asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that his decision to terminate the Social Employment Scheme is having a very serious effect on the operations of the Centre for the Unemployed at Bonnybrook, Coolock, Dublin 5; if he is prepared to give a commitment to this centre that it will have its full complement of staff in accordance with the commitment given to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Bonnybrook (Dublin) Unemployment Centre.
16.
No decision to terminate the social employment scheme has been taken. The situation is that the ambitious target of 10,000 participants set for this scheme in the Government's plan Building on Reality was surpassed in June 1986. In order to remain within the 1986 budget, it is necessary to restrict the numbers of new participants entering the scheme at any time. Accordingly, recruitment may only occur where sufficient persons have terminated their period of employment under the SES.
Bonnybrook unemployment action, who are running a centre for the unemployed, originally made application for a grant to employ 12 workers and a supervisor. Because of the recruitment restrictions which I have mentioned, it has not been possible to employ a full complement of staff for the group at present.
Because of the nature of the work involved, the National Manpower Service in Dublin consider the commencement of this project to be a priority and, accordingly, recruited persons to enable the project to commence in September 1985. Since then, a further four persons and a supervisor have been added to the SES staff complement at the unemployment centre as vacancies arose within the recruitment quota for the region.
I can assure the Dáil that the participation levels of the project will be kept under constant review by the National Manpower Service.
The question is whether the Minister will give a commitment that the full complement will be employed in 1987. These schemes usually start off with three or four people, even though their complement is 12. Surely they are entitled to build up to their complement. It seems very unreasonable to send out a letter three months later saying that they cannot now have the complement because it was not taken up immediately. That has happened in this case.
This is regarded as a priority case because of the nature of the work involved and the National Manpower Service will endeavour to provide a full complement to this centre in the terms of their application.
I mention again these other schemes where a letter of approval was issued but a subsequent letter stated that as they did not take up their full complement it could not be approved. Which letter stands? Surely it is the letter which allows a supervisor and a certain number of workers. It is unreasonable to say that for 1987 they cannot go back to their original letter. It affects all the employment schemes they had planned before they submitted their case.
The complement of workers and staff under any of the schemes would be determined by the overall quota of places for each region. In this case, it would be regarded as a priority. Hopefully a full complement can be provided. With regard to the Deputy's comments on the letter, I assume that under the regulations if an organisation or a centre were allocated a specific staff complement, that letter should stand depending on the other factors of budgetary allocation and overall placement figures for that region.
We now come to Priority Questions.