Vol. 181 No. 10
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £551,080 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, 1961, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
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, including towns with a population of 200 and over; and for other services such as Bog Development Schemes, Rural Improvements Schemes and miscellaneous schemes, including minor marine works and archaeological excavations. Provision is also made in the Vote for the salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office, who are responsible for the administration of the Vote.
It has been the practice of my predecessors for a number of years in dealing with this Vote to give a résumé of the work done in the preceding financial year, and I propose to do likewise. The gross estimate last year was £856,530, to which should be added a sum of £1,550 transferred from the Vote for Remuneration, giving the figure of £858,080, as appears on page 48 of the Estimates Volume. In addition, there was, however, a sum of £21,469—being the unexpended balances of previous years' allocations from the National Development Fund—available for expenditure, bringing the gross total to £879,549. The expenditure in the financial year just closed is estimated at £859,210, which is 98% of the gross 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 for 1956/57, 1957/58 and 1958/59; the estimated expenditure for 1959/60; as well as the provision proposed for these services in 1960/61. In this schedule I have shown the estimated balance of £16,000 still available for expenditure from the National Development Fund, and earmarked for urban schemes. This figure does not appear in the Estimates Volume; as, when the estimates were being prepared some months ago, it was expected that all these balances would have been expended. It is anticipated now that only about £5,000 of last year's expenditure will have to be met from the National Development Fund balances, leaving £16,000 still available in the Fund for 1960/61.
The grants under Subheads E, F and G for Urban, Rural and Minor Employment Schemes are 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 60 urban areas, 477 non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over, and 2,875 rural electoral divisions in the country. This week was selected as it approximates the peak period of unemployment, by which date persons who have received only seasonal employment around the Christmas period have returned to the unemployment register. This census also 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 Special Employment Schemes Office works during a particular week.
The 1960 census gives a total of 30,521 men in receipt of unemployment assistance, compared with 35,492 in January, 1959—a reduction of 14%. The 1957 figure was 35,116. The drop in 1960 compared with 1959 was greatest in urban areas, the urban figures being 9,357 for 1960 compared with 12,006 in 1959, a reduction of 22%. The figures for rural areas were 19,746 in 1960 and 22,036 in 1959, a reduction of 10%. There was little change in the figures for small towns with a population of 200 and over, the figures being 1,418 for 1960 and 1,450 for 1959. The over-all reduction was, as already stated, 14%. Including persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, the census figures were: 66,363 in 1960, 74,929 in 1959, 76,962 in 1958 and 84,098 in 1957. There is, therefore, a reduction of 11½% in the total figure for 1960 compared with 1959; and a reduction of 21%, or more than one-fifth, if the 1960 figure is compared with the 1957 figure of U.A. and U.I.B. combined. The drop was greatest in the urban areas, the figures being 21,601, urban, in 1960 compared with 25,916 in 1959, a reduction of 16½%; 4,919 in towns with a population of 200 and over in 1960 compared with 5,792 in 1959—a reduction of 15%; whereas the rural area figures were 39,843 in 1960 and 43,221 in 1959, a reduction of 7¾%. The over-all reduction was 11½%, as already stated.
The number of unemployment assistance recipients who were employed on the Special Employment Schemes Office works during the census week ended 23rd January, 1960 was 1,942; and persons in receipt of unemployment benefit were 556, giving a total of 2,498. The corresponding figures last year were 2,081 U.A., 652 U.I.B., 2,733 total. The bulk of the employment given under this Vote is in the winter period and, therefore, the number of persons employed varies considerably during the year. The peak period in 1959/60 was during the week ended the 19th December, 1959, when 5,212 men were employed, of whom 919 were in urban areas, 466 in non-urbanised towns and 3,827 in rural electoral divisions. The lowest number was 815, during week ended 7th November, 1959, of whom 122 were in the urban areas, none in non-urbanised towns and 693 in rural areas.
Subheads A, B, C and D provide for salaries, travelling and office expenses of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The increase of £2,500 in the provision for Subhead A in 1960/61 is accounted for mainly by the necessity to provide for a full year for the increased pay for the Civil Service granted as from 15th December, 1959; and to a lesser extent by the normal incremental progression in the scales of pay. These increases total £5,500 approximately, but they will to an extent be offset by the replacement of some senior officers by more junior personnel. There is a small increase in the estimate for travelling expenses.
Subhead E, Urban Employment Schemes, provides for works in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and 55 other urban districts. The grants are administered through the Department of Local Government, and 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 is 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 55 other urban districts, varying between 5% and 17% in the different towns. A sum of £227,000 was provided in the Vote for these urban schemes in 1959/60; but, in view of the balances available from the National Development Fund, it was decided to make a sum of £235,000 available for new works last year. This was allocated as follows: £120,000 to Dublin, £18,000 to Cork, £17,000 to Limerick, £8,000 to Waterford, £6,000 to Dún Laoghaire and £66,000 to the other 55 urban areas. The estimated expenditure last year amounted to £231,740.
