Vol. 319 No. 2
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The purpose of the Bill is to legislate for the implementation of arrangements negotiated by the employer organisations, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government last year in the national understanding under which the Government undertook to underwrite a shortfall of up to 5,000 jobs in the employment target for the year to be achieved by a special joint public and private sector employment programme.
Are there copies of the Minister's speech available, please? They have not yet been distributed.
I take it that copies are available.
The standard script will be available very soon.
This is unusual, to say the least of it. This legislation is introduced as a result of the national understanding of April last. The Minister came in here last week and wanted all Stages in a hurry. We agreed to give him Second Stage this week. Now he turns up without his speech being ready for distribution.
Perhaps if the Deputy would continue talking for a little while they would be available to him almost——
What was that?
I said if the Deputy would continue talking for a little while they would be available to him immediately. It is just the normal process of having copies transmitted from the office; that is all.
This Government must be the most incompetent crowd that ever took office. At 10.25 a.m. this morning we had not even got the Order of Business in our office. We were not given the courtesy of saying what was going to be debated today.
That is a matter for the Whips. I just want to tell the Deputy that he will find that he will have been at no disadvantage when the script is made available to him and that certainly no discourtesy is intended. I do not think it is evidence of any incompetence.
It quite clearly is.
It depends what the criteria will be.
The criterion is that the normal courtesy of the Opposition being supplied with copies of a script when a Minister stands up is not being observed. Therefore, that is discourtesy.
I will leave that to someone else's judgment.
The purpose of the Bill is to legislate for the implementation of arrangements negotiated by the employer organisations, the Irish Congress of Trade Untions and the Government last year in the national understanding under which the Government——
On this question of availability of the speech, I wonder would it be possible, to prevent any disagreement and to avoid creating an unwelcome precedent, for the Minister to pause for a moment and make sure that copies of his speech are distributed to Members of the Opposition. Surely that is not beyond the technological capacity of the Minister.
I understand it will be some minutes before they are available. If I may say so, I do not think the House will find itself at a disadvantage that they are not immediately available.
They are now available. I would have read it slowly and clearly for the few moments Deputies would have had to wait.
That is not the point and the Minister knows it.
I have sat there for five to ten minutes on many occasions without having had a copy of a ministerial script. If the Deputy wants to make a big bruhaha of this because he has been delayed two minutes he is free to do so. I suppose I may start again.
The purpose of the Bill is to legislate for the implementation of arrangements negotiated by the employer organisations, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government last year in the national understanding under which the Government undertook to underwrite a shortfall of up to 5,000 jobs in the employment target for the year, to be achieved by a special joint public and private sector employment programme. This programme was to be financed jointly by Government and employers, with each contributing a maximum of £10 million. The Bill provides, therefore, for the establishment of a £20 million employment guarantee fund and for the collection of a surcharge of 0.35 per cent on the employer's social security contribution for the contribution year commencing on 6 April 1980.
The guarantee programme is an important element of the national understanding. It is seen by the parties as a practical measure to give effect to their shared commitment to employment. It provides a unique opportunity to take steps quickly to support employment creation or the maintenance of employment in areas where action is most urgently needed. It also provides an opportunity for the development of useful projects which in the normal course would not get off the ground quickly.
At the outset I would like to pay tribute to the participants in the tripartite committee set up under the terms of the national understanding to oversee the employment guarantee and other measures on employment. The representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federated Union of Employers and the Confederation of Irish Industry, without exception, displayed a constructive and understanding attitude which was essential for the successful working of the committee.
While, of course, the members of the tripartite committee had as their primary objective the generation of additional employment to make good a shortfall of 5,000 jobs on the employment target for the year, they showed a keen appreciation of the realities and issues we have to face. I should like to mention just one illustration. The withdrawal of the employment maintenance scheme at the end of this month as a result of objections from the EEC Commission presented a real threat to the position of many firms in the clothing, textiles and footwear industry in this country. The members of the tripartite committee have agreed to the use of portion of the employers' contribution to the employment guarantee fund to finance a replacement scheme which will assist the threatened firms for the remainder of 1980. This shows a responsible and practical appreciation on the part of the committee of the fact that, in present circumstances, employment maintenance can be as important as the creation of new employment.
Before going on to describe the achievements to date of the tripartite committee, I should like to say a few words about the general outlook for employment in 1980. As Deputies realise, our situation cannot be viewed in isolation from what is expected to happen on the broader international plane. In the OECD, expectations for 1980 in regard to performance in all areas of economic activity have had to be reduced, directly as a result of the higher prices for oil which each economy in the area now has to bear. For the current year, the forecast is that economic growth in the OECD will be much lower than last year.
Accompanying this lower level of activity will be a rise in unemployment in most member countries, an increase which will be quite sharp in certain instances. The EEC Commission see the outlook in much the same light. Their recently published annual report on the economic situation of the Community forecasts a slowdown in economic growth in 1980. The growth in total employment experienced last year is likely to be arrested and, with the continuing rise in the population of working age, unemployment is likely to rise again somewhat in the Community as a whole and, on the basis of present or anticipated policies, to grow to 6.2 per cent of the labour force.
While we will have to accept that our target of a 25,000 increase in numbers in employment this year will not be achieved, our performance compares more than favourably with that of many of our EEC and OECD partners. The present reality of an unfavourable international economic environment must be squarely recognised. Our target must be to consolidate the progress we have already made and, having done so, to seek to advance further to the greatest extent possible.
The Government regard employment as a paramount priority. Accordingly, when settling the public expenditure allocations for 1980, I focused on certain expenditure programmes as being critical to the attainment of our employment objectives and dealt with them on a priority basis.
Although the rate of growth of public expenditure has been sharply curtailed in line with the need to get Government borrowing under control, I provided for an increase of 32 per cent in the provisions for infrastructural investment in the Public Capital Programme over what was spent last year. The development of our infrastructure not only provides substantial on-site employment but also is a powerful inducement to the growth of industrial employment in the future.
I also provided for increases in excess of the general norm in the allocations for the Industrial Development Authority and Coras Tráchtála, whose activities are so important to the development of industrial employment. Over the last few years the sterling work of the IDA has resulted in a record number of new job approvals, a substantial number of which will be coming on stream this year. The large 1980 public capital programme allocation for industrial promotion will, I believe, enable the IDA to reach its target of 30,000 new job approvals this year, thereby sustaining the momentum of employment growth in industry.
The present depressed state of international labour markets shows our employment achievements during 1979 in a particularly favourable light. Final figures for employment for the year are not yet available but there are firm indications that total employment during the year grew by about 15,000. We did not, therefore, reach the level of employment creation we had hoped for but, in a year in which we were beset by international and domestic economic difficulties, the increased employment recorded represents a very creditable achievement.
The Tripartite Standing Committee on Employment met for the first time in September 1979. They concluded that a substantial shortfall on the employment target for the year was inevitable and decided, therefore, to trigger the employment guarantee mechanism. The committee have been meeting regularly since then to consider proposals for employment creation in both the public and private sectors. The broad allocations approved to date by the committee account for about £18 million of the £20 million available for special employment initiatives. The balance of the fund will be allocated very shortly.
I have referred already to the committee's decision to finance from the employers' contribution to the employment guarantee fund a temporary scheme of assistance to be known as the "employers' temporary subvention" in place of the employment maintenance scheme. A noteworthy feature of the new scheme, which will run for the remainder of 1980 is a requirement that firms employing more than 100 persons must submit development plans if they are to be eligible for the full benefits of the scheme.
The Committee have also decided to support a special national programme for the provision of sport and recreation facilities which the Taoiseach proposed to the social partners in his consultations with them. The need for major sport centres, community recreation and sports centres and outdoor pursuits centres has for a long time been keenly felt by communities all over the country. The decision to provide these facilities will therefore be generally welcomed—particularly by young people.
I should also mention that the facilities being provided will not be for the exclusive use of a particular group or groups within a community. It is a condition of support for these projects that there should be general access to them. I want to stress also that these sport and recreational projects will be in addition to the schemes for youth and sport already financed by the Government through the Minister for Education.
Other projects or initiatives for which fund approval has been given include: a 1,000-job public sector programme including environmental improvement schemes, temporary youth employment projects, tourist amenities and county development team projects; a temporary extension of the employment incentive scheme to cover the payment of a temporary supplementary premium of £10 per week in respect of all eligible persons under the scheme and a further temporary supplementary premium of £10 per week in the case of each eligible person who has also been on the live register for at least 26 weeks in the 12 months immediately preceding employment under the scheme. The supplementary measures came into effect on 31 December 1979 and are due to terminate on 30 June next; recruitment of 200 additional engineering apprentices under a scheme to be sponsored by AnCO; construction of an airport at Waterford; provision of a dredger for Waterford harbour to be built by Ross Company Ltd., New Ross.
I have already mentioned that the employment guarantee fund is jointly financed by the Government and by the employers' organisations. The Government's contribution of £10 million will be provided from moneys to be voted by Dáil Éireann. Last December the Dáil approved an additional Estimate for £3 million to enable spending on approved job-creation schemes to get under way. A further £7 million has been included in the 1980 Book of Estimates presented to the Dáil last month.
The employers' £10 million is to be raised by way of a surcharge on the employer's social insurance contribution. The original intention was that the surcharge should be collected under the pay-related social insurance system and that deductions should commence before the end of 1979. It was very quickly realised, however, that it was not practicable to introduce the surcharge other than at the beginning of a contribution year, that is, 6 April. The tripartite standing committee accepted this and, accordingly, agreed that the introduction of the surcharge might be deferred to the contribution year commencing on 6 April 1980. This did not interfere in any way with spending on approved projects as the Government had already paid over a portion of their contribution.
I should also mention that the tripartite committee agreed that the surcharge should not apply in respect of public sector employment as the Government was contributing separately to the employment guarantee fund.
The text of the National Understanding specifies a surcharge of ½ per cent on the employer's social security contribution. The tripartite committee confirmed, however, that the purpose of the surcharge was to raise £10 million and that the rate of surcharge should be determined accordingly. The employer organisations, in particular, were most anxious that the rate of surcharge should be as closely estimated as possible. The decision taken in this year's budget to increase the income ceiling under the pay-related scheme from £5,500 to £7,000 was, therefore, extremely relevant to the calculation of the appropriate rate of surcharge.
The rate of surcharge required to yield £10 million under the present income ceiling is 0.35 per cent. It would have been 0.4 per cent under the old income ceiling. The surcharge will apply only for the contribution year commencing on 6 April 1980. It was not practicable, therefore, for me to bring legislation before the House until the decision to increase the income ceiling had been announced. As Deputies will realise there is nothing in the Bill which was not provided for in the employment guarantee provisions of the National Understanding.
I commend the Bill for the approval of the House.
As the Minister has said, this Bill is as a result of the tripartite negotiations arranged last December. Of course, we are glad to see that there is something positive being done in this forum to create jobs in what the Minister admits now is a year in which the targets will not be achieved. It seems to me to be a bit hypocritical on the part of the Government to say that they are creating those jobs when in fact the vacancies are being created because of cut-backs in the Government's budget. There is an exact matching programme for the creation of jobs, as listed by the Minister today, and the cut-backs listed in the budget. In effect, what is happening is that an extra £10 million is being taken from the employers to pay for schemes which the Government are not funding this year. I am surprised that the employers and the unions have been taken in by this bit of deception.
We see grants for environmental work listed in the Minister's speech today. This has been cut from £4.2 million last year to £2.1 million this year. The local improvements scheme is down from £2.7 million to £2 million this year. That is also listed. The Minister makes a big play about how he is going to do great things for youth employment. He said that the committee have decided to support a special national programme for the provision of sport and recreation facilities but the grant for youth employment is down from £1.5 million last year to £500,000 this year. The employment maintenance scheme is cut from £8 million last year to £4 million this year. That is a substitution scheme under this programme.
The Minister also listed the work experience programme as one of the things to which they are giving a temporary extension of the employment incentive scheme to cover the payment of a temporary supplementary premium of £10 a week. The work experience scheme was cut from £2.8 million last year to £1.8 million this year. The tourist development area, which the Minister mentioned in his speech this morning, is one of the places where the money will go to. He had already taken the money away from this in his budget when there were cuts from £1.75 million to £1 million. The items I have just read out total well over the £10 million which the Minister said he is subscribing. He had already put that in the budget without going into the bigger things like the housing grants, which were severely cut from £30 million to £23 million, and the water supply and sewerage schemes, which have also been cut. The Minister is now claiming credit for having subscribed £10 million when in fact he had already cut it in the budget.
This does not seem to me to be in the spirit of what was intended by the national understanding. I am amazed that the employers and the unions fell for this bit of deception and did not throw it back in the Minister's face saying that those should have been supplied in the budget in the normal way without the cuts. These are cuts in money terms. The cuts in real terms are very much greater than the cuts I have listed out. All that is happening under this Bill is that the employers will have £10 million taken away from them to do work which it is the Government's duty to do.
Many of the things are very worth while doing and I have no complaint to find with the nature of the work or with the employment level that will be achieved. The Government are pretending that this is new job creation when in fact they are putting those people out of work by withdrawing the money. Now they will get the employers to re-employ them by contributing £10 million. At the same time they will deprive the employers of 35p per week per employer from 1 April next.
It seems extraordinary, when this Bill was coming before the House this morning, that the Minister should last night announce the substitution of a new scheme for the employment maintenance scheme. Many of the decisions being taken to spend this money are not being made by this House. They are being made under the tripartite conference of employers, unions and Government. When public money is being voted and spent this is the place where the Minister should make those announcements and the place where decisions should be taken as to whether or not the schemes are worth while. We have a long list of schemes which were read out by the Minister this morning already listed in the press before the House had a chance of debating either the setting up of the fund, the worthiness of the projects on which the fund is to be used or any other matters.
When I asked the Minister a parliamentary question a month ago about what documents were available to the tripartite conference I was told that those documents were confidential. They are evidently confidential to Members of Dáil Éireann, but are not confidential to members of the trade union conference or whatever employers' body were represented on the tripartite conference. It is evidently all right for those documents to be discussed by them and apparently then transferred to the public arena by a briefing by some member of the tripartite conference. It seems to me quite obvious that some member of that conference briefed at least one of the papers the day before yesterday as otherwise this information could not have appeared in yesterday's papers.
The Minister also engaged in this practice of not first giving the information to the Dáil. Knowing he was coming into the House this morning to have this Bill discussed, he issued an official announcement last night about the employment maintenance scheme. That is bound to encourage a fairly sizeable number of people in the country in their belief that this House is irrelevant. The Minister is certainly making it irrelevant this morning by making an announcement about the Bill last night.
I am very glad to see that money is being provided for an extension of the employment maintenance scheme. I am not sure that it will be operated in the same way that it has been up to now, but certainly a lot of firms in the textile trade would have found it impossible to remain in business for the balance of this year if money was not provided by way of subsidy of wages. There is a rider added to that, to which the Minister referred and which also appeared in yesterday's papers, that each of those firms receiving money under this scheme should come back during the course of the year and give a development plan for the future. That is a good idea. We should by and large ensure that when public money is given out there is some assurance given to the public who subscribe this money that some effort is being made to see that the objects for which it is subscribed will be achieved—in this case it is the continuance of textile firms and of employment in those industries. Many people might say we should throw our hats at the textile industry and accept cheap imports from the East, but I do not agree with that. There are many worthwhile skills in the textile industry and there is a long tradition of employment in that industry, too. To allow these industries to disappear because of temporary difficulties caused by imports would be a grave error.
A bigger investment should be made in this industry not just to keep people in employment, although that is very important, but to ensure that the skills involved in those jobs are not lost to the country. When the EEC come to grips with the damage being done to the textile industry, not just in Ireland but throughout the Community, by cheap imports from the Far East we will not be able to get back into the trade if we allow these industries to die. We should see keeping these skills as an investment in the future.
Under this Bill it appears that the employers will continue to subscribe until expenditure reaches the £20 million level. In my view it would be more correct to say until the employers subscribe £10 million, because it is conceivable that the Government could put a clamp on employment at £19.9 million and in that way the employers would have to subscribe for ever and a day. It should be visualised that this emergency fund will not be in existence forever and that it will not always need subscriptions from employers. The Minister should amend that section. I will be putting down an amendment to the effect that the employers contributions should continue only until their half of the fund has been reached and not until the sum of £20 million has been provided.
This Bill takes £10 million for the Government from the employers and pretends the Government are giving this money under a job creation scheme. That is not so because the jobs were already there. There are a number of other very important points in the national understanding to which the Minister did not refer. Subparagraph (1) of the National Understanding for Economic and Social Development reads:
This combined action will aim at offsetting the shortfall within a period of three months.
The Minister did not refer to this. His avoidance of these points makes me suspect that the only thing the Government are interested in is collecting another £10 million for employers. Subsection (2) of the national understanding says:
The Government will introduce legislation to reduce the statutory limits on adult working hours.
Has that been done? What is the position there? Subparagraph (3) (a) says:
Arrangements for the establishment of a National Hire Agency will be proceeded with immediately.
It must be remembered that this document is dated last April. A sum is provided in the Estimates for the National Hire Agency, but what has been done in this regard? Has it been founded? Has a chairman been appointed? Has staff been hired? What is the purpose of the money provided in the Book of Estimates for that agency? Subparagraph (3) (b) reads:
A satisfactory long-term solution to our employment problems also requires that the greatest possible number of jobs be provided in productive employment which is commercially viable. To this end the Government will provide for the establishment of a National Enterprise Agency.
What is the position here? The document from which I quoted is dated April 1979, almost 12 months old. Subparagraph (3) (b) continues:
It is envisaged that the functions of the Agency will be:
(i) to establish organisational responsibility for the commercial exploitation of new development opportunities...
(ii) to provide a mechanism to ensure that commercially oriented research and development is effectively applied in the economy.
It is also envisaged that the Agency will engage directly in manufacturing, service and trading activities either by itself or in partnership with other organisations...
I do not think anything has been done in this regard, except to provide a sum in the Estimates for the National Hire Agency and the only purpose of bringing in this Bill, as far as I can see, is to collect another £10 million from employers in social welfare insurance. The money being spent under this Bill was saved by the Government through pruning. The Minister lists the areas where the money should be spent and they are the areas which were cut back in the Book of Estimates for 1979. The Minister is getting the employers, through extra stamp money, to fund this scheme while pretending he is providing the money. As I said, I would like him to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage which will limit the contributions by the employers so that when their 50 per cent of the fund has been contributed, the extra social welfare stamp money will no longer be necessary.
This Bill is presented to us as part of the agreement comprising the National Understanding and of course, elicits the immediate support of all representatives in the House. One cannot let this Bill go without referring to the background of the national understanding. That agreement was posited on the basis that the Government of the day would continue to maintain employment as a major plank in their policy platform. The Minister repeated today that employment remains a paramount concern. While the protestations and verbal commitments of this administration are repeated weekly in such policy statements, the fact is their actions are at variance with those stated comments. While we can support this measure, the fact is that the recent major economic statement by this Government in the budget, and in the Book of Estimates and the capital figures produced before the budget all point in the direction of deflationary policies throughout 1980 in which employment must be the main casualty.
This measure will in no way substitute for the overall depressing direction which Government policy is taking in relation to employment. This measure could be described as a shabby sleight of hand, especially when one considers the sort of cuts made recently in direct employment creation areas. The Minister admitted in his speech that employment targets would not be achieved this year. How could they be achieved when we look at the implications for the economy which recent Government measures entail? For 1980, a 1 per cent growth rate has been predicted and that really means stagnation when it comes to job creation.
In the autumn of this year about 50,000 young people leaving second-and third-level education will be in search of jobs. The policy measures recently announced do not afford any confidence to those young people that they will be successful in their quest for jobs. In the body of his speech the Minister sounds a retreat from previous policy commitments to employment creation. The understanding and the agreement of trade unions was given on the basis that the main thrust of Government policy would continue to be in the direction of more employment creation. As a result of criticism especially from the unions, based on their belief that the Government are retreating from previous commitments to employment, the Minister has come to the House to-day with a welcome effort to try to convince the unions of the credentials of the Government. The Minister's task is not easy because the unions are able to read the result of recent Government economic actions as well as anybody else, a 1 per cent growth in the economy for this year, a cut in personal living standards, a sharp increase in consumer prices, a cut-back in the house building sector, building costs expected to rise by 20 per cent and the effect on employment of the cut-back in the Government's real allocation for the housing sector which means a drop in employment. The main casualty as a result of the budget can only be employment. The Government have apparently decided that in the list of narrow options before them to bring the economy around, employment will be the main casualty. That is why this measure can only be described as a substitution policy, if not dishonest.
There have been real cuts in the capital programme, a cut-back in the building construction industry and so on. This measure departs from the agreement to which the Government committed themselves in the national understanding and therefore it was necessary for the Government to come in here and say that they were willing to go ahead with some of the elements in the national understanding. The agreement on the employee side in those talks was given on the basis of the Government's continued commitment to employment creation. The Minister made the point that we are not alone in our distress, in our failure to create more employment and that it is an insurmountable problem in other EEC states. Ireland has the biggest proportion of young people who are wage earners and probably no other EEC state is faced with a challenge like ours in providing jobs for these people. When the Government admit that there can be no success in job creation they are retreating from their commitment and there is a distinct difference between us and the other member states in this connection.
There have been signals before now but this morning the Government clearly indicated that they are retreating from their commitment. One cannot separate the substitute provisions put forward this morning from the general direction of the economy outlined in the recent budget which will give us a 1 per cent growth in the economy. It is obvious that employment will fall this year when one takes into account the real cut-back in the house building programme. All the vital employment areas suffered real cut-backs this year. There is no point in saying that other countries have this problem. That excuse is not good enough as our problem is far more acute and failure is not acceptable. In our situation it cannot be other than catastrophic having regard to the number of young people who will be seeking work for the first time this year. Without exaggeration this can be described as a crisis year for employment.
Part of the reason that the Minister came in here this morning is because there has been mounting criticism that the Government have been dragging their feet on the economic packages that comprised the national understanding. The provision of the National Hire Agency and the setting up of the State Planning Board have been making slow progress and the statements of trade union leaders indicate that they have been coming to the conclusion that the Government are dragging their feet on these matters. The Government committed themselves to these elements in the national understanding, but progress has been very slow and that is part of the reason why the Minister came in here this morning with this belated commitment to this aspect of the national understanding.
The Minister admitted in his speech that there had been a jobs shortfall of 5,000 in 1979 and also indicated that he did not expect employment targets to be reached at all in 1980. There is an ominous silence on what the Minister intends to do in relation to the shortfall in 1980. We are approaching a time when we will either commence negotiations for another national understanding or we will have some kind of free-for-all in wage negotiations. The Minister will be making a huge error if he thinks he will be able to get any national understanding at the expense of a departure from job creation policies. The trade union movement knowing these problems cannot and have no desire to depart from their commitments to employment creation. The Minister and the Government would be making a mistake if they thought it possible to get another national understanding at the expense of specific employment policies.
Most of the EEC states mentioned by the Minister have adopted programmes to assist young people in search of work quite apart from the general management of their economies. In our period in office we introduced the premium employment programme, we later extended it to the employment incentive scheme and the present Government have continued to operate that scheme with some changes I have noticed. In our period we resisted the extension of the employment incentive scheme into the service area. We believed that the crucial areas which required financial assistance to create new jobs over a period were located in manufacturing industry. Under this administration that scheme was extended. Recently it was interesting to note that in answer to a question here in the House we were told that in the extension of that scheme to services £.5 million was paid last year to the Irish banks. When asked that question under the employment incentive scheme the Minister could not say what new jobs had been created as a result of the £.5 million given to the Irish banking groups. Whatever one may say about the Irish banks, they do not qualify as candidates who are in the financial difficulties of other citizens. The mind boggles at the thought that at budget time the general citizenry are counselled to moderation, belt-tightening and so on and yet £.5 million can be shelled out to Irish banks to create new jobs in those banks. No information can be given as to how many new jobs were created. The reason that we in our period would not extend the cash to this area was that the Irish banks obviously follow a recruiting policy and I doubt if one extra job was created in the Irish banks last year as a result of that present from the Irish taxpayers to the banks.
It is that kind of spendthrift, nonsensical, gimmicky policy that has brought the economy to its present parlous condition. It is not simply an Opposition ploy to describe the Minister coming in this morning as though he were giving us a supplementary employment policy. He is not announcing supplementary, anticyclical youth employment policies. These are purely in substitution for things he has already removed. I ask the Minister for Finance, who must be concerned with the question of saving in expenditure, to look at the strange financial behaviour under the employment incentive scheme where money has been handed out. There is no information about the jobs created and there is a big doubt as to whether that money is needed in that area at all. After all, if that £.5 million had not been given last year to the banks to provide extra jobs it could have been applied elsewhere. It is still quite a lot of money and there are a number of schemes, such as amenity schemes, up and down the country in which young people could have been employed with the use of this £.5 million. I am sure other similar instances could be disclosed of which this Government could be described as guilty.
