Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1958

Vol. 165 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes—(Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £224,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for employment and emergency schemes (including relief of distress). (Minister for Finance.)

Mr. Casey

When the debate was adjourned last night, I was outlining the serious unemployment condition in my own constituency, Cork City, and I was endeavouring to relate the present unhappy and hopeless position to the programme which had been put before the electors of Cork, prior to the last general election. On that occasion, we were favoured with a personal message from Deputy Galvin, a special invitation to the electors of the City of Cork to support his programme. He pointed out on that occasion that Fianna Fáil had set a state of full employment as their goal and he went on to say that they were working out the details of a dynamic programme of investment.

I was suggesting last night, and I am suggesting now, that it is high time Deputy Galvin, or somebody on his behalf, would let the electors of Cork City and the country generally know exactly what these details are, or at least have the courtesy to point out what misfired between the days prior to the last general election and now, when things are in such a sorry plight. It might be said that the Government cannot accept full responsibility for every statement made at election time by every one of their candidates, but in this same news sheet there was a general statement from the Party which no doubt was duly and conscientiously vetted at the time and for which the Party now in power, the Party in general, will have to accept responsibility. They stated: "We have unused resources, physical, human and financial which can be organised and be made productive. Fianna Fáil is planning to use them."

An Ceann Comhairle

What is really before the House on the Order Paper is money in respect of urban employment schemes, development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers and rural improvement schemes. That is all that is really before the House. What the Deputy may allege to be the general policy in respect of unemployment and what was said at a general election is not relevant on these Estimates.

Mr. Casey

I submit that a good deal of latitude has been allowed. It is rather unfortunate that the axe should be brought down on me at this stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have intervened in respect of other Deputies.

Mr. Casey

I am submitting, with respect, that other speakers sailed very much closer to the wind than I am doing. I am simply endeavouring to relate the unemployment position in my constituency to the position that was put before the people at the last general election.

An Ceann Comhairle

What Deputy Galvin said is surely not pertinent or relevant to the items on this White Paper. I allowed the Deputy a good deal of latitude last night; I have allowed him some latitude this morning, but I cannot allow the debate on this Estimate to expand into a debate on Government policy or what the Deputy alleges is Government policy. He should confine himself more closely to what is on the White Paper.

Mr. Casey

I think it cannot be denied that a serious unemployment position exists generally throughout the country——

An Ceann Comhairle

That really does not arise, but I have allowed Deputies to refer to it to some extent in speaking and I have allowed Deputy Casey to do so. I am now asking him to confine himself more closely to what is on the paper.

Mr. Casey

I think it may be said that the policy—if it could be so described—that was put before the electors and supported by the people who returned the Government Party to power has not been carried out and we are entitled to ask is there any hope at all, because, as I remarked last night, not alone is there concern with the unemployment situation as it exists, but there is a general feeling of hopelessness and frustration throughout the whole community. Up and down the country, we see houses being locked up, men taking their families away, men who have never been unemployed before, people who up to recently regarded themselves as in good sound and solid employment, people who were regarded even two years ago as sufficiently creditworthy to get loans from local authorities to build their own houses. In addition to the ordinary casual unemployed persons, we now have these people forming a new category of unemployed. I suggest to the Minister and the Government that the people deserve better treatment, that they expect and should get a statement of policy now.

Very many Deputies supporting the Government have not spoken on this matter, but I am sure it has not passed unnoticed that, in their own local authorities, they have spoken quite effectively. Quite recently, I remember reading a statement by Deputy O'Malley made, I think, at Limerick Corporation meeting, when he said that in his experience things were never worse. He referred generally to the unemployment situation and he also appeared to have despaired of a solution.

I do not want to repeat anything that has been said here before, but, in all sincerity, I say to the Minister that even now he could do much to restore confidence if he would even indicate that the situation is not without hope. If he could put some definite policy before the people, some definite programme, he may, even at this late stage, be able to restore the people's confidence. As I said, frustration is rampant and very many public people have not been helpful in that regard. They have been saying that the country is sunk, that there is no hope for it. When we have people in high places saying that, the ordinary unemployed person cannot but feel frustrated.

