they were concerned with the financing of the company, but they were not concerned with the appointments, which was entirely a matter for the responsible directors.

Am I entitled to ask a question of Senator MacEllin?

Cathaoirleach

No.

I am not going to pretend that this Bill is a perfect measure. I agree with some of the criticisms of Senator Jameson that it lacks a certain definition but it does that because it is an attempt to get the general public of this country, and those who are in control of the capital resources of this country, interested in it, in the first place because of its own merits, and interested through it in Irish undertakings. It was not the intention of the Government when it came to the conclusion that something more than the existing facilities were required if our industrial policy was to be carried through; it was not the intention then to establish an Industrial Credit Corporation owned and controlled and managed by the State. With a good deal of what has been said in regard to State interference in industry and the control of industry I am in agreement. I do place a great deal of faith in private enterprise, in all those qualities and defects in the human character that gives to enterprise in a private individual that driving force and that ambition and that desire for personal gain which I am afraid is lacking in institutions which are managed corporatively for a corporation. And I should have liked, and the Government would have liked, that this enterprise should have been brought into existence, not upon the initiative of the State, but upon the initiative of private individuals who are fired with the pioneering spirit, and that energy and enthusiasm and that enterprise which could make an undertaking of this kind, if launched under private auspices under existing circumstances, I believe, a very great success. But there was nobody to come forward, and it did not seem that anyone would come forward, if they were approached on the matter. And accordingly the position in which we found ourselves was this: that we had to establish a corporation of this kind to do the work which we thought had hitherto not been done, and which as I said at the beginning, in my opening statement, would ensure that the new enterprise, if it were being set on foot by the Government, and in which the Government was very anxious the public should interest itself, should not be lacking in financial support. We said to ourselves then, "We shall, at any rate, launch this undertaking. We will give the Minister power, in the eventuality of the public refusing to be interested in it, to provide it with adequate resources." And those powers were given to the Minister under Section 5 of the Bill.

If when the company is launched we are agreeably surprised by the amount of public interest which is manifested in the company, and the amount of private capital which will be invested in the company, then the responsibility of the Minister under Section 5 will be correspondingly decreased, and the amount of control the Minister may exercise over the affairs of the company will be decreased proportionately also. Senator Milroy in his speech, the purport and philosophy of which I fail to follow, said that he did not like to mix politics and business. Well, so far as this undertaking is concerned, no politics will be mixed up with this business if the businessmen themselves come forward to take their proper share in the venture. It rests with them. If they do not come forward, and the Minister has to step in, naturally the Minister in order to safeguard the public funds will have to exercise certain rights in regard to the direction and control of the company. Those rights are provided for in the Articles of Association, particularly in paragraph eight. Referring again to the remarks of Senator Jameson, it is quite clear that a good deal of criticism can be made on the grounds that we are asking the Oireachtas to give the Minister for Finance powers in certain circumstances to invest large sums of public money in this country. As Senator Johnson pointed out, most of his criticisms, however, were upon the magnitude of the sums which might be involved. I think that that is not sufficient ground on which to oppose this Bill on its Second Reading. It seems to me that if the criticisms are justified at all they would be equally well founded, whether it was £100 or £100,000,000 was involved. The same arguments might be urged if the scheme failed; the taxpayers will have to pay. It is a very difficult matter for the Government to valuate those shares in present circumstances. The failure in introducing the Bill on the part of the Minister to fully define the functions and purpose of the company, all those criticisms can be urged against the company, I think, irrespective of the amount of capital, if the company were to fail. But as against this we have to ask ourselves what would be the benefits of this to the community and every section of the community if the company succeeded. We shall have filled a gap in our existing financial organisation; we shall have converted a thrifty section of our people from mere holders into investors; we shall have ensured that the savings of the community will be used reproductively; we shall have developed here industries which the Government believes, and which I think experience proves, to be essential to our symmetrical economic development.

