Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Special Employment Schemes in County Donegal.

15.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the number of (a) married men, (b) single men employed on special employment schemes during the months of December, 1959, and January, 1960, in the employment exchange districts of Killybegs, Dungloe and Dunfanaghy, County Donegal.

The records of employment kept by the Special Employment Schemes Office do not distinguish between married men and single men, nor are the records related to Employment Exchange districts. I regret, therefore, that the specific information asked for by the Deputy is not available. The average number of men employed weekly on special employment schemes in Co. Donegal was 518 in December, 1959, and 388 in the first three weeks of January, 1960. About two-thirds of these were in the west Donegal area. As the regulations in respect of the recruitment of workmen for employment schemes require that unemployment assistance recipients are listed in the order of the number of their dependants and Unemployment Assistance payments, it may be assumed that the majority of the workmen are married men.

Is it a fact that these grants are given for the employment of the unemployed and that special consideration is given, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, to those with the greatest number of dependants? If that is so, all married men who are not widowers should get priority of employment over single men who have no dependants?

There is a fairly general regulation which, as far as I know, is adhered to whereby married men with dependants do get preference on these works schemes.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary heard the reply given by his colleague yesterday as to the number of married men unemployed in this locality and I now suggest to him that single men who are members of Fianna Fáil Cumainn receive preferential treatment over their colleagues in the matter of employment over their colleagues who are married men with dependants.

Surely that is not true. The Deputy can easily visualise the case where the question of distance is bound to come into this also. If a married man is living seven or eight miles away from the particular job perhaps it is not feasible for him to come in to this job when there are single men living beside it.

The married man should be offered the job first and let him decide for himself.

Barr
Roinn