Vol. 175 No. 4
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £547,730 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
Tugtar Vóta na Scéimeanna Fostaíochta agus Éigeandála ar an Vóta seo. Seans go mbreathníonn sé aisteach go bhfuil iarsma den éigeandáil chogaidh fágtha fós, fiú i dteideal oifige poiblí, cé nach bhfuil deire oifigiúl go fóill leis an éigeandáil a forfhograiodh tús an chogaidh dheireannaigh.
Ceapadh dhá scéim de na sé cinn sa Vóta chun chuidithe le soláthar móna agus toradh talmaíochta le linn an chogaidh sin. Is iad Forbairt Portach agus Feabhsuchán Tuaithe an dá scéim sin; ach cogadh nó síocháin, 'sé mo thuairim gur maith ann iad, agus go gcaithfí a leithéid a chur ar fáil luath nó mall le cuid den sclábhaiocht a bhaint as an bhfeilméaracht agus as saol mhuinntir na tuaithe is na talún. Níl aon ranníoc ar scéimeanna na Forbartha; ach tá ar iarratasóra Fheabhsucháin. Tá na scéimeanna Fostaíochta níos fuide ann, ach athraíodh na céad teidil a bhí orra. Baineann na cinn seo le líon na ndifhostuach a bhíonn cláraithe ag an Roinn Leasa Shoisialaigh. Tugann an Roinn sin faisnéis i Mí Eanair ar a mbíonn cláraithe an t-am sin i gcomhair Cúnaimh nó Sochair nó i gcomhair oibre, ins na Toghranna éagsúla agus ins na bailte móra. Tá oiread áirithe airgid ceaptha le saothrú ag gach fear a fostaítear. Roinntear an t-airgead go cothrom dá réir seo thús. Ba mhaith liom go mór dá mbéadh níos mó le roinnt ná mar atá luaite sa tairiscint. Nuair a cuimhnitear, amhthach, ar an laghdú i líon na ndifhostuach, agus ar an laghdú soláthair dá réir sin atá molta san "Forbairt Gheilleagrach" a chuir Roinn an Airgeadais amach i Samhain, 1958, agus atá chomh mór sin i mbéal lucht phoilitiochta faoi láthair, sílim go bhfuil an t-ádh linn go bhfuil an meastachán rud beag nios mó ná mar a caitheadh ar na seirbhisí seo anuraidh.
Tá mircheann sa Vóta seo a dtugtar "Scéimeanna Ilghnéitheacha" air. Tiurfar faoi deara i leith an mhirchinn seo go bhfuil "lámh istigh" ag an Rannóg seo i gcúrsaí chultúrtha idir sean agus nuaoiseach: faoi rá is go gcuidíonn sí le lucht soláthair páirceanna imeartha, agus le lucht tochailte láithrean agus suiomh seandálaíochta a bhionns ar thóir iontaisí an tseansaoil atá clúdaithe agus ceilte ag fód glas na hÉireann. Ina thaobh seo, tá sé le sonrú go bhfuil beartaithe tosaigh ag tochailt arís i mbliana ag Teamhar na Ríogh. Tá práinn ag gach Éireannach as stair na h-áite sin, agus beifear ag súil go dtiocfaidh an stair sin amach fíor de bharr na tochailte. Caithfimid éisteacht leis sin go ceann bliana eile.
The Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes makes provision for the annual programme of employment schemes to give work to men in receipt of unemployment assistance in urban and rural areas; and for other services such as bog development schemes, rural improvements schemes, and miscellaneous schemes such as minor marine works and archaeological excavations. Provision is also made for salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office who are responsible for the administration of the Vote.
In dealing with this Estimate, it is usual to give a résumé of the work done under the Vote in the preceding financial year, and I propose to follow that practice. The gross estimate last year was £853,400; but in addition, there was a sum of £48,000, being the total of unexpended balances of previous years' allocations from the National Development Fund, available for expenditure, bringing the total for urban employment schemes to £275,000 instead of £227,000 as shown against Subhead E in the Estimates Volume, and the gross total to £901,400. The actual expenditure last year is estimated at £858,700, which is approximately 95% of the provision. To give a comparative picture of the operations of the Special Employment Schemes Office in recent years, I have made available to Deputies a tabular statement giving particulars of the expenditure under the various subheads of the Vote in 1956/57 and 1957/58; the estimated expenditure for 1958/59, as well as the provision for these services in 1959/60. In this schedule I have shown the balance available in 1959/60 from the National Development Fund as £22,000, instead of £12,000 as it appears in the footnote at page 46 of the Estimates Volume. The expenditure from the Fund last year did not reach expectations and £22,000 is the more correct figure. For further details, it will, I think, be easier to follow if I deal with the expenditure in each subhead separately, but before doing this, I shall give some general figures of unemployment on which the employment side of the programme is based.
The distribution of the grants for urban, rural and minor employment schemes is related to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area. A census is taken annually in the third week of January by the Special Employment Schemes Office of the number of these men, as well as the number of persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit in each of the sixty urban areas, 477 non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over, and 2,875 rural electoral divisions in the whole country. This census includes, in addition to the men drawing unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefit, men who had been in receipt of such payments but who were working on the Special Employment Schemes Office schemes during that particular census week.
