Senator Ross was in possession.
Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I understood we were waiting for a Minister from the Department. Is that not correct? I am happy to wait for him, with the agreement of the House.
Acting Chairman
He may be a little late.
I will wait for him, if the House agrees.
I thought the Government Whip indicated the Minister was outside waiting to come in, so we could not continue with the debate on the levies.
Acting Chairman
Arrangements had been made that the other item would be taken at 5 o'clock. That is what the Whip was indicating at that time. In fact, the debate was to begin at 5 o'clock but Senator Ross asked if the House agreed to wait for the Minister responsible.
I have no objection to waiting for the Minister, but Senator Wright actually stated we could not continue, even by agreement, in relation to the previous business because the Minister was outside waiting to come in on the ICC Bill.
Acting Chairman
That may be, but agreement had been reached that this item would be taken at 5 o'clock. If you were to break that agreement then you would have to consult the Whips as well in order to get agreement on that.
The Whips have being consulting for the past hour to try to tidy up the business.
Acting Chairman
I am not going to get into a discussion on this item anyway.
The House was misled.
Acting Chairman
Not necessarily, Senator.
Not deliberately, but it was misled.
Acting Chairman
The House cannot be held up any longer. The Minister is unavoidably absent for ten minutes. The Minister's advisers are here and I would suggest that we continue.
The House has agreed to wait for the Minister and I am perfectly happy to do so. It is only a matter of a few minutes.
I apologise for the Minister's delay. I propose that we continue with the business, with Minister Seamus Kirk present, until the Minister arrives, So, continue with the business of the House.
I agree with what Senator Doyle has already said: that we adjourned the last debate on the levies because the Minister was outside. He was not outside. I would prefer — as the House has agreed — to speak on this debate before the appropriate Minister.
I am making a very definite point on this. I have great respect, as I have said before, for the Minister present, but I think it is time the Seanad got the appropriate Minister for the appropriate Bill. One of the reasons we adjourned was because the Minister was ready and now the Minister is not here.
Acting Chairman
Senator, there is no procedural reason why the debate cannot continue. In fact, there is a Minister present, the Minister's advisers are present and I see no reason in the world why the debate cannot continue.
Because we were told that the Minister, the appropriate Minister, was outside we adjourned the last debate on that basis and for that reason.
These are semantics. We have a Minister here, the advisers are here and there is no reason in the world why this debate cannot continue. I would propose that we go ahead with the debate now, given that the Minister here is willing.
The Minister would much prefer to hear Senator Dardis's concluding remarks on the bovine TB levies and Senator Dardis would not have to come back at 11 o'clock tonight to give a five minute wind-up speech.
Acting Chairman
We are not getting into the pros and cons of whom people would like to hear speak or whom they would not like to hear speak. If Senator Ross is not offering I will have to call the next speaker. I do not think we can hold up the House on a procedural matter like this. There is a Minister present, there are advisers present, we are in the middle of a debate and I see no reason why this debate cannot continue.
Senator Wright told us that the Minister was waiting outside the door so we could not continue.
Acting Chairman
That has nothing to do with the Chair, Senator.
The agreement was that that debate would come to an end at 5 o'clock and that we would recommence the debate on the Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill at 5 o'clock. We have a Minister here. We have the advisers here. We are setting a precedent and we should go ahead with the debate.
Acting Chairman
That is the point I have been making. Is Senator Ross offering?
I am offering. I must say it is time, whatever Government legislation is before the other House and whatever Ministers are doing, that when we get a Bill like this we get the appropriate Minister in here. I have spoken in this House more often than not recently — and I have spoken a lot — before the Minister whose portfolio does not deal with the subject in hand. All the Ministers concerned have been competent people and all of them have been on top of the portfolio they handle, but we have frequently had to speak before Ministers who were not appropriate to the matter under discussion.
May I suggest that all Ministers who came in here have shown themselves in the past to be extremely competent irrespective of the area and even if outside their jurisdiction. It is a gross insult to any Minister coming into this House and it is typical of the type of hoo-ha we get from Senator Ross from time to time.
Acting Chairman
Could I ask you now to address yourselves to the Bill, please?
Was that a point of order or was it a point of clarification?
It was home truths.
It is most important that those points are made as points of order or points of information, that they are in order. I notice that Senator O'Keeffe was not interrupted in the point he made.
