Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 19—RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £13,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Síntiúisí i gcóir Faoisimh ar Dhíomhaointeas agus ar Ghátar.

That a sum not exceeding £65,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for contributions towards the Relief of Unemployment and Distress.

This provision is, perhaps, not the final provision that will be necessary this year. Whether any further sums will be required will depend, in part at any rate, on conditions in the country and also on the rate of progress of the works which it is intended to cover by this particular sum. This sum is practically for the completion of work that has either been done in the year or authorised last year and not carried out. It includes, for instance, provision for work in Dingle Harbour, on Kilrush Waterworks, waterworks at Clones, work at Tralee and Fenit pier, various works that were sanctioned under different Ministries prior to the end of the year. Some of them were sanctioned, or promise was given early last year. For various reasons the machinery of getting the work into operation prevented the money being paid out.

In most of this class of work there are very considerable engineering and other delays, and the work cannot be started. On the other hand, when sums were granted last year, schemes were taken up and promises of assistance were given out of the rates. Although the Vote proposed at this time last year was intended entirely for the year, still it was felt that in the case of schemes that had only been taken up late in the year it would not be fair simply to say, "You have had all your trouble and all your work for nothing and as you did not get your work started or completed within the financial year, nothing at all can be done for you." There is also included in the Vote a provision of some £20,000 to allow the Land Commission to complete certain works which it had in progress at the end of the year.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move that this Vote be referred back for re-consideration with a view to an increase. The sum asked for is £115,000, as against £500,000 voted last year. I am sorry to say that I do not think there is any justification for saying the position to-day is better than it was when we voted £500,000 last year. In some respects it is worse. It is worse in so far as respects the unemployed men who have no insurance to fall back upon. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has told us in effect that, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, he has no proposals to make; he does not intend to bring in any legislation with the view of making it possible to pay unemployment benefit to persons who are not at present in benefit, or who have not stamps to their credit. If we are not to have any unemployment insurance, then something else has to be done. So far as I can see, there is no other way, under these Estimates, at any rate, of dealing with the matter except on this Vote.

We have had two or three discussions as to the extent of unemployment and the intensification of unemployment, and we have been told, with a rather curious disregard of the facts and the prospects, that the summer season ought to reduce considerably the number of unemployed and to make the need for provision very much smaller or entirely unnecessary. That a number of schemes are in course of preparation—housing, roadwork, some of these schemes that the Minister has spoken of now—and that taking one with another we may look for an absorption into the realms of employment of those at present unemployed. There has been no evidence adduced to make us think that there was any basis for that optimism. On the 27th March we had a considerable discussion on this matter, and I gave certain figures based upon the Government's estimates of the numbers likely to be absorbed, supposing the best that was anticipated could be realised during the summer. For instance, supposing 3,000 persons were set to employment on the Shannon scheme, that the bulk of the unemployed in the building trade were absorbed, giving the fullest possible weight to the expectations, and supposing they were all wholly realised, even then we would have a very large number of men still unemployed and wanting food.

Nothing has yet been said to justify the optimism of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and we are left with this position: that the fifty odd thousand persons unemployed two months ago may or may not have been reduced by one or two thousand, may or may not have been increased by one or two thousand—we do not know. Certainly there has been no considerable reduction in the number of unemployed and there has been a considerable increase in the number of unemployed men and women who are no longer in benefit and are therefore entirely without support of a monetary kind, except such support as they may be able to beg, borrow or steal. There are those three possibilities: they may beg, borrow, or steal. That is an unfortunate predicament to place men in; men who have served long periods of apprenticeship, who have served as citizens of this community loyally and well and attempted to bring up their families as good citizens, have been, by virtue of factors over which they have no control, forced into the market for employment and been unable to find a buyer for many months, in some cases years, and are now utterly deprived of support either from insurance or any other source, except, as I said, the three possibilities, that they may beg, borrow, or steal. That is a most unfortunate predicament to place men in. It is a position that I maintain we have got to face and accept responsibility for.

I know the position is a very difficult one indeed, but I will stake everything upon this proposition: that as a community, and as the spokesmen for a community, if we are going to carry through our responsibilities, we must provide the means of life for those men who are willing to give their labour in return, and we must do that on a scale worthy of decent citizenship in a modern State. It is said that we cannot afford it, that nothing can be done, that these men must be allowed to go hungry. That is a counsel of despair. It is an indication that you will want many more twenty thousand pounds for your secret service. I plead with the Minister to take this proposition back and to consider new propositions which would add hundreds of thousands if necessary to this sum, or to bring forward some counter proposition. The Government have refused what I believe to be far and away a better proposition in the present circumstances, until they can find employment to extend the insurance benefit. The Government have refused to do that, refused to continue this insurance basis. Then they have got to find some other way as a responsible Government of meeting the claims of citizens who are willing to work and cannot get work, who have contributed during their working days to insurance schemes, who have been led to believe it was community policy to provide insurance in the absence of employment, and especially to provide employment where insurance was the alternative. There is no one who speaks on behalf of unemployed workmen with any sense of responsibility but will say that it is a hundred times and a thousand times better to provide employment at useful occupations than to throw men back upon insurance, and still better than to throw them back upon what are called relief schemes.

I am not pleading now for relief schemes in the ordinary sense of relief work which is useless. I am asking the Minister to take back this Vote and consider the case of the unemployed workmen, many thousands of whom have families dependent upon them, who have no resources, are deprived of insurance, will be forced upon the poor rate, and if they are deprived of that, as they may well be, in view of the utterances of many people, then you are throwing them back upon their own resources absolutely, and these resources are merely, their strength, their ingenuity, and their moral force, and moral force breaks down in many cases when a man sees his children hungry. I am not going into any details. I press the proposition that this Vote be taken back with a view to its great increase to meet the requirements of the time, and in view particularly of the refusal of the Government to consider the question of the insurance of the unemployed.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to second the motion to refer this Vote back. In doing so, I would like to ask the Minister whether, in arriving at the figure £115,000, he had any comparison made between the numbers unemployed this year and the numbers unemployed at the same period last year. I also want to know whether the amount that appears on the Vote had any reference to the numbers unemployed, or whether the Government have any true figures as to the numbers unemployed in the country. The Government are able to get figures concerning the unemployed who are registered in the Labour Exchanges, but that would not represent more than 50 per cent.—if it did represent 50 per cent.—of the people who are really unemployed. The Minister stated, I think, that the bulk of the £115,000 was for the completion of schemes sanctioned or started last year. Can the Minister tell the Dáil how much of the £115,000 is for new schemes, or can he tell what schemes of relief the Government had in mind? I do not want to use an expression that would be unparliamentary, but it seems to me that the Government have entered upon a sort of policy of "let the unemployed go to the dogs." Not only are they reducing, by a very considerable amount, the sum for relief schemes, but they are not going to make any provision for people who have fallen out of Unemployment Insurance benefit. The present Government or any other Government will fail in their duty if they are not able to provide the people with the means of livelihood. I believe it is the duty of the Government to provide work for people who are prepared to work, or else to give them the means of livelihood. A Government cannot allow a large section of the community to starve.