Speaking in the Dáil a few days ago on this Bill I pointed out the position in which we found ourselves as a community, that I think about 67 per cent. of our people depend on the soil for a livelihood and that no matter what we might do the markets for our exportable surplus are going to diminish and decline, that accordingly we were faced with this problem that even if the 67 per cent. were to make a precarious and scanty livelihood out of the soil they would soon become too great a burden for agriculture to carry any longer and that we had either to provide them with some other occupation, or some other means of livelihood, or else permit them to starve. If the heavy industries, and the new industries, which this company is primarily designed to finance, succeed the net problem would be, in a large measure, solved. The company would have justified itself and the risks which the State propose to accept under Section 5 of the Bill would have been fully justified. I do not know whether, since I have referred to new industries, I should deal with the point made by Senator Crosbie. Senator Crosbie said that one of the things that struck him, in connection with all these new industries which the Government had in contemplation, was the fact that we should export a large amount of capital for the purchase of the required machinery. That is true. In the early stages of our industrial development it will be one of the results which will inevitably follow in the establishment of industries like the cement industry, the sugar beet industry, the paper making industry and other industries of the sort required, and the provision of heavy machinery will undoubtedly mean the development of the engineering industry here, possibly not upon the large scale and possibly not what is described as the heavy engineering industry, but at any rate an appreciable advance on anything we have at the present moment, and an advance which will greatly diminish the amount of machinery which we have to import from abroad. But apart altogether from that I think the further examination of the position would show this: that while we may, when these enterprises are launched have to expend a good deal of money on foreign plant, after the expenditure has once been made it obviates the necessity for a continuous expenditure from year to year on the products which would now be made at home by that foreign made machinery, and which if the foreign machinery had not been brought into this country would have to be purchased by us from abroad. So I think that there is very little in the argument Senator Crosbie has put forward.

Another point he made, that might have more relevance to the measure, was that in Cork there was an existing institution which provided financial facilities for a large part of the industries in Southern Ireland and that the proposed capital of our new concern might be at least five times as big as what this institution was. Of course, that is only to look at one of the resources of that institution. That institution, on account of its power to take deposits, has resources very much greater than this institution would have. And one of the reasons why the capital of the proposed Credit Corporation has got to be so great is that it does not propose to encroach on that field at all, that it proposes to leave the Munster and Leinster Bank and the other banks to their proper field, to the procuring of deposits from the public and for the safeguarding and custody of those deposits, and the putting them out at whatever rate of interest it can get upon short terms. And it will not either compete with the existing banks in the long term market, if the existing financial institutions are prepared to operate in that market, and it seems to me that one of the benefits that will accrue to the community, and particularly these institutions, from the operations of this, is that if these concerns are established on the basis of the long-term capital, provided by this company, that existing companies such as Deputy Crosbie referred to, will have a further field in which to employ their existing resources. They are all looking at the present moment, I think, for safe avenues and safe things in which to use their money—their short-term money—and these new industries will help only to enlarge a field that has been considerably restricted within the last two or three years. Senator Johnson said that he felt that there was not sufficient control for the public interest in this company. Well, that may be so, but I would like to emphasise again that it was not the purpose of the Government, and it was clear from the Bill, to found this as a State-managed and controlled institution. We were prepared to bring it to birth, to set it on its feet, and to allow the general public to come in then and take advantage of our foresight and our initiative. But, nevertheless, there are certain safeguards in the Bill, which will ensure the purpose for which this company is being established will be achieved and that the objects will be attained. Number four makes this clear.

Senator Johnson proceeded to reply on the hypothesis that if certain interests came in to collar the company, and the Minister had not a majority of the shares adumbrated in the Schedule of the Bill, then the Minister and the Government had no assurance that the Company would do what it had been intended to do. First of all, unless these people are prepared to come in and sink substantial amounts in the company—a substantial capital in the company—and are prepared to allow that capital to remain fallow and earn nothing, and are prepared to take all the risks, I cannot see how they can fail to carry out the objects which the Government had in mind. There are no other enterprises except those which we have foreshadowed at the present moment which would allow the resources of this company to be employed remuneratively. We might say just for the sake of killing the company, they were prepared to put in half a million and let it lie there. Of course, if that happens the Government could not shut its eyes to the fact, but a simple amending Bill would clarify the whole situation and make it quite clear that in those circumstances the Government would have to apply, and buy out the existing investors and take control of the company itself. That is a step we would not like to take. But apart altogether from that, it seems to me that Sections 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the Bill do afford, not exactly means of control, but certain safeguards which will ensure that the money which this company raises from time to time will be employed for the purpose which the Government had in view in establishing the company. First of all, no issue of capital can be made at any time unless the Minister for Finance has authorised it, and the Minister for Finance is not going to authorise the issue of new capital unless he knows how the new capital is going to be employed. Neither is he under Section 5, where he has power to issue, unless he knows that the money is going to be utilised for the purpose for which the company was established. And Sections 10 and 11 give additional safeguards in that matter. Senator Sir John Keane criticised the Bill because no public inquiry had preceded it, that there would be no public investigation to show that a Bill of this sort was necessary. But it seems to me that the Senator himself, in his own speech, admitted the necessity for this Bill. The purpose we have in view in establishing this company is to ensure that financial risks, which appear to the general public greater than they really are, will be taken in order to ensure that the Government's industrial policy will be proceeded with.

