Vol. 49 No. 10
I move amendment 1:—
In line 19, page 2, to delete the words "by him".
This amendment is merely a drafting amendment. It is brought in because some difficulty may otherwise arise. The section mentions public funds which are under the control of the Minister. These funds are not invested by him. They are under the control of the officials of his Department, and it is necessary that the officials be given the same power as the Minister.
I move amendment 2:—
In page 2, line 20, after the word "loan" to insert the words "nor the Land Bond Fund, nor the Costs Fund established by Section 5 of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), nor moneys for the time being standing to the credit of the Exchequer Account."
This amendment is necessary to make clear to the public that the Bill will not empower the Minister for Finance to extend the statutory scope of the investment of the funds included in the amendment.
Amendments 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 24 and 25 seem to hang together and can be discussed on amendment 3.
I move amendment 3:—
In sub-section (1), lines 39 and 40, to delete the words "a specified Government fund or specified Government money" and substitute therefor the words "any or all of the specified Government funds or specified Government moneys set out in the schedule to this Act."
It will be noted that the original definition in the Bill has been amended just now by the House and, accordingly, I think that the point which these amendments were originally designed to meet has now been met. I think that they would cause delay to the Bill whilst absolutely accurate and exhaustive information was being obtained from all the Departments. Secondly, I think they would introduce unnecessary delay under the Bill; and thirdly, and this is an important point, they would make the Bill inapplicable to the funds or moneys which might come into the hands of Ministers during the currency of the measure. Accordingly, I suggest to the Deputy that he should not press the amendments. I really do not think there is any point in them. I think the amendment which has just been accepted by the House meets the purpose which the Deputy has in view.
There is the other point that the Minister has not dealt with at all, the question of the committee having power when a matter is referred to them. Under the Bill, apparently, the Minister only contemplates having the committee in reserve and referring to them the question of an approved society.
We are dealing with Section 6 now.
I take it we are discussing amendments 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 24 and 25 on amendment 3.
Amendments 3 and 4 deal with Section 6. Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 deal with Section 7. I think we will have to take amendments 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 separately.
I think the shortest way would be to deal with this section by section. I take it the Minister is not accepting amendments 3 and 4?
No.
I move amendment 5:
In sub-section (1), page 3, line 53, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute therefor the word "committee."
I suggest that amendments 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 might be debated together.
It is really a question of how far the committee are going to be allowed to express an opinion if they are appealed to. It appears to be undesirable, having set up a committee of experts to examine the value of securities for the investment of State funds, to place them then in the invidious position that they can only express an opinion when expressly asked by the Minister. It seems to me that it would be the regular procedure for anybody who had an investment that he thought ought to be approved to apply to the committee, and I should like to ask the Minister what he thinks.
I think that Deputy Dockrell, possibly because he is not as interested in it as I am, has misconceived the purpose of this. The committee is to advise the Minister when he thinks he requires advice. The purpose is not to veto, as it were, all investments that might be submitted to them by outsiders, but merely those securities in which the Minister contemplates making an investment, securities which may be novel in so far as Government funds have not been previously put in them, but which otherwise might be sound enough and as to which the Minister, because the investment is within the limited terms of that definition a novel one, would wish to have the advice of the competent body. That body is not an executive body at all, but merely an advisory one, and quite obviously the only person who should have the right to approach that committee is the Minister who has established that committee for his own guidance and not for the guidance of anybody else, except in a limited way those who are entrusted with the investment of funds in the hands of the court. Therefore I think the Minister, first of all, when people approach him and say here is an investment in which Government moneys might be reasonably placed, should relieve the committee to some extent of an undue burden by having that proposal examined in his own Department; and having it examined there if those who are competent to advise him feel that it is an investment upon which the committee might be asked to express an opinion and feel that this application is not a superfluous one and not an unsuitable one for investment of Government funds that then and only then should it be referred to the committee for investigation.
It must be remembered that those who constitute that committee will be people occupying very important positions such as the chairman of the Currency Commission, the chairman of the Dublin Stock Exchange and members of the Dublin shareholding banks. and the demands upon the time of these people will be very considerable. It is the duty of the Minister in asking the members of this committee to advise him, and asking them to advise him in a purely honorary capacity, to see that their time is not wasted and is not unnecessarily taken up by consideration of evidence which he knows prima facie, without any examination whatever possibly, would be unsuitable for the investment of Government funds. It is for that reason power is reserved to the Minister to refer proposed investments to the committee for consideration. Therefore, I think that this amendment of Deputy Dockrell is unnecessary. He may feel quite satisfied that if an investment which appears on the face of it to be a suitable one is suggested to the Minister, and if he has no capital already invested in it and not already referred to the committee it will be referred to them for their advice.
That is one aspect of the situation. Can there not be another in which the Minister will ask the advice of the committee about one particular investment and they will not be able to review the limited industrial field, because their terms of reference will be too narrow. I quite realise there is something in what the Minister says. But that is the case in which the Minister asks their advice about particular investments.
I move amendment 12:—
In sub-section (3), page 4, to delete all from the word "Government" in line 11 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "any particular Government fund or Government money specified in that behalf by the Minister."
It is felt desirable to simplify the sub-section by omitting words which it is represented to me by some of those who will be on the committee would impose an extremely difficult, and, perhaps, an impossible task upon the investments committee. The sub-section, as amended, will follow more closely on the lines of sub-section (1) of Section 6 by confining it to the specified fund or the specified moneys.
I move amendment 18:—
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
When preparing a list of securities in pursuance of this Act and considering whether any particular security should or should not be included in such list and when considering the advice to be given in pursuance of this Act in regard to a particular security, the committee shall have regard to all the circumstances of such security and all such matters in relation thereto as appear to the committee to be relevant and, in particular, the committee shall have regard to the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) whether and how far the safety of the capital and the income of money invested in such security is ensured by investment therein;
(b) whether, having regard to the normal price of such security in the market, such security provides an adequate return on money invested therein;
(c) whether a free and convenient market exists for such security and whether such security is readily purchasable and realisable in such market;
(d) whether such security is redeemable or otherwise liable to compulsory repayment of capital at an early or a distant date or not at all;
(e) whether the market price of such security is and is likely to continue free from frequent or violent fluctuation.
I move this amendment because it is considered desirable to give some indication in the Bill of some of the matters to which the Investments Advisory Committee might have regard when considering the matters referred to them under the Act. This amendment has been proposed after consultation with the Currency Commission, the shareholding banks and the stock exchange.
I move amendment 20:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 37, to insert after the word "fit" the words "either on his own motion or in consequence of advice given to him under this section by the committee."
In moving this amendment, I would like to call the attention of Deputy Dockrell to amendments 22 and 23, which are designed to carry out the objects set out in amendments 19 and 21. The suggestion in these amendments is acceptable to me in so far as it confers initiative or withdrawal of a trust upon the committee. But I cannot properly allow this initiative to rest solely on the committee, and, accordingly, if the section is amended on the lines suggested in amendments 22 and 23 while it would permit the committee to withdraw approval upon its own initiative, it will also permit me upon my own initiative to withdraw approval.