Deputy Johnson stated that there were only three things left for the unemployed to do: to beg, borrow or steal. The unemployed will not get very much by borrowing, as very few people are prepared to lend them money, seeing that the prospect of ever being able to repay, while the present policy of the Government continues, is not very bright. It comes to this, then, that the unemployed have either to steal or throw themselves on the mercy of the ratepayers and try to get poor relief, or, to give it its modern name, home help. I know that the unemployed will not succeed in getting very much home help even if they are on the verge of starvation. The Government, in my opinion, if they really intend to tackle this problem, have many ways of doing so. The problem is not insurmountable, as many useful works could be carried out throughout the country. As an instance, take the case of the roads. We know that there is an urgent necessity for good roads, and I would suggest that if the Government can borrow money for the Army to fight the Irregulars, and for the Shannon Scheme, they should be able to borrow money for a national road scheme on which to put unemployed men at work.

I claim that it is the duty of the Government to provide the men with work or else feed them, but preferably to put them at useful work. As far as Deputies on the Labour Benches are concerned, they have no desire to see men lining up outside the Labour Exchanges morning after morning to sign on for unemployment benefit at the end of the week. They would much prefer that the men would be employed on work that would be useful to the State. That is the claim they now make. If the Government is unable to provide work it is their duty to provide food for the unemployed men and their families by other means.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I desire to support the motion to refer this proposal back. I do not understand how a difference of practically £400,000 between this year's estimate and last year's estimate was arrived at. Unemployment appears to be equally as bad now as it was this time last year. The benefits of the money that was spent on relief schemes may have been felt in outlying districts of the country; they certainly were not felt in the city of Dublin. Unemployment and hunger are as prevalent this year as last year or the year before. The skilled trades appear to be as badly hit as the unskilled trades. No attempt whatever has been made to make any provision for the relief of the skilled workers. In the iron and steel trades there is as much unemployment as there is in the unskilled trades. I think the Minister would be well advised if he took some steps to provide work in these trades. I am also aware that female workers have been very badly hit. It appears that no effort has been made to provide employment for them. In some households in which there was an old-age pensioner drawing 10/- a week, that money was a help during the period of unemployment. Now the old age pension of 10/- has, in some cases, been reduced to 6/- and to 5/-, so that there is no help to be expected in that direction. I hope the Government will consider the appeal made by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Morrissey, and will deal with proposals for the relief of the unemployed more sympathetically than they have done up to the present.

Mr. BAXTER

For other reasons altogether than those advanced by Deputies Johnson, Byrne and Morrissey, I propose to support this amendment. To a certain extent, I might say at the outset, it is perhaps slightly unfair that I should have to put the case to the Minister for Finance that I propose to make. I did some time ago give notice to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture that I intended to raise certain points on this Vote, in order to give him an opportunity to give them the lie or otherwise, and I expected that it would be the Minister for Lands and Agriculture who would deal with this matter. I do not know in what position the Minister for Finance is to reply to the points that I have to make. I want to say that when this House passes money for relief, or other schemes, the responsibility is on the House to see that that money is fairly and impartially spent, and I am supporting the amendment because of my experience that the money voted last year for relief schemes was not impartially spent. The Minister has told us that the greater part of this Vote is to complete work that was begun in the last financial year. As far as my experience goes, if the House passes this Vote it might as well vote this money into the coffers of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, if it is to be administered as the last relief grants were administered. I will take conditions as I found them, speak of what I know, and will not exaggerate in the slightest; I will tell the House what my experience has been. I will try to put things as I saw them, and I will ask the House whether it considers it fair, whether it considers it just, whether it considers it a good national policy, that we should vote money and have schemes administered as they have been in the past. The House can judge and can take the responsibility.

The Minister, I think, was present at a meeting in my county when the question of the amount of the relief grant that was to be spent in my county was debated. It was previous to a bye-election there. After the Minister was questioned as to the amount of money available for Cavan, and had replied, I think, that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £20,000, the chairman of the meeting said: "If you give us £40,000 we will win the election for you." There was a good deal of discussion one way and the other afterwards. I am not quite clear yet as to how much money was voted for the relief of distress in Cavan—at least, we are supposed to believe that it was for the relief of distress in Cavan. I certainly say that there was very great distress in Cavan. There is distress in Cavan to-day; there is distress in practically every county and in every city and town in Ireland, and I was prepared at any time to support the voting of money for the relief of distress wherever it existed. At the same time, I would like to see that the people who were really in distress would benefit from the administration of these moneys, and that the question of the existence or non-existence of distress should be the test as to whether any individual should or should not benefit. I regret to say that as far as my experience goes that was not the test that was applied.

Further, I say that when moneys are to be spent by any Department the Ministers who get these moneys are responsible to the House for the manner in which they are spent, and the Ministers' officials should be the individuals responsible to them for shaping the policy, allotting the money, and declaring how it should be spent. I put it to the Minister: was that the policy pursued in the spending of these relief grants? I do not know what may have happened in other places. I have heard things. I am not very clear; but I say that as far as my experience goes the political test was the test applied regarding who should have the say as to how this money was to be spent, where it was to be spent, and who should have a word in the spending of it. If it has come down to this, that when we are asked to vote money for any particular purpose that a Minister might think necessary, a political organisation, the political organisation backing the Government of the day, is the body to claim that they shall say where this money shall be spent, and by whom, I say that this House ought to declare, here and now, that it will stop voting any money for the relief of distress.