The Senator himself admitted that in present circumstances there was a shyness of capital, a lack of public confidence and distrust, possibly of the business capacity of the Government. Well, I do not think the Senator would expect me to admit that there is any ground for distrust in the business capacity of the Government. I do not think he would expect me to admit that there is any ground for this lack of confidence, or that there is any reason why capital should be shy. And therefore I do not think he would expect me to admit that there is any of these risks, these assumed risks, based upon these groundless fears inherent in any of the projects which have been submitted to the country. We have to deal with a frame of mind, a general attempt towards things in this country which enlarges the risks and magnifies them beyond their true nature and their true extent. We know that the people who have the money in this country are particularly nervous of these risks and intimidated by them. Therefore, it was essential that a company should be formed in the circumstances which I have stated and not because there was any shortage of capital in the country. I do not think that there is any shortage. I think that, for our size and for the peculiar economy which we have pursued for the past 80 years, we are as wealthy a community as exists, with as large a capital-possession per capita as there is anywhere else. But we have this unfortunate lack of confidence in the ability of our own people and, particularly, of our own Government—a lack of confidence which was manifested not merely during the past 12 or 15 months but which has been manifested during the past ten years. It is to deal with that psychological condition that this company is being floated. We all know that that condition exists. The Senator himself when he referred to the fact that capital in the present circumstances was shy, admitted it exists. Therefore, there was no need for this preliminary inquiry to ascertain what is common knowledge.

The Minister must not take me as admitting the position he takes up. What I said was that there was no evidence that capital was not available for sound enterprise. His is a surmise but it is not based on fact.

What I think the Senator said was that capital was available for sound, well-established enterprises with a record of past performance; the one thing he felt was necessary to reassure our people and to secure their support was the assurance of proven success. In connection with a new enterprise, these conditions cannot be fulfilled. These are new enterprises. They cannot point to a record of past success. Even though the Government may, as the Senator himself foreshadowed, take all the steps that are necessary to ensure the financial success of these concerns, it is very problematic whether, even then, the Irish investing, public would be interested in them. We cannot allow these enterprises to be killed by doubt. We have got to make sure that, as we propose to provide them with competent technical skill, with competent management, with the marketing conditions which will give them security, they are provided with adequate capital resources as well. Otherwise, they would never be launched. The purpose of this company was to ensure that while direct intervention of the State is these enterprises would be, in all the circumstances comparatively small, if the investing public failed to come forward and provide the necessary capital, then the State would have to step in in this indirect way—that is to say, if the public leave the way open by failing to invest, the required capital will be provided through the medium of the Industrial Credit Company.

On the question as to whether there has been any prior investigation of this matter, I should like to say that this question of providing an organisation to deal with the psychological condition to which I have referred was exhaustively examined by an interdepartmental committee consisting of the principal officers of a number of the departments. That was done before this Bill was introduced and the examination was neither scanty nor hurried. It was exhaustive and ample time was given to ensure that the investigation would be a valuable one.

Senator Sir John Keane likened the Minister for Finance and the Government to trustees and said that they should be just as careful of the funds entrusted to them as would trustees. I accept that. That is the view of the Government in regard to this Bill and in regard to all these matters. I am personally prepared to give to the Seanad the assurance already given to the Dáil, that the House will have a full opportunity of discussing contingent commitments of any magnitude which may be imposed on this company by the flotation or establishment of new industries here. I do not mean to say that every concern, small or large, in which this company becomes interested will be a subject of examination and discussion in the Oireachtas. I do not think that that would be desirable.