I believe the Government has a duty to take action quickly and to show the people that what they said prior to the last election was not said entirely to dupe the people into false confidence. I hope that in winding up this debate the Minister will make some such statement.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. J. Murphy

I shall be very brief. I should like to know if this is the extent of the great Fianna Fáil "Get cracking" policy which they so loudly proclaimed before the last general election. It seems that the people now have the measure of the sincerity of the Fianna Fáil Party. Last year, we heard much discussion about £100,000,000, but, in my opinion, £224,000 is very far removed from the £100,000,000 which Fianna Fáil promised would bring about full employment.

I have repeatedly asked the Taoiseach if he would give some indication of his policy in regard to full employment, but to date I have got no satisfaction, and I should like to ask the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party now if they would declare a state of emergency to deal with the whole question of unemployment. I would ask them to get down seriously to the planning of a long-term proposal for full employment and to take immediate steps to reduce the unemployment figure.

There has been much debate on the whole question of unemployment. It has been debated for the past 35 years by all the Party politicians. It is time to put an end to all the talk about what we will do to relieve unemployment and, instead, to do something about it. If the Government do not do something about unemployment, I warn them, for the last time, that the unemployed will focus world-wide attention on their shameful situation. There is little use in talking about democratic institutions when 86,000 families are on the border of starvation. I say to the Government: get cracking; stop talking about unemployment but, rather, do something about it. Let us have some action now from the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is generally recognised that the unemployment problem is serious. In considering this question, it is well that we should reflect on the circumstances of the past two years. During the greater part of 1956, the previous Government had to deal with a very difficult problem in correcting the adverse balance of payments. Later in that year, the problem was further aggravated by the Suez crisis. When we applied remedies to deal with the balance of payments difficulties, those remedies were criticised by the then Opposition, and it was made clear that Fianna Fáil would have a different approach. We made it quite clear that, in applying the remedies which were put into operation, some dislocation and possibly even hardship would occur, but that, recognising the problem that had to be faced, we believed—on the information available and on the basis of the best advice that could be given to the Government—that, whatever temporary dislocation, and even temporary unemployment, might be caused by the application of the remedies then adopted, they would prevent large-scale mass unemployment. Whether or not that policy secured public support does not greatly matter.

It was generally accepted by those in a position to know that the balance of payments position had to be corrected. We regarded the remedies applied as the best in the circumstances. The then Opposition—Fianna Fáil—said they would apply a different remedy to the situation. Allowing for the difficulties that were created by the steps taken and allowing also for the problems resulting from the Suez crisis, Fianna Fáil secured a majority at the election last March, more through dissatisfaction with what had been done by the previous Government than through any confidence that they themselves could achieve a more satisfactory result.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but clearly he is widening the scope of the discussion very considerably. I would remind him that this is a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

As I understand it, unemployment was debated all last night on this Supplementary Estimate which is for the provision of money for urban employment, for road and amenity schemes, housing sites, development schemes in urban areas and other work in rural areas.

An Ceann Comhairle

What the Deputy has been saying is outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

It covers a very wide field.

An Ceann Comhairle

We can discuss the items on the paper. I have allowed every Deputy, up to this, to speak for a short time on the subject of unemployment but I cannot allow the whole economic and financial policy of the Government to be traversed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

If the Chair will allow me to develop my remarks, I will show that I am within the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy knows well the extent of the Supplementary Estimate and what can be discussed on it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I appreciate that. I also notice that the discussion last night was very wide.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy certainly widened the debate more than anybody else. I have allowed every Deputy to speak to a certain extent——

Mr. Cosgrave

I should be sorry to think that I extended the debate more than it was extended last night.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is doing so.

Mr. Cosgrave

The position is that on the expressed statements of the present Government the people were led to believe that Fianna Fáil had a policy to deal with unemployment. That policy, as it was adumbrated, was to be implemented in the course of a five-year plan. Almost one year has elapsed and the extent of the application of that policy is hardly to be judged by the amount of money in this Supplementary Estimate. There is a total in this Estimate for this year of £287,000 for urban employment schemes. I do not accept the view that the Government can, by themselves, solve the unemployment problem. Government policy can direct the national economy but it cannot do everything. Full employment is undoubtedly a desirable objective but it is difficult to achieve. Where I join issue with the Government is not on the amount or otherwise of this Estimate—because it is only a comparatively trivial sum in the total national expenditure—but on the fact that people were led to believe that if Fianna Fáil were elected they had a plan to solve unemployment.