I will give a few instances that have been brought to my notice. I could bring sheafs of letters; I could let the Minister have letters that came to me during the period in which this money was being spent. I am not raising it now; the thing is passed, and many of the thoughts that were in people's minds at the time it was spent, have passed with it. But I am taking this up now in a cooler moment, because I think that as a question of national policy it is unsound, unfair, and something that the Dáil ought not to tolerate. When this money was coming to the county a notice was published in the Press. It was a notice that the President of the Executive Council was attending a meeting, and side by side with that was an announcement in the same paper by the secretary of the political organisation, stating that those people who wanted money for the relief of distress should come to the meeting and put their case before the President. There was a great deal more in addition to that. What followed it all? It was reported that engineers came into the county. An engineer appeared here and there, and the next thing that we discovered was that responsible officers of the organisation supporting the Government Party could go into districts and say: "Start a work here," could go in without an engineer, employ men and put them at work, start a work here, start another there, and start another somewhere else. If that did not always happen, what happened was something like this: The Cumann na nGaedheal representative of the district took the engineer under his arm from one district to another and together they decided where the money was to be spent. It seems to me that if money is to be spent fairly and impartially it cannot and will not be if a political organisation is to say where and how it is to be spent, because when it went to the spending this is the sort of thing that happened: drains were to be made. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture, replying to me, said that he did not consider that drainage could be done in winter. Well, drainage was started, and this was the sort of drainage that was done in some districts: Deputies Davin, Johnson and O'Connell were supporters of the Cumann na nGaedheal.——

Mr. DAVIN

We would not get any money.

Mr. BAXTER

And the drain along their land would be cleaned. It came along to Deputy Baxter who was not in the same crowd, did not see from the same angle. The drain along his land was left undone, and it went along to the land of Deputy Connor Hogan and Deputy Gorey, who were of the same political organisation as the other three, and the drain past their land was cleaned. That is one illustration of how the money was spent. The test simply and solely was the political organisation to which a man belonged. I do not know what the President may think of that; I do not know what the Minister for Finance may think of it; I do not know whether they stand over it or not.

The PRESIDENT

This is the first time I have heard of it.

Mr. BAXTER

Is it? Here is another instance: I am in a district; a man says to me: "I did not come to your meeting last night, I went to the other meeting. You could not give me anything or do anything for me. I paid half a crown and joined the organisation. We decided to start the drain we were talking about.""Was the engineer there?" I said. "No," was the reply, "but you know the organiser; he was there." I can give his name; he is employed by the Government in another capacity, but that is another matter. They started to work. This man was interested in getting drainage work done along his own land. The man got the job as a ganger. That went on for a few weeks. I met the man later and asked him how they were getting on. They were suspicious at the time. He said if they continued the work a week longer they would have the drain past his land. The day of the election came. They were suspicious about what this man did at the poll. He was dropped the next day and was ganger no longer. In another district in which the relief works were being carried out there was a man, a labourer, who was suspect, who was thought not to have the same political sympathies or belong to the political organisation. He was dropped. He was told to go about his business. No reasons were given, but the reasons were common property. That is one of dozens of cases that happened in my county. I do not know how much money was spent, but that is the way it was spent. If you did not belong to a certain organisation there was no chance of getting your drains cleaned. The men who were the responsible officers of that organisation decided where the work was to be done and when and how it was to be done. They were the men who declared "There is £60 for that work, and £80 for that work."

The other evening I was at a meeting in the east of my constituency. At that meeting a farmer told me that a prominent member of the political organisation supporting the Government told them that they had suffered because of the lack of engineering instinct shown on the part of the people who started the work. Here is the way the works were started. The drainage was not started at the mouth to let the water out, but at the source of the river to let it flood all the more. Those men happened to be living further away from the source and they were flooded out. They were making a complaint about how the work was being done. They were told by this man to put 40 men on the work, and that he would see that they were paid. I do not think that they did it. They said, "We do not know whether they will be paid or not; we will not take the chance. We do not know whether this man has the authority or not." They have had the authority so far, and they have done it. Men have come to Dublin here in their cars in order to get those works done. I do not know whether the Government countenances this way of administering relief schemes or not. If they do, it is astonishing that any Government or Minister should stand up and ask for money to be spent in this fashion and expect that Deputies would vote this money. I dare say I got as many communications in connection with the administration of this relief money as anyone else. As soon as I received a communication on the matter, I forwarded it to the Land Commission, to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. I left it to their officials to see what was to be done, and to decide on the merits of the different districts as to whether or not they should have money spent on them. I did not go to interview engineers or anyone else. I do not think money can be administered fairly if any other tactics are adopted. After all, it is a question of political pressure, and if political pressure is to be the force to decide when people are poor and what districts are to be relieved, then I am finished with that. There can be no proper supervision in this way as to whether good value can be given for this money or not. Whether the number of engineers were few or whatever the causes may have been, men were not there to see that the work was done properly. As I say, I heard the Minister for Lands and Agriculture himself saying in reply to me when Deputy Cooper made the suggestion that they should go in for drainage work on the Owenmore, "Any farmer will tell you you cannot work on a drainage scheme in winter, and especially in the month of December." Some amount of drainage work was done, but it did more harm than good. It benefited a few people, but I was interested in the drainage of a river I had brought to the notice of the Deputy in charge—the Ragg. There are about 500 acres under flood, and I had asked for an engineer to be sent on that. The 500 acres covered an area of about 7 miles. The river flows through eleven lakes. The means we found those people adopting in connection with the drainage was to start at the very source, the first lake, to let more water out to flood those unfortunate people. That is the sort of work done. It is only one of dozens of instances.

At the same time I want to say that in some districts there was good work done and men worked hard, but in most cases the political test was applied. We had other instances. In one instance a case had to be brought to the High Courts and a decision there was given as to the right of a ganger in charge of a body of men to make a new road, and his right to enter on a man's field and to move back his ditch five or six feet. Will the Minister tell me that an engineer was responsible for that? I hope he will not. Obviously, you will admit that no engineer would be responsible for mapping out work that would mean that part of a man's field is to be taken over without any authority. That happened. This work started, some say, because the owner of the field and the man in charge of the gang of men did not agree politically; that the ganger obtained the authority vested in him to remove the man's ditch. He was brought to the High Court, and when the decision was about to be given against him a compromise was made. These are the sort of things that went on.