The 1959 census figure gives a total of 35,492 men in receipt of unemployment assistance, compared with 36,063 in January, 1958, a reduction of 1?%. The 1957 figure was 35,153. Including persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, the figures were 84,294 in 1957; 77,104 in 1958, and 74,929 in 1959. The reduction of 8½% in 1958 on the 1957 figures was followed in 1959 by a further reduction of almost 3% on the 1958 figures, or a total reduction of 11% in the two year period. The small drop in unemployment assistance recipients in 1959 compared with 1958 was general throughout the country, the urban figures being 12,006 for 1959 compared with 12,067 in 1958; and 23,486 in rural areas in 1959 compared with 23,996 in 1958. Including unemployment insurance benefit claimants, the drop was greater in the urban areas, the figures being 25,916 in urban areas in 1959, compared with 27,147 in 1958, a drop of 4½%; and for rural areas 49,013 in 1959, compared with 49,957 in 1958, a drop of almost 2%.
The number of unemployment assistance recipients who were employed on the schemes during the census week ended 24th January, 1959, was 2,081 and persons in receipt of unemployment benefit 652, giving a total of 2,733. The number of persons employed on the schemes under this Vote varies considerably during the year, the peak period being around Christmas. For the week ended 13th December, 1958, 6,103 men were employed, of whom 978 were in urban areas, 592 in non-urbanised towns and 4,533 in rural electoral divisions.
Subheads A, B, C and D provide for salaries, travelling and office expenses of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The provision for salaries shows an increase of £2,880, which is due partly to the normal incremental progression in the scales of pay and partly to the special 10/- per week increase granted during 1958. The increase of £250 in Subhead D is due principally to the increased use of the telephone in respect of which adequate allowance had not been made in recent years. The increased use arose mainly out of the necessity for frequent consultations with the district offices.
Urban employment schemes are intended to finance works in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the borough of Dún Laoghaire, and the fifty-five other urban districts. Grants, which are administered through the Department of Local Government, are conditional on the local authorities submitting suitable work schemes for approval by the Special Employment Schemes Office, and making contributions towards their cost. The local contribution in recent years has been 20% in the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, i.e. one-fifth; 17% or one-sixth in Cork and Limerick; 14% or one-seventh in Waterford and it averaged 12% in the fifty-five other urban areas, varying between 5% and 17% in the individual towns. A sum of £227,000 was provided in the Vote for these urban schemes in 1958/59, but, in view of the additional sum of £48,000 balance available for expenditure from the National Development Fund, we decided to make a sum of £270,000 available for new works last year, of which £150,000 was allocated to Dublin, £18,250 to Cork, £16,750 to Limerick, £8,500 to Waterford, £6,500 to Dún Laoghaire and £70,000 to the other fifty-five urban areas. The estimated expenditure in 1958/59 came to £253,500.
The Dublin schemes proceed the whole year round, each U.A. man getting a 12 weeks' spell of employment. The unemployment assistance recipients census figure for Dublin was 6,480 in January, 1959, compared with 6,617 in January, 1958, and 5,889 in January, 1957. Almost 54% of the urban unemployment assistance recipients are, therefore, concentrated in the Dublin area. Dublin Corporation were notified on 24th July, 1958 that a State grant of £150,000 was available for new works costing £187,500, subject to a contribution of £37,500. Schemes costing £182,486, of which £145,987 was State grant, were approved during the year, leaving a balance not taken up of £5,014, State grant £4,013, for which schemes were not submitted in time and which is now forfeited. Of the £146,000 State grants approved in Dublin, £25,000 was in respect of footpaths, £33,500 for various road works, and the remaining £87,500 was in respect of amenity schemes, including the development of Bushy Park, Terenure, £29,100; St. Anne's Park, Clontarf, £20,800; Dolphin's Barn open spaces, £5,600; remedial works on the Little Dargle River, £30,000, and in Baldoyle, £1,450.
The State expenditure on Dublin schemes last year amounted to £132,870. The average number of men employed on the schemes was 131, of whom 90 were unemployment assistance recipients. The number varied during the year from a peak total of 231 down to 68, of whom 172 and 42 respectively were unemployment assistance recipients. The amount which will be allocated to the Dublin county borough area in 1959/60 has not yet been determined. The desirability of finding suitable works of a high un- skilled labour content cannot be over-emphasised.
The Cork Corporation were notified on 21st July, 1958 of a State allocation of £18,250 for new schemes, subject to a contribution of £3,650, one-sixth of the total, £21,900. Schemes to absorb the full allocation for 1958/59 were duly approved, which included road and footpath works amounting to £17,100, and the clearance of derelict sites, at a cost of £4,800. The State grant expenditure, including works sanctioned in previous years, amounted to £21,290, so that some arrears of work in the Cork area were overtaken during the year. I had occasion last year to comment on the low unskilled labour content of some of the Cork schemes and, while the unskilled labour content of the schemes in 1958/59 was not as high as we would like, there was some improvement. The proportion of non-unemployment assistance recipients employed on these special schemes in Cork was also rather high. I am hoping that the improvement in the unskilled labour content will continue in the new year and that Cork Corporation will be able to employ a larger proportion of U.A. men on these schemes.
The full allocation of £16,750, conditional on a contribution of £3,350, total £20,100, was absorbed by the Limerick County Borough. The approved works were all either roads or footpaths, with the exception of a £2,700 scheme for the development of open spaces in the city. Waterford also submitted suitable schemes to absorb their allocation of £8,500, local contribution £1,415, total £9,915. Of the approved works, £6,730 was for road schemes and £3,190 for the clearance of derelict sites.
Schemes to absorb the full £76,500 made available for the other urban areas were duly approved, including £6,500 for Dún Laoghaire in respect of parks at Newtownsmith, Williamstown and Temple Hill and the improvement of the bathing facilities at Sea Point. Grants in the other urban areas varied from £250 in the case of the smaller towns such as Bundoran, Castlebar and Templemore, providing for only a few weeks' work for unemployment assistance recipients before Christmas, to £5,400 in Tralee, £5,200 in Drogheda, £4,000 in Sligo, £3,500 in Galway, etc., in the larger urban centres. The maximum number of weeks' employment which may be given to an individual unemployment assistance recipient in urban areas other than Dublin is eight weeks. As already stated, twelve weeks are allowed in the case of the Dublin unemployment assistance recipients.
The works approved in the other urban areas include £54,260 for roads and footpaths. The remaining £15,740 was in respect of various amenity schemes, such as parks and open spaces, car parks, cemetery paths, clearance of derelict sites, promenades and protection walls. The distribution of available money in the new financial year in the county borough areas and other urban districts has not yet been determined but it will follow the usual pattern proportionate to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area.
The provision in the Rural Employment Schemes subhead was £35,000 in the last two years, and this provision is repeated for the new financial year. As in recent years, these schemes will be confined to towns with a population of two hundred and over which have not got urban councils. The grants will be made available to the various county councils concerned, and the county councils will, as heretofore, be required to contribute a quarter of the cost. The schemes will be carried out in the weeks immediately preceding Christmas. The £35,000 available last year was divided among approximately 150 town areas, from which it will be seen that the allocation in nearly all cases was between £200 and £300. The approved works consisted mainly of footpaths and some very minor road works. The desirability of providing footpaths in the precincts or in the vicinity of towns will be appreciated by everybody, but I was disappointed to find that in many instances county councils used this money for the improvement of county roads sometimes even two miles or more outside the town areas from which the U.A. men had to be recruited. I think that it should be possible to find useful works of public utility other than road works within the immediate confines of these town areas to absorb the small sums of money which can be made available annually for these works. I am sure that in most of these town areas if county councils make local enquiries it should be possible to find alternative works of public utility, including the removal of eyesores, which could be carried out within a figure of a couple of hundred pounds and for which alternative funds may not be readily available.
Minor Employment Schemes make provision for the repair and construction of accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs in areas in which there are substantial numbers of unemployment assistance recipients, commonly referred to as the congested districts. The primary purpose of these schemes, which are carried out in the period November to March, is to give employment to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance in rural areas. The unit of distribution is the electoral division, of which there are some 2,875 in the whole country. These full-cost grants, however, are given in only about 400 of the electoral divisions, situated in parts of the twelve counties of Cavan, Clare, West Cork, Donegal, West Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo. More precise particulars of the geographical areas concerned were set out in the detailed statement by the late Mr. Beegan on the 1957/58 Estimates (Cols. 740-741 of the volume for the 2nd May, 1957).
As the schemes are carried out in the winter period only, drainage works are not regarded as suitable employment schemes. There is, therefore, no provision in this Vote for full-cost grants for land drainage. Farmers who will benefit by these works by having a good road to their houses, lands and bogs are expected to give road materials free, if they are available on their lands. As the work is for the benefit of unemployment assistance recipients the farmers are not themselves eligible for work on the schemes unless they are on the highest scales of unemployment assistance in the locality. Some 900 schemes, representing an expenditure of £130,000 and serving approximately 16,000 families to houses, lands and bogs were approved last year. The provision in the new year for this service is the same, i.e., £130,000.
The Bog Development Schemes subhead makes provision for road, drainage and other works to facilitate the production of turf by landholders and other private producers. The expenditure on this service was £99,177 in 1956/57, increased to £156,266 in 1957/58 and, it is estimated, will amount to £167,000 in 1958/59—some £7,000 in excess of the Vote provision in the subhead. 1,176 new schemes, costing £160,000, were approved last year, which facilitated approximately 32,000 families in the production of their turf. 521 of these were drainage works, representing an expenditure of £61,640, and the other 655 were road works, costing £98,360. The very wet year interfered considerably with turf production.
A number of schemes sanctioned in 1957, which were not carried out before 1st April, 1958, were completed last year in an effort to give as much assistance as possible to the fuel problem. The provision for the new year is £160,000. Bog drainage works are done in all parts of the country, and the bog road works under this subhead are done in areas which are not catered for by Minor Employment Schemes. The necessity for these schemes needs no emphasis from me, and my only regret is that funds are not available to do much more work than the sum provided will permit.
The Rural Improvements Scheme makes provision for grants towards the cost of carrying out works to benefit the lands of two or more farmers, such as small drainage schemes, bridges and the construction or repair of accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs. It is a contributory scheme and applies to all parts of the country, irrespective of the unemployment position. As I explained last year, the scheme was introduced in 1943 to assist farmers in areas outside the congested districts to repair accommodation roads to their houses, lands and bogs. Up to that year, no State assistance was available for non-county roads in these areas. The original scheme provided for grants of threequarters of the cost, the farmers finding the other quarter. In the case of link roads which serve persons other than the farmers whose lands adjoin the road, more favourable terms were available. This arrangement continued until June, 1950, when sliding scale terms were introduced, a 95 per cent. grant being available for farmers whose average land valuation was below £6 and 75 per cent. grants being made available to farmers with an average valuation of £18 and over. In 1956 and 1957, however, adequate provision was not made to finance the contributory scheme on this basis. The issue of new offers of grants was stopped in August, 1956, and the receipt of new applications had to be suspended in September, 1956. Moreover, only £150,000 was provided for this service in the Printed Estimates for 1957/58.
The new administration decided in July, 1957, to make additional State funds available for this important scheme. It was considered that there should also be some increase in the scale of contributions from the benefiting landholders, as the benefits accruing to these landholders from the works were sufficiently good to admit of an increase in the rates without causing hardship. With effect as from the 20th July, 1957, the minimum contribution is now 10 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. The 25 per cent. contribution applies to farmers with an average land valuation of between £15 and £18, instead of to those with an average land valuation of £18 and over, as was formerly the case. Proportionate increases were made also in the case of farmers whose average valuations ranged between £6 (10 per cent. contribution) and £15. Farmers with an average valuation of between £50 and £100 now pay 40 per cent. of the cost and, in cases where the average land valuation is over £100, the State pays half the cost and the benefiting farmers the other half.
The original provision for this service in 1957/58 was £150,000. In view of the additional funds made available to the Special Employment Schemes Office that year, we were authorised to enter into new commitments amounting to £215,000, and 798 schemes to absorb the full amount were duly authorised. The actual expenditure was £194,654. £200,000 was provided for this service in 1958/59 and 771 schemes, costing £199,988, were duly authorised. The expenditure, however, will, it is estimated, amount to only £181,000. The very bad weather in the summer of 1958 and the fact that some of our engineering staff in the winter had to be diverted to work on Gaeltacht schemes contributed to the slow progress and the fact that the balance of almost £20,000 was not expended. A provision of £200,000 is again being made available for this service in 1959/60.
The provision for miscellaneous schemes was £15,000 in 1957/58 and 1958/59, and this figure has been repeated for 1959/60. The expenditure last year, it is estimated, amounted only to about £8,000. This subhead is required to meet expenditure on minor marine works, towards the cost of which county councils are required to contribute and which they are required to maintain on completion. Owing to a number of circumstances, only about £5,000 was spent last year. The subhead also finances archaeological excavations and a few other miscellaneous schemes such as sportsfields. The expenditure on archaeological excavations last year amounted only to approximately £1,500 in respect of works at Rear Cross, County Tipperary, Drombeg, County Cork, Glendalough, County Wicklow and Dalkey Island, County Dublin. The International Archaeological Convention in Hamburg in 1958 interfered with the programme originally proposed. This year, it is anticipated excavation work will be resumed in Tara and the expenditure at this and other centres will, it is expected, amount to £2,500. It is hoped also to increase the expenditure on minor marine works.
The Appropriation-in-Aid subhead is made up almost entirely of the contributions in respect of the Rural Improvements Scheme, which amounted last year to £32,800. It also includes receipts in respect of works on privately owned bogs, the county councils' contributions towards the cost of minor marine works and the sale of surplus stores. The amount in the Estimates for 1957/58 and 1958/59 was £30,000. The total amount realised last year exceeded £34,000 and £35,000 is included in this year's Estimate.
Apart from the works financed from Vote 10, the Special Employment Schemes Office acts as the agent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of the carrying out of development works to facilitate the output of turf for the four hand-won turf-fired generating stations at Caherciveen, County Kerry, Miltown Malbay, County Clare, Screeb, County Galway, and Gweedore, County Donegal. These works are financed from an allocation of £80,000 made available to the Minister for Industry and Commerce from the National Development Fund, and expenditure amounting to approximately £12,000 was undertaken by the Special Employment Schemes Office on these schemes last year. In addition, the Special Employment Schemes Office acts as agent for the Minister for the Gaeltacht in respect of the carrying out of accommodation road works in Gaeltacht areas, financed from the Vote of that Department. Last year was the first year in which these works were undertaken and schemes costing £40,600 were authorised for execution. The expenditure on these schemes amounted to approximately £24,000. The preparation of estimates of works exceeding £40,000 and the supervision of approximately £24,000 worth of these works took up a certain amount of the time of the engineering staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office and was, as already stated, a contributory cause of the failure to expend the full sum available for the Rural Improvements Scheme. The expenditure for the turf-fired generating stations and Gaeltacht schemes will, of course, be accounted for in the Votes of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for the Gaeltacht respectively.
Quite frankly, I did not contemplate having to speak first. There are, however, a few matters I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, I want to refer to the grants which are given to urban areas for the alleviation of unemployment during the winter. The sum in relation to the total Estimate is quite a formidable amount. As the Parliamentary Secretary explains from time to time, the grant is made in relation to the number of unemployed in the previous January.
The main purpose of the grant is to relieve unemployment. I do not know whether or not that purpose is achieved or fulfilled. I am not now making any allegation against the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like information on one particular matter. It has come to my notice from time to time that all the moneys granted are not spent. In this connection, neither I nor anybody else can take either the Government or the Parliamentary Secretary to task. I may be wrong in this and that is why I have asked for guidance from the Parliamentary Secretary. There have been occasions—not this year, but for many years past—upon which local authorities did not use up all the moneys granted to them for the relief of unemployment. In circumstances in which we have, and have had over the years, so many unemployed that is a bad situation.
I know many urban areas—this happened during the two periods in office of the inter-Party Government as well as during the periods in office of the Fianna Fáil Government—which were given grants to relieve unemployment and which did not fully utilise those grants. Now, that is a fact. My criticism, therefore, is not directed to the Government or the Parliamentary Secretary but to the local authorities whose officials are too lazy—I want to withdraw the word "lazy"; let me say rather "reluctant"—to prepare schemes and have them approved by the local authorities and by the Department of Local Government to relieve unemployment for which purpose certain moneys are provided.
Surely that would be a matter for another Vote. It is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am exonerating him. But the moneys are given directly by his Office. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will try to insist that money given by the Government will be spent, and every penny spent.
We cannot do that because local government has to find the scheme.
Local government, as the Department of Local Government, in the Custom House has not to find the schemes—it is the local authority. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary means?
That is what I mean— the whole local government outfit.
My criticism now is that moneys given in this Vote are not fully used, and there are enough people drawing unemployment assistance who could very well be employed in laying footpaths, removing corners and doing work which will benefit a particular area, but will primarily relieve unemployment. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give some information on that point. Perhaps he could say whether the situation has obtained this year or last year or during his term of office. Will he try to see that all the moneys so provided will be spent in the future?
