asked the Minister for Finance if he will give the break-down of the figure of £25 per week which the Parliamentary Secretary has stated was the cost of providing employment in Dublin for a man on unemployment assistance.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Cost of Providing Employment in Dublin.
The figure of £25 was obtained by dividing the total number of man weeks worked by unemployment assistance recipients in the period of 51 weeks ended 17th March, 1957, into the gross expenditure during the same period. It is regretted that an analysis of that expenditure could not be made in the time available to give a break-down of the £25 average. An inquiry has, however, been made over a more limited period for selected schemes; and the following figures show the breakdown of the weekly cost per unemployment assistance recipient employed on a typical scheme of road improvement and resurfacing work.
|
Wages—U.A. recipients:average |
£ 7 |
8s. |
5d. |
per week |
|
|
Wages—Non U.A. recipients, including foremen, skilled workers and key-men, watchmen and lorry drivers: |
|||||
|
average |
£7 |
1s. |
1d. |
,, |
,, |
|
Plant and Machinery—average |
£3 |
9s. |
11d. |
,, |
,, |
|
Materials—average |
£8 |
6s. |
3d. |
,, |
,, |
|
TOTAL |
£26 |
5s. |
8d. |
,, |
,, |
The figure of £26 5s. 8d. compares with the overall average figure of £25 for 1956-57. It should be borne in mind, of course, that the weekly cost per unemployment assistance recipient employed differs according to the nature of the scheme. In one of the cases examined, the average was £15 2s. 8d., and in another it amounted to £36 12s. 9d.
As the figure of £25 previously quoted has been misunderstood in some quarters, it is necessary to emphasis that a high weekly cost per unemployment assistance recipient employed is not a measure of the efficiency or otherwise of the labour employed: it is rather a measure of the low unskilled labour content of schemes carried out under modern labour saving methods. In this sense, an even higher weekly cost per unemployment assistance recipient employed might be an indication of higher over-all efficiency.
While preference is given to schemes with a high unskilled labour content, it is essential that all works should be necessary, and of lasting benefit to the community, and that efficient methods of construction should be used. While it might be possible in some cases to increase the unskilled labour content by reverting to older manual methods, this would greatly prolong the work, and although reducing the weekly cost per unemployment assistance recipient employed, would greatly increase the overall cost, and make the completed work entirely uneconomic compared with similar works done by normal methods.
Is the Minister aware that the patience of the unemployed is being exhausted and that, whatever the cost, work must be found quickly?
Arising out of that lengthy reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, could the reply not be boiled down simply to this, that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister find it a much easier proposition and a cheaper one to keep people on unemployment assistance or unemployed rather than put them into employment? Is that not the reason for the £25 figure which has been given?
The Government are just as much concerned about the unemployment problem as any of the Deputies who have spoken.
Further on that question, is it not a fact that for every £100 expended on public works the usual return is £150? The ratio is one to one and a half?
On every side of this House the doctrine of productive employment has been mentioned, but it is very hard to find productive employment in the City of Dublin. That is why the cost is so high—because of the fact that they are amenity schemes which in the ordinary way would not be carried out by the Dublin Corporation for a number of years, but they have to be brought up to Dublin Corporation standards.