asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state (a) the number of companies incorporated in this country under the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932, with 51 per cent. of their capital subscribed by citizens within the State, (b) the number of breaches of the Act which have come to the notice of his Department, and (c) the number of investigations held under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and the nature of the findings.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Control of Manufactures Act.
I am not in a position to give the information requested at (a) and (b) of the Deputy's question as there are no official statistics available regarding these matters.
As regards (c) two investigations have been held since the establishment of the State. The Companies Acts require that a copy of the report of the inspector who held the investigation should be furnished to the company concerned, while a copy must also be furnished, at their request, to the applicants for the investigation. It would not be proper for me, therefore, to disclose the contents of the report of an investigation held under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.
Did I hear the Minister correctly as saying that no information is available in his Department with regard to the number of companies incorporated in this country under the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932? In view of the fact that legislation had to be passed in this House to allow these companies to be set up, does the Minister now say that no information is available as to the numbers of these companies?
That is so, and for the reasons, No. 1, that a number of companies were in operation before the Act came into force, and, No. 2, there are a number of companies carrying on activities to which the Act applies which are not required to comply with the Act because they were in operation before the date of the introduction of the Act. In addition, the Control of Manufactures Act does not apply to all companies. It applies only to certain companies which engage in certain processes and it has not been the practice in the Department since the Act was introduced to ascertain, just as a matter of statistical curiosity, what companies comply with the Act and what companies do not. Where, however, a company applies at any time for the benefit of a trade loan guarantee, or for protection by means of tariff or quota, a spot check is applied to the company at that time to ascertain whether it complies with the Control of Manufactures Act. If it does not, steps are taken to require the company to comply with the provisions of the Act, but it is only in cases where a company makes an application in circumstances something like those which I have described that there is a spot investigation of the structure of the company from the standpoint of the Act.
Am I to take it from the Minister's reply that, although it is essential that we should have information as to the number of companies 51 per cent. of the capital of which is subscribed by citizens of this State, we have no definite information on the number of such companies and that it is possible for companies to operate in this country now under the 1932 Act more than 51 per cent. of the capital of which can be held by people who are not citizens of the State?
I do not say that there are any companies operating which are not complying with the Control of Manufactures Act. What the Deputy asked me was the number of companies certified to be complying. I have informed the Deputy that it has not been the practice in the Department, since the Control of Manufactures Acts were passed in 1932 and 1934, to compile a detailed list of every company, attaching thereto a certificate that each and every one complied with the provisions of the Act.
I have explained to the Deputy that where, for any reason, a company seeks assistance of any kind from the Department by way of trade loan, quota, tariff or licence, they are all tested to make sure that none of these facilities is made available to a company which does not comply with the provisions of the Act. In other words, there is a test in these cases. If, however, a company was in existence prior to 1932 and did not come to the Department since then for any assistance, it is likely that that company never had the spot test of the kind which operates where companies make an application. In any case, the Deputy is probably aware by 1955 that various devices have been adopted to comply with the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934. I am sure he is not unfamiliar with these devices.
In part (c) of my question I asked the Minister to state the number of investigations held under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and the nature of the findings. I understood the Minister to state that the number of such investigations was two. Would the Minister state now whether people who demanded or requested those investigations were informed by the Department of the results? If the Minister does not intend to give that information to the House, can he assure the House that the interested parties were informed of the results of the investigations?
For the Deputy's information, I will repeat what I said in that connection in my reply. I said:—
"The Companies Acts require that a copy of the report of the inspector who held the investigation should be furnished to the company concerned, while a copy must also be furnished, at their request, to the applicants for the investigation."
Therefore, if applicants who sought the investigation made a request for a copy of the report of the inspector, presumably it would be furnished.