asked the Minister for Labour whether, in regard to the Employment Action Team whose establishment was announced on 4th August, 1977, this team has as yet held a meeting or meetings; if so, the date or dates of such meeting or meetings; the number of Departments of which the civil servant members of the team are representative; whether any, and, if so, how many of the civil servant members of the team are engaged in its purposes full-time; how many are also discharging functions in their own Departments; and whether any of the members of the team other than civil servant members are engaged in its purposes full-time.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment Action Team.
13.
The Employment Action Team held two meetings. The first meeting was on 28th September, 1977, and the second on 19th October, 1977. At its first meeting the team established four working groups each of which has met a number of times.
Nine Government Departments are represented on the team. None of their representatives is on the team in a full-time capacity and all of them have responsibilities in their own Departments. The secretary of the team, who is an officer of my Department, is available to the team on a full-time basis.
No other members of the team are full-time.
Did I understand the Minister to say that there is only one full-time person engaged on the purposes of the Employment Action Team and that is the secretary?
Yes.
He is full-time?
The secretary is full-time.
And he is the only member of the team who is operating full-time?
Yes at the moment, but the question of assigning full-time additional secretarial staff to the team is under consideration.
The Minister will realise that this team was announced on the 4th August. That was three months ago. In the light of the fact that it took almost two months to organise the first meeting, is the Minister satisfied with the progress that the concept of the Employment Action Team has now achieved? He will recall that this was one of the principal legs on which his party won the election.
Has the Deputy finished?
If the Minister does not reply, he will be inviting me to ask more questions.
As the Deputy was still standing, I was not sure if he had finished. The position is that the establishment of the Employment Action Team was announced on 4th August. On the following day all parties represented on the team were invited to nominate members. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that the month of August for many of those nominating groups was a holiday period and there was a time lag. The full composition of the team was announced on the 26th September and the first meeting took place on the 28th.
While I appreciate that August is for most people a holiday month, would the Minister not agree that in view of the extreme urgency of this matter, an urgency which his party have repeatedly emphasised, to allow eight weeks to elapse between the announcement of the team and the holding of its first meeting—which, as far as I could see from pictures in the papers was only a meeting at which pencils were sharpened and blotting paper was doodled on—shows no real sense of the urgency of this matter?
It is not fair to the Employment Action Team to say that that was what happened at their first meeting. As I mentioned in my reply, at the first meeting of the action team four working groups were set up. This I regarded as being a very positive step in the right direction. The first working group undertook to examine the training and preparation of young people for work, the second group to examine employment incentives, the third group to examine job creation and the fourth group to examine the distribution of work. I repeat that the time lag referred to was mainly because of the delay and difficulties being experienced by some of the nominating bodies. If this had not happened, the team could have met earlier.
I thank the Minister for telling us how this team work. Will he tell us whether the team have so far produced any jobs?
The purpose of the team is to make recommendations and this is——
It is an action team— and we should be grateful that it is not an action consortium.
Government Departments are represented on the team so that when these proposals are put forward they can be quickly acted on by the different Ministers concerned.
Then it is not an action team.
Would the Minister not agree that a team which includes representatives from nine different Departments is unlikely to be able to deserve the title of an action team?
The Deputy is, of course, aware that this is normal practice. He was a member of a Government which appointed six secretaries of Departments to the NESC.
That council was appointed for a different function and it was permanent. The action team was supposed to be a response to the employment crisis, and it was sold to the people on that basis. I want to know if the Minister is satisfied with the progress the team are making on that basis?
I am satisfied——
Then the Minister is the only person in the House who is.
May I say that the Deputy appeared to be satisfied with the situation that existed for the four years he was in Government?
Did I understand the Minister to say that the secretary is available from his Department? Is that secretary working full-time with the team or is he doing other duties?
I said the secretary was a full-time appointment to the Employment Action Team.
He does nothing else?
(Cavan-Monaghan): When will the team produce new jobs?
I will keep the House informed.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister giving us that undertaking?