Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1990

Vol. 125 No. 14

Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Tugann sé an-phléisiúir dom labhairt ar an mBille seo agus, ar ndoigh, is ábhar an-tábhachtach é, go mór-mhór do lucht gnóthaí na tíre. Tá obair nach beag déanta ag an ICC le gnóthaí a chothú agus a chur chun cinn. Is dóigh liom, i dteannta leis an IDA, SFADCo, agus an Údarás, go bhfuil tábhacht faoi leith leis na hinstitiúidí a dhíríonn ar fhorbairt eacnamaíochta le pacáiste iomlán a chur ar fáil don phobal le gur feidir leo a gcuid gnóthaí a chur ar aghaidh.

The ICC has played, and continues to play, a very fundamental role in the development of our economy. It has developed, as the Minister said in his speech, new services to meet new requirements. However, I would like to take the opportunity to spell out some of the problems facing small businesses in relation to the provision of capital. Most lending agencies work on the basis that they will fund fixed assets reasonably readily and also, where there is good security, will give further borrowings against working capital based on mortgage debentures or similar type security.

It is very important that these questions of the provision of grants, of seed capital and of borrowing be tackled in a co-ordinated way. Many people of my acquaintance who are trying to set up in business find that the biggest problem they face with the financial institutions and the State grant-aiding authorities, is that they lack ready seed capital of their own. Most of those institutions work on a ratio basis where they would be talking about £1 from the lending agency, £1 from the promoter and £1 from the grant-giving agency or something of that proportion. Therefore, if there is a lack of funds subsequently it has a knock-on effect in the help that one gets either from the lending agencies or the development authority. I have found, in my experience, that this lack of ready cash is one of the greatest inhibitors of development, particularly small-scale development, indigenous development, throughout the country.

I should now like to deal with the second problem. It is usually fairly easy to get capital for fixed assets but I know of several cases where the provision of working capital, because of security problems, posed major problems. What tends to happen when businesses start off with cash flow problems is that they tend to operate for cash flow rather than taking a long-term perspective and, therefore, taking the most profitable route. They tend to be forced to sell under a system that provides a ready cash flow. To my way of thinking, this is one of the fundamental problems we have not yet addressed when we look at industrial policy.

I appreciate that the idea behind the business expansion scheme when it was initiated was to try to provide capital for risk ventures. However, experience indicates that since the number of people applying for BES funds was greater than the supply of money, basically investors had a choice and they were taking the low risk or the up and running project. There was not a source of ready finance for projects that had not yet got off the ground. We will have to examine ways to get a pool of seed capital together. This seed capital should be available to people with proven track records who would be accepted as having good business ideas and good business acumen.

These people, if they were given seed capital, would have to accept that they would have to have the services of an adviser available to them from the agency that provides the seed capital so that they run their business according to good business practices. Again, there is the problem of people with good technical skills and good marketing ideas not having the experience from a financial point of view of running a business. Whether this role should be entrusted in some way or other to an agency like the ICC is a matter for debate but it is very important that this problem be addressed. We should have a fund of seed capital available for likely entrepreneurs who have viable ideas. In my experience, the main criteria — and I accept the need for security and borrowing — are the basic sense and viability of projects and then the character and ability of the person to carry the projects through. The third most important requirement in that case is security because a bank will only call in security as a last resort. A bank's business is to lend money and get repaid in the normal way and for that to happen, it is most important that the ideas and funding are right and that the person can promote the idea.

It was announced in the budget that an agreement had been reached that £200 million would be provided this year by the banks for new business. I suggest that the ICC should be drawn in and involved in this venture. As regards the attraction of funds, the ICC is a State bank and I suggest that it might be possible to look at ways for people on social welfare to invest money in it. I suggested that money invested for productive purposes and put into the productive economy, might not be assessed to a limit of, say, £5,000 for an individual for social welfare purposes. In this way particularly in rural areas, we would be able to put an end, on the one hand, to what is called the "mattress" economy and, on the other hand, get capital that would be reused to develop enterprise in our communities.

We have to face the fact that "mattress" money, as it is called, is dead money. Unless money is reused within the market to provide development, it is not doing any good for the community.

My experience in the past year has been that by the development of a local enterprise on a private enterprise basis, surrounding the co-operative for which I work, between borrowings and investment by ordinary local people, we have achieved a total investment level of £250,000 between about six or eight people within one year. However, to continue that type of development we need a system under which those people will have sources of reasonably priced finance.

