There are Government recommendations to this Bill.
Industrial Credit Bill, 1933 (Certified Money Bill)—Report Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Cathaoirleach
I move recommendation 1:—
Schedule. Paragraph 4. Before sub-paragraph (b) to insert two new sub-paragraphs as follows:—
(b) that there shall be a managing director of the company, and, subject to the next following subparagraph, the directors of the company shall from time to time appoint one of their body to be managing director of the company;
(c) that the first managing director of the company shall be such one of the directors of the company as the Minister may appoint and shall hold the office of managing director for such period, on such terms, and subject to such conditions as the Minister may direct.
I am asking the Seanad to make this recommendation to meet a point of substance which was made, I think, by a number of Senators during the discussion on the Second Reading, when it was pointed out that the managing director was by far the most important member of the Board of the proposed industrial credit company, and that he might, under certain circumstances, be more important than the chairman, if the chairman happened not to be the managing director. Accordingly, I am asking that the Seanad should make this recommendation to the Dáil, so that specific provision should be made for the appointment of managing director and that the first managing director should be appointed by the Minister. I may say that arising out of the discussion here a provision similar to this has been incorporated in the Sugar Beet Bill which is already before the Dáil.
I rise not so much to oppose this recommendation as to query the wisdom of having it before us to-day. It is rather startling to me to hear that there was any request from this House to the Minister that a recommendation of this kind should be inserted at this stage. Undoubtedly the managing director will be the man —the key-man. I think this is a radical factor in the provisions of this Bill and, for that reason, I suggest that such a proposal as is embodied in this recommendation should have been submitted to the Dáil before it came to this House. I ask the House to give attention to paragraph (c) of the recommendation (paragraph read). I do not know if there is within the statutes of the Saorstát a precedent for a recommendation like this. In one measure which passed through the Oireachtas, the Cork City Management Act, a specific manager was mentioned. We know that that individual was mentioned because of his outstanding qualifications for the position; that he was appointed because, above everything else, he was fitted for the position, and the appointment was not one that could in any way be described as having been made through political or Party influence. Here an appointment is going to be made of a person who will be the major influence in the handling of £5,000,000 and the appointment is going to be at the discretion of the Minister. I question if it is wise for this House to confer such power on any Minister, and especially I question the wisdom of the House in inserting this recommendation in this Bill, inasmuch as it has not been submitted to the Dáil and has not received the approval of the Dáil. We have no evidence of what the disposition of the other House will be to such a recommendation. I do not want to suggest that there are political motives in this, but I suggest, if there was ever an opportunity for an appointment on political grounds, using a large sum of State money, here you have it. For that reason, before the House assents to the proposal, I would like to have some more convincing reason given by the Minister than he has put forward in recommending it to the House.
We should remember what sort of Bill we are considering, an Industrial Credit Bill. As far as I remember its object, there was to be an underwriting company, to provide industrial credit "and for the acquisition by the Minister for Finance of share capital of such company and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." The share capital of this company is to be issued, I take it, to the public. There was an idea that the Government was to give £15,000 to pay the expenses of formation and that afterwards by Section 4:
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.
I did not understand that the Government intended to stop the issuing of shares in the company to the public. As there was going to be £5,000,000 of State money dealt with by the company I thought the public would probably like to take an interest in it by taking shares. Now when I read Section 4 and the recommendation on the Order Paper, I see that it practically means that the Minister is going to veto the public coming in and buying shares in the company. Section 5 states:
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 specified time taken up by the public, he will take up and pay for such shares or some specified proportion thereof.
A company which underwrites shares always undertakes to take up any balance not subscribed by the public. Looking at the Government recommendation and at Section 5, it seems as if the intention of the Minister was to make this industrial credit company, to which the Free State is going to give £5,000,000 of capital to be applied to the promotion of various companies, as Senator Milroy stated, a Government controlled company, into which public money cannot go, and in which the Government are going to appoint the directors and the chairman. In fact, we are establishing not an underwriting company but a Department of the Free State Government. There is no question whatever about that. I agree with Senator Milroy that it is a difficult thing for the Seanad to deal with this question, without wishing to interfere in matters in which probably we should not interfere.