Employment schemes are ordinarily concentrated in the winter period, but the Dublin schemes are proceeded with the whole year round—each U.A. man getting a 12 weeks' spell of employment. The unemployment assistance recipients' census figure for Dublin was 4,712 in January, 1960, compared with 6,480 in January, 1959, and 5,889 in January, 1957. Half the urban unemployment assistance recipients are, in fact, concentrated in the Dublin area. Dublin Corporation were notified on the 13th October, 1959, that a State grant of £120,000 was available for new works costing £150,000, subject to a contribution of £30,000. Schemes to absorb the full amount were duly approved, of which £20,000 was for the improvement of footpaths and laneways, £95,500 for road works at the North Wall, Cabra, Kimmage, Terenure and other areas of the city, and the remainder, £34,500 was for park development and other amenity schemes, including £24,000 for further work in St. Anne's Park, Dollymount, £3,300 for the development of an open space at Templeogue Road, £3,200 for a playground at Ringsend, and £3,500 for ancillary works at Sundrive Park Stadium. During the last financial year, work was also proceeded with on schemes approved in previous years, including the development of Bushy Park, Terenure, costing £36,000 and which is now completed; earlier works in St. Anne's Park, Dollymount, costing £26,000, and remedial works on the Little Dargle River, costing £37,500, as well as the main Sundrive Park and Stadium scheme.
The average number of men employed weekly on the schemes last year in Dublin was 167, of whom 115 were unemployment assistance recipients. The numbers varied during the year from a peak total of 235 to 90, of whom 175 and 37 respectively were unemployment assistance recipients. As the unemployment assistance personnel of the gangs are changed at the end of a twelve weeks' period of employment, some 450 Dublin fathers of families each got a twelve weeks' spell of employment in the year. The amount which will be allocated to the Dublin County Borough area in 1960/61 has, of course, not yet been determined at this early date, but, notwithstanding the substantial reduction in the number of unemployment assistance recipients, it should not be very far short of last year's figure.
The Cork Corporation were notified on the 5th October of a State allocation of £18,000 for new schemes, subject to a contribution of £3,600, one-sixth of the total £21,600. Schemes to absorb the full allocation were approved, of which £16,000 approximately was for various road works, £4,000 for the partial development of an open space near Mayfield housing scheme, and the remainder, £1,600, for the clearance of a derelict site at Friars Walk and the improvement of the junction at Blarney Street and Shandon Street. The allocation of £17,000, conditional on a contribution of £3,400, total £20,400, was not wholly absorbed by the Limerick County Borough. Road works costing £14,650 were approved, and amenity schemes absorbed £4,250, including the erection of walls at Ballinacurra, Weston and Island Road, the extension of a playing pitch at Caledonian Place and the re-surfacing of an area at Mill Road—leaving a small balance of £1,500 which must now be regarded as cancelled.
Waterford Corporation submitted schemes to absorb their allocation of £8,000 State grant, £1,335 local contribution, £9,335 total. Of the approved schemes, £6,815 was for road works, and the balance, £2,520, was for amenity schemes, including the provision of an entrance to the recreation ground at Poleberry, the laying out of an open space at Hennessy's Road, and the improvement of the surrounds of Reginald's Tower. Dún Laoghaire also absorbed the full allocation of £7,500 being a State grant of £6,000 and a local contribution of £1,500, that is one-fifth of the total. The works were all amenity schemes, including further development work in the park at Williamstown, laying out park at Ashgrove-Birchgrove housing scheme, which absorbed £4,230 of the allocation, and the remainder was for the improvement of bathing facilities at Sandycove harbour.
The allocation for the fifty-five other urban districts amounted to £66,000 State grant, £9,095 local contribution, £75,095 total. The grants varied between £250 in towns with less than ten unemployment assistance recipients, such as Bundoran, Castlebar, Carrickmacross and Templemore, providing for only a few weeks' work for the unemployment assistance men at Christmas time; and £4,900 for Drogheda, £4,700 for Tralee, £4,300 each for Dundalk and Wexford, £3,700 for Sligo, £3,500 for Galway, £2,800 for Kilkenny, £2,400 for Clonmel and £2,300 for Bray, etc., in the larger urban areas. The maximum number of weeks employment which may be given to an individual unemployment assistance recipient in urban areas other than Dublin is eight: as already stated, twelve weeks are allowed in the case of Dublin unemployment assistance recipients.
The full allocations were absorbed in all these urban areas, and the works approved included £38,800 for road works and £10,500 for footpaths. The remaining £16,700 of the £66,000 State grant was utilised for various amenity schemes, such as the development of parks, open spaces, derelict sites, retaining walls and car parks. The distribution of the available money for the new financial year in the County Boroughs and other urban districts has not yet been determined. It will, however, be on the usual basis, related to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each individual area.
The amount in Subhead F, Rural Employment Schemes, was £35,000 in each of the last three years, and this provision is being repeated for 1960/61. These schemes have in recent years been confined to non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over. The grants are made available to the county councils concerned, who are required to contribute a quarter of the cost, so that a total of £46,665 is available for expenditure. The schemes are usually carried out in the weeks immediately preceding Christmas, and the allocation for each town irea in nearly all cases is between £200 and £300. 156 of the 477 town areas got small grants last year, and there were not sufficient unemployment assistance recipients in the other 321 areas to warrant an allocation. There were, in fact, only 171 unemployment assistance recipients scattered among the other 321 town areas. The approved works consisted mainly of footpaths in the towns and environs, but other items were also included such as minor road works, removing hedges, planting shrubs, development of parks and cleaning of streams.