Acting Chairman
Neither were you on a number of occasions, Senator. The Minister responsible is present now and I ask the Senator to get on with the debate.
I would point out to you, Sir, that when Senator O'Keeffe interrupted me he was allowed to do so and he was not pulled up for any reason whatsoever.
Acting Chairman
I did not pull you up either and you were not talking about the matter in hand.
I was. I was talking about having a——
Acting Chairman
Let me be fair about this. This is crazy. Minister Smith was unavoidably detained for a couple of minutes and it was suggested that Minister Kirk would continue in his place until he arrived. You are making a big issue out of nothing. Deputy Smith has arrived and you still continue to pursue a different matter. Would you please deal with the matter in hand.
Could I——
Acting Chairman
No, you cannot. Are you offering to speak in this debate, Senator Ross?
Of course, I am.
Could I say something?
Acting Chairman
No, you cannot. I ask you to resume your seat.
As a former junior Minister, I recognise the Rent-a-Minister——
(Interruptions.)
Thank you for dealing with the matter so impartially, Sir. I should like to say that this Bill is double-edged in that it gives to ICC a considerable advantage in its activities in the markets but it also gives a considerable disadvantage. The advantage which it gives to ICC is that it gives it a Government guarantee over its borrowings. That is a formal guarantee which is not given to its competitors and which is not given to other merchant banks. It is not given to other financial institutions. It may be said, and it has been said, that other financial institutions are given some sort of implicit Government guarantee, because the Government cannot afford to allow a major bank, or a minor bank, to go under or to get itself into financial trouble. The situation with Allied Irish Banks when the Life Assurance Company was in serious trouble is an indication that this is in fact the case, although it is not the case in law.
This Bill asks us — and I am in favour of the Bill — to give a vote of confidence not only to ICC, which is the principal reason the Bill should go through, but also to give ICC an advantage over its competitors by giving it a Government guarantee over further borrowings. It contains also a major disadvantage to ICC in that there is a limit on its borrowing which is set by statute. That is a disadvantage to ICC.
I would like to compare it with the case of Bord na Móna, which we only found out about yesterday. One of the principal reasons for the position in which Bord na Móna finds itself is because it has its loans guaranteed by the Government. There is no comparison in terms of profitability and success. ICC is a very successful company and has been since its inception in 1933. Bord na Móna is a company in serious trouble. But both companies are working with the great advantage of having the benefit of a Government guarantee. One of the lessons of this Bill and of the Bord na Móna Bill is that a Government guarantee is inappropriate, in commercial terms, to those companies in trouble and it is inappropriate for companies who are doing well because it restricts them. Bord na Móna would not be in such appalling straits if it had not got a Government guarantee on its borrowings at the moment, because it could not have borrowed as much money as it has. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is £140 million now, which is a massive amount of money, and there is very little chance of that money coming back and the Government being repaid. It does not seem likely that in the near future this money will be repaid.
ICC, similarly, would be a different type of institution if the Government did not guarantee its borrowings. It would probably be a bigger and, in commercial terms, a more successful institution. In this case you will find that Government guarantee acts as a restriction. You will find that ICC does not compete with other merchant banks and other financial institutions on exactly the same terms because it cannot expand as fast as it wants to or freely in the open market. What this Bill shows is not muddled thinking about the ICC, but it shows a piecemeal attitude to the ICC. It shows a piecemeal attitude as to whether we should have a State bank at all. We have not really tackled this problem.
The justification for this Bill — and it solves a short-term problem — is that ICC need this urgently. They need more money and they need to be able to borrow more money urgently, so we have to pass legislation to give them this additional facility. That is bad way to run a State bank. It is a bad way to run the ACC or the ICC. The last Bill of this sort expanding the borrowing of the ICC was in 1983, but perhaps £200 million will prove a very small amount in the short term and the Minister will have to come back to us again in the next five or six years, or maybe in three years, to ask for this facility to be extended again. I do not think this is the way we should be approaching ICC. We should be asking why have we got a State bank, what should a State bank be doing, and are we doing the right thing with ICC, instead of saying they are doing well, they suddenly need some more money, they are very close to their limit and we do not know how close is their limit.
Should we actually change the status of the State bank and the function of the State bank? Should we remove the Government guarantee and let that State bank go out into the open market and free it from the shackles of being attached to the State? The ICC was set up as a development bank for small manufacturing industry in the 1930s when the country needed that very badly. It gave subsidies, or hidden subsidies, and subsidised loans to manufacturing industry to nurture them in their infancy. This is what it was about and it was a very necessary institution at the time.