Supposing we do not like it and we divide against it, then we are raising up another quarrel. If we endorse it and agree with the Minister, we are giving our approval to a scheme of which honestly we do not know the ins and outs. There has been no discussion or debate here as to whether this Industrial Bill, this Department of Government, for the management of £5,000,000 of Free State money, is a wise thing. I thought the Bill in its original shape was going through; though we could not put forward amendments, we criticised it. Individually I did not like it and I thought it a great risk, but it was impossible for the Seanad to oppose it or do anything useful with it. I doubt if we can give our approval to an amendment which really makes this a new Government Department. I think Senator Milroy is quite right in his contention. It is not a question on which the Seanad ought to be asked to vote or be asked to decide. An amendment of this nature is very serious in a Bill in regard to which we can only make suggestions. If we knew that the matter had been fully discussed and that the questions which arise in our minds had been dealt with in the Dáil it would be another matter, but it is an astonishing thing that the Seanad should be put in this position and asked to approve of recommendations which, unless several other Senators are going to be as long-winded as I have been, can never really be adequately considered by the Seanad. We only got these proposals the other day and I think the Seanad ought to hesitate a good while before they pass this recommendation. I say that without any desire to embarrass the Government. The manner in which this recommendation has come before the Seanad interferes with the critical examination of a proposal which completely alters the aspect of the whole Bill.
I quite understand that the industrial projects that are to be pushed forward under this measure are of a very important character. It seems to me that they will require to be under the direction of very competent men indeed. From the amendment put down by the Minister, it would seem to me that he has a doubt himself as to the competence and the wisdom of the men who would be put in charge of these various companies. Surely it should be in their hands, and in their hands alone, to select which one of them should manage such an undertaking.
There is to be only one company.
There is one company of which there may be a number of subsidiary companies. Is it not fairly obvious that if you are going to appoint a board of directors, you must leave a great many matters in their hands? A most important matter I should say would be the appointment of the man who is to be managing director. If the managing director is forced upon them by the Minister, these people will be able always to tell us if they do not succeed, as we hope they will, that it was not because of their incompetence but that the project fell through because of the gentleman who was put in as managing director on the direction of the Minister. I think it is a serious position for the Minister himself to take up.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the difficulties enumerated by Senator Jameson owing to the fact that the Seanad is asked to approve of this recommendation. Otherwise, this is a Money Bill. Without going too closely into details, I think the Seanad can accept the position that the Government is making an effort to meet what everyone knows is a serious problem in this country, that is, the difficulty of getting Irish investors to put their money into an Irish enterprise. I have looked at the recommendations, and I am not at all certain that the Minister is not making a serious mistake in this recommendation. If there is going to be any smooth working in a company of this kind, it is, to my mind, essential that the exact relations between the managing director and the directors should be beyond question. If I read this recommendation aright, the Minister is not only to nominate the managing director, whether the directors like it or not, but he is also to lay down his terms of office and the conditions of his employment. What is the position going to be then? Who is really to control the investments which this company is to undertake? For the sake of argument, we will assume that the Minister in the first instance does not get the majority of the shares subscribed for by the public. I do not say that would be the case but there is a possibility that it may be so. In that case, the Minister of course will have control. How is he going to exercise that control? He will have that control even apart from the special powers given to him in this Bill. How is he going to exercise it? Is he to exercise it directly himself or is he to exercise it in the same way as any other shareholder or group of shareholders would exercise control of the company—by the removal of the directors?
It seems to me that it would be better either to make this a Government Department, for which the Minister would be directly responsible—I mean better from the point of view of making it work—or adopt the other plan of making the managing director responsible. Let us say that the directors meet once a week to consider the matters that normally come before them. They are in the position that the terms and the conditions of office of the person who is to be managing director and over whom nominally they have control, have been fixed by a person whom they cannot obviously control. It seems to me that they will have very little control in these circumstances. It is obvious that with the powers which are given him in this Bill, apart from the powers which he would have if he has the majority of the shares, the Minister will have the whole say in the nomination of these directors. I would suggest to the Minister that he is not only putting the directors in an almost impossible position but he is putting himself in an extremely difficult position by taking the powers proposed in the recommendation. I did not intend to speak on this Bill at all until this recommendation came along and, in speaking now, I am only putting up certain difficulties to the Minister. If the Government are quite satisfied that this is the way they are going to manage the company I, for my part, am not going to do anything that would wreck the scheme that they have in their mind.
