There is only one item on the agenda, the consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for 2000.
Estimates for Public Services, 2000.
Vote 34: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Will we meet again before the recess?
Yes. We are scheduled to meet on 12 December.
I have pleasure in welcoming the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the committee. I also welcome his officials, Ronnie Sheehan, principal officer, Eugene Forde, principal officer, John Hughes, private secretary, Alan Lynch and Patricia Lynch.
We are only considering the Supplementary Estimate and it is only issues relevant to the subheads in question which may be discussed. It is not open to the committee to recommend increases or decreases or to approve or reject the Supplementary Estimates. That will put us all in our place. Members have been circulated with the information note on the Supplementary Estimate and the Minister of State's speech. If members agree, we will ask the Minister of State to introduce the Supplementary Estimate which will be followed by contributions. We will then proceed to discuss the subheads affected. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the select committee for giving me the opportunity to address it on the proposed Supplementary Estimate required by my Department this year.
This Supplementary Estimate is being introduced at a time when our economy is continuing to power ahead. In particular, we have achieved strong growth in employment, with underlying employment growing at 6% annually. This means that, on average, almost 70,000 extra jobs per year are being added to our economy. Having experienced real GDP growth of 9.8% in 1999, the European Commission is forecasting further growth this year of 10.5%, reducing to 8.2% in 2001. This is a performance in which we as a nation can take great pride.
My Department's Supplementary Estimate is being sought to cover the transfer of the National Rehabilitation Board to FÁS and a shortfall in European funding to FÁS. The Estimate is also being sought to cover additional trade union amalgamation liability claims, payments to former Hospital Sweepstakes employees and miscellaneous payments. I will give details of each later. I am proposing a token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 only as there are sufficient savings in the Department's overall Vote to meet these commitments in 2000.
The additional requirements for FÁS are as follows: subhead K.1 - FÁS Grant for Administration and General Expenses - £15.607 million; subhead K.2 - Training for the Employed - £8.036 million; subhead K.3 - Training for the Unemployed - £28.488 million; subhead K.4 - Grant for Community Employment - £11.944 million and subhead K.5 - Capital - £0.929 million. The proposed Supplementary Estimate will facilitate payments to FÁS of approximately £65 million in total to address a potential deficit arising from a combination of a shortfall in EU receipts, the transfer of the National Rehabilitation Board responsibilities to FÁS, increases in community employment participants allowances which are linked to social welfare increases and increased expenditure on the building, repair, maintenance and refurbishment of premises. However, due to a saving of £10.791 million within the existing FÁS allocation, supplementary requirements for FÁS are reduced to £54 million.
The original FÁS Estimate for 2000 provided for ESF receipts of £71 million. However, due to delays in the receipt of money and in the final drawdown for the 1994-99 period, there will be a shortfall. This is the final year of the current period and a complex array of financial control regulations must be observed before the final claim can be submitted to Brussels and the moneys approved and received.
Despite the strength of the economy, there is continuing strong demand for specific skills and other training programmes. The principal component of subhead K,2 is allowances paid to apprentices which are linked to social welfare allowances. The 2000 Estimate provides for only a 2% increase in training allowances whereas the social welfare increase was 4%. The increased demand for apprenticeship required further building modification and refurbishment of premises, which is funded under subhead K.5. On the non-capital side, funding is required for more apprenticeship instructors, the increased overheads and additional premises, repairs and maintenance.
Subhead K.3 of the Vote funds training for unemployed persons to prepare them for available job opportunities. In June 1998 the Government decided that responsibility for employment and vocational training services for people with disabilities should transfer from the NRB to FÁS.
A detailed planning process followed, resulting in the dissolution of the NRB and the transfer of its services to various State agencies in June 2000. The additional funding required by my Department this year is Exchequer neutral because of savings on the budget of the Department of Health and Children. Subhead P provides for grants under the Trade Union Act, 1975, to trade unions in respect of additional costs incurred as a result of a merger or transfer of undertakings, including costs associated with attempted mergers or attempted transfers of undertakings. Liability in respect of this subhead depends on claims received. An additional £210,000 is now required to meet claims on hand in respect of two amalgamations involving SIPTU and the Irish Print Union, and SIPTU and the MPGWU.
An additional £292,000 is required for miscellaneous payments under subhead X2. Of this amount, the competition authority will require an additional £80,000 for its requirements in 2000 as a result of loss of professional staff, including its two permanent legal advisers/solicitors from private practice who are engaged to act as temporary in-house legal advisers. The authority also draws from subhead X2 in discharging legal expenses incurred as a result of its statutory functions.
The Registrar of Friendly Societies has sought an additional amount of £90,000 to meet costs incurred by the registry in defending legal proceedings. The Department is proposing to make the once-off contribution of a maximum of £125,000 towards the relocation expenses of the National Irish Safety Organisation (NISO). Membership of NISO is open to all firms, employers' organisations, trade unions, educational establishments and other interested bodies. The organisation, which is also a registered charity, promotes safe work practices for the prevention of ill health and work place accidents. The work of NISO is highly complementary to the work of the Health and Safety Authority. NISO has recently relocated from the HSA headquarters building to its own premises and this once off contribution is intended to offset substantially increased costs for the organisation in 2000.
While the overall requirements of subhead X2 amount to £295,000, savings of £3,000 within the subhead means the additional amount required in the Supplementary Estimate is £292,000.
Subhead X4 is a new subhead which requires funding of £3.1 million in 2000. The Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited (Payments to Former Employees) Act, 2000, came into operation this year without a provision in the 2000 Estimate. This legislation provides for a once-off payment of £20,000 to former employees of the Hospital Trust Ltd., who remained with the company until it closed 13 years ago. To date, payments of £20,000 each have been made in respect of 139 former employees of the company. Based on the number of beneficiaries of a Department of Health scheme in 1990-91, it is estimated that the number of eligible applicants will be around 150.