The normal experience is that through leasing and whatever, it is possible to get finance, but for the person starting off the cost of this finance is much higher than for the established business. This puts new businesses, particularly indigenous businesses starting off from a small base, at a very serious cost disadvantage when it comes to the cost of money. A major impediment to development is if one has to pay rates of interest in excess of 20 per cent for borrowing for assets. It puts one at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the established businesses who are getting rates which are a lot less. That problem should be looked at. The IDA, in looking at new methods of providing aid to businesses, should develop some system, either by interest subsidy or otherwise, under which borrowing could be made available at what would be equivalent to the AAA rate to businesses that they consider to have a reasonable chance of success. In this way small businesses would not start off with very high borrowing expenses and would be given a reasonable competitive profile in the market.

This question of the provision of finance to small businesses cannot be considered separate from IDA policy. The two must work hand in hand. The experience of many people is that when they go to the grant-aid authority and get grant sanction, they find that there is no connection between that and getting finance from the financial agencies. That operation will have to stop. It is very important that the total financial package of a company be discussed and that a total package is put together by consultation between the financial agencies, the grant giving authority and the promoter so that one part of the package is not provided without the second part being provided at the same time. That will ensure that on day one there is enough money available to start off the business on a firm footing.

I would like to commend the Bill to the House. This extra facility to the ICC is very important. I would like to praise the work they have done.

Tá mé cinnte go leanfaidh siad leo ag cur tuilleadh fás agus forbairt ar bun sa tír, rud a theastaíonn go géar le na post-anna a chruthú ar fud na tíre a choinneoidh na daoine óga sa bhaile agus a thabharfaidh deis dóibh forbairt a dhéanamh in a dtír féin agus a gcuid acmhainní agus a gcuid scileanna a úsáid ar mhaithe le pobal na tíre.

Is mian liom anois mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí uilig a labhair ar na mBille seo agus as ucht an tacaíocht agus an t-aontú a thug siad go léir don méid atá ar siúl ag an Rialtas sa Bhille seo.

I would like to thank the Senators who have contributed to this debate. In their contributions they have supported the general principles enshrined in the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly that the ICC has contributed very well to the economic development of this State for over half a century. The proposals in the Bill will add to its capacity to continue that good work. I agree with Senator Fallon that the company has served the country well. There is no doubt, as the Senator said, but that it has helped many small and medium sized Irish businesses to expand and prosper over the years. This point was reinforced by Senator Howard.

It is important to appreciate that the Bill is essentially a "housekeeping" exercise in that it enables the company, whose borrowing is regulated by statute, to continue its ongoing business. As I said at the outset, ICC is already very close to its statutory borrowing limit, and without the increase proposed in the Bill, the company's development would come to an abrupt halt.

I want to take up a point raised by Senator Ross. He did not seem to understand why it was necessary to make this provision at this time. The company had virtually reached its borrowing limits, and no less than about a month ago it was of the order of £785 million. It can vary from day to day but that is how close it was on that occasion.

The ICC has evolved from a development bank in the thirties and forties to a much more commercially orientated entity today. It is constantly evolving and expanding its services in the light of changing needs in our economy. It is a highly regarded and respected financial institution.

Senators Doyle and Ross asked why should there be a limit at all on ICC's borrowings. For as long as the company is owned by the State it is only right that there should be statutory control over its borrowings, as there has been since its inception. These Senators also raised the question should ICC's borrowings be guaranteed. Borrowings by the company have had the benefit of a State guarantee since 1958. There are many depositors relying on the guarantee and, if it were withdrawn, the ramifications could be serious. The cost of funds to ICC would also be adversely affected.

It would hardly be feasible to think in terms of not guaranteeing new borrowings, including deposits, above the current limit of £800 million while existing borrowings have the benefit of a guarantee. ICC is a bank and as such it is important that all of its depositors and lenders should be treated the same.

I did not have the opportunity to hear Senator Doyle but, generally, she is fairly sensible but Senator Ross had a problem in deciding whether he would take the penalty or would go into goal to try to stop it. He seemed on the one hand to say that ICC was at a disadvantage because its borrowings were only being raised by £200 million. He said it had an advantage over all other banks at the same time. The Senator would need to address this question in a way that would enable me to do justice to his contribution.

In regard to State ownership of the ICC, it should be remembered that shares in the company were offered to the public on its floatation in 1933 but the Minister for Finance, as underwriter, took up most of the shares. At the moment, no more than 770 shares, out of a total of 12 million, are held by private shareholders. The ICC, however, still retains its Stock Exchange listing. The founding legislation allows the Minister for Finance to dispose of his shares in the company as and when he thinks fit. The original flotation was designed to facilitate private ownership of at least part of the shares in the company but, in the event, relatively few of the shares were taken up by the public.