Since that time — and 1933 is a long time ago — the bank has transformed itself into being a financial institution which competes with other merchant banks and insurance companies in nearly all the areas in which they perform as well. Yet, ICC is subject to the same basic constraints that it was subject to in 1933 — in other words, that when it has to do certain things it has to come back to the Government to ask permission and an Act of the Oireachtas has to go through.
I can understand why the Minister is now asking us to do that. He is doing it because he has to. But the Minister's speech does not show any vision of what the Government feel is the future of ICC. When an institution like that transforms itself into something completely different from what it was when it was set up, it is time we did not just accept it and restrain it: we should give it a blessing and say what we expect from a State bank. We are, after all, the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is exactly the sort of thing about which a Government should come before us and say that they think ICC should now be recognised as something different. It should be recognised as very competent in its field but it should not have the same restraints attached to it as it had in 1933, which is basically the situation. They are on a larger scale than they were then, but it is time the Government said: let us have a look at ICC, let us allow it to compete on an equal footing with all the other merchant banks. That it what it is not doing.
It is time the Government tackled the thorny question of privatising ICC, that they recognised the anomaly in which it is now working, the strange capitalist world in which a State bank is now operating and that the Government simply said: look, it is inappropriate at this stage to have a State owned body operating in a private sector. That is something which has not been addressed in this debate. It has not been addressed, as far as I know, by the Government in a debate for a very long time. It is a very sensible basic question, particularly as the Government have taken a particular attitude to Irish Life, that it should be privatised.
It is a logical consequence of the privatisation of Irish Life that both State banks, the ICC and the ACC, should be privatised as well. I do not know the reasons for the privatisation of Irish Life, but I assume one of the principal reasons is that the Government want to get their hands on the loot, and that is a very good reason. The Government feel the money can be used for something more profitable, that it can be put into something more profitable than what is is being used for at the moment, and that they can get a very good price.
What should be done with ICC and ACC, and ICC in particular because ICC is a very valuable company with assets of several hundred millions? I think it is time the Government said: we are prepared to privatise it; there are institutions out there willing to buy, willing to invest in shares in ICC, to buy the Government's shares in ICC, and the money will be used for infrastructure in education, health, in all those Departments where it is lacking so badly, where people have been crying out for help for the past four or five years. It should be used as capital investment, not as current investment, in those Departments. I see no problem in doing that.
There is no point in the Government having assets like ICC unless they are going to get a superb dividend or are going to sell them and use the money for something better from which the people of this country can benefit. Let us say they sold off ICC for several hundred million pounds. There are all sorts of things that could be done with that money. Some of the national debt, which is a major problem, could be paid off. Education and health matters could be tackled. Basics like that could be dealt with. I hope it is not proposed to hold back on this from some sort of strange ideological reason, which I do not think is any longer appropriate in the present context. It is only a matter of transferring capital from one place to another and using it more efficiently and more humanely. ICC could happily float on the stock market. It would be bought up by several private, public and institutional investors and the Government would benefit.
I hope when the Minister says he has asked for consultants to look at ICC, which he did in his original speech — although he did not tell us really what was their brief — that privatisation is in that brief. I hope that everything is in that brief. I hope specifically that he has asked that privatisation be in that brief, because it is utterly logical that ICC should certainly be the next candidate for privatisation after Irish Life.
I would like to refer again to the consultants. I mentioned this in passing the last time, but it was before a different Minister, which is fairly typical of this House at the moment. If the Minister has called in consultants to look at ICC I sometimes wonder — first perhaps he could tell us who the consultants are, although that is not very important — why neither he nor any Minister has asked the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies to tackle this problem for him. That joint committee, which some people quite often do not recognise, writes reports on semi-State bodies. It examines them and its terms of reference would be utterly appropriate for this mission I am talking about. The committee has the power and the money to call in consultants to look at semi-State bodies like ICC which company has not been examined or reported on by that committee since 1980. I have been privileged to be a member of that committee for some time. Although ICC has been mentioned as a candidate several times, for some reason it has actually escaped the scrutiny of that committee for the last few years, mainly due, I think, to electoral interruptions.