Even allowing for the fact that large numbers of persons have emigrated and that on this register of unemployed a proportion are undoubtedly unemployable or that even a proportion are only temporarily unemployed, there is still a hard core of people looking for work. What I feel is wrong in the Government's approach to this problem is that the accent is in the wrong direction. We believe that, in order to stimulate development in the country, the Government should endeavour to create conditions in which private economic development, through private enterprise, would be stimulated and encouraged.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will agree that that is not part of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is public money for a variety of development schemes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The scope of the Deputy's remarks is not covered on the paper.

Mr. Cosgrave

This deals with additional provision for road and amenity schemes, housing sites, development schemes in urban areas and, lower down, a number of rural improvements.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's statements may be relevant on a main Estimate or on a motion, but they are irrelevant now on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

The position, therefore, is that the proposals enshrined in this Supplementary Estimate, can hardly even be described as an instalment of a plan to deal with unemployment. The Local Authorities (Works) Act provided not merely employment, but, in addition, a scheme which was productive in itself in so far as it enabled drainage and other work to be carried out. At the same time, we believed it was only part of the whole problem. This provision in the Estimate makes some contribution in respect of accommodation roads, drains and so on, for the joint benefit of groups of farmers. It also provides a limited sum for drainage and other work to facilitate the production of turf by landholders, and so on. If the work which was being carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act had been allowed to continue, it would have brought about a number of works schemes which, by themselves, might even obviate the necessity for specific payments such as are contemplated under this Supplementary Estimate.

At the present time, the Government appear to be concentrating on less than essentials. I do not doubt that a number of schemes may be worth while —may not only be desirable but even justified in different circumstances. However, at the present time, more money is being taken in taxation and more money is being extracted from the people than ever before and the small contribution included in this Supplementary Estimate cannot in any sense solve—if, in fact, even alleviate —the serious unemployment position.

I do not accept the view that a Government can solve the unemployment problem. I do not think it is right to induce people to think that Government action alone can end it. But this Government now in office secured public support on the basis that they could, if elected, solve this problem. If this is the first instalment of that plan, then it is obvious that it is going to be inadequate. I agree that it will take not merely the combined effort of Government but the united efforts of all sections of the community to deal with some of these problems.

A great many references have recently been made to the spirit of cynicism that is abroad, to the disillusionment that comes from the fact that although Governments change, the situation remains the same. I have no doubt that a material contributing factor to that was the expressed view, not merely in speeches but in posters and publicity of all sorts, that if this Government were elected, they could deal with the problem. If this Supplementary Estimate proves the fallacy of that type of propaganda, then it is worth while.

Mr. Rooney

This Estimate is obviously a stop-gap sop towards the provision of a very limited measure of employment. The Minister himself says that the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to allow greater flexibility in arranging for the short-term relief of unemployment. That makes me pose this question: What is the need for this short-term relief of unemployment? Is it not because the present Fianna Fáil Government failed in their promise, the promise they held out last year when they said: "Wives, get your husbands to work"? Here, they offer a small sum of money towards the short-term relief of unemployment.

Coupled with that, there is a greater measure of destitution amongst the unemployed than ever before resulting from the heavy increases in bread and butter prices, in addition to tea. When all we do to relieve this matter is to deal with the short-term relief of unemployment, we must remember that at present there are 85,000 registered unemployed. The Fianna Fáil Government appears to be complacent about it when they offer such a small sum towards this short-term relief, as they describe it themselves. The complacency probably arises from the fact that at one stage the Fianna Fáil Party were able to boast of having 145,000 persons on the unemployment register. The figure is now 85,000 persons. In addition, 50,000 persons have emigrated during the past 12 months. It is admitted that during 1957 emigration was a record.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

It is not so admitted.

Mr. Rooney

Well, then, it should be and the people outside know that it should be admitted.

Dr. Ryan

1956 and 1957 are the record, except for the time of the Famine.

Mr. N. Egan

Unemployment is down by 10,000 persons.

Mr. Rooney

Since last year, but where have they gone? They have gone to England because Fianna Fáil did not provide work for them.

Mr. N. Egan

The same thing applied in 1956.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Rooney

I am talking of 1957 and the present time. Deputy N. Egan said there was a reduction of 10,000 unemployed since last year, but they have gone across the water. There now remain 85,000 unemployed persons because Fianna Fáil have failed to provide the work which wives were led to believe would be provided for their husbands who were unemployed this time last year. On that matter, I should like to mention that this short-term relief of the unemployment problem is designed to absorb the number of people who lost their jobs in industry during 1957.

