asked the Minister for Labour if he will make provision in the forthcoming budget for the introduction of additional special employment and training measures for the long-term unemployed.

I recently announced a number of training and employment scheme measures which will assist the long-term unemployed. The social employment scheme which is directed at the long-term unemployed will operate at an increased level in 1990 with 10,200 man years activity compared with 9,200 man years in 1989. The payment of a child dependant allowance, which I announced last Monday, will make the scheme more attractive to older, long-term unemployed persons with dependants.

The employment incentive scheme has been revamped and redirected towards the long-term unemployed, early school leavers and other disadvantaged groups. I am hopeful that the existence of the subsidy will assist disadvantaged persons in obtaining employment.

Direct responsibility for the contents and the disclosure of provisions in the annual budget lies with the Minister for Finance. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the contents of the budget.

In relation to these schemes, would the Minister say if it is necessary if people feel they are unable to join in one of these schemes, to deny them social welfare payments, particularly where they can prove to the authorities concerned that they are not fit to join in one of these schemes? It is unfortunate that these schemes have been abused to some extent in that they are being used to get people off the unemployment register. Employment offices are using these schemes in an effort to disqualify people from receiving social welfare payments. Would the Minister care to outline his Department's point of view on this matter?

FÁS contact people who are nominated by the employment offices. There are a number of ways by which people, if they so wish, can get out and they can appeal. They are not forced to go on a social employment or any other scheme if it would mean a substantial loss in benefits. That is precisely the reason why this year we increased the allowance and introduced a dependant allowance and a child dependant allowance. We wish to make these schemes more attractive for people who would lose money in taking up a position in the schemes. People are not compelled to go on a scheme.

Would the Minister accept that the measures he has referred to had been announced before he met the Irish Congress of Trade Unions recently and that they argued very strongly in their submission for additional schemes to tackle the unemployment problem? Can the Minister tell us if he is contemplating any new schemes at this time?

The answer is yes, but naturally the financial element has to be taken into account. We had announced 1,000 new places prior to 29 September but if anything can be done to make the schemes more attractive for the unemployed to enable them re-enter the labour market this will be done.

Is the Minister aware that Department of Social Welfare officers involved in the scheme he refers to are in fact telling people that if they do not avail of the scheme their social welfare will be cut and that they will have to go to the supplementary welfare officer for payments? This is a regular occurrence.

That seems to be the responsibility of another Minister.

The Minister referred to it.

Whatever about a form of compulsion where people are just refusing the scheme, they do not actually lose money on it.

Is there any distance constraint on social employment schemes where people are being asked to travel, in cases where they have no transport?

The spirit of it is that it should be in the local area. Certainly there is no travel allowance so it is not envisaged that unreasonable requests will be made of individuals.