asked the Minister for Labour the number of people in the Dublin city areas employed under the social employment scheme.

As statistics are compiled on a regional basis it is not possible to provide figures for individual countries. The Dublin city and county areas are included in the east region of the National Manpower Service which also includes Counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. In that region there are currently 1,069 persons employed in 437 projects under the social employment scheme.

Would the Minister make a statement on the negotiations between his Department, through the National Manpower Service, and Dublin Corporation in regard to the fact that nobody in Dublin city is involved in the social employment scheme?

That is a separate question. If the Deputy wishes to put it down I will be pleased to give him a comprehensive reply.

Is the Minister disappointed with the low number of people involved in the social employment scheme in Dublin city and will he explain why the numbers are so low?

The supplementary put by the Deputy is of such a comprehensive nature that it would be better answered by way of either an Adjournment Debate or an alternative question.

Question No. 6.

I know the Chair has no control over the questions but nobody is employed on the social employment scheme through Dublin Corporation. The Minister failed to convince the trade union movement——

That is not a question.

The Minister will not answer the question.

Could I ask a supplementary?

I declined to answer the question because the responsibility to employ people in the social employment scheme in any local authority is primarily that of the local authority. If the Deputy wishes to have this matter fully debated in the House I am prepared to facilitate him, but since my interests are more concerned with ensuring that people become employed under the scheme, such a debate might not necessarily be constructive. If the Deputy wishes to explain why the largest authority have failed so far to employ people I would be glad to hear him. This authority are controlled by the party of which the Deputy is a member and the Deputy is the Fianna Fáil leader on that authority. It would not be constructive to have a debate here on this at the moment and that is why I am declining to answer the question.

Has the Minister had a meeting with the city manager and his officials to discuss the matter referred to?

I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the Deputies——

You cannot discuss it here.

——but that question has not been put. Rather than answer unstructured supplementaries it would be more constructive to deal with this in an orderly manner.

My question was straightforward. Has the Minister had meetings or discussions with the city manager or his officials?

I have spoken to officials in Dublin Corporation.

This is Parliamentary Question Time, you know.

The major local authority have not one person employed under the social employment scheme. The local authority have tried to negotiate that with the unions without success and they have called on the services of the Department of Labour, and I understand that the Minister——

A question, Deputy.

I wish to know the outcome of the negotiations which took place between Dublin Corporation, the Department of Labour, the Manpower officials and the trade unions involved? That relates to this question and why the figures are so low in the Dublin city area.

It is quite extraordinary that Deputy Ahern had to come to this House to ask a statistical question of a general nature when he is in a position to ask the officials of the local authority who would be the legal employers the precise position between them——

I have the floor at the moment.

Order.

Together with all the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party elected to Dublin City Council, the Deputy is in a position to ask the officials why they have been unable to employ people under this scheme through the proper procedures, when they have negotiated successfully with the same unions in Dublin County Council. I am quite prepared to talk this through——

It cannot be done during Question Time.

The Minister knows the answer as it was his officials who failed to come to a conclusion. They will not give Dublin Corporation the necessary amendment so the responsibility clearly lies with the Minister.

Question No. 6.

Dublin Corporation were the only local authority in the entire country——

I have called Question No. 6.

I have called Question No. 6.

6.

asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that married men will suffer a financial loss if employed on the social employment scheme; if he has any plans to amend the regulations to rectify this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

As indicated in Building on Reality 1985-1987, the social employment scheme is aimed at the large number of productive and energetic persons who have been unemployed for an extended period.

Due to the present constraints on public finances it is essential that that scheme be as far as possible self-financing and this was a prime consideration when setting the wage of participants at £70 for an average 2½ day week. For comparison purposes, the maximum rate of unemployment assistance at present for a married person with no child dependants is £60.15 per week.

It is a feature of the scheme, of course, that participants are allowed to undertake other work during the periods in which they are not engaged on the scheme. Statistics recently compiled by my Department show that approximately 26 per cent of SES participants are married and more than half of these have child dependants.

I am currently reviewing the scheme including the wage rates of married persons.

Is the Minister aware of another area of financial loss for people participating in the social employment scheme, the loss of the right to go to the community welfare service for assistance to pay bills and that at least one health authority refuse to allow them to keep their medical cards? What action is being taken in these two areas?

I am aware of the points raised and those matters are part of the review of the scheme which I am currently undertaking and to which I referred in the last part of my reply.

Will the Minister accept that there is a disincentive in relation to married men and that many married men would participate in the scheme were it not for this disincentive?

I accept that for some married men there is a disincentive.

In the review of the social employment scheme will the Minister consider the position of people who are on benefit as well? I know of a case where a person has been unemployed for two years but is still in benefit because he spent a year on a horticulture course. Perhaps such cases could be taken into consideration. This person was offered a job under the social employment scheme and could not take up this employment because he was not eligible.

The Deputy pointed out some matters which are currently being reviewed. The scheme was originally targeted at the long term unemployed in receipt of unemployment assistance. The point raised by the Deputy is one of the factors at which we are looking.

Will the Minister give consideration to another category, people who may have been out of work on disability benefit who will not qualify for this scheme?

Yes.

Will the Minister say whether women are now entitled to apply under the social employment scheme and whether they will be considered and given work?

Women who meet the conditions of the scheme are eligible to benefit. I gather the Deputy is referring to the position of some married women who have not yet benefited from the introduction of the equality legislation which my colleague, Deputy Desmond, is to introduce.

Question No. 7.