Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1983

Vol. 346 No. 10

Fóir Teoranta (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Dukes)

I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Fóir Teoranta was established in 1972 to provide finance for industrial concerns which might be in danger of having to close down or suspend activities because of inability to obtain their financial requirements from the normal commercial sources. In order to be eligible for assistance from Fóir, a concern must comply with certain requirements which have been specified by the Oireachtas. The employment content and the capital employed in it must be significant either nationally or locally and the owners must have made a reasonable contribution to the total capital. Furthermore, failure to receive financial assistance must have serious repercussions at national or local level. Finally, and of greatest importance in most cases, the concern must have reasonable prospects of profitability on a permanent basis. To date, Fóir has assisted about 450 concerns, almost half of them on more than one occasion.

There has been an enormous increase in Fóir's spending on rescue cases in recent years. In 1981 Fóir spent £4.8 million. In 1982 annual spending had grown to £14.1 million and this year's outturn is likely to be as high as £23 million. All of this is a reflection of the deep recession which has had such a severe impact on our manufacturing sector over the past few years. Indeed, I would remind the House that when the legislation which fixed the present limit on Fóir's borrowing powers was brought before the Dáil two years ago, the view taken was that the increased limits would suffice for a further four or five years. Yet in the period of less than two years since that Bill became law, Fóir's spending has accelerated to such an extent that the present statutory limits of £70 million on both Exchequer advances and borrowing powers will very shortly be reached. The primary purpose of this Bill is to increase these limits to enable Fóir's operations to continue without interruption.

The period since the passage of the last Fóir legislation has seen some major developments for the company itself. When Fóir was established more than ten years ago, it made a contract with the Industrial Credit Company under which the ICC provided management services, including staff. This agreement was terminated by mutual consent earlier this year. The decision to terminate the agreement was taken by Fóir's board of directors in the context of a general reorganisation and expansion of the company to meet the increased demand for their services. Fóir now have separate divisions dealing with new clients and with the monitoring of existing clients. Their management executive unit have also been doubled in size. This is an especially significant development since management problems are generally regarded as a major cause of difficulties experienced by industrial concerns. Fóir, through their expanded management unit, are now much better equipped to probe management weaknesses in companies requesting assistance, to advise on organisational and management changes required as a precondition for a financial rescue package and to work closely with the company in carrying through these changes.

Another important development has been Fóir's decision to discontinue publishing the names of their clients so as to enable the company's relationship with their clients to be on the same footing as that of other financial institutions. The board of Fóir emphasised the importance of this change on several occasions both to me and to my predecessor. They are satisfied that this decision has already had a beneficial effect in that it has made firms less reluctant to approach the company, thereby enabling Fóir to help them before their positions have become irretrievable. I am aware that some Deputies are unhappy at the non-disclosure of the names of companies receiving financial assistance but if, as Fóir say, its effect has been to encourage more firms to seek assistance before it is too late, thus saving badly needed jobs, then I believe it will be seen as being a positive development.

There has always been close co-operation between Fóir and the Industrial Development Authority in rescue activity. Both agencies are conscious of the need at all times to strengthen and formalise this co-operation. In this context, I am happy to be able to tell the House that earlier this year Fóir and the IDA negotiated liaison arrangements which provide that Fóir take the lead role in normal rescue cases where the objective is to ensure the survival of potentially viable existing business concerns while the IDA are primarily responsible for takeover, joint venture and similar cases. Over time, I expect this agreement should increase still further the effectiveness of the State rescue services.

Deputies on both sides of the House will appreciate that, because of the nature of the company's operations and objectives, Fóir have a particularly difficult task. We can all be satisfied, however, that Fóir carry out their functions conscientiously and that they consider applications for assistance throughly and with a full understanding of all the implications of their decisions. I would like to pay a personal tribute to the board and staff of Fóir for the understanding and indeed imagination which they bring to their task. In 1982 alone, the board of Fóir approved assistance amounting to almost £23 million for 84 concerns employing almost 8,000 workers. There will be an even higher level of activity in 1983. This clearly demonstrates the importance of Fóir's activities and their impact on both production and employment. It is particularly important that we have an effective agency of this kind in today's difficult economic circumstances.

Fóir's operations inevitably give rise to a cost to the Exchequer and thus to the taxpayer. At the end of 1982, Fóir had a cumulative deficit of almost £20 million. The cost of Fóir's operations are reflected in one of the provisions of this Bill which relieves Fóir of the liability to repay more than £10 million in Exchequer advances. Similar provisions will arise in future Fóir legislation. Deputies will appreciate that this situation is an inevitable result of Fóir's role as a lender of last report. The fact that the costs are not higher is a tribute to Fóir's diligence in operating its statutory criterion of helping only potentially viable firms.

I turn now to the provisions of this Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill, as I have said, is to raise the existing statutory limits of £70 million on Fóir's borrowings and on Exchequer advances to Fóir. These advances are Fóir's only source of borrowings. Its borrowings from the Exchequer now amount to more than £62 million. Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill provide respectively that these limits be increased to £150 million. I should mention that for convenience a technical change is being made in relation to the limits which has the effect of bringing the outstanding borrowings of £6.3 million which Fóir took over from its predecessor, Taiscí Stáit, within the overall borrowings and Exchequer advances ceilings for the first time.

I should mention also that section 5 of the Bill discharges the company from the liability to repay £10.24 million in Exchequer advances in respect of amounts which Fóir has formally written-off in its accounts up to end-1982 and certain amounts which, although not formally written-off, are now regarded as irrecoverable. Taking account of these various provisions, the net effect of this Bill is to increase Fóir's borrowing capacity by about £84 million. This should be sufficient to meet the company's requirements for the next three to four years, particularly as the beneficial effects of the emerging improvement in the world economic situation begin to be felt here in Ireland.

Section 2 of the Bill provides for an increase in the maximum number of directors of the company from seven to nine. The purpose of this proposal is to enable representatives of the Departments of Finance and Industry and Energy to be appointed to the Fóir board. The nature of Fóir's activities is such as to require close ongoing contact with these Departments. This close relationship is indeed already reflected in the administrative arrangement, introduced on Fóir's establishment, under which the prior approval of the Ministers for Finance and Industry is required before Fóir can provide assistance above a certain limit. Because of Fóir's increased importance to industry and the resultant implications for both the Exchequer and industrial policy, it is now opportune to strengthen these contacts by placing departmental representatives on the Fóir Board. I am confident that this provision will contribute further to the better co-ordination of assistance from public resources. I would stress the point that the intention of this measure is to improve that co-ordination to improve and heighten the level of both co-operation and understanding as between the board of Fóir and the two Ministers primarily responsible for its activities so that in the interests of everybody concerned a more efficient and expeditious job can be done.

It would be possible to accommodate Departmental representatives by reducing the number of directors from the business world. Such a move would, however, deprive the board of some of the expertise of such directors whose practical experience has been invaluable to the company. For that reason, I consider the alternative of increasing the size of the board as being more appropriate in the circumstances and as being the course of action most calculated to allow us to continue to have the benefit of the advice and experience of people who have spent all their working lives in business activity.

Sections 6 and 7 are intended to make certain of Fóir's remuneration and superannuation arrangements subject to the approval of the Ministers for Finance and for the Public Service. The provisions are those generally applicable to commercial State bodies. It is opportune to introduce these provisions for Fóir at this stage in view of the reorganisation of the company to which I have already referred. These provisions essentially put into a legislative framework powers which the Minister for Finance already has under Fóir's Memorandum and Articles of Association.

As I have already mentioned, there is an administrative limit above which Fóir requires prior ministerial approval before making funds available. This limit was increased from £250,000 to £1 million following the enactment of the last Fóir legislation early last year. I propose to make no change in the limit for the present.

In summary, the purpose of this Bill is to enable Fóir Teoranta to continue its vital operations. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When the Minister in introducing the Bill indicated that Fóir has a particularly difficult job, like so much that comes from the Minister, it was a masterful understatement. I would like in the first instance to make the point that the Bill we are now discussing is one that warrants major consideration of this House not just over days but over a number of weeks, not so as to enable us here to look at the details of the Bill, which are not too complex, but so that this House would have an opportunity, quite frankly, of looking at the situation, with our native industry particularly, which is demonstrated very clearly in the figures the Minister himself has mentioned in introducing the Bill. It is time that we had a full debate in this House on the total failure of Government policies to create a climate in which industry, and particularly native industry, can survive much less thrive and that is what this Bill is about.

The Minister's opening speech highlights the fact that whatever we are going to do here by agreement at this stage— and I am not going to make Fóir's role more difficult by opposing this Bill — but whatever we are going to do by agreement will unfortunately only be remedying after the event. Let me demonstrate from the Minister's own figures. I am quoting where he says, in paragraph 2:

There has been an enormous increase in Fóir's spending on rescue cases in recent years: in 1981 Fóir spent £4.8 million. In 1982 annual spending had grown to £14.1 million and this year's outturn is likely to be as high as £23 million.