Under Subhead G, minor employment scheme are carried out in the period November to March, and are intended to give employment to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance in rural areas. The works consist of the repair and reconstruction of accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs, in areas in which there are substantial numbers of unemployment assistance recipients—commonly known as the congested districts. The unit of distribution is the electoral division, of which there are 2,875 in the whole country. These full-cost grants are, however, given only in about 400 of the electoral divisions, of which last year 14 were in Cavan, on the borders of Leitrim and Longford; 10 in Clare, all on the sea coast; 10 in West Cork, mainly in the Beara peninsula adjacent to Kerry; 85 in Donegal, mainly in the western half of the county; 37 in Galway, west of a line going north and south through Galway city; 50 in Kerry, mainly on the sea coast and bordering Limerick; 35 in Leitrim, scattered throughout the five rural districts; 8 in Limerick, all on the Kerry Border; 12 in Longford, on the Leitrim border; 92 in Mayo, on the sea coast and in the Rural District of Swinford, adjoining Sligo and Roscommon; 9 in Roscommon, all in Castlerea Rural District on the border of Mayo; and 28 in Sligo, on the sea coast and on the borders of the Rural Districts of Swinford in Mayo and Castierea in Roscommon.
Drainage schemes cannot be carried out economically in the winter period, and they are not, therefore, suitable minor employment schemes. Schemes under this subhead are, therefore, confined to road works. Farmers who benefit by getting a good road to their houses, lands and bogs are expected to give road materials free, if such are available on their lands. As the schemes are for the benefit of unemployment assistance recipients residing in the vicinity of the work, the farmers are not themselves eligible for work on these schemes, unless they happen to be on the highest scales of unemployment assistance in the immediate neighbourhood. There still appears to be some misunderstanding on this point in some areas of the country, and I am, therefore, emphasising that the fact that a farmer happens to reside on a road to be repaired gives him no claim to work on the scheme. 886 schemes were approved last year to absorb the expenditure of £130,000, and approximately 15,250 families were served by these works to their houses, lands or bogs. The provision for the new year for this service is the same, that is to say, £130,000.
Subhead H, 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 scheme was £99,177 in 1956/57, £156,266 in 1957/58, £158,240 in 1958/59, and it is estimated at £161,050 in 1959/60. Any excess expenditure over the £160,000 provision will be met from the National Development Fund balances. There were 1,184 schemes approved last year, of which 511 representing an expenditure of £57,000 approximately, were drainage works, and 673 were road works costing £103,000 approximately. Some 33,000 families in all were facilitated, 11,000 by drainage works and 22,000 by road works. Bog drainage works are done under this subhead in all parts of the country. The road works financed from the bog development subhead are confined to the areas outside the congested districts. Bog road works in the latter areas are financed from the Minor Employment Schemes subhead, and not the Bog Development Schemes subhead. Although these bog development schemes are not primarily intended to give employment, they give useful work to the unemployed in the various areas. Priority in employment for these schemes is given to unemployment assistance recipients or persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in the areas concerned.
On subhead I, the Rural Improvements Scheme, is a contributory scheme, and 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 repair or reconstruction of accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs. It applies to all parts of the country, irrespective of the unemployment position. It is the only scheme available for the improvement of farm roads outside the congested districts, and for the smaller types of land drainage works in all areas. Road schemes can also be done in the congested districts under the Rural Improvements Scheme in cases where the beneficiaries are prepared to contribute towards the cost. Works of a better and more durable standard are done under this contributory scheme, than are done under Minor Employment Schemes, where, in many instances, the small numbers of unemployment assistance recipients limit the amount of money that can be made available.
The history of this scheme from 1943 to date was outlined by my predecessor in his introductory statement last year—columns 474-475 of Dáil Debates of 26th May, 1959—and I do not think it necessary to repeat that information to-day. The expenditure under this scheme was £238,639 in 1956/57, £194,654 in 1957/58, £169,088 in 1958/59, and will, it is expected, exceed £198,000 in the year just closed. Although some 771 schemes, costing £200,000 were approved in 1958/59, expenditure, as will be seen, was less than that sum, mainly owing to the very bad weather in 1958. A sum of £200,000 was available in 1959/60 and almost the full amount was allocated; 719 new schemes, costing £196,800, were authorised, of which 191 schemes, costing £31,030, were drainage works, and 528 schemes, costing £165,770, were road works. All schemes for which the contribution was forthcoming were, in fact, authorised for execution.
The minimum contribution is 10 per cent. for farmers with an average land valuation of below £6. The scale increases in accordance with the average land valuation of the benefiting farmers, being 12½ per cent. contribution for valuations averaging between £6 and £7; 15 per cent. for valuations of £7 to £8; 17½ per cent. contribution for £8 to £10; 20 per cent. contribution for £10 to £12; 22½ per cent. for £12 to £15; 25 per cent. for £15 to £18; 30 per cent. for £18 to £25; 35 per cent. for £25 to £50; 40 per cent. for £50 to £100 and, in the case of farmers with an average land valuation of over £100, the State pays half the cost and the farmers pay the other half. A provision of £200,000 is made available again for this service in 1960/61.