As I indicated earlier, there are corresponding savings in my Department's Vote in the current year to match the additional spending requirements. There will be a saving of £10.942 million on the Exchequer allocation for grants to industry under subhead D2 because of a slower than anticipated draw down of grants by Enterprise Ireland's client companies. This is due to the current buoyant state of the economy and because of a new scheme of Enterprise Ireland financial products for supporting clients.
A saving of £25.267 million will arise under subhead F.1 - science and technology. This year's projected outturn of £35 million is lower than expected due to delays in getting new schemes up and running. The projection for 2000 was based on the assumption that the new suite of RTDI schemes under the next round of Structural Funds would commence early in 2000. This has been delayed for a variety of reasons, not least because new schemes could not commence until well into the year 2000, pending EU Commission approval.
A saving of £20 million is anticipated under subhead F.2 - technology foresight. In March this year, the establishment of the technology foresight fund was announced, as was the setting up of a dedicated research body, Science Foundation Ireland, to manage the fund's investment and research excellence in strategic technologies, especially the development of world class capabilities in niche areas of information and communication technologies and biotechnology. While substantial progress has been made on this initiative, the full £25 million originally earmarked for investment in 2000 will not now be required this year. The under spend this year should be seen as merely a timing difference rather than an indication of any watering down of Exchequer support for the foundation in its efforts to achieve world class research excellence in the interests of future Irish competitiveness.
EU support measures for small business, which are funded under subhead H.2, were initially set up to cater for the small business operation programme 1994-99. It was then expanded to include the £3 million fund to assist small business during 2000. There are total savings in this subhead of £1.605 million. The reason for savings under the SBOP is the early repayment of loans under the access to finance scheme, a loan subsidy scheme due to the current low interest rates environment, but the scheme is no longer as attractive to borrowers as it was five years ago when the loan was secured. Also, there are savings in respect of the fund for small business due to the lack of appropriate projects in view of the end of December 2000 deadline for implementation and draw down of funds.
The social economy programme funded under subhead K.9, which is geared towards the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, was launched later than was originally envisaged this year. The programme provides for grant aid to enterprises established to deliver social services in and for disadvantaged communities. The programme participation will not reach the planned levels and savings will therefore arise to the amount of £6.791 million.
Arising from the transfer of responsibilities for opportunities for people with disabilities from the Department of Health and Children to my Department, we have been examining strategies to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment supports employment as a model which can significantly contribute to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the open labour market. Additional funding was made available under subhead K.10 to my Department for this programme in 2000, and a saving of £4 million arises because of the delay until mid-2000 of the interdepartmental transfer of responsibilities, and a consequential delay in the start of the new programme.
I note that a number of members have joined us since we started. We indicated at the start that as it is a simple SupplementaryEstimate, we might take it subhead by subhead. If you all agree, we will proceed in that fashion now.
I have no great objection, Chairman, but it is a change from time-honoured tradition. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but I am curious to know why the Tánaiste is not here. This occasion is normally used to make some comment on the overall departmental responsibility. We can, by all means, tease out individual subheads but the purpose of this meeting normally is to have some kind of review of the year. I do not know why we should depart from that. Is the Tánaiste at some recruitment fair in Beijing?
No, she is definitely in the country. I do not know where, but I presume she is unavoidably absent.
The committee was notified at its last meeting that the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, would take the Supplementary Estimate.
I have no objection at all to Deputy Kitt and I welcome him taking the Supplementary Estimate. It is just that it is not a desirable breach of practice. The Minister responsible for the Estimate before us is the Tánaiste and I think it is bad practice that she is not present.
As you can appreciate, Deputy Rabbitte, that is outside the control of this committee and also of Deputy Kitt.
Not entirely, Chairman. It is perfectly within the control of this committee that we take the Estimates when the Minister responsible is present.
Yes, but as I said, the committee was notified at its last meeting that the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, would take the Estimate.
You already had an apology from me, Chairman, in the context of my involvement last week in the DIRT inquiry business, as a result of which I was not able to attend the committee. I do not want to make a song and dance about it, however. Maybe the Tánaiste has very good reasons for not being here, but I do not think it is a precedent that we should sweep under the carpet. It does not happen in other Departments, and it should not happen in this one.
Your point has been noted. Shall we move on through the subheads? We will move on to subhead K.1, which is the grant for administration and general expenses.
I do not want to labour the point and I do not have any big speech to make, but it distorts the entire process to go into the nitty gritty without some kind of overview from the Minister. In a nutshell it seems to me that most of the Supplementary Estimate before us arises from moneys that are due - or are they - from the ESF and other European funding areas, and are late. I would like to probe the significance, if any, of that, on the one hand. On the other hand, the Supplementary Estimate seems to concern a number of subheads where moneys are being refunded to the Central Fund, or are they? Some of them would be matters for concern. For example, in the area of science and technology, the moneys being refunded are very extensive. In the area of the social economy unit, it is very painful to look at the £6.791 million being refunded because it is not required in the social economy area. There are areas in the Chairm an's, in Deputy Currie's and in my constituency where the social economy initiative has tremendous potential in terms of grievously disadvantaged areas. It is a great pity we have to give back money.
We will ask the Minister of State if he would like to add anything to what he has already said. We will then go to the main party spokespersons to make contributions and then to the subheads.
I have no problem with spokespersons making a few general comments and I will come back in before we get into the nitty-gritty. It might be useful for members who have priorities within this whole programme to make their points.
I quite often step in for the Tánaiste especially as Minister with responsibility for labour. With FÁS and community employment, there is a lot of work for everybody in the Department as Deputy Rabbitte will know. Obviously, the Tánaiste would have taken the main Estimate meeting. This is merely a Supplementary Estimate.
