Given that it is now three weeks since the new Minister announced the proposed review of the semi-State bodies, could he not at this stage give some indication to the House on this matter? I am quite surprised to hear he has no idea as yet of what he intends to do, of what questions he intends to ask. Could he give some idea to the House of his proposed terms of reference for this review body and by whom the review will be conducted? It was certainly very unclear from his original statement and now we look for some clarification.

I cannot accept what the Deputy says. It is quite clear from the statement to which he refers. I have my own expressed views in relation to the number of separate agencies and institutions which are involved in the support area for industrial development. In 1986 there were 20 separate institutions associated with the implementation of industrial policy, with a combined staff of more than 3,400. This is causing confusion to existing and prospective entrepreneurs. The Department's survey of senior executives in Ireland in recent times showed a concern about overlap between the agencies. Of those surveyed, 86 per cent believed there were too many agencies. I am concerned to have a review to see that there is no overlapping and no waste. We need an official support agency service for industrial development and if there are too many I am prepared to take action to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money and that support for industry gets value for money also.

May I ask——

I call Deputy Keating. There would appear to be repetition here.

With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am one of the two questioners in relation to Questions Nos. 8 and 22. I respectfully suggest that I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.

I am sorry, Deputy. I had not suggested that I would not bring you in later on. I called Deputy Keating.

I accept your ruling.

Would the Minister be good enough to say whether clarification or reclarification of the remit of the semi-State bodies would be a major concern of his and if that clarification would be the first item on the agenda in any such review? Secondly, would he comment briefly on his Government's attitude to the National Development Corporation and what his plans are for that body in view of his stated attitude over a number of months——

Question No. 16.

Deputy Keating is moving away from the questions.

Could the Minister answer the first part of my question, please?

Arising out of an earlier reply, does this indicate a complete U-turn on the Government's stated policy? I gathered from the Programme for Government there would be 28 new committees, boards and offices. In trying to streamline the procedure, is one of the lesser aspects to be a shedding of all those new creations, or will they be part of the new programme?

The Government would have to build an extension to house them.

I do not know what the question was, but I might inform the Deputy that I am not involved in any U-turns, good, bad, or indifferent, in relation to agencies in the industrial development area. My views are very well known and well publicised. I intend to continue along that path. In relation to the terms of reference query by Deputy Keating, I say to him and to the House that it would appear, before close examination, that many semi-State agencies have wandered far from their original terms of reference. It is quite clear to the House and to the general public that many show signs of overlapping between one area and another. A competitive edge appears to be developing between State agencies as to who will do what and who will do what best. This is not a situation that I, as Minister, intend to allow continue. We must have effective use of the taxpayers' money and the best cost benefit analysis carried out to ensure that industry gets an efficient and cost effective support system.

If, as the Minister says, his views are well known and well publicised, what does he need consultants for?

I did not say I was employing any yet.