On subhead J, the provision for Miscellaneous Schemes was £15,000 in each of the last three years, and the same provision is being made for the new year. The expenditure last year will, it is estimated, amount to approximately £14,000. This subhead meets 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. The subhead also finances archaeological excavations and other miscellaneous schemes, such as sportsfields. About £2,850 was spent on archaeological excavations last year, of which £1,100 was for work at Tara, £740 at Dooey, Co. Donegal, £415 in Rear Cross, Co. Tipperary, £290 each on Dalkey Island and Bohanagh, Co. Cork and a small item of £35 in connection with excavations at Shannon airport. Other works authorised during the year included £3,150 for foreshore protection works in Wicklow, £550 for the completion of sportsfields at Lahinch and Listowel and £515 for a road to a coal mine in Co. Roscommon. During recent weeks, provisional commitments, subject to the necessary contributions being made by the County Councils concerned, have been made against this year's provision, totalling £7,500, in respect of minor marine works at Dursey Island in Co. Cork and Cleggan and Mullaghglass in Co. Galway.
The Appropriations-in-Aid subhead is made up almost entirely of the contributions in respect of the Rural Improvements Scheme, which amounted to £32,370 in 1959/60. It also includes receipts in respect of development works on privately owned bogs, the County Councils' contributions towards the cost of minor marine works, and the sale of surplus stores. A figure of £35,000 is included in the Estimates—the same as last year's.
In addition to the works financed from Vote 10, the Special Employment Schemes Office acts as agent of the Minister for Transport and Power in respect of the carrying out of development works to facilitate the output of turf for the four hand-won turf generating stations at Caherciveen, Co. Kerry; Miltown Malbay, Co. Clare; Screebe, Co. Galway, and Gweedore, Co. Donegal. They are financed from a National Development Fund allocation of £80,000 at the disposal of that Minister. New works, costing £8,000, were approved last year, of which £4,000 approximately was in Donegal, £2,600 in Clare, and £1,400 in Kerry. The expenditure last year is estimated at £7,000, and the total expenditure to date out of the £80,000 is £21,000.
The Special Employment Schemes Office also 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. New works costing £18,200 were authorised in 1959/60, of which £8,350 was in Galway, £7,300 in Donegal, nearly £2,000 in Mayo, and £300 each in Cork and Kerry. Deputies may recall that in 1958/59, although works costing £40,000 had been approved, the expenditure that year amounted to only about £24,000. Including new sanctions, the expenditure in 1959/60 on these schemes amounted in all to £33,000 approximately, of which £12,000 was in Galway, £9,200 in Donegal, £8,750 in Mayo, £1,850 in Kerry and £1,110 in Cork. The expenditure on the Gaeltacht schemes, and on the works for the benefit of the turf-fired generating stations will, of course, be accounted for by the Minister for the Gaeltacht and by the Minister for Transport and Power respectively, and not by the Special Employment Schemes Office.
In the earlier part of this introductory statement, I referred to the substantial reduction in the number of unemployed this year as compared with last year—14 per cent. in respect of unemployment assistance recipients; or 13 per cent. if the figure is compared with January, 1957. Taking unemployment assistance recipients and unemployment insurance benefit claimants together, the reductions were 11½ and 21 per cent. respectively. Notwithstanding this reduction, Deputies will see that the provisions for these services in 1960/61 are substantially the same as last year's. These schemes are not, of course, the answer to the unemployment problem. They do, however, provide very real benefits as an adjunct to the system of direct Social Welfare payments, by giving spells of manual work at normal rates of wages to men with the highest number of dependants, who, in many cases, have been unemployed for a considerable time.
I have referred in some detail in this statement to the various works of public utility which have been undertaken under these schemes in Dublin and other town areas. Rural Deputies are familiar with the benefits which accrue to farmers under the Minor Employment Schemes, Bog Development Schemes and Rural Improvements Schemes, and these schemes need no further emphasis from me. As I said in the statement made by me on the Vote on Account on the 8th March, I consider that, having regard to other commitments totalling almost £123,500,000 as shown in the Book of Estimates, reasonable provision has been made for these schemes in the current year, and I commend the Estimate accordingly for the consideration of the House.
That is what I think is a reasonably detailed statement on Vote No. 10 in relation to the Special Employment Schemes Office. If Deputies tried to follow me, and if I did not go too quickly, I think they will find most of the information there that they require. At the same time, I do not want to stifle discussion. I shall try to give information to any Deputy who wishes to raise points I may not have covered in what I think is a detailed statement.
I have just a few criticisms to make of the system, not of the Parliamentary Secretary. He gave us a list of the contributions demanded, according to valuation, under the Rural Improvements Scheme. I feel that in the lower regions of these valuations, the contribution should be removed altogether. I do not think it fair to ask landholders under £10 valuation for a contribution under a Rural Improvements Scheme. Whatever about the higher valuations, the lower valuations should be exempt, because in most cases the contribution seems to be too heavy for their purses. Therefore, the people concerned must leave undone work on the by-road going into their houses or on necessary drainage. That is the position, even though in most cases the contribution required under a Rural Improvements Scheme seems not to be too heavy. In the case of people up to £10 valuation, a full cost grant should be given. It would help to stem the flight from the land and prevent much of the closing-up of houses in rural areas because small holdings are no longer able to hold youngsters.
Contributors should get first preference for work on Rural Improvements Schemes. After contributing to a scheme, it is pretty galling not to get work on it. I know that many contributors look forward to employment on the job. It is clear that contributors, if employed on the job, will put their utmost energies and wits into it. Surely that is plain commonsense.
I desire to pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary's engineers in the head office and down the country. Their work on Rural Improvements Schemes is a credit to them. When a by-road or a link road is put into first-class order under a Rural Improvements Scheme, it is a pity that, in view of modern traffic conditions, the Special Employment Schemes Office does not complete the job by spraying tar on the surface. As such a good job is made of it, spraying with tar would make it permanent. That may seem as if I am flying my kite too high, but I assure the Parliamentary Secretary it would help to maintain people on the land and prevent recurring expenditure on the same road every seven to ten years.
With regard to Minor Employment Schemes, I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to allow a Minor Employment Scheme or drainage to take place in winter. It is acknowledged even by men who work on such schemes to be a waste of time. You cannot do a satisfactory drainage job when the drains are full of water. It is better to wait until later in the year. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that such work does not take place in winter but some does. While some drainage jobs may be done in winter where there is an outfall for the surface water, I submit that in other cases it is a waste of money. The employment would be the same in the dry season and a good drainage job would be done.
As the Government have closed down completely on the Local Authorities (Works) Act under which very useful work was done, the Parliamentary Secretary should provide more money for drainage under Rural Improvements Schemes and Minor Employment Schemes. Land reclamation work under the Department of Agriculture was in many cases held up because there was no outfall for the water. County councils were doing excellent work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and were allowing a lot of land to be drained under the Land Reclamation Scheme.
As the Government have suspended the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, I submit that until they restore its operation, the responsibility devolves on the Parliamentary Secretary because the Special Employment Schemes Office is now the only office that can undertake the work dropped by the county councils under that Act. In many cases, the work of the Land Reclamation section of the Department of Agriculture is held up because there is no outfall for the water. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to spend more money on drainage, particularly between February and October, under both Minor Employment Schemes and Rural Improvements Schemes.
In all cases, the work done, certainly as far as roads are concerned, is a credit. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials to consider the link road: I am not talking of the cul-de-sac. Sometimes it is very difficult to get a grant to repair a link road. The present position is absolutely unfair to people who happen to live along a link road used by outsiders for different purposes. In my part of the country, link roads are torn up by people using them as short cuts to the bog, to fairs, markets, and so on. The county council will not take them over. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should instruct the Special Employment Schemes Office to facilitate the repair of such link roads. Many county councils will now take them over if they are put into a proper state of repair. His office must do the spade work in that regard.
At present there is a great deal of bitterness among the people who live along the link roads. They cannot get a grant if they happen to be in an area where unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit recipients are few in number. At the same time, they are some of the heaviest ratepayers in the country. They cannot get a minor employment scheme grant. In the case of road improvements, as they cannot get a grant, they are getting the road done at their own expense and outsiders benefit. In that connection, the Parliamentary Secretary should ensure that a full cost grant be given for the repair of such roads.
First of all, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has made many improvements in the administration of this Vote, that the name should be changed. Instead of calling this the Special Employment Schemes Office, it should be called the Special Employment Projects Office. The word "schemes" connotes a certain amount of scheming in regard to getting things through rapidly from the point of view of sanction.
We in the city of Dublin have much to be grateful for, having regard to the amount of money made available to us for special works. We have a special department in the Corporation dealing specifically with this grant. I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to what I would call a fault that lies on the bookkeeping side. We sometimes have plans submitted to the Department of Local Government for approval and sanction which involve in many cases substantial sums for substantial projects. In due course, we are notified that the money is available.
If we go along within the financial year, we reach by way of amount granted our full complement of what is made available to us, although it is known in the Department of Local Government and also in the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary that this money cannot be spent within the financial year because the project might take from 18 months to two years to complete. Therefore, the unexpended portion is resanctioned in the subsequent year. We find ourselves in this difficulty. We cannot employ all those whom we would wish to employ within one financial year because it is then said we used up the money made available to us; and if we do not, we are told that there is money still to our credit and why do we not spend it before looking for more?
A little commonsense in the examination of the reasons why moneys have not been spent should be taken into account and a proper understanding reached. We in Dublin are grateful for this grant. First of all, we are grateful from the humane aspect because it enables us to give substantial relief employment to many of those people to whom the Parliamentary Secretary referred who have been a long time unemployed and who are high up on the list of outdoor assistance recipients.
We have been able to give the 13 weeks' work, rotated throughout the whole year, to a substantial number of men. We could, however, improve on that. It is true that while the overall picture shows a considerable fall in the number of those registered as unemployed, nevertheless, there are so many still unemployed that we feel we should do our part in trying to give employment to them, even on this restricted basis.
In addition to that, we feel that the city of Dublin has been improved considerably. We have been able to make available to our citizens very many amenities hitherto beyond the pocket of the exchequer of Dublin Corporation. We have made amenities available to go hand in hand with the development of the tourist trade. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary should examine clearly the position that confronts us on a month to month basis or when a position is reached when it appears we may be about to overspend the money given in any one financial year. It should be made clear that before any approval is withheld no overspending will result.
Further, we have considerable difficulties sometimes in convincing the Department of Local Government and, through them, the special employment projects office on particular schemes. In the spending of this money we hold that the largest possible amount should be spent on wages. In other words, it should be spent on the labour content but when consideration is given to those items of expenditure and when there are criticisms resulting from that consideration, we feel we should be given an opportunity of examining with the officials the particular case under review and we should not be told that this happened or is likely to happen without our being able to answer it and prove otherwise, if we think it can be proved or be shown by competent officials where we are wrong and why we are wrong.
I hope that this method of Government assistance, through local authorities, will bring about not periodical but continued relief to the unemployed. I remember when this was first set up under what was then called the National Development Fund, it was looked on as something temporary and set up to meet what was then an emergency.
People who are unemployed, through whatever cause, whether by reason of changes in certain industries or changes in housing and so forth, are in an emergency. Therefore, the Government could in this manner be continually at the disposal of those people by offering them employment of such a nature as has been given to them every year since this item of Government expenditure was set up.
I remember when, on the eve of Christmas, all of us used to petition the Government for a kind of emergency relief fund so that we could give employment for four or five weeks to a certain number of people. Thank goodness, that has gone and has been replaced by this very sensible arrangement. While in a general way I have no fault to find with the projects or the special employment projects office, I feel that there should be some consultation between the officials of the Department of Local Government, the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary and Dublin Corporation in connection with quite a number of projects that are being considered.
I should like to say that this development in our national housekeeping can be developed into what one might call an insurance scheme. We should have projects approved of in regard to the work that could be done, in regard to the estimated cost, but not necessarily to be proceeded with forthwith. They could be approved of, properly planned and pigeon-holed against some unexpected emergency, when they could be pulled out of the pigeon-hole and put into effect without delay, rather than that we should have to wait until the emergency comes and then have to plan, make the drawings and the estimates and let a month pass before getting approval and the consequent employment that you want to get. Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree that some encouragement should be given to local authorities to have the members of the council working with the officials to plan, even if it is only for the purpose of pigeon-holing some reasonable projects which could be put into effect, if and when an emergency arises.
I should also like to see a certain amount of elasticity and a certain amount of understanding that completion of certain projects or their development can be affected by weather conditions and that there can be a hold-up which should not be held against a local authority. Weather conditions might make it impossible to proceed as was originally anticipated. In conclusion, I should like to repeat I am not happy about the bookkeeping side. The bookkeeping side should be related to the expenditure as it is made and the local authority should be allowed to spend what is allocated in a financial year and not kept from spending certain moneys because grants made to them, which cannot be spent in that year, are debited against them.
It is satisfactory to learn that under this Vote the same sums of money have been allocated under the various headings as were allocated last year. In fact, it could be said that the Votes in each of the years from 1956-57 to the present year have been somewhat about the same. Under the various schemes, very good work has been done as a rule but sometimes there are grievances, which generally arise in connection with works, that the money allocated was not well spent. I suppose in all such schemes and works, you cannot give perfect satisfaction.
Deputy Blowick referred to the local contribution under the Rural Improvements Scheme. I think he suggested that there should be no local contribution where valuations were under £10. I would not go quite so far but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the local contribution should be lowered. For instance, the minimum contribution is 10 per cent. for a farmer with an average land valuation of £6. I suggest that that should be reduced to 5 per cent. because, after all, a farmer with a £6 valuation could not very well afford to pay anything but a small sum. Again, 12½ per cent. for a farmer with a valuation of £6 to £7 is too high and I would suggest 7½ per cent. Then you have 15 per cent. for valuations of £7 to £8 and I would suggest that that should be reduced to 10 per cent. and so on in proportion. I would prefer that there should be a contribution even in cases of small valuations. I remember that the contributions were lowered some time ago and then were raised again. I do not know whether it was the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor or not who was responsible but it does not matter. I think in fairness to farmers those valuations are so low——
They are all low in Kerry, anyway.
But they have to pay too high a contribution now and they cannot afford it.
All of them are getting off with 10 per cent. in Kerry.
It would be an enticement to do the work if it were reduced and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, if we are all alive and well next year and if there is no change of Government——
There will be no reduction and there will be no change of Government.
I do not know about a change of Government but I hope there will be a reduction in the contributions. Some difficulty often arises in connection with these Rural Improvements Schemes where perhaps five, six, seven or eight people are required to contribute. One or two of those interested in the road improvement may refuse to give consent to have the work done or may refuse to pay his share of the contribution required because he is not a friend of a neighbour, or something like that. I do not know if any means have been devised by which that difficulty can be overcome.