The Minister might consider using that committee, because that is what it is there for — to examine State-sponsored bodies. It is there to make recommendations about how the State-sponsored bodies are performing and specifically to make recommendations about their future. Maybe it is a reflection of our general opinion of that and other committees that it obviously was not even considered.
What I am objecting to really is duplication. There is duplication here as there was on Irish Life and on the B & I. That joint committee is sitting with 11 Members of the Oireachtas, all competent people, many interested in that area and chosen for that area, many can read balance sheets, many would have a contribution to make on that, who could call in a consultant and go through it with them. The Minister would have the advantage then of not just having consultants issuing a report, but he would have consultants for whom money is provided and Members of the Oireachtas of all parties making an input into the future of ICC and considering the area of privatisation. It is only a suggestion but it is one we should be considering not only in this case but in many other cases as well.
I know the Fóir Teoranta Bill is in no way connected to this Bill. I wonder — and it has not been explained to us in any detail nor has the detail of the portfolio being handed to Fóir Teoranta been explained to us in any detail by the Minister in his opening speech — why the ICC has been handed the portfolio of loans rather than the investments of Fóir Teoranta. It appears prima facie, but it is very difficult to get information on this, that ICC has been handed some sort of a poison chalice. The fact that Fóir Teoranta has had to close meant that somebody had to pick up the management of the loans and the liabilities of Fóir Teoranta, and I wonder why it was handed to ICC, why it was not handed out to tender, or why it was not competed for. It appears that this is part of the double life of a State bank, that whereas it is competing in the market place, and presumably the Fóir Teoranta portfolio will be consolidated in the ICC results at some stage, its results will be affected by picking up the Fóir Teoranta portfolio. I would have thought that that should be run separately as it is wound up. It is possibly unfair on ICC to be handed the responsibility of that State body which was obviously not running its affairs as efficiently or as effectively as ICC was doing.
The issue of Directors on State-sponsored bodies is something which constantly interests me. On this Bill I would consider making a special plea about the appointment of directors to ICC: it is, that the appointment of directors by Government, by successive Governments of all sides, on party political and partisan basis is not in the interests of the companies involved. It is no secret that men and women are appointed to these bodies on the basis of party affiliation. They are often competent in the fields in which they excel, and are often appropriate to the bodies to which they are appointed, but they are appointed very often, not exclusively, on the basis of their loyalty and service to a party. It is not in the interest of any State body that the party affiliation of anybody appointed to that board should ever be considered as a factor. It is especially not in the interests of ICC or Irish Life that this should be the case because ICC and Irish Life are investing in Government stocks, and Irish Life is the biggest investor in Government stocks in the country. It seems that directors who are appointed by Government and the Minister for Finance — I am not saying it happens — will be vulnerable and sensitive to particular pressures from Government at a particular time. It means that the performance of both of these financial institutions is constrained and restricted by virtue of the fact that these people come up for re-election and their re-election is determined by Government. It means that their independence is constantly in question.
I would like to see, especially in the area of finance, an independent body set up to appoint directors to these two boards and to the ACC board. It seems unfair on the directors themselves that their re-election should be subject to the scrutiny of Government and the whim of Government. We had the recent case of Mr. Willis in Irish Life; we have had cases of very strange decisions not to reappoint directors and they can only have been made on the basis of political loyalities and political affiliations. In the case of ICC it would be an extremely appropriate gesture for Government to say: "No, this particular institution is handling large sums of money. It is also investing, buying and selling Government stocks. It is utterly wrong that Government should appoint those people who run that company." I would ask the Minister to consider — no more than that — that the long-enduring custom of Governments appointing to semi-State bodies people who are conspicuous by their service to the party in power be ended.
On a specific basis — this is more appropriate for Committee Stage — is there any particular reason we are being asked to expand the potential borrowings of ICC at the moment? Is it simply in the normal course of business that this is happening, or is it about to indulge in some particular expansion which the Minister could tell us about, or is it just that it is expanding fast? I can see from what it is doing in the area of finance and in the areas the other financial institutions have entered, that it would be expensive, that they would need to borrow more money. I wonder if there is anything specific happening concerning an extra £200 million that we should know about? For how long does the Minister anticipate that this particular borrowing facility will do? In other words, does the Minister think he will be back here in three or four years asking for more, or does he think that the consultants will have reported by then and will have given him an answer, and ICC will have been transformed? As we are being asked to extend this facility, maybe we could be given some breakdown of what this facility is for.
