asked the Minister for Finance the total amounts paid out of public funds by State agencies by way of grants and loans to Castleguard Textiles Ltd., Ardee, County Louth and its parent company Seafield Gentex Ltd.; and the measures that have been taken to safeguard public money.

The payment of grants to industrial companies is a matter for which the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy is responsible. As regards loans to these companies out of public funds by State agencies, amounts totalling £1.215 million have been given to Seafield Gentex Ltd., of which £450,000 was intended to be devoted to Castleguard Textiles Ltd. In addition, £100,000 has been loaned direct to the Castleguard company. All these loans were provided on concessionary terms. As regards security for these loans, the position is that loans totalling £450,000 to Seafield and the £100,000 loan to Castleguard were subject to negative pledges by the companies concerned that further borrowing from other sources would not be incurred without the approval of the lenders. The remaining £765,000 was issued by way of short-term bills of exchange pending the submission by Seafield of proposals for restructuring the group and its management. The first measure in this respect has already been taken by the appointment of a new managing director. Furthermore the lending company propose to exercise their right to representation on the board of Seafield.

In addition, over the years a number of loans have been provided for these companies on purely commercial terms, some of which have since been repaid. The Deputy will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to disclose details of commercial transactions between a State agency and individual borrowers.

Will the Minister say what is the likely outcome of the situation in regard to Castleguard Textiles? Is the company likely to keep going or close down? Some 300 jobs are involved.

In regard to Castleguard, I cannot say what the likely outcome is, although I am sure the Deputy is aware of the fact that efforts are being made to have it taken over. My understanding is that there is no hope of its reopening as Castleguard Textiles Limited.

In view of the positively whimsical way in which people take money and when it suits them get out—and the public interest does not appear to have any great control over what they do—would the Minister not agree that in future he should ask the IDA or the other authorities responsible to take some kind of equity share and appoint their own directors on companies of this kind to try to protect not only the finance involved but also the interests of the workers who will be greatly inconvenienced if this place closes?

I should point out again to the Deputy that it is proposed to have two directors on the board of Seafield on behalf of the State lending agency?

But not Castleguard?

As I understand it Castleguard effectively is gone.

May I ask two questions? The Minister gave a breakdown of the figures. Could he give the total amount? He said £450,000 was intended for Castleguard. Was it actually given?

In regard to the first question, the total amounts given to Seafield Gentex—I am speaking now of loans on concessionary terms— was——

And grants?

No, I do not have the details of the grants because they are a matter for the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. I am speaking only of loans given on concessionary terms. As I mentioned at the end of my reply, there were other loans given on commercial terms, some of which have been paid over the years. The total amount of loans given to Seafield on concessionary terms amounted to £1.215 million and in addition £100,000 was loaned on concessionary terms to Castleguard. In regard to the second part of the Deputy's supplementary, I said that £450,000 was intended to be devoted to Castleguard Textiles. My understanding is that it was not so devoted.

In a situation where this money was intended to be devoted to Castleguard but was not, are there any measures the Government or the IDA can take?

That is a separate question.

There are steps that can be taken but I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that in a situation like that, one of the things that must be considered is what will be the consequences of taking the steps in regard to employment and other matters. There is no doubt that the attitude of the Government in regard to that kind of transaction is, to say the least, disapproving and any action open to us to remedy that situation will be taken.

Would the Minister not agree that there is a need for an inquiry into that now?

On the facts as we know them, I do not think an inquiry is necessary.

The Minister will agree that there is something not quite right about this.

There is something of which I would strongly disapprove involved.

May I ask a question?

We have had quite a number of supplementary questions.

Precisely one. I am sorry a Cheann Comhairle, but your memory is slipping, apparently.

I said we had quite a number of supplementaries.

I have asked one supplementary to my question. Surely it would be proper for the Minister for Finance to have access to the total funds paid rather than saying that this is a matter for another Minister? Above all Ministers, the Minister for Finance should be able to give the total funds? He has the right to give us that figure. Why does he not give it?

Whatever view Deputy Browne may take in this matter, the fact is that by statute and by the rules of this House I am only entitled to deal with matters which come within the purview of my Department. Grants are a matter for the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy and it is open to the Deputy to put an appropriate question to that Minister.

But it is not appropriate for this Minister to answer this question? That sounds astonishing.

The Deputy has been around long enough to know the drill.

I know the Minister for Finance well enough.