The small measures announced here this morning, which may be described as correcting measures, can be supported. The Minister appeared to be conceding in the course of his speech that employment will suffer throughout this year. He makes the now familiar point of members of this administration that it is bad the world over. Who will forget the time when, if anyone made the sensible point that there was a world recession, there were cries from the Opposition that this was passing the buck to the world? Now we have Ministers who pass the buck every day to the EEC, saying simply that the EEC are suffering and therefore this little country must suffer. This administration have got the entire rhythm of this economy wrong since 1977. They poured on assistance and financial aid at a time of growth and recovery and now, when conditions are in reverse and changed, we are left with no leeway at all in terms of assistance and management of the economy. Therefore we are facing a year in which we will have a low growth rate—stagnation practically because 1 per cent is stagnation—and credit restrictions. A general depression in the climate of business will mean that the small firms from whom one could expect the major portion of new jobs to come will be heavily penalised in this year and will be working very hard indeed to stay afloat. They will be in no position to provide extra jobs.
At any stage the type of schemes announced by the Minister and by other EEC states of a similar nature are purely priming exercises and are no substitute for a general thrust towards an economic policy of employment creation. It is particularly hard to understand, in a year such as we are facing with difficulties abroad, why the real cuts have been chosen in areas like building construction. If a major part of our economic problems can be described as balance of payments it is very hard to defend the virtual freezing of funds at real levels in the employment construction industry. This year undoubtedly a cut-back in house building will occur. It is very hard to defend that kind of development in the context of employment creation when you take into account the fact that the building and construction industry does not add to our balance of payments problems. The material are homeproduced and it is a labour-intensive industry, which in the past has had very close connections with the Government party. Yet that industry, employment-intensive though it may be, will suffer very sharp cut-backs over this year.
Overall it is an economy heading into double digit inflation and higher unemployment and the Government of the day appear to accept its failure to create extra jobs. It is very hard to see how the understanding that has been arrived at in previous years between unions, employers and Government can be attained in such conditions. I have some experience of contacts and consultation negotiations in this area. The Minister and the Government will be making a big error if the think that understandings of a wide economic nature can be arrived at, with the trade unions in particular, in the context of the kind of deflationary policies now being pursued by the Government. If the Government are, as they appear to be, departing from the main employment plank of their platform, which up to now they maintain they were in favour of, it makes it that much more difficult to arrange any kind of comprehensive formula with the unions for any subsequent national wage agreement. Therefore, little hope can be held out to the young people looking for jobs this autumn because there are no policies, apart from the deflationary ones, to be observed from this Government.
The schemes are purely marginal in their effect in the sense that all these special schemes have been adopted in the other EEC states and are accepted by their authors as being purely marginal and peripheral to the main economic effort. If, as appears to be the case, our economy is being faced resolutely in the direction of no growth, with high inflation as a result of higher indirect taxes, then it is a correct statement of the position to say that it will be a bad year for employment and will mark a fall in employment. It may be that this Government in looking at the options for its own political survival has decided that this is probably the only route available to it and that, if there must be a casualty, then it will have to be in the area of employment, hoping perhaps for better days. That is not a satisfactory approach and certainly not a very hopeful one if one wishes for a satisfactory outcome to discussions between unions and employers under another national wage agreement.
This measure of the Minister this morning can be supported as far as it goes—and that is a very limited extent. It is merely a substitute for the cuts which have already taken place. It is in the context of budgetary management which is emphatically deflationary—and most economists now accept that our growth rate will be below 1 per cent over the coming year—and it is in that scenario which is accepted by the Government that one must see this Bill this morning. One can therefore give it only the limited welcome that that picture deserves.
I should be a very poor Waterford man if I did not back this Bill to the hilt. It may be to a large extent making up for some of the shortfalls in the 1980 Estimates, but then half a loaf is better than none at all. I see some excellent points in the Bill before us today. It is a good deal broader than I had anticipated, but even in its broadness it has a lot to recommend it.
Primarily when this tripartite committee was set up I understood that the object was to provide new employment and to maintain existing employment where industries were in danger of collapse. By maintaining the Employment Maintenance Scheme in another form the Bill goes a long way to shoring up the type of shaky industry to which I have referred. I am aware that the Employment Maintenance Scheme will cease on 31 March and that something was badly needed to ensure that industries which are undergoing a rough time should have some financial support to keep them on a business footing. This is particularly the case, as stated in the Minister's speech, with regard to the clothing, textile and footwear industries. One could also extend that statement to the leather or tannery industries. They all come within the same context and are all undergoing a very difficult period.
Quite a number of these industries have closed down over the past few years and in recent months a good few others have been threatened with closure. With regard to the leather and tannery industry, we had a closure in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's own constituency, Gorey, within the past 15 months and there are other threatened closures. If this Employment Maintenance Scheme was not replaced as is done in this Bill, a number of other industries in that sector would also be in danger of going to the wall. I must support the Bill very strongly in that regard.
Of late, we have seen a number of textile industries, specifically in the Sunbeam-Gentex group, being threatened with closure. I hope that the money being provided through this Bill will also help in stabilising those factories—be they Youghal, Westport, or Clondalkin. That type of assistance is very badly needed and we would be very poor Waterford men and Irishmen if we did not support the Bill in that context.
In his speech the Minister listed a number of projects which have already been passed for financial support by his Department. We, in Waterford and in the south east generally, are absolutely thrilled by the news that this fund will support the projected Waterford air-strip or airport to the tune of £700,000 and that a sizeable contribution will be made to provide a new dredger for Waterford Harbour Commissioners to be built by the Ross Company of New Ross, County Wexford. That type of stimulation for the south-east is badly needed and greatly welcome. This is an area which for far too long has been the cinderella, industrially speaking, of this country. That type of infrastructural support, in my view, will give the necessary boost for the expansion which has been lacking and which other centres have seen over the past ten or 15 years. We have seen the booms in the Shannon industrial area, in Cork city and Cork harbour areas, in Galway city, while the south-east, and Waterford city in particular, have stagnated in recent years.
I hope that the injection from this fund which we are supporting here today will bring about the same industrial prosperity for the south-eastern region and the Waterford city and county area, more specifically. The FUE together with the trade union movement have been the front-runners in seeing that this fund was set up and utilised to the best effect. When I inquired from the FUE some two months ago how much of the £20 million had already been sanctioned, I was told that a mere £4 million had been set aside for specific projects at that time. I am interested to learn today that that £4 million has now increased to £18 million and ask the Minister, in his reply, to give us a detailed account of where that £18 million is going. I must pay tribute to the officials of the FUE, both nationally and locally, and also to the trade union movement, for the interest they have taken in this fund. I doubt that this fund would ever have got off the ground if it had not been for their assistance and their drive. They are to be congratulated and it is lovely to see their ambitions coming to fruition.
It is a disappointment to learn that the job target of 25,000 per annum was greatly reduced in 1979. The figure of 15,000 mentioned today in the Minister's speech has come as a great surprise to me and, I am sure, to every Member of the House. It seems that the job creation programme which was so widely pushed forward by the previous Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, has now come unstuck. Perhaps it was a false type of job creation programme in that it provided jobs galore in the public sector without any due consideration as to whether they were productive or not. Perhaps it was a false base, but it did provide badly needed employment. I would hate to think that type of programme was been abandoned completely because unemployment figures will soar and our young people will have fewer and fewer opportunities—not that the job creation programme in its entirety was to be supported because a lot of it was unproductive. However, it had a lot of good points. It is sad to see it fading to such a large degree. A drop from 25,000 to 15,000 is a major shock. I hope that downward trend does not continue and that the Bill will help to arrest that slide.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is using the funds being made available by the Bill to support sport and recreational facilities. I did not think that the fund would be utilised in this fashion, but seeing that there have been vast cuts in the 1980 Estimates in this area it is to be welcomed that some substitute scheme has been brought in. There is nothing more demoralising to the youth, public representatives and parents than to see a complete lack of sporting and recreational facilities. This is one area where there should not be a cut-back and I hope this trend will continue. I should like the Minister to be more specific about the type of financial support for the provision of community and sport centres, whether it will be funded through national organisations as has been the tendency in the past, or through local authorities who will be able to give grants for specific projects.
We have had serious cut-backs in our local authority estimates for 1980. In many instances we have had to eliminate completely provision for such desirable projects. The 10 per cent restriction on rate increases tied our hands to such an extent that we are only able to keep essential services ticking over. Very desirable projects have had to go by the wayside. I should like the Minister to let us know to what bodies the money will be distributed and what bodies will have the job of granting it to the various sporting organisations.
We welcome the Bill, and why not? It is money we did not expect to get. It will do tremendous work for certain areas where there are serious shortfalls and problems with regard to infrastructure, industrial projects and employment. If the Bill does what it sets out to do—and I am confident it will—it is to be welcomed 100 per cent.
I welcome the Bill for the important reason to me that there are substantial moneys in it going to my own constituency in Waterford. It is money that is vitally needed and will give us encouragement for the future.
There has been a tendency through the years for Governments to take over responsibility for the creation of employment. They have the primary responsibility of ensuring an environment in which industry will flourish and increase. This dates back to the thirties and forties when during and after the great depression Governments took upon themselves, under the guise of changing economic theory, to be the instigators and providers of incentives and the environment in which industry can thrive.
The Minister's speech indicated that this Government have failed in their objective of creating employment as mentioned specifically in their election manifesto. The employment targets have failed despite attempts in the past few years to clothe that failure. The Minister's speech is an official confession that the employment targets or the promises made to the ordinary man in the street about his employment prospects will not and have not been achieved. That is the brutal fact of the present situation in relation to Government economic policy and the employment scene. In relation to 1979, during which year the Government said they would increase employment by 20,000, there is an official acknowledgment to-day by the Minister for Finance that there was a shortfall of 5,000 jobs. In other words, they did not reach their target by no less a figure than 25 per cent.
I am dubious even about the 15,000 extra jobs supposed to have been created. This has not manifested itself in the live register, that is, among those officially listed at employment exchanges as being unemployed. Despite statistical assurances given by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, and the former Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy O'Donoghue, that there is some kind of indirect multiplier relationship between the reduction in the live register and actual jobs created, I do not believe that that multiplier relationship is a correct one. I believe that the shortfall is greater than the 5,000 mentioned by the Minister. I look forward to a time when we will get an acceptable live register which will reflect the real number of people on it and reflect the creation of employment. It is not apparently reflected in the present live register, which has been amended in recent years.
In relation to 1980 there is another confession. Perhaps I might quote part of the Minister's speech where he said:
While we will have to accept that our target of a 25,000 increase in numbers of employment this year will not be achieved, our performance compares more than favourably with that of many of our EEC and OECD partners.
Whatever about our OECD partners, many of whom have not reached a similar stage of economic development, it must be accepted that we are the second lowest well-off nation in the EEC. Therefore when we are talking about doing as well as our EEC partners, that is a false comparison to draw. We are under-developed when compared with some of our European partners, particularly France and Germany; therefore we should not be compared with those two nations.
There is the admission in the Minister's speech that our growth rate must be reduced downwards. The figure of, I think, 1.5 per cent was mentioned recently in The Economist. I think that was the OECD suggested figure. That growth rate is not sufficient for any progress to be made in our economy in 1980. In real terms it means the output of the economy in 1980 will have fallen vis-á-vis inflation—in other words, that we will have been taken a step backwards. This will be reflected in ordinary worker-industry terms as a substantial rise in unemployment levels this year. I was sorry the Minister did not spend more time discussing employment potential in 1980 or in discussing in depth the meaning of the reduction in our growth rate this year. What unemployment level can we now expect in the course of this year on the basis of a suggested growth rate of 1½ per cent? If we examine the increase in productivity in relation to national output—and there is an annual increase in productivity which may vary perhaps between 2 per cent and 4 per cent—if we are to increase our output by 1 per cent only, then the result in relation to employment is that we shall have substantial increases in the numbers on the live register. On the basis of the figures available to me I predict that by next winter the number on the live register will have gone over the 100,000 level. This is a figure none of us wants to see and which we would do everything in our power to prevent. But, looking at the respective economic policies of the last Government and this Government, it is becoming patently obvious that the policy being pursued by Fianna Fáil can be described only as spendthrift, stop, go——
The Deputy is now getting into a budget speech and he should not make a budget speech on this Bill.
I did intend, as I am obliged to do, to reply to the budget debate. I noticed the Deputy has taken a copy of it in his hand now——
Merely for statistics.
The Chair would point out that the Bill before the House provides for a fairly wide debate on employment. But the Deputy is now getting into a full-scale budget debate and certainly that is not allowable on this Bill.
