Vol. 428 No. 6
2 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment whether assistance, by way of low interest loans or equity investment will be channelled through the job protection unit for firms with a sound business but temporary cash flow problem.
30 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the system of early warning he has put in place in order to permit the job protection unit to intervene in a timely manner to save jobs.
I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 30 together.
As indicated in my written reply to Deputy Bruton on 11 March, the powers and functions of the proposed employment protection unit are the subjects of wideranging consultations between my Department, the relevant State agencies and the social partners. These consultations will be concluded shortly and, in the light of all the information and suggestions for the operation of the unit emerging from these consultations and having regard to job protection mechanisms in operation in other countries, I will give detailed consideration to the powers and functions appropriate to the proposed employment protection unit.
At the same time, I would not envisage that the employment protection unit would reactivate the functions of Fóir Teoranta or that it would act as a vehicle for channelling State equity into small companies experiencing temporary cash flow problems. Its role would be essentially of an advisory nature.
The development of an integrated early warning system will obviously be an essential component of an employment protection service and the consultations undertaken by my Department to date have given detailed consideration to this aspect.
Is it not the case that the Minister has provided no funds for the unit in the coming year and that one of the Ministers of State said an early warning system was already in place? Despite this we have witnessed 2,000 redundancies, a growth of 25 per cent in redundancies within a fortnight, yet we do not appear to have any idea from Government as to what precisely this unit is to do about these?
In relation to the first question I should say there are sufficient funds available within the generality of my Estimate to staff this protection unit. Second, in respect of the numbers of redundancies that have been notified and the fact that a colleague of mine referred to the fact that we have an early warning system — which is correct — I should say that the IDA provide an early warning monitoring system for companies with which they have direct contact, they having received grants from the IDA. I might add that it is a condition of receipt of grants from the IDA that companies notify them of any changes in their levels of employment. I do not think there is any difficulty in relation to the establishment of this unit. The details of this unit will be finalised after a meeting with the social partners scheduled for Tuesday next.
Would the Minister not agree that it is something of a pretence to talk about a jobs protection unit which will be in a position only to offer advice. Are we not smothered with advisory bodies, in the Minister's proposed reorganisation of industrial activity, through his numerous national enterprise boards? Would he not accept that people expected direct assistance in some shape or form, to be given to companies in trouble, to emerge from this unit?
The essence of the job protection unit is to provide an early warning system, advance notice, so that preventive action — whatever that might be — can be taken in sufficient time. It may involve technological changes, additional finance, a change in work practices, a whole range of things, the most important common denominator being that adequate notice be given in sufficient time to effect the necessary changes. It is that, and that only, that would be the remit of the employment protection unit at this time. I do not want to pre-empt the final outcome of consultations with the many people directly involved and which are due to be finalised next week. Thereafter we can establish the unit and ascertain how it functions. If it needs to be improved or is not doing the task we all want it to do, we will re-examine it and ensure that it works in the manner in which we want it to work.
3 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the criteria he proposes to use in allocating moneys from the jobs fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply to parliamentary questions on 11 March 1993 by the Minister for Finance about the jobs fund under the Programme for Government.
Clearly, as Minister for Enterprise and Employment, I will be making an input to decision making at Government level on the approval of projects which will arise for consideration in the context of both the Public Capital Programme and the environmental and transport infrastructure developments to be assisted under the Cohesion Fund. Primary responsibility for the assessment of such projects obviously will be a matter for the Minister in whose areas of competence the projects will arise.
So far as my Department is concerned, the Government is providing additional resources in the context of the overall Jobs Fund in 1993 for the establishment of County Enterprise Partnership Boards. An allocation of £25 million for spending via the CEPB's this year is being included in the Vote of my Department to be published in the 1993 Revised Estimates Volume and, as a voted expenditure item, will be subject to standard Government statutory and accounting procedures.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the review of the establishment procedures, structure and staffing of these boards, which is currently taking place following the transfer of responsibility for this area to the Department of Enterprise and Employment, I should emphasise that the Government is committed to encouraging local initiative by a greater devolution of functions which would enable local communities to obtain funding to develop their own areas. While the main thrust of our approach to job creation must be based on market-led growth, active intervention is necessary also to target resources to quality programmes which can provide the basis for progression to permanent jobs for all those seeking to gain or regain a foothold in employment.
Would the Minister agree that it is farcical to call what he has just described a jobs fund? Is it not the case that the Public Capital Programme, published with the Estimates, provided 90 per cent of what the Minister now calls a jobs fund? Furthermore, would he not agree that the allocation of £25 million to the county enterprise boards is half what was agreed by the previous Government for allocation when they announced it? In addition, would he not agree that there will be nothing new available from this so-called jobs fund to help with the initiation of new enterprise here but instead will mean that we will witness the halving of a 10 per cent budget from this fund?
I am not sure which question the Deputy would like me to answer. But, if he is asking me to say, at a time when there are 300,000 people unemployed here, that the provision of an additional £25 million for local enterprise is a farce, then I have to disagree with him.
Would the Minister agree that the ministerial attempt to distort the question he is asked does not constitute acceptable replies in this House where we require and request information?
I think the reply I have given meets the thrust of the question put to me. If the Deputy wishes to elicit additional information, I will be more than happy to answer any question he may table.