As Members will see, there is a nominal token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 to allow for some redistribution of moneys within the Department. I would like to think we would use the money where it is required and that if there are shortfalls, we would explain that to the committee. On the ESF shortfall, the original 2000 Estimate provided for ESF receipts of £71 million but due to delays in the receipt of the money and in the final draw down for 1994-99, there will be a shortfall. This is the final year of the current period and a complex array of financial control regulations have to be observed before the final claim can be submitted to Brussels and the moneys approved and received. The overall ESF shortfall is £39.2 million and is broken up as follows: subhead K.1, £12.1 million, subhead K.2, £8.7 million, subhead K.3, £13.4 million and subhead K.4, £5 million. The money will be received in 2001 and has been built into the 2001 Estimates. I reassure the committee of that.
The social economy is an area that interests me as well. Deputy Rabbitte mentioned the Chairman's constituency. As Deputies, we all feel there is huge potential in this scheme. The problem with it is that like everything else, when one is starting something, detailed agreement with the social partners is required. It is now fully operational. In excess of £200 million is provided in the national development plan up to 2006. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte - it is a very important scheme. The thrust of it is to set up enterprises. I am aware from Deputies in my party that there is a lot of interest here and there is great concern about the CE scheme and the transfer into this new operation. I assure Deputies that is the reason behind any shortfall here. I, as Minister, and others in the Department will closely monitor the scheme.
There is great potential there for people to get involved in all sorts of schemes from meals-on-wheels to estate management, etc. I am looking forward to that scheme. It is now fully operational but many of these schemes have to go through that filtering process of the social partnership. We have seen how that has worked in all sorts of areas. That is the explanation. I am very keen that we get this up and running.
All Ministers, and perhaps the rest of us as well, have got into this mantra of——
I do not have a problem accommodating Deputy Rabbitte now but I would like to put it to Deputy Naughten.
I do not mind.
Does Deputy Naughten want to give way or take the floor?
If Deputy Rabbitte is only making a short intervention, I will give way. It is setting another precedent.
That is why I said it now.
It is a very short intervention and I thank Deputy Naughten. I make the point about the mantra about growth levels and so on which is repeated here. The Minister of State said that "despite the strength of the economy, there is a continuing strong demand for specific skills and other training programmes". I would argue that, notwithstanding the strength of the economy, there is an ever greater demand for people in employment to be upskilled. The sentence may not be intended in the way it is capable of being read but there is a greater need for focus on training and upskilling of people in employment as a result of the demands at the moment.
I would question whether we are trapped in the old paradigm where we have near full employment and where the Tánaiste is travelling from Johannesburg to Beijing to Newfoundland looking for workers. The time has come for us to ask why while we are caught in an infrastructural deficit in terms of roads, housing and so on. Is the old paradigm appropriate? Every person who lands here from Newfoundland, Johannesburg or wherever requires to live in a house and will probably buy a car. It will take some years to repair that infrastructural deficit and I wonder whether the headlong rush in terms of the old paradigm is desirable.
On subhead K.2, training, there is not enough focus and a great deal of the focus of FÁS up to now has understandably been on the unemployed, disadvantaged areas and so on. There is a tremendous need in some very vulnerable sectors - manufacturing and services - for focus on training and upskilling if they are to stay around. We might usefully debate that issue some time in a non-political way. One cannot get to work in this and in some other cities and one cannot get housing, yet I read an interview during the week with the new chief executive of FÁS who seemed to say - one should not take him out of context because perhaps all he said was not recorded in the interview - that employers would have a negative attitude towards FÁS and he described himself a bit untypically as not being a bleeding heart something or other. He said employers would welcome and FÁS would be regenerated by this jobs Ireland roadshow that is travelling the world. I think it is about time we had a think about that.
It is very funny that, on the one hand, we cannot cope with the non-nationals in the economy already - Departments are in conflict, communities are in conflict and Ministers are in conflict about how we can get them back on the boat to export them - while, on the other hand, we are in Newfoundland, Durban and elsewhere trying to bring people in.
I would advise restraint on the Chairman's part.
I see you are muddying the waters. You are a good man at choosing language to muddy waters.
I am not muddying the water. I have a tangible example. A 29 year old Romanian woman came to one of my clinics three weeks ago. She has been offered a job by an employer here because her skills are required. When she applied to the Minister of State's Department for a work permit, she was told she was two weeks past the 26 July cut off point because she arrived on 9 August 1999 but that if she returned to Bucharest, it would get her a permit and bring her back. It is a deadly serious point and I am not muddying any waters. While we have such people here we are thinking of ways of repatriating them, yet at the same time we are searching for skilled workers.
In fairness, Deputy, when you were Minister of State you responded to representations from people like me by quoting the official line.
The Chairman is being too sensitive.
I am not being unfair to anyone. I do not intend my remarks to be a criticism of either the Minister or the——
You held the line on occasion when you were in office——
Absolutely.
You would probably have written the type of letter you received regarding the case you quoted.
Absolutely, Chairman. You are missing my point. I am querying whether we should have a debate on the situation we have arrived at. I do not criticise the Minister for applying the law as it is, I am questioning whether it is sensible for us to maintain that line on the one hand, while trying to recruit thousands of workers from abroad. As Chairman of this prestigious committee I am sure that on reflection you will recognise the sagacity of that.
With regard to the jobs initiative scheme, will the Minister of State address a question I have raised by way of telephone call and parliamentary question? Jobs initiative participants were informed that they would qualify for the Christmas bonus and answers apparently to that effect were furnished to a number of Deputies and so on. I am now told two different categories are involved and when I tabled a question to the Minister of Social, Community and Family Affairs I received a reply to the effect that it was a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and her Department. Are there two categories of jobs initiative scheme participants and will some participants not qualify for the Christmas bonus? Will the Minister reply today?
The future of the scheme has also been raised. It is difficult to get clarity regarding the Department's intention. Some scheme supervisors have been told that at all costs their task is to get these people off the scheme and back into the labour force proper. I understand that up to a point, but some participants, who it will be recalled were the longest unemployed of the long-term unemployed and who, by definition, had to be out of work for five years and aged over 35, are not yet suitable or prepared to go back to the work force proper, depending on the kind of scheme they were on. Some project leaders think they are doing a good job where they are and want it to stay like that. There is lack of clarity here. Some people believe that once they are made a third offer they will be removed. However, the Minister has said nobody will be made unemployed through the scheme. It is difficult to get answers on these aspects.
On the question of multi-annual budgeting, what happens under the subheads where anticipated expenditure has not been made? Is the money reallocated to the general fund or to the multi-annual budgeting system? Are the moneys held in anticipation that the schemes will have a greater uptake over the coming years? I have concerns about a number of these schemes. For example, I accept that the social economy unit or programme is newly worked out, but there is great resentment that while some sectors of the economy power ahead, people at the bottom find themselves in a relatively worse position. The unit is capable of making a contribution to that, but it is unfortunate to see that moneys are being clawed back as a result of not being spent.
To what extent is it realistic to rely on the communities involved to come up with their own projects? Advice is needed and should be targeted at them in terms of encouraging them as to the kinds of projects they might usefully advance to secure the grant aid envisaged by the Department. The Minister of State used the phrase "the filtering process of social partnership" to explain the present position. I hope he will be able to accelerate the filtering process next year to address the real need in this area.
I am greatly concerned at the slow take up in the science and technology area. It is very dispiriting. When I was Minister of State I tried to find money for schemes in this area. Now it seems to be available, but I gather from what the Minister of State has said that companies in the private sector appear to be unable or unwilling to draw down funding. Is that because of a defect in the scheme - is too much bureaucracy attached to it? Or is there too little innovation, especially in the small and medium size enterprise area, where innovation is badly needed and where access to these schemes is important? The technology foresight idea is a good one. I presume not too many lessons are to be drawn from the slow rate of draw down this year, but overall the performance by industry in this area is unimpressive. I do not know whether the fault lies with industry or with the terms of the schemes themselves.
Perhaps the Minister of State will advise on the number of trade unions following the latest mergers. Does he anticipate the formation of any new ones?
Thank you, Deputy, for that brief but enlightened intervention to what you rightly describe as this very important committee's deliberations on this Supplementary Estimate. I call the main spokesperson of the main Opposition party, Deputy Naughten.
I welcome this opportunity to debate some of the issues involved here. The training issue will be debated later this evening. Deputy Rabbitte made an important point about the cavalcades travelling the world as they try to recruit people to take up employment here. However, when they arrive here they must spend hours in traffic jams, work inordinate hours to secure a deposit for a mortgage and deal with inadequate child care facilities. In that regard, the allocation under last year's budget has not been fully drawn down.
We need to look seriously at the capacity problems within the economy if we are to attract people to the country. Given that the economy is thriving in a low tax environment, people should be queuing to enter the country and we should not have to send our road shows to attract them. The infrastructural problems need to be addressed. Many Department have yet to decide whether to proceed with public private partnerships. They have yet to establish groups to make such decisions.
The projects have yet to be decided. If we are to tackle these bottlenecks, it is fundamentally important that those issues are resolved immediately. It is related to the point in subheads F1 and F2 where lack of consultation earlier this year caused a delay in the drawing down of funding from the science and technology fund and the technology foresight budget. A dispute took place on how that money should be drawn down and spent and on what structures should be involved. I was involved in the debate at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on the matter. Delays were caused because of the lack of prior consultation in resolving such issues. The money could have been drawn down from the fund much more quickly. I hope we will not see a repeat of that with any more of these projects. I will go into specific detail about some of them later.
It is important we focus on people in employment as well as those who are unemployed. The point made about FÁS and the impression employers have of it appears from my discussion with them to be not far from the truth. It is an issue which needs to be addressed. Those employed today will be unemployed tomorrow unless we continue to upskill the workforce. I can debate the ins and outs of that later. I do not want to go into specific detail on it.
On subhead K1 concerning ESF funding, approximately £39.2 million is due to the Department according to what the Minister said. When will we submit the documentation to the European Commission for the drawdown of that funding and when does the Minister expect that funding to be paid over to the Department? Many of the underspends that are being topped up seem to be because of a shortfall in ESF funding. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that and say why consideration could not have been given to that fact at the beginning of the year when we knew from previous funds that there would be a delay in the drawing down of that funding?
On subhead K2 regarding apprenticeships, I had hoped the Minister would have announced a more substantial budget in this area because money is being misspent. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this issue. There are training places throughout the country for various apprentices, be they carpenters or whatever. In some parts of the country, there is a queue to get a place, whereas in other parts there are vacancies and some courses cannot proceed because they do not have enough numbers. Would it not make more sense to give a proper allowance to apprentices to move from Tullamore to Galway or Dublin or wherever to take up courses? A trainee Garda receives an allowance of £80 when transferred around the country as part of his or her training programme. However, an apprentice receives the generous amount of £27. It does not matter what part of the country is concerned, £27 will not cover accommodation costs no matter what way they are calculated. That should be increased if the funding is to be used efficiently and places are not to be left vacant, which is what happens at present.
On subhead K3, I had hoped the Minister would have addressed the ESRI report on training funds and the criticisms it made about some of the existing programmes. The point it made was that some of the programmes which were abolished were successful in getting people off the live register. As regards community employment schemes, people are not being trained for employment and that appears to be the turnover of the CE schemes. We need to address that issue. The CE schemes are fundamentally important in many communities. It is important to note that there is disadvantage in rural as well as urban areas. That ties in again to the social economy scheme.
How many places will be taken up by the end of the year on the social economy scheme? The impression was given that the 2,500 places would be up and running but it can be seen from the subhead that we will be a long way short of that. What drawdown will be made for payments to participants within the new social economy programme? The distribution throughout the country will be farcical as far as some programmes are concerned. There will be some 25 participants in the whole of my county, which will not substantially develop any one project over the next three years. There must be a certain number of participants to create the mass to make some of these programmes successful. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that.
On the issue in K3 of training for the unemployed and the opportunity people have of getting off the live register and going into employment, perhaps someone could address the issue I have highlighted on a number of occasions and which many other Deputies have highlighted. An example is a lone parent who loses his or her rent allowance if he or she enters certain training schemes. I had one case where a young girl was £3 better off by taking up an education programme than she was on the live register or drawing down her lone parent's allowance. The additional demands of travelling to and from college, of books and so on were not addressed.
Perhaps the Minister will address the winding down of CE schemes in many parts of the country. In many rural areas, the number of people available for participation in such schemes is becoming tight. We are winding down many of these schemes and not allowing participants the opportunity to gain full-time employment.
On subhead X2, the Competition Authority is understaffed by 25% at a time when there are serious problems with inflation. Additional resources should be given to the authority. Again, like many other issues, it is not just a question of money but also of reform. We are unable to recruit staff for the authority. Junior solicitors are being recruited who are not able to deal with the level of resistance they will encounter in investigations. Senior solicitors in the private sector are paid the same as the director of the authority. They will not be recruited. There must be fundamental reform of the authority if the Department, the Minister of State and his senior colleague are serious about the authority. The Minister of State can talk all he likes about publicising vacancies. Unless he is prepared to pay staff the going rate or provide a budget for the authority to hire the expertise on a project basis or hire a consultant to conduct the investigation, we will continue to experience the current problems.
It is interesting that, under subhead D2, there is a saving of £10.92 million. Are the targets set by Enterprise Ireland and the IDA being met? One of the targets is that 50% of all greenfield development is to go to the BMW region. Privately, both Enterprise Ireland and the IDA said there is no way they could ever achieve that and that it is an aspirational target. They have already conceded defeat in 2000, yet the funding under the national development plan is to run to 2006. This seems to copperfasten that view, with a return under subhead D.2 in funding.
Regarding subhead K1, will the Minister elaborate how it tallies with subhead K.3? The latter subhead concerns taking money from the Department of Health and Children for training for the unemployed through the NRB, yet under subhead K.10 a saving is being made. I will not go into detail as my colleague, Deputy Boylan, wishes to tease it out, but there seems to be a stark contrast in the calculation.
I express my satisfaction with the Minister of State and his officials on the detailed analysis they have given on the Estimate and on the very capable way in which they have been managing the affairs of the Department, which is obvious from the savings under the different subheads.
For 50 or 60 years we were conditioned to find ways to deal with unemployment. Now we are not conditioned to deal with a situation where there are many employment opportunities, and some attention must be paid to this area. For example, I have been contacted by a number of very highly qualified people, including a computer engineer who has been qualified since June and has still failed to find a suitable position. There is no place that person can go to get advice from State agencies. There seems to be a demand for computer engineers if one is to judge from job advertisements, yet he has done many interviews in Cork, Shannon and Dublin and is still without a job. He has a qualification which took him four years in the University of Limerick to acquire and he should be in a position to get a job. However, he tells me that there is fierce competition for each job he applies for and that the prospect of getting a position is reducing. A chemical engineer outlined a similar position to me. These are two examples from the past two weeks of very highly qualified people who are finding it difficult to find suitable employment. They seem to have no one to go to who could help them be placed. There are many agencies advertising in the newspapers. I followed up one advertisement to see what happened, and the job which was advertised two years ago by a company was apparently never filled. There are pages of highly specialised jobs being advertised, and in several of those I have followed up I have found it very difficult to see if appointments were ever made. I do not know if these advertisements are designed to upgrade people already in offices. There seems to be no agency to which I can refer people or to which I can make inquiries.
I note a saving of £10 million, a huge amount by any standards, under subhead D.2. At the same time, we have not seen a new industry in west Clare and Kilrush for 25 years. We have been kept out of the BMW area because of the success of Limerick and Shannon. The Minister is very familiar with Ennis and west Clare and if he draws a line through the middle of the county from Lisdoonvarna through Ballyvaughan, Ennistymon and Lahinch to Kilkee, Kilrush and the Loop Head peninsula he will note no new employment opportunities have been created by the IDA for a long time. I do not even know who the IDA representative is for Clare. We do not have a representative from Clare on the board of SFADCo, an agency responsible for the development of large and small industry, including overseas industry, in my constituency. This is inexplicable. Surely somebody could take an initiative to spend some of the £10 million to attract some industry to the largest town in west Clare, which is still suffering from a fall in population and a loss of employment opportunity, with the best young people leaving the area to seek employment opportunities elsewhere, with quite a number still going to the UK?
I wish to refer to subhead F.1 - Science and Technology - and subhead F.2 - Technology Foresight Fund. Europe is lagging way behind the US and Japan in relation to investment in science and technology. Ireland, in common with our partners in the EU, is very far behind and conferences are taking place throughout Europe to find ways in which this deficiency can be tackled. While there is a lack of investment in science and technology we have £45 million or more remaining unspent in this area. We had a very small project in west Clare being promoted by PowerGen, a Scottish company, which had a contract with the ESB to develop the first wave powered station, an ideal example of innovation technology. The project has lain dormant for one year because £1 million is not available to get it under way. I would like an indication why it is not possible to find £1 million from the £45 million to support the project. The company already has a contract with the ESB to supply the electricity generated.
