asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction that exists at Fairview Park amongst the men temporarily employed on the experimental scheme which is being carried out by the Board of Works and if he will withdraw the present regulations and introduce conditions that will give satisfaction to the workers and their representatives.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fairview Park.
The object of the provision of a sum of £2,000 in addition to the ordinary Relief Fund provision for Dublin to be spent on unskilled labour at the rate of wages of 10/- per day on the experimental scheme at Fairview Park was to ascertain by actual trial whether there existed any difficulty or liability to hardship peculiar to Dublin and the boroughs in the application to them of the rotational system of employment of able-bodied unemployment assistance recipients, which had been tried out in other parts of the country and, if so, to find the solution of, or the remedy for, such difficulty or hardship.
Representations were recently made to the Office of Public Works on behalf of the workmen, in respect of certain matters of administrative detail, and these were adjusted as far as possible.
The Minister is not aware that any valid ground for dissatisfaction remain, but if any Deputy for Dublin or any other person having knowledge of the special conditions obtaining in Dublin, and their relation to a scheme of this kind will put forward in writing a statement of any specific grievance or hardship now existing such representations will have immediate consideration.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the question I put. Is he aware that on yesterday Dublin T.D.s received a deputation in this House representative of the unemployed to protest against the conditions in Fairview Park, and stating that the difference in the amount of money they received by way of unemployment benefit and the amount of wages paid is not adequate for the amount of work done. They stated that in cases where a man would have 25/- unemployment benefit, by working he only earns the sum of 30/- spread over four weeks, and they protested against these conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to 10/- a day, making it appear that that might last for four, five or six days. Is he aware that last week they got only two days, whereas their allowance from unemployment benefit would be 25/- a week? Is he aware that the men complain that the difference between the unemployment benefit and the amount paid by his Department is not adequate for the amount of work done, in some cases only amounting to 5/- to 7/- a week?
I am fully aware that such a deputation was received and what was said, and the impression formed by those who received that deputation. I am, also, aware there is no case where any man has received 5/- or 7/- for a week's work.
It was so stated at the meeting.
I am assuming that every member of the House is anxious to get an honest understanding. In the answer I have given, I have indicated the means of the most rapid solution of any difficulty that does exist. Deputies may take it that every single man employed on the scheme is paid very considerably more than he would receive from unemployment assistance under the scheme. The whole difficulty is to find out whether there are any special difficulties here. I understand Deputies concerned are going to put forward representations based upon further information. Every representation we got has been fully examined, and every further representation we get will be examined in the same spirit.
What is the percentage increase in the daily allowance?
The allowance, as a matter of fact, in Dublin at present is based upon unemployment assistance plus the benefit of the beef ticket multiplied by 1.4.
What relation would the rate of wages paid on this scheme bear to the trade union rate paid for this work?
I think it is considerably above.
Considerably above?
I think 10/- a day for unskilled labour in Dublin compares very favourably with the trade union rate.
For how many days?
Is it correct that men receive for three days' work 28/7, which probably works out at the Minister's estimate of 10/- a day?
That would be true when you deduct the insurance contribution, but I think the House might take another view. Where the 10/- is paid, what the man gets is not 10/- less his insurance contribution, but 10/- plus the contribution of the State and of the employer to that insurance.