asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the widespread unemployment among county council road-workers in County Monaghan; and if he will make some money available in order to enable them to be reemployed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Monaghan Road Workers.
17.
I am not so aware. The Road Fund grants to Monaghan County Council for the current financial year have been fully allocated and there are no funds at my disposal from which supplementary grants could be made available to the council.
I regret the necessity for asking supplementaries, but, in view of the fact that none of the Monaghan Deputies in the House is interested enough to raise the matter, I feel compelled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is he not aware that when the Road Fund grants allocated were reduced by £1 per week, the increase granted to the road workers, there was a shortage of money to keep the road workers in employment? Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that there are several hundred road workers unemployed in Monaghan?
Nonsense.
There are several hundred road workers unemployed in Monaghan.
Nonsense. I will give the Deputy the figures.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would first answer my supplementary question?
The use of the word "widespread" is entirely uncalled for.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me? Has the Department of Local Government received an application from Monaghan County Council for permission to switch a grant from a bridge, in which there was a low labour content, to road works, in which there is a high labour content, and has that matter been dealt with?
The Deputy has asked a great many supplementary questions. First of all, I will deal with the allegation of widespread unemployment. As compared with April last year, there were this year 35 fewer unemployed in the area; in May, 23; in June, 37; and in July, 21. In August, there was an increase of three; in September, a decrease of six and, in October, a decrease of 24. In the current month, there are just 11 fewer employed on road works than in the previous year. The allegation of widespread unemployment is quite uncalled for.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary must have, for the second time in a short period, got hold of the wrong information because that statement——
This information was provided by phone from Monaghan County Council.
Then I must be very bad——
Exactly.
——because I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that in the Emyvale area alone, there are three times the number he has just mentioned and, in addition, there are a number of unemployed in Carrickmacross and elsewhere. Has the Department sanctioned the transfer of money from the bridge to road works? They were requested to sanction that transfer so that these people could be reemployed.
One of the schemes in the area proposed for execution under the arterial drainage scheme was the replacing of a bridge, for which a sum of £10,000 was provided; this has not been proceeded with, due to delay in finalising the plans for the new bridge. In the circumstances, it was decided to postpone that scheme and transfer the money to another section.
When? This morning?
This proposal was approved by the Department on 2nd December, 1966, a fortnight ago.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say when notice of approval was sent to Monaghan County Council?
It was approved on 2nd December and I presume notice was sent after that.
The Parliamentary Secretary presumes too much.
The Deputy presumed there was widespread unemployment in Monaghan when in actual fact there is none.
Why did the Parliamentary Secretary not make sure of his facts before he came into the House?
Why did the Deputy not make sure of his facts when he went down to South Kerry?
I was not in South Kerry. Things might have worked out differently if I had been there. We would have done better and the Parliamentary Secretary would have done worse. It was my not being there that saved him.
(Interruptions.)
Order.