The Government have a pragmatic approach to the question of the ownership of the company and have an open mind in the matter. If a State company, such as ICC, needs fresh funds, the competing demands on the Exchequer may act as an inhibitor to the provision of those funds. This Government do not wish to prevent the desirable and worthwhile development and expansion of a successful State company such as the ICC. Far from it, what we are doing is trying to make every effort to secure the future of the company on the best basis possible. We have no preconceived notions on this question, and we will look at the options thrown up by the consultants and their recommendations in a balanced and objective manner, and with the best long-term interests of the company and its management and staff firmly in mind.

I should like to assure Senator Ross that there is no hidden agenda; nothing lurking in the background. Every option will be looked at on the basis of what is the best way forward.

As regard the consultants report on the ICC, the Department of Finance are still at the stage of assessing the various tenders that have been submitted. The Minister for Finance hopes to make a decision in this regard very shortly.

The consultants will be assessing the options open to the Minister in the light of the fact the ICC is going to be under pressure to increase its ratio of shareholders' funds to risk assets very substantially over the next few years. There appears to be little alternative in reality to increasing shareholders' funds in the next year or two and the various ways in which that may be done will have to be assessed.

Senator Doyle raised the question of the take-over by ICC of the Fóir Teoranta portfolio. ICC will be managing this portfolio on the same basis that it was managed by Fóir Teoranta, that is, in accordance with the contractual arrangements entered into by client firms with Fóir Teoranta. Firms still owing money to Fóir Teoranta will not be at any disadvantage as compared with the previous position. Fóir Teoranta has been closed for new business since February 1989 and the cases that the ICC will be taking over in due course are existing cases where Fóir Teoranta has already invested money by way of loans or equity investments — the ICC will not be a replacement State rescue agency for industrial concerns following the dissolution of Fóir Teoranta. I would like the House to be clear on that point.

What about defaulters and how they may affect ICC?

The commercial viability of ICC will not be affected, certainly not adversely, by the new arrangement. If anything, its commercial viability will be strengthened through the fee it will be paid for administering Fóir Teoranta's portfolio.

Senator Doyle referred to what she saw as a disproportionate allocation of its funds by the company as between loan finance and equity investment and that this was not in keeping with the principal objects as laid down in the 1933 Act. That Act envisaged that the predominant function of the company would be in the giving of credit, while also investing in equity-shares, debentures and so on. There is no departure from the fundamental principles enshrined in the original Act.

ICC has been involved in equity financing since its inception in 1933. In fact, it has operated through a specialist equity division since November 1986. Its basic strategy is to build up a solid portfolio, both of quoted and unquoted shares, with a view to ensuring a steady flow of profits each year. This strategy has been successful through judicious management of the portfolio and an active policy of acquistions and disposals. As far as unquoted shares are concerned, investments are generally confined to profitable established companies with good growth prospects.

Apart from Government paper, the value of investments at the last balance sheet date, 31 October 1989, was £25.5 million, £18 million a year earlier, compared with £4.1 million five years before that.

Senator Ross questioned why legislation is brought before the Oireachtas every so often to increase financial limits, as is proposed in the Bill. He also mentioned the ACC. He referred to this as "piecemeal legislation". I could not agree with this. It has been deliberate policy of successive Governments for many years to increase limits only to an extent which will meet the requirements of State bodies for relatively short periods of three to five years. This allows an opportunity for both Houses to debate the financial and general performance of State bodies at regular intervals. This, I suggest, is very healthy in a democracy such as ours.

Linkage between NADCorp and ICC was mentioned. Clearly they have separate and distinct functions, the ICC being a commercial bank and NADCorp a venture capital institution. I take the point that there should be liaison between the officials of the two organisations who may on occasion be involved in helping the same companies. We can and will work on achieving better cohesion between the two organisations.

We had a very solid workman contribution from Senator O'Keeffe. I only hope that the Cork team on Sunday week will not perform as well when they take on Tipperary.

Senator Ó Cuív referred to the lending policy to industries, particularly small businesses. He made the point that the linkage between borrowing requirements and IDA policy should be centralised. Clearly, modern management in the IDA requires business plans to be prepared in advance of decisions in relation to grant-aid and that should deal with that matter. I take the point that seed capital can very often be a problem for small companies trying to get established. It is something we will have to constantly review.

I wish to thank all those who contributed for their support for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn