Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

No one on the Opposition benches opposes the Government's proposals. While others are pointing out that the Government has only been in office a number of weeks, most of us are referring to the lack of potential contained within the proposals. This is the great difficulty most people have. The initiative will not tap into the potential energy and creativity to be found in the community. Like others, I have serious questions concerning the lack of hope the initiative will give to the unemployed. Other speakers will say we are being untruthful about this, but in the run-up to the announcement of the jobs initiative there was major speculation among the chattering classes about the content of the education, training and job placement components of the proposal. Much of this speculation focused on the proposals outlined in the programme for Government.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the promises made to the electorate by Fine Gael and the Labour Party during the election campaign. That is the difficulty many people have. Fine Gael promised 45,000 new employment and training places to target youth unemployment, of which 23,000 were to be in the form of a national internship programme and 17,000 were to be second-chance education places. Also promised were 700 new apprenticeship places and 5,000 new community employment places. The Labour Party promised 60,000 places, including 30,000 work experience and 30,000 training and education places. Most commentators and anyone who looked at the manifestos thought there would be a marriage of convenience which would affect the figures, but this has not come about. The announcement the other day mentioned 20,900 places. There is a major gap between this figure and the number of places promised. Previous speakers said there would be more later, but we do not know what is coming down the track and we have not had any indication of what is promised.

The hope shared by those who voted for change in the general election is not being borne out. They are not seeing anything coming through from the Government. This is not to take away from the fact that there are 20,900 possible new places, but people were genuinely surprised. While any increase in the number of placements is to be welcomed, the fact that the total spend will amount to €29 million, of which a meagre €11 million is additional spending, speaks volumes about the Government's commitment to the unemployed.

The Government is willing to invest only €1,000 per person throughout these schemes, which is nothing short of scandalous, particularly in view of the €24 billion commitment to recapitalise the banks only three weeks ago, or the additional €3 billion thrown into the black hole that is Anglo Irish Bank. This response feeds into the view that there is a lack of fairness in the treatment of the unemployed and those on low and middle incomes compared to the wealthy elite. We can tax the bejaysus out of the former, but there is always a barrier or lame excuse when it comes to taxing the well-off in society - the ones who ultimately created this crisis. We really must ask what priorities the Government has set itself. There is agreement across the parties on how we are to get ourselves out of the crisis - by reducing the deficit, helping the economy to grow and creating the conditions to attract new business. Cuts alone will not work. However, the key component of the plan is to get people back to work. This initiative is not giving inspiration to anyone.

On Tuesday the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, described the breakdown of the 20,900 new places. There will be a national internship scheme which will be open to 5,000 applicants and provide for a five to nine month internship, with participants receiving a weekly top-up on their social welfare payments. The Union of Students in Ireland has warned that considering the low level of social welfare payments to young people, this €50 per week top-up may not be enough to convince young people, particularly those with skills and qualifications, to choose this scheme over emigration. That is a worry shared by many of us.

There will be three schemes targeted at people out of work in sectors with structural unemployment such as construction. These will include 5,900 places on the third level springboard programme at level 6 on the national framework of qualifications, NFQ; 5,000 places on the specific skills short-term training programme at levels 4 to 6 on the NFQ, and 1,000 places on the specific skills long-term programme at the same levels. The latter two programmes will be operated by FÁS. The additional places are welcome, but they do not meet the demand for courses, particularly in areas with a high concentration of unemployment such as my constituency of Dublin South-West. Also mentioned were 3,000 additional part-time module places on the back to education programme and 1,000 places on post-leaving certificate courses. Unfortunately, like the jobs initiative overall, there is almost no detail on the labour market activation elements of the Government's proposal, which makes assessing the potential impact of Tuesday's announcement difficult. The fact that so many of the places are part-time suggests the initiative will have little impact on those on the live register who most need the Government's help.

There is no talk of measures to alleviate the difficulties faced by those offered short-term work. I know a person who was offered a job for five or six weeks in An Post two years ago, but the difficulty was that it would take about three months to get back on the dole. There is no scheme which allows people to transfer seamlessly from work to social welfare. It would be cost-neutral and could be done in the morning, but it was not.

Other speakers mentioned apprentices. My local council, South Dublin County Council, has a scheme in place under which ten people are finishing their apprenticeships. Again, it is cost-neutral. There is potential for up to 100 people to complete apprenticeships under this scheme. Perhaps one of the Ministers can tell me why the scheme is not being replicated throughout all local authorities? It gives people the ability to move on in their lives. This is the key point people were making on the doorsteps. Families whose parents were getting on in years wanted to see their children obtain qualifications, but there was nowhere for them to do so. Perhpas the Government might consider the scheme in my locality and use it as a template for similar schemes in other local authority areas. There is no reason the OPW and other semi-State bodies could not do the same, giving kids potential to move on in their lives. We have been talking about employment levels and so on, but the major worry about this initiative is that it does not tap into the available potential. It will not inspire hope of a new beginning for anyone suffering the effects of unemployment.

I echo the calls of Social Justice Ireland for the adoption of a more urgent approach by the Government to labour activation measures, particularly given the fact that many of the 439,570 on the live register are long-term unemployed. Ultimately, increased spending on education and training is only of use if there are meaningful long-term jobs for people to take up after they have completed their placements.

Speakers have said we are opposed to this and that. There are plenty of plans and ideas, but we do not see them coming through from the Government. This is a pathetic attempt to address the real needs of the long-term and newly unemployed and their families and bring them out of that system. The people concerned are looking for leadership, but we are not seeing it from the Government. I am being negative, as have other speakers. We are not seeing the potential for change that the people saw when they voted for Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Others can talk about their records. In Northern Ireland the Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, MLA, who has responsibility for roads introduced a rule under which every contract must include an apprenticeship scheme. Why can something similar not be done here?

See this speech in context