As a rule, what happens is the grant is lost and people who are willing to contribute suffer as a result. In other cases, while some people may be quite willing that the work should be carried out they refuse to contribute and others have to make up the amount required. In fact, I have known of cases where three or four people were involved and one man paid the whole contribution. He, of course, being put in that position would like to be made ganger but I see that according to the rules and regulations, that cannot be done. It is a pity there could not be a little elasticity in such cases where a person pays a big contribution. But the rules and regulations are against that and one of the excuses given in connection with the appointment of a ganger is that if you appoint one of the contributors as a ganger, the others would hardly be inclined to obey him and would say: "We paid our money as well as you." There may be something in that, but I think some means should be adopted by which nobody could hold up a work which is very necessary.
These Rural Improvements Schemes have been very useful and have always resulted in good work. In Kerry, when roads are well done, especially link roads to which Deputy Blowick referred, we always take them over. It may be a link road connecting two county roads, perhaps a mile long, and used by various people, not alone those living along it but people going to the creamery or to the bogs to draw turf who refuse as a rule to pay the contribution required of them. There is this difficulty about getting the local contribution because the people who live along the road maintain that those who use the road should also contribute but they can never get them to do it. I suppose these difficulties will always arise.
In connection with minor relief schemes, it would appear that those in receipt of unemployment assistance think that money is just allocated for the purpose of getting work and doing as little as possible. I do not know if the ganger could always be blamed for that because it is not very easy, I suppose, for a man to create trouble with his neighbours, but the work is not always satisfactory. Another point is that in an electoral district, there may not be a sufficient number receiving unemployment assistance to qualify for a grant. There may be six in one electoral district and in the neighbouring one, seven or eight, and I understand that unless there is some number like 12, 15 or 16 in an electoral district, that district does not qualify for a minor employment scheme grant.
I wonder could the Parliamentary Secretary say if there are any regulations against joining the two together for the purpose of allocating one grant for the two areas so that you could have the number of unemployed from each making up such number as would enable them to get a grant. Very often—and especially in my own area where there are a good number of unemployed and perhaps a good number of them unemployable—there is that difficulty particularly because of emigration and other factors, and we do not have the required number and yet there are some very necessary works that could be done on roads and drainage under minor relief schemes.
It is very necessary that grants for roads leading into bogs should be allocated before the time comes for drawing turf from the bogs out to county or main roads for conveyance home, but as a rule these allocations are not made in time. If the grants were made available earlier so that work could be carried out in August and September at the latest, it would be a great improvement.
I see in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that work was carried out for the Minister for Transport and Power in connection with bog roads in the vicinity of turf generating stations. We have one such station at Cahirciveen. I have here a letter I got this morning from the Turf Producers Association there seeking grants, they say, from the E.S.B. I suppose it is the E.S.B.; I do not know exactly how the money is given but I know that grants are not given from the Special Employment Schemes Office.
I think it is a matter for the Department of Transport and Power.
Yes, but it is the Parliamentary Secretary's Office that carries out the work. I know he does not allocate the money but I should like to know who is responsible. I suppose it is the Department of Transport and Power. It is very necessary to carry out this work where turf is required to supply a generating station so that the supply can be maintained.
There are some special cases I know of in South Kerry in regard to the erection of small bridges and so on, and which have already been referred to the Special Employment Schemes Office and if they are not dealt with in due course, I suppose we can always call to the officials or to the Parliamentary Secretary. On the whole, good work is being done under the Vote and any little grievances that arise locally cannot, I suppose, be the responsibility of the Office. The Parliamentary Secretary has given a very detailed and clear statement; perhaps it is so minute that it is not easy to follow in detail. I hope that money will be allocated in good time in future for roads connected with bog development.
The discussion on this Vote following the other two Votes usually results in a certain amount of confusion as many points in relation to this Vote have already been discussed. Schemes for the making of utility roads are matters which have become an integral part of the country's economic life and I believe that long after we have passed the stage of making provision for unemployment, we shall still require the Special Employment Schemes Office to provide accommodation roads which are not the responsibility of the county councils. For that reason, the Office is faced with the difficult task of providing money for the relief of unemployment and at the same time, applying it in the most useful manner to a big selection of roads given to it.
A great many applications reach the Office from which it must choose what it thinks is the most useful, at the same time giving due consideration in accordance with the regulation to the relief of unemployment. That is not an easy task but one which I think the Office has performed with great success, making due allowance for the amount of money at its disposal. If there were sufficient money to go around, a wonderful job could be done and every Deputy pleased especially those from congested areas who can point to many roads, many amenity schemes which must await their turn simply because there is not an unlimited fund behind this Vote.
We have been doing very well in past years and we are providing the same amount this year in spite of the fact that the numbers on the registers of unemployed show a substantial reduction and it is on these figures that allocations are based. But while a minor employment scheme grant is not always available for various reasons— it is limited in accordance with the number of unemployed in the electoral district — the Rural Improvements Scheme is always there to help out. In such cases as that mentioned by Deputy Palmer, who suggested that where neither of two electoral divisions has a sufficient number of unemployed on the register, they be taken together and given the benefit of one grant, that was hardly feasible when one job was allocated to cover a section. It was hardly possible to decimalise it further, to bring it down to a very small amount. The rural improvements scheme is a very important adjunct in that case. It is the type of scheme I prefer.