A figure of £7 million appears under subhead J.9. I am not sure what type of reorganisation is taking place in the Department, but it would be more relevant for a grant for enterprises established to deliver social services for disadvantaged communities to be dealt with by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, where there is a shortfall in funding and where a number of very valuable projects in a number of constituencies dealing with the development of community facilities in disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged areas cannot proceed. The funding of £7 million should be spent as there are projects in very constituency crying out for funding.
In general, the fact that FÁS is going abroad looking for workers shows there are still needs in the economy. I had an opportunity to visit various communities throughout the country which are working with the disadvantaged and those on the margins. Today, for example, I launched an organisation dealing with adult literacy, a good example of where I see the priorities. Communities are working closely with many organisations trying to progress people into employment. There was an example of this in Portlaoise recently where there is a very good jobs club. People in the community displayed good leadership by way of involving different organisations. These people may need to build their confidence and progress back to work. This is an absolute priority at a time when there is a thriving economy. I accept the Deputy's criticism of the way in which the sentence was framed. This would be more my reflection of where the need lies.
There is a need to pay more attention to those areas where people are on the margins. Another obvious area is that of disability which has been transferred to this Department. That is a good development because we can pay much more attention to this area. Many people on the margins have much to offer in this economy. Women in particular are returning to work. The focus of FÁS and the Department is on these areas, while at the same time bringing in people from outside of Ireland. Approximately 17,000 work permits have been granted this year and 5,000 were granted last year. This is a very delicate balancing act for any Government. Deputy Daly put his finger on it when he said it is a new situation with a changing agenda. As far as I am concerned, all the other Ministers are giving it their best shot. Obviously the budget will indicate where we are going, but many people are putting their shoulders to the wheel, including the social partners, in trying to put the best system in place. Yes, the economy is flush but many people need special assistance.
Regarding the overall process today, money which has not been used in certain areas is being shifted to areas where it is needed. That is how things work. If money is not spent at the end of the year, then that is it. I understand there is a carry over of 5% in the administration budget.
Does the remainder of the money go back to the Department of Finance?
That is what always happens. We are trying to use the money wisely under the national development plan and I appreciate the Deputy's support. There will be some rescheduling particularly in the area of science and technology where money has been rescheduled towards the latter end, where there is a longer development.
On the jobs initiative scheme, there are currently 2,800 on the scheme. The first group of participants were due to come off the scheme in June 2000 but it was decided to extend placement until a positive outcome can be achieved for each participant. The projected number of placements on the jobs initiative scheme in 2001 is 2,875. I will check the situation regarding the Christmas bonus with the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern.
The point is that these participants were told they would retain their secondary benefits while on the scheme. I am now advised that some people have been told that they will not qualify for a Christmas bonus.
I will follow up that issue and any of the other issues for which we have not got immediate answers.
Deputies Rabbitte and Naughten spoke about the science and technology fund. Obviously we are talking about highly skilled jobs. This scheme is inviting all sorts of proposals from home and abroad. The reason for the delays is that we are trying to get matters right. In this case in particular money will be carried over and back-ended because the length of the national development plan. On the issue raised by Deputy Daly, I will ask my officials to pursue that matter.
Deputy Rabbitte raised the issue of trade union amalgamation. My notes relate to the number of grants paid to date. Some 33 grants totalling £2.390 million have been paid in respect of 23 amalgamations or transfers of engagement and one failed merger attempt. The Department is currently reviewing the grant scheme.
I gave Deputy Naughten figures earlier in relation to the ESF shortfall. The original estimate was for £71 million.
In our proposal when we sent the money back——
As I understand it, the final claim is being cleared by our internal audit unit.
Next week or the week after?
As soon as the matter is cleared up, I will give the Deputy the details.
Deputy Naughten rightly identified that a National Training Fund Bill is being taken in the House tonight. That will also indicate a new approach to investment and training. FÁS still has the budgeting capacity to train more than 100,000 people per annum. Again, we should recognise that FÁS has a huge role to play despite the unemployment figures decreasing.
FÁS continues to prioritise women returning to work, the long-term unemployed, the disadvantaged, including the mission abroad. We need to monitor closely this idea of going to places like South Africa and Newfoundland. I visited Birmingham recently and the Tánaiste recently visited South Africa. This is a necessary scheme but one which we need to monitor closely. There is a whole change in culture and companies and businesses want us to help in certain sectors.
Deputy Rabbitte mentioned a particular case. If the employer seeks the permit, it will be granted, therefore, the employer must make the initial move. If the foreign person has a residency permit here, that employer can apply while the person is in the country. There are some procedural difficulties and there are regulations in how the system works.
If the person for whom the application is being made by the employer arrived in the country later than 26 July 1999, he or she will not be given the permit. If it is otherwise, please reassure me.
As I understand it, regardless of the dates in question, the employer must make the application for the permit. Some companies may need a number of workers from a particular country. For example, quite a number of nurses from the Philippines came to this country recently. In those situations, the rules are very structured and there is a system in place. Everyone should try to work within that system. People are becoming more used to this now.
That is the main thrust of what Deputies have said. I am trying to summarise because I do not think it is necessary to go into them in huge detail.
That is very helpful at this stage. We will proceed to the subheads to which Deputy Boylan wishes to speak.
I regret the Tánaiste is not present. I wanted to thank her for her support in relation to a major industry announced for Cavan approximately ten days ago. That will be a major boost for the region because it has been 25 years since such an announcement was made. The Border Regional Authority and the BMW played a major role in promoting the Border region. Cavan was lucky to be chosen because of its work ethic and this will be a major benefit to the region.
