The Bill has now reached its Fifth Stage and certain things fall to be said about it. In the first place, we recognise the difficulty the Minister found himself in when he wanted to liberalise the conditions of foreign investment in the country and at the same time, to preserve the rights of Irish people or others who have already invested their money in the country. With those objects, I personally, and all of us on this side of the House, have the greatest possible sympathy, but taking the Bill as it is now before us, it is very doubtful whether it will actually achieve the laudable-enough object the Minister had in mind.
In the first place, it is a notorious and extravagant example of legislation by reference. It is difficult, complicated, cumbersome and unclear. I gave some examples of that on the Committee Stage, and after that I was sent a copy of the Irish Banking Review for June, 1958, which contains a very calm, clear and intelligent discussion of this Bill. It is not a political or partisan or heated discussion. In the course of the remarks made by the writer, presumably a person used to reading difficult legal documents, it is stated on page 8: “It must be admitted that the new Bill is rather complicated and difficult to interpret. To the casual reader, it would appear less as a measure of liberalisation than of more complex control.”
Also on page 8, the writer says: "Unfortunately, the Bill is drafted in such complicated language, with so many cross-references to earlier Acts; that its liberalising intention does not spring to the eye. It is not an unfair criticism that the Bill could have a deterrent effect on any potential investor who disliked official control."
On the following page it says: "Legislation regarding the control of business should be as simple and as clear as it can possibly be made."
This legislation, which goes back only to 1932, certainly could have been made simpler and clearer than it is. One remedy suggested on the far side of the House, and also in this review, was that, in addition to this Bill, there should be, when it becomes an Act, a brochure or pamphlet explaining its provisions. It is, however, quite clear that a brochure or a pamphlet is not law. People with money to invest will not accept a brightly written pamphlet from any Government Department, no matter how well written, or any ministerial speech. A document from a Government Department in our position, where we are endeavouring to get people to spend money here, smacks of propaganda, and of its nature is an advertisement. Prospective investors will want to see what the law is, will examine this Bill and will not be influenced by explanatory memoranda. They will want to see what our parliamentary practice is in relation to the statutes, and the rights secured under statutes, and amendments of the law.
This liberalising Bill is complicated; and besides its liberalising elements in regard to the facilities for foreign investors to come in, it takes the opportunity of filling a loophole in the 1934 Act, about which we have had certain discussion this afternoon. The filling of that loophole involves very difficult calculations, and it may operate not only against foreign investors but on Irish people with more than £5,000—not £100 as the Minister said—invested here. I should like to suggest to the Minister that since there were loopholes in the 1934 Act there may be wide breaches in this Bill, which would make it far less valuable an instrument than the 1934 Act proved to be. It is repellent by its difficulty to people who want to invest money here, and in spite of the Minister's statement, it is a twisting of language to say that it is clear. I have personal knowledge of very high legal personalities of very good standing who find this an extremely difficult Bill, just as the bankers, or a spokesman for them, found it extremely difficult.
One of the results of complicated draftsmanship is, as I have said, that the more complicated it is, the more easily it can be evaded. It may be proved with regard to this Bill that as an inducement it is doubtful and complicated, and as a rampart against certain types of undesirable foreign investment, it is totally insecure.
I regret that that is the position, and I think the Minister could have done this much more easily. I hope sincerely that the Bill will accomplish the purposes he has in mind, with which we sympathise. It seems to me, as I have said, to be complicated and repellent. It would have been much simpler if, instead of being in two parts, it had been in one. I think that one reason why the Bill is so complicated and difficult to judge and to assess and get clear about is that the Minister is in a hurry and that he himself is not particularly clear about what he wanted to do in the Bill. However, here it is now, and if it does result in foreign investment of a satisfactory character to give more employment in the country, we will all be very pleased.