Mr. GOREY

They won the Cavan election.

Mr. BAXTER

That is past. I do not know whether the Minister or the President will attempt to justify that sort of thing, and if they tell me that they have never heard of it before, it is extraordinary to me.

The PRESIDENT

I never heard it.

Mr. BAXTER

These charges were made in the Press and on public platforms and Ministers and Deputies tried to answer——

Mr. DOLAN

Successfully.

Mr. BAXTER

Yes. You could answer successfully if Deputy Dolan promised them more.

The PRESIDENT

Does the Deputy say that I promised anything down there?

Mr. HUGHES

I believe that Deputy Baxter bragged during that election that he got £20,000 for Cavan. I suppose it is because he had not the expenditure of it that he is grumbling?

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister for Defence should say, not what he believes, or what he thought Deputy Baxter said, but what he did say.

Mr. HUGHES

I would not like to.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to know if the Deputy says that I made any promises which were immoral, unfair, or incorrect, or anything of that kind?

Mr. BAXTER

A good deal of the President's meeting, I believe, was not open to the Press.

The PRESIDENT

It was open to the Press.

Mr. BAXTER

All of it?

The PRESIDENT

The only part of it I was at, and that was the whole of it.

Mr. BAXTER

You were incorrectly reported, then. It was published in the Press that a certain part of the meeting was not open.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to know what particular part that was. I was not present at any part that was not open. One meeting was held in the hall, as it was a wet day. I made no promises, and gave no undertaking to supply any money.

Mr. BAXTER

Did the President see in the local papers the announcement of his coming and what was to be done at the meeting?

The PRESIDENT

No.

Mr. BAXTER

That was what I was alluding to. What I did say was that the notice of his coming was heralded in the Press by calling on those people who wanted relief work done to come in the next day and put their case before the President. I may now add what I did not want to say, and that is, that I happened to be in Cavan the night before the President came, and I met a man who came thirty miles, from the far end of the county. He had come ten miles to one of the smaller towns, expecting to meet the engineer who was thought to be responsible for allocating this money, but as he did not find him there he came on to Cavan. It was eight o'clock at night, and I met him by accident. I was wondering what he was doing there, and he informed me that instructions were given out that this engineer was coming to town, because the President was coming the next day to arrange about the relief schemes. He did come to town the night before, and the President came the next day. I am not laying any great stress on what happened at the meeting but on what happened afterwards.

The PRESIDENT

After the meeting I saw a number of deputations. If the Deputy means to infer, or wishes Deputies to understand, that I gave promises there that I was going to spend money on relief works I would like him to give evidence of that. There is no evidence in existence.

Mr. BAXTER

How could I give evidence of what happened at the meeting?

The PRESIDENT

I want the Deputy to collect all the sins of my party of myself, and even of Dr. O'Reilly.

Mr. JOHNSON

They are too many.

Mr. BAXTER

I want to say that I have no desire, nor would it be fair, to connect the man who was elected Deputy with this work. He came into this at a very late stage and I think he had very little or nothing to do with it. I do not think he was responsible, and I do not want to make any connection between him and the things I stated. I do want to know whether it is the policy of the Executive Council to continue that state of things in future, and whether political tests are to be applied in the spending of money in different areas in the interests of different people.

Mr. HUGHES

I cannot let that statement go. Does the Deputy insinuate that nobody got work except those who subscribed to one political faith?

Mr. BAXTER

I want to say to the Minister for Defence what I have said to the Minister for Finance. I say it truthfully and candidly. The men who started the works were men who belonged to the particular organisation supporting the Ministry. I do not know how many engineers and men representing the administration were in the county going round seeing what particular works were to be started, or seeing that they were done, but I say that wherever men went to start works they were started without any engineer by members of that political organisation.

Mr. HUGHES

Will the Deputy tell us, as he has told us so much, who got paid for doing that work? Were they members of the political organisation to which he refers, or to that which the Deputy belongs, or were they Irregulars? I know who got most of the work.

Mr. BAXTER

Do you mean in my county?

Mr. HUGHES

Yes.

Mr. BAXTER

I do not know whether they were vested with the authority of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture or whether they were officials paid by the Ministry to get these works started. That is what the public want to know.

Mr. HUGHES

That is not the point. I want to know whether there was any discrimination made on political grounds between the people who wanted work, to keep the home fires burning, or did they get the work on their merits according as they were deserving of it. Was work refused to men belonging to the Farmers' party, or irregulars? The Deputy seems to know all about it but he did not tell us that.

Mr. BAXTER

I go on to deal with the Minister's point. It is a very trivial one. The point I am making is far more important. It is whether or not the Ministry of this State is going to permit members of a political organisation to do work which civil servants are paid for doing. I want to know from the Minister for Defence, who seems to feel very strongly on this point, whether he thinks it right that any Tom, Dick, or Harry who comes into a political organisation which happens to be supporting the Government of the day, should have authority to come out and do work which civil servants are paid to do. The President will, I suppose, ask how can he answer for the sins of these people and how can he be held to have authority over these people and to see that they will do what is right? He may ask how can he be held responsible in this House for these men for whom he is in no way responsible. He may say that he has not the same responsibility over such an individual as he has over a civil servant and a paid official of the Government of the day. If the Minister for Defence wants me to answer his point I may say that I know one instance, in which it was brought to my notice, that a labourer was turned away because he did not see eye to eye with the ganger on the works.

Mr. HUGHES

I am glad to see the Deputy can give one individual.

Mr. BAXTER

Do I understand you to say that there ought to be one? I can also say, in connection with the farmers, that drainage work had to be done. It was started along lands owned by members of the Cumann na nGaedheal, but if I happened not to be a member of that party they passed my lands and went on to the lands of the next farmer who happened to be a member of the party. Does the Minister stand over that sort of thing? The Minister need not get uneasy when we want to have this thing cleared up. We have kept silent on the matter, but I could have produced sheaves and sheaves of facts about this subject. These facts will not be denied by these people in my constituency. On the contrary, they claim credit for it.

