I know that. As I said at the beginning, this Vote is merely dealing with an alleviation of the unemployment position in certain very well-defined areas. It is not an occasion on which we could discuss unemployment in general or what remedies the Government could suggest. It is easy for a member of the Opposition to shoot a question of that kind—what does the Government propose to do? —and he may be in order in doing so. I am quite sure, however, if I set out now to discuss for half or three-quarters of an hour the Government's programme for unemployment the Ceann Comhairle would have to rule me out of order.
Deputy Corish said we had cut down on all forms of employment, not only items of relief, but also of housing and roads. That is a very unjust accusation from Deputy Corish and Deputy Corish can hardly plead that he does not know the facts. I am quite sure he was a diligent Minister and knew what was going on, why it was going on, and would not agree to anything being done by another Minister in that Government without knowing about it. He, therefore, knows the things which were done by the previous Government and he knows that when I came to produce my Budget I provided an extra £2,000,000 for housing over and above what the previous Government provided in 1956-57. How can Deputy Corish have the hard neck to stand up here and say we are not doing enough for housing? The same applies to roads. In their last year in office, they took £500,000 out of the Road Fund. We did not take £500,000 out; we paid in £900,000 to make up for the raid of our predecessors in 1956-57.
We cannot be accused of being unsympathetic to housebuilding and the making of roads. There are occasions, however, when the local authorities meet difficulties on their own. I do not think any Government can be expected to surmount all the difficulties that local authorities deal with. I take it they are real difficulties, if the local authorities cannot get over them.
A good many Deputies on the other side of the House said that more should be spent on this Vote. The Government which represented the Parties on the other side of the House had a certain sum in their Book of Estimates for these relief schemes. In the Budget, I added £250,000. It is to be presumed that if the other Government had returned to office, we would not be discussing this £250,000 and there would be no opportunity of saying to the Coalition: Why do you only give £250,000 for relief schemes?
Deputy Murphy said that if I had gone to West Cork during the last general election campaign and if instead of saying we were going to solve the unemployment question—my memory may be bad, but I do not remember saying that—I said to the people of West Cork that I would be giving this £250,000 for the relief of distress, we would never have won the election. As a matter of fact, we had only come back and taken over Government when I said I would give £250,000 for distress. Neither Deputy Murphy nor any other Labour or Fine Gael Deputy objected. They all thought it would be a good thing to give a little more money for the relief of distress. However successful this or any other Government will be in the solution of unemployment, for years to come there will be room for certain expenditure on distress.
I was also asked by Deputy Murphy how I could justify getting the beneficaries under the rural improvements scheme to make bigger contributions from their own pockets. I think the last Parliamentary Secretary was unjustified in lowering the contribution. It meant less work could be done. If we can give £200,000 out of the Vote for the rural improvements scheme and if we say to the people: "You will benefit. We will take 33? per cent. from you," then £260,000 can be spent. The last Parliamentary Secretary did not agree with that. If we get £200,000 and only take 10 per cent., then only £220,000 will be spent. The increased contribution is a good thing and goes further in getting the work done.
A few Deputies raised a question in regard to the amount spent under this rural improvements scheme. An additional £65,000 was allocated. Only £50,000 was spent and the other £15,000 is to be spent after 31st March. We are asking for only £50,000. In the urban employment schemes, £140,000 was allocated out of the extra Vote. Actually, we are asking for £7,000 more so there will be £147,000 to spend before 31st March.