Closely connected with the proposals in the recommendation lies the question as to the exact functions of the company in relation to the other companies in which it will have investments. This company may either directly provide portion of the capital or provide all the capital of the other industries in regard to which its function will be to provide shares. It may propose to underwrite them, which I think in most cases would be the better course, in order to get the public to take up the shares, say either in the cement industry, in the sugar beet industry or in other industries. Supposing the Minister has 51 per cent. of the shares in the cement or sugar beet industry—I mention these only as instances—what exactly is his position? Has he each year to nominate the directors of these particular concerns or is he definitely excluded from these functions? It is well known, I think, that the banks are very reluctant indeed to accept responsibility for the exact management of concerns of which through force of circumstances they may get control. Is this board to have the function of nominating directors for the other companies of which it finds itself in control after taking up the shares? That would be again a matter which will come to a large extent within the scope of the managing director—to find suitable persons as directors. I can see room for a very serious difference of opinion between the managing director and the directors on a matter of that kind. I am perfectly certain that, as Senator Crosbie says, any managing director will try to find the most competent persons he can, but there is a possibility that a really serious difference of opinion may arise between the managing director and the directors on this question. The managing director, who derives all his powers directly from the Minister, will presumably, in the case of difficulty, come back to the Minister and the Minister will find himself in the position that he will have directly to control both this company and the other companies which were financed. I do not want to paint too black a picture, but I am putting it to the Minister that if a really serious difficulty like that should arise he would be better out of it unless he takes this over as a Government Department and manages it as such.
I really do not understand the opposition of Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas to the proposal contained in this recommendation. The Bill provides for the expenditure of £15,000 of public money to form a company of which the capital shall be £5,000,000. That may be £5,000,000 of State money. Is it unreasonable that the Minister who represents the public should appoint the first managing director?
Yes.
It is unreasonable! I wonder when the question of the Electricity Supply Board was before the Dáil and the Seanad whether my friend was of the same opinion? Here is public money. Is there to be no control of public money? Is the managing director of that company, which may have £5,000,000 of public money, not to be a person having the confidence of the Minister who is the person who has the confidence of the public? I think that position is unreasonable. I think Senator Douglas, if he has any real opposition to this, as distinct from a factious opposition, which I never attribute to him, should state it plainly, because to the ordinary person where a question of £5,000,000 of public money is concerned, surely it seems the Minister ought to have a voice in the first appointment of the managing director of that company? I can assure Senator Douglas that this recommendation may have the effect of inducing a greater number of the public to subscribe. I would suggest to the Seanad that it is a reasonable recommendation and a reasonable precaution where public money is involved. I do not question what Senator Douglas and Senator Jameson say about the advisability or otherwise of the State taking an interest in enterprises.
It seems to be necessary at the beginning of an industrial period. I do not hope and I do not desire that we should become a highly industrialised country, but I think that a little stimulus to industry is necessary, and I think that, to the extent of £5,000,000, we ought to go, but if the £5,000,000 of public money is to go in the stimulation of industries, I think it ought to be looked after by some person who is in the confidence of the Minister. Senator Douglas asks "what about these subsidiary companies?" If these subsidiary companies are to get money from this central parent association, surely the parent association ought to have control corresponding to the amount of money which it puts into concerns that ex hypothesi are not going well. The Bill does not deal with that, but I hope that with the administration of this measure, in these subsidiary companies, which get money from the parent company, there will be a certain amount of control following the investment of the capital in these companies. I see nothing at all wrong with this recommendation. I think it is necessary to perfect the plan of the measure as it has come before this House.
I do not usually interfere in these questions where high finance is concerned, but it appears to me as an ordinary individual that the Minister is asking for a little too much in this recommendation. I do not at all agree with the remarks of Senator Milroy on this matter. There is no question of a person being mentioned in this, and I think the reference to the name of the individual who was to be the first city manager in Cork has nothing whatever to do with the matters contained in this recommendation. It seems to me that the Government seek to have this Bill passed for the purpose of setting up this Industrial Credit Corporation; that the Government are guaranteeing £15,000 as preliminary expenses for the flotation of the company, and that they propose that if the share capital is not taken up by the public, they will underwrite it and take the share capital themselves. If the public do not subscribe and take the share capital, the Minister has power to appoint a managing director or directors under any condition he likes if he holds the majority of the shares, but if the public subscribe and if they hold the majority of the shares, it is not fair to say that the Minister is entitled to appoint a managing director for life. It says "the first managing director" but the sting is in the tail of the paragraph which says:—
.... and shall hold the office of managing director for such period, on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister may direct.
