Deputy McQuillan gave notice that on the Adjournment he would raise the subject matter of certain questions on to-day's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate—Winter Relief Schemes.
Sir, you graciously gave me permission to raise two questions—Questions Nos. 22 and 23—on the motion for the Adjournment. In order that the position will be quite clear to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government, I want to inform him that I propose to deal solely with grants that have been allocated to local authorities. I have no great knowledge of the position in Dublin City and elsewhere. I am solely concerned with the position that is likely to arise in rural Ireland within the next six months, as a result of the decisions made to reduce drastically the amount of money made available in former years for winter relief schemes and rural employment schemes.
I regret that I have to raise these questions at all, in view of the fact that I had felt the welfare of the small farmer, the labourer and the worker in the towns of rural Ireland would be safeguarded, having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is a man who knows rural Ireland and the problems that affect the folk who live there.
The Taoiseach in many speeches in recent weeks emphasised the Government plans for the reduction of unemployment in Ireland generally and gave specific points of policy that are likely to affect the employment position in the rural areas. I have only to mention the Government's alleged concern with rural matters when I refer the House to the fact that within recent weeks, a Ministry for the Gaeltacht has been set up. In addition to that, we have in operation an undeveloped areas board charged with the setting up of industrial concerns, so that the employment figures in rural Ireland would mount and we would see an end in a reasonable space of time of the drain of emigration.
The Taoiseach and the Government now proceed to put this long term programme into operation by taking steps this winter which will do untold harm to the people in rural Ireland. Having professed their interest in rural Ireland, they set about implementing their policy for the coming winter by throwing out of employment thousands of breadwinners, thus ensuring that this coming Christmas will be one of gloom and depression in many homes in towns and villages and in the countryside.
What are the facts? In the year 1955-56, the grants made available to various county councils in Ireland under the rural employment schemes amounted to £58,850. The grants allocated this year, 1956-57, to the various county councils under the rural employment schemes amount to £5,000.
That is some drop— 90 per cent.
The Taoiseach, in a reply to a question tabled here to-day, admitted that a reduction in the allocation of money had taken place this year, but pointed out that the reduction was in the region of 15 per cent. and not the 60 per cent. suggested by a Deputy. The figures I have disclosed here, namely, a reduction from £58,850 to £5,000, constitute a reduction of 90 per cent. There can be no denial of that fact.
One of the reasons given for that reduction, according to the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to-day, is the necessity, in present financial circumstances, of limiting public expenditure. In order to cloud the issue, he goes further and states that the large carry-forward of unexpended grants on April 1st, 1956, amounted to £285,000 odd, which is available for expenditure in the current year. In other words, he suggests that there was a large carry-forward from last year and that that would now be expended this year.
I want to make it quite clear to the House that that large carry-forward has no bearing on or connection with the specific grants that I have mentioned, namely, the grants made available to various county councils. The over-all figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary include Dublin Corporation and other large bodies and they have no bearing whatever on the grants made available to the county councils.
If in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary makes reference to this carry-over, I want it to be clearly understood that it is a matter of clouding the issue involved, namely, the reduction that has taken place in the rural employment scheme grants to county councils—a reduction from £58,850 to £5,000 this year—and in case it is suggested that there is a carry-over, let me refer to Question No. 23, which affects my own constituency.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he would state in respect of Roscommon County Council the amounts allocated for winter relief schemes in the last and the current financial year. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the reduction was from £1,250 last year to £250 this year. Let us take the position as disclosed by the questions to-day in other counties in the congested areas —the areas in which this Government professes to have such a deep interest. Last year, Galway County Council were allocated £7,500 under the heading of rural employment schemes. This year, the allocation to Galway County Council is £1,380. Mayo County Council received an allocation last year of £13,500; this year the allocation is £250. The allocation to Leitrim last year was £2,750; this year Leitrim gets nil. Sligo got £2,500 last year and this year, the allocation is nil. Last year, the allocation to Roscommon was £1,250; this year, the allocation is £250. I will give one further instance of the position with regard to another county which includes a Gaeltacht area, that is, Donegal. The grant allocated to the Donegal County Council last year under the rural employment scheme was £15,500; the allocation this year is £700.