Further on, the Minister indicated that Fóir had at the end of 1982 a cumulative deficit of almost £20 million. So, there we get a stark admission on the part of the Minister that within two years the rescue operation necessary to help some of these industries to survive — and we are talking basically in almost all of these cases of native industries — increased four to fivefold. The Minister, I have to suggest, is being unduly optimistic in the light of current policies — I should not say being pursued — but not being pursued and the lack of any overall policy. He is being optimistic in his assessment that the extended borrowing capacity we are now prepared to agree to will last for four years at current trends. If the rate of demand on Fóir Teoranta continues at the level experienced over the last two years, it is regrettable but it is true that within two years again the Minister of the day—and the indications are that it will be a Minister of a different side—will be coming back asking again for an increase in the borrowing capacity of Fóir because of the lack of any management policies in this Government and particularly in the Minister who, unfortunately now appears to be too busily engaged elsewhere to deal with this very important legislation in this House. It is the Government who have ordered the business of this day and if the Minister who is responsible for Fóir Teoranta cannot, frankly, manage his business, as we have had to do, so as to be here for this debate, it is too bad, because it is obviously as a result of a policy that might be identified with what is seen simply as a policy of fiscal orthodoxy—which, of course, is not the policy in any event—that we are in here today discussing this inadequate response to Irish industry. It gives me no pleasure to say from this side of the House, because there is enough depression around the place, that wherever you turn in these days you find that the statistics, the indicators, are all in one direction.

It is not enough for a Government to draw up a series of reports, analyses, to ask committees of various types to look at trends and to inform us, as they have in the last week, that the trend will continue — I am talking about the drastic unemployment trend — until 1992. That is the kind of comment that one might expect from the OECD, from economists, from others whose role it is objectively to analyse, in the absence of corrective policies, what the trend will be; but it is not what one expects from Government. The people have been waiting 12 months for this Government — and the events of recent days, with which I will not deal, out of charity as much as anything else, underline this — to supply what has been lacking — any central, co-ordinated, agreed policy which would create the conditions in which the Irish people themselves would respond and do it for themselves. That is not what has happened. Let me just say in passing — because I will deal with it further during the course of the Adjournment debate — we have waited for this Bill for some time; we have waited also for the Estimates for some time.

If we are looking for a sign of management policy, from the Government from the Estimates that have been published, I am afraid we had better tell all of those who believe that our resources should be developed to bring us through this recession that the Government are turning their backs on any such hope or direction. Fisheries is down in real terms, forestry is down in money terms, education, the real guarantee for the future, is down and agriculture is down. What is growing? This seems to be the characteristic of this administration, the administrative costs of trying to convey the notion that we are providing services for the unemployed, which are of no consequence if the climate for industry in this context is not such as to encourage people to go and do it for themselves. The fall off in investment in industry is so bad at the moment that we are now at a level of just over 22 or 23 per cent of our GNP. This figure compares unfavourably with every year with the exception of the depressing years of the mid-seventies. The downturn in investment in this country at the moment is one of the clearest indicators that confidence is missing and that those who should be encouraged to go and do it for themselves and for the rest of us have no such intention.

There was a very interesting set of articles in The Irish Times about the climate for business activities. A couple of matters emerged very clearly from those articles. If you have a person with a project with the expertise, the entrepreneurial interest and the determination to deal with it, before that person starts, as a person in one of those articles indicated, he must have the services of an accountant, preferably as a member of the company, to bring him through the maze of the tax laws, the tax provisions, the PRSI and the VAT. All of those have been increasing at such a rate in recent times that before such a man begins to start he should, first of all, consider the cost of this enormous State burden on his effort and the disincentive effect of this. It is not surprising that even the money provided for the IDA and SFADCo in relation to advance factories is being wasted at the moment. We have advance factories in our constituencies but we cannot get businessmen or investors who are foolhardy enough to go in at this time and use them. We can build the advance factories, we can use them for storage, we can tarmacadam the entrances, have nice entrances and layouts but people are not using the advance factories. This is the position in relation to new industry, never mind the position of existing industries.

I want to make two preliminary points in relation to our attitude to this Bill over and above the general criticism I want to make of Government policy, which I will follow through later on the Adjournment Debate. One relates specifically to employment in industry. An issue which arises in this case is the whole question of the role of the State and semi-State bodies and the confidence we repose in them, the particular responsibility which they have and in this case the responsibility which Fóir Teoranta have had delegated to them since 1970 since this Bill was first introduced. The Minister is proposing a few things. He will add two civil servants to the board of Fóir Teoranta, one from the Department of Finance and one from the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism, thereby ensuring that, whatever degree of independence, autonomy or capacity to react to events would be demonstrated by the activities of this board, that will be undermined under the enveloping role of an administration which is growing and growing. The basic independence of these State bodies, which were particularly underlined when this Bill was introduced, is now being undermined.

I am trying to find the source in relation to the attitude taken by the Government when they were in Opposition and the Fóir Teoranta Bill was introduced. We will see what was said by the Minister's party when this Bill was introduced in 1970. I will quote from Volume 256 of the Official Report of 1971. The Bill was introduced then so that we could have a new body that would be able to respond quickly and that would be linked in to the needs of industry because of the expertise the people on the boards would have in business themselves, so that it would be removed from the administrative preoccupation, which was a characteristic of Taiscí Stáit Teoranta, Fóir Teoranta's predecessor.

The purpose of the Bill was to ensure that Fóir Teoranta would not only be aware of the problems but, having regard to the expertise of the people on the board, would be equipped from their experience to deal with those problems. When the late Deputy Colley introduced the Bill here he got full support from all sides of the House. The present Minister for Defence had very encouraging words to say at that time for the then Minister and the approach he was taking in bringing about a better type of representation on the board and, particularly, making it more sensitive to the needs of industry as distinct from the conservative approach that had been adopted by Taiscí Stáit Teoranta.

It is very important that the actual references are stitched into the record of the House to demonstrate that this particular Bill is moving in the other direction in ensuring that we have two further representatives from the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism not just to monitor what is happening on the board but to guarantee that the board are subject immediately to expenditure control and a naturally fiscal preoccupation, which I understand perfectly well from my time in the Department, of the Department of Finance, but not such as to enable the board to react in the way that was intended when the Bill was introduced.

In the Official Report of 17 November 1971, Volume 256, column 2215, Deputy Cooney said in relation to the constitution of the board at that stage:

I do not know how the Minister is going to constitute the new board. As he indicated, up to now the board has been comprised of civil servants — the secretaries of four Departments. Without any disrespect to the gentlemen of the present board, people of wider commercial experience would be required. I think the Minister should consider as members of this board people who are prepared to experiment in matters of industrial management, who are willing to get away from the traditional management philosophies we have had in this country and which we have had to import from differently structured societies because of the size of our country and the average size of firms.

At column 2212 of the same volume he said in relation to the orthodox approach which was being adopted hitherto by Taiscí Stáit which was, as he indicated, controlled almost by the civil service at the time:

In the past few years, as the Minister pointed out, the direction of Taiscí Stáit in involvement and investment has been in fire brigade operations rescuing firms on their last legs. The Minister has indicated this has not been very profitable, not through any fault of Taiscí Stáit, but because the firms concerned have left their approach for help too late....

He went on to indicate that the orthodox and conservative commercial criteria being applied by Taiscí Stáit up to this were not appropriate to the needs of industry at that stage, that the approach adopted was too conservative and "too bureaucratic". He was supported by Deputy Tully who represented the Labour Party in Opposition at that time. They described the approach of Taiscí Stáit as being too conservative and, without being ultra-critical of civil servants, questioned whether they were the people equipped to deal with the needs of industry. That was the position argued by the Opposition of that time in support of the Bill being introduced by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley. All the reasons they gave then are equally valid now.

What is the purpose of this Minister and this Government in ensuring that they will have a greater degree of direct representation from the civil service? What is that purpose in the light of the need to ensure that Fóir Teoranta are capable, through the representation on the board, of acting quickly and effectively in the rescue operation for which they were launched? What is their purpose, having regard to the track record of this Government in relation to State boards?

We have seen in recent times indications of what this Government think about the autonomy of State boards. They can be autonomous so long as the membership on those boards happens to coincide with the views of Government as to the suitability of the people involved. It is clear that this Government particularly have one end in view and that is to undermine what always was the respected tradition and precedent of Government succeeding another Government and to ensure that wherever there seemed to be a balance of Fianna Fáil Government nominees they must be removed. The board that looks like being a Fianna Fáil board must be dealt with. Some type of implication that they will not discharge their responsibilities properly prompted the extraordinary decision of the then Minister to endeavour — because he has not been quite successful yet — to abolish An Board Pleanála without adhering to the terms of the legislation under which that board was set up. The terms of that legislation provided that if members of the board were to be removed from office the stated reasons should be notified to them and also to this House. That was not the way this Government went about it. No stated reasons were notified to the members or to this House and suddenly the members are fired, but of course the matter is now sub judice, not surprisingly. We will wait to see whether the Judiciary take the same view as to the autonomy of State boards who have not a majority of appointees from this Government.