The Minister may appoint this managing director for 30 years. As I say, I do not usually interfere, but what made me intervene was the objection that was made that this matter was brought forward in the Seanad and not in the Dáil. If we are going to admit that, there is justification for the introduction by the Government of the Bill which they introduced a few weeks ago. I hold that we are entitled to express an opinion on matters of vital importance, irrespective of whether the Dáil has considered them or not. This recommendation ought not to be negatived just because it was not considered in the Dáil. It ought to be considered on its merits and, if the House thinks fit, sent forward to the Dáil for its consideration. I think the Minister is asking a little too much. I personally believe that the Government have in mind the possibility that they will have to underwrite these shares themselves and that it will practically be the company run on State funds. If that is so, the responsible Minister is entitled to appoint the managing director under such conditions.
Only the first managing director.
The Senator has not, apparently, noticed the sting at the end of the paragraph. He can appoint the first managing director, and he can specify a period of office of 50 years.
He will not do that.
I am surprised to hear a lawyer, of all people, say that.
That may be more than a life in being and 21 years after.
It is not what the Minister is likely to do that we ought to consider, but what the Minister has power to do if this Bill becomes law, and I am certainly astonished to hear a lawyer say that he is not likely to do that. If the public subscribe the bulk of the shares for this company, the Minister is not entitled to this. He is, I think, entitled to suggest the appointment of the first managing director, but he is not entitled to the whole of it, and if he stopped at the word "appoint" and left out the rest of it, it would be reasonable. I have no concern with it other than this, that judging by the directors I have met from several companies, it is only fair to say that I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister, if he is appointing the managing director, will appoint one as good as any that have been appointed. I do not mean that for the present Government.
The situation which arises out of this Government recommendation is a peculiar one, and I do not know that we have any precedent for it in this House, but, in connection with it, I should like to remind some of the speakers, including the last two Senators, that there are many of us in this House who are not entirely without experience in matters of this kind, and we are horrified at the prospect of State trading which is opened up by this Bill. It is impossible to make a speech on that subject without going over ground already covered by countless works on the subject and a great many speeches in this House, and I do not propose to do so, but what I do say is that those of us who hold that view profoundly resent having to take any responsibility for a Bill of this kind, and we are perfectly justified in taking that attitude.
I have been quite interested in the speeches made on this recommendation. Senator Milroy and other Senators, if we are to judge by their statements and suggestions, seem to be of the opinion that the present Government are going to remain in office for at least 50 years.
I hope not.
That is a great change about for some of the men who are making those statements but, in any case, it would appear to me that the insertion of this recommendation would influence people to freer investment in this proposition. When the Bill was first introduced and during the various debates here, it was pointed out that the idea of the Bill was to make capital available for certain purposes and it was admitted, I think, by Senator Sir John Keane that there was plenty of money in the country but that the difficulty was that people were not inclined to invest it in Irish industries for various reasons. In my opinion, the insertion of this recommendation will be an inducement to people to invest. It will do away with that uncertainty which has caused this lack of investment in Irish industries by people who hold money in this country and who hold a good share of it. It is ridiculous to state, as has been stated here, that the Minister may allow this condition of things to endure for a period of 50 years. Anybody knows that, regardless of what Party is in power, the Minister is responsible to the people and has to answer for his actions to the Dáil and that no responsible Minister would adopt the attitude that it must endure for such a period. This, I believe, is quite a reasonable recommendation and one which will add considerably to the working of the Bill as a whole. I believe it will induce people to invest their money because they will have the assurance of having at least a competent managing director. As so many people, however, seem to be worrying about the length of time this Government are going to stay in power and as to whether it will be 50 years or ten years—for myself, I believe it will be 50 years—I am sure the Minister would agree to appoint the first managing director for a shorter period, say, three years. I am sure that would meet with the approval of the House and I would recommend that the House agree with such a recommendation if the Minister were agreeable to accept it.
I half seriously suggested, on the last occasion, that Senator Jameson, in his opposition to the Second Reading, had really in mind that private corporations would take up the whole of the shares in this company because of its almost certain success as a dividend earning institution. I am not quite so sure now whether that ought not to be treated quite seriously because I see that the Articles of Association set out in the Schedule already provide that the Minister, so long as he holds not less than half of the nominal value of the shares, shall appoint the majority of the directors. There is no question in that statement up to now of a managing director but if they have a majority of the directors, I suppose they could appoint a managing director without it being in the Articles of Association.