Those are the most important comments I wish to make on this section of the Vote. The money provided in it represents about 25 per cent. of the total vote. I cannot say that I am well versed in bog development or any of the other schemes provided for here, but it is very important that these moneys should be spent. I know that on occasion local authorities have sought and got permission from the Parliamentary Secretary to carry their schemes over the 31st March. In that way, they can expend any balance unexpended at 31st March, but in many cases, as I have said, I know that money has not been spent by urban authorities but returned to the Department, from places where there is a big unemployment problem.
I feel this is a matter on which I should say something this evening, and my first duty is to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department on the very useful money they have made available to local authorities. Deputy Corish suggested that some local authorities have failed to spend the money allocated to them and I suppose there is some reason for that. It may be that a local contribution is expected. That may be the reason, but I fail to understand why any responsible local authority should not avail of it.
In the constituency I represent, Limerick, we have both a rural and an urban unemployment problem. This is very useful money and we in Limerick Corporation look forward to it every year, because owing to the extension of the borough boundary some years ago, we have very many problems in relation to roads and footpaths. That work has been done so far as funds were available and the Corporation were very willing at all times, when we knew what money was being placed at our disposal, to give an allocation. The records of the Department will prove that we in Limerick city have availed fully of the money allocated. As a result, we have carried out schemes which the Department approved and which were submitted to our engineers in Limerick Corporation. We have now, to a great extent, solved many of the problems which members of the Corporation are continually asked to solve.
We all know that the problem of the provision of housing is very often left to the local authority. It is debatable at times as to whether or not they are responsible, but very often it has to be agreed between the manager and the people concerned that the Corporation will do some part of the work in the improvement of roads or paths. In the case of rural improvement schemes, so far as I am aware, that money has been availed of also. The minor employment schemes, too, are most useful because very often we find a farmer living in a backward part of the country, far from the public road, who has been neglected for years. Some of these people are being relieved and, while they all cannot be helped, some very, very useful work is being done.
My approaches to the officials of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and letters I have had cause to write to them, I must say, have always been received with courtesy, encouragement and help. It is only right that I should place that on record when this Vote is before the House. In regard to bog schemes, in my constituency, there is not a very big bog problem but there is some problem. I can say we do the best we possibly can to help those people who save their own turf and that many useful roads have been built by reason of the allocation of these funds.
Rural improvement schemes are, to my mind, one of the big necessities of to-day. In Limerick anyway, owing to the increased number of roads, the county council have, from time to time, been compelled to restrict the amount of money spent on the roads. To my mind, the rural improvement schemes are, to a great extent, a solution when the farmers are willing to co-operate in carrying out the work. If farmers can come to terms with the Department, they will be doing some very useful work. I have in mind many cases where farmers come to me and ask can work be done through the Department, and I always look at the Vote to see how much money is available. I know how difficult it is to allocate money over the Twenty-Six Counties to do all the jobs that are expected to be done in any year. I do not wish to say any more on that.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will be very glad because of the useful employment that is given under those headings. It is most useful because it is work that can be done at a slack time of the year, when work is not available on the land and at a time when farmers are free to help in the schemes that are so much needed in their own localities. I think far too much demand is being made on local authorities and on the Government Departments concerned, and it would be well if we public representatives, when confronted with these problems, would meet people in their own localities and impress upon them that it is expected of them that they do a little of the work on their own or, at least, bear reasonable costs. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials of the Department on the great work they have been doing in my constituency.
I take it that the motion to refer back the Vote is not being moved?
In whose name is it?
That of Deputy T. Lynch.
Evidently not.
I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the fine and comprehensive statement he has made in introducing this Vote. There are just one or two points I want to mention in connection with it, one of which comes under the heading of minor employment schemes. In the western areas, and I presume in every other area where such schemes are in operation, from time to time, application forms are filled asking for road repair work and, at the same time, grants are made available in conjunction with local authorities for small piers or slips at certain seaside places where they are necessary for the landing of seaweed or the harbouring of boats. It is wrong that where such piers or slips are built, local farmers or boatmen are unable to reach them with their horses and carts or small lorries, as the case may be, and I think that when a pier or slip is built, the Department should make sure to put the road leading to that pier into proper repair, if not in the year in which the slip is built, then in the year following. Some of the piers in the West cannot be used at the present time for the landing of seaweed because the roads leading to them are in such a bad state of repair. They should be given more attention.
Some time ago, I received a complaint with regard to the inspection of a road. I do not know whether I was being told the truth or whether I was being told a falsehood, but there is no harm in mentioning it. It was a case in which a road had been applied for and when the inspector or engineer made his visit he did not call on the persons whose names were on the application, and he was not given the proper information. If that is so, I sincerely hope it will not happen again in the future.
There should be more co-operation between local authorities and the Department. Speaking for my own local authority, if there was some co-operation to see that roads were made to a width of 12 or 14 feet, the local authority would be satisfied to take charge of them. If that is not done, the road is left in charge of the Department and, after two or three years, it falls into bad repair again. Where new roads are made, or where roads into villages are repaired, if they were made to a width of 12 feet between fences, I think that the local authorities concerned would be satisfied to take them over and maintain them.
I have just a few questions to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, but, before I do so, I should like to say how much I regret that this Vote is not much larger, not because that is an accusation against the Government for not making it more, but on general principles. Both the previous Government and the present Government have made the mistake of not devoting money to work that can be carried out under this Vote, rather than using money to pay unemployment assistance. The vast amount of money being used to pay out doles and unemployment assistance is, to my mind, demoralising, when men in this country are willing and anxious to work, and when the work is there waiting to be done.
