asked the Minister for Finance the amount, if any, of advances made by Fóir Teoranta to Irish Board Mills Limited, Athy, County Kildare, which have been, or are expected to be recouped from the receiver.

At the time of the appointment of a receiver, Fóir Teoranta had advanced sums totalling £450,000 to Irish Board Mills Ltd., Athy, through its parent company Inishturk Limited. To date Fóir have not received any repayment in respect of their advances. The amount that may be recovered by Fóir will depend on the realisation of the company's assets and the receiver has advised Fóir that it is not possible for him at this stage to anticipate the outcome of the receivership.

Will the Minister state what criteria are used by Fóir Teoranta in advancing loans to ensure that the firm in question is viable? Will he state if these changed suddenly after the advancement of the money in this case?

The criteria are laid down by statute. I do not have them here at hand but I am sure the Deputy will find them easily if he looks at the Act that set up Fóir Teoranta. I am not aware of any change in them.

I wonder how the condition of this firm changed so rapidly from the time the money was advanced by Fóir Teoranta to a situation where a receiver was appointed. I am trying to find out how Fóir Teoranta advanced the money in this case and within a matter of a month a receiver was appointed. How could there be such a discrepancy between the assessment of both parties, where somebody decided to advance money and somebody else decided that a receiver should be put in?

The question on the Order Paper refers to advances made by Fóir Teoranta, not the question the Deputy is now putting. I am calling Question No. 14.

Is there an answer to the question?

Will the Minister answer my question?

The Chair is making it clear that I am not to reply to the question. I am trying to obey the Chair.

The Deputy's question asked the amount of advances made. The Deputy is now asking why the advance was made. This could go on forever.

I also asked what amount it was hoped would be got back. An amount of money was advanced but within a month a receiver was appointed. Somebody must have made a mistake somewhere.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister cannot answer the question. He is taking protection from the Chair.

I note the Deputy has difficulty in obeying the Chair.

The Minister mentioned a figure of £450,000. In the Forestry Estimate which we discussed before Christmas a figure of £680,000 was mentioned. Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between the two figures?

The question and answer relate to advances by Fóir Teoranta. As the Deputy has pointed out, the figure to which he is referring is a figure in the Estimate for Forestry.

It referred to the Irish Board Mills, Athy.

Yes. I have explained the discrepancy.

Is it fair to assume that before an amount of money such as this—practically £500,000—is paid by Fóir Teoranta to an industry the Minister is satisfied that it is possible to make that industry viable?

It is not a function of the Minister to be satisfied or dissatisfied. Fóir Teoranta are independent of the Minister in the exercise of their statutory functions.

Is the Minister happy with a situation where this amount of money is paid out and a month later a receiver has to be put in?

I am never happy with a situation in which a firm closes down, whether money has been advanced or not.

Is the Minister investigating this discrepancy?

What discrepancy?

Between the action of Fóir Teoranta and the putting in of the receiver.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would call for any special inquiry by me. I am, of course, reasonably familiar with the circumstances——

Is the Minister saying——

Let him flounder.

I am reasonably familiar with the circumstances which eventuated in the closure of the firm.

Is it not to avoid situations like this that the Industrial Development Consortium is there? It was supposed to avoid this kind of thing.

No.

May I ask a question?

If it is a relevant question I will permit it as the Deputy was the person who put down the question.

I asked a specific question and I did not get an answer. I was told the Chair would not allow an answer.

The question the Deputy asked was not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. We cannot have a debate on the actions and functions of Fóir Teoranta.

The Minister said he was not aware of any special circumstances that would warrant an investigation by him. Does he not consider that the situation where a receiver was appointed one month after money was advanced does warrant an investigation?

No, because the position is not quite as outlined in telescopic fashion by Deputy Bermingham.

What is the position?

If the Deputy wants to put down a question he is perfectly entitled to do so.

This is Question Time and we cannot have a discussion on the functions of Fóir Teoranta.

There were two separate advances made to this firm and within a short period—I will not say within a month—a receiver had to be put in. I am suggesting that either the investigation made by Fóir Teoranta or the decision to put in the receiver was not correct. I am asking if there is any explanation for that.

I do not accept the implication of what the Deputy has said.

What is the Minister hiding?

Nothing.

Did the Minister even consider lifting the telephone to ask his own people for an explanation?

The original question referred to the amount that was advanced and the amount that may be recouped. We are now entering into a discussion of the whole workings of Fóir Teoranta.

The amount involved is approximately £500,000 of taxpayers' money. The Deputy for the constituency asked the Minister if an investigation was made before the money was made available to the company. Within a short time a receiver was appointed.

That was not the question the Deputy asked. It is not the question the Chair is dealing with.

The Deputy was trying to get an answer.

It is a separate question.

With the permission of the chair, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy during the afternoon. I am calling Question No. 14.

I presume I am allowed to get an odd word in.

The Minister is very selective.

Deputy Bermingham correctly pointed out that there were advances from two sources. Is he suggesting now that no such advances should have been made?

No.

If he is not saying that, will he stop trying to pretend at this stage that they should not have been made?

I thought the Minister was making a statement, not asking questions.

An advancement was made and, apparently, an assessment was also made on whether the firm was viable. What happened afterwards was that within a short time a receiver was put in. It is obvious that somebody was wrong and I want an explanation.

If the Deputy is suggesting that money should not have been advanced, let him say so.

I am not suggesting that.

If, on the other hand, the Deputy——

The Minister should face up to his responsibilities.

On the other hand, if the Deputy is saying that the money should have been advanced, then there is some discrepancy in what he has said. As I pointed out, the functions of Fóir Teoranta are exercised independently of the Minister. If the Deputy thinks there are grounds for believing that Fóir Teoranta acted in any way wrongly or improperly in this case there is a remedy open to him.

I said there was a discrepancy between the two actions——

There is a discrepancy between what the Deputy has implied——

In view of the Minister's evasions I urge the Chair to give serious consideration to Deputy Bermingham's request to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I urge Deputies who are now expressing an interest in this matter to take their courage in their hands and if they want to suggest by innuendo in this House that there has been something wrong or improper in the way Fóir Teoranta handled this matter they have a remedy. Let them bring it out and we will deal with the whole thing.

It is a ridiculous charge.

I have no function in relation to Fóir Teoranta. I do not control what they do.

If Deputies are now suggesting that there is anything wrong or improper they should not run away from the innuendo in what they are trying to say; they should stand up and be counted. Deputies are saying it is either right or wrong; if it is wrong, they have a remedy.