asked the Minister for Industry and Energy whether, in view of the fact that the number of persons registered as unemployed at the Thurles Employment Exchange, County Tipperary, has increased by over 81 per cent in the past three years, he has any specific plans for industrial development in the area.

15.

asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the plans he has for industrial development in the Roscrea area of County Tipperary.

16.

asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the plans he has for industrial development in the Templemore area of County Tipperary.

17.

asked the Minister for Industry and Energy whether he has any plans for industrial development in the Borrisokane area of County Tipperary; and, if so, what those plans are.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 together.

On a point of order, I wish to protest at the proposal of the Minister to take four Parliamentary Questions together. I put them down as four separate questions for a specific purpose. The Industrial Development Authority have indicated different concerns as far as the four areas are concerned——

The Deputy cannot make a speech. The Chair does not have any control over the content of ministerial replies. It has been establised practice in this House — on both sides I might add — that a number of questions may be taken together where the questions are relevant.

I accept that but I understood that the Minister asked the permission of the Chair to take them together. I ask the Chair to take my submission into account or otherwise it makes a total farce of the system of asking Parliamentary Questions because the Minister has clearly indicated in a number of replies he has given already that he intends evading the questions put to him. We must have some rights in the House.

The Deputy raised this on a point of order and I should like to tell him that a Minister saying "With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle" is a mere formality. I questioned that at the beginning and I found I did not have to give my permission. It is a mere formality and any Minister can group together a number of questions where they relate to one subject. The Chair does not have any control over it.

The Chair has stated that it was his intention to ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider various reforms and perhaps he might have this matter considered by the Committee. With respect, it makes a total farce of Question Time if Ministers can roll up any number of questions together and give a general answer to questions that are very specific. I represent the people of North Tipperary and I am being denied an opportunity of getting vital information for them. I have no control and, apparently, the Chair under the rules of the House does not have any control over the matter, nor can he permit me to get information which I believe I am entitled to get.

The Deputy can have this matter brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges by a member of his party who will be on the Committee.

On a point of order, there is a precedent for the Chair refusing to allow a Minister deal with a number of Parliamentary Questions together in one reply. While I accept what the Chair has said with regard to precedent and that it is normal for permission to be given it is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Chair. There is also a precedent for refusing permission to a Minister to reply in that manner.

I investigated this matter and I was informed that the power did not lie with the Chair in a matter of this sort. I will be glad to examine the matter and investigate the point mentioned by the Deputy. There was an argument on one occasion when 16 or 17 questions were grouped together.

The House was adjourned on this point when the Minister for Education was involved. The ruling of the Chair was reversed and the Minister had to break up the questions.

I will investigate that and try to have the matter clarified once and for all.

The Chair is investigating the matter and on a previous occasion the Chair indicated that when he had a matter under investigation he would retain the status quo. I understand the status quo to be that the Minister asked the permission of the Chair to take these together. In the interest of Members I ask the Chair to retain the power that he apparently has, and which the Minister believes the Chair has, given that he has asked for permission, and I ask that the Minister on this occasion answer the questions separately.

When the Deputy's party were on the other side of the House I questioned this also and I was informed that it was not a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.

(Limerick East): Is it in order to raise points of order during Question Time?

They can be raised.

I am surprised at the attitude of Deputy Molony. It has been a long-established practice here, as all Members know, for questions to be lumped together. There was a record set of 50 or 100 being lumped together. I do not think I am introducing any new procedures.

On a point of order and further to the last remark by the Minister, while I accept that it is normally accepted by the Chair that questions could be taken together, the very phraseology used —"With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose ..."— clearly indicates that your permission is necessary for the Minister to proceed in that manner.

I am glad to hear that information. I investigated it before and was told my permission was not necessary.

It is sought.

I know it is sought but I am told it is a mere formality. I questioned it at the beginning.

On a point of order, the question is quite different. If you refuse the necessity to give your permission to this, the rights of Members of this House are being taken away.

This has happened over decades. You have a valid point and I will investigate it in detail to see what can be done. I will not deviate from established practice until I examine the matter and make a decision for future reference. You may express your displeasure at these questions being taken together.

Established practice is that the Minister requests the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to deal with several questions together.