That is right.
They should get out altogether.
I would appreciate it if Deputies would allow me to finish my remarks. I suggest that this reduction in grants that were normally meant to tide poor families over the most difficult portion of the year—the winter months—will mean that the breadwinners who were kept working last year will now join the ever-increasing throng who go on the emigrant ship. This matter is of vital concern to these families.
My main reason for raising this matter to-day—and I do not deny it— is to ensure that the utmost publicity will be given in plenty of time to these families in rural Ireland. It would be far too late to have this position disclosed in the second week of December when it would be too late to do anything about it. Now is the time for this fact to sink home in the minds of Deputies——
Particularly Labour Party Deputies.
——whether in support of or in opposition to this Government. Now is the time when it must be brought home to the people in rural areas that the winter and Christmas which faces many of these families will be very poor indeed.
And in the cities as well.
In reply to a question, to-day, which has a great bearing on this, the Taoiseach, who was asked if the Government had any policy that could be put into operation to reduce substantially within the next three months the grave unemployment figures, replied that the measures included in the Government's programme are in fact permanent measures designed and calculated to bring about a lasting reduction in unemployment. I think I am quite justified in stating, from the figures and facts I have given to this House, that the Taoiseach's method of bringing about this lasting reduction in unemployment is to increase the rate of emigration.
The net result of this reduction in expenditure on grants in rural Ireland means an increase in the emigration figures. We all know that, once they go, they are very slow to return. I think it cannot be denied, therefore, that the lasting results of this policy now being put into operation will be to reduce the man-power and family-power here in Ireland at a time when we can ill-afford to lose it.
In many ways, the Parliamentary Secretary has manned the gap against opposition from the Dublin clique which tried at all times to put across their views in rural Ireland. I would ask him to take a firm stand on this issue. If he does, I can assure him that the people of rural Ireland will appreciate it and stand by him. I want him to be quite clear now that, when he is replying, there is no use in trying to cloud the issue by saying that a large sum of money was brought forward last year which was not expended.
So far as the county councils to which I have referred are concerned— and I have referred only to county councils—they expended the money allocated to them. Roscommon County Council expended it and I am quite sure there are people here to talk for Donegal and other counties. Roscommon expended the money made available to it. There is no carry-over available for Roscommon, but, nevertheless, we have this substantial reduction. If it is a question of urban areas, there are other Deputies here who can deal with that matter. I feel that my responsibility is to the rural areas and to the people in the small towns in rural areas which come under the direction and authority of the county council. As far as they are concerned, the reduction that has taken place in the amount of money available this year is in the region of 90 per cent. and no figures— no legal quibbles on the part of the Taoiseach or the other lawyer members of the Government—can hide that fact.
If, in the meantime, between this and December, no action is taken by the Government to increase these grants, then my words will be clearly proved correct next winter when we will find that the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charitable organisations will be working overtime doing the work that should be done by this Government in a practical sense. This is not a question of just a sop for the unemployed. Many of the works upon which the county council expended this money were of a practical and lasting nature. It is a quibble to suggest that this Government is concerned only with productive programmes. In the past fortnight, over £80,000 was expended by the Government in telling the people of rural Ireland to save more money. At the same time, by this reduction in employment grants, the Government is ensuring that these people in rural Ireland will not have a bite this coming winter. Nevertheless, they have the audacity to expend that large sum on advertising. Before it is too late, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene with the Government in this matter.
Deputy Blaney rose.
The Deputy has only one minute.