I am indebted to the Irish Independent for the following figures. The average number of persons employed in industry in 1957 was 140,352. The average number of persons employed in industry in 1956, when the Costello Government was in power, was 142,910. In other words, the employment position in industry was better in 1956 under the Costello Government than in 1957 under the Government of the promised land which offered so much to the people last year.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Did you not run away from your responsibility? Did you not dissolve the Dáil?

Mr. Rooney

Everyone knows that last year the Fianna Fáil Party took advantage of the situation and they rushed in and put down a motion, so that they could leave the people without a Government. They knew the situation as well as the inter-Party Government at the time. It was optional to the Fianna Fáil Party. They had the opportunity to rush in and put down a motion, or leave the inter-Party Government to shoulder the responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must discuss the Estimate before the House.

Mr. Rooney

Yes, Sir. As I say, the Fianna Fáil Party had the opportunity of leaving the inter-Party Government in office, if they thought they ought to shoulder the responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the Estimate.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He does not know——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Burke should allow Deputy Rooney to make his statement in his own way.

Mr. Rooney

Under sub-head F, Urban Employment Schemes, there is mention of the original Estimate of £140,000, which is being brought up now to a total allocation of £287,000. That brings me to Dublin City. It has been stated recently— and properly—that the position in Dublin City at the moment is almost as bad as it was in 1913, that there is a great measure of destitution. There is that great measure of destitution and the number of unemployed persons in Dublin City was never greater. I shall challenge the Minister for Finance on that.

Dr. Ryan

It was greater this time last year.

Mr. Rooney

It was not.

Dr. Ryan

It was.

Mr. Rooney

Will the Minister quote the figures?

Dr. Ryan

I shall.

Mr. Rooney

Thank you. I am satisfied that unemployment this year is greater than last year in Dublin City. Not alone that, but there is destitution amongst those unemployed people as a result of the increases in the bread and butter prices. There is a greater measure of destitution amongst the unemployed people of Dublin City than ever before, because the 1/6 a week which they were allowed does not go far enough to meet the extra cost of the staple food of the people, which was increased in price last year. On that point, I should like to say that the unemployment position in Dublin City at the moment was caused mainly by Deputy Briscoe, who used his position as Lord Mayor in 1956 to kill the building industry—and it never got on its feet since. Many of those people were engaged in the essential work of building houses at that time. A scare was created for the purpose of upsetting the Government at the time and it was successful.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Rooney knows that is wrong. I am surprised at him.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Rooney knows the records.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He should not state untruths here in that way.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Burke please restrain himself?

Mr. P.J. Burke

What about the 350 people in County Dublin who were refused their loans by the then Minister for Local Government?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing loans.

Mr. Rooney

No one is getting a loan now, Sir. That is the difference.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We had to clear it up.

Mr. Rooney

This money here, £140,000, is supposed to ease the situation in Dublin City and other urban areas, mainly due to the fact, that the house building was ended, thanks to Deputy Briscoe. The records will prove that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Indeed they will not.

Mr. Rooney

Week after week and day after day, he had motions down and had vigorous debates which caused a considerable measure of confusion, a stoppage in the flow of money and a standstill in building operations. Now we have a £140,000 sop offered to those people, who have the choice of seeking work by which they can earn this small sum, or of emigrating. On that point, I should like to mention that the Fianna Fáil Party got their answer last November, when their vote dropped from 8,000 to 3,000.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss elections or by-elections, but what is on the paper.

Mr. Rooney

Yes, Sir. They dropped that vote owing to the fact that there was not enough money available under emergency employment schemes to provide people with a week's work. In less than a year the Fianna Fáil Party dropped that heavy vote. It is an indication that public confidence in the Fianna Fáil Party has been undermined—and has been undermined mainly because of the fantastic promises which were made by them prior to the election and not fulfilled.

It was mentioned last night—and I presume I am entitled to mention it here—that a £100,000,000 scheme was put before the people at that time. The people were asked to vote on the understanding that £100,000,000 would be pumped into industrial activity, which would absorb the unemployed. We have seen none of that, but we see here to-day a very small allowance under this particular scheme.