Whatever the rights or wrongs, one thing has resulted from the Udarás na Gaeltachta debacle. Udarás na Gaeltachta have been undermined. Confidence in their capacity by industrialists or investors has been undermined. These trends, taken in conjunction with what the Government are now proposing to appropriate to civil servants who will be immediately amenable to the direction of the Ministers involved, never mind the appointments made from time to time, indicate quite clearly that the whole role of the State boards is being undermined without any review of Government policy in relation to that role. We on this side of the House would welcome an opportunity to review the role of the administration generally and of the semi-State sector also in many areas. We are prepared to take a very responsible and, I hope, consistent approach in relation to the level of public expenditure being applied, the answerability of these companies to this Oireachtas and to the people through this Oireachtas, to ensure that not one penny of taxpayers' money is wasted. I will go along with the Government on that if they bring in here some general policy in relation to State bodies that we would now, late in 1983, be allowed to consider and analyse. Some of those bodies had been allowed to be very successful in the sixties and seventies. The role of Government and Parliament is to review the role of these bodies, but this party will not go along with this kind of chipping away of individual State bodies in the exercise of their executive functions to ensure that they are brought into the maw of the Government in every possible area. We will not go along with the appointment to these boards of people nominated from outside who would have a certain sympathy for Government policy nor with the overloading of the boards with civil servants who will diligently do the job required of them. Nothing I say here is to be taken as undue criticism of civil servants as such. I have had the experience of working with them for a considerable time and I know the capacity they have and the motivation that can exist among them, but if more of them are appointed to State boards the reaction of the private sector to what they would see as the Government bureaucratic control will be strong.

At the moment Fóir Teoranta are handling about 200 cases per annum. The pattern used to be that after the rescue effort was tried approximately one-third of the firms would have to be dissolved in liquidation or otherwise, approximately one-third remained marginal for some time and one-third survived and became healthy. Unfortunately the indications now are that the percentage of firms who will have to close will grow, those marginal companies are finding it more difficult to stave off closure and those surviving find it very difficult to survive, never mind to thrive. This is because of a most unfavourable climate for investment.

The Minister referred to the economic recovery, implying that the problems of industry will fade away in the next few years. Even if the Minister is not aware of it, economic recovery has been underway in the United States, which country has a major impact on the world economy, in Japan, in the Federal Republic of Germany and even in Britain. The trends are favourable particularly for an open trading economy such as ours. Demand is growing and representatives of the FUE or the CII will confirm that at this stage demand is buoyant. The problem they face is to satisfy that demand at a level that will not drive them further into debt because of the excessive costs here and the unduly unhealthy climate for industrial activity.

Does one have to mention the level of indirect taxation which is oppressive in the extreme in comparison with other countries? Does one have to mention the level of direct taxation? As I told the Minister at the beginning of the year, not surprisingly the income tax yield is lower than the figure for which the Minister budgeted. Does one need to mention the levies imposed on industry and the extra costs of electricity, transport and so on? All these factors make it impossible for our industry to avail of opportunities that exist now.

The Minister and his colleagues in Government should turn their attention to this matter. They have been in office for a year but they have not yet come forward with any policy in this area. Yesterday Deputy Cluskey spoke about the Joint Programme for Government and what it did not include. He feels free to be critical of the lack of an adequate programme in relation to our resources. Of course there was no agreement in relation to that matter in the joint programme. They were too busy agreeing about matters that do not matter. We are all aware of the little sop about the income related property tax — the major achievement of the Labour Party. At the end of the day perhaps we will get £400,000 or £500,000 out of that tax, but what was not in the programme and is not there now is an overall agreement on the development of industry, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and education. They have no policy to which the people can respond and that is why we are here today, reacting to the growing problems of Irish industry.

When Fóir Teoranta come into the picture they do so at a late stage. I agree that Fóir Teoranta try to promote the idea that their services, as distinct from their rescue element, should be sought much earlier than has been the case up to recently. It is not right to wait until the liquidator is about to come in before calling on the services of Fóir Teoranta. Their services, particularly in the management advisory area, are quite sophisticated and I should like to compliment the organisation on developments here. Firms should call on them much earlier than has been the practice. By the time many companies come to Fóir Teoranta they already have commitments to the banks who will be the first creditors with legal rights to take certain actions. I know that Fóir Teoranta consult with the banks to get a certain understanding from them that they will not move in to liquidate their assets while Fóir Teoranta are engaged in their rescue operation. However, in view of recent events with regard to the chipboard firm, where the Government were the majority shareholders, can we be assured that the banks will not be encouraged to take the action they are entitled to take as the secured creditors with the first right to realise their assets? What guarantee do we have that the State will not sit back, leaving Fóir Teoranta with no guarantee to protect the industry concerned? What will happen if the banks decide to realise their assets by putting a firm into liquidation?

The banks are in a privileged position in our society. Our financial structures give the associated banks in particular a very privileged position in relation to, say, rates of interest which are fixed after consultation with the Central Bank. However, the obligation that follows from that privilege cannot be discharged by the banks encouraging people to borrow in good times and then taking action against them in bad times. In this connection I am referring to farmers, small builders, agricultural contractors or business people. I hope we will have an opportunity in this House in the near future to look at the role of the banks and the structure of our financial institutions. I have never tried to argue against profits in the banking sector but they should not be realised in good times and secured in bad times by the liquidation of companies. That is something about which one cannot feel too reassured having regard to developments in relation to the chipboard factory recently. In that case the Government, although they were the majority shareholder, did nothing to head off that difficulty.

I should like to make the point that the export trends have been reasonably encouraging for the manufacturing industry in recent times. But we might as well recognise — and the Minister should also recognise this — that the growth is due almost entirely to new industries brought in here in the sixties and seventies, especially technological, pharmaceutical and the para-medical industries. Although I do not want to make party politics, all the industries which the Government have been boasting about are attributable to the Fianna Fáil Government. If you inquire as to the trends of any of the established industries it is clear that, far from growth, it is quite the reverse. The food industry, the drink and tobacco industry, the textile industry, the clothing, leather and footwear industry, the timber industry, the paper and printing industry are not experiencing any growth. They are more and more calling on the services of Fóir Teoranta.

In 1973 there were approximately 213,000 people employed in manufacturing industry. In 1983 there is a very considerable drop which brings the figure down to 195,000 people employed in the manufacturing industry. We should remember that the figure includes all the new industries which were brought in since 1973. The level of employment in manufacturing industry has dropped and yet the Government are supposed to be concerned about unemployment or, looking at it more positively, with policies for employment. Even in 1979 the level of employment in total manufacturing industries was in excess of that in 1973. It was approximately 219,000 by December 1979.

They are the numbers employed, but do the Government know that we have a growth area here apart from the black economy? We have a growth area in our population and if the employment level is dropping in net terms to the extent that it has in the last ten years and there is growth in the labour market, clearly the trend in unemployment will continue to expand, as even the Government have mildly acknowledged, until 1992. With these kinds of policies it will not end in 1992, if we ever get that far, if the social order and the stability of society is not undermined in the meantime.

That is why all the efforts of Fóir Teoranta, unfortunately, will not enable industry to overcome their problems. The best opportunity and assistance to industry is to create a climate in which they will do it themselves. A small businessman in his own town with a sense of commitment from his work force will do it. You and I, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, know this because we have seen them grow in our towns. However, if you ask them now to invest in further expansion they will tell you fairly smartly where to go with your advice. They will launch nothing now. We are waiting with all the empty shelves, SFADCo bays and IDA factories. I am afraid we will be waiting much longer unless the Government create some kind of climate to avail of the boom — I use the word advisedly — that is now under way in the United States of America. If the Minister went to Shannon or Dublin Airports any day he would see small business people going out there for three or six months and investing in the new economic boom. It is not just banks which are involved, printing and stationery businesses are also involved. They are investing in America and in Britain, and who is to say they are wrong?

In December 1979, when I was Minister for Finance, although that is not the reason I am mentioning these figures, the level of unemployment was 85,000. Now it is well over 200,000 and growing, like the black economy. What has been happening to industry? The Minister will find figures in the Industrial News Report No. 39 of 19 October 1983 which says that company closures are increasing at an alarming rate. The latest figures released by Dun and Bradstreet, publishers of Stubbs Gazette, show that the number of company collapses is increasing at an alarming rate. Figures for September show that 54 firms went into liquidation, receivership or were wound up. This represents an increase of up to 26 per cent on the same period last year and that surely is a growth area. Broken down, that means that 35 firms went into liquidation, 13 had receivers appointed and six were wound up. The picture for the first nine months of this year is not encouraging. During this period a total of 574 firms went to the wall compared with 518 firms in the same period last year. The worst affected areas were manufacturing, construction, wholesalers and retailers. It is no wonder, having regard to the level of indirect taxation. General services and engineering are also affected. We are aware of that problem in view of the extraordinary decision of the Government in their public expenditure allocations to cut back on the capital programme for development of roads, housing and so on, and to waste it in other areas. Garages and the hotel sector are also suffering.

The prediction for 1983, unfortunately, is not much better. Dun and Bradstreet say that up to 800 companies will collapse before the end of the year, a rise of about 15 per cent on last year's figures. If you think of the effect of a 15 per cent rise on a diminishing number of survivors the impact should hit even this Government and bring home to them that they just cannot sit back and wait for others to suggest, in committees and otherwise, how to solve the problem. Something much more direct is called for from the Government in terms of their fiscal and taxation policies, which everybody now realises has been the biggest single disincentive to industry. The complexity of taxation, which the Commission on Taxation recognised when I established them in 1979 has increased much more since then.

All of these factors are driving industry to the wall as any Deputy with experience will realise. Apart from the problems created by the Revenue Commissioners for industrialists, their greatest problem these days is in coping with those who are there to help from the State side. These agencies are proliferating at such a rate under this Government that any small industry would almost need a separate section to deal with them. To that extent, I would put the word assistance in inverted commas. Is it not time that on both sides we had a good look at this whole area and acknowledged that the role of Government is not necessarily to convey the notion that they are providing assistance, services and advice? President Reagan may not have been too far wrong when he said, "get the Government off your backs". Instead of nailing industrialists to the ground with taxation, with bureaucratic forms and so on, we should create a climate in which they know that when they develop their ideas, their efforts will be rewarded in terms of profit, not only for the investor but for the worker. The tax level is hitting both investor and worker equally. Instead of this bringing about a degree of cohesion in common suffering, it is creating further tensions and divisions as between employers and employees and that is something that we need least of all at this stage.

