asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the plans, if any, he has for the remit and reform generally of State and semi-State agencies with job creation and investment responsibilities.
22.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State Agencies Review.
8.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the body responsible for the review of the semi-State bodies under his aegis; the terms of reference; and when it is expected the review will be completed.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 22 together.
I am concerned about the wide diffusion of responsibility for the implementation of various aspects of industrial policy and the growing number of functions of State agencies involved in the process. The Review of Industrial Performance, 1986, recently published by my Department, highlighted this issue and indicated that consultants would be engaged to advise on agency rationalisation.
At present, I am considering how best to approach this question including the extent to which it will be necessary to use consultants and their possible terms of reference. I am not in a position as yet to indicate when such a review might be completed.
In view of the fact that the Estimates were reduced by £9 million on the capital side regarding the IDA, and in view of the fact that they were committed to in excess of 11 per cent more than the budget which is now allocated to them for projects which they had approved for grant-aid, what is the Minister's opinion on what the IDA must now do? Must they reduce the aid which they had promised, or slow down the rate of grant-aid to those industries which are involved?
I have to reject what the Deputy says in relation to the cutting down of any projects which are suitable for industrial aid. I might also tell the Deputy and the House that my information, both from the Department and from the IDA, does not suggest anything in line with what the Deputy says. If I heard him correctly, he said they had 11 per cent more approvals than they had allocations to deal with them. That is not the position.
I understood that at the end of the year £153 million was allocated in capital grants to industry and what was provided for in the budget was £136 million.
I am not aware of an allocation of £153 million having been made, either by the previous Government or by anybody else, in relation to the IDA. I remind the Deputy that when work starts on departmental Estimates every sector and every agency put up their estimates of their requirements. It is then a matter for re-examination and reassessment. The fact that the IDA were cut down by £9 million will not inhibit in any way, good, bad or indifferent, the promotion of industrial expansion this year.
Given that it is now three weeks since the new Minister announced the proposed review of the semi-State bodies, could he not at this stage give some indication to the House on this matter? I am quite surprised to hear he has no idea as yet of what he intends to do, of what questions he intends to ask. Could he give some idea to the House of his proposed terms of reference for this review body and by whom the review will be conducted? It was certainly very unclear from his original statement and now we look for some clarification.
I cannot accept what the Deputy says. It is quite clear from the statement to which he refers. I have my own expressed views in relation to the number of separate agencies and institutions which are involved in the support area for industrial development. In 1986 there were 20 separate institutions associated with the implementation of industrial policy, with a combined staff of more than 3,400. This is causing confusion to existing and prospective entrepreneurs. The Department's survey of senior executives in Ireland in recent times showed a concern about overlap between the agencies. Of those surveyed, 86 per cent believed there were too many agencies. I am concerned to have a review to see that there is no overlapping and no waste. We need an official support agency service for industrial development and if there are too many I am prepared to take action to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money and that support for industry gets value for money also.
May I ask——
I call Deputy Keating. There would appear to be repetition here.
With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am one of the two questioners in relation to Questions Nos. 8 and 22. I respectfully suggest that I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
I am sorry, Deputy. I had not suggested that I would not bring you in later on. I called Deputy Keating.
I accept your ruling.
Would the Minister be good enough to say whether clarification or reclarification of the remit of the semi-State bodies would be a major concern of his and if that clarification would be the first item on the agenda in any such review? Secondly, would he comment briefly on his Government's attitude to the National Development Corporation and what his plans are for that body in view of his stated attitude over a number of months——
Question No. 16.
Deputy Keating is moving away from the questions.
Could the Minister answer the first part of my question, please?
Arising out of an earlier reply, does this indicate a complete U-turn on the Government's stated policy? I gathered from the Programme for Government there would be 28 new committees, boards and offices. In trying to streamline the procedure, is one of the lesser aspects to be a shedding of all those new creations, or will they be part of the new programme?
The Government would have to build an extension to house them.
I do not know what the question was, but I might inform the Deputy that I am not involved in any U-turns, good, bad, or indifferent, in relation to agencies in the industrial development area. My views are very well known and well publicised. I intend to continue along that path. In relation to the terms of reference query by Deputy Keating, I say to him and to the House that it would appear, before close examination, that many semi-State agencies have wandered far from their original terms of reference. It is quite clear to the House and to the general public that many show signs of overlapping between one area and another. A competitive edge appears to be developing between State agencies as to who will do what and who will do what best. This is not a situation that I, as Minister, intend to allow continue. We must have effective use of the taxpayers' money and the best cost benefit analysis carried out to ensure that industry gets an efficient and cost effective support system.
If, as the Minister says, his views are well known and well publicised, what does he need consultants for?
I did not say I was employing any yet.
Secondly, would the Minister confirm that of the money available for the IDA this year for capital, all but £14 million is already committed from last year? Would he further agree that one good project would absorb all that money? Would he agree that we are in a situation in the IDA this year where perhaps a sign "Out of business temporarily" might be hung on the door?
I am amazed that a former Minister for Industry and Commerce and a former Minister for Finance should try to suggest to the House that industrial projects approval will be affected by the IDA budget for this year. He, more than anybody else——
Would the Minister answer the question now?
—— should realise that money paid out this year from the IDA grant structure is money for commitments entered into not alone last year but the year before that as well. He does not need an answer from me. He is being mischievous in this House——
That is not the case.
——in trying to suggest that industrial expansion will be cut——
Answer the question.
I call Deputy Spring.
——either with regard to the IDA or any other of the agencies under my control.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, or perhaps I misheard the Minister.
There was no misunderstanding at all as far as I am concerned, I can assure the Deputy.
Given that the Minister, in reply to my first supplementary some time ago, said that he has strong views — and I accept that he has strong views — on some areas of industry, can he give the House some idea at this stage which bodies he considers to be surplus to our requirements if there are too many bodies and, consequently, too many people dealing with grant applications?
I expect the Kilkenny Design Workshop to be commercial within two years and the same applies to the Irish Productivity Centre. These are two examples to indicate what I have in mind.
(Limerick East): That was our policy.
That is exactly what we were doing.
The Deputy wanted examples.
The Minister has views which are well known — those of the outgoing Government.