I am sorry I do not know very much about the bog development schemes but I understand that there has been a fall also in the employment content of this aspect of our economy. When we consider the money which is being made available, we must remember that if the Local Authorities (Works) Act had not been abandoned by the Government it might have been possible to absorb a greater number of persons in urban employment schemes under the money that would be available through that Act than for the sum of £140,000 herein. It is more marked in the rural areas, because the Local Authorities (Works) Act, as it was operated in the rural areas, provided a large volume of public employment on useful schemes.

A sum of £65,000 is sought under sub-head J for rural improvement schemes. That money, if spread over 10,000 weeks, would be very little among the huge number of unemployed at the moment. Calculated in that way, it would give little or no employment. But we have not got even £65,000 because, when introducing the Supplementary Estimate, the Minister said it is not anticipated that the actual expenditure at the end of March would have exceeded £50,000, that the balance would be expendable next year. Why was the Minister not honest? Why did he not seek sanction for £50,000 when that was the figure he had in mind? The remaining £15,000 does not mean anything now because it is not anticipated that it will be spent in this financial year.

When the Minister is replying I hope we shall get from him some explanation of the Government's attitude towards the unemployed people. Very little was done by the Government in connection with the dock strike which has been causing considerable unemployment in the various industries which depend on the free flow of goods. The position has been allowed to grow worse. The only action taken by the Government on the dock strike——

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter does not arise for discussion on this Estimate, as the Deputy knows well. Discussing it now will not improve the position.

Mr. Rooney

In the Minister's own words, this Supplementary Estimate is to arrange for the short-term relief of unemployment. What I am saying is that a certain amount of unemployment resulted from the dock strike because the Government did not take the action necessary to have the strike settled earlier.

An Ceann Comhairle

Statements such as that are likely to enlarge the discussion into the merits and demerits of the dock strike.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Lynch is gone now.

Mr. Rooney

It is proposed to give £140,000 for urban improvement schemes. It is no exaggeration when I say that the people are suffering from dejection of spirit as well as destitution. There are many people now destitute, roaming the roads wondering where next they will go. It does not suit many of them to emigrate. It has been said that the people who can emigrate are lucky. Yet last year emigration was deplored by the Fianna Fáil Party. They have certainly done nothing to remedy it.

I feel this is only a stop-gap gesture; I feel it is not the kind of plan that people expected when they heard the promises which were made to them last year by the Fianna Fáil Party. They have been let down in every respect. They were assured last year, for instance, that the price of bread would not be increased. All the promises made during the election and all the assurances given have not been fulfilled. There will be further destitution among unemployed people because investigations are being carried out at the moment by social welfare officers with a view to reducing widows' pensions and various other pensions.

An Ceann Comhairle

That question does not arise on this Estimate and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Rooney

I met a widow in Balbriggan yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle

It must be very pleasant to meet a widow in Balbriggan but it certainly is not relevant to this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

Her pension was reduced by £40.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not by this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

I do not know where she is going to get this £40 that has been stopped. I do not see anything in this Supplementary Estimate which would relieve such people.

An Ceann Comhairle

The money to provide for these people would not come out of an Employment Vote.

Mr. Rooney

She probably has a few unemployed sons as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will not get away with that on this Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

I feel that the unemployed figure of 85,000 at the present time does not really indicate the true position. These cold figures do not show the conditions inside the homes of these people. The unemployment allowances which will be available to them in respect of the money provided under this scheme are not sufficient to meet the ordinary costs—

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy thinks he may discuss unemployment allowances and widows' pensions on this Estimate, he is making a big mistake.

Mr. Rooney

Then I shall reserve what I have to say on them to a later stage.

Mr. Carew

I quite understand that the scope of this debate is limited and for that reason I shall confine my remarks to my own constituency. The unemployment problem has been dealt with by every speaker and each has judged it from his own point of view or perhaps from the national point of view, but that there is an acute unemployment problem is evident to all.

No doubt one Government can point to causes why unemployment rose during its term of office. Deputy Cosgrave this morning did briefly refer to the causes which led to much of the unemployment from which we are still suffering. It occurred in 1956 during the inter-Party term of office. The cause then was dear money, what was known as the "bank squeeze". Then there were the restrictions due to the Suez trouble. It cannot be denied that these factors were outside the control of any Government. Remedies have to be found for them. The remedies which were necessary had to be severe and they caused considerable unemployment. Much of the damage done because of the Suez crisis and money restrictions is still unrepaired and it is now for the Government of the day to find a solution and to steer our people through that course.