Mr. JOHNSON

So does the Minister for Defence.

Mr. BAXTER

Exactly. They claim credit for these things, and say they have a right to do them. When the Minister for Local Government was distributing coal it was distributed fairly and according to method, but when two clergymen of different denominations in the district had the responsibility put upon them to distribute the coal, and when they did not do what some members of the political party wanted them to do, these members were highly displeased. I can give the Minister for Local Government credit that so far as he was concerned there were no complaints as to the impartiality with which this work was done.

Mr. HUGHES

I heard any amount of complaints about the way in which it was done.

Mr. BAXTER

If I had any charge to make about it I would bring it forward here, and would have the courage to do so. What we have to consider and decide is, does the Ministry of the day, or will any body of men in the country now or at any other time, stand up and claim support from the people, and claim that they have a right to that support, not for the good they did, not for the courageous things they faced and performed, but because a certain amount of State money is available, and that the political organisation that is backing the Government of the day claims to be the body responsible for the distribution and administration of that money? I do not know whether the Ministry will stand up for that or not. I want to hear them denounce it, and to say that it is not going to happen in the future. I want them to take steps, if they disclaim responsibility for this, to see that it will not happen in the future. I believe there are men, even in the Government party, who would not agree that this is sound in the best interests of the State.

It is creating, if you like, a body of men who are beggars, who are looking to the Government, thinking that they ought to give them everything, when, as the President said the other day, they ought to try and adopt a policy of self-help. They will not make any effort, simply because they have been spoiled, and the result is that when a fair and just case of an honest man comes along he does not stand a chance. He cannot. How could he? Now I am not going to say that this Vote is sufficient for the relief of distress. I hope it will be sufficient. We know unfortunately that there is distress in the country, and we know relief will be wanted again, but I do say it would be better we did not pass one penny of this Vote, far better for the Government and the State, if it were to be distributed and administered as the last money was, as far as I saw of it. The Minister, or the President, may say that members of their political organisation say and do things that the leaders cannot be held responsible for. I am with them in that. I know that individuals say and do things in other organisations that the great body of the members of the organisations would not stand for. But when you see a definite cut-and-dried policy like what we saw carried into effect a few months ago, when you see a political organisation making a declaration as to policy, and as to its ability to carry out that policy, and when we see evidence that there must be collusion between the Minister responsible or some of his officials and that political organisation, we cannot accept any disclaimer that will come. That political organisation has a right to exist, and there is a necessity for it, but no political organisation now or at any other time ought to be in a privileged position because it is a supporter of the Government, and ought not to be in the position that it will, in a sort of back-hand way, be able to administer what are public funds voted out of the public purse to gather adherents to its cause. The Government or the political party that stake their existence, or are dependent on methods like that, cannot last, for that support will last only as long as you have money to spend amongst these people, but when you have not the money to spend the people will say it is time to quit, and they will leave you.

Mr. SEARS

I know something about the relief works and the way they were administered in County Mayo, and I must certainly say they were worked on different lines from those Deputy Baxter has described. Take South and North Mayo. There was an election in North Mayo, and, according to what Deputy Baxter has said, if these relief works were distributed for political reasons chiefly, one would expect that North Mayo would have got a far larger share of the relief works than South Mayo, where there was no election. But if you look at the statement of the Ministry showing the amounts allotted to the different counties, you will find that South Mayo got a far larger share than North Mayo. Deputy Baxter has said that money was distributed for political purposes in certain districts. Did County Cavan, because of the election, get money out of proportion to the destitution or want prevailing in that county? He did not state that, or what parishes or districts in Cavan got relief works that should not have got them. He said something about what the paid electioneering agents of Cumann na nGaedheal said. That was a compliment to the electioneering ability, if not to the political honesty of the organisers. I am sure that the farmers' organisers were equally clever. Deputy Baxter is not altogether so simple a man as he pretends to be in the statement he made here. I am quite sure that his agents were equally eloquent and as effective as our organisers were.

Mr. GOREY

Proof?

Mr. SEARS

I will give proof.

Mr. BAXTER

You cannot be very eloquent if you have not the money to spend.

Mr. SEARS

I was present at a farmers' meeting in Cavan, and my education was considerably improved during that half hour. I heard a very eloquent speaker upon the farmers' platform telling his audience they would not have the Land Act to-day but for the Farmers' Party, and land purchase would not be complete but for the Farmers' Party.

Mr. BAXTER

He said but for the unpurchased tenants, and that is true.

Mr. SEARS

He said there would never be an Egg Act but for the Farmers' Party. Then the butter was laid on with a heavy hand, and it was said that but for the Farmers' Party there would not be the Live Stock Act. There were more promises given at that meeting than ever I heard before.

Mr. BAXTER

Come back to the spending of the money.

Mr. SEARS

What relation these statements had to the facts, I will leave it to the Deputies to say. Then I heard Deputy Baxter make a reference to coal, but the speaker at that meeting did not say anything like that. There were charges made there about how relief works were being distributed.

Mr. BAXTER

You heard it even then, and it was not contradicted at the time.

Mr. SEARS

I heard it even then, and if there is as little foundation for it to-day as I was told there was then, there is none at all. I inquired, and was told then that no relief works were carried out in any parish in that district that had not been marked out by the Land Commission Inspector. I say the same to-day. It was stated at that meeting that one of our organisers could go to a parish and mark out the works. I asked was that a fact, and I was told that the people in Cavan were not so foolish——

Mr. BAXTER

Might I ask Deputy Sears who was present at that meeting? —Was he not present at the meeting at which we stated that those men whom I charge were responsible for this work?—Did any one—either Deputy Sears or anybody else—at that meeting contradict those statements? Did not Deputy Sears speak at that meeting and from that platform after we made those charges? Did he answer those charges? He did not. Why did he not answer me then?

Mr. SEARS

I certainly did. Every charge made was answered from the platform. But the people interrupted, and said they did not believe the charges of the Deputy. The people knew the facts.

Mr. GOREY

They had a few "bob" jingling in their pockets, then.

