Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the welcome opportunity to speak on this motion. When we came into Government three years ago the biggest issue facing us was unemployment, and it still is. While or intention to create many more jobs is proving to be successful, we have simply not yet created enough. The overriding ambition would be not to need a scheme like this and that no one would be two years unemployed. We would prefer if that situation had never happened and that is what we are trying to get back to.

We would also like to believe that anyone working for 22 months on this scheme will not last the full period, in that they will move on to another job at some opportune point. That proviso is built into the scheme and we are moving towards it. As we all know, local authority staff have been reduced so a lot of work that would normally have been done by such staff is not being done at the moment. That is causing huge concern in a whole range of issues.

For a scheme such as Gateway to work, we will have to ensure that councils have as many resources as possible. There is simply no point in creating opportunities like this unless they are sufficiently resourced so the work can be carried out. I implore the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, to put as much money as he can into local authorities so this work can be carried out.

Quite a number of people enjoy being on the schemes and want to extend their time on them. Those who are unemployed cannot be classified in one group as there are a variety of backgrounds, ages and qualifications among those who are unemployed. We must devise a system of schemes that will work for people. Local authorities have a range of work and the Gateway scheme is one option. I acknowledge that the issue of Garda vetting of participants in the scheme needs to be dealt with. There is a vagueness associated with the system of Garda vetting which needs to be clarified. The unemployment issue needs to be dealt with and this scheme is a step in the right direction. I ask the Opposition to be careful of the use of language when speaking about this scheme. The motion uses terms such as "forced labour", "hard labour" and "punishes". This country is not like a North Korean prison camp. This scheme is a legitimate effort to deal with an issue. I do not have a problem with opposition to the scheme but some of the language used is over the top. I suggest the Opposition should put forward some alternatives to see how people can get back to work because that is a project on which we can all agree.

See this speech in context