On Deputy Rabbitte's point, people are commenting on this international road show, given that there is difficulty in accommodating a number of non-nationals in the country. While travelling from Cavan today, there were four able bodied men in their late teens or early twenties offering to scrape windscreens and clean headlights of cars at the Navan Road junction. I admire their initiative but I would like to know why were they not working in proper jobs and if they are receiving social welfare benefits. We must monitor closely that aspect.
Subhead K.3 relates to the unemployed. We are now talking about people who are finding great difficulty in getting jobs despite the fact that we are travelling the world looking for people. Enough is not being done. More resources are needed.
FÁS schemes are excellent. I have the highest regard for them but they do not have sufficient resources. Many unemployed people who perhaps do not have a good family background find it difficult to travel, and find and pay for accommodation in order to avail of FÁS courses or schemes. FÁS courses are not reaching out to everybody. I am talking about good people who need some extra attention but who can gain meaningful employment.
With regard to subhead K.10 and the refund of money which should have been spent on people with a disability, it is not acceptable to offer the excuse that the transfer took place and they were not prepared to continue with the courses. Moving this scheme to the Minister's Department was a good decision. However, the opportunities are not being offered to these people.
There is a regulation which stipulates a quota of 3% of people with a disability to be employed by State and semi-State bodies. How many Departments comply with this quota requirement? I suggest none is doing so. They merely pay lip service to this requirement.
A condition should also attach to multinational companies operating in Ireland that 1% of their workforce should be people with a disability. A company could have no better employees than people with a disability because they are keen to prove their ability to do the job. There is no point in setting up training programmes or in making gestures if we do not have the wherewithal to ensure that current requirements are adhered to. Can the Minister find out how many Departments meet the 3% requirement and give that information to the select committee?
This is a marvellous time for young people. Nevertheless, people with high qualifications are finding it difficult to enter the job market. I have come across many examples of this. It is very frustrating for young people who have excellent qualifications in sought after subjects such as chemistry or computers and find it difficult to get started on a career. One wonders if they are too highly qualified. It may be that companies want less skilled people or graduates of regional colleges. Regional colleges of technology are being canvassed by multinational companies who offer students well paid jobs. They also offer students the prospect of continuing their education while working, which often proves difficult for employees who are expected to work inconvenient shifts. Multinational companies give marvellous employment but I would not like to see our young people being abused and left after a number of years with neither jobs nor marketable qualifications.
Are we dealing with these matters subhead by subhead? Which subhead are we discussing?
We have rolled into subheads. We have covered subheads in the general debate.
With regard to the technology foresight fund, I do not doubt the Minister's word that there is to be no cutback by the Department. However, to have provided £25 million and to have a saving of £20 million indicates a failure to draw down available funding. Could the Minister give us more detailed information regarding the failure to draw down that money? Was there an over-generous Estimate or was there a failure to get the foresight fund up and running as early as possible? Is there a dearth of worthy projects and are there consequent lessons to be learned for next year's funding?
When lobbying on this matter, considerable concern was expressed by third level institutions about the danger of new stand-alone enterprises being established for the purpose of drawing down funding under the technology foresight fund, and of existing third level institutions which have a track record in scientific research and its application to industry being excluded. We need more information on this. It would be quite alarming if there were not a sufficient number of good ideas. We must invest in technology because that is where future opportunities lie. We have been given a very bland explanation for what appears to be quite a startling failure.
With regard to subhead K.1 - Grant for Administration and General Expenses - I query the current procedures and I have tabled a parliamentary question on this matter. If, for example, a local Chinese restaurant makes application for a work permit for a Chinese worker it is asked to submit its advertisements in local papers and other documents. Why, when we have full employment, are people asked to go through a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure? The requirements may make sense in the long-term but in the current situation should temporary measures not be put in place to speed up procedures? The procedures could also be made more user friendly. I have also tabled a parliamentary question to ask when the procedure was last reviewed.
Reference has been made to a Romanian looking for work. My understanding is that the person came to this country not to look for work but to claim asylum as a refugee and is more than likely in this country illegally. It is likely the Department is handling those issues correctly. On the other hand, we could improve the procedures and criteria for dealing with people who come here legitimately seeking work.
There is tremendous scope for improving grants for community employment, particularly in the light of other changes in the community. The Minister mentioned the meals-on-wheels scheme. I pay tribute to the thousands of people who have provided meals-on-wheels on a voluntary basis to vulnerable people in our communities. We should give the existing volunteers appropriate support through the CE schemes. I would be pleased if this could be immediately relayed to the general managers in the Northern Health Board so that the money can be used accordingly.
On the amalgamation of trade unions and the improvement of the taxi service, particularly in Dublin, I referred previously to the use of radio-satellite. I regret there has been no amalgamation of the unions operating in the radio licence area in the past year. If we are sincere about improving the taxi service, this is one area which would have a tremendous impact. This is probably a cross-Department issue, but negotiations should take place with Dublin Corporation on the amalgamation of the operators of radio licences in the Dublin region.
The legislation providing for the payments to the former Hospital Trust people is long overdue. It was promised by a number of Ministers and I wish to record my appreciation that it is finally coming to fruition.
On the grants to Enterprise Ireland client companies and EU support measures for small business, there should be more flexibility within the Department. I do not believe the Enterprise Ireland client companies did not require the funding of £10.942 million. The funding may not have been drawn down because of the procedures and criteria in place. I gather the figure for EU support measures for small businesses relates to the charges which are applicable. It is more suitable for small businesses to go to other financial institutions. This is not my understanding of the intent of that grant in the first place and I ask the Minister to review this matter.