I will be brief. I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, whereas to-day the Taoiseach stated in reply to another question that the over-all reduction in these grants was about 16 per cent., according to a circular letter received before our council meeting on Monday, the reduction in the grant to our county council for the coming year is in the nature of 95 per cent. Furthermore, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in addition to relieving unemployment, these grants have been used to help to supplement our roads programme in a most definite manner. As a result of that system and tradition over the years, our five years' roads programme for the repair of county roads was designed to exclude roads in areas where these grants would apply.
The net result this year is that not only have we not got these moneys to spend, but no other moneys will be spent in those areas, for the simple reason that this money, and the roads outside the five year programme, cannot be put on. The money is not even sufficient to buy Christmas stockings for the children of the unemployed in our county. I want further to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in his reply he will indicate why it is that the reduction in some counties is not pro rata with others. In our case we have been reduced from £15,600 to £700.
I am sure what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say is of some importance and he has only a few minutes to reply.
I doubt it, but I must give way.
I heard about this matter only a few minutes ago, but Deputy McQuillan is generally in a hurry. It was only at 5 o'clock yesterday that he gave notice of this question at all, and he is more than dishonest, I regret to say. On Question No. 23 to-day, he asked me if I would state in respect of Roscommon County Council the amounts allocated for winter relief schemes in the last and current financial years respectively. My reply was that the total allocation for winter employment schemes in County Roscommon in 1955-56 was £4,535, of which £1,250 was allocated to the county council. The corresponding figures for the current financial year are £3,070 and £250, respectively.
On a point of order. In Question No. 23, I asked if he will state the amounts in respect of Roscommon County Council. He is now giving the figures apart from the Roscommon County Council.
Order!
I am not to be misrepresented.
The Parliamentary Secretary is replying.
The figures for 1955-56 are £4,535 and £3,070 for the current year.
Is that for the county council?
Surely the Deputy knows the question he asked. There may be a little reduction.
A little reduction?
Yes.
That is good.
The policy of this Government is not built on relief schemes or on charity. It is built on normal productive work. Under the Fianna Fáil Government, the idea in those schemes was just something to keep on, until work of a productive nature could be obtained. I believe that productive, normal work is much better than those relief schemes. I believe that many of those relief schemes in parts of this country are just waste of time. They are just money spent for the sake of keeping people in day-to-day employment, in the hope that something better will turn up. I believe that such works as the Government have in hands at the moment——
Such as?
Arterial drainage and work of that description. Even though the financial position is as it is, the Government have not cut down one halfpenny on any work of that nature. There is more work of a productive nature in Galway at the moment than there ever was.
Less people, too.
I am sorry there is not a Galway Deputy present. He would agree with me. My point to Deputy McQuillan is that if, later on, he sees any great cases of hardship in Roscommon, or Deputy Blaney, or any other Deputy——
I will give them to you to-day.
We have no arterial drainage in Roscommon.
You have.
Order!
Even under the Fianna Fáil Government, those schemes were never regarded as perfect employment for people, but as just something to tide them over. The Government in the present financial position, are doing their best.
It is not good enough.
In that line perhaps, in the near future, things might be better, and our hope is that these relief schemes will be completely cut out in the near future and that there will be productive employment for all.
They have practically gone as it is. The question I would like clarified is: since it is the Government's idea that these schemes are non-productive and only of a temporary nature, what is to replace them? Where is the productive work to replace them?
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will tell us if any moneys are to be expected, as Deputy McQuillan mentioned, in the next few weeks before Christmas? Is it the policy of the present Government to do nothing whatever for the 55,000 unemployed at the present time and is the Minister aware that within one week from now if this money is not put back, the Labour Party are getting out of the Government?
Is it a fact that £700 for Donegal County Council instead of the £15,000 for last year, is the final allocation?
The Parliamentary Secretary is being misled.
I am referring to the E.S.V. grants notified to Donegal County Council last year. I should like to know if we are getting a further allocation under that Vote this year.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggest that the work carried out by the Special Employment Schemes Office is not of a productive nature?
Is it not time to abolish the men in the headquarters of that office?
The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th November, 1956.