asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the number of persons who have been disallowed unemployment assistance and who are under age 50.
14.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the number of persons who have been disallowed unemployment assistance in the constituency of South Tipperary including West Waterford; the number of such persons under age 50; if he has proposals under consideration to help persons in both categories, and if, in the meantime, he will take steps to ensure that home assistance is provided for such persons, as a matter of urgency.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the grave hardship experienced by a large number of persons who were disallowed unemployment assistance; and that many of them have been refused home assistance and are destitute; if he will outline in detail what plans he is making to assist such persons; and when such plans will be put into operation.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15 together.
It is assumed that the reference in all three questions is to persons disallowed since 14th April, 1971 under the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) (No. 2) Order, 1971, the scope of which has been further restricted since 28th April by an amending order. Considerable numbers of men without dependants will, as a result, have title to unemployment assistance restored to them from 28th April because they are residing on specified coastal islands or are aged 50 upwards.
Until this restoration has been completed and the relevant returns from local offices have been processed, it is not feasible to state the number of men under age 50 who have incurred disallowance.
I circulated with the Official Report for 5th May a statement of the number of disallowances at each local office up to 23rd April, which was only a few days before the effective date of the amending order, and informed the House then that the statistics are not maintained on the basis of constituencies or of country of residence. I hope to communicate to the Deputy within the next three weeks, on a local office basis, the additional figures he now seeks.
With regard to the other matters raised, I wish to point out that, in association with the Government decision to reintroduce an employment period, provision was made for an extra half million pounds, bringing the total provision up to one million this year, for local improvement schemes in rural areas, particularly in the west. These extra moneys, taken in conjunction with the restoration of unemployment assistance to islanders and to men of 50 and upwards, release from the effect of the order the category likely to suffer hardships from the operation of the employment period. The Minister for Local Government has asked county managers to make a special effort to increase the number of schemes in operation during the employment period. In view of these measures, I find it difficult to accept that the present restricted scope of the order is a source of grave hardship and I am not aware that many men affected by it have been refused home assistance and are destitute.
In view of the fact that the assistance schemes to which the Minister refers have yet to be planned and, therefore, cannot come into operation for quite a long time and the fact that the road fund grants to each county have been reduced this year, would the Minister like to explain where the county managers will get the extra money and the extra schemes which will employ these people?
The Deputy's county may be different from some of the counties with which I am familiar but at all times there are in western counties a pool of schemes for which there is not sufficient money. The number of schemes submitted is screened and the more urgent ones accepted. The Deputy must know that is true.
Is the Minister under the impression that the only people under 50 who are now refused unemployment benefit are in the western areas?
There are not many around now anyway.
And there will not be, please God, but the Minister is doing nothing to help them.
Assuming that there are no such schemes and in view of the fact that there is no money available to the local authorities to employ people on schemes, could the Minister say whether he has been in touch with the public assistance authorities to see what means can be devised to give some assistance to these people who are now, in fact, destitute?
I met a deputation of home assistance officers yesterday on another matter. I have asked them to provide all the information possible regarding recipients of home assistance in connection with other research which we are doing at present.
In the meantime these people have no money. Practically all the rates have been struck in the country and there is no extra provision for home assistance for any of those people who need it.
I am not aware of any extra demand for home assistance.
There must be.
The Minister is not on a local authority.
The Minister must admit that there are people who have no means. Is not that so? They have no means whatsoever. They are not qualified for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. Will the Minister tell us what else they can get since home assistance is not available to them?
Where would they get the money? On the emigrant ship?
To hell or to England.
Question No. 16.
Deputies are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
If the Minister were hungry he would not be as fat as he is today.
Deputy Corish must know very well that when there were 90,000 persons unemployed in this country he made two of these orders which excluded persons with dependants and they had as much chance of getting work then as they have now.
There were 145,000 unemployed under a Fianna Fáil Government at one time.
This is 1971.
That is so if the Minister wants to make a point of it, but will he tell me what the Fianna Fáil Government did in 1933 when there were 133,000 unemployed?
The figure is 145,000.
There were 133,000 unemployed. So the Minister can stop talking about 90,000.
The 1933 Fianna Fáil Government brought in——
The economic war.
——the unemployment assistance which we are talking about now.
Can the Minister say what will these people do now?
Did I understand the Minister to say in reply to that question, that applicants for local improvements schemes were being screened so that the schemes would be carried out in the areas of the people who were receiving unemployment assistance and are not receiving it now?
I did not say that.
Would the Minister not agree that at the time he referred to when I was Minister for Social Welfare, there was more work on the land, on the roads and in forestry?
There were 171,000 more people at work than there are today. That is the figure given by the Minister.
Will the Minister tell the House whether this charge will be an Exchequer charge or a local authority charge? Will it be on the Exchequer or will it be on the local rates?
That seems to be a separate question.
I insist on an answer. Who will pay for this? Will it be an Exchequer return or a rates return?
They are not interested in the poor now that they have Taca.
Will the Minister answer the question?
The Deputy could put down a question.
Is the Minister qualified to answer the question? The answer is no. The Minister has not a clue.
Deputy Donnellan misunderstood what I said. I was replying to a supplementary question from Deputy Corish about the availability of schemes. I said that in the western counties there was always a pool of schemes. Because of the fact that there was not sufficient money to undertake them all, as the Deputy should know they were usually screened and the most urgent ones taken on. There should be an ample number of schemes in the pool of any local authority now if they want to put them into operation.
They were never screened. The Minister is completely wrong.
Question No. 16.
Can the Minister say how many will be employed during the employment period order out of the £½ million he mentioned?
I could not say.
The Minister is completely wrong in the statement he made.
I have called Question No. 16 to the Minister for Labour.
They are not screened.
Will the Minister state where the money is to come from to pay these people who have been cut off from unemployment assistance by the Minister and who are now on the breadline? They are now paupers.
That is a separate question.
Will it come out of local taxation or national taxation? It must be one or the other. Will the Minister state which it is?
I suggest that the Deputy should ask me in the course of a month how many extra applications there have been.
I am asking the Minister now.
We cannot debate this question all evening.
We could have an answer.
We have 120 Questions to deal with.
There are many people all over the country at the moment who have nothing to get except bread and butter from the St. Vincent de Paul Society. What is the Minister doing about them?
It is amusing to listen to them.
Would the Minister repeat his remark? He prefers not to.