I have to answer only a few points made on this Estimate, but before doing so, I want to deal with a point which would not normally come within the scope of the Supplementary Estimate, that is, the question of the Dundalk Engineering Company referred to by Deputy Donegan. This company since its inception has been financed by Government financial agencies and the Minister and the Department have never interfered in its operation and development. We have had no function in this matter at all and no money sought for it flowed from the Government.
I understand that the necessary financial facilities were extended to these companies for as long as there was any hope of viability. The most up-to-date appraisal of their present prospects was obtained before the decision was made to appoint a receiver. It was never intended that these companies should be given a permanent status of uneconomic undertakings subsidised for social purposes and no one would question the right of the sole debenture shareholders to appoint a receiver, if they thought the situation necessitated such a procedure. The appointment of a receiver will not inhibit the economic development of these companies in so far as such development is possible.
With regard to other points raised, the first was in relation to market development grants and with regard to this, I have to say that there are only two firms which have sent in applications for grants more than two weeks ago and which have not yet been paid. I say that in reply to Deputy Donegan who lightly but firmly stated that there was a general complaint against the Department that there is a delay in the payment of these grants. It would not have killed Deputy Donegan to say that there was one complaint from an industry in his own constituency. I may say that that firm has had very individual attention.
In this matter the one complaint referred to had its basis in the very complex nature of the case. That claim has been paid and I do not think, in fairness, that an allegation should have been made that a general slowness of payment existed. The scheme is working quite smoothly and to the general satisfaction of the people availing of it. Most firms have now developed a procedure which enables them to present their claims in less than two weeks. In some cases payment is made on deposit of the documentation, pending final determination by the British customs authorities of the value of the goods. In these cases a percentage is paid, pending production of evidence of the final assessment and on receipt of this evidence, full payment is made. I do not think that any Deputy would see fairness in the allegation that there is a general delay.
Recently in this House Deputy Donegan, who speaks for Fine Gael in these matters, suggested that the rate of growth this year of 3.8 per cent fell short of the average target over ten years of the Programme for Economic Expansion and he suggested that this represented some failure. Only a week before, I had been congratulating Irish industry on attaining this level of increase over the record year of 1964, in spite of the enormous difficulties put in the way of Irish industry by the British Government's temporary charge on imports. I repeat that it is a matter of congratulation that in the face of this obstacle, the record figure of 1964 was not alone maintained but surpassed. I do not think any balanced judgment would support Deputy Donegan's claim that this represents a failure in any way.
Deputy Donegan did say, and Deputy Treacy also said, that the market development grants were a good thing. Speaking in the House on the need for a review of our support for exports, I can say that industry itself was quick to acknowledge that the Government had acted well in their immediate reaction to the British surcharge by giving these grants and that acknowledgment was clearly stated in Killarney by one of the spokesmen for Irish industry. It is easy to say that things are not up to our target but it is quite wrong to say that the Government did not react well and quickly to the situation.
Deputy Treacy asked if I could say what effect the British levy has had on our exports. It is very difficult to make a clear assessment of this but in the months immediately following the imposition of the surcharge, up to the middle of 1965, exports of goods from here to Britain subject to the surcharge showed a considerable reduction as compared with the corresponding period in 1964, but from July to October, 1965 they were only slightly lower than for the corresponding months in 1964. In November, 1965 they were considerably higher than in November, 1964 but the import charge was 15 per cent in the earlier part of the year and ten per cent in the later part.
