asked the Minister for the Environment if he agrees with the forecast of the Construction Industry Federation that a further 20,000 construction workers will be rendered unemployed by the end of the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Construction Workers.
38.
No. I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 29 on 27 January 1983. Apart from the matters referred to in that reply, I am examining the extent to which there is scope for the involvement of new private sector financing in infrastructure development to supplement the amounts available under the public capital programme. This examination will embrace the tapping of institutional funds for infrastructure development.
That is a very unsatisfactory reply to a simple question. I realise that Question Time does not give me the opportunity to explore this area adequately and to my satisfaction. Would the Minister respond to the question which I have put? What is his opinion on the statement made by the Director-General of the CIF that it was his considered view that the effect of the recent budget proposals would be to increase the numbers unemployed in the construction industry by approximately 20,000 in a period of 12 months?
I do not accept the projection by the Director-General of the CIF.
Would the Minister indicate whether he agrees that the budget proposals will be the cause of a substantial increase in the numbers of persons unemployed in the construction industry? Would he care to put his estimate on the numbers who are going to lose their jobs?
The Deputy is——
Answer the question.
Let me start to answer. The Deputy is not referring to the full content of the budget in which the Minister for Finance referred to the fact that as soon as projects which could be costed and identified were made available then funds in addition to the PCP would be made available to the construction industry. As a consequence I do not accept the figures projected by the CIF in relation to increased levels of unemployment.
Will there be any increase in unemployment in the Minister's view?
Due to the disastrous condition in which we inherited the industry there will, regrettably, be some drop in employment in some sections of the industry.
How many thousands?
It is impossible to say.
The Minister does not wish to say.
(Interruptions.)
In view of the commitment given some weeks ago by the Minister for the Environment to the CIF that the Government would take no decisions which would in any way jeopardise the industry further, and the fact that two decisions were taken in the budget to cut capital expenditure by over £200 million and to introduce an increase in VAT from 3 to 5 per cent, could the Minister say that this will have a direct, immediate effect on employment in the building industry? Because of that, what he has just said, that the unemployment which inevitably will arise is the result of the situation he inherited, is not correct.
First of all, that is a separate question. Secondly, it relates to the budget and the budget debate is in progress at the moment and this therefore is not relevant.
It relates to the fact that many thousands of people will be unemployed in the building industry. We want the Minister to acknowledge that and to remedy it if possible.
That is more appropriate to the budget debate.
With your permission, Sir, I would like to reply to the allegation made by Deputy Fahey. I do not believe that he was present at the meeting to which he refers and, therefore, the quote that he attributes to the Minister for the Environment is not accurate. The Minister and I in the budget speeches that we will make will comment fully on the claims made by Deputy Fahey and Deputy Molloy. At this point to abide by your ruling I will not go further into the argument other than to say that we inherited the building industry, on the admission of those Deputies, in its worst condition since the Second World War.
(Interruptions.)