May I point out to you, Sir, that the Minister himself referred in his speech to the rate of growth in the economy?
The Deputy has dealt with that. I have allowed the Deputy to deal with that point, but he is now going on to deal with budgetary matters that do not arise on this Bill. So long as the Deputy adheres to what is in this Bill and in the Minister's speech the Chair will be fully satisfied.
But the Minister referred also to the need to get Government borrowing under control. I am merely referring to that aspect of the budget. Since the Minister has already referred to it, surely I cannot be ruled out of order, that I must be allowed some latitude in order to refer to it.
The Chair has allowed the Deputy a great deal of latitude and will allow every other Deputy the same amount, but we cannot have a similar debate on this Bill as we have had on the budget.
But the Minister has referred to——
Out of courtesy to the House I felt it was appropriate, as Deputies will appreciate, to give very briefly the background against which this Bill was being introduced. I did not argue in any way——
Passing references are in order, but the Deputy is starting to debate what is a passing reference in the Minister's speech.
This Bill is here because the Minister's targets last year and written into the national understanding were not achieved. That is admitted by the Minister. Surely the Deputy is entitled to give the reasons these were not achieved.
The Chair will have to control the debate as best he can. I am giving the Deputy every latitude.
I take your point, Sir, but I wish to refer to the policies pursued by Fianna Fáil and those pursued by the last Government in relation to the creation of employment. That necessarily means I must refer—and I will do so briefly—to the policies of two governments.
But that is more relevant to the budget debate.
I shall not detain the House long.
The activities in relation to the employment policy of this Government contrast starkly with those of the last Government. The policies of Fianna Fáil over the past two years have been to spend large sums of money on the basis of substantial budget deficits. Last year the overall budget deficit was over £1,000 million, a catastrophic sum in relation to a small economy like ours.
The Deputy is getting away from the Bill again.
I shall not pursue the point much longer. The budget deficit for 1980 is estimated in all at nearly £900 million. That demonstrates the continuation of a spendthrift policy in an effort to reach employment targets, among other desirable social activities. The fact of the matter is that the spending policies of this Government have led to a serious rate of inflation, now admitted to be around 20 per cent. That contrasts starkly with the situation in which the economy found itself in 1977, when the last Government went out of office leaving the economy with a healthy 6.7 per cent inflation rate.
The Deputy is certainly not obeying the Chair now. I do not know whether he has spoken on the budget but certainly all of that is more relevant to the budget.
It relates to the point I want to make and it was necessary to refer to these other matters in order to make the point.
The last Government pursued a conservative economic policy with the objective of reducing the rate of inflation. By the end of their term of office they had substantially achieved that objective. Even taking into account the dreadful energy crisis we experienced, we achieved a low rate of inflation which is the prerequisite of industrial expansion and increased employment.
The economic policies of this Government have brought this country into a situation in which the inflation rate is now 20 per cent and in which the level of interest for many people is also in the region of 20 per cent. It is costing 20 per cent to get industrial loans even for firms to survive. I shall leave that matter there. However, I can say, as an economist, that in the present economic environment employers find themselves trying to survive on a 20 per cent inflation rate at a time when money is costing them 20 per cent per annum. This is not an inducement to maintain employment.
That is the net point the Minister must accept. He showed recognition of it in his speech by accepting that a 20 per cent inflation rate and a 20 per cent interest rate on commercial loans will not lead to a substantial increase in employment in the foreseeable future. He knows it will be extremely difficult for small employers, in particular, to survive.
There is now a serious doubt about Government policy in relation to increased employment. All we have been getting are confessions of failure not only in relation to last year but 1980 as well. Before this year is three months old the Government tell the country: "We are very sorry but we cannot even achieve the employment targets set for last year". The Government were only codding the people with these targets now found to be unattainable.
This Bill carries an implicit confession that the Government alone cannot provide the necessary funds to create employment. In the national understanding the Government agreed that if they could not achieve employment targets they would call in those who could help to achieve them, the employers and the trade unions. I doubt, however, if that is a long-term solution. The employers are contributing their share of taxation and so are the PAYE workers. They cannot be relied on in the long term to help to maintain employment levels.
As I have said, this Bill is another confession of failure, another example of Fianna Fáil hypocrisy. They think they can still dupe the electorate as they did so successfully in the past. They must be told that it is not in the long-term interests of the country, or indeed of Fianna Fáil, to keep on playing that game. Another matter affecting employment levels is the restriction on funds of local authorities.
The Deputy will not deal with the level of funds of local authorities on this Bill.
He is attempting to deal with employment in general.
The budget debate is still proceeding but Deputy Collins is trying to make a budget speech on this Bill.
I merely want to refer to employment levels in local authorities That is relevant to the matter before the House.
The Deputy never leaves it at that—he goes on to discuss matters relevant only to the budget.
"Employment" is a very comprehensive term.
I accept that but I will not allow a second budget debate on this Bill.
I will be brief on this. The level of funds being made available to local authorities means that there will have to be redundancies in the public sector at local authority level. These bodies have been limited to a rates increase of 10 per cent and the capital allocation for roads has been cut. Therefore there will be a substantial increase in unemployment at local authority level during 1980 and that will not help the general employment picture. The spendthrift policy of the Government is coming to a halt because there is no more money to spend.
In his speech the Minister told us that the employment maintenance scheme had to be withdrawn because of objections by the EEC Commission. I submit that the Commission were wrong. In a developing economy such a scheme was necessary particularly because industry here had been protected for years. Now our industrialists have to face serious competition from international rivals on international markets. Therefore I question the Commission's objection to this scheme. At the same time I welcome the temporary subvention from employers to the employment guarantee fund to finance a replacement scheme, although I do not think it was intended originally that the employment guarantee fund would be used in this way. I understood that fund would be used as a grant scheme rather than an employment maintenance scheme.
From the EEC point of view I wonder what is the net difference between the scheme the Commission objected to and the replacement scheme. Surely this replacement scheme is open to the same objections from the Commission. I should like an assurance from the Minister on that.
The textile and footwear industries are in crisis. In my constituency the Irish Leather Company have been suffering severely and have closed down the factory in Gorey. There have been lay-offs in the Dungarvan plant. I should like an assurance from the Minister that there is a future for the leather industry. I have not received such an assurance.
I am sure the Deputy will have noticed that I have been very good to Waterford. I am still waiting for the welcome.
Deputy Collins will have to make his own speech without any help from the Minister.
I must say the Minister has been very generous to his own constituency. He ensured his vote in the next election by his well balanced speech there on Monday night.
All Deputies have a habit of doing things like that.
I would love to be in the position to do the same for my constituency. There are no hard feelings about the matter. I am perturbed about the long-term prospects for the leather industry. It is important that we have a leather-processing industry to process the hides from out meat industry. The situation in relation to Waterford is not satisfactory. It has been acknowledged within Government circles and the IDA that Waterford is a matter of concern in relation to industry. The closure of the Munster Chipboard factory is a disgrace. It is a further disgrace that this industry, which is based on thinnings from our forests, has been allowed to remain closed when there is available to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry a mechanism under the Forestry Act since 1940 to become financially involved in that industry. I feel a decision has been made at Government level to leave this factory closed and deprive Waterford of an employment potential in the region of 300 directly and an extra 200 indirectly through transporters and foresters. The Cabinet have made a decision to sacrifice the Munster Chipboard factory in favour of the chipboard factory at Scarriff, County Clare.
The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in a recent reply to me blamed an unofficial picket for the closure of the factory. That is not the reason for the Minister and the Government refusing to take a financial interest in that company. The Minister, despite two consultant reports which he has in relation to the future of the timber processing industry, when it was pointed out that in the long term it is necessary to have processing facilities for the thinnings of our forests, has allowed the Munster Chipboard factory to close down. It is reprehensible that an employment potential of 300 should be thrown to the wind when that employment is based very soundly on the need to have the thinnings of our forests processed.
I am accusing the Fianna Fáil Government of discriminating against Waterford in relation to Munster Chipboard in favour of the Scariff Chipboard factory in County Clare. It may well be because there is a Minister from County Clare in the Cabinet that this has influenced that decision. If that is the case it is a political scandal, which cannot be defended by the Fianna Fáil Government or any government when we are talking about the livelihood of the people in many parts of the country. Since we are talking about employment I challenge the Minister to respond to my allegation about the Munster Chipboard factory.
This does not seem to be relevant. I wonder whether or not it would be relevant for me to reply to the imaginary decision of the Government, which the Deputy has raised, and having raised this to claim it as factual and then to criticise this as being scandalous on the basis of his imagination. That does not seem to be within the scope of this Bill. I do not know what other imaginary things he will have to say.
We are talking about employment.
If what the Deputy said were true there might be something to his concern. If none of it is true is it appropriate that we should waste our time on it here?
I should like to say, quite categorically, that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, in reply to a Parliamentary Question recently, stated that he blamed an unofficial picket on Munster Chipboard for the failure of the factory to re-open. Secondly, he stated that he did not propose to use the powers under the Forestry Act to take control of the Munster Chipboard factory.
The Chair would point out that it is permissible for the Deputy to refer to local industry as he has but not to make an entire speech and deal with all the pros and cons of the matter. It does not come under the terms of the Bill before the House. I have been tolerant and allowed the Deputy to go into this.
I take your point and I shall not pursue it further. I merely say that in relation to employment in Waterford city we have suffered severely and I am concerned about the manner in which the Government have failed to support the Munster Chipboard factory and have cost Waterford city guaranteed employment of 300 men, most of whom are married. That is an unfortunate decision by Fianna Fáil and it is to the detriment of the industrial future of Waterford city. If the Minister wishes to reply to my allegations I will welcome that.
I have referred to the leather industry in my constituency. I would like the Minister's observations on the long-term future of this industry in Waterford. I would also like to refer to the decision made by the Government to transfer to Waterford city part of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That decision has been welcomed in Waterford because there is a great need to introduce into the city a balance among the service industries. I ask the Minister to expedite the decentralisation of that part of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which is going to Waterford.
The Deputy will appreciate that the main feature of the Bill is the establishment of an employment guarantee fund. If Deputies are allowed to deal with all of the specific matters relating to industries in their areas we could be here debating this matter for many days. The Chair will have to be strict.
I take your point. I will now come to the congratulatory bit which the Minister is so anxious to hear. The contribution from the fund to the construction of an airport is very welcome in Waterford. We have been attempting for a number of years to establish an airport to serve not only Waterford city but Waterford county and that part of the south east, which is in need of airport services. We purchased a site and allied to that was an industry. Unfortunately about a month or two ago the German firm involved decided not to proceed and we were left out on a limb. We were providing an airport without the backing of a large industry. I hope the IDA will fight for a large industry for this area.
The airport was a substantial undertaking and cost around £900,000. The subvention from the Employment Guarantee Fund is £705,000 and the balance—the cost of the acquisition of land—will be provided by the corporation who have serious funding difficulties because of the present Government policy in relation to capital financing and rating policies in general. The airport is roughly mid-way between Waterford city, Tramore and Dunmore East. The runway is 1,200 metres in length, which is fairly substantial, and will take most turbo-prop freight planes and passenger jet planes carrying up to 20 people. This is very important and will herald a new phase in industrial expansion in the area. The airport development will include, apart from a relatively good runway, a control tower, hangar, beacon and radio facilities, an access road and a car park. This is a very welcome measure for Waterford and is much needed to ensure the industrial future of the area.
The Minister mentioned the provision of a dredger for Waterford Harbour to be built by the Ross company of New Ross. I am not au fait with the details of the money being provided under the fund. I understand it is in the region of £400,000 and that that sum will provide not only a dredger but a pilot launch. That amount is approximately half the money needed, but the Waterford Harbour Commissioners are not in a position to provide the rest of the money. Therefore, this question must be reexamined. Agreement between the Ross company and all concerned could be reached so that the contract for building a dredger may be finalised.
I was pleased to note that it is intended to provide youth and sports facilities. This is a welcome development, although it needs further explanation. I will leave this matter to be pursued further by Deputy Kenny. The money provided in the present budget, £500,000, falls for short of the £20 million for youth employment promised in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. This is political gimmickry as yet unexplained by Fianna Fáil but understood by the electorate.
I am happy to welcome the setting up of the fund, although it is a failure by the Government of their employment policy. I welcome the moneys provided for the airport, the dredger and pilot launch in Waterford, and hope this money will lead to a new launching pad for industrial and employment potential and development in my area.
Waterford is about to become the new industrial centre. I welcome this Bill. It appears to be a tax on employers for the creation of employment and this could be to some extent self-defeating.
