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.