I would much rather see this Vote doubled, and a corresponding reduction made in unemployment assistance, because I believe the dignity of employment is an essential thing to give to our people and, from my knowledge of our ordinary working people, they would much prefer to do hard, honest work and to be paid a reasonable rate, rather than exist on doles and pittances on which they are expected to keep alive during long periods of unemployment.
On the question of employment in urban areas under the Emergency Schemes Vote, I should like to ask if there is a time limit within which this work should be carried out? The local authority of which I am a member are engaged in a continuous project of running a sea wall along the sea front, with the double aim of protecting the urban area from erosion and, at the same time, providing tourist facilities such as a promenade. Unfortunately, that work has been done during the winter months, at a period when the seas are rough and the weather is inclement. Our main trouble is very heavy seas and much of the value of the work is ruined on occasion by the seas coming in.
I am well aware of the need for having employment schemes at a time when work is scarce, but I would suggest that applies more to rural areas than to urban areas. In urban areas, the difference between unemployment in winter and summer is not so very great, and I would suggest that local authorities should be permitted to use this money during a period of the year when they thought best to use it, when the same value would be got from the point of view of giving employment, but when the productive value of the work would be considerably increased. I am not certain, but I have a feeling that there is a period laid down by the Department in which the work has to be carried out. Primarily, as far as I know, the Department limits the work to the period from December to the following April and, as we all know, that is the worst period for carrying out the type of work I am speaking of now.
There is another question in regard to a farmer who applies for a grant under the rural improvement scheme to improve a road leading to his property. In many cases farmers who either have land in that vicinity or use the place are requested to join with him in the application. In a case, the particulars of which I have with me, there are four or five farmers using a roadway over which a bridge is needed to make it available to the farmers in the area. One farmer is anxious to get the work done but the others refuse to join with him in signing the form primarily because they are afraid of having to pay a contribution. Although this farmer is quite willing to put up the necessary share required by the Department he is loath to give the names of the other farmers seeing that they have refused to join with him. He is prepared to pay the whole sum required.
Because of failure to get any other farmer using that boreen to join with him the Department turned down his request some six years ago. He asked me to make representations to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I intend to do that. However, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say when he is replying if it is correct that, even though he is prepared to put up the amount of money required by the Department, he must lose the benefit of the scheme because his fellow farmers will not co-operate with him.
This Vote is of great value in keeping our unemployed engaged on necessary work. Any money spent on work of this type is useful and good for the morale of the people.
As Deputy Kyne has said, much useful work can be done through the rural improvements scheme and minor employment schemes. Not alone is it possible to relieve unemployment but also to provide the amenities which these schemes are intended to make available. By way of rural improvement schemes, much useful work might be done on roadways leading to farms. Sometimes the work is hampered where one person may be unwilling for one reason or another—for instance, being unable to make a contribution or not being neighbourly in the matter. It is a pity that schemes cannot be carried out in such cases where the requirement is that two or more people must join in the scheme.
There are quite a number of roads which county councils are loath to take over because perhaps they are too narrow or in a bad state of repair. If there could be some co-operation with the Department of Local Government in relation to the matter which would secure that the local occupants of the land through which these roads run would contribute their share, a solution to the problem might be reached.
In relation to the people employed in these schemes, employment is given by reference to the Employment Office. As regards the position of overseer for such schemes, where unemployed people are on the list and where the local engineer considers them suitable, they ought to be considered for the work of overseer as well.
I am glad to see the amount of money provided for these schemes is up to the standard of previous years. There is one point to which I wish to draw attention in connection with the minor employment schemes in certain electoral districts. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned 400 over 12 counties. In my constituency there are certain places which might be included in these electoral districts but which for one reason or another do not seem to have come into the reckoning. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that question.
The sum allocated for these works from 1956-57 to 1959-60, is very much the same. There is a slight drop this year as compared with last year. The rural improvements schemes are about the best of the various schemes. When people have to subscribe towards the local contribution required they expect to get work on the scheme, whereas the rules only allow those drawing unemployment assistance to qualify for work. I would suggest that where a sufficient number of people are not drawing unemployment assistance in the particular area those who contributed should get preference when extra men are required.
I am sure it is the experience of all Deputies that when work is being done under a rural improvements scheme some of those employed idle at the work. Farmers do not like to see that when they have contributed their share towards carrying it out. Our minor relief schemes people also, drawing unemployment assistance, have the idea that that money is just given to them to help them over a period. The work is generally carried out sometime before Christmas. It would do them good if they got a reminder to work harder. It is not easy for the gangers to get them to do that but if the gangers were sure that the engineers of the Special Employment Schemes Office and the local engineers were behind them, it should be possible to get the employees to work a little harder on those schemes. I am sure it has been the experience that these works have not always been carried out very efficiently and that some of the money is wasted.
I would make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with bog development. In the Cahirciveen area people have good turf for the supply of the turf generating stations and I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the very near future, he would have an inspection carried out of the various roads in areas where a great deal of turf was cut last year. Because of the wet year that turf is only drying now and the people cannot bring it out because of the condition of the roads. I could give the names of several roads to the Special Employment Schemes Office, but I am sure they have a list already. If any money is being made available in the near future for bog development and for these roads, I trust that the most essential reads will be attended to first, especially roads to districts were people cut turf for the generating station.
It would be well if people who work on these schemes would work a little harder and that perhaps the gangers concerned would see to it. I feel sure that the engineers on their part would wish that the workers would do something better. The one grievance of people who contribute money, especially, and even of people who expect roads to be done where there are a certain number of unemployed, that is, under a minor relief scheme, is that the money allocated is not well spent. I am sure the engineers of the Department and all concerned are doing their best to carry out the various schemes and they are very useful.
