asked the Minister for Labour, with reference to the Employment Action Team, if he will give the date of each meeting of the team since May 1978.
Questions—Ceisteanna. Oral Answers. - Manpower Policy.
17.
Since 1 May 1978, working groups of the team have met on the following dates to consider and formulate further proposals: 11 May 1978; 2 June 1978; 7 June 1978; 8 June 1978; 9 June 1978; 22 June 1978; 23 June 1978; 8 August 1978. The team itself had a plenary meeting on 30 November 1978.
18.
asked the Minister for Labour, with reference to the Employment Action Team, if he will specify the employment in man weeks and the action generated by the team since its inception; and whether it is his intention to continue with the team.
19.
asked the Minister for Labour if there are any proposals to set up a youth employment agency, to include members from all relevant bodies, to assist in the monitoring of the scale of youth unemployment, and to provide proposals to help alleviate this serious social problem.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together.
Up to the end of October 1978, the schemes suggested by the team had provided more than 28,000 man weeks of employment. I understand that the team hopes to be in a position to make a further set of proposals to me soon.
It would be inappropriate for me, at this stage, to announce a decision on the future of the team or any other possible arrangement in relation to youth employment when I am in the process of a major review of manpower policy and relevant institutions and instruments in the context of the White Paper which is to be published this month.
Would the Minister accept that the 28,000 man weeks created as a result of the team's suggestion represents about 500 man years?
The schemes suggested by the Employment Action Team have been successful despite the Deputy's criticism in the House earlier in the year. For his information, I would point out that on the work experience programme which commenced at the beginning of September, at 2 December it had succeeded in placing 1,300 people. At the end of October almost 2,000 people were involved in environmental work schemes. That is just two indications of proposals of the team that merited such criticism from the Deputy earlier in the year.
I am glad the Minister has given the figures. I should like to know from the Minister if it represented 500 man-years. I thought the team was supposed to create 5,000 man-years employment. That is what the Minister promised. Secondly, in relation to the environmental improvement scheme for which the Minister has quoted 2,000 places, the figure given by the Minister for the Environment suggests that for £800,000 some 225 jobs were created in Dublin Corporation. At the very same time because of the national pay agreement, for which this Minister is responsible, the corporation had to find £1.89 million. Because this could not be used for job creation it meant that 500 new jobs could not be provided in Dublin Corporation. Is the Minister satisfied with that situation?
I have told the Deputy I am satisfied with the progress made by the Employment Action Team in their efforts to provide job opportunities and work experience for our young people at a time when there is a high level of youth unemployment.
If a youth employment agency were to be set up, does the Minister consider that it could more accurately determine the scale of unemployment among young people and, if properly constituted and financed, that it could produce far more definite opportunities than were produced by the Employment Action Team? They only produced proposals that were for the short-term in many instances and even some of those proposals have not been carried out as yet. Does the Minister consider that a youth employment agency could produce more definite proposals for long-term jobs and also determine more accurately the scale of youth unemployment?
As I said in my reply, I am involved at present in an overall review of manpower policy in the context of the employment aspects of the Green Paper and in the White Paper which is to be published this month.
Will the Minister state if the White Paper will include anything on the alleged report which exists in his Department as published in today's Irish People?
The Deputy may not quote at Question time.
Will the Minister state if the scale of youth unemployment, as alleged to be contained in the report, will be referred to in the White Paper?
It is a separate question, but I can tell the Deputy that a copy of that report will be available in the very near future and it will show some distortions in the article to which the Deputy has referred.
It will show that the report became available only very recently—
There is a history attached to that and there are reasons for it, as the Deputy knows.
At any rate the report was commissioned by me and I look forward to its publication by the Minister. The Minister is deliberating on a manpower survey for the Green Paper. Before we become puzzled by the colours of the various studies, will the Minister state if his deliberations on the Green Paper will be concluded before the White Paper comes out or will he come back to the House and tell us he is deliberating on the White Paper? Will he say when the world will hear of his investigations of manpower in relation to the Green Paper?
Despite his experience, obviously the Deputy needs to be educated on the difference between a Green Paper and a White Paper.
The Minister is the best man to do it.
If I did mention a Green Paper I should have said in the context of the White Paper. A manpower consultative committee has been set up and will be meeting to examine the entire area of manpower policy. In the White Paper we will make submissions for youth employment and it will be published later this month.
It is not the colour that matters. It is the provision of jobs.
The Minister mentioned 1,300 places in the work experience programme. Does he not agree that an unsatisfactory situation exists where people in this programme are getting approximately what they would get on the dole and they are not covered for social insurance?
The Deputy is broadening the scope of the question.
Does the Minister not consider this is worse than a substitute dole and will he at least consider extending social insurance to those in the work experience programme?
We cannot have a debate on this matter. The question of social insurance does not arise here.
The Minister raised it in his answer. Would he like to tell the House what he is going to do to keep the 1,300 people in the work experience programme and do something in relation to social insurance?
There is no mention of social insurance in the question.
The Minister referred to it——
The Chair did not. I am calling the next question.
There are 1,300 people in the programme.
I am not trying to curtail the Deputy. We have had nine supplementary questions on one question. That is not bad.
I agree the Chair has been tolerant. The point is that 1,300 people would be better off on the dole because they would get insurance credits on the dole which they are not getting now.
I have called Question No. 20.