There has been a good deal of criticism in the past in regard to the increase in the contributions under the rural improvements scheme. When initiated, this scheme was certainly a step in the right direction. In the light of experience subsequently it was found desirable to increase the contributions. That, too, was a wise step, particularly when one remembers that we very often do not properly appreciate anything we get for nothing. One need only compare the work done on minor employment schemes with that done under rural improvements schemes to see which is the better scheme from the point of view of quantity and quality. If local farmers, and others, are anxious to have a certain amenity, be it an accommodation road or drainage, provided it is really essential they will always find the necessary contribution to take up a rural improvements scheme grant to carry out the work. That is immediate proof that the work is necessary. When it is a case of a free grant for an accommodation road in a congested area, for example, everybody who has any bit at all of an accommodation road will fill up an application form, actuated very often by a desire to get a grant expended in the locality rather than, by the desire to have the road in question repaired. It then becomes the function of the engineering staff of the Special Employments Schemes Office to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I am very pleased with the amount of money paid in by way of contribution last year on rural improvements and the number of applications which have gone through. Whenever the applicants indicate they are prepared to contribute, the Office can be reasonably satisfied that the scheme is a worthwhile one. The same sifting is not necessary before sanction is given. When the work is carried out it is practically always found to be of a very high standard, of a very satisfactory nature, and a good job in every respect. The main reason it is satisfactory is that very often many of the contributors work on the scheme.
That brings me to the point made by Deputy Palmer and Deputy Blowick that the contributors should get preference. Some counties do not experience much difficulty in this matter because in certain areas— Deputy McMenamin is well aware of this—the contributors are frequently registered unemployed and, because of that, they have no difficulty in finding employment on the scheme. There are two ways in which to look at this question of giving preference to contributors. It is all very well to say that because they contribute they should be entitled to first preference. The possibility is that living next door to a contributor there may be a labouring man drawing unemployment assistance. The State has a responsibility to provide him with work. The State is perhaps contributing nine-tenths of the money spent on the scheme. The contributor is getting the benefit of a State grant to provide him with an amenity.
Why should the State have a further liability towards him? Why should the State provide him with employment when there are in the locality men in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit towards whom the State has a definite responsibility from the point of view of providing them with employment? Contributors get the preference when the other categories are not available. The continued success of the scheme and the increase in applications are proof that the scheme is a successful one. It is also conclusive proof that the increase in contribution has had no adverse effect on it. I am not in favour of reducing the contribution at the moment because, as I have already said, something for nothing is not always appreciated.
Deputy Briscoe dealt with the urban side. I am rather perturbed about the difficulty there is in getting schemes with a high unskilled employment content. Sometimes I wonder if we are providing amenity schemes rather than employment-producing schemes. We try to marry both as far as possible. Schemes put up by Dublin Corporation are excellent as amenity schemes but they do not always carry a high unskilled labour potential. For that reason, these schemes have to be watched very carefully. When one remembers that, in a scheme put forward in an urban area in which there is 33?rd per cent. unskilled employment content, it will take £25 per week to employ one man on that scheme, one appreciates how little impression a few hundred thousand pounds make on the relief of unemployment over an extended period.
Deputy Briscoe referred to a pool of works, to changing the name of the office and so forth. With regard to a pool of works, that is a matter which the Corporation can usually undertake themselves and it is a matter as between them and Local Government. He referred also to the question of sanction for works in one year which would not be undertaken within the year and to the carry-forward, resulting in sanction being given the following year. My information is that the practice has always been to watch the figures carefully to see that the Vote is not exceeded; in other words, that the Vote is not burst. The Special Employment Schemes Office keep a watchful eye on the number of schemes sanctioned to ensure there will be no over-spending of the Vote within the time and there is a carry-forward, no matter how well it is watched.
There is very little else to which I need refer on this Vote because the speakers on the two previous Votes succeeded in covering much of the material that was dealt with in this Estimate. Minor employment schemes have become a very important feature of rural economy and irrespective of whether they are utilised as a means of absorbing unemployed or not, money will always have to be found for repair and maintenance and for that reason, the greatest possible care has to be exercised to ensure that the money is allocated to the proper roads. I think we can look forward to their always remaining a feature of the work of this Office.
During the year, the same amount of money is available, even with a reduced number of unemployed, and we are satisfied that we shall be able to give as good or better employment during the low season, which is mainly the winter season. In reply to those who mentioned the futility of doing drainage in the winter, may I say that while it may work out in an isolated case that a job is undertaken in the winter, by and large, drainage is not undertaken in the winter? It is preferable to have it carried out in the summer season when better value is given for the money.
I do not think there were any other questions raised to which I need refer on this Vote. Now that I have more intimate contact with the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office, I am prepared to say, with no ulterior motive, that they are always as anxious as I am to have public money that is given to them expended in the most useful way and distributed fairly to the areas for which it was originally intended. They do an excellent job from the top man down to the lowest in the office.
