(Cavan): It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House on this measure. I rose shortly before the House adjourned last night to make one net point which occurred to me during the debate. This Bill proposes to increase the liability of the State in respect of indemnity granted to exporters to cover risks of various types to which exporters in this country are exposed in sending their goods to foreign countries for sale and in so far as the Bill does that this party has expressed its complete approval of it.
When this procedure was introduced I think the State accepted responsibility up to the limit of £2 million. That was increased to £10 million by the Insurance Act of 1969 and it is now proposed to increase that to £30 million because, I suppose, the volume of our exports has increased, the value of our exports has certainly increased and the risks have increased. We are dealing with strange customers; I do not say that in any offensive way but we are dealing with new customers of whom we have not had experience before and losses are more likely.
If I understand the measure correctly it means that the national Exchequer accepts responsibility up to a limit of £30 million. In his opening speech recommending the Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that it is extremely unlikely that we would ever be called upon to foot such a bill unless everything went wrong and went wrong at the same time. The Minister does not propose to operate this insurance scheme himself directly. He proposes to operate it through the agency of an insurance company in the State, an insurance company, let me hasten to say, for which I have the height of respect and an insurance company which has been established here for a long time and is a solid insurance company—I want to make that clear. Apparently a policy with a limit of £30 million would be placed with this company but the company will never be called upon to pay anything because if any claims are made they would be paid by the State.
The Minister in introducing this Bill gave us a little bit more information than he might have and for that he is to be thanked and congratulated. He was frank with the House and that is what one expects from Ministers of State although we are not always afforded the same degree of frankness. The Minister told us that he intended to appoint one insurance company as his exclusive agent in the issue of insurance policies and he said, later in his speech, that he intended eventually or in the long run or indeed, I suppose, immediately, that this scheme would be self-supporting and would not be run at any expense to the State. That means to me that a premium will be charged which will cover the risk and presumably the operating charges involved. That suggests to me that we should operate this scheme in such a way that we will obtain the best terms possible. I venture to suggest that the best way of getting competitive terms, and the only way of getting the best terms, is by competition, by shopping around and by inviting tenders.
We have in this country—and we should be grateful for it—a goodly number of reputable insurance companies. A number of them are owned exclusively by Irish nationals. I think the State has an interest in some of them. All of those to which I refer are based here and have branches throughout the State, giving good employment and a good service. Therefore, it is unreasonable so far as the other insurance companies in the State are concerned —and it is not in the best interests of the taxpayer—that we should be told by the Minister that he proposes to appoint this particular insurance company as his exclusive agent for the issue of this type of policy, on uncompetitive terms. The reason he gives for this is that this is the only company which has been issuing policies covering commercial and political risks for some time.
The fact of the matter is that, if that is so, it is probably so because it has already been given a monopoly under the Acts which we are amending. If an urban council are buying a receipt book, or a quantity of receipt books, they are required to get tenders and, all others things being equal, they are required to give the order to the lowest tenderer. If a local authority are building one public authority house, or a number of public authority houses, they must seek tenders. Indeed, they must submit these tenders to the Minister for Local Government for approval. How often have we had these tenders thrown back at us on the grounds that they are too high, and not competitive? We are asked to readvertise and to get better tenders, to get better value to save the money of the ratepayers and the taxpayers.
Here we were blandly told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last evening that he proposes to give this £30 million insurance policy to one company without any competition. I do not know what they will charge him, but they will charge him. I confess that it is difficult to understand completely the workings of this scheme. We are told in one of the earlier Acts that the Minister may make arrangements, but we do not know what the arrangements are. I am taking it, until I am told to the contrary, that the procedure is that the insurance company concerned operates the scheme in the knowledge that it cannot be at any loss because it will be indemnified by the State to the tune of £30 million.
On behalf of this party and on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers, I want to express my disappointment at this type of procedure. There should be competition and at least the other companies in the State should get an opportunity of quoting. Indeed, there are precedents for going outside the State, not that I think that is desirable or to be encouraged. In one field or other, the Government have gone outside this country and brought in experts for one purpose or another because they could not get them here, or they could not get what they wanted here, or they could not get them at the right price.
I do not propose to labour this point any further but I want to say again that I have no axe to grind. I have nothing against this insurance company. I am speaking solely on a matter of principle. Some of my own business is with this insurance company. I am against this in principle because I think it is out of line with what is required by the various Departments of State from the local authorities which are subject to their sanction.