We have a level of income which is about half that of countries with the same degree of public expenditure as we have. There are other ways of considering the situation. If we take public expenditure, most of which goes towards feeding the administration, as a proportion of GNP for this year we find that it is of the order of 70 per cent while the corresponding figure for 1970 was 37 per cent. If we take those countries with a low level of public expenditure in proportion to GNP, we find that those are the ones which had the biggest rate of income growth in the past ten years. This is according to OECD figures. We find that those with a level of public expenditure in proporation to GNP of below 30 per cent have a growth rate in real income of more than 5½ per cent, while those in respect of whom the corresponding figure is more than 50 per cent — and we are well above that — have a growth rate in real income of marginally 1 per cent on average. Does that not indicate that the growth of administration is the problem and not the solution? This Bill is merely moving in the traditional way. There will be more administration and we will have two further representatives from the Civil Service to ensure that whatever autonomy, independence or effectiveness this body may have will be undermined.

I trust that the scenario I am portraying is not too gloomy, but there is not much cause for optimism when we have regard to the fall-off in employment, the growth in unemployment and a dependency rate that is now the highest in the OECD countries. For how long more are we going to merely sit back and engage in the kind of wasteful discussions with which this Government have been preoccupied in the past number of months? The level of dependency at 2.8 per cent or almost three dependants to each person at work refers not only to manufacturing productive employment but to the service industries and to the Public Service. Do we really think that any economy can survive with that sort of trend? Obviously, we have not been insulated against the economic recession. I am not suggesting that all of this is attributable to the failure of Government policies, even the policies of this Government. Times are difficult for any Government but I am suggesting that in the face of the realities of the deepening recession here and the recovery outside, the inertia of this Government, their lack of direction, of policies and of motivation are killing the spirit of our people. The Government do not even seem to be aware of this situation, much less have a plan to promote small industries, craft industries and so on.

The level of VAT increases speaks for itself. I recall telling the Minister for Finance on at least two or three occasions at the beginning of the year that to achieve the figure he mentioned in his budget statement in respect of VAT he did not need a 15 per cent increase all round. I said that specifically at the beginning of the year on a "Today Tonight" programme in which the Minister for Finance took part also. I have the transcripts and the Minister's response was that it was just as well I was not Minister for Finance if that was the way I did my calculations.

Before the debate adjourns I shall read into the record exactly what the Minister said in this House on this matter. In the course of the year I told him that on the basis of advice available to me, the sort of advice he must have ignored, the level of VAT he had imposed was far in excess of what he required to bring in the amount estimated in the budget in this respect. The position now is that VAT is about £150 million in excess of what the Minister budgeted for. I told him also that in view of the depressing effects of the policies being pursued by the Government, income tax receipts would be less because there would not be people to pay the tax. The Minister would not accept that either, and we find now that the income tax receipts are down, not quite as much as the VAT receipts are up, but more or less of the same order. To complete the picture, our appeals to the Minister in regard to the increases in excise duties and indirect taxation were ignored also. We said that these increases would dampen the economy and kill the services and tourist industries as well as the drinks industry and all the others. The Minister has one capacity and that is to become fixed in a certain way. It is a condition that a Professor Laffer who is an adviser to President Regan has referred to as the MEGO or, my-eyes-glaze-over, complex. In other words, in concentrating on the budget deficit the Minister's eyes became glazed to the extent that he could see nothing else. We have reached the point of diminishing returns in so far as excise duties are concerned. Is it any wonder that apart from the black economy the biggest growth must be in the transport industry to Newry and Jonesboro? People from the Republic are spending up to £2 million per day in those towns. Fair weather to those who can buy the goods cheaper than the prices at which they are available here. Unfortunately, it is not to the Exchequer that their payments are accruing but to the Exchequer of Her Majesty across the water. There may be a new relationship between both Governments but I hope it does not get to the point that that relationship is based on the fact that we will have to contribute significantly more to their Exchequer than we do to our own. The reality is that in those three areas the Minister and the Government got it wrong. Excise duties are much less than budgeted for and we told the Minister so. VAT will be much more than budgeted for and income tax will be less than budgeted for. In those three instances we told the Minister that his figures were wrong.

Mr. Dowling

On a point of order, while it is interesting to hear what the Deputy has to say he is slightly outside the terms of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was about to tell Deputy O'Kennedy that his speech would be more in keeping with the Estimates which will be debated tomorrow and Friday.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It had been intended to take the Bill last week but that was changed and all Members have approximately 30 minutes. That may suit the Government fine. Later this evening I will have to consider the Estimates. I am anxious to relate my contribution to the climate for industry. What is happening is not just driving the fiscal policies of the Government off course but is damaging industry generally. I should like to refer to an industry that should be included within the terms of reference of Fóir Teoranta, the hotel industry. That industry is on its knees and figures issued by those involved clearly indicate that the level of unemployment is growing at a rate which is frightening, even in comparison with the rest of the industrial sector. On the other hand the employment potential of that industry is considerable. One of the main reasons why the industry is on its knees is the level of indirect taxation.

Mr. Dowling

On a point of order, this is not relevant to the Bill. The Deputy will have an opportunity, as shadow spokesman on Finance, to deal with all these matters tomorrow. I should like to know from the Chair if there is a time limit for the debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I intend finishing in a moment. The Minister should consider extending the terms of reference of Fóir Teoranta to enable them to help the hotel industry in their rescue operations. The Minister should also consider extending the terms of reference to include the building industry. The projection for April next year in the building industry is that 54 per cent of its total work force will be unemployed. Most of our major construction companies are investing abroad. Hoteliers who can afford to are investing abroad also. If we are talking in terms of employment we should consider taking real action to ensure that the potential all industries have, manufacturing, hotels, service and building, is utilised as distinct from being suffocated daily by Government policies. The role of Government is to create a climate in which people will create jobs whether in their own communities or outside, but the Government have demonstrably failed in that role. They do not have any management policy and there is no direction that anybody can respond to. In the absence of any such policy or direction I plead with the Government to limit if possible, the impact of the negative policies in terms of the level of taxation. That is the way we can help native industry. The increased borrowing powers being given to Fóir Teoranta will not contribute as much to the success of that organisation as would a change in Government policies, or at least some evidence of a positive direction at this point.

Mr. Yates

Unlike Deputy O'Kennedy I shall confine my contribution to the terms of the Bill before us. It was interesting to hear Deputy O'Kennedy's discourse on revenue returns, trade statistics and so on but in a confined debate like this it is more appropriate to deal with the terms of the legislation. Fóir Teoranta, the State rescue bank, have performed an invaluable service since their inception in 1972. I shall refer to the whole area of rescue and the areas where Fóir Teoranta can improve their operation and relationship with the public. The whole economics of rescue add up. We have the obvious social need to preserve employment but on purely financial criteria we have, through the efforts of Fóir Teoranta, been saving companies from going to the wall. We have saved redundancy payments, a saving on social welfare payments that would have to be paid out, got added tax revenue in the form of PAYE and PRSI and made an obvious contribution to the balance of payments. Some of these industries are often the sole indigenous manufacture of certain goods. Spin-off employment is also applicable. All this must be related to some type of critical analysis and the one I suggest Fóir Teoranta should operate on is a cost-per-job-saved basis.

If we look at the figures we will see that in 1981 the cost per job saved, given the total expenditure of Fóir Teoranta and the number of jobs they saved, has jumped from £1,200 per job to approximately £2,000 per job in 1982 and a 25 per cent increase for 1983, to £2,587 per job. If we are making this analysis on the effectiveness of Fóir Teoranta and the type of money the Exchequer is putting in we have to make a comparision also between the start-up costs of industry. Fóir Teoranta is very cost-effective in relation to the comparision of start-up industries of a large multinational type that are IDA-sponsored but is equivalent to the cost of setting up jobs in the small industries sector. On balance Fóir Teoranta are doing a good job but there are areas where improvement is required.

The Bill provides an increase in board membership from seven to nine, to include a nominee from the Departments of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and Finance. There is also a provision to increase the company's aggregated powers to borrow from £70 million to £150 million and to increase the advances by the Minister which are non-repayable from £70 to £150 million, also on an aggregate basis. Two years ago when the Minister's predecessor introduced the last Bill dealing with Fóir Teoranta proposing to increase powers to borrow from £35 million to £70 million on an aggregate basis, it was stated that that provision would last for three to four years. It is indicative of the depths of recession we have reached that a Bill like this has to be introduced every two years. I hope the provisions in the Bill will last for at least four years. There are two write-offs in the Bill amounting to £2.1 million and £8.1 million, a recognition that companies had become insolvent. There is also a change in the Articles of Association and Memorandum of the company to comply with the Act. A funny section in the Bill brings the remuneration and superannuation of officers and servants of the company under the auspices of the Minister for the Public Service.