The Government commitment to the youth is not matched by performance. Young people are very sensitive, responsive and critical. It appears there is a very subtle political psychology being worked here. The Government can point to the very high target for job creation, which they set at 25,000, and can produce figures to show that something like 15,000 jobs were created, leaving a shortfall of 10,000 jobs. They can claim that in the prevailing international circumstances that was not such a bad effort. I do not believe the young people will accept that. If they are not to be left languishing in a limbo of no hope or confidence, there must be a far greater realisation of the commitment given to them by the Government over the past few years.
With the unique demographic structure of this country and with the continuing rise of the working age, more and more young people will be coming on the labour market in the next few years. Unless realistic targets are set, matched by a genuine commitment, there will be a frustration among the young people when they are seeking suitable employment.
I want to make a passing reference to the state of employment in the textile industry in the Westport area. This Bill provides a unique opportunity to support employment creation in areas where it is most urgently needed. The action taken by the Seafield-Gentex board was an asset stripping job. Unless an adequate explanation is coming from that board it will not be seen in any other light. It is hard to understand that a factory of 72,000 sq feet, which probably has one of the most modern mills in the textile industry in this country and with a labour force of approximately 208 of which 180 were male employees, should be closed down, taking into account that a large proportion of its output was public service goods. Many of the employees in that factory have given a lifetime of service and others are young people who have just settled down and are trying to meet repayments on their houses. The spectre of unemployment rearing its head in a county that emigration has ravaged for 100 years creates great social unrest. I am sure the Minister is aware of the situation that could arise if 50 per cent of the total male work force in that area become redundant overnight. The board of Seafield-Gentex in taking this action have shown a callous disregard for the efforts and dedication which those workers put at their disposal down through the years.
The cost of creating jobs in rural Ireland is relatively high and if the IDA were to create the same number of jobs in six months' time it would cost several million pounds. Surely this Bill could be put into operation to bring some realism to the situation. Several deputations met the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister of State who has connections with this area and the case has been well presented to them. All the facts are in the possession of the Minister and I would urge the Minister for Finance to take whatever action is necessary to maintain that employment or create some other outlet for those workers. I welcome the recent IDA announcement of further industrial expansion in the Westport area but this was already on the cards and will not make up for the appalling situation which will arise if 50 per cent of the total male work force in that town are left redundant.
The Minister announced that the committee have decided to support a special national programme for the provision of sports and recreational facilities. This is a very welcome trend and I give it my wholehearted support. In his reply to this debate will the Minister clarify how much of the £20 million placed at the disposal of whatever board is to use this finance can be spent on the provision of sporting facilities? What body will dispose of the money and what criteria will be used with regard to its disposal? This announcement is strange when in the budget the Minister increased the VAT on sporting goods, excluding clothing, by 5 per cent. Many sporting organisations and individuals pursuing the Government's policy of proper use of leisure time will have to pay more to co-operate in the policy.
It is completely contradictory.
Deputy Bruton will not be personally affected because he is not a sportsman.
Indeed I am.
It must be a late conversion.
I did not make a public show of myself like the Minister. It is a private matter which should not be brought into politics.
Order.
The Government policy of promoting the proper use of leisure time is perfectly correct but it is contradictory to increase VAT on sporting facilities by 5 per cent. Items such as bicycles, footballs, rackets, nets and other essential items will be increased in cost.
I welcome the fact that money to support recreational facilities will be used not for the exclusive use of one specific group. Due to lack of Government funds down through the years many voluntary organisations had to provide sporting facilities and sporting complexes, with the aid of public money from the Department of Education or the local authority in the area. An organisation could use up to a quarter of a million pounds for the provision of a sports complex and could find themselves having to run this complex on a purely voluntary basis. The Minister should bear in mind that where money is given to sporting complexes of that size provision should be made for the proper management of them. To run an enterprise costing up to a quarter of a million pounds demands a professional person's capability and capacity to use the facilities to generate sufficient income to keep it moving as a going concern. This has not happened in many of our sports complexes.
Will the Minister clarify in his reply if the money can be used to aid existing sports complexes that find themselves unable to pay very high interest rates? Many sports complexes are being used to the limits of their potential but they cannot generate enough income to pay off the interest on the debts they accrued in the setting up of the complex in the first place.
Deputy Collins mentioned the local authorities and their employment position. The 10 per cent ceiling in relation to counties with low valuations does not create enough economic buoyancy in those counties to enable them to sustain their aims in relation to employment and the provision of essential services. This aspect was apparently not considered when the 10 per cent limit was set but it will have a serious regressive affect on the counties with low valuations.
I welcome the Bill although it could be construed to be a tax on employers who create more employment. I urge the Minister to use his influence in relation to the Westport textile situation and to bear in mind the points I have made in relation to the youth and sporting sections of this Bill. I would remind the Minister that the commitment given to the youth by the Taoiseach and shared by himself is not being matched by a realisation and a carrying into effect. Unless there is a step-up in this young people will avail of the opportunity to judge the Government when the occasion next arises.
In his speech the Minister refers to the withdrawal of the employment maintenance scheme at the end of this month as a result of objections from the EEC Commission and then the effort to include something in this Bill to cover that situation. We are being over-apologetic to the EEC when we consider that our rag trade, our clothing and textile industry, in 1980 are competing with cheap goods from Taiwan and such places and that we have to tolerate that in the context of being a member of the EEC. We cannot do anything about it when people can set themselves up here with an office, a secretary and a telex machine and can bring in millions of pounds' worth of goods and put all our small and some larger industries out of business. We tolerate that without a murmur and we decide to toe the line with regard to it. It is about time that we told the EEC where to get off. If we had a good employment maintenance scheme we could continue it without any apology to the EEC, and we could tell them quite clearly why. We would do it partly because of its value and partly by way of putting our objections forward and saying that there is no way Deputy Kenny's industries in Westport or our textile industries in Youghal can survive so long as they are in competition with rubbish that comes from places like Taiwan via Rotterdam. This is all technically correct and is being done blatantly. I welcome this measure in so far as it will help to salvage our Seafield industry in Youghal, who are now endeavouring to go it alone. This will be a very welcome injection of money for them. I welcome it also in so far as it will help other industries in the area.
Like other speakers, I see this as largely a tax on employers. Who are the employers who can afford £10 million today towards the scheme? I challenge the Minister to show me where there are industries so buoyant that they can afford this tax of £10 million to contribute towards this scheme. Let the Government provide the £20 million, £30 million or £40 million which is needed so badly. We are still talking about only peanuts if we are serious about job creation in industry.
We are talking about energy problems. The first thing the Government should be doing at the moment is setting out industrial estates in places like Little Island which should be supplied with natural gas. If we want to create employment then the vast industrial estates in the hinterland of Cork Harbour should all be connected up to natural gas which could be offered as an added attraction to new industrialists. The second priority is the cleaning up of Cork Harbour. This may come under environmental work. We have a potential £10 million shellfish industry in Cork Harbour and what are we doing? Starting with Midleton and then going to Cobh, Cork city and Passage West. We are pouring out raw sewage and making a cesspool out of Cork Harbour and nothing is being done about that. If the Belgians or the Dutch had Cork Harbour they would regard it as one of their greatest assets.
The Chair is trying to discourage individual speakers from advocating industries for their own areas. It is not quite in order.
I am telling the Minister to make sensible use of this few pounds, but I take the Chair's point. With regard to tourist amenities the Bill will help now that that industry is taking one hell of a hammering with the increase in petrol and drink prices and the general condition of our roads. Even if the full £20 million were to be spent on our roads it would be lost in the pot-holes. However, so far as it will help towards beautifying the countryside it is to be welcomed. Obviously, a priority would be some work in relation to our beaches in providing car parks, toilet facilities and so on. This would be very welcome, particularly for our lesser known and smaller beaches.
I welcome also what the Bill does for community sport but we have an extraordinary situation here which I have encountered before. I am not happy with the wording of the Minister's speech where he said:
... the facilities being provided will not be for the exclusive use of a particular group or groups within a community.
This can be self-defeating. Somebody must take charge of something. There is hardly any community complex in the country which is not provided by a parish, a rugby club or a GAA club. Is the Minister going to exclude all these various groups of people? If he does that there will be very few projects left for him to help. I apologise to the Chair for referring to a local matter, but we have in our area an instance of where a parish got together and provided a massive complex. Deputy Bruton has seen it. There is no way that a parish in the area can afford it. Because of a technicality—they called it a community council project instead of a sports complex—they have been deprived of muchneeded funds. I hope that in this scheme they will qualify for them.
I would like the Minister in his reply to indicate whether the fabrication industries, such as small projects that have been set up north, south, east and west for the manufacture of various types of small farm machinery and so on, would qualify for help under this scheme. That would be very important. They are running very close to the wind at the moment and finding it difficult to pay their way. I would like to think that something would be done for them.
While I welcome this measure, I see it as really only scratching the surface in regard to employment and creating jobs. Jobs can be created. I share the confidence of quite a number of my colleagues that there is nothing wrong with the future of this country. We can create the jobs and we should be creating them—and not in the public sector. There is a massive opening for job creation in agriculture. If we were not so nervous about EEC rules, cutting back and so on, and if we are to forge ahead in agriculture, we could be talking about putting £100 million into it and that would be money well spent. A lot of our unemployment problems would be solved because all of these jobs in agriculture are productive. The products can be sold at full market value and profits can be made from them. I would like to see us going into productive employment in industries based on agriculture. We can talk for a week about the imaginary assets that we have and all our wonderful industries but basically our major asset today is the first eight or nine inches of Irish soil.
Hear, hear.
We have a limited amount of that but, in God's name, let us use it to the full. I wish the new Minister well in his difficult portfolio. I would like to see him concentrating on the development of agriculture. Let us ignore these pundits in the EEC who talk about mountains and tell us what we should and should not be doing. We can find plenty of markets in third countries. We can go to Venezuela or anywhere else we like and sell our produce. If they do not want to do it, let them give us the chance.
I should like to take up where Deputy Hegarty left off. This contribution will be collected from all employers, including those in the agricultural industry, whether involved in processing of farm goods or in actual farming, as farmers employing men or women on the farm. I am disturbed, to see that, amongst the proposals at present under consideration, there is none which could relate, in any way, to our primary national and natural resource, agriculture.
There are great opportunities for the creation of employment in agriculture. In dairying, at present, as the Minister is probably well aware, as far as milking services are concerned, there is an acute labour shortage. Many farmers who want to take, perhaps, two days a week off are unable to get skilled manpower to do the milking or assist while they are away and must stay on the job for seven full days a week. This is something which would not be accepted by people in other walks of life. I argue very strongly that there is an acute shortage in rural Ireland of skilled farm workers. The wages which would be payable in such cases, if the skills were there, would be very good.
Nothing is being done by any agency to provide the skilled work force to meet these labour shortages in agriculture. AnCo is concerned only with industrial training; the training agencies under the Department of Agriculture are concerned only with the training of farmers. No-one is concerned directly with the training of farm workers. As some of the money under this fund is being used to recruit 200 additional engineering apprentices under a scheme sponsored by AnCO, money under the scheme should also be allocated to the training of skilled farm workers to assist on the land. Some of the money should, also, be used towards funding the farm apprenticeship scheme. There are many opportunities for people who have graduated through this scheme and have acquired skills in agriculture but, unfortunately, because, under successive governments the scheme has been chronically underfinanced, it cannot provide as many trained young men as it should be able to do. Something should be done to ensure that some of the money collected from all employers, including farmers, would be used for agricultural purposes.
It is the case, regrettably, that no person directly interested in agriculture is represented on the management body of the fund and they are thus not likely to be cognisant of the opportunities for employment creation existing in agriculture. I ask the Minister to consider doing something to amend either the composition of the board or the terms of reference of the fund, to ensure that employment creation opportunities in primary production and also in processing in the agricultural field are not neglected, as they undoubtedly are at present.
I have some reservations about the purpose of the fund as defined under the Act. Section 3 says:
The Minister shall apply the moneys standing to the credit of the Fund for the purpose of defraying expenditure on projects or schemes which in his opinion will result in the creation of additional employment or the maintenance of existing employment.
It is not necessary, for the money to be spent validly, for any job to be either created or maintained. All that the Minister needs to prove that he has acted in accordance with his statutory authority is that he had the opinion, at the time when he allocated the money, that this would be the result. If the Minister's opinion proves to be wrong, it does not matter, so long as he had the opinion at the time that it would result in the creation of employment, that is enough. In other words, the auditing criterion is subjective, not objective. It does not matter if, from the expenditure of money under this fund, a single job is created, so long as the Minister thought it might be created when he allocated the money.