It is a sad thing to see unemployment particularly when one is in public life, whether one be a member of a local authority or a T.D. representing a constituency. I am a member of Limerick Corporation and I am well acquainted with the many difficulties with which we have to contend in that body. In the past we have been given many grants from Government sources and I can boast that we spent those moneys usefully. We spent them largely on housing development work and that was undoubtedly economic spending. Some people may say that it is rather wasteful to tear up roads and paths and lay new roads but when we are serving the community by developing sites for housing schemes and other such work, such expenditure is money well spent.

I understand that £140,000 of this grant is being given to urban authorities. I would make a special plea for Limerick because many of our industries are going through a rather serious stage. There are many causes for unemployment and perhaps national policy is responsible for some of it. Shipping at Limerick Port has been very much curtailed in recent years due to the development of the wheat policy of the Government. In addition it is evident that due to the development of electricity our port is suffering from the reduced importation of coal. I do not want to go through all the causes but there are many of them.

It is understandable that the Minister should receive demands from perhaps every town in the country but I would say that Limerick deserves special consideration. I would join in the statement of my colleague, Deputy Russell, who yesterday described the unemployment position in Limerick as being the worst in living memory. It is certainly very bad. In the past 12 years we have extended the borough in Limerick and taken in additional areas. We lived up to our obligations in that respect, developed housing, and so on, and brought amenities to all these housing schemes. As a result, a severe strain has been placed on the ratepayers of Limerick City and we are carrying a heavy financial burden.

My constituency also embraces part of County Limerick, the rural area. I am glad to see that money is being allocated for bog schemes. A great deal of drainage is needed there and we all deplore the cessation of operations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act under which money was very usefully spent. I would appeal to the Minister to treat the rural areas in a very special way because that work has provided employment for men in the rural areas during the lean months of the year.

Again in relation to Limerick City, our claim can be said to be more prominent than any other because we have not got any new industries there. We have people being forced to emigrate and it is especially sad for married men with families. It is not so difficult for a young single man who would perhaps like to take a fling at seeing the world, but it is very different when we see married men with young children going away because there is no employment at home. There are many old-established industries in Limerick. Being an industrialist myself, I have a very good knowledge of many of these industries.

I hope and trust that the moneys the Minister is allocating now will be an encouragement to our people to stay at home and to work at home. We are going through a critical period, the aftermath of the financial crisis that occurred in 1956 as a result of the money restrictions which then existed. The fact that money was made dear, the fact that house building is not practicable for many people who would otherwise be building, makes the Government's responsibility all the greater and I sincerely trust that the Minister will give due consideration to my constituency in the allocation of this money.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I feel there was a lot of uninformed criticism on this Vote. If Deputies had read the late Parliamentary Secretary's introduction of the main Vote last year, I feel they would have found a great deal of the information they were looking for here and would not have made many of the statements which they did make. They would also have seen that a number of the matters which were raised could not be raised and could not be dealt with on this Vote. It is too much to expect Deputies to do that sort of thing—to read up a debate before they come in here—and consequently we had a lot of uninformed statements made.

It is a peculiar thing that those who spoke for the cities all said that the unemployment position was never as bad, that they had not got as much money under this Vote. Both statements were wrong. In every single case where Deputies spoke for cities —Dublin, Cork, Limerick—and some towns as well, the fact is that the unemployment position is not as bad as this time last year. I quite admit it is far too bad. The fact is also that there was more money allocated to these three cities than they could spend on these schemes. It would have suited Deputy Larkin from Dublin, and perhaps Deputy Casey from Cork, to have inquired in their own cities about this money and to have tried to suggest workable schemes. If they had done that, there would have been more work given under this scheme. That applies also, to some extent, to Limerick.

I could not find any fault with the criticism suggested by Deputy Russell and Deputy Carew because it was reasonable. It is a fact, all the same, that, in Limerick, the unemployment position is not as bad and that there is there unspent money under this Vote. Lest my statement be taken as being too sweeping, I shall quote figures available for the most recent date, given by the Taoiseach in reply to a question here last week. The figures showed that there were 18,574 unemployed in Dublin as against 20,881 for the previous year. In Cork, the figures were 3,892 this year as against 6,181 last year. In Limerick, there were 3,037 unemployed as against 3,213 last year.