Not by the Bill.
Not by the Bill, but, surely, when the company is formed, a majority of the directors might decide that one of their number should be the managing director.
That is not before us at the present time.
I quite understand that but I take it to be within the competence of a board of directors constituted under the Articles of Association, even if those articles did not contain a provision setting out that they should have a managing director, to appoint, on their own initiative, one of their number as their managing director.
Unless it was excluded. They could under Table A which would be applicable. That would be the position without this amendment.
Exactly. That being the position of a company of which a majority of the directors were appointed by the Minister, it would suggest itself to me that the fact that the Minister is going to appoint the first managing director would leave the appointed directors in a freer position than they would otherwise be, that is to say, the Minister is going to appoint four of the seven directors and if there is no such provision in the Bill and if he feels it important that there ought to be a managing director, he can use what influence he has in making the appointment of the four directors to ensure that they shall appoint a managing director. Is it not better that the managing director is to be appointed at the instigation of the Minister by the action of this Bill rather than by the influence he might bring to bear on the appointees? If that is feasible at all, and I think it is, the question resolves itself into a question of the conditions of the appointment which are referred to in the latter part of this paragraph (c). I think the Minister is asking too much power. Even though it were assumed that the Minister will always hold a majority of shares, I do not think he should take power to appoint the managing director for such period as he wishes "on such terms" as he wishes and "subject to such conditions" as the Minister may direct, such a provision to be inserted in the Articles of Association of a company which ostensibly is going to be somewhat free from Ministerial authority. I think it is too far-reaching in the circumstances unless we have the whole of the Articles of Association before us. Not having the Articles of Association before us completely, I think the Minister should not ask for these detailed powers, while I agree that he should have the right to appoint the managing director, whether he has a majority of the shares or not, for the first period of the company's existence.
Could the Minister tell us if this company is going to take over the assets and liabilities of the old trades loans?
I am sorry that in introducing this amendment I left the House, possibly, without as full information as may have been desirable. I would like to get back to Senator Jameson's speech because it went to the root of the whole matter. He pointed out that under Section 3 the Minister is to provide £15,000 for the formation of the company: that that money is to be provided by way of loan and is ultimately to be repaid to the Exchequer, and that there is no other primary commitment in the Bill beyond the contingent liability of having to underwrite such issues as may from time to time be sanctioned under Section 4 by the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Now what is the conclusion to be drawn from that? It is this: that the Government has no desire that its commitments in respect of this company should at any time exceed the £15,000 which it is lending in the first instance. It is anxious that, so far as possible, the issues of the company will be fully taken up by the public, and it has to take all the measures which in its opinion are best devised to secure that end. The Minister is charged under Section 2 with the formation and the registration of the company. That means that he must draw up the prospectus. In doing that and in issuing it he has to place before the general public in the first instance, before any money has been subscribed by the general public to this company, a board which will secure public confidence and attract public money. I said that the importance of the post of managing director had been stressed by a number of Senators including I think Senator Jameson during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been stressed here to-day. It has been pointed out that this is the most important appointment that can be made, and that upon the personality of the individual who fills the post, his reputation and experience as a businessman, will depend the success or failure of the public issue which it is anticipated the company will make shortly after it is formed.
I have said that the Minister is charged with the formation of the company. He has to submit his proposals to the public in detail. He has to show the public that the company is going to be provided with a competent managing director, and how can the Minister do that unless he is empowered under the Bill to enter into negotiations with such person or persons as he thinks will have the necessary qualifications to fill this post? I have no individual in my mind for it at the moment. I do think that it is going to be a very difficult post to fill, and that I may have to cast my net very wide. I shall certainly have to go and ask some person who at present is occupying an important position in the business world either here in Ireland or elsewhere. I cannot go to him unless I am in a position to enter into a definite and specific agreement with him for a term of years, an agreement which would provide, amongst other things, that he was to be paid a definite salary, that in the event of the board of the company deciding to dispense with his services at any time before the expiration of the period for which he was engaged he would secure adequate compensation —such a sum as would compensate him for the loss of position which we may have to ask him to resign in order to take an appointment with this company.
