I want to raise a general point in relation to the section and the subsequent sections dealing with the prospectus. They are excellent. Technically, they are perfect, if I may use that word. However, they are so technically perfect that they will make the business of raising money even more cumbersome and more delaying than it is at present. Would it not be possible to throw more responsibility on the Committee of the Stock Exchange who in fact are the medium through which the prospectus is published, according to public subscriptions, and assist industry in that way and at the same time keep adequate safeguards ?
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."
The Jenkins Committee dealt with this extensively. We felt that, in our circumstances, what we propose in Section 44 as necessary matters to be stated in the prospectus is sufficient. It goes a little further but not much further than existing law. Is there anything specific which Deputy Sweetman would wish to have examined ?
Where you are to have a public issue, and have gone through the procedure of the consent of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, I should be inclined to have less in the Bill. Where you are not having a public issue of that sort, and are not asking for a quotation and going through the Stock Exchange, I would have the procedure more rigorous in the Bill.
In other words, throw the responsibility——
Try to oil the wheels for industry where there is a genuine case. The test of genuineness is where the Stock Exchange Committee investigate the matter——
That is under Section 45. May we take it that Sections 43 and 44 are accepted ?
I wanted to raise a point either now or later. It is just a general point. The Company Law Reform Committee recommended that the law should be amended to enable companies, subject to certain safeguards, to issue shares at low par value. The Minister referred to that in the memorandum circulated with the Bill. The Company Law Reform Committee did not give very elaborate reasons for the recommendation but, on the other hand, the statement by the Minister in the memorandum did not advance any strong reasons why the recommendation should not be accepted. They pointed out that the procedure is in operation in America and Canada. In view of investment here by foreign investors, it was pointed out that it had certain advantages. I do not know if this is the appropriate time to raise the point and to get any additional reasons which the Minister may have. It is rather difficult for a private Deputy to draft an amendment in this case. It is better to raise it as a point rather than try to draft an amendment.
So much other legislation would be affected that it would give rise to a lot of difficulties. Inevitably, it would entail a long delay in dealing with this Bill, by the time all the repercussions were examined.
Has the Minister any information as to the Continental practice in respect of non-parity of shares?
No par value shares?
Canadian and American type.
I believe it is permissible in Belgium to issue such shares but that is as much as we have heard of. Probably it is permissible elsewhere.
The Committee did not say much about it except to recommend it. They did not advance any reasons. On the other hand, they must have given the matter some consideration before making the recommendation.
This matter would have arisen under Section 6 where we have the requirement of the registering of the capital and its division into shares of a fixed amount. This matter was thought about very seriously but it was decided deliberately not to include provision for no par value shares.
Question put and agreed to.