Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I second the motion and I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute. I thank Senator Finucane for his comments. It is appropriate that the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Fahey, is present because following the initial outcry some months ago about the possibility of large-scale cutbacks in the scheme, he was the first to use a megaphone to announce what he and his parliamentary party colleagues would do to stem the tide. Many of the Minister of State's colleagues made strong pronouncements regarding the need to reverse the proposed cutbacks in the community employment schemes. They all spoke loudly on the plinth of Leinster House but those strong words descended into the silence of the lambs when the reality became apparent. The cutbacks we feared would be made now appear to have been put in place. It certainly seems that the number of people who will benefit from social employment schemes nationally this year will be much less than what is required.

Social employment schemes need to be examined from the viewpoint of what they have achieved for communities, including, in particular, the people who worked on them. Social employment work provides a double advantage for participants. First, it can represent a step up for people who previously were among the long-term unemployed, perhaps those in their early 20s or 30s who never had a proper job. In some instances, CE schemes have provided such people with a passport to the workplace. Second, and at the other end of the age spectrum, people who became redundant in their 50s and who may have had no possibility of any future income, apart from a contributory old age pension, were able to work in their own communities for sporting clubs, charitable organisations and community groups. The CE schemes provided a fine way for such people to wind down their working years as they were able to participate fully in their local communities, while giving an extraordinarily good return for the moneys expended.

If every Department involved in social spending looked at the euros being spent from a value for money perspective — to be fair, in this day and age, we must talk about value for money — it would be apparent that the value obtained from the social employment schemes is unsurpassed. The schemes comprise both an employment and a social content. They represent a social contract between the State and its citizens. I am sure that, given the Cathaoirleach's involvement in the Gaelic Athletic Association, he could cite cases involving GAA clubs, community halls and other facilities that would not have remained open but for the availability of labour provided under community employment schemes.

Of all the social schemes that have been put in place over the past ten or 15 years, the community employment schemes have stood the test of time. They are as relevant and appropriate today as they were during the darker economic years of the late 1980s and early 1990s. From time to time, I have heard the Tánaiste argue that when social employment schemes were introduced, there was a much higher unemployment rate and jobs were genuinely difficult, if not impossible, to find. Her argument would appear to be that as economic circumstances have changed, so should the schemes and, therefore, cutbacks should be made. However, the test of necessity for the scheme is that if one has 20, 30 or 50 CE places available, be they in Mallow, Kilmallock or Newcastle West, invariably they will be filled.

There are no vacancies in social employment schemes because the need is still there to find suitable employment and training opportunities for many people across a broad spectrum of age and qualifications. If any proposed cutbacks are implemented, unfortunately, instead of participating in a social employment scheme and thereby helping to develop their own personal skills and the community at large, people will simply return to the lengthening dole queues. They will be in receipt of social welfare and offer nothing in return.

The social employment scheme is a win-win formula. It represents a win for the State, which gets value for social expenditure, as well as being a win for local communities that benefit directly from the work being undertaken. In addition to sporting and community groups, organisations looking after the elderly, the ill and the handicapped are also involved. Without their access to labour under the social employment schemes, many such groups would have to close down. That would represent a tremendous loss to rural and urban areas, but above all to the people who benefit from the work being done under such schemes. On a value for money basis, every euro of taxpayers' money spent on social employment schemes produces a magnificent return for the State. If cutbacks in these schemes are implemented it would represent a huge net loss to society.

It would be marvellous if everybody had qualifications of such standing that they could be guaranteed highly paid employment, but that never was the case and it never will be. There will always be a need for social schemes to provide openings, help and encouragement to people who do not have all the advantages that life may offer to others. Social employment schemes have worked wonders for thousands of people over the past ten or 15 years. We should recognise what they have achieved and also recognise that they can keep doing the same type of valuable work in the years ahead.

The Minister of State has a strong personal commitment to the schemes but he alone cannot make the decision to retain the full numbers participating in them. I ask him to put his political muscle behind this project to ensure that his ethos regarding the social employment schemes will win the battle at Cabinet level, rather than the ethos of the Progressive Democrats. The Progressive Democrats may have won the battle over the national stadium — a fight I was happy to see them win — but I would prefer it if they lost the battle over social employment schemes.