The Export Promotion Bill which was passed last week provides the very same section and this Bill is in line with the Devlin Report findings which state that there should be uniformity throughout the public and civil service in relation to terms of employment, pay and conditions. I suggest that the difference in this area undermines the independence of the board, certainly in relation to getting the best people to do the job. Specialised activities like those engaged in by Fóir Teoranta require the best people and if you categorise them on a strict criterion of pay from the chief executive officer right down the line this does not give the board freedom to recruit the best possible personnel.

In the subdivisions within State bodies we see the ACC and the ICC as the equivalent of Fóir Teoranta, being bankers, but they are in division 2 of the category in terms of employment and it is most unfortunate that Fóir Teoranta personnel are in division 3. Therefore they cannot attain the same levels of pay and thus cannot obtain the type of employees required. This should be adjusted. If this Bill is to implement the Devlin Report and does not go further than the grey area of guidelines and recommendations it will be a step backwards rather than forwards.

The best way to look at the affairs of Fóir Teoranta would be to examine their interim report published on 16 November last. It is the first time they have published an interim report. It shows their operations for the first nine months of 1983. They have already spent £18.2 million and estimate they will have spent £25 million at the end of the year. Of that sum, £23 million is made up of a straight payment from the Exchequer and £2 million repayments of loans, which is low by any commercial criteria. They reckon that 7,700 jobs were saved by them in the first nine months of 1983. By comparison with 1982, the number of companies affected are roughly the same — 64 in 1982 and 68 this year so far. The loans have gone up from £17.5 million to £20.1 million, but the jobs saved have gone down. The jobs this year are 7,700 but last year the jobs saved were 8,482.

Deputy O'Kennedy obviously has not read this interim report because he was inaccurate in the figures he gave. He said that one-third of the company's concerned were marginal and struggling to survive, one-third had closed down and one-third were into profitability. I would advise the Deputy to read the report.

A touchy subject with the Department of Finance, Fóir Teoranta and the companies involved is the publication of the names of the companies that Fóir Teoranta have saved. There is no official publication by Fóir Teoranta of the companies, even though the taxpayers put £26 million in in 1983 and a considerable accumulated figure during the years. The only way the public can know what is going on is through the Irish Trade Protection Association weekly magazine. The public should be thankful to Donal Buckley of the Irish Independent who consistently has been analysing the data from this magazine and has produced details of the number of companies that have had mortgages registered against them by Fóir Teoranta. However, no public information is available on equity injection.

Whatever about mortgages, in respect of which there is a charge on the assets of the company, in terms of equity the taxpayers have a far greater investment but have less chance to get it back — their investment is more long-term. The reason put forward by Fóir Teoranta and others is that publication would have an adverse effect on the companies' trading position with their creditors and their cash flow. This is indicative of what is wrong about Fóir Teoranta.

I do not say Fóir Teoranta are doing a bad job but from this point of view they are not seen to have the required openness which is essential in any State agency, especially with large sums of money concerned. If they suggest that the creditors are nervous about the names being published I would point out that these matters are published anyway in the Irish equivalent of Stubbs Gazette. There is also information that certain credit controllers have publicly stated that they would favour publication simply because they would be relieved to see companies had got support from Fóir Teoranta on the basis that Fóir Teoranta have a very strict modus operandi:“A client must have a reasonable prospect of profitability on a permanent basis”. If Fóir Teoranta are satisfied that that criterion is met, why not publish the information? That information would be good news to the creditors who would be relieved that somebody has confidence that these companies have long-term prospects of viability and they would also have the confidence that money is being pumped in.

I suggest that the reason for not publishing details in relation to equity injections does not stand up. If this is a Government of accountability and openness I suggest the Minister should give serious consideration to this. The only other State equivalent is the IDA rescue section who have no qualms about publishing their data on investments, and that does not seem to send shivers through creditors. I do not accept the reasons for Fóir Teoranta's reluctance because I think the reasons are phoney. A new openness would give Fóir Teoranta a new positive image and everybody concerned with the company, including the banks, could play their part. It is public money and the public have a right to know. Even if Fóir Teoranta are still nervous that they would affect the sensitivity of any company I see no reason why they cannot publish sectoral accounts of their expenditure, without any reference to particular companies. They could indicate whether the companies were involved in textiles, wood or furniture, or whatever. This type of extra accountability must be demanded by us.

Another point is the number of companies—this is also a sensitive point—in which Fóir Teoranta have invested which have not worked out. I will name just three, Murphy's Brewery in Cork, Lemons Sweet and Confectionery factory in Dublin and Lunhams. There are many more. There is reason to believe that a number of companies are going into receivership or liquidation in an unacceptably short period after Fóir Teoranta have invested money in them. One could understand if a company folded up two, three or one-and-a-half years after Fóir Teoranta investing money but sometimes there are instances in which companies fold up within six months or one year of investment. They go into receivership or liquidation. There are two instances where Fóir Teoranta got involved not only once or twice but three times. This applies to Murphy's Brewery. The question then arises: was the investment a good investment? Why were the problems not seen the first time round?

It is alarming to note, and I do not understand it, that very often Fóir Teoranta having made a big investment, the Revenue Commissioners are owed a considerable amount of money. Obviously there is some breakdown in communication. I do not want to go into detail about individual companies or list them other than to say that this year alone Fóir Teoranta have aided companies which have folded. I mention Irish Dunlop and Doreen Fashions. There are others. They have all gone into liquidation.

I am not blaming Fóir Teoranta for their going into liquidation but the question is to what extent is good money being thrown after bad? How good are investment procedures if they do not work out? Fóir Teoranta invest a considerable amount of taxpayers money and that obviously requires certain obligations. How careful are the vetting procedures? There is something that does not add up and I would ask the Minister, his Department and the board of Fóir Teoranta, for the members of which I have the deepest respect, to scrutinise the situation. There are continuous reports in the media of a litany of companies set up that go bust. I accept that Fóir Teoranta's answer is that if they had a 100 per cent success rate and if, as they are, companies were going bust all the time, they would be failing in their job. They must have an element of failure to gauge the problem. I accept that. It is a reasonable argument, but in areas where Fóir Teoranta have been refused money by the commercial banks, have only a second charge on the assets and a lower rate of interest, they are entitled to have a very strict vetting procedure and, whatever else may be done, this vetting should be done.

Now if one of the reasons for the collapse of the company subsequent to Fóir Teoranta investment is the collapse of the parent company, which is sometimes the case, I would strongly suggest that they be vetted thoroughly and some long-term commitment be given to the Irish operation by that parent company. I agree with the only relevant point Deputy O'Kennedy made. He said that Fóir Teoranta should diversify into other sectors. I think all Deputies would agree that the financial problems of companies are not restricted to the manufacturing area. Ancillary services are related to manufacturing industry. The only change I would ask for in the Principal Act is a review whereby, if it is agreed in consultation with the Minister and the board and other State agencies that flexibility should be given to diversify into other sectors to help them, that diversification should take place.

One of the obvious failings of companies that have to be aided by Fóir Teoranta is in relation to management. I understand that Fóir Teoranta this year set up a management service unit. When the Joint Oireachtas Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies investigated Fóir Teoranta it was said that where money was involved a proper scrutiny should be carried out to find the root cause, which may be faulty or poor management, the whole philosophy being that if the company is not developing it is moving backwards. I would hope the linkage between Fóir Teoranta, the AnCO management trainee advisory service, the IMI and outside consultants who are employed could be harmonised in such a way as to provide a very comprehensive management unit, integrated in such a way as to let it be not only a precondition in relation to appointments to the boards of aided companies, which is a very common practice, but also to ensure that on the factory floor there would be management back-up paid for by Fóir Teoranta.

In regard to the banks there is something here that sticks in the craw of a lot of people when the State rescue bank, Fóir Teoranta, is asked to pick up the tab for unacceptable risks so far as the associated banks are concerned. By and large most banks are with Fóir Teoranta by virtue of the fact that, the banks regard a company an unacceptable risk and then it is "Go to Fóir Teoranta. We are not interested." Indeed, the banks often state as a precondition that they be allowed to put in a receiver at any time. Fóir Teoranta do not request that and to some extent Fóir Teoranta may be letting the commercial banks off the hook. The fact they are investing in an ailing company means that the banks, which are heavily involved, have a lot to lose in terms of the debt ratio if a company goes out of business. This suggests to me that some new structure might be set up within Fóir Teoranta to which the banks would contribute. As things stand, there are only two sources available to Fóir Teoranta, namely, the repayment of loans and the Exchequer. There should be a third whereby the banks would have some role towards funding Fóir Teoranta and one of the preconditions should be that Fóir Teoranta do not carry the total failure. Those are ways in which the banks could contribute. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Another point is the necessity for an early warning system. I understand there is an inter-departmental agency at the moment consisting of Industry, Finance, Labour, Coras Tráchtála and the IDA for monitoring purposes so that an early warning will be available when companies are running into trouble. No one can force a company to admit that the chips are down before they are willing to admit it. A lot of the fault in relation to Fóir Teoranta is that they are asked to come on to the scene far too late when the debts and the write-offs are too high for people to be allowed to continue. In the instances where an earlier intervention would solve the problem I suggest that the State already has an institution which knows the score in each company. We have an institution that monitors each company not only on a monthly basis but on a weekly and daily basis. I refer to the Revenue Commissioners who know very quickly, if current payments of PRSI, PAYE and VAT are not met for two or three weeks in a row, that there is something wrong with the company. I suggest that on the early warning system mechanism the Revenue Commissioners should have a nominee who would, without divulging any State secrets, ensure that they have an input to whatever package is necessary to get the company restructured and going again. That is one way. The other way is to have the banks involved. If the banks have a nominee on this early warning system mechanism they would also be able to say when repayments were not being met and we would have an effective early warning system and an effective mechanism for dealing with these problems before it is too late.

