I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important matter. There is only six weeks left before Christmas and there is nothing surprising about the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's failure to provide a commitment to the people on the whole-time job initiative scheme. It is causing great distress among the 2,875 workers on the scheme and, in particular, the 1,000 participants whose contracts expire at the end of the year. They are rightly concerned that in the early days of the new millennium they will be in danger of returning to the same dole office they left three years ago when they took up employment under the scheme. At least back then most of these workers did not have expectations about how employment could impact on the quality of their lives but now that they have, work means something to them and the uncertainty of their future is hugely distressing.
I am extremely puzzled at the handling of this programme by the Minister. I have serious doubts about bringing in conventional consultants, such as Deloitte & Touche, to assess the efficacy of such a scheme. Such consultants do not know very much about such a programme and the diversity of jobs, tasks and projects that participants undertake. I have been pressing the Minister since last March to make clear how she intends to use the scheme in future. It is the middle of November and I still have not received a response. I was advised, for example, in response to a recent parliamentary question that she would make a decision on the jobs initiative scheme in consultation with the relevant social partners. Yesterday the Labour Party was informed by her on the Order of Business that such a decision would be made next week. However, as I understand it, she has not been in contact with them.
The jobs initiative scheme, similar to community employment, has not just impacted positively on the lives of the long-term unemployed. The benefits which accrued to local communities is also evident and for this reason the Minister can ill afford to further procrastinate on the future of this programme. The scheme was put in place three years ago and focused on the long-term unemployed. Eligibility requirements included that the participants should be over 35 years of age and unemployed for five years or more. The scheme guaranteed three years employment at the going rate for the job with different sponsors.
The scheme has been a considerable success and I do not say that because of my involvement in setting it up. It brought back into the workforce a category of people who had been unemployed for so long that most despaired of obtaining work again. I do not claim that the scheme is perfect but it has done wonders for the self-confidence of almost 2,900 people and their hopes for the future. I was disappointed that the training component of the scheme is not uniform and has not always been structured as rigorously as it might be. I also hoped for a higher level of placement in permanent employment but, ironically, that is partially due to the fact that many participants enjoy the jobs they are doing. In other cases, sponsors have not thought out sufficiently a role for participants.
However, the biggest question mark hangs over what the Government is planning for these people when these valuable schemes finish. Instead of considering altering and terminating parts of the programme it is crucial that the Government invests further in it making it more relevant to the needs of the participants and the communities they serve. I have pressed the Minister since last March to be clear about this because there are different categories of work involved, some of which are capable of transfer to the social economy unit which she has planned. I ask her to put people's minds at rest about this as speedily as possible.