To my mind to draft legislation as loosely as that, without proper safeguards for the expenditure of money and proper responsibility being placed on the Minister to ensure that if he allocates money for a particular purpose, that purpose is fulfilled, is to open the door to the irresponsible expenditure of public funds. The draftsman responsible for this legislation was not cognisant, as he should have been, of the need to have specific criteria in respect of the expenditure of public funds. Criteria such as contained in this section provide no adequate protection against misappropriation of funds. I ask the Minister, between now and Committee Stage, to look carefully at the provisions of this section, to see if they can be tightened up somewhat to avoid this doubt being created.
The emphasis in respect of the proposed spending of the money is too broad. The emphasis should be on the creation or maintenance of directly productive jobs, not on any kind of job, whether productive or not. I know that there are some who will disagree with that statement but I strongly believe that that is where the priority should lie. By productive jobs I mean jobs which are not just an end in themselves but which, by being created, will generate increased productive capacity and thereby lead to the creation of other jobs on a selfsustaining basis, without any additional State support. That is my definition of a productive job.
Expenditure on the recruitment of 200 additional engineering apprentices under a scheme to be sponsored by AnCO is the correct expenditure of this money. It will definitely lead to the creation of jobs in the private and public sectors because of the existing acute shortage of engineers and people qualified in engineering in all aspects of employment. Spending money on other types of local improvement schemes which beautify the country, however laudable that may be, does not necessarily create any further jobs. It creates a job for the duration of a project, in that a street is being cleaned or some amenities are being added, but does not necessarily lead to any further jobs. It may, very indirectly, improve the tourist attraction in the area and create jobs in tourism. That is possibly arguable and if that argument can be sustained it meets the criteria I am speaking about. The emphasis should be much more strictly on directly productive employment which, in itself, leads to creation of further employment, rather than spending the money——
I am glad that Deputy Barry is here to listen to the Deputy.
I have never hesitated to express my opinion. I am sure the Minister would do the same if he were not as shackled as he is, as far as expressing opinions is concerned.
But the Deputy is spokesman, in fact, as well.
The emphasis should be on directly productive employment. The argument might be made that, by spending the money on any type of job, whether productive or unproductive, one is creating more expenditure in the economy which leads to increased demand for goods and services which, in itself, leads to increased employment. This was the argument used in America in the thirties for spending money on all sorts of schemes under the new deal, whether productive or not, on the grounds that, by increasing demand for goods and services, they ultimately created new jobs. The assumption behind spending money on unproductive jobs as well as productive ones here at this time is that the same effect will ensue here. The only flaw in that argument, as far as Ireland is concerned, is that Ireland is an open economy.
If by creating unproductive employment one creates additional demand the likelihood is that more than 50 per cent of that additional demand will be spent on goods and services outside the Irish economy which are imported. More than 50 per cent of the value of this type of job creation, as far as the multiplier effect is concerned, is lost to the economy and much of the money spent is being spent indirectly on creating jobs in Birmingham, Taiwan and so on because it is spent on imported goods. I do not believe that the multiplier argument that was applicable in the United States in the thirties is necessarily applicable here. In the United States at that time the vast majority of any money spent was spent in the US, because there was and is very little import or export from there. They are largely a self-sufficient economy whereas we are a largely open economy. We cannot apply the Keynsian argument that applied in the US in the thirties to Ireland in the eighties because we are an open economy.
The emphasis should be on productive jobs because they will generate further employment within the economy, whereas if they are unproductive they will lead to expenditure on goods and services imported into the economy from outside. Much of the beneficial effect of moneys collected from Irish employers will be enjoyed outside the Irish economy. The Minister should have inserted in section 3 some direction to the people concerned with the fund to spend it on productive employment or employment which will have a multiplier effect or some such criterion.
I do not wish to criticise—I hope the Minister in his reply will not portray me as criticising—expenditure on recreational facilities if this improves our tourist potential and thereby leads to greater employment. If it can be shown to do so it meets my criteria. If it does not and is merely a non-productive exercise, money should not be collected to spend in that way. While there is a cash limit imposed on the amount the Government will contribute to the fund there is no such limit on the employer's contribution. Under sections 4 (a) and 5 of the Bill the employer's contribution will be .35 per cent of the amount of earnings paid by him. If earnings go up by 20, 30 or 40 per cent the employer's contribution will automatically rise because it is a percentage of a figure that is rising. Under section 4 (b) the Minister's contribution is frozen at a cash limit of £10 million. Section 7 stated that the aggregate amount in the fund shall not exceed £20 million. That is not an adequate safeguard because one can always keep paying enough out of the fund to keep it below £20 million while still taking a larger proportion of the income of the fund from employers and a smaller proportion from the State. There should be a cash limit on both contributions and not merely on the Government's contribution.
In the long run the creation of employment depends on the demand for goods and services produced by people. The only type of employment that will last is one based on a real demand for the results of that employment. If one is continually adding new burdens to the employer and saying he must pay an additional contribution for this that and the other, or if he employs a person he must go through such and such a formality and must pay so much of a contribution for each person he employs, it will become more attractive for employers to use machines on which they do not have to pay any social insurance contributions rather than men on which they do. It is obviously easier to dispense with the services of a machine than it is with those of a man. There is the danger that by piling taxes on employment, whether income tax or social insurance contributions as this budget has done, one makes it less attractive to employ people.
The person making the decision about employing people does so on the basis of whether or not he can sell the goods or services he is producing in the market place. If he can produce a given amount of goods more cheaply by using machines than by using men he will substitute the machines for the men. The net effect of a lot of these schemes which are adding to the cost of employment will be to diminish employment. That is an unavoidable economic reality. All Governments should be cognisant of that and so should the social partners. It is not an argument in favour of employers as against employees. It is a simple reality of mathematics. If one increases the cost of employing people and the cost of employing machines remains static there will be a substitution of machines for men. The Minister should be very careful in his economic policy to see that this does not ensue.
The money is to be paid into the Social Insurance Fund. There has been a considerable delay in the presentation of reports of the Social Insurance Fund to this House. If this continues there will considerable delays in presenting reports to the House on the way in which the money is spent. I mentioned that the Social Insurance Fund Report for 1976 was not furnished to this House until December 1979. In other words, three years elapsed after the end of the year to which it applied before they were able to present their accounts to the House. If we have to wait for three years for a report on the way this money is being spent, we will be waiting too long. That sort of delay is not acceptable. Now that additional money is to be paid into the fund I hope the report will be presented to the House with more promptitude.
Why is the money being paid into the Social Insurance Fund? As this is a separate fund I would have thought there should have been two funds. Why it is necessary to intermingle the two funds as proposed at present? I would have thought a separate fund should have been created and that the two should not be mixed up together. From my reading of the Bill I cannot quite understand why this intermingling is taking place. I am sure there is a valid explanation and if there is it should be given to the House.
We have had a fairly wideranging debate covering economic principles and arguments, many of which seem to be more appropriate to the budget debate. The debate touched on the employment situation and development proposals in many parts of the country even in relation to specific industries. Obviously it is not appropriate that I should chase each hare raised during the course of the discussion but it is important that I should put the broad principles which were touched upon in proper context and that I should reply to some of the arguments.
I want to make one or two introductory points in response to what Deputy Barry said at the beginning of his contribution. I will not make any comment on the fact that the speech was five or ten seconds late. Deputy Barry said there had been discourtesy to the House in having a statement issued yesterday without informing the House in the first instance. I want to explain what the tripartite committee do, what their function is, what their relationship with me is as Minister for Finance. They do not have a direct relationship to this House. Deputy Barry does not seem to understand that.
The decision on the announcement yesterday about the employer's temporary subvention scheme was taken by the tripartite committee at their meeting last week. The committee are free at any time, as they have already done, to announce the outcome of their considerations. As chairman of the committee, I facilitate the committee to the extent agreed between us as to the announcement's about what they have agreed. It was the intention of the committee that that decision should be published last week. In the event it was not possible to do that. In response to the decision of the committee I made a formal announcement on their behalf yesterday. This is not a matter specifically within the responsibility of the Minister for Finance on his own in respect of which he would be answerable to this House. Obviously, he would make the announcement here if he had the sole decision or the sole function. This demonstrates on the part of those who made the criticisms, and Deputy Barry in particular, a lack of understanding of the role and function of the committee and the Minister's role as chairman and one of the parties to the committee.
The Minister did not listen to what I said.
I am now putting the matter clearly on the record. Unless people want to find instances of discourtesy on every little detail such as a speech not being ready, or something like that, far from being discourteous it seemed to me to be giving useful information to the House about a matter in respect of which the Minister is not immediately responsible for making available to them details of the kind I announced on behalf of the committee yesterday. When I was doing that on behalf of the committee, and in response to their decision, it did not occur to me that this was a discourtesy of the nature about which Deputy Barry made such a brouhaha. If little matters of that sort are to be the subject of nit-picking and taken up as being discourteous, we might get to the stage—although I assure the Deputy it will not happen to me as Minister for Finance—where somebody might be afraid to do anything positive or courteous in case somebody else wanted to put another interpretation on it and say it was discourteous.
I am in no way responsible for the fact that a report appeared in one of yesterday's papers about this matter. Perhaps it was earlier; I am not quite sure. It did not come from me. I have had many positive and useful discussions with the tripartite committee. I will come back to that later. I respect their integrity and their confidentiality. If journalists happen to get information they can and do treat their sources as confidential. I do not suppose the reporter concerned will disclose where his information came from. My Department and I respect confidentiality, I also respect the attitude to that of the other parties. It is as well not to pursue that further. I do not think any purpose would be served by pursuing it.
Deputy Barry and Deputy O'Leary implied—not implied; it is fair to say they stated—that I had engaged in something ranging from hypocrisy to pulling the wool over the eyes of the parties to the tripartite committee. Deputy Barry went so far as to say I was fooling the committee. He said he was surprised that the employers and trade unions could be misled and in some way fooled in a way which, his perception being naturally sharper than theirs he had taken note of. He said I fooled them into acting as dupes by making substitute arrangements for expenditure programmes which he implied I had cut off completely in the course of the arrangements for the public expenditure programme.
Two things need to be said. First, I do not share his opinion of the employer or trade union organisations who serve on this committee, probable because I met them in a very positive framework since I became Minister for Finance. Even if it were my intention to do that, I do not think they would be easily duped. Secondly, the allegations made by Deputy Barry are wrong. He may wish to be wrong. He may choose, as Deputy Collins did on other occasions, to represent his allegations as being facts and then reach any conclusion he wishes. That is an old game. Anybody with even the most basic training in logic will know that, if you start from a false premise, you can argue to any conclusion. Deputy Barry engaged very freely in that this morning.
The programmes for employment creation under the employment guarantee fund I am talking about are for additional employment over and above any programme of employment the Government have in hand, over and above what is being done through the various departments, whether industry, agriculture, health, education or any other. I repeat with deliberation that there is no intention on our part of fooling the employers and trade unions into doing in the employment area what the Government are not prepared to do. This is true for very good reasons. First, the need to do so does not arise because of any failure by the Government to meet their targets or employment commitments. Secondly —and this is confirmation by another route—I do not ask people necessarily to accept my version of this, although I am quite satisfied as to my own credibility and consistency in the area. Deputy Barry may take as a fact from me that this programme and many of the matters announced here were decided before the determination of the Government programme of expenditure for this year had even begun. That, as a corroborating factor if no more, in itself confirms what I am saying and refutes what Deputy Barry said. It is very important not just as vindication of me as Minister for Finance of the Government but because of the special relationships that have been built up in the tripartite committee as an element of the national understanding that it should not be allowed to be undermined either by ignorance—Deputy Barry has demonstrated a fair measure of that in relation to what the purpose of this committee is—or perhaps by a certain malevolence regarding its whole purpose and what it can achieve. I could not allow that situation to be created, I hope those factors will emerge.
I can give some other corroborating factors which may help to deal with some of these allegations that there has been a shortfall. This morning the Taoiseach referred to the fact that we speak with one voice and there was a smart-alec comment from an Opposition Deputy referring to "Michael who" as if I am the mouthpiece for somebody and have no mind of my own. I rely on my record and performance to prove that I do my job as part of a team and not just as a mouthpiece for anybody but for the Government and people. We claim consistency and team work. Apparently, you prove that you are your own man by expressing your own personal opinion irrespective of how it fits in with an overall, comprehensive party decision. But not only as between the two Opposition parties but as between two members of the Fine Gael Party this morning we had contradictory positions openly stated in relation to job creation programmes. We had Deputy Barry complaining about certain environmental schemes, tourist development schemes and other schemes not being pursued to the same extent in the Public Capital Programme this year as they had been. As I heard it, his complaint was a matter certainly warranting severe criticism. That may be his personal opinion but I think I am entitled to listen to him only as spokesman on Finance for his party and take note of what he says. But the spokesman for Agriculture openly takes issue with the spokesman on Finance——
Not at all. He clearly qualified what he said.