Mr. SEARS

There would be some chance of their believing the charges at first, but after Deputy Gorey's speech none of them believed it. I was told that there was not any money paid except for work marked out by the Land Commission Inspector. I was told that inspectors came there and consulted the people as to where the work should go. Now, Deputy Baxter has given instances of farmers—farmers like Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Johnson and Deputy Davin—I hope the names of the farmers in Cavan are not as fictitious as these.

Mr. DAVIN

What do you mean?

Mr. SEARS

I thought Deputy Davin was quicker on the uptake than that. I mean that the names O'Connell and Johnson and Davin are not the names of genuine Cavan farmers who got grants because of their political views, and I think it would be difficult for the Deputy to find more genuine names than those he has given of farmers who got grants because of their political views.

Mr. BAXTER

Does Deputy Sears state that I made a false statement which is tantamount to saying that what I said here is not true?

Mr. SEARS

What I say is that your statement was a most innocent and amusing statement for a Deputy to make.

Mr. BAXTER

Do you challenge the truth of it?

Mr. SEARS

Yes, I challenge the general truth of it.

Mr. BAXTER

Will you come to the House and withdraw your statement when I prove that what I say here is correct by the men where the work was carried out?

Mr. SEARS

You have not relied on any particular statement. You come here and make a general statement, and I challenge that.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputies must not address one another across the Chamber; they must address the Chair.

Mr. SEARS

When it came down to hard facts, the Deputy said, "I must admit that there was good work done and the men worked hard." I am sure they did; they are as honest in Cavan as in any other county, and I am sure the work that was done was required to be done. Did not the Deputy make a charge that a drain was carried out to a certain point, and then, that the drain when it came to the land of a member of the Farmers' Party, stopped?

Mr. BAXTER

I did not say a member of the Farmers' Party. As a matter of fact, he was not a member of the Farmers' Party, but it was because he was not a member of Cumann na nGaedheal.

Mr. SEARS

That is a ridiculous charge, and it cannot be sustained. The money spent in Cavan was needed in Cavan, and that was the general impression there.

Mr. BAXTER

At that particular period?

Mr. SEARS

The facts about the money spent in Cavan are such that one can afford to hear them. There was money spent in Galway at the same time, and there was money spent in Mayo and Leitrim, and other places. There was no election in Galway, and in very many of the other places where money was spent there was no election. But there was distress in these places. If these organisers promised ridiculous things, they were doing what political organisers of every class do. Humble men take up the position of organisers. They promise more than they are able to perform. But let the Deputies take up the speeches of the Minister and point to anything that they promised——

Mr. BAXTER

I want to say that it is not what they promised, but what they did. It is what they were able to do.

Mr. SEARS

Nothing can be proved as to what they did. As I said, the work was laid out by the Land Commission Inspectors. Does the Deputy mean to say that the organisers marked out where the work was to be done?

Mr. BAXTER

Yes.

Mr. SEARS

It is ridiculous to say that that was done in any part of the country.

Mr. BAXTER

Did I not tell Deputy Sears in the train when we were both coming from the same meeting what was done, and did he not accept what I told him as true?

Mr. SEARS

I did not. The only thing that Deputy Baxter told me and that I accepted was that O'Hanlon would win, and he did not win.

Mr. DAVIN

The conduct of the Cavan election has drawn us away— and drawn us away wrongly—from the real issue raised by Deputy Johnson's proposal. As to how the election was fought, and whether President Cosgrave said this thing or whether Deputy Baxter or Deputy Sears said the other thing, I think all that we might safely leave to the Minister for Defence, who said he knew more about Cavan than anybody else.

The PRESIDENT

There was no question of what I said.

Mr. DAVIN

The very serious charges that have been made by Deputy Baxter are not, I think, so much directed against the Government Party organisation as against the Government, and they have got to be answered and dealt with in a serious way. I say candidly I believe it would be the view of our Party, that if the money we are asking for, and which is required to deal with the distress that undoubtedly exists in the country, were to be administered in every county and in every constituency in the way Deputy Baxter has charged the Government with administering the funds in County Cavan, we would not make that demand. I believe it is the duty of every Deputy to bring what he believes to be the present position in his own area before the Government in a proper way on a motion of this kind. I believe, further that no Deputy with any sense of responsibility should exaggerate the position as he finds it or as it may be in the future. But Deputies who represent rural areas, or who have knowledge of or acquaintance with the position in those areas would have difficulty in exaggerating the position as they know it to exist. A friend or constituent or supporter of Deputy Connor Hogan said some time ago that people in County Clare were living on dead things. That was afterwards admitted to be an exaggeration, but I know that in the greater part of my own area—I would like Deputy Egan to contradict me if he thinks otherwise—the position is a very serious one, indeed, from the point of view of distress. That distress is not confined to the workers in the towns, or to workmen in the countryside in non-insurable occupations. It exists amongst most of the farming communities in what is recognised to be a tillage area. At the last election— and we cannot get away from promises made by responsible people, even during the period of by-elections—I listened to the statement by one Deputy that £20,000,000 was to be raised by the Government to be spent on roads and the development of the country. All I know of that now is that a certain amount of money is to be raised in connection with the Shannon Scheme. I suggest seriously to the Minister for Finance and to the Executive Council —it is not a matter for one Minister, but for the Executive Council—that electric light in the houses of farmers or workmen would be very little encouragement to them in their present position.

I support the Shannon scheme from the national point of view, because I believe it raises the credit of this nation externally to a degree that we cannot now appreciate, and that it is an act of faith in ourselves and in the future of the country, and a demonstration of what we can do with the freedom we have got. But holding up the electric light that may be provided by the Shannon two or three years hence, is not going to relieve the conditions that exist here to-day. I suggested when the supplementary estimate of £250,000 was being moved by the Minister, for relief schemes in October last—I am subject to correction in regard to the period—that the Minister should indicate what form of useful work he had in mind when he brought in an estimate of that kind. I think local authorities, upon whom the duty of initiating schemes lies, and the people of the districts where distress prevails, are entitled to that information. I know of areas where schemes put up by the local authorities have been turned down because, in the opinion of the Minister, the money was not to be spent on what he considered useful work. We are entitled to know what the Minister regards as useful work, especially as we hope he will seek a much larger vote than last year, if he intends to deal with the position as it is in the country. I admit that the Drainage Bill, when it comes to be administered, will serve a useful purpose in itself, so far as giving employment of a useful kind is concerned, but if that Bill will take as long to be administered as it took in drafting and is being introduced to this House, it will be two or three years before we see the real result of our legislation. I suggested on the supplementary estimate last year that it might be advisable, in view of the distress existing in the towns, small and large, that drainage works, or sewerage works, should be regarded as works of a useful kind, as they are, from the point of view of giving immediate employment and dealing with the abominably insanitary conditions that obtain in most of the towns and villages. I know of at least three or four schemes of this kind that were put up by the local governing authority to the Department and that were turned down, as there was no money available to relieve the charge that would fall on the local ratepayers.