I do not blame Deputy Carew and Deputy Russell for having the impression that the unemployment position was never as bad. It is a most depressing thing to see people unemployed. On the other hand, it is not fair that they should make statements, without investigation, that the unemployment position was never as bad as it is at the present time. I would like to see a great improvement in the position, if it could be brought about. As I said, in Cork and Dublin, there is a fair amount of the money voted under these urban schemes still unexpended. The reason why the money is still unspent is that schemes which could be dealt with under this Vote were not put up, and it would be very much more to the point if Deputy Larkin in Dublin and Deputy Casey in Cork would go into their local offices and try to get something done. As a matter of fact, it would have been very much more to the profit of the Cork people if Deputy Casey would do that rather than carry Deputy Galvin's speech in his pocket and quote from it.

Mr. Kyne

Why did Deputy Galvin not do it?

Dr. Ryan

He did not come in here to complain but Deputy Casey did.

Mr. Crotty

Schemes were sent up to the Department, but they were not sanctioned.

Dr. Ryan

Some of them were sanctioned, especially where people were diligent about the thing. Take my own home town of Wexford. Schemes were sent up from there, and some were sent back but others were sanctioned. All the money has been spent there because you have people looking after their business. Deputy Murphy in West Cork—to take a rural area—also spoke of the great unemployment, which is not as bad as it was last year, and spoke of the inadequacy of the amount quoted for these schemes in that area. There was more money voted than there was last year. When we have Deputies getting up here, without consulting any authoritative source or any figures whatever and making the same speech as they make to their groups down the country in their halls—where there are no Press representatives present or, if they are present, it does not matter— that unemployment was never as bad before and that there is less money than before, they are all wrong.

If we want to solve this problem, and I am quite sure that the Labour Party want to solve it and that the Fine Gael Party want to solve it, the very first essential is to get the facts. There is no use in trying to solve the problem by making accusations against other Parties. We must know where the people are unemployed and we must know what money we have available, and then see what can be done, but the problem can be solved only by sticking to the facts.

This Supplementary Estimate is not, and never was, meant to solve the whole unemployment position. We had Deputies coming in here saying that we had promised £100,000,000 and that now we were coming to look for only £250,000. This £250,000 was mentioned in the Budget. I have come across correspondence between the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, and his Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary was looking for more money for schemes and the Minister for Finance had turned down his request.

I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary made a good case and I asked my own Parliamentary Secretary what he thought. He agreed and thought that we should get in more money, and the £250,000 was decided upon. That was done in the Budget. Even so, we have Deputies getting up and giving the impression, which I think they believe themselves, that at this late stage, after being in office for almost 12 months, we found that we could not solve the unemployment position and brought in this paltry figure. This figure is brought in only to fulfil, first of all, a promise and a provision in the Budget for extra money which is practically all spent. We are asking Dáil Éireann to vote this money; otherwise, I will be in a bit of trouble over it because I will have to pay it myself. I do not know where I would get it.

Mr. Crotty

God is good.

Dr. Ryan

The money spent on these schemes does not do an awful lot for the relief of unemployment. Under them, the maximum employment is given just before Christmas because many local authorities try to hold on to £1,000 or a couple of thousand pounds, to try to give work to as many as possible just before Christmas. The actual number employed under these schemes before Christmas last was 5,635, and I suppose that was the peak. The figure goes down practically to nothing in summer and the total amount of employment given under these schemes is not very big.

The purpose of this Vote always was, and has been for the past 30 years, to pay out money for schemes that were otherwise uneconomic, to give a grant for such schemes, to abolish unemployment where it was felt to be worse, as a rule. Under these schemes, so much money was allotted to each city or town, according to the measure of its unemployment problem. There are also the bog schemes which not alone provide employment but give benefit to the people getting turf from the bogs, by draining the bogs and making better roads. They give some passing benefit to the unemployed in the respective districts, but such schemes were never meant to be a solution of the unemployment problem. Relief schemes are a palliative measure; they have no curative effect whatever on unemployment. They pass, and people go back on the unemployment register again. They cannot be regarded as a remedy.

There are three items mentioned here and I do not want to go into them in any great detail. There is the bog scheme which is a very praiseworthy scheme and makes it easier for people to get their turf out. Then, there is the urban employment scheme which usually means the making of a new path or the developing of a building site where unskilled labour can be employed. In addition to that, there is the rural improvements scheme which I have always regarded as a very good one for the effect which it has. Where there are two or three people living alone in a bad lane in the countryside, they can join together, contribute a certain amount, and get a large grant from this source in order to make that lane into a passable road linking their homes with the main road. It is a very praiseworthy scheme for the effects which it has on country population.

