Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 7

CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISTRESS.

asked the Minister for Finance whether there is any money at the disposal of the Land Commission and/or the Local Government Department for special works for the relief of unemployment and distress, and, if not, whether he intends to make any arrangement for the relief of distress in the congested areas during the present winter.

asked the Minister for Finance if, in view of the many schemes which have been and are being prepared for the relief of unemployment by local authorities and which cannot be undertaken without the necessary money being made available, he will consider the advisability of bringing forward a relief schemes vote in order to enable such works to be carried out on schemes to be sanctioned by the Minister and the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

I propose to answer Questions No. 3 and No. 5 together. The position is that, apart from the sum voted specifically for the relief of unemployment and distress (£50,000), provision has already been made by the Government in the Estimates for the current year of a kind likely to help in securing the same object. For example the expenditure of the sums voted as follows will tend towards the relief of unemployment and distress:

Vote.

Subhead.

£

8 (Local Loans Fund)

A.—Grant-in-Aid

500,000

11 (Public Works and Buildings)

B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

673,790

J.—Drainage

93,000

14 (Property Losses Compensation)

Estimated provision for expenditure on re-building1. Pre-Truce

300,000

2. Post-Truce

500,000

29 (Beet Sugar Subsidy)

152,000

40 (Local Government)

Q.R.S.—Housing Grants

348,000

53 (Forestry Fund)

C.2.—Cultural Operations

29,000

54 (Land Commission)

I.—Improvement of Estates

300,000

56 (Industry and Commerce)

L.—Contributions to the Unemployment Fund and to Special Schemes

225,000

60 (Fisheries)

E.—Fishery Development

34,025

F.—Rural Industries

31,120

Central Fund Services: The following sums have been made available:—

1. For Road Grants in the current year

£1,150,000

2. For advances under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925

1,675,000

The total of the sums mentioned above amounts to £6,010,935.

It is not proposed to make any addition to this provision in the current year.

Does the Minister take into account the fact that these sums were voted nine months ago, that there is still a very great amount of unemployment in the country, and that therefore these sums have been found not to be adequate? Are we to understand that it is not intended to take any further steps in regard to moncys voted for the relief of unemployment in the country?

Is the Minister aware that there are areas in the country where not one penny of the moneys that he has enumerated has been spent or will be spent under the heads mentioned?

No matter how much money we vote, I do not think we could cover all the areas. The general view taken when the Estimates were being framed was that works of a capital nature should be pushed ahead as quickly as possible, and as big sums as possible expended on them in the present year in order to relieve unemployment. We might have done less in that respect and given less employment and have had no more criticism than we have had. I do not think it can be taken that there is any negligence because we are spending the money on what might be called ordinary constructive work rather than on special relief schemes.

Are we to understand from the Minister that it is not his intention or the intention of the Government to bring in any relief schemes before the end of the year, and that councils and local authorities who have already submitted schemes must carry on those schemes at the expense of the local rates?

It is not intended to bring in any additional vote, but this year advances are being made out of the Local Loans Fund to the local authorities, which arc carrying out schemes that will give employment.

Can the Minister say what proportion of the six million odd for these local schemes has been paid or agreed upon by his Department?

I could not say the exact figure at the moment.

Will the Minister answer that if I put down a question and give him due notice?

Is the Minister aware that numbers of these works involve the employment of skilled men and that the tendency to unemployment is amongst the unskilled men?

Well, a great many of these works are works that can be carried out by unskilled or semi-skilled labour.

In connection with road work, is the Minister aware that the heads of the Roads Department have given strict instructions to county councils not to proceed with road work until the beginning of the spring?

Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that nothing is going to be done to give temporary relief to unemployment in the City of Dublin, where there are many thousands at the present moment on the verge of starvation?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Will the Minister give the House the approximate total cost of the schemes submitted to his Department by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health?

At the moment I cannot.

Barr
Roinn