In the absence of the Minister for Finance I will move Vote 44. These grants that come under the heading of Relief of Distress amounting to £298,000 were passed before I was associated with the Local Government Department. I have no particular knowledge of the details of them. Those under the heading of B. were special grants for the relief of acute distress following military operations in midsummer. Some grants were expended in Dublin, Cork, and Waterford, I think. The details of each are given below; £20,000 for the relief of Belfast refugees who were housed first at Marlborough Hall and afterwards in Workhouses at Ardee and Castleblayney. I think they are nearly all off our hands now. I could not say whether the item No. 3 has been paid or not, but there is no doubt that we were responsible for the relief of many people who were driven out of various parts of the country, whose houses were burned and whose lives were threatened. It does not follow that everybody who claimed to have been obliged to leave the country was actually obliged to do so. I daresay amongst these refugees there were many pretenders and undeserving people, but on the other hand, there were undoubtedly many who were really forced out and who were cases for commiseration and who were very deserving and entitled to relief.
ESTIMATES. - RELIEF GRANTS.
Can the Minister tell us how much of this £275,000 has been spent?
Something about £250,000 or more—possibly £260,000.
Has that been spent?
Yes. As far as the Government is concerned they have sent out the money, to the extent of about £268,000.
The exact figure is £264,545.
Have you got an assurance that it is spent?
Are we to understand that local authorities are spending money at the moment on roads which will be destroyed almost the moment they are made? I should assume they are not, and they would have been more practical than to expend money just at this particular moment.
It was given out as far back as April last. Schemes had to be put up by each local authority and approved of by the engineers of the Local Government Department. Some of the schemes were held up. In one county I think the scheme was largely, if not wholly, confined to improving the approaches to the residences of the members of the Council. Naturally that was not approved of, and there were some delays like that, but generally speaking we met the local authorities with regard to these conditions and a scheme had actually to be put before us before being sanctioned.
Is it not the case that money raised by the taxation of motor cars goes to road maintenance.
Yes.
Is that included now?
No. This was a sum which the Government earmarked to relieve unemployment. The local authorities had been severely hit for the last couple of years, and had to limit expenditure on roads, and it was thought advisable, in view of the damage done in many counties, and of the unemployment that existed, and the necessity for showing that the new order had come about, and to bring it home to those people who had suffered during the war that there was a Government of their own in the country, and realising the economic necessity of it, this sum was earmarked for that purpose. It was divided exactly in the proportion of the withheld grants.
Was any condition made that any money spent would be given to men who are habitually working for wages? In many cases, I have been informed, but I do not know if it applies to this particular grant or not, that there is a reversion to handing out contracts to men who are just filling in their time at road repairs, but are not dependent on that occupation for their livelihood. I would like to ask, in this case, whether the money was spent specially for the relief of unemployment; if it was a condition to the local authorities that such persons should be employed on this work?
Do you mean would the local contractors be entitled to tender for this work?
I mean that the work should be done by wage labour, rather than by farmer contractors, who are very often given contracts for the upkeep of roads in their locality, and who do not employ any extra men on the job, but simply do it in spare time.
I may say, as far as I can speak for the county I come from, it is all done, with the approval of the Department, by direct labour.
With reference to that item and the grant to Dublin Port and Docks Board of £18,500, I would like to have some assurance from the Ministry that they would continue to back this scheme. It is of the greatest possible importance to the Port of Dublin and to the entire country. Three works of a very ambitious character, estimated to cost £250,000, were embarked upon some twelve or eighteen months ago, and the British Government, then functioning here, undertook to pay a certain percentage of the wages cost of these schemes, and the present Government took up the scheme and gave a certain grant. Unless the Government is prepared to continue some assistance, these works, I think, will have either to be abandoned or suspended for a considerable period, and the Port and Docks Board will not be able to provide sufficient revenue for the purpose of carrying it out. I would impress upon the Ministry the great importance of making provision for this. When it is considered the very great amount of money that is paid for unemployment insurance, I would like to stress the necessity of spending the money in this direction rather than giving doles, which lead nowhere, and result largely in a demoralisation of the people who receive them. This work is of the greatest possible importance, and it will increase the facilities for shipping in Dublin, and enrich not only the City of Dublin, but the entire country, by providing better berthage and greater accommodation for vessels trading to the port.
Motion made and question put: "That the Dáil in Committee, having considered the Estimates for Relief Grants in 1922-23, and having passed a Vote on Account of £340,000 for the period to the 6th December, 1922, recommend that the full Estimate of £348,000 for the financial year 1922-23 be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas."
Agreed.