I cited a case of a sewerage scheme which, if carried out at the expense of ratepayers in the dispensary district, would involve a charge of 6/11 in the £. That particular town is adjacent to the Barrow. It is in a low-lying district, and the sanitary conditions are simply deplorable. Nobody, I think, will get up and say that the ratepayers of that district should find a rate of 6/11 in the £ to carry out work which everybody will admit is of a useful nature. I do not know whether the Minister realises the insanitary conditions that exist in most of the towns, but if he will only inquire from the Minister responsible for Local Government and Public Health, he can get some idea as to the conditions in practically every town in the Free State. I contend that no shop or no licensed house where people are in the habit of going in large numbers should be without proper sanitary arrangements. These things will have to be taken into consideration if the health of the people is to be attended to. I speak only with regard to my own particular area. It is largely a tillage constituency. We have had two very bad seasons. The people have either been unable to grow their crops or to sell what they actually cut, as there was no fine weather period for the saving of the crops. One can easily realise what the effect of that has been on the small farmers, who are, generally speaking, the greatest producers of the food upon which this nation has to depend. Large numbers of agricultural labourers, who would normally be employed by these farmers, have been thrown out of employment, because the farmers have no money with which to pay them. If the Minister has the figures of to-day at his disposal they will give him an indication of the extent of unemployment as regards that particular area.

I had a letter a few days ago from the Athy No. 2 Rural District Area. Deputy Wolfe spoke in that area a few Sundays ago, and I read his speech. We have there 290 unemployed, and, as Deputy Wolfe knows, there is a certainty now that 150 additional people will be thrown on the unemployed list. Every one of the farmers in that rural district suffered as a result of the plague of fluke, which has wiped out their cattle, their sheep and even their foals. I submitted a statement to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture with regard to that aspect of the case. That is in the vicinity of the Barrow. We were told by the Minister for Finance that the Barrow was going to be drained, when he spoke in Carlow during the elections. I always make it my business to read the reports of speeches by members of this House when made in my area in the local newspapers. Deputy Wolfe made a speech a short time ago which I read across the Channel. He was challenged at that meeting and asked what about the Barrow. He said—speaking no doubt with inside information as he has the ear of the Minister for Finance—that work might be started in the autumn.

I mention that for this purpose: that if the Barrow drainage scheme, promised a long time ago by the Minister for Finance, only was started in that area, it would relieve, to some extent, the distress that undoubtedly prevails, as I am sure Deputy Wolfe knows, in the whole Athy No. 2 rural district. That is only one instance of what is happening all over the country. I realise that it is the duty of every Deputy not to exaggerate the position, but, knowing as I do the present position that exists in that area, I must say that the people of this State are the most law-abiding that one could find anywhere, no matter what we may think of stunts carried out here and there occasionally. Deputy Morrissey stated that the people registered in the unemployment exchanges only represented about 50 per cent. of those acually unemployed in the Saorstát. I daresay that would be a fairly correct estimate of the conditions existing in the tillage areas of the country. During the last two years those engaged in tillage have been hit very severely.

I realise that at the present time we are passing through the most trying period that this State has experienced since it was established. The next four or five months will be the most trying of all—until we know what the coming harvest is likely to be. For that reason the Executive Council, and not one Minister writing to another, should meet and seriously review the position that exists in so many areas. I have spoken to members of the Government party, and some of them think, as I do, that Ministers are actually not aware of the acute distress that prevails in many parts of the country. The Ministers, of course, are advised by their officials, who do not go up and down the country to get a knowledge of the actual conditions. For that reason the Ministers, I suggest, are not conscious of the distress that exists. We all know that the farmers of the country are either in the books of the local shopkeepers or in the books of the local banks. We know, too, the way that the banks are treating the ordinary traders of the country. They are pressing them for payment, and are causing a great number of people to go into bankruptcy. People are also being obliged to put their land up for sale by public auction to pay the debts they owe to the banks.

In England last year five of the principal banks in that country advanced a sum of over £57,000,000 to their customers; while in the year 1923, in Ireland we had the standing committee of the Irish banks coming to this decision: that they would only allow overdrafts to their customers to the extent of one-quarter of the amount of their deposits, the remaining three-quarters probably finding its way out of this country. The President and the Minister for Finance know that better than anyone else, and I suggest it is their duty to deal with it. These things are having a very serious effect on the country. In the "Nationalist and Leinster Times," a newspaper which circulates in my constituency, I have seen announcements by one auctioneer, to the effect that he has 27 farms up for sale by public auction. The reason these farms are up for sale is this, that the banks are coming down on their occupiers with a heavy hand. They are, in fact, compelling these people to get rid of their land. I suggest that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance and of his colleagues in the Cabinet to discuss seriously, and without delay, what steps they should take to deal with a situation of that magnitude.

The sum of £115,000 which is asked for now, is, as we all know, only a revote of portion of the Vote of £500,000 passed last year. This latter was a sum that should have been spent before the period ending the 31st March last. The sum that is asked for now cannot, I suggest, to any extent relieve the situation that exists in the country. It will not be found sufficient to deal with the ravages caused by fluke amongst sheep and cattle, or with the situation created by unemployment. If the sum of £500,000 was considered necessary to meet the situation that existed last year, in my opinion it would take twice or three times that amount to deal with the situation that exists in the country to-day.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am afraid that the discussion on this Vote is going to be rather mixed. Two questions of the utmost possible importance have been raised: one the position of the unemployed, and the other the integrity of the Ministry in the administration of relief moneys. I think it would be wise if we were to deal with the latter question first, and get it properly discussed, and discussed without reference to the general question raised in the motion which I put forward. I think there is a danger that the Ministry and its supporters will try to cover up, by jocularity, the charges made in a very serious way by Deputy Baxter. I have had quite a number of communications from different parts of the country to the effect that work will not be given out under relief schemes except to men who have got Cumann na nGaedheal cards. I have not taken too much notice of these, but I sent on two or three of these communications to the Ministry of Local Government with a certain amount of faith that, once their attention was called to the matter, the whole thing would be discountenanced, and that the actual administrators would not give any such preference or make any such condition.

