Regarding Deputy Barry's query, the criteria for the allocation of moneys from this fund are fixed by the tripartite committee whose job it is to recommend the projects or schemes that should be aided from the fund. The criteria have been fixed already. To that extent, even if I were to agree with what Deputy Barry was proposing in relation to bank interest the Deputy should see immediately that there would be limitations on the freedom of action I would have in respect of this fund in regard to taking such action. As I indicated on the last occasion, of the total of £20 million available under this fund there has been committed already more than £18 million. Deputies will be aware that the fund is for a sum not exceeding £20 million. Therefore on the second leg the remaining resources of the fund would not be suitable for planning in the manner suggested by Deputy Barry.
Deputy Bruton, perhaps understandably, seems to interpret the insertion of the words "in his opinion" as being intended to give to the Minister sole discretion, discretion which he might or might not use or abuse. The Deputy seemed to suggest that he was concerned about the possibility of Ministers not being readily accountable. That is not the purpose of the words referred to. Indeed, the opposite is the reason. To leave out the words "in his opinion" would leave the section reading: "projects or schemes which will result in the creation of additional employment or the maintenance of existing employment". That would mean that before any funds could be committed it would be necessary to establish beyond doubt that the moneys concerned would guarantee either the maintenance of existing jobs or the creation of jobs. In other words, jobs would have to be created before the money could be paid out. This would mean that whether what was involved was the New Ross dredger or anything else moneys that could be made available immediately would not be made available until work had been realised. I do not think that is what either Deputy Bruton or anybody else would wish for.
Almost all of the projects we are talking about are dependent totally on fund support for their implementation and in many cases will not get off the ground unless moneys from the fund are applied as soon as possible. I trust that this clarification satisfies Deputy Bruton and that he will realise that the application of the formula suggested by him would result in work being delayed, being carried out very cautiously or being abandoned.
Another point is that if the words "in his opinion" were to be deleted, it would mean that, for instance, where the number of jobs that had been included in the application of that firm, project or whatever—and there is a wide variety of projects from, say, airport construction, to dredgers, to new jobs in extensions in factories—had fallen short, they would be obliged to pay back to the fund what they have not achieved. That possibility might seem to be desirable in any event but to have it there as a rigid obligation I should think is something this House would not want. It is important to recognise that, in this area, we are dealing with projects that are for the purpose of creating extra jobs, or maintaining jobs, in areas where otherwise they would not be so created or maintained; by definition that almost means where there was a shortage of capital for that purpose and, therefore, assistance is needed. In other words, where there is either a problem obtaining or its potential we must recognise that the application of rigid criteria which would be the consequence of Deputy Bruton's amendment is not what the fund was set up for and not what the House would wish.
I hope that explanation will indicate that it is not a matter of conferring authority on the Minister. Let me stress that it is the Minister who regulates the application of the fund but he is chairman of the committee; the decisions are recommended to him by the tripartite committee, and are acted on by him, as requested by the committee. It would be a rather strange exercise in understanding, of which this is part, if a Minister were to take unto himself the prerogative to decide how he thinks moneys should be spent out of the fund and to apply them, or to ignore what the partners to the tripartite committee were to decide. I can assure the House that that is not my intention nor do I think it would be the intention of any Minister. So these words are there for that reason alone, not so that the Minister would enjoy any undue discretion which he might reasonably or unreasonably exercise.
The question was raised by Deputy Bruton of productive employment. Ideally—and I have mentioned this not merely in this context but elsewhere—the jobs to be created would not be just productive in themselves but would generate others by way of spin-off from what is being done in those jobs. On that we are on common ground. Let that be said without any doubt. In fact that has been recognised to be the essential theme of my approach as Minister for Finance in relation even to public expenditure allocations, through the IDA, CTT, and so on. I remain firmly convinced that this is the best guarantee of continuing employment, by investing in infrastructures of one form or another, or productive employment of the kind mentioned by Deputy Bruton.
But there are other possibilities which were mentioned by Deputy P. Barry the last day. There are other cases of jobs that are not necessarily productive in the sense that Deputy Bruton has been suggesting. Obviously, from what he said this morning, he would not regard jobs in the public sector as being productive in that sense. They are not excluded from the scope of this fund. For instance, he would not regard environmental improvement works as being productive in that sense, and they are not excluded. He would not regard perhaps the provision of tourist and recreational amenities as productive, and they are not excluded. In that narrow interpretation I doubt that he would regard sports and recreational facilities of the kind passed by the committee, in principle at least, as productive, and they are not excluded. It is important to maintain a balance here and that is what the committee have decided to do. But the determining criteria will be used to support the creation of new jobs which would not be created in the normal course, the maintenance of existing jobs which would otherwise be discontinued or the bringing forward of permanent jobs which otherwise would not be commenced until later. These are the criteria decided by the standing committee themselves. While paying due regard to the desirability of productive jobs in that sense they have not excluded—as events will indicate—jobs in other areas as well.
Deputy Deasy asked me to give an indication of the areas in which jobs have been provided. Some of these have not been finally decided and it is important to recognise that discussions go on between the committee and the promoting concerns. So, subject to that—and I do not suppose the House wants to take on itself the role of being, shall we say, the analysing committee or go into details in respect of each project—I can say, for instance, that there are 1,000 jobs in the public sector. These do not pose problems as far as disclosure of details are concerned.
There is, for instance, provision of tourist and recreational amenities, 110 man-years, at a cost of £804,000; provision of amenities, modifications and maintenance of Sugar Company buildings and yards, 65 man-years, at a cost of £300,000; project to continue 150 seasonal machine drivers in the employment of Bord na Móna for six months at a cost of £350,000. Then there are county development team projects for bog development—touching on something Deputy Bruton was talking about—150 jobs at a cost of £600,000. Then there is the provision of clusters of small workshops for non-grant-aided industry in the west, 50 jobs at £75,000; environment improvement projects, 250 man-years, at a cost of £1,700,000.
