asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that the additional supplementary allocation to Córas Tráchtála this year from the Employment Guarantee Fund will be made.
12.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment Guarantee Fund Allocation.
11.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that the additional supplementary allocation to the Irish Productivity Centre this year from the Employment Guarantee Fund will be made.
13.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm the provisions for sports complexes and youth facilities already allocated from the Employment Guarantee Fund; and if he will honour the commitments already made.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together.
I do not think the Chair has the right to give permission in this matter. I hear "with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle" regularly and I looked it up. The rule says: "If two or more questions are linked together it is within discretion of Minister to give reply in form he thinks is suitable and it is not a matter for the Chair to give permission for Minister to answer the questions together". I think it should be done with the approval of the Opposition Deputies.
I understand the tradition has been that this phrase was included as a courtesy to the Chair.
There were 17 questions taken together on one occasion.
(Interruptions.)
These questions are related and I propose to take them together.
As the Minister of State at my Department stated in this House on the Second Stage of the Employment Guarantee Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1981, no commitments have yet been made by the Government on the disbursement of the additional £10 million accruing to the Employment Guarantee Fund under the second national understanding. It is proposed to consult with employer and trade union representatives about the disbursement of this additional money prior to making any decisions.
A sum of £3.5 million was allocated from the Employment Guarantee Fund, as financed under the first national understanding, for the provision of sports and recreational facilities, following consultations in the Tripartite Standing Committee on Employment and, of course, this decision will stand.
Is the Minister not aware that his and other Departments are fully informed of commitments on the three areas mentioned in these questions? Is he not further aware that agreement was reached by the Government on those three allocations forming part of the allocations under the Employment Guarantee Fund, in consultation with the social partners? Is he now telling the House that these three areas will not get an allocation and that the Government will not follow on the commitments made by their predecessors?
Applications in respect of all these areas can be made and if they are, they will be considered in the course of consultations which, in the view of this Government, must take place with the social partners. This fund was established as an instrument of the national understanding, an agreement to which the Government are only one of the parties. It would be inappropriate therefore for any Government to disburse funds which are supposed to be the subject of consultation with the other social partners without such consultation taking place. That procedure does not seem to have been followed by the previous Government and that was a matter of some surprise to the incoming Government.
In the case of the application from CTT, there was a decision by the previous Government on 29 June, approximately 24 hours before the Government left office, to allocate £1.381 million to CTT. In view of the present Government`s conviction that all applications of this nature should first be discussed on a general basis with the social partners, this decision, which was not in accord with that general principle, has since been rescinded, but an application from that quarter can be considered once the consultations I referred to have been completed. There was no Government decision on the other subjects — the Irish Productivity Centre or the sports facilities.
The former Minister for Finance may realise that there was some unexpended money in the old fund and I understand an allocation was made from that money on 29 June. In respect of the new fund no allocation has been made.
Can we take it that the grants allocated for various sports complexes have now been withdrawn?
On 28 May 1981 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, advised the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Tunney, by telephone that the allocation of £3.7 million should be made available by him for the provision of recreational facilities from the Employment Guarantee Fund, a fund which at that time was not even in existence because the relevant legislation had not been passed by this House. Following the telephone call Deputy Tunney instructed the youth and sports section of his Department to prepare a second phase of the national programme for many applications for recreational facilities which had been received. Information on this second allocation from a fund which did not exist was disseminated by the Minister of State through various public representatives all of whom, I understand, were candidates at the general election and members of one party.
The approval of the Minister for Finance or the Government was not sought for any of these allocations which were made from a fund which did not exist. It would be an understatement if I were to say that the incoming Government were surprised that such a procedure had been followed by any government in the course of an election campaign in respect of public money.
Would the Minister for Finance accept that in this area of responsibility he is in a very sensitive position? Does he recall that he was the junior Minister at the Department of Education responsible for this area? Does he acknowledge that it is a well known fact that he sat in that office for a considerable time without a penny to his name? Would he now, having regard to this, consider for his own reputation that he should be a little less hard-faced with regard to these grants for sporting and recreational facilities? Would he further acknowledge that the allocation by the Government of £10 million from the Employment Guarantee Fund was decided upon at budget time in January 1981? Would he accept that any delay was due to ascertaining the agreement of Brussels and the employers to the completion of a fund? Would he accept that the previous year the Fianna Fáil Government had secured the agreement of the social partners in principle to the allocation from the employment guarantee fund, somewhere in the region of £3.5 million, and that that principle could be safely assumed to be followed through in 1981 because, whatever this Government may think, the trade union and employer representatives were fully behind the Government in allocating this money for sporting and recreational facilities for our youth from that fund?
The position is that in respect of each new fund the proper procedure is that there should be consultation——
If the Minister is going to welch he should say so.
——with the relevant social partners. The view of the present Government in respect of this new fund, which has not even been authorised by this House — and the concerns of this House should be taken into account before money is allocated — is that the money was purportedly authorised by the outgoing Taoiseach and his Minister of State without the House having an opportunity to sanction the relevant legislation.
The lack of care as to how the money should be spent is evident in the case of a centre in County Cork. We all appreciate that money should be spent after due examination, the relevant documentation having been collected so as to ensure that the money is being properly spent. I am sure everyone involved in the youth and sport area is concerned that money allocated for that purpose should be spent wisely.
Is the Minister entering into debate?
I am entering a reply. I have to hand a file from the youth and sport section of the Department of Education in respect of a centre in Cork but the file does not contain a single paper. This is the extent of the examination of the way in which public money was being spent.
(Interruptions.)
We will not enter into a debate on this matter.
We had theatre yesterday from Deputy Kelly and today we have theatre from the Minister for Finance. In the previous budget £10 million was allocated to the Employment Guarantee Fund and the legislation was processed through the House with the agreement of everybody. Will the Minister now give an assurance that the allocations which have been decided upon will be implemented?
Allocations which were made on such scant study as I have already illustrated by producing one file are not allocations to which the Government can be expected to adhere without going through some process of prior examination. However, all allocations will be examined sympathetically in the context of consultations which will take place in the very near future.
It is a disgrace.
Is the Minister aware that under the 1980 scheme sports complexes have been started — some of them are more than half completed — and that this scheme has been eminently successful? During these unnecessary consultations will he push for the acceptance of the centres to which money has been allocated?
Deputy Wilson must not have been listening to my original reply in which I stated that a sum of £3.5 million was allocated from the Employment Guarantee Fund as financed under the first national understanding for the provision of sports and recreational facilities following consultations in the Tripartite Standing Committee on Employment and, of course, this decision will stand. We intend to carry on exactly the same consultations in respect of this Employment Guarantee Fund. All these applications, including those with the empty files, will be considered.
Question No. 14.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, this is a very serious matter. Many organisations throughout the country are affected. I wish to ask one final supplementary question.
That is not a point of order. I cannot wait until the Deputy thinks of one.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister`s reply, I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
On a point of order, in view of the long, waffing reply from the Minister, we did not get the opportunity to ask a fair number of supplementary questions.
That is not a point of order. Question No. 14.
On a point of information, may I ask a question?
I am sorry, Deputy. I have called the next question.