He said he has never been afraid to express his opinion and I said I was glad that the Deputy was here to listen to him. He said he was not in favour of what he called non-productive employment, jobs for the sake of creating jobs. He even mentioned environmental scheme programmes specifically. He went on to speak about a number of others, the very ones in respect of which Deputy Barry, as spokesman on Finance, criticised us for cutting. Indeed, if there was to be that kind of aberration, Deputy Barry would be managing the public finances.
The record will show exactly what Deputy Bruton said. The Minister quotes him out of context.
The theme of what he said was totally contrary to the theme and purpose of Deputy Barry's remarks.
The record will show which is correct.
I think the record will show that, when one looks at the theme and general direction of the speeches, what I have said is correct. The theme and general direction are what Governments and parties are all about and that is the only reason we are authorised to be here. We find there is obviously a split personality in that party.
C. P. Snow, who was a member of a Labour Government, said that the qualities to which people most objected in others were the qualities they possessed themselves. This is a perfect indication of it.
We can have only one speaker at a time. The Minister is in possession.
May I say that I sat here silently all through the debate except for some brief clarifications—even through Deputy Barry's contribution. Now Deputy Barry is not able to give me the same facility.
This is the subconscious Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Barry should allow the Minister to continue.
This is a real giveaway.
The Minister is laying bare his soul.
Please, Deputy Barry, no more interruptions.
I sat through all the contributions, even Deputy Barry's, making scarcely any response——
That is order as it should be.
Not without interruption.
With scarcely any response. Now Deputy Barry finds it difficult when the facts are put before him as a reality. Let me remind Deputy Barry and Deputy O'Leary, in their capacities as spokesmen for their parties, that for some reason they may wish to preach doom and gloom. That may be their purpose and function as they see it but they are preaching against a number of realities. None of them in talking about a cut-back on employment programmes made any reference to the fact that even this morning I specifically said that, as Minister for Finance, I had in examining the public expenditure programme made a priority of the agencies concerned with job creation. They ignore that. To demonstrate that priority the allocation for the IDA this year on the capital side was increased from £119 million to £145 million, a 23 per cent increase. Unless one ignores the reality all around us and particularly outside Ireland, a jump of that sort is in itself clear evidence of the Government's commitment to not only maintaining but expanding employment here. That is only one example; I can give more later in relation to housing. This, in addition to the 25 per cent increase in the provision for Córas Tráchtála shows, that in regard to the employment area and agencies specifically concerned with them we intend, in what I do not deny is a difficult economic environment to maintain and try to expand employment. I have been made even more conscious of the difficulty of the times having attended a meeting of EEC Ministers on St. Patrick's Day. Perhaps some here chose to ignore the realities in the world and would say that, whether or not there are difficulties in the OECD countries or in the developed countries, we should not even mention these difficulties. I not only mention them but I am prepared to ensure that we maintain the level of employment. The evidence is that we are succeeding in doing so.
At this point I must make two comparisons. I have referred to the international environment particularly within the EEC—and this was confirmed at the meeting on St. Patrick's Day—of reduced growth. It would seem from what Deputy P. Barry and Deputy M. O'Leary said that they would wish me to ignore that, that they would wish me to suggest to the Irish people that we should ignore these realities. Deputy O'Leary particularly seemed concerned that there may be a reduction in growth in Ireland this year, as if that kind of thing had not happened anywhere else or should not be allowed happen.
The reality is that there will be a reduction in growth as a consequence of the international economic environment and we as an exporting nation, and particularly as an energy-dependent exporting nation, will be affected immediately. We will find perhaps that the impact of this will result in a reduction of up to 1 per cent in our growth target on what it would have been otherwise. That is a factor deriving from the outside. It is simply a consequence of the reduction in the demand in the markets we supply, a reduction in the growth patterns in the economies on which we as an exporting nation are particularly dependent. It is a factor also of the increased cost of energy. These are realities. I would suggest to the House, particularly to the spokesmen for Finance, that at least we owe it to the public to acknowledge those realities. Though I was being accused here this morning of being almost two-faced, of being hypocritical or hiding things or doing nothing about them, I am stating the realities.
Having said that these things have an impact on growth, I am saying that nonetheless Government policies and programmes lessen that impact.
In my responsibility as Minister for Finance, with particular responsibility for economic planning, I am determined to ensure that we will to the maximum extent possible absorb these unwelcome impacts from outside. I demonstrated this in relation to the allocations I proposed to the Government particularly in relation to the Public Capital Programme. The provisions of this bill constitute further evidence and I shall deal with some of them in greater detail in a moment.
I am sure Deputies opposite would not expect me to be so restrained as not to make some relevant comparisons, because we are talking about employment here. The last year for which these figures are available, namely, 1979—and allowing for what I have said: that the projections for this year throughout the EEC are, if anything, worse—showed that we had an unemployment figure at the time of the impact of the energy crisis of 7.9 per cent: lower than Belgium, which had about 1 per cent more; about the same as Italy, which was about 7.7 per cent; and not too far above the United Kingdom or Denmark, which were over 5½ per cent, or France, which was 6 per cent. The average in the EEC as a whole at that time was over 5½ per cent. In other words, our position as a country that has not the same resources is very respectable and is a vindication of Government programmes and of the positive and consistent direction in Government. That was the position as it obtained in 1979. I can assure the House that that direction is being and will be maintained in 1980.
When I hear some of the suggestions from the other side of the House about what we are failing to do in employment it is worthwhile to contrast them with the situation that obtained in 1975 after the impact of the oil crisis at that time. We then had the highest rate of unemployment in the EEC. Indeed the two former Ministers who were complaining this morning had some responsibility for this—the former Minister for Transport and Power and former Minister for Labour. Before they commence to criticise this Government's "failure", as they represent it, they might reflect for a moment on the fact that at that time they were out on their own. Ireland had no comfortable partners in the unemployment situation. We were just short of 9 per cent in 1975 and nearest us, way at the bottom of the league, was Italy with 5.3 per cent. France then was 3.9 per cent, as distinct from 6.1 per cent at present. Luxembourg was 0.2 per cent; Denmark was 4.6 per cent—all of them lower then than they are now or were in 1979. But we were higher then than we are now or were in 1979. We were very much on our own at the bottom of the employment table or the top of the unemployment table. The two former Ministers who complained this morning about our employment programme must be acutely aware that this rings rather hollow at a time when we are able to absorb the shocks—and they are shocks —on western developed economies at present. We are succeeding in doing that very much more effectively than they managed at that time.
Indeed these spokesmen even touched on the consumer price index, which is not particularly relevant to this debate. Nevertheless I may be forgiven for saying that there was mention a few times of an inflation figure of approximately 21 per cent in 1975—of which no doubt the Opposition will be very well aware—in Ireland at a time when it was approximately 13 per cent in the EEC. The corresponding figure in Ireland in the course of last year was of the order of 13.2 per cent when it was of the order of 10 per cent in the EEC. We were in 1975 very much the highest in inflation but we were nowhere near that last year in the EEC league. I merely mention that; I am sure the world knows it. What amazes me is that Opposition spokesmen, and particularly those who were members of a previous Government, can ignore these realities and come in here and endeavour to convey an impression that we are in a period of doom, gloom or desperation when the very opposite is the case. In fact I think one or other of the Opposition spokesmen this morning—and I do not know when they speak as spokesmen or whether they are giving their personal opinions, but I would prefer to take the responsibility of a front bench man as a spokesman—talked about the 20 per cent rate of inflation we have here. I do not know. Perhaps they want to gallop into the doom that is not there. Perhaps they want to gallop towards realising the worst that could possibly happen. I am sorry to disappoint them. That is not the way it is. That is not the rate of inflation. I do not even choose to present the reality to them. It is not for me to counsel them in their own interests as a party—they are the best judges of that themselves—but it is wrong that the Opposition should try to create doom or gloom where it does not exist and then invite the Minister for Finance to take issue with them. I think what I have said should clear the air very considerably.
Perhaps I may revert to the matters raised in relation to the Bill itself and endeavour to deal with them in the order in which they arose. Deputy P. Barry asked about the setting up of a National Hire Agency. I can tell the Deputy that arrangements are going ahead under the direction of the Minister for Labour—though it is not germane to this Bill nevertheless out of courtesy I should mention it—and discussions are proceeding with the employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. A similar situation arises in relation to the National Enterprise Agency.
A discussion paper has been sent to the ICTU and to the employers in relation to the National Enterprise Agency and if I had not been involved in the debate here this morning I would have been engaged in discussions with the social partners, particularly the trade unions, on the finalisation of this matter. I will be meeting the ICTU within the next week for discussions in this area. I hope that this clears up any doubts in this respect.
Deputy Barry said there is a direct link between cut-backs in the budget and the schemes being catered for in this Bill. I have dealt specifically with that, but I want to make it clear that many of the proposals being confirmed here today were decided on before I started examining the current and capital budget programme for the coming year.
The procedure in relation to project examination by the tripartite committee is that a number of suggestions are made to the committee by the social partners, the State-sponsored bodies and other organisations. These proposals are analysed in great detail, they are discussed from the point of view of job creation, not just for its own sake but what one might call work generation. This is a very important part of the committee's consideration. One of the priorities of such consideration is that the jobs being created will in turn generate permanent employment in so far as that is possible. There is always the prospect of permanent employment being created in each case. Of course that is not the only criterion, as can be seen from a number of the decisions taken.
At a recent meeting of the committee we defined clear criteria for the allocation of fund resources to projects, and the desirability to create jobs which in turn will generate other jobs is one of the central elements. We reached global agreement at last week's meeting of the committee on the allocation of £18 million of the entire £20 million. That leaves £2 million to be allocated. In broad terms I will give the amounts of the allocations.
A sum of £5 million has been allocated for the subsidy towards the Employers' Temporary Subvention Scheme; £2 million for supplementary payments under the employment incentive scheme; £5 million for 1,000 jobs in the public service—that had been decided before the Government programme for current and capital expenditure was announced—and up to £3.5 million for a programme of youth employment and sports facilities. There are other projects from the FUE earmarked for the balance of the £20 million. The committee go about their job in a critical, detailed and businesslike way and they analyse carefully proposals from the various applicants. I have said already £18 million has been allocated and decisions in principle have been taken on them.
I should like to deal briefly with the recreational projects. In this connection it is not necessary for me to vindicate the Government's commitment to youth programmes as against the commitment of the previous Government. I invite the Opposition to look at the Estimates provided in their day and in ours and they will find a vast gap between what we are and have been doing and their failure to do anything. I will not make any further point on that.
Deputy Bruton referred to the sports council. His contribution to that body, set up by us, was to allow them to die. Consequently, the Minister of State, Deputy Tunney, had to begin the work all over again. These facts are not forgotten by sports organisations and others.
These projects are in addition to facilities being provided by the Government through the Department of Education. The purpose is to provide jobs at the construction stage and in the supervision and maintenance of the facilities when they are built. I am particularly glad the Opposition have welcomed that part of the programme in the same way as the social partners welcomed it when the Taoiseach announced it some weeks ago.
The tripartite committee have now taken a decision in principle to go ahead with it. The Minister of State at the Department of Education, in consultation with the sports council, Cospóir, have already presented to the tripartite committee a list of the specific projects they would propose. They are well equipped to do that. It is a matter for the tripartite committee to decide which of these projects proposed by the Minister of State and the Sports Council they will pursue. This will have to be on the basis of free access. I interpret Deputy Hegarty's concern as saying that one has to have a person with full-time responsibility as distinct from having a voluntary approach on the part of an amateur, which is also very welcome. I agree with that but I am sure the Deputy will also agree that what we have in mind here—I believe I can interpret the Committee's decision very clearly—is that those particular projects will not be limited in use or access to any part of the public. It cannot be one sports group who will have the facility. They will be community facilities in the real sense of the word. They will not be limited to any educational institution. They may be made available to educational institutions and sports clubs but they will, by definition, be for general community use. I can assure the House that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the FUE, the Confederation of Irish Industries and I, as Minister for Finance representing the Government's interest in this, are all agreed on those priorities. There will be employment involved in the construction, maintenance and supervision of the programmes when they are done.