In the context of 1992 and beyond, in the context of the modern financial world where big is best and big will win, ICC will be competing with the bigger banks in many markets and in many areas where it does not have any very obvious niche and where Ireland will be open in financial terms to many foreign banks — it has attracted many already — would the Minister consider not imposing restrictions on its growth and size when we will probably have German, French and maybe American, Japanese — the Government have tried to attract Japanese banks — coming in here who could drown the ICC in terms of size and therefore in terms of competitive edge because size will be the advantage in terms of competitive edge when the barriers are opened? Would the Minister not consider giving ICC its head — the ICC is full of very good, very efficient people who have done an extremely good job in their field — so that it can compete in the financial world with the world's larger banks? It is unfair to restrict it in this way and to tell it to go out and do the job which other people are working without restrictions.
First, I would like to put on record how much I regret the insult that was meted out to the Minister of State, Deputy Kirk here this afternoon by way of innuendo that he was not competent to take this Bill. I find that ironic given that Senator Ross in his speech indicated that on the Committee of Public Accounts there were many people who were versatile in various areas. A suggestion that the Minister of State, Deputy Kirk, had not the competence to take this Bill can only be expected from the bombastic nature of the Senator, which is apparent here this afternoon. When Senator Ross commenced his speech I felt he was hoping that ICC would be less successful than it is but as he proceeded — I must give him credit — he showed that he recognises that the Industrial Credit Company has been an asset to small and medium-sized industries.
The Bill provides for an increase in the amount of borrowing which may be undertaken by ICC. It is timely in that the company reached its £800 million borrowing limit which was set in the 1983 Amendment Act. The proposed increase to £1,000 million is modest given the growth in recent years and obviously this increase will make it necessary for the company to revise its own articles of association as specified in section 3 of the Bill.
It is necessary to note the profitability of the company over the years. I go back to 1988 when profits were £3.4 million before tax: in 1989, £5 million before tax and in 1990, £10 million, which included an exceptional item of approximately £5 million resulting from the sale of Gardiner House. In the current year profits for the half year up to the end of April have gone to £3.1 million compared with £1.9 million for the corresponding period last year.
Senators should be aware that the original purpose in setting up the Industrial Credit Company was to bring Irish companies to the Stock Exchange. This it did right up to the 1960s, but with the advent of foreign banks and the Stock Exchange itself, it adopted a role of being a lender to small and medium-sized indigenous companies. It is particularly significant that its lending is based entirely with Irish companies.
Particularly noticeable also is the diversification of the company: it provides a wide range of financial services comparable to the services provided by the private sector financial institutions, such as, corporate finance and planning, venture capital funding, stock market flotation, pension funds, management of foreign exchange, a full range of trade finance services, deposit loan facilities, hire purchase, leasing facilities and leasing business in the Financial Services Centre. The company has already established itself as a successful innovative financial services group and its transition from being primarily a development bank to a commercially orientated entity is well under way.
In terms of employment within the company it has now on its books a total of 361 persons, 20 of whom are located in Cork, ten in Limerick and 330 in headquarters in Dublin. Also significant is the fact that at a time of regression in the economy it has steadily been adding ten to 12 graduates each year to its staff. This trend, given the Bill before us, hopefully, will continue for the future.
Now that the company has reached its borrowing limit it must stand to reason that if it is to continue lending more money it must be allowed to borrow more money elsewhere. If it can go to the marketplace to borrow it will obviously increase its customer base. The result, as we have seen over the years in terms of this company, has been increased profitability. Considering the profitability over the last number of years, my estimate, given the current trend, is that if there is a £6 million profit to the Minister this year, it stands to reason that the increase in profit could be as high as £8 million or £9 million as a result of the implementations of this Bill.
Like Senator Ross, I am particularly pleased, but for a different reason, that the Minister has decided to bring in the consultancy group. The attachment to job creation of the ICC has never been measured. The special task force that ICC has set up within its ranks to cater particularly for the hotel, catering and the Irish leisure industry, is a step in the right direction given the dramatic growth that has taken place in that sector over the last number of years and the projected growth of 15 per cent in tourism over the next five years.
Given the amount of money ICC is lending to small, medium-sized indigenous industry, it should quantify the jobs that are created as a result. That would make most interesting reading and would provide a clear indication of the major impact ICC is having in that area. Given past experience it is reasonable to assume that extra lending and borrowing will generate more profit which in turn will create a greater return to the Exchequer which, I expect, would be in the region of £8 million or £9 million in this and ensuring years.
