For once, I was glad to be on the same foot as the Minister for Industry and Commerce last night. I am sure the Minister did not particularly mind, but at least I was able to make the point that if you invest £6 million in something and you cut imports by £6 million without increasing prices at home, this in itself is a tremendous advantage to the economy. My criticism of the Verolme dockyard was of a different sort, entirely on a different basis, and was justified in my opinion.
About Nítrigin Éireann, however, the year after it was established—I was never in it although I have passed by it on several occasions—I was told by a man with a considerable scientific background who has a successful agricultural business in this city, that he was astounded this company was so successful. I was not a bit astounded at their success. I supported the idea in the other House and naturally when one supports something at its birth it gives one pleasure to see it doing well.
Perhaps I should say a word of commendation about the management of the company. I shall not mention names although names have been mentioned in connection with this company. The company have turned the town of Arklow into a boom town. It is a town that I go through fairly frequently. Were it not for the establishment of this company we would inevitably be brought back to the stage where the international fertiliser cartel could do what they liked to us. I have heard it said, I do not know with what truth, that the company have come to terms with the cartel. I do not think it matters particularly whether it has or not so long as our farmers get their fertilisers at reasonable prices.
Deputy Donegan raised the point about the State guarantees for borrowings by the company and said that the statutory limit had already been exceeded. The reason these companies are given State guarantees is because the rate of interest on an overdraft, if there is a State guarantee, is 1 per cent under the normal overdraft rate. I think the Minister was correct in putting the figure of £2 million into the Bill in place of the £1 million which was previously there because the company has an overdraft of £1.6 million.
Comment has been made about the £100 ordinary capital which companies like this have. I was around when that figure was decided on by senior officials in the Department of Finance. I could never understand why we could not have £10 ordinary capital. I know that a minimum of seven shares were necessary and then a few more shares were always added on in case it was necessary ever to prise out a director who had a share, so the figure of £100 was agreed upon. The odd position about this company is that the capital is now £4,712,100; it would not matter if it was £4,712,101, but it would look neater if it was a round figure.
One aspect of the Minister's brief which I did not understand was the end of paragraph 17 where he said: "...and leaves all options open in the future". I do not understand the significance of keeping all options open in the future. The reason for doing so is rather unusual. The Minister said earlier in that paragraph:
Under the 1963 provision, the Schedule to the 1963 Act, which in effect provides the machinery for the State's control of the company, operates as long as the Minister for Finance holds any shares in the company or any money is due to him by the company.
The fact is that the owner of the ordinary share capital of the company, as long as he is the majority shareholder, controls the company although he may only be able to exercise that control at the annual general meeting. It has taken a good deal of trouble to do this job. If I cast my mind back I would suggest that the reason is because the Department of Industry and Commerce is as overstaffed as it ever was, which gives them a lot of time to consider things which do not matter a fiddle-de-dee. There is nothing wrong with letting the interest accumulate in advance and dealing with it in this way. I have not the slightest doubt that this company will, in due course, give a return on the new capital belonging to the Minister for Finance.
In his speech the Minister makes an apology about a certain statement he made on the accounts of the company. It was good of the Minister to give this explanation about the way things have turned out but I do not regard it as a matter of great importance. The Minister also said:
I am putting it to the House that this is a reasonable way of restructuring the company's capital and of meeting the undertakings that have been given in respect of the original advances and the interest on them.
I am sure the Minister will be first to admit it could have been done in other reasonable ways, but I will not quarrel with him about the way he has done it.