Vol. 414 No. 10
15 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Labour the numbers of persons in the past four years who, having participated in a social employment scheme for the set 12-month period, have been retained working under such social employment scheme for a further period or who, having completed such scheme, have been taken on again within a few weeks; the Dáil constituencies within which such persons have resided; and the reason for such a breach of the rules of the scheme.
35 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Labour the number of persons in the past four years who, having participated in a social employment scheme for the set 12 month period, have been retained working under such social employment scheme for a further period or who, having completed such scheme, have been taken on again within a few weeks; the Dáil constituencies within which such persons have resided; and the reason for such a breach of the rules on the scheme.
37 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Labour the numbers of persons in the past four years who, having participated in a social employment scheme for the set 12 month period, have been retained working under such social employment scheme for a further period or who, having completed such scheme, have been taken on again within a few weeks; the Dáil constituencies within which such persons have resided; and the reason for such a breach of the rules of the scheme.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 35 and 37 together.
FáS have been given authority, in exceptional circumstances, to allow the re-engagement of persons who have completed social employment scheme projects. The reasons would include the person being a key participant, the likelihood of the person getting employment with a little more work experience and a shortage of replacements available so as to enable completion of projects.
The numbers involved are small with 103 persons having been re-engaged so far this year. It is not possible to provide details today of the numbers of persons re-engaged in the social employment scheme in the last four years. However, I have asked FáS to furnish the Deputies with the information sought as quickly as possible.
I want to ask some very specific questions. When were FáS given the authority to which the Minister refers?
The schemes were operating under their aegis. I do not have the information requested by the Deputy. Is there some significance in it from the Deputy's point of view?
If the Minister does not have the information, will he furnish it to me? His Department should have it.
Yes.
The Minister says the numbers involved are small — currently 103 persons. In the context of the 103 persons, in what parts of the country and in which Dáil constituencies were those living who were re-engaged?
I do not have that information. If the Deputy is saying that I should insist that FAS get that information in respect of the small numbers involved, I would be diverting them from more important work. This is a matter with which I have only become familiar during the past couple of weeks. In all cases where there are requests either directly or through Members of this House, as there are regularly——
That is the point.
The Deputy might tell his colleagues on all sides of the House that they should not make recommendations to FáS or anybody else. As a matter of course, FáS recommend that people who have completed their social employment scheme should not be re-engaged. Where there is specific application for re-employment and in circumstances which may be unusual or even unique in respect of a particular applicant, they would refer the matter for consideration by the Minister. I have seen some such recently. They are very small in number. Normally they would only consider it where there is no other person available to do the kind of work that a particular social employment scheme member was doing. They look into that in great detail. On that basis they bring a report to the Minister. I have been very slow to take any action except in the most exceptional cases. There have been two cases since I came into the office.
Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan.
There are three questions in the names of Fine Gael Deputies. This is a very important issue.
The Chair must be obeyed in these matters. I will call the Deputy again. Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan.
All three Fine Gael questions are precisely the same.
The Minister has evaded the answer.
No. There are three different names to the same question.
Let us hear Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan.
They all refer to Dáil constituencies. I want to know specifically the Dáil constituencies within which people have been re-engaged.
The Deputy has already put that question.
And the Minister has not replied.
That is not the fault of the Chair. I have called Deputy O'Sullivan and he will now——
I insist on being allowed to put this question. It is a reasonable question about public expenditure.
Deputy Shatter will not dictate to the Chair.
There is an abuse of the social employment scheme by Ministers in this House having people within their constituencies kept on.
Deputy Shatter, resume your seat.
The Minister is covering it up and he is not even responsible for it. It happened before he was in that position. It is an abuse of the scheme.
It is an abuse of the privilege of this House that you should continue in conflict with the Chair.
I am entitled to ask why within the constituencies of particular Ministers people are being retained within the social employment scheme.
Deputy Shatter, resume your seat.
I will not allow that to be covered up. It is an outrage.
Deputy Shatter, leave the House.
There are three questions to the Minister and he is ignoring them.
Deputy Shatter, you will now leave the House.
I will not leave the House. You can put that to a vote.
There is an abuse of power.
I must ask that the Deputy be named.
I name the Deputy reluctantly but I am obliged to do so.
It is an abuse of power which is being covered up. It is a simple matter to answer the question. That is what Question Time is about.
Answer the question.
I must ask the Deputy to leave the House forthwith.
