Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1956

Vol. 160 No. 16

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment on Local Authority Schemes.

asked the Minister for Local Government whether he has formed an assessment of the number of persons who will either become unemployed or remain unemployed in the course of the next three months as a result of the instructions issued to local authorities by circular letter dated 27th November, 1956, from his Department, directing such authorities not to proceed with further projects without obtaining financial sanction from his Department or the Department of Finance.

asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that by virtue of his circular No. H. 17/56, dated 27th November, 1956, all public works of local authorities, including housing, sewage and waterworks, will be held up for at least one to two years; and whether the provisions of this circular are to be rigidly enforced by his Department.

I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 43 and 44 together.

The circular letter to which the Deputies refer will not have the results suggested. In the first place, the circular letter relates to projects not yet undertaken and will not affect works which are in progress. Secondly, the object of the circular is to have what was intended to represent standard practice in regard to borrowing procedure adopted by all the local authorities concerned so that the best possible use can be made of available capital and that no portion of such capital will be tied up by being reserved to meet liabilities of an uncertain nature that may not mature in the financial year to which the appropriate loans are relevant.

In view of the fact that this circular has created a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of local authorities in relation to work actually in progress, will the Minister say whether he will take steps now to notify local authorities that it does not affect in any way works which are at present in progress or for which sanction has been obtained? Secondly, is it not a fact that the effect of the circular will be to prevent local authorities from, as heretofore, initiating works awaiting sanction, in anticipation of sanction, and whether that will not inevitably create a considerable amount of unemployment in the course of the next two or three months?

I was not aware that local authorities were in any doubt as to the fact that they should proceed with works in progress. I most certainly will make it clear to local authorities that they should proceed with such works. The circular does not, in fact, refer to such works. With regard to the second query, all I can say is that we are trying to adopt a standard practice for all local authorities and we are anxious to ensure that capital will not be tied up in any financial year, capital on which there might be no draw until the following year. It is really organised planning we are endeavouring to procure.

May I further ask——

May I remind Deputies that there are 27 more questions on the Order Paper and, if we are to have supplementaries at this rate, we will never get through.

This is a matter of some importance. I appreciate fully the desire of the Minister to have planned development, but may I ask whether he does not consider the introduction of a scheme of this nature in the middle of an unemployment crisis highly dangerous? One does not start painting one's ship until it has been properly caulked.

This is a speech.

Organised delay, instead of organised progress.

Would the Minister say what works are in progress, what works are before his Department which are not yet sanctioned?

I am glad the Deputy recognises the fact that there is work in progress on the schemes. I thought the Deputy said there was no scheme in progress at all.

I am referring to a scheme for which sanction was sought nine months ago.

Top
Share