Reference was made by two previous speakers to the county council taking over roads when they are improved under a rural improvements scheme, especially. I am sure some councils do that. We do it in Kerry. We have to be very careful because we have a big mileage of roads. Some people feel that once the road is repaired, the council should take it over. You can always, a couple of years afterwards, get a supplementary grant to keep the road in good repair. I am sure that that work would be carried out better under a rural improvements scheme than under the county council.
Several of these roads in remote areas were once known as by-roads or accommodation roads. It is well known that the money allocated by the county council is very small and that stewards, naturally, do not give the attention to these roads which they should. I do not know that it would be well in all cases that the council should take them over when they have been improved under a rural improvements scheme. The council, on the advice of their county engineers, have always, I am sure, acted wisely in those cases.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the increased provision for rural improvements schemes. The provision for bog development is down somewhat. For rural Deputies, I think the most important matter is the provision for rural improvement schemes, which has been increased this year.
I would not agree with Deputy Palmer that men employed on such schemes are not working as hard they should. I think they are. I may be wrong—I am not an engineer or a professional man—but I think the Department's engineers are inclined to overestimate the amount needed for schemes. It frequently happens that there is a surplus of money when a scheme has been completed. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear the air with regard to that matter. I feel it is the policy of engineers to over-estimate the amount of money required for schemes, with, as a result, an effect on the local contribution.
I have in mind a certain flaw which should be rectified. I shall cite an instance. A scheme may get the approval of the Department from A to B. A certain amount of money is being provided under a rural improvement scheme. From B to C, there is an entrance to a single house. At present, in the Office of Public Works, even if it comes under a rural improvement scheme, the usual reply is that it would be excessive to continue the road into that house. They are prepared to make the road from A to B; yet from B to C may be the more important part.
It frequently happens that it is the family living at the C end of the line that makes the highest contribution and yet no provision is made for them. What happens then? It is all State money. Having been refused a rural improvement scheme, they can apply for a farm buildings scheme and get a grant of about 10/- a perch to make a road by providing that they will do the work themselves. The grant of 10/- per perch has some value in providing the material. I feel that that system is very wrong.
I came across a case recently in my district where a man had no entrance to his farm. He has only a small farm and keeps nine cows. He has been granted permission by a sympathetic farmer to enter through his land. The Office of Public Works are prepared to give £261, provided he puts up £81. He is prepared to do that. They intend to make the road only from the public road to the boundary of his farm which means he will still be three quarters of a mile away from his house and no provision is made to enable him to get into his dwelling-house. That is unfair. I cannot understand why that should be the policy of the Department. He is prepared to put up money with the others. A farmer has given him free access from the road. He has only a small farm and he has a young family. The road will go only as far as his boundary. Then, from his own resources, he will have to make a road right into his farm. He can apply for a farm building scheme grant and he will get 10/- a perch. It is all public money. I do not see why the Department should do the job from A to B and then stop at bringing the road to C.
I think the engineers are excessive in their calculations. I fear they are overestimating the cost. On various occasions, I have inquired into the matter. The answer we get is that many factors have to be taken into account, such as the increase in the cost of materials, increased wages, and so on. I submit that many local factors should be taken into consideration against that. Sometimes materials are readily available for particular work. Sometimes a certain type of quarry is at hand which yields material suitable for road-making, whereas in other cases, the material has to be drawn a long distance.
There is one other point I would like to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the method of recruitment. Twelve months or two years ago we felt very upset because of the decision of his Department to take this type of work away from the councils and we were sceptical about what the result might be. We were satisfied with the way the work was being done and the manner in which they were recruiting labour. Since the Department has taken it over, we have had no cause to complain except in one direction into which I have made many inquiries and about which I should like a check up.
If a job comes up in a local area, I understand the function and the business of the engineer in charge of the district is to go to the labour exchange where he will get a list of the people unemployed in that particular town-land, or in adjoining townlands. As far as I understand the managers of the labour exchanges are instructed to give the list of unemployed in order of merit, so far as dependants are concerned. So far as West Limerick, which I represent, is concerned, I found that the recruitment was not taken in that order. There are men who have dependants and who are placed in numerical order for recruitment but somebody from the tail-end of the list, and who has no dependants, may be recruited instead of those at the head of the list.
The Parliamentary Secretary should be very rigid about the method of recruitment and see that it should be carried out according to the amount of unemployment assistance, and that those in receipt of the highest amount of unemployment assistance should be recruited in that order. There should be no picking out of people who are down on the list and who probably have only one or two dependants, while workers with a greater number of dependants are left on the dole. I had occasion to mention this point on another occasion to the Parliamentary Secretary and now that we have the opportunity, I am taking advantage of this Estimate to bring it home again. We have a certain amount of unrest and dissatisfaction in this respect and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that recruitment is carried out in the order of merit without fear or favour, without any deviation and just in the order found on the register of unemployed.
I should like again to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the point I made about houses which are isolated. I cannot understand why his Department cannot spend sufficient money to do a good job rather than leave 400, 500, or 600 yards or a half a mile undone. It is all State money.
Like Deputy Carew, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing a very special word of thanks to the officials in this Department. On both sides of the House we can safely say that they are most courteous and co-operative in every way. I am glad to see that the Vote has been increased and, if it were possible, I should like to see it doubled. I believe, with Deputy Carew and Deputy Palmer, that it is the next best thing we can do to save the ratepaying community in the various counties in providing for roads which over the generations have been sadly neglected. With those few points, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary every good luck in his work.
