Looking back over the Bill it just struck me that the Minister might have another look at section 2 between now and the Seanad. Naturally we support the Bill entirely. This section was part of the Bill which I moved here on Second Stage in March. Looking at it recently, it struck me that supposing an industrial undertaking proposes to amalgamate for its own purposes and to improve its industrial operations with another undertaking which might not on the ordinary understanding of the expression be described as industrial such as an insurance company, an advertising agency, a commercial farm, a marketing agency or distribution network, or a transport undertaking of some kind. I only put this forward as a drafting point. Of course these are all, in a sense, industrial operations, but I thought I might as well mention it in case the Minister's advisers think it advisable to make it clear between here and the Seanad that a restructuring here would attract the benefit of the section even if one of the concerns involved was not industrial in the narrow sense.
Industrial Development Bill, 1977: Committee Stage.
The authority's remit extends only to manufacturing industry and in certain instances to certain specified services like architecture for export purposes. The sort of things mentioned by the Deputy could not be dealt with by the authority. The range of them, is way outside the scope of an authority which is set up to deal with industrial development and in particular with manufacturing industry.
I do not want to make any great point about this, but it is a matter that occurred to me only at a very late stage. I only mention it so that the Minister might look at the thing and ask the IDA whether they ever foresaw the possibility of an industrial undertaking for its own purposes, to improve its performance, proposing an amalgamation with another undertaking which might not be capable of description as industrial. I appreciate that the IDA is not there to assist marketing organisations and so on, but an industrial undertaking might find it advantageous to acquire an insurance company, an advertising agency, a commercial farm, a distribution network or a transport undertaking. The Minister should ask the IDA if they might see some advantage in allowing the benefit of this section to be extended to an arrangement of this kind. This section as it stands envisages two industrial undertakings, both of them in sectors in which there is an economic advantage in mutual diversification. Might there not be an advantage in looking at this section from this perspective so that the benefit of the section could be extended to an industrial undertaking which wishes to amalgamate or take over another undertaking for industrial purposes although that undertaking might not be industrial in the narrow sense? I would be glad if the Minister would look at the matter between now and the Seanad.
I will do that.
I move amendment No. 1.
In page 3, subsection (3), line 34, to delete "inserted" and substitute "as amended".
This is only a drafting amendment. It seems that the survival of the word "inserted" in line 34 is probably an oversight. The way this part of the Bill was conceived in the first part of this year was a bit different. In fact section 17 was not inserted by the 1975 Act but was amended by it. I may be wrong about this, but it looked to me at any rate as though there had been an oversight.
I will accept the amendment.