In relation to the Revenue Commissioners, if I could make only one point on this debate it would be that in the whole rescue area the main reason why rescues are prohibitive in certain instances is because of the preferential status of the Revenue Commissioners. I believe from my information from contacts in the business world that because the Revenue Commissioners have a preferential status it means that after a month of non-payment of current taxes owed they do not rush in and ask what is wrong, what is the problem or how they could help or they do not come screaming down the backs of those people. They wait for six months, nine months or even a year until you come into huge figures of £100,000 and £200,000, so that anything the banks or Fóir Teoranta can do will not be done because of the question about who will pay the Revenue.

I suggest that if the Revenue Commissioners want preferential creditors they would not wait until the day of receivership or liquidation to move in. They would not sit back on the basis that they knew they could get the money anyway. They would be in there on the first day looking for money if they had not this preferential creditor status. I suggest that one of the most important and fundamental improvements that could be made in this area is to remove this preferential status without in any way trying to diminish the Revenue Commissioners' right to get the money. This is not a surreptitious proposal by me to suggest that people should not pay their taxes or that the Revenue Commissioners should not be obliged to follow this through. If it can be used in a positive way to ensure that the Revenue Commissioners can get in earlier before the principal sums are not so high, that is a very positive step.

In relation to the board members and appointments generally, it has been alleged that in years gone by companies aided, and board members of Fóir Teoranta, as well as the board nominees on to companies, have been of a political flavour. This is not my allegation. There will be two new members on the board with the passage of this Bill. To the extent that there are suggestions that people who have been known to have certain affiliations associated with certain companies have been known to get aid, I suggest that political parties in the House are leaving themselves open to the widest possible type of cynicism from the public unless they ensure that there is a very strict criteria in relation to this matter. It could well be that the best commercial brain in the country happens to be a paid-up member of a political party. In that case I say there are skeletons in all cupboards. I suggest, however, that where possible the appointments to companies by Fóir Teoranta subsequent to rescue aid should be made strictly on merit through business consultants; or, if it is to be a ministerial nominee to the board of an Fóir Teoranta, it should be seen to be an independent nomination and to be done strictly on merit. In this way the allegations and innuendoes are avoided which suggest and So-and-So knows So-and-So who knows So-and-So. This affects the political process and is unacceptable where State money is concerned. I do not believe the Government should leave themselves open to this.

When Deputy O'Kennedy accuses the Minister of being negative and less progressive by appointing two civil servants to the board I suggest that he should reflect deeply on some of the allegations that have been made by people outside this House. I suggest that at this time it is wise and prudent to nominate two civil servants who can interlink between the two Departments and Fóir Teoranta.

I have already dealt with sections 6 and 7 whereby the Minister for the Public Service takes in the employees of Fóir Teoranta. I would like clarification on it. My information from people who are directly involved is that it is as I suggested. If you want to get the best people you must have flexibility to pay them. These sections remove that flexibility. Secondly, when the chips are down it can at times undermine the independence of the board.

With regard to the type of investment Fóir Teoranta make in any company, the recent report by the NESC in relation to finance for industry makes interesting reading. I hope the Fóir Teoranta board members will have it by their bedside because it clearly states that the basic problem with indigenous companies is that they have been overstretched from day one. Their problems were that their financial structures was so under-capitalised that they were always struggling on loans and were setting themselves impossible targets from day one and there was no way they could pursue the matter. I suggest that the area of equity injection requires a whole new think-out by the Government in all its areas. The IDA grant aid section and the proposed NDC should look at equity and the banks should be asked through tax paid standing schemes to inject equity venture capital. Fóir Teoranta, instead of giving debentures and loans, mortgages and so on, which of their nature carry the same risks as equity, should look to equity injection if they want to do something for the company on a long-term basis. This was recognised in an NESC report. I suggest there should be a priority in this area for Fóir Teoranta and it should be their stated policy.

In relation to the openness and positiveness I spoke about earlier in relation to publishing the data in respect of the companies they invest in, Fóir Teoranta could well move into the area of starting up businesses in terms of venture capital. By their nature they are identical with the risk factory type of investment propping up ailing industries. There is a need for a State agency to help people who have an idea, who have thought it through, who need an equity injection and who have approval for IDA grants and bank loans but have not the financial package to tie it all together. People in Fóir Teoranta will tell you that if they were involved from day one with companies the type of blood transfusion they have to give would not arise. It is too little, too late, when they are called in, and the prospects for recovery are not good and lead to the failure rate I spoke of earlier.

In relation to the rescue area, receiverships are common today as opposed to liquidations and voluntary liquidations. There is a problem with receiverships in so far as the banks are reluctant to send in a receiver unless the chips are really down, the game is up and they have first charge on the assets. Fóir Teoranta are not anxious to put in a receiver. Also when companies are cracking up the financial institutions will not put in a receiver but will not honour the cheques, so the company cannot trade or go into receivership because they do not have a creditor big enough for them to do so. Therefore they are forced into voluntary liquidation and the name of the businessman is mud and his prospects of setting up again are damaged because his relationship with his creditors has broken down. There is an urgent need for a code of conduct in relation to receiverships so that people know where they stand. Where companies cannot continue to trade the accepted practice should be that the banks or Fóir Teoranta would take the responsibility from the shoulders of the companies and where all alternatives or options have run out put in a receiver. This could be done in a businesslike way through a code of conduct with accepted practices and norms.

I have some questions to ask of the Minister. What is the level of the ceiling of Fóir Teoranta aid approval required before it goes to Government? It used to be £.25 million. What is the present rate? If Fóir Teoranta recommend aid for a company of £X million, what is the figure below which they have discretion themselves? At what stage must they get Government approval and how does that relate to the IDA grant aid level for which Government permission must be obtained? Secondly, what is the total amount written off by the IDA rescue section and Fóir Teoranta since their inception? Thirdly, what percentage of applications for Fóir Teoranta aid was received in 1982 and so far in 1983? I hope to get some gauge on the activity of Fóir Teoranta, although we are dealing with a drop in the ocean of problems.

I support the Bill, and I support the board of management of Fóir Teoranta. Frequently State agencies can be hypersensitive in many ways. They become paranoid about criticisms and see them as far more sinister then they are. I ask them to improve their image and their openness. Let them publish the names of the companies involved. They should diversify. Let it be seen that they are satisfied that a company can be viable. It is public money and the public who are paying for it have a right to know what happens. I would like to see Fóir Teoranta diversifying into other sectors. I would like to see a guarantee that a full management packet would be available in all investments they make. I would like to see the preferential status of the Revenue Commissioners removed, and further bank involvement in Fóir Teoranta. In terms of type of investment I would like to see a priority for equity. That is the way forward. Unlike Deputy O'Kennedy, I will not indulge in semantics or give a diverse oration on the economy. I will deal with what needs to be done about Fóir Teoranta. I hope my comments will be seen as positive and instructive and that by the time we leave Government the number of queries they will have to deal with will be minimal.

Mr. Nolan

It is to be regretted that we must bring in a Fóir Teoranta (Amendment) Bill, 1983. It is only two years since Fóir Teoranta came to the Government again looking for increased spending powers. With the condition of the economy at the moment, and all indicators seem to point downwards, we will not have to wait too long before Fóir Teoranta will be back at the door of the Government seeking more money and increased powers to borrow. However, Fóir Teoranta as a rescue agency have done some fine work for businesses in trouble and it would be wrong for anybody to stand up here and say that they are not fulfilling a very important function in our economy.

As the Minister stated in his opening speech, it looks as though the coming two years in particular will be a busy time for Fóir Teoranta. All we have to go on is the Book of Estimates circulated to Deputies today. If that is to be the criterion on which we are to build our economy, Fóir Teoranta will be the most over-used agency in the State. The Bill provides for the appointment of two new directors. One of these appointments should be given to somebody from a commercial background. The appointment of two civil servants to the board of Fóir Teoranta with the background civil servants have — I do not mean this in any personal way but they work within narrow constraints — does not give due recognition to the importance of having industrial viewpoints represented on the board. Therefore, it is a pity that one of those appointments is not of someone in industry.

A Deputy who spoke earlier referred to the involvement of the banks in the case of liquidations. I agree with many of the sentiments he expressed. It is unfortunate that the banks play such a narrow role in company liquidations. When deals are being negotiated between Fóir Teoranta and the companies applying for loans it seems that all the cards may not be on the table in all cases. Fóir Teoranta succeeded, it seemed, in negotiating a good rescue package for Lemon & Co., yet within four months the company was being wound up. I do not believe that the fault was with Fóir Teoranta that Lemon & Co. had to go into liquidation. I understand that a loss of a contract promised to them and which was part of the deal caused that company to fold up.