I am sure I will be forgiven if I say that it is evidence again of the Government's commitment in this area. The Taoiseach proposed it and I followed it through at the committee. We welcome the very definite response we got from the partners to the committee, which has been endorsed to a very considerable extent by the House this morning. It clearly demonstrates my view that proper provision for our young people by recreation or facilities ranks very high in the Government's programme in relation to employment and in relation to facilities made available to them. The facts speak for themselves, res ipsa loquitur. When these facts are analysed, on our record or by comparison with the record of our predecessors, I have no doubt what the conclusion of the young people of Ireland will be. It will be the same as it was two and a half years ago for very good reasons.
In reply to some points made by Deputy Bruton, I am not in a position to give directions to this committee about what they should do or the criteria they should set. I should not be in that position. It would be totally to misunderstand the whole national understanding idea and the role of this committee within the national understanding to say that I could direct the committee as to how they should apply their money.
Deputy Bruton said that agriculture did not seem to figure very high. In fact, a number of the programmes that have been provided for here are for agriindustries. The Irish Sugar Company are receiving considerable benefit from some of the programmes. There is rural road development, particularly in turf development areas, bog roads and development of roads generally in relation to agriculture. They have also been approved for employment programmes by the committee and have been endorsed and accepted.
In relation to what the employers' role is as employers, it was suggested this morning that, first of all, we are milking them, secondly, we are fooling them and, thirdly, we are taking the money from them for something that we should be doing. I have answered that generally but I want to add something which corroborates how that is a misconception which exists on one side of the House. The sooner that side of the House clear that misconception the better because it is not in accordance with the facts. It was the employers who made the proposal to set up this fund and Deputy Barry should be aware of that. It was the employers who proposed that they would contribute £10 million to this fund.
How would I be aware of that?
Because it is common knowledge at this stage.
It is not. Why did the Minister not release the documents he made available to the tripartite committee? There is secrecy attached to this.
There is no secrecy attached to this. If the Deputy goes back to the time when the national understanding was being discussed and this element was also being discussed he will find this information. The Deputy's sources of information would have to be very poor indeed if he was not aware of the facts. It does not warrant a public statement from me to disclose something which I thought, quite frankly, was commonly known.
It is not commonly known.
The Deputy will have to check back to see what was said at the time by the employer organisations in making these proposals. If my recollection is any way right I made this proposal public. Deputy Barry does not seem to have known that. I am almost certain about this. It was the Government who subsequently decided to match the employer proposal by £10 million. Whether or not it was made public at the time becomes an issue of detail now in view of the reality that the initiative came from the employer side and the Government decided that their contribution to it would match the employers £ for £. That proves once and for all that it is not a question of the Government fooling the employers and getting them to come in on this scheme that we dreamed up as being in aid of our public expenditure programmes, then using the money and misrepresenting where it was coming from and what it was doing.
In relation to the employment maintenance scheme a number of factors arose here. Some Deputies said that we were being rather too apologetic. I will go as far as I can and hope that the House will be sufficiently appreciative of the nuances to recognise that what is being done is in the national interest. I have a feeling that the Chair recognises my problem and my interest in this issue. Notice had been served on the Government for some time that the employment maintenance scheme must terminate by a certain date, along with a similar scheme being operated in Britain. This matter was clearly indicated to the Government. The Government had full knowledge of it. Deputy Barry will find out, if he checks his speech, that he made an issue of the fact that the Estimate only provides a certain amount for the employment maintenance scheme in comparison with last year. This was certainly published so Deputy Barry must know that the scheme must terminate on 31 March. I do not believe that even Deputy Barry would suggest that we should provide money for a scheme beyond March which had to terminate on 31 March. That is the explanation for the reduction, if the Deputy wants to call it that, in the employment maintenance scheme. As the record will show, that was made as a major point of issue by Deputy Barry and the reality is as I explained. That being so, the Government would not be in a position to introduce a scheme which would be more or less the same as the EEC had shot down here, in Britain and elsewhere.
I suggested to the tripartite committee, particularly the employer and trade union organisations that the contributions the employers were making to the fund could be used for this purpose and I welcome their response. I want to specifically draw Deputies' attention to a statement I made yesterday. I announced on behalf of the committee that
... the Employer and Industry Organisations and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have agreed to provide £5 million from the Employment Guarantee Fund to finance a new temporary scheme of assistance for firms in place of the Employment Maintenance Scheme....
The new scheme, to be known as the Employers' Temporary Subvention will operate from 1st April until December....
The scheme will be administered by a steering committee of Employer and Congress representatives....
Deputies will note a significant absence of the Minister for Finance. I appreciate that the committee took a decision to enable us to get a scheme which would not fall foul of EEC regulations, as the employment maintenance scheme did.
I have heard the argument put forward by Deputy Hegarty very often. He asks why we should do what the EEC say? He says we should ignore them and tell them where to go. One group in this country who might feel a counter-productive blast if we adopted that attitude is the farming community. It has been suggested here that we should tell the EEC to go to hell; that we should tell them when to negotiate with third countries, whether it is the Lomé countries, ACP countries or countries like China or the Asian countries with whom the community want to develop relations; and that we should tell them what to do with their imports. Should we tell them we do not want to engage in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, which is a very important element in terms of our dependency as an exporting nation? We live in the reality of Europe, which lives in the reality of GATT, and the OECD. In terms of the overall balance we cannot say "give us, give us", but if we have to give something we cannot say "get lost". I do not know if that is what Deputy Hegarty suggested——
No, it was not.
Deputy Hegarty said we should not apologise to the EEC, that we should have kept the employment maintenance scheme going. Is that what he said?
Yes, until such time as these people come to realise that we are in the EEC and that our textile industries, one of which is in trouble in my constituency, has to compete with goods from Taiwan and——
The Deputy cannot make another speech.
This action and many others taken by the Government on the employment maintenance scheme are guaranteeing our benefits while not doing it too obviously. Ireland has done very well in this area. Anybody who negotiates in the EEC knows the one thing you do not do is to insist on what is your right to the exclusion of the Community interests generally. The real role of negotiation in the EEC and elsewhere is to interpret the rules of the treaties and the arrangements with other countries to maximum advantage and that is what this Government have been doing very successfully. It is very easy to sit on the wall and crow "we will not have it", but when we get the reaction of our partners we might find that the agricultural element will suffer. The proposed scheme is a very suitable substitute for the scheme that has been terminated. I want to express my appreciation for the quick response from both sides.
The purpose of the committee is essentially job creation. I was glad to note that the approach of the committee has been flexible and realistic. When there is a possibility that jobs will be lost unless action is taken, it is at least arguable that what the committee decided was the right thing to do. A job saved has the same value as a job created. Some Deputies said that when this scheme was introduced they did not think it was part of job maintenance as distinct from job creation. This was raised with the committee and I welcome their response. They acted responsibly and quickly when introducing this scheme. Irish industry, particularly in the sensitive areas of textiles, leather footwear and so on, will benefit from their immediate and positive response.
I want to assure Deputy Kenny that the capital of Ireland is not shifting to Waterford, although one would never guess from listening to Deputy E. Collins. At one stage I thought the wastelands of Ireland were being relocated in Waterford. The development of the Airport there is important not just for Waterford but for the whole region. I want to discuss the dredger to be built by Ross Company Limited, New Ross. The money proposed will be for employment maintenance in the Ross Shipyard Company. It is important that they be funded from this programme. The intention is to maintain at a very critical time the employment for up to 170 people in the shipyard. That it will also be of benefit to Waterford Harbour is a happy consequence, but the main purpose is to maintain employment in the New Ross area.
It will be of benefit to Waterford Harbour to have a new dredger. At present officials of my Department and representatives of the committee are having discussions with Waterford Harbour Commissioners to ensure that the commissioners make an appropriate contribution to this programme, because we are not going to concentrate all our benefits in one area. I hope that the Deputies from that region will recognise that funds are available to harbour commissioners and that they can raise funds either through dues or otherwise to make a contribution towards a dredger for them from a company which we on the committee are anxious to ensure will remain viable and successful. I appeal to the Waterford Harbour Commissioner to take account of that in the course of consultations which will take place in the interests of the jobs in the shipyard company and in the interests of the development of the harbour generally.
Deputy Barry raised a point in relation to the surcharge on the employers' contribution. It is to last for one year only, there is no question about that.
It is not in the Bill.
That is the intention expressed here and we can have another look at it on Committee Stage.
The Minister may be dead tomorrow and the intention will not be known, it must be written down.
The Committee Stage will be taken next week.
You can tease that out in Committee.
From my reading of the Bill the intention is clearly expressed here but if not any amendment made directly as a consequence of what Deputy Barry said or put by himself will be considered. Deputy Bruton was concerned that the criterion should be left to matters which in the Minister's opinion would result in additional employment. Section 3 says:
The Minister shall apply the moneys standing to the credit of the Fund for the purpose of defraying expenditure on projects or schemes which in his opinion will result in the creation of additional employment or the maintenance of existing employment.
That is the manner in which these matters are expressed in legislation. From my reply it will be clear to the House that my opinion will simply confirm the decisions reached by the committee. The Minister does not act in isolation here even with the benefit of advice from his Department. The Minister implements the decisions of the tripartite committee of which he is chairman. It is not just a matter of the Minister's opinion, as Deputy Bruton seems to interpret it.
Deputy O'Leary said that the Government were dragging their feet on the national understanding. That is not the view coming through to us in our discussions with the trade unions. Deputy O'Leary will have to search hard to find any basis for his implication that there is a lack of commitment on the part of the Government. If the Deputy goes through all the 38 commitments in the understanding he will find that the Government have fulfilled the greater part of their obligations. We have honoured the pay and taxation terms, and the record of the Government, as a party to the understanding, bears comparison with that of any other party. What Deputy O'Leary tried to imply this morning was not in accordance with the facts. The trade unions have not expressed the views attributed to them by Deputy O'Leary. Naturally the trade unions have reservations about various things. That is what discussions are for.
Deputy O'Leary was concerned about the building and construction industry and said that we were introducing a deflationary policy. The Public Capital Programme this year is over £150 million greater than the 1979 outturn. Over £110 million of this will go to areas which will benefit the building industry particularly. Despite the change in the housing grants scheme, expenditure as a whole on housing will rise by £23 million from £159 million to £182 million this year. That gives the lie to any suggestion that we are cutting back on building programmes, housing programmes or infrastructure programmes which are central to employment. In a very difficult international economic environment we are coping a good deal better than most with the realities forced upon us. It would not serve the House well that the Opposition Deputies be allowed to give the impression that we are plunging into a recession when we are maintaining our development targets.
I have dealt with nearly all the points raised in this far-ranging debate and if there are further points perhaps Deputies will remind me of them on Committee Stage. I thank Deputies for their welcome for this measure and I hope we have reassured those who thought that this was either a subterfuge or a piece of hypocrisy. This is a very positive move on the part of the tripartite committee.
The Question is that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Could I ask the Minister a question?
The Deputy should have asked before I put the question but I will allow him to ask a brief question.
Can the Minister give us any indication as to whether the money to be allocated by the tripartite committee for sports facilities might be allocated to some of the areas where Dublin Corporation have resettled large groups of the population in County Dublin, places such as Darndale, Priorswood and such places?
Proposals will be sent from the Minister of State at the Department of Education to the tripartite committee who will be sensitive to the genuine concern expressed by the Deputy. I can give no indication at this stage as to what will happen.
Has the Minister any idea as to how soon there might be an announcement?
Not before the Committee takes a decision. This only came before them for the first time at the last meeting so it will be some months.
When will we take the Committee Stage?
Unfortunately I cannot be here on Tuesday so either Wednesday or Thursday would suit.
When Deputy E. Collins was speaking he was interrupted a number of times by the Chair when he appeared to be going off the point, but when the Minister spoke for seven minutes on what the Chair earlier referred to as passing references the Chair made no effort to interrupt. The Chair allowed the Minister to speak for seven minutes but interrupted Deputy Collins after half a minute.
The Deputy should not at this stage criticise the Chair. The Chair tries to do his best——
I am reluctant to do so.
——and if Opposition Deputies referred to matters and I informed them that they were irrelevant, especially Deputy Collins, and they continued referring to them, the Chair has to allow the Minister to refer to them also.
Without ever being corrected?
This is the difficulty.
The record will show when the Deputy reads the text of my reply that——
I deliberately did not interrupt the Minister.
——I spent much less time touching on those issues than Deputy Collins or even Deputy Barry.
Now that the Deputy has raised it most of the debate hinged on the budget and it should not have. I tried to prevent that.
The Chair tried to prevent this side of the House but did not try to prevent the other side.
Any charge of partiality against the Chair should not be made and the Deputy knows that. I have always been very fair to all sides of the House.
Deputy Collins accused me of being purposeful this morning.
We will move on because the Chair is not a subject for debating.