As Senator Johnson has pointed out, in the case of cement, in which this company may be interested, we have already had a full discussion in both Houses. In the case of the sugar beet proposals, in which this company may be ultimately interested, a Bill is being introduced in the Dáil and we shall have a full discussion in both Houses on the merits of that proposal. Similarly, if the proposal to establish the paper-making industry comes to anything definite, the Oireachtas will have the same opportunities. I can say the same in regard to a project to manufacture industrial alcohol—a project which I should say, at this stage, in order that too much may not be made of it, is merely in the preliminary stages and may never come to anything unless an examination shows that the Government would be justified in going ahead either in an experimental or commercial way with the development. Therefore, in regard to any undertaking of significant magnitude in which this company might be interested, the Oireachtas may take it that it will have a much fuller opportunity of discussing the merits of the proposal than any shareholder in any company of the nature of the Industrial Credit Company would ever have. There is no real substance in Senator Sir John Keane's statement that we are practically handing over £5,000,000 to the Executive Council with the same sort of control as shareholders exercise over directors. I think that the Executive Council and the Minister for Finance whoever he may be at a particular time, are subject to much more control and much stronger criticism than any board of directors in any commercial concern ordinarily would be. One thing which our financial procedure ensures is that if any moneys are voted by the Dáil under the Estimates, or otherwise, no Minister, no member of the Executive Council and no Government official gets that money to do with it as he likes. Every penny piece of that money comes under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The moneys which I may have to find for the underwriting of any one of these issues will come under his scrutiny. I think that he would be quite entitled, and would probably feel bound, to draw the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts to failure on my part to exercise due caution and proper prudence in accepting any responsibilities or obligations under this Bill.

The Senator said that most of the undertakings to be financed by the Industrial Credit Company would be businesses with monopoly powers and that it would be easy for them to cover losses. I think that that is an anticipation which, in practice, it would be very difficult to fulfil—that any business having a monopoly, say, of an essential foodstuff in this country would find it easy to cover losses. After all, they could only cover losses by raising prices. The increase of prices would certainly lead to a reduction in consumption, which would probably increase the losses. Whether it would or would not, it would arouse a great deal of resentment in the country—resentment which would be speedily visited on the Government of the day and which would probably lead to its downfall ultimately unless the Government took steps actively to intervene and ensure that if these losses were due to bad management, that defect would be quickly remedied. It might be easy for a private monopoly to cover losses by raising prices but if it is a monopoly in which the Government of the day has any interest, direct or indirect, or over which it has any control, then is seems to me it would be in a very difficult position, indeed, if it were to raise prices directly or indirectly—by increasing the subsidies to the company, by increasing tariffs or, in any other way, endeavouring to cover over the consequences of maladministration. The Senator asked me to give him some conception as to the debenture capital. He said it was a prior lien or charge sometimes issued when concerns were in difficulties. The Senator knows as well as I do that it is just as often issued by concerns that are in a very strong, sound and solvent position which wish to borrow money very cheaply and give a debenture charge as an additional security. It is not unusual to find in the articles of association of any company this power to issue debentures and there is no reason why it should not appear in the articles of association of the Industrial Credit Company. But it does appear in this memorandum that the power shall not be exercised without the consent of the Minister while he holds more than half the nominal value of the issued shares of the company. In passing I should like to say that I shall bring in an amendment which will reduce the holding of the Minister from a half to one-fifth. So long as he does hold a significant share in the company, debentures will not be issued without his knowledge, so that the greatest protection may be afforded to the holding which the State may have in the concern.

I think if this concern does justify itself and prove a success, there is no reason why, if they want to raise money on particularly easy terms, they should not have power to issue debentures if they feel that that would be beneficial. The next question was: "Is it intended to ask for a quotation on the Stock Exchange?" I would say "yes" to that. In answer to the question: "Will the stock be marketable?" I would say "yes." I should also like to make this reservation in that connection: that if the Government has to take up any substantial amount of stock, it would be incumbent on it to hold that stock firmly, at any rate, until the company was well established. It would not be fair, I think, to private individuals to ask them to invest their money in an enterprise like this in which—again, without wanting the phrase to be too greatly extended—there is a speculative element, unless the Government were prepared to shoulder the major portion of any risks which may arise. Undoubtedly, if the Minister for Finance was called upon to take up any substantial block of capital he would have, I think, to resign himself to hold that capital for an appreciable period, and, certainly, he could never realise it in circumstances which would be likely to involve heavy and undue losses on the other members of the company.

I do not think there is any other point that remains to be dealt with. As I explained at the beginning, it is our desire that the general public should come into this. We are not coercing them; we are not coaxing them. The risks are there plain to be seen. Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Jameson have already referred to them, but if the general public do not come in, if they are unwilling or hesitant, then the Government has got to step in and see that, so far as it can, this Industrial Credit Company is established to carry out the ends which we have in view.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 25th July, 1933.

As this Bill is a Money Bill, may I suggest that it will be necessary to finish it next week, particularly in view of the fact that at the end of next week the House will be adjourning for a fortnight?

Cathaoirleach

We will try to do that.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 20th July, 1933.

Top
Share