A more recent case, close to me, was the liquidation of Keenan Brothers in Bagenalstown. If we are to believe reports circulating in the press at the moment Fóir Teoranta approved a loan of £450,000 to Keenan Brothers. This loan was based on a rescue plan that was drawn up by Keenan Brothers in conjunction with their bankers and Fóir Teoranta. However, only £250,000 was paid when Keenan Brothers went into liquidation. The role of the banks in this case must be questioned. Speculation is that the bank, having being privy to the negotiation of the rescue package, withdrew its facilities from Keenan Brothers as the Fóir Teoranta money became available. When Fóir Teoranta realised what was happening they refused any more finance. At the end of the day the facilities which Keenan Brothers needed to continue trading were not available but at that stage Fóir Teoranta had already put up £250,000.

The banks have a privileged position in Irish business. They will be guaranteed their money and as a secured creditor they will not have too much to worry about. Certainly they will not have as much to worry about as had the unfortunate work force in the case of this liquidation. Having worked a week in advance they found their cheques were returned by the bank. It is not right for any institution to hold such a privileged position. They have a moral obligation to the work force and to the management of any company that is experiencing financial and trading problems. I hope at a later date to get clarification on these facts. When the matter has been cleared up I shall look for certain answers. I believe the banks are answerable to somebody. In this case I hope we will find out the facts when the official liquidator has finished his job with the company.

Fóir Teoranta will have a more important position in the future. In principle I support the Bill. I shall be looking for some explanations with regard to Keenan Brothers. I ask Fóir Teoranta to keep in mind that they are dealing with taxpayers' money, money that has been hard earned by working people and, in some cases, which has been collected with great difficulty by the Revenue Commissioners. When rescue packages are being negotiated I hope the points I have made will be borne in mind. It is getting increasingly difficult to get money and we shall have to be careful about the way we spend it. It should only be spent when there is a fair chance of employment continuing in an industry.

Mr. Dowling

I welcome the Bill. A rescue agency such as Fóir Teoranta is essential for the survival of industry. They have performed a significant and valuable function in assisting ailing industries since they were established in 1972. Deputy Yates dealt eloquently and effectively with the general operations of Fóir Teoranta but I shall confine my remarks to their operations in relation to the rescue of certain enterprises.

Where money is granted and a scheme for survival is drawn up I am greatly concerned that within a matter of months some companies go into receivership and eventually into liquidation. In my view, and this is shared by many taxpayers, obviously there is something wrong with the way information is collected and assessed with regard to the viability of a company. As has been mentioned by Deputy Nolan, a sum of £250,000 was spent in the case of Keenan Brothers and there was a guarantee that £450,000 would be provided. A number of independent assessments were made on the viability of the company and there is no doubt that it was capable of being viable. Yet, between April and November a receiver was appointed. Some 90 jobs were at stake in that case and possibly there was a greater number of jobs in associated industries.

As was stated earlier, banks have encouraged firms to borrow to practically any extent. Yet, when there is a downward trend in a time of recession the banks are the first to recover their entire loan. There may have been problems in Keenan Brothers over a period that related to a number of factors but the withdrawal of banking facilities meant that a receiver was appointed. Prior to the withdrawal of facilities the company had negotiated a loan of £450,000 from Fóir Teoranta. The money from Fóir Teoranta was conditional on the Irish banks maintaining their existing levels. Clear guidelines regarding the conditions under which this money would be paid were set out in a letter to the management of Keenans. Although I am speaking only for one company, I also do so in the interests of the public with regard to the allocation of any such moneys or rescue packages in this respect. Within a few months of receiving considerable State subventions, several companies folded and this indicates that there must be something wrong with the mechanism of investigative methods. Keenans received £250,000 from Fóir Teoranta and, subsequently, the bank reduced their facilities by £350,000 — it was originally at £600,000. Fóir Teoranta should not have accepted that situation. It was anticipated that there would not be any upturn in the market for a few years and they should have been asked to sustain certain losses over the next couple of years.

It is easy to say subsequently that the loss of a market or contract were the causes of the problem. My understanding is, therefore, that £250,000 of taxpayers' money was used to reduce the exposure of the Allied Irish Banks Group to Keenans, rather then assisting the company in implementing a survival programme which envisaged no upturn in business until 1985 at the earliest. It was on that basis that the deal was arrived at and yet a receiver was called in within five months of the deal being finalised. What is the purpose of arriving at such deals and why are moneys being used to bail out the interests of the banks involved? I should like the Minister to answer this.

I am speaking in this debate mainly to draw attention to Keenans. Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the pharmaceutical and higher technology industries and how they were responsible for job creation. Agriculture-related industries have been in severe recession. This did not start with the advent of this Government; it goes far deeper than that. Keenans employed 250 people on a permanent basis and also gave temporary work to perhaps another 250 people. It was one of the biggest companies of its type. I am not suggesting that Fóir Teoranta should give them more money but I am complaining at the way the rescue package was drawn up. It was intended to enable the company to survive and Fóir Teoranta must have known that there were difficulties in April whether on the management or the workers' side. They did not suddenly come to light six months later. The same is true of many other companies and the State cannot afford to be pumping taxpayers' money into ailing industries unless there is a real possibility of survival.

We are all concerned with the growing level of unemployment. Very few Governments have had answers to the problem. Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned investment abroad and buying consumer products outside the country. The Buy Irish campaign could create a significant number of jobs but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. There is very little patriotism when it comes to buying Irish products. Coming up to Christmas there will be a considerable growth in expenditure which will result in the purchase of foreign manufactured products and in 1984 and 1985 Irish industries will be calling on Fóir Teoranta and the IDA to rescue them because they cannot find suitable markets for their products.

Keenans had the prototype of a forage harvester design. We have talked about the jobs that can be created in agriculture and that prototype would have been invaluable to the industry if it had been given the opportunity to develop. This case is a significant example of the banks' withdrawal from the industrial scene. Is it not our duty, as politicians, to ensure that this type of heavy handed action by the banks should cease forthwith and, specifically, that public funds are not used to benefit the shareholders of private banks? Of the £23 million that Fóir Teoranta will consume in 1983 to rescue certain industries, how many will survive and to what extent will that ensure the return of the investment to those banks? If a halt is not called and if there is not a serious examination of the level of participation, a commitment and investment by our banks in Irish industry, not necessarily to pull out when there are difficulties and to save the skins of their investors, we can never create the jobs we all desire.

We must examine the role of the banking institutions aligned with that of the State rescue agencies. We must try to secure a commitment that will at least give opportunities to industry. It has been suggested that the recipe for survival is promoted too late. That may be so. Why is there so much fear on the part of Fóir Teoranta to disclose to the public that such companies are experiencing financial difficulties? I am concerned basically about taxpayers' money being used to pay off certain banking institutions.

I welcome and support the concept of Fóir Teoranta. I commend them on their attempts which, though not always successful, have helped many ailing industries. However, I implore Fóir Teoranta to ensure that when they are thinking of investing State money they have a guarantee that is greater than the possibility of markets because they may find six months later that those markets have been lost.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There is no more important, more vital or more essential legislation to come before this House than the Bill we are discussing. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of Fóir Teoranta and to the manner in which they have so generously assisted, advised and co-operated with many industries at times of great difficulty. One of the reasons for the Bill being so important at this time is the steady decline in industrial production and the growing numbers of unemployed. If we examine the categories of employment, we find that the professions in which there appear to be greatest scope are those of liquidator, of administrator or of receiver. Every day we read in the newspapers that some concern are to have their affairs managed by some of those people with the consequent loss of employment, with grave distress, general inconvenience and what is even more important, the loss to the community concerned and to the economy as a whole.

When I entered this House first, one of the most prosperous and expanding towns in my constituency was the town of Clara. Now it is practically a wayside village. I witnessed the expansion of the textile industry that flourished in Tullamore and which branched out to Mountmellick. I knew the workers who were employed in these industries before they fell victim to the very early years of the recession. The result of all this is that there are now almost 6,000 people unemployed in my constituency. As a public representative it is becoming increasingly embarrassing to meet these people because their first question is to ask what we are doing in the Dáil in relation to these problems. They ask what is being done about providing employment for them. I am talking of people who have been mainly industrial workers but who have been made redundant because of the general slackness and falling off in trade in the industrial sector. This appalling state of affairs would have been much worse if it had not been for the existence of Fóir Teoranta and for the commonsense and intelligence with which the directors of that body approached industrialists who were facing difficult times.

The Minister told us today that since 1972 finance for industrial concerns was made available to all those industrial projects that were in danger of closing down or of suspending activities and who were in urgent need of help if they were to keep their doors open. The Minister has told us that the employment content and the capital input were always of national or local importance and that if many industries had not received financial assistance there would have been grave local repercussions.

Since 1972, 450 concerns have received assistance from the funds of Fóir Teoranta. This is worthy of note, but we should consider also the amounts of money that have been spent by Fóir Teoranta in the past few years. In 1981 the figure was £4.8 million, in 1982 it was £14.1 million and this year it is likely to be £23 million. That is an indication of the extent of the serious plight in which industries have found themselves. We must ask ourselves the reason for all this. One of the reasons is that we Irish are very slow to give an expression of approval to what we produce ourselves. Other Deputies have referred to the failure of the Irish to buy Irish, to speak of Irish and to boast of Irish. I venture to say that our industrialists and our industrial workers turn out products that are as good as can be produced in any other country in Europe or elsewhere. Have we lost all our sense of national pride? Have we lost all sense of helping our own industries by buying what they produce? Every time we buy goods made abroad we are helping to provide employment outside our shores, thereby adding to the ever-growing dole queues. This is to the discredit of all of us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As the Second Stage debate must conclude at 6.30 p.m. I presume the Deputy will be prepared to allow the Minister in.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am grateful to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for reminding me. I will condense my contribution to a few words. The Minister should shake off the shackles of EEC fear in relation to an extensive "Buy Irish" campaign. We will not get any outside help to promote the sale of our own products at home and it is necessary that we should support such a campaign. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the report of Mr. Van Lannep of the OECD. That report should be given serious consideration because its contents are not very encouraging for the future.