It is quite clear from what I have said that the responsibility for finding this managing director will, in the first instance, rest upon the Minister who is charged with the formation of a company. I think myself it is doubtful whether I should have power to take that essential and necessary step for the formation of the company unless this recommendation were made by the Seanad and were inserted by the Dáil in the Bill when it goes back to the Dáil. That is the whole position, and that is the justification for the recommendation. On the question of the period, I would be prepared to accept a reasonable amendment in regard to that, but "on such terms and subject to such conditions," I do not think it would be possible for us to draw up any form of words that would cover every contingency and every point that might arise during the negotiations. Again, I would like to say that the one purpose of the recommendation is to ensure that when an appeal is made to the public it will be clear that there will be a competent person in control of the management of this company. It is not with any ulterior motive, or any motive beyond that, that I am asking the Seanad to make this recommendation to the Dáil.
I do not know whether it would be desirable for me to deal with the points which were raised by Senator Milroy: that it was unfair to the Seanad to ask them to do this. I think that has been very effectively dealt with by Senator Farren. After all, it seems to me that in giving the Seanad the opportunity first of considering this recommendation in an atmosphere which does not prevail elsewhere, I am endeavouring to utilise to the full extent of its capacity the powers the Seanad has, and I do not think that it should be regarded as in any way a slight or a reflection on this House that I should ask them in the first instance to consider this matter. I have told the Seanad exactly why this recommendation has been considered necessary by my advisers if I am going to appeal effectively to the public to subscribe for the shares of this company when it is floated. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say any more. I only ask the Seanad to decide the question on its merits. Should it happen that it does not meet with your acceptance, we may have to find some other way to do this thing than this plain straightforward way which I am asking the House now to give me power to do it. We may have to have a certain amount of intrigue and hugger-mugger, such as Senator Johnson referred to, which I, personally, have a great distaste for, and in which I would not like to be involved.
There is just one point that I would like to put to the Minister. The Minister has power under the Bill to appoint the chairman of the directors. The recommendation that we are discussing concerns the position of managing director. Could not the powers which the Minister is taking under the Bill in regard to the chairman be transferred, so to speak, to apply to the position of the managing director? I gathered from the Minister's speech that the reason why he thinks that cannot be done is that he may have to go outside for the managing director and he wants to be in a position to offer attractive terms. Before the Minister says his last word on this I would like him to tell us what is the great point as regards the managing director, and this power of appointing him for such a long period?
I suggest that it would be desirable to have the Report Stage of the Bill deferred for some time to enable the points that have been raised discussed further, and, if possible, to have them met by some further recommendation. I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but I think it would be desirable to do what I suggest.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator is aware that this is a Money Bill and that the House has only a certain number of days to deal with it. It would not be possible to have the Report Stage of the Bill deferred for any considerable length of time.
The matter could be adjourned for an hour, say.
There is this point. I feel that the managing director should be the servant of the company. The directors are not. If a time limit of any reasonable period is inserted, then he becomes their servant because at the end of that period they can appoint another. Therefore, he knows that he is their servant. I do not object to the first choice being made by the Minister, but I want to ensure that the thing will be in order afterwards.
I do not want the term to be too long. I appreciate the force of what has been said. It must be of such length——
Not exceeding ten years, say.
If that meets with the acceptance of the Seanad, I am in their hands. What I am anxious about is that I should be in a position to make a firm bargain with a competent person.
As this is the last opportunity that the Seanad will have of dealing with the recommendation it would be better if the time were put in an exact form. If we had an adjournment for a short period it might be possible to do that by agreement.
Cathaoirleach
I think that is a very good suggestion. If there is a short adjournment those who have taken an interest in this matter will have an opportunity to discuss it. I may say that I was very much struck myself by what Senator Farren said, that even in the event of the majority of the shares being subscribed by the public, they apparently are going to be ignored altogether. It seems to me to be unreasonable that, if the majority of the shares are subscribed by the public, under this they will have no voice at all in the appointment of the managing director. Is it agreed that this matter should be adjourned for an hour to enable those who are interested in it to discuss it further?
If the Minister would get his draftsman to make the necessary change it could be briefly discussed.
Cathaoirleach
It would be better if three or four of the Senators interested would go and meet him and come back with a cast-iron proposal, because the debate cannot be reopened.
Perhaps it would be possible, instead of adjourning for an hour, to dispose of Nos. 2 and 3 on the Order Paper.
Cathaoirleach
I am sure the Seanad will agree to that course.
Consideration of recommendation adjourned to a later stage.