asked the Minister for Finance the number of new jobs expected to result from the recent injection of £20 million into the economy; and the number of jobs provided to date as a result of this.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New Job Expectancy.
28.
The main object of the additional £20 million of expenditure on the 1971-72 public capital programme was to safeguard employment by preserving existing job opportunities and creating new ones in 1971-72 and 1972-73. It it very difficult to quantify precisely the job content of this expenditure but it is certain that, if it had not been authorised by the Government, the employment situation both present and prospective would be much worse. For example, the expenditure of £2 million extra by Taiscí Stáit had the direct result of avoiding about 1,000 redundancies. Additional expenditure totalling £3 million by the ESB and on telephones directly saved or created about 500 jobs. The additional expenditure of £1 million on housing enabled work with an employment content of about 1,100 to be undertaken.
It is not possible to state that the balance of the £20 million has the same proportionate effects on employment because of the varied nature of the expenditure involved and of the delayed effects inevitably associated with capital investment in its initial stages. It can, however, be said that the expenditure of the extra £20 million as a whole will have considerable direct effects on employment in the areas where the money is first spent and will, of course, generate indirectly a substantial volume of economic activity in associated areas.
If the Minister cannot quantify precisely, why did he pick on the figure of £20 million? The whole purpose was to ease the unemployment situation. That was the indication given in the Dáil as a result of the emergency debate. We were told that the whole purpose was to create jobs. To say that it was not mainly to protect jobs is not correct.
We cannot have a debate on the question.
Surely, when they took the figure of £20 million they had in mind the creation of a certain number of jobs? Otherwise, why take that figure?
The Deputy is misquoting what I said. I did not say that the main object was to preserve existing jobs. What I said was that the main object was to preserve existing job opportunities and to create new ones in 1971-72 and 1972-73. As regards the amount which is involved, this was related not only to the creation of jobs or preservation of existing jobs, but also to the financial aspects of the economy. In particular it was related, as was stated at the time, to areas in which by direct productive investment results in the way of employment created or safeguarded could be achieved quickly. Frequently in relation to capital investment this kind of effect cannot be seen for a number of years. The objects of this expenditure were picked out as those where results could be seen quickly and could be achieved quickly.
Why cannot we see them, then?
The Minister has not answered the question.
Whatever about Deputy O'Connell, is Deputy FitzGerald trying to tell me that I should be able to quantify precisely the number of jobs——
No.
I thank the Deputy. That is what I wanted him to say.
I am suggesting to the Minister that he is talking nonsense when he says that the results can be seen. It was a stupid thing for the Minister to say.
The Deputy did not even listen to hear me finish the sentence.
I waited to hear the end of the sentence.
It was finished but the Deputy was too busy trying to make his little point to hear it.
(Interruptions).
I am calling Question No. 29.