This is new, but it is a reasonable extension.
SECTION 167.
Question proposed : " That Section 167 stand part of the Bill."
Yes, we have requirements of group accounts in the case of a group of companies and, as Deputy de Valera has suggested, it is a reasonable extension of the functions of an inspector.
I think that Jenkins has gone a little further.
Yes. Jenkins spoke of related companies, but I think that is going a little too far. It is better to speak in terms of holding companies and subsidiaries.
Which we have already defined.
Which we have defined, yes.
You know there are inspectors and inspections. Some of these people might have a passion for inspection and others might do the job without his soul being in it. Inspections under Section 167 seem a roving commission to investigate the affairs of an associated company or a subsidiary. There is no obligation apparently to go back to the Minister and consult as to the necessity for that. A main company which has a big business but has three or four subsidiaries might not be so simple. Difficulties could arise in the main company which might not extend to the other companies and an inspector of his own volition apparently has the power to ramble through the subsidiary companies, apparently after consultation only with himself. I think we should travel further than originally contemplated. He might be expected to have a word with the Minister and get approval from the Minister to go further.
The Deputy does not object to the principle that in certain circumstances it should be permissible for him to go into the affairs of these subsidiary companies.
Oh, no, but all the honesty in the world might be in the subsidiaries and all the villainy in the main company. A person set the task of investigating, when he had the main task accomplished, might go to the Minister, and say: " Look, I think we ought to have a look at the other companies."
I do not think it is impossible to do that. I do not think that it is necessary but it is not unreasonable, I suppose, in the circumstances. I should imagine that if an inspector in the course of his investigation into company A, of which B, C and D are subsidiaries, certifies to the Minister that he ought to investigate them as well, the Minister would in every case agree.
He should have to produce some evidence to the Minister as to the need for it because that is really a fresh investigation of another company for which, in the first instance, he ought to get approval of inspection.
I think that is not unreasonable. I would be prepared to provide for that.
If the Minister is prepared to consider that, does that meet your point, Deputy Norton ? Are you prepared to let the section go on the Minister's assurance that he will look into the matter further.
Oh, yes.
Question put and agreed to.