I shall not: I have made the same type of speech on the same type of subject in reply to Deputy Dillon on other occasions. It is to the credit of the Taoiseach that when he resumed office as Minister for Industry and Commerce he permitted this body to work and it has worked well and very well since the legislation providing industrial grants was passed by the Fianna Fáil Government— grants extending the Industrial Grants Act introduced in 1956 to make it really worth while and not the little pittance of grants which would make no difference whatever and which would provide no inducement whatever to an incoming industrialist to set up here. I do not want to pursue that point.
I do not grudge Deputy Dillon his moment of glory when he reflects on the great advance of 1956. However, the fact that we extended the export incentives is a tribute not only to the original thinking in the Act but to the mentality of those who came afterwards and saw at least something good in the proposed administration, nurtured it, expanded it and made it work even better. I give Fine Gael a present of all they claim and have so often claimed in respect of these two measures which have really been made to work under the Fianna Fáil Government.
Let me come back to the two purposes of this Bill, the first of which is the making available of extra moneys to Córas Tráchtála. Deputy Sweetman in particular asked about this matter. I said in my opening speech that £850,000 was spent of the £1 million that was provided under the original Act in 1959. As the House knows, it is the practice in the case of bodies such as this—for example, Bord Fáilte—to write into the Bill, any particular Bill, a certain limit of expenditure. The limit of expenditure written into the Bill in 1959 was £1 million but within that limit moneys had to be voted year by year to that body so that not only has the House control over the annual voted moneys and their expenditure but it also has control over the overall amount that may be spent under a particular Act.
The money available under the original Act is almost exhausted. There is not sufficient left of that £1 million to ensure that Córas Tráchtála can continue their activities on the scale they plan for the current year. We now propose to increase that sum to £2½ million which it is expected should be exhausted in four or five years at which stage it will be necessary for whoever is Minister for Industry and Commerce again to come before the House to increase the limit of expenditure if that seems desirable at that stage. Therefore, there is nothing unusual and nothing complicated about the manner in which this money is being provided—in case Deputy Sweetman would be interested: he said he would refer to it again.
The expenditure in the four financial years since the Bill was first introduced has been as follows: 1959/60, £97,000; 1960/61, £266,000; 1961/62, £241,885 and 1962/63, £245,000, making a total of £849,885. These are the voted moneys and there is no complication about them in any way.
In reply to Deputy Sweetman's suggestion that no new thinking has been brought to bear on export incentives or export promotion I would point out that that is not correct. Recently, Córas Tráchtála have been financed to enable them to introduce a scheme of market investigation whereby they themselves may investigate on behalf of any industry or any group of industries the marketing possibilities in countries abroad or whereby industries themselves can go abroad and make their own investigation and receive a subvention for that purpose from Córas Tráchtála. Naturally, in the latter case, Córas Tráchtála examine fairly closely the prospect of success of a marketing research venture by a firm or group of firms before they give the subvention. That has been availed of to a reasonably good extent. It is one thing that, no matter what international commitments we may have to enter into in the future, is unlikely to offend against the principles of such convention. On the other hand, it is possible that our remission of tax on export profits might well offend against some international agreement and would, therefore, have to be discontinued.
Side by side with that, we have our industrial grants scheme generally, which is a form of incentive. Over and above that, we have the recent special grants system, whereby firms who wish to adapt and expand their production for conditions of freer trade are given substantial grants or interest free loans over a certain period. Therefore, it is not correct for Deputy Sweetman to suggest we have remained in any way static since the passing of the 1956 Act, which first gave incentives by way of tax remission on profits from exports.
As far as the premises are concerned, every Deputy will appreciate the desirability of having a decent centre in which Ireland can be properly portrayed, particularly in a city like London. I do not like using the term "image of Ireland", but it seems to be appropriate in these circumstances. We can portray our image much better if we have reasonable premises.
At present the premises of Córas Tráchtála are situate in Regent Street on the left-hand side as one leaves Piccadilly Circus. Although I know the exact location of the premises, I spent about two hours trying to find the place. Under the provisions of the lease, CTT are not permitted to have any indication outside by way of nameplate or otherwise of what is going on inside. One has to go down some 20 feet or 30 feet of a hallway to discover who are the occupants of this portion of the building. Inside there are reasonably extensive premises, but certainly not extensive enough for present purposes.
It is obvious to everybody who has to go there or who has displayed goods there that these premises are not adequate in modern circumstances. Somewhere on the opposite side of the street we have Aer Lingus. I do not know exactly where Bord Fáilte are. But it seems to me to be desirable that we should have a reasonable premises in London where we can house these bodies, so that what Ireland has to offer in the way of tourism, industrial exports and air services could be properly portrayed to the people of London and Britain and, indeed, to the millions of visitors who come to that city.
The purpose of Section 3 is to enable CTT to acquire premises and to sublet them if they find the premises to be too big for their own purposes. As everybody knows, the face of London is changing. Premises are erected and some of them come on the market. It is only right that we should ensure that CTT would have the necessary legal power to acquire premises, possibly only by way of lease, and if these premises are too big for their own purposes that they would have the power to sublet them to such organisations as Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte, and, indeed, to anybody else who would seem to be a desirable and profitable tenant. Section 3 is not a new provision. CTT already have power to acquire premises, but it is doubtful whether existing legislation gives them power to sublet premises or portion of the premises if they do not need them themselves. Section 3, therefore, will give them this power of subletting.
Section 4 enables guarantees to be given for the payment of any losses in the outgoings as against the income from lettings. It is not envisaged that CCT, having paid whatever is provided by way of rent in their own lease, would sublet the remainder of the premises at a loss. It is possible that a lessor of such premises might require guarantees from CTT that any losses they would incur would be covered. Section 4 specifically provides for the guarantee by the Minister for Finance of such losses in the event of their being incurred.