My final point relates to the Scarriff chipboard factory. Members may ask why the future of that factory is of concern to me but they will understand when I tell them that a lot of the timber used in that factory came from the Kinnitty district in my constituency. The fact that the Scarriff industry is not functioning properly is causing widespread disappointment, depression and inconvenience to those who were involved in the supply of the timber from the Kinnitty district. The Minister should consider introducing legislation based on the American system whereby banks cannot step in to close an industry, cause widespread unemployment in an area and distress in homes. Our system is wrong. There will be a very gloomy Christmas in thousands of homes as a result of quick decisions taken behind the prosperous desks of bank directors on behalf of banks who are boasting substantial profits. Where there is private investment, and the State are contributing, the banks should be prohibited by law from bringing in liquidators, receivers or administrators. The system is wrong and unjust. There is no reason why our people should have to suffer or be thrown out of employment. Many children are being deprived of the pleasures of Christmas as a result of the drastic action of well paid bank directors who have been responsible for the closing of many Irish industries. I hope the Minister for Finance will consider that point.

I hope to have an opportunity to expand on this topic at a later date. I welcome the Bill. Fóir Teoranta are deserving of our support and co-operation. I have certain reservations about the failure to disclose information in relation to public money being allocated by Fóir Teoranta. If the salaries, allowances, and pensions of Members are made public then, if we seek information about where public money is going, we should be given it, at least in confidence. If representations are made by interested parties about the allocation of money to save or assist industries, public representatives should at least be told in what direction and to what extent the public money is invested in industrial projects. I make that appeal bearing in mind that there has been a great falling off in private investment in industries. The money we are sanctioning today will be put to good use in an effort to keep factory doors open.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Dukes)

The first thing I should like to say about the debate that has taken place is that it shows that the House is at one in providing, legislatively and in financial terms, for a continuation of Fóir Teoranta's activities in providing, at the level I proposed, the resources required to keep the company in operation on the basis on which it is now involved. It is important that we should mark that point because it indicates that the House has a serious concern with the condition of manufacturing industry generally here and the difficulties of individual firms and is marking its own approval of the procedure which was first introduced with Taiscí Stáit and, subsequently, with Fóir Teoranta of using taxpayers' funds to assist industries that are having difficulties of this type. It is important also that the House, as it has during the debate, should make clear that it believes that this assistance to be provided to industries should not be provided by the State only—that has been the thread running through the debate so far—and should not be provided without serious consideration being given to the use to be made of that assistance and the results we are going to get from it.

It is important when we are dealing with public funds to make sure we have the statutory basis and the mechanisms to ensure that the funds are being put to the use for which this House approves and, secondly, that they are being used in the most efficient manner possible. We are dealing with public funds and we have a duty to discharge to the public to assure them that the funds are being used for reasons with which the House has agreed. From what I have heard and understood during the debate it appears that the House is of the opinion that Fóir Teoranta are doing a good job and are properly discharging their responsibilities as to the use of public funds and in relation to the firms to which it comes in aid.

The principle of the Bill has been well accepted by the House. I should like to refer to some of the points made by Deputies during the course of the debate. Some of the points do not arise on the Bill but, nevertheless, in the tradition of Second Stage debate, I may make some glancing references to some of them. Deputy O'Kennedy was the first speaker to refer to the role the banks should play in operations of this type. He made the point that banks have an important role to play by identifying more closely with the business objectives of their clients and providing advice and expertise without confining themselves to the narrow financing appraisal of investment proposals. On the face of it, that is a remark with which one would not take exception. I would agree with it strongly if the sense of the remark is that we should encourage our financial institutions to take not just a short-term view of the value or viability of projects with which they are involved but that they should take a longer term view, particularly in some of the more traditional industrial sectors where either new firms are starting off trying to break into a market or in existing sectors where firms are trying to expand. It can be a long job to get a toe-hold in a market or to expand market share. However, I am not so sure that I would go along with a criticism of our banking system that would say flatly that it is excessively influenced by the financial appraisal of investment proposals.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I did not say that. The Minister did not give the precise quotation. Other Deputies said the same but I did not say that precisely.

Mr. Dukes

I said that the Deputy was the first to refer to it and I intend to refer to what other Deputies mentioned in this connection. I would not go along with the flat criticisms of our financial institutions. They have a particular role and special obligations. We cannot forget that financial institutions have a responsibility to their own depositors, a very important one which they take very seriously. As well, they have a wider responsibility because of the part they play in our economic system. State regulations place prudential obligations on the Associated Banks in particular but also on the banking system generally, and other financial institutions so to conduct their affairs that they will remain viable so that they themselves do not get into difficulties, because if our financial institutions, God forbid, ever were to find themselves in difficulties there could be no great hope of salvation for those who have to rely on credit.

Therefore, though I agree with the general tenor of the remarks made, we would have to put that qualification on those remarks. Our banks are involved with Fóir Teoranta and the IDA in rescue operations, the kind of operations Fóir Teoranta were set up to carry out. I am not giving away any banking trade secrets when I say that in many cases the banks show a certain forbearance and a certain readiness to take a long-term view of the position of the firm and this has been of assistance not only to Fóir Teoranta but, more important, to the firm concerned.

Is it reasonable to think, perhaps, that our banking institutions could play a more active part in this regard? On the face of it that is a question we can usefully pursue. I have discussed it with Fóir Teoranta Chairman and I intend to discuss it informally, at the beginning, with the banks. We all have an interest to ensure that the maximum possible effort will be deployed to maintain and expand our industrial base in the particular interests of employment and the overall level of production. I would not like to prejudge the outcome of such discussions. It is important to realise that our financial institutions have played and continued to play a substantial part in putting together rescue packages. It is important the House should appreciate that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is equally important to point out that businessmen and small industralists have played a major part in ensuring that the banks play their part.

Mr. Dukes

It is an inter-dependent system. The point I am concerned to make is that there is another inter-dependent interest, the general interest of the community at large, in continuing to have confidence that our financial institutions can properly fulfil their role in our economic system.

Deputy Yates in some respects asked questions similar to those put by Deputy O'Kennedy. Deputy O'Kennedy said the Bill should be the occasion for a wider-ranging debate and he took the opportunity to raise matters on the Estimates published today, and he referred to budgetary factors.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Passing references.

Mr. Dukes

I cannot pass up the opportunity to take a few passing swipes. Deputy O'Kennedy trotted out something he has been saying during the course of the year. He said he told me at the beginning of the year that my VAT estimates were too low and that the income tax and excise estimates were too high. VAT revenue this year will turn out rather higher than was expected at the beginning of the year but not for any of the reasons the Deputy predicted or even imagined at the beginning of the year. It happened for completely different reasons which I do not propose to go into now because we will have another opportunity. Equally, income tax revenue will turn out rather below the target at the end of the year——

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is an understatement.

Mr. Dukes

That will be so not for any of the reasons the Deputy predicted at the beginning of the year. The reasons are completely different. I will leave the pleasure of discussing this for another occasion. I can assure the Deputy that the margin of difference that will emerge at the end of the year pales into utter insignificance compared with the margin by which the Deputy's Government got their figures wrong.

A number of Deputies referred to the involvement of the Revenue Commissioners. They are involved in a number of these cases but it would be wrong to go into detail in this House. I am sure Deputy O'Kennedy is aware that the Revenue Commissioners are fairly deeply involved in a number of these rescue operations.

Questions were asked about the appointment of public servants as members of the Fóir Teoranta board. I went to some pains in my introductory speech to point out that that should not be read as an intention either to limit the freedon of action of the board or to introduce a level of ministerial control or interference in the operations of the board. It is intended, simply and solely, to increase and facilitate the level of information available for those who are involved in these operations, including the Ministers for Industry and Finance. Fóir Teoranta are different from other bodies because their funding comes totally from the Exchequer, and to the extent that we can bring that funding to bear more rapidly and efficiently on overall industrial policy, rescue operations can only stand to gain from that.

A question was asked about the success rate of Fóir Teoranta. First of all, in terms of the cost per job rescued, that has changed from £1,479 in 1980 to £2,585, estimated, in 1983. In regard to what has happened to firms with which Fóir Teoranta have been involved, up to the end of September last from the establishment of Fóir Teoranta in 1972, the concerns closed or liquidated were 39 per cent of those who went to Fóir Teoranta for help; those who repaid their loans in full represented 13 per cent and those still on Fóir Teoranta books represent 47 per cent. We cannot yet draw definitive conslusions from this because there are substantial numbers of recent cases on the books, influenced obviously by the kind of recession we have experienced in recent years.

On the other points that were raised——

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not want to interrupt but, by agreement of the House, I understood we were to move on to Committee Stage at 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Dukes

That is so. One point I would like to make is the fact that the board no longer publicises the names of firms. Deputies raised questions about that. It has been shown that firms are now more ready to go to the board earlier. We all know that one of the problems was, once the word came out that a firm had approached Fóir Teoranta, other financial institutions suddenly became a great deal more copy in their dealings with the particular firm.

Question put and agreed to.