On Subheads F1 and F2, it is regrettable during an era when the emphasis is on science and technology that the projected outturn for the year in this area is lower than expected due to delays in getting new schemes up and running. I wish the Department and all those involved continued success in ensuring the economy continues to power ahead.
I thank the Chairman for his remarks and support for the measures being taken. The members of the committee have also been supportive and constructive in their comments. Deputy Daly said that some people are finding it difficult to secure jobs in the computer area. While I agree that people should register with agencies, they should also consider FÁS which has established a web-based system for registering job seekers and matching them with vacancies.
Deputy Creed referred to science and technology. I have a more detailed response on that as it is important to reassure people that this matter will get the attention it deserves. This area is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, but it is also a central part of the Government's plans for the future and of the national development plan.
The Estimates were finalised while proposals for the establishment of the fund and foundation were still being developed by the Department and Forfás. The Estimate for Science Foundation Ireland's activities in 2000 was based, first, on a full year's activity and, second, included a provision for the cost of grants to the first recipients of the research grants. In the event, the Government decision in February 2000 to establish the fund and foundation also provided that a high level implementation advisory group should advise on the arrangements necessary to ensure the smooth launch of the foundation. This was deemed important because the foundation needs to have close linkages with other providers of research funding and many of these were represented on the advisory group. This meant that the foundation could not proceed with certain actions until the group had considered and advised on the issue.
The group did not raise any contentious issues when debating how the foundation's first competitive call for proposals might be structured. The foundation proceeded with this call at the earliest opportunity. This was necessary to ensure the initiative did not lose too much momentum. The closing date for this call was 26 September and some 80 applications were received. Given the criterion that any research fund had to be world class, this was higher than expected. The advisory group reported to the Tánaiste and Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, at the end of July and they submitted the report to Government on 10 October. Forfás is currently taking on board the advice of the group in the context of the further development of Science Foundation Ireland. The national development plan still has a considerable lifespan and the funds will be well utilised. I think the Estimate for next year is £30 million. I will keep members updated on this.
Did the Minister say the 80 projects submitted are under active consideration? Will the £5 million not being handed back under the subhead be used to fund these projects or will they be funded out of next year's allocation?
My understanding is that there will be a roll-over in this area because of the nature of the project, which is based on the national development plan criteria.
In other words, no project will be funded out of the Forfás technology fund.
I doubt it. Everyone wants to get it absolutely right as it is an important and new area.
The foundation seems to be one of the best kept secrets. There is little knowledge about its activities other than that it has been established. Are there procedures in place under which it sends applications to a group of experts to examine? This kind of bureaucracy is wearisome. The same procedures apply in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Report in relation to childcare applications which are sent to the ADMs. The Department will not make a decision until it receives a report. As a result the applications end up going around in circles.
I do not want to labour the point but this is what happened in the case of the excellent project in my constituency which proposes to generate electricity using wave power, of which there is much in the Atlantic Ocean. The project has been scuttled because of an argument with one of the experts about whether it is a research project or an economic project. We have no way of checking who the experts are.
I will pursue this matter further with my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, who has direct responsibility for it. My understanding is that it is pursuing world-class projects so it will obviously need world-class experts.
If the £5 million which was spent did not fund any specific project, is this a reflection of what it costs to administer the fund over a 12 month period?
I will come back to the Deputy with specific figures on where exactly the money has been allocated. I do not have a breakdown with me today.
Other Ministers will have it as well.
No money has been spent yet.
Out of £25 million?
I will ask my colleague, Deputy Treacy, to report to the Deputy.
Deputy Jacob is also involved. There are too many fingers in the pie and that is why this must be rationalised.
A question was raised on the social economy. There will be 2,500 jobs there by the end of the year 2003. On Enterprise Ireland, money provided under the subhead is in respect of grants and investments which relate to indigenous industry projects that have been approved in recent years and which are now reaching the production and employment stage and those during the current year that fall due for payment.
Deputy Naughten asked about the accommodation allowance for apprentices. That is under review at present. As regards the technology budget, £5 million is the amount for the year. The amount spent to date is £242,448.
I am more confused.
I will get any additional figures the Deputy may require. It is not in my immediate area and perhaps that is one of the disadvantages of dealing with other Ministers' areas.
In the Minister's address he said: "A saving of £20 million is anticipated under subhead F.2 - technology foresight". It states that while substantial progress has been made in this initiative the full £25 million originally earmarked for investment in 2000 will not be required. Simple mathematics would suggest that if the full £25 million is not needed and £20 million is saved, £5 million has been spent not £250,000.
That £5 million was put in to cover to the end of the year. It is correctly stated in that sense.
I would like some more detail on that. If we are given a definitive figure of £250,000——
That is the spend to date.
The Minister in his speech suggested £5 million had been spent.
I was talking about 12 months to the end of this year.
Are we not dealing with the Estimates for this year? We were told £250,000 has been spent. The Minister suggested in his speech that £5 million has been spent.
I do not have the precise information with me but I will get it for the Deputy and forward it to him through my colleague, the Minister with responsibility for science and technology.
What about the 3% employment for people with disability?
We have reached that figure in my Department. It is monitored by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I will get information for the Deputy on what Departments have fulfilled the requirements and have it forwarded to him.
I appreciate that.
Does that conclude the Minister's replies?
Yes.
I look forward to receiving written replies as the Minister has not answered some of my questions.
In the case of the taxis, it would be up to them to initiate that. If they have ideas on that and in relation to amalgamation we will assist them in whatever way is possible .
In relation to procedures?
In my Department ten extra staff were employed and there will be ten more next year.
Subheads K.1 to K.5, inclusive, subhead P, subheads X2 and X4 are agreed.
I thank the Minister for the forthright way in which he answered questions and for the letters he has said he will write to us. I also thank his officials who provided documents and back-up information. I thank Members, particularly the spokespersons, for their contributions.