We must welcome the fact that the Minister has decided to invite proposals from a number of financial advisory bodies. Whether these financial groups advise the Minister to privatise ICC is something for which we will have to await a Government decision. It is clear that ICC has been making the case that the present statutory restrictions on lending activities should be removed and its capital base strengthened by the State as main shareholder to enable it to develop its full potential. The increased borrowing and guarantee proposed in the Bill would be sufficient to meet ICC's requirements over the next few years. I want to emphasise that the Minister said that these groups would report to him, and that the report would be available in the short term. It can be taken that the extra £200 million now being given will meet the ICC's requirements for the next two to three years by which time I have no doubt that this progressive Government will have decided their attitude to ICC.
I realise that there are other speakers, on this side of the House in particular who want to come in. I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House.
I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Bill. I wish to indicate at the beginning that I am supportive of the Bill. I want to make a few general observations and to pay tribute to the Industrial Credit Corporation for the contribution it has made in a number of areas, in industry, tourism, services and so on. It is of interest that the limit set in 1983 is now almost exceeded. This reflects the valuable contribution made by the ICC and the continuing need for its services.
Assets have shown a growth of £340 million since 1983. Profitability performance, as has been mentioned by other speakers, has been very satisfactory. The ICC has made a valuable contribution to Irish business more particularly to small and medium-sized business. It has provided, again for the small and medium size business an option in business development that was not supported by the associated banks. The principal reason I wanted to contribute to the debate was to make that point. There are many small operations who have been helped by the ICC at crucial points in their development. Had they been dependent on the associated banks they would not be in existence today. Many of them have grown to be highly successful and the contribution of the ICC in this regard is not as fully understood as it should be. Its value in this field has not been fully recognised.
A point was made by another speaker in the earlier discussion about the balance of equity investment and loans. The original intention was that the ICC should become shareholders in Irish business. Rather than consider the imbalance that has been suggested exists between loans and equity investment, we should have regard to the situation that existed. The demand has been there for loans, development capital and working capital. The money was provided and the enterprises involved were successful. It is, again, an indication that the banking system was inadequate. The demand existed and fortunately the ICC were there to meet it in very many cases. The State bank filled the gap to the advantage of many enterprises. By 1992 or perhaps 1993 Irish business will have the option of dealing with European banks for finances and the ICC will have an opportunity to resume its original primary objective as shareholders in Irish industry.
I look forward to 1993 and a welcome freedom and access for Irish business, big, medium and small, to European banks. I repeat something I said earlier, that I do not believe the Irish banking system has served Irish business as well as it should. There was always an overemphasis on security as against the potential of a particular enterprise. There was the awful emphasis on security, often involving mortgaging of the family home, without full consideration being given to the potential of the proposed operation. This was a failure on the part of the Irish banking system. In ignoring the potential of many projects that have proved to be successful the banking system did very little to promote economic development.
There is another side to the coin. Small and medium-sized businesses in recent years have experienced outright opposition by the associated banks and by Irish banks to arranging capital or borrowings in foreign currencies. It has been well recognised that foreign currencies represented a cheaper source of finance for many businesses. I am aware of a number of businesses that had the experience of trying to arrange foreign currency loans through the banking system here only to be met with outright opposition. On the other hand, the ICC undertook that function willingly and, in fact, provided that type of finance where the Irish banking system were not prepared to undertake it. As a result, many small and medium-sized businesses have been successful. That factor alone in some cases represented the difference between success and failure.
While the scheme many change in 1992-93, over the next two years there will be a continuing and worthwhile role for the Industrial Credit Corporation. In so far as the Bill will enable it to fulfil that role, I am quite happy to support it. I am satisfied that the Industrial Credit Corporation has served, the Irish business community well, particularly small and medium sized businesses and that it will be needed over the next few years. I am happy to support the Bill. I would be very reluctant to do anything that would impede the ICC.
It is recognised that the Industrial Credit Corporation may well be one of the State companies that have been identified as being suitable for privatisation but that it is an issue for another day. We will deal with it when it arises.
I am glad the Minister for Finance made it clear he did not envisage a rescue operation for the ICC in the coming years.
I am very happy to welcome and support the Bill.
Debate adjourned.