I thank Deputies for the tribute they paid to the Special Employment Schemes Office. From my own experience over a number of years that tribute is well deserved. Perhaps I would have been a little more pleased if it had been tempered with a little leavening of criticism because unadulterated praise, I am afraid, is bad for them.
I do not know that anything of a serious nature has been raised which would require special attention. Certain questions like the recruitment of labour for rural employment schemes and the type of schemes accepted by the Office from local authorities were mentioned. There are problems such as that which was last mentioned by Deputy Collins, the problem of the man at the end of the road. These are typical problems that we come up against in the Office.
It is true that we had some difficulty in recent years in getting a sufficient number of schemes from local authorities to absorb the entire allocation but last year, only Dublin, I think, fell short and the sum by which they fell short was comparatively small. Arising from that, I should like to tell Deputy Kyne that the works must be completed before the end of the financial year or the money is forfeited.
Yes, but what is the date for starting? It would be all right if you could start on the 1st April.
November to March.
That brings it within the winter period.
These are winter schemes.
Do you not agree that you lose the productive content? That is what I am putting to the Parliamentary Secretary, that he should use his influence to change that system if it does not require legislation. I do not know if it does.
We have three categories of relief schemes, minor employment schemes, urban employment schemes and rural employment schemes. If the Deputy will listen, I shall explain it in my way. We have minor employment schemes which are confined to what are generally described as the twelve congested district counties and they are done in the winter time. We have urban employment schemes which are done in the areas that are badly off and which are referred to in my statement. We have rural employment schemes, for which there is a sum of £35,000, done in areas of populations of 200 and up to urban standards. These are three categories of relief schemes and they are done in the winter time.
The other schemes are the rural improvement schemes which apply to the whole country but can be availed of in the M.E.S. districts as well as outside. Then we have bog development schemes which do not go into M.E.S. districts. They are usually done in the summer time. Neither a rural improvement scheme nor a bog development scheme is regarded as an employment scheme, but nevertheless the officials in charge must recruit the labour from the labour exchange.
I come now to another point raised. If there are not a sufficient number of unemployment assistance men or of unemployment assistance men plus unemployment insurance men, then, and only then, can the engineer go outside to recruit labour. He then has two categories from which he can supplement the complement of people available from the unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance lists. They are residents of the road, or those not entitled to unemployment assistance payments who have registered for employment. It is only after he has exhausted the unemployment assistance and the unemployment insurance lists that he can go outside. Commonsense is applied to the limit beyond which the engineer may not go in his recruiting. We do not want to have men travelling too long distances.
The case which Deputy Collins quoted seems to be a very hard one. A man is prepared to put up £81. He is the odd man out in a rural improvement scheme. Again, I am afraid it is a question of the financial limitations under which we are operating. As Deputy Collins himself pointed out, there is the farm improvement scheme. I am afraid there is no way out of that difficulty, except, of course, a considerable increase in the amount of money placed at the disposal of the Office. In this connection, I should say that the signatures are not necessary. One person can put up all the money for a rural improvement scheme, but the road must serve a minimum of two householders. A work that cannot be done in the winter time is not looked upon as an employment scheme in the Special Employment Schemes Office.
In view of the drop in the number of registered unemployed and also for the reasons set out in the economic development document produced by the Department for Finance, I think we have done well enough in the Office in maintaining, in the main, the sums given last year. Therefore, I believe we should be able to confer proportionately greater benefit on those entitled to employment.
One Deputy after another repeated the same type of difficulty. If I have left out any point, I certainly shall undertake to communicate with any Deputy whose query I have not dealt with. With regard to Deputy Palmer's inquiry about the Caherciveen turf generating station, I suggest to him that he get in touch with the supervisor of the station in regard to making a grant available for the repair of a bog road serving that station.
With regard to Deputy Geoghegan's question about the approach road to slips and piers, for a number of years, it has been the practice to include in the grant for the improvement of such structures as piers and slips a sum to cover also improvement of the approach roads.
Might I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of one matter I raised, that is, whether or not there is a substantial amount of unexpended moneys returned?
This year, only in the case of Dublin City; and the sum is very small, £4,000.
The Parliamentary Secretary could not say anything about other urban areas?
For years, there was a problem in the four county boroughs. Perhaps I should make an honourable exception of Waterford; they were not too bad. There was a problem in the county boroughs of finding acceptable schemes. By that, I mean schemes with a sufficiently high labour content. When moneys of this kind are made available to local authorities, there is a temptation to do schemes they would not do out of their own resources, if they had to bear the full cost themselves. In the Special Employment Schemes Office, we have to keep a check on these schemes to ensure that they will serve the main purpose for which the money is given, namely, to relieve unemployment. But, as Deputy Corish pointed out, the selection is for the local authorities, and they come to us through the Department of Local Government. There is constant liaison between the Special Employment Schemes Office and the Department of Local Government in the matter. The position is satisfactory this year and is likely to continue so.
In that regard, I would make this suggestion to Deputies. Every Deputy in his travels through his constituency may come across in towns problems of a sort that cannot be dealt with in the ordinary way by the local authority. We are talking about removing eyesores in order to beautify the country and improve our tourist amenities. Here is an outlet for some of this expenditure. When speaking in this way on that matter, I want to assure the House I am expressing very largely a personal opinion. I believe that what I say has to be qualified by the experience of the Local Government Department and the Special Employment Schemes Office. In any event, that does not inhibit me from asking Deputies, particularly those from urban areas, to keep an eye out for this type of outlet for the expenditure of urban employment schemes moneys.
Would that have to go through a local authority?
Yes.