I had cause to question this before the Deputy did so and we shall take Questions Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, together on this occasion.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, together.

In their Industrial Plan 1978-1982, the Industrial Development Authority have divided North Tipperary into two town groupings.

Insofar as the Templemore-Thurles town grouping is concerned, the authority, in conjunction with the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited, set a job creation target of 500 new jobs. By the end of 1981 these agencies had approved grant assistance for industrial projects which plan to provide 450 jobs at full production, of which 270 had been created by the end of 1981.

Both the IDA and SFADCo are promoting this area vigorously for industrial development, employing the full range of financial incentives. In addition, the IDA have available two advance factories of 18,750 sq. ft. in Thurles, with a third of the same size due for completion shortly, together with 64 acres of land available for suitable industrial projects. SFADCo have recently completed 2×2,500 sq. ft. small factory units which are being promoted as part of the company's small indigenous industry drive.

In conjunction with SFADCo, the IDA have set a target of 700 new industrial jobs for the town grouping which includes Borrisokane and Roscrea in their industrial plan. By the end of 1981, grant aid had been approved for industrial projects which plan to create 1,980 jobs at full production of which 500 had actually been created. In addition to the normal attractive range of incentives available from IDA and SFADCo, a 24,000 sq. ft. advance factory which is under construction at Roscrea is due for completion in September next and SFADCo hope to commence the building of two small factories in the town later this year. Thirty-seven acres of land are also available for industrial development in the Roscrea area.

I would ask the Chair to be as lenient as possible in the matter of supplementary questions.

Please be assured that the Chair will facilitate the Deputy.

In view of the fact that the unemployment rate in the Thurles employment exchange area has increased by 81 per cent over the past three years, would the Minister agree that the targets and plans of the IDA are totally inadequate? Since during this period the IDA claim to have approved 450 jobs in the area,could the Minister explain how unemployment could have increased by 81 per cent, an increase one-third greater than the national average and four times the average rate in the remainder of the constituency?

I am sure the Deputy will be glad to hear that negotiations are at an early stage for the attraction of an industry to the advance factory at Thurles. This is an area of high unemployment and I am as deeply concerned about it as the Deputy. There is no point in being hypocritical about this. The Deputy was a Member of the other House for a short time and I would ask whether he made the same case when his party were in power.

Of course, I did.

With what result? I am doing everything I can to speed up industrial development in every area.

I am very well aware of the industry which the IDA are trying to establish in Thurles.

The Deputy may only ask questions.

The Minister asked whether I was aware and I am replying that I am so aware.

You are not allowed to reply.

Is the Minister aware that the number of jobs planned for that factory would be only a drop in the ocean in relation to the unemployment figures in Thurles? In view of the massive increase in unemployment in the Thurles area over the past three years, would the Minister not accept that the IDA's plans for the area are inadequate?

Plans for the Thurles area and for many other areas are being reviewed this year because the IDA plan expires this year and special consideration will be given to areas of highest unemployment in an attempt to give special help in alleviating the problem.

Would the Minister accept that there is considerable resentment in areas like Thurles with high unemployment rates when some constituencies, specifically Dublin Central, are treated with special consideration? Would the Minister accept that in view of the very high unemployment rate in Thurles he should consider designating it an area which merits 60 per cent IDA grants?

I am very well aware of the impact of high unemployment in any area, whether in Thurles or inner Dublin. I do not think there is a begrudging attitude when efforts are being made to improve the position in one area.

There is such an attitude when there is discrimination.

The highest level of industrial promotion will be undertaken by me as Minister and the same will apply to the IDA, who have intensified their marketing efforts this year.

Why should special treatment be given to one constituency to keep the Minister in his seat?

Is the Deputy stating that Dublin's inner city has not specific problems?

Of course it has.

Everybody knows there are grave problems there.

It is being given special treatment in order to keep the Minister in office and that is the only reason. It is discrimination.

When the Deputy's party were on this side of the House the same row was not kicked up about Thurles. The IDA, in co-operation with me, are marketing Ireland in the most intensive manner possible. The immediate result is already apparent in the winning of a project against international competition.

There is clear discrimination in order to keep the Minister in his job on that side of the House.

18.