asked the Minister for Industry and Energy when he expects to introduce the £200 million exchange rate guarantee scheme to private firms; and how this scheme will relate to existing exchange rate guarantee schemes.

Proposals for the introduction of an expanded Exchange Rate Guarantee Scheme for small and medium-sized manufacturing firms are currently being considered by the Government.

Approximately £20 million is still available for on-lending to small and medium-sized firms under the existing additional Working Capital Loan Scheme which was introduced by the former Fianna Fáil Government in 1980.

In addition, the Government approved on 23 April 1982 the introduction of a new £10 million loan scheme to be administered by the Industrial Credit Company and under which the Exchequer will bear the exchange risk on loans advanced to meet the working capital requirements of small and medium-sized manufacturers arising from the development of new export markets.

Are the proposals before the Government specifically for a £200 million expansion of exchange risk loans as promised prior to the election?

I am not aware of the promise to which the Deputy has referred. I am not aware that it was included in the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the election, but the specific figure about which he talks is not the figure being talked about at present.

Is the Minister aware that his party promised £200 million for an exchange risk guarantee scheme for industry? Would he state the figure now proposed for the expansion of exchange risk guarantees being considered by the Government? If it is not a figure of £200 million, what is it?

I should like the Deputy, if he could, to refer me to anywhere in the Fianna Fáil manifesto where a specific commitment was given to the scheme about which he is now asking.

Deputy O'Malley made such a promise.

For the benefit of the Deputy concerned, I should say I was at the press conference at which reference was made to this. It was a suggestion of Deputy O'Malley in relation to revolving credit. It was not, as the Deputy tries to allege, a commitment in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. Nevertheless, as I have stated already, consideration is being given to this matter and various aspects of the whole area are at present being examined. In due course the Government will reach a conclusion.

May I take it then that the other things said at that press conference were in the realm of suggestions thrown out for consideration and can therefore be discarded?

Any commitment given by Fianna Fáil in their election manifesto — unlike the people on the opposite side of the House — will be implemented in full. It was purely to put the record straight in relation to the statement made by Deputy J. Bruton that such a commitment was given that I said such a commitment was not included in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. If the Deputy can point to it, I shall be only too glad to swallow my own words.

Would the Minister agree that what was said at the press conference by Fianna Fáil was said with a view to gaining votes and was conveyed to the public as being something Fianna Fáil would do and, furthermore, once it is in that category it is something the Minister should either implement or explain why he is not implementing?

The Deputy must not have been listening to what I was saying. First of all, I will set the record straight about whether this was a commitment in the first instance, as he alleged. We have now established that it was not a commitment. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Government are considering all the aspects of this scheme and in due course will reach their conclusions — no more than that, just to set the record straight. At the same time I should point out that we are considering all aspects of the situation and will reach a decision in due course.

Does the Minister not agree that this scheme amounts to another new, camouflaged slice of Government borrowing in that the scheme is intended to allow industrialists to bear the extra financing costs involved in paying value-added tax at the point of entry on all products indiscriminately?

The Deputy is now trying to create a discussion in a different area. Deputy J. Bruton referred to the situation prior to the election whereas Deputy Dukes is now referring to the situation subsequent to the election. Indeed, Deputy Dukes will recall that in the budget statement——

I am asking the Minister what is being added, not what he said he would add.

——of the Minister for Finance, when talking about VAT imposition on imports, he said specifically that where companies have difficulties in relation to this their situations will be looked at.

Is it not just another camouflaged form of Government borrowing because if they cannot get the money from the people who have to import their goods directly they will allow those people to borrow abroad in order to get the money to pay the Government? Is that not just camouflage?

Unlike the previous Government we do not have to camouflage anything. Our credit rating is much higher than it was. Only last week I found out that the damage done by our predecessors in the international markets for investment was such that if it had continued we would not be able to borrow six pence. We are, gladly, in a position to go ahead with our programme and Ireland, despite the best efforts of the Opposition, will remain a good location for investment in the future.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

I wish to have a written reply to Question No. 239.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the cost to the taxpayer of answering Dáil questions which I understand now from my research is of the order of £200 a question. This would mean that if the 930 questions on today's Order Paper were answered today it would cost the taxpayer approximately £200,000. This is an urgent question and I believe it should be raised on the Adjournment rather than go through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

Could I have a written answer to Questions Nos. 237 and 238?

Could I have a written reply to Question No. 231?

On a point of order, I had a Private Notice Question down on Údarás na Gaeltachta.

I disallowed a number of Private Notice Questions and I would be glad to explain to the Deputy the reason if he calls to my office. The Deputy cannot raise the matter now.

Can I ask that the content of my question be taken on the Adjournment?

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

I notice in today's paper a statement from the leader of the Opposition accusing RTE of making inconsistent decisions because of the postponement of a programme in which he was to appear.

This does not arise at this time.

I also agreed to appear on a programme last Friday which was adjourned until 4 June.

Does the Deputy wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

I am quite satisfied with the decision of RTE.