A good lot was said about the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Everybody in the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party appeared to be unanimous that it was a great scheme. I know there were some very bad things done under it—most scandalous works and most scandalous waste of money. When my colleague became Minister for Local Government, he did not think it could be continued in the form in which it was. As far as I know, the whole scheme was never removed. It was cut down and cut down very drastically. Whether the present Minister for Local Government thinks he could have such a scheme under other safeguards, I do not know, but it is a matter for him to make the first recommendation. I want to say very emphatically that a lot of the works carried out under that Act could not be countenanced by any responsible Government.

Mr. Crotty

They were all sanctioned by the Department of Local Government and your Department.

Dr. Ryan

I know that. As I said at the beginning, this Vote is merely dealing with an alleviation of the unemployment position in certain very well-defined areas. It is not an occasion on which we could discuss unemployment in general or what remedies the Government could suggest. It is easy for a member of the Opposition to shoot a question of that kind—what does the Government propose to do? —and he may be in order in doing so. I am quite sure, however, if I set out now to discuss for half or three-quarters of an hour the Government's programme for unemployment the Ceann Comhairle would have to rule me out of order.

Deputy Corish said we had cut down on all forms of employment, not only items of relief, but also of housing and roads. That is a very unjust accusation from Deputy Corish and Deputy Corish can hardly plead that he does not know the facts. I am quite sure he was a diligent Minister and knew what was going on, why it was going on, and would not agree to anything being done by another Minister in that Government without knowing about it. He, therefore, knows the things which were done by the previous Government and he knows that when I came to produce my Budget I provided an extra £2,000,000 for housing over and above what the previous Government provided in 1956-57. How can Deputy Corish have the hard neck to stand up here and say we are not doing enough for housing? The same applies to roads. In their last year in office, they took £500,000 out of the Road Fund. We did not take £500,000 out; we paid in £900,000 to make up for the raid of our predecessors in 1956-57.

We cannot be accused of being unsympathetic to housebuilding and the making of roads. There are occasions, however, when the local authorities meet difficulties on their own. I do not think any Government can be expected to surmount all the difficulties that local authorities deal with. I take it they are real difficulties, if the local authorities cannot get over them.

A good many Deputies on the other side of the House said that more should be spent on this Vote. The Government which represented the Parties on the other side of the House had a certain sum in their Book of Estimates for these relief schemes. In the Budget, I added £250,000. It is to be presumed that if the other Government had returned to office, we would not be discussing this £250,000 and there would be no opportunity of saying to the Coalition: Why do you only give £250,000 for relief schemes?

Deputy Murphy said that if I had gone to West Cork during the last general election campaign and if instead of saying we were going to solve the unemployment question—my memory may be bad, but I do not remember saying that—I said to the people of West Cork that I would be giving this £250,000 for the relief of distress, we would never have won the election. As a matter of fact, we had only come back and taken over Government when I said I would give £250,000 for distress. Neither Deputy Murphy nor any other Labour or Fine Gael Deputy objected. They all thought it would be a good thing to give a little more money for the relief of distress. However successful this or any other Government will be in the solution of unemployment, for years to come there will be room for certain expenditure on distress.

I was also asked by Deputy Murphy how I could justify getting the beneficaries under the rural improvements scheme to make bigger contributions from their own pockets. I think the last Parliamentary Secretary was unjustified in lowering the contribution. It meant less work could be done. If we can give £200,000 out of the Vote for the rural improvements scheme and if we say to the people: "You will benefit. We will take 33? per cent. from you," then £260,000 can be spent. The last Parliamentary Secretary did not agree with that. If we get £200,000 and only take 10 per cent., then only £220,000 will be spent. The increased contribution is a good thing and goes further in getting the work done.

A few Deputies raised a question in regard to the amount spent under this rural improvements scheme. An additional £65,000 was allocated. Only £50,000 was spent and the other £15,000 is to be spent after 31st March. We are asking for only £50,000. In the urban employment schemes, £140,000 was allocated out of the extra Vote. Actually, we are asking for £7,000 more so there will be £147,000 to spend before 31st March.

Vote put and agreed to.