I have had communications of that nature from Donegal, Kerry and other parts of the country. I have not given excessive weight to the complaints, and I appreciate the point made by Deputy Sears that political organisers may have promised to do certain things or encouraged the idea that preference would be given to people who had cards of the organisation, and that they, as commercial travellers of the party, were making promises that could not be fulfilled. Of course we had an illustration of that on the question raised by Deputy Myles a month or two ago in reference to the action of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the appointment of a Postmaster at Dunfanaghy as a solace for the loss of his candidature. That might be explained, but it has not yet been explained to anybody's satisfaction.

Deputy Baxter has brought forward a very concrete case, or rather a number of cases. Deputy Sears takes the line that because the Cavan complaints were not duplicated in Mayo, that therefore the Cavan complaints have no basis. That is not the kind of logic I would expect from Deputy Sears. There are two definite charges, as far as I can understand. One is, that certain moneys were paid out for relief works which were not designed or set out, or "marked out," were the words used, by the engineers. Deputy Sears denied that point-blank, but Deputy Sears is not in a position to speak with authority on that matter. The charge made by Deputy Baxter is first that certain works were undertaken, at the direction of the party organiser, which had not been marked out by the official engineers, and the second definite charge is that certain works were carried through, and distinct preference given, favouritism shown to political supporters, and distinct disfavour shown to political opponents. Deputy Baxter makes the assertion that he could bring forward a considerable amount of evidence in support of these charges. I do not think it is enough for the President to say he made no promise, and offered no bribes of a public character. I am not going to say much about the promises that supporters or Ministers might make upon the platform in a public way. I think the charge, in its essence, is a charge against the administration, that public funds have been allowed by the administration to be expended in support of political party candidatures, and that these public funds have been allocated in such a way as to constitute, in effect, bribery. That is the charge fairly directly stated by Deputy Baxter. Ministers have not yet had an opportunity to deal with it, and have not yet met it in any way. I think it is a question that we should discuss, to the exclusion of any other, and I am inclined to press this view upon the Minister. Deputy Baxter obviously has dealt with this matter with a sense of responsibility. He has come from the county and he tells us he can bring forward definite evidence in support of his contention. People who were in the election deny it, but then they were not responsible for the administration. It seems to me to be a case that might well be the subject of inquiry by a Committee of this House, and that Deputy Baxter should be given an opportunity of bringing forward definite evidence, and if necessary, evidence upon oath, in support of his contention, and the Ministry responsible could explain their position in reply to that evidence. I think this is a case where a report should be made to the House as to how this money was administered, and whether it was in fact, as Deputy Baxter alleges, used for the purposes of political bribery.

Mr. BLYTHE

I agree with Deputy Johnson that it is very difficult to carry on a discussion along the lines on which this is carried on, because we started off with an amendment to refer back the Vote in order that it might be increased. Then Deputy Baxter cut in with another matter which certainly was not germane to the amendment and was really something that might be raised on a reduction of the Vote or on the main question itself. Perhaps it would be as well that Deputy Johnson's suggestion should be taken.

I would like to say one or two words, however, as a considerable case has been made on the point of distress and unemployment in the country, and the suggestion that the Government has not shown any sort of sense of the seriousness of the situation. I would like to say one or two words with reference to that before passing on to the other matter. It may be that we will have to provide further moneys for the relief of distress. I do not deny that. I certainly am reluctant to make provision in the Vote for more than a small amount in excess of the sums represented by the fairly definite scheme put forward. I remember last year when we voted £250,000 at this time, which is the amount to be compared with the £115,000 here. I had a deputation asking for money for particular work. They had already seen the Minister responsible—because the moneys provided in this Vote are allocated on the recommendation of other Departments, particularly the Department of Local Government and the Department of Lands and Agriculture—about a share of the moneys last year. There was £400,000 last year, and the Department of Lands and Agriculture spent something less than £200,000.

When this deputation came to me, after seeing the Minister concerned and mentioning their project to him, I cross-examined them to a certain extent, and forced them to admit that their proposal was not a particularly good or urgent one. Then they said, "Well, we understood there is £250,000 going, and we only want our share. We do not care what you spend it on if you spend it in our district." I certainly think, in view of that sort of pressure, that will not stop at any amount of misrepresentation or clamour to attain their object, it is undesirable to have too much money voted at large.

Mr. DAVIN

Does the Minister insinuate or state that the existing distress has been misrepresented by people who spoke in this debate?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, I am not referring to that at all. I am referring to the proposals that will come up for the allocating of money in various districts, to the lengths to which people will go to get what they think is their share of the amount. We have provided this money and know pretty definitely what it will be spent upon. If it is necessary to provide further money, and if fairly definite schemes are put forward from the Departments concerned and it is certain, from all the reports we get through the Department of Industry and Commerce, and from the police, who are spread all over the country, and from the Department of Local Government and so on, that acute distress, which can be relieved up to a certain amount of works, exists, we will consider that, with full knowledge of our duty to prevent the acutest form of distress, and to prevent anything in the nature of actual starvation. We cannot relieve all distress, but we have a duty to try to take the edge off it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is the Minister going to wait until starvation arises?

Mr. BLYTHE

No; what I am concerned most with is the evidence of it and some idea of the proposals and the work that might be carried out. I am going on to say that we are taking other steps, that a good deal more money will be actually provided by the Government in giving employment this year than last. There will be some five or six hundred thousand pounds—a very substantial sum spent in connection with the Shannon Scheme during the present financial year. It is anticipated, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has already said, that work will be commenced early in the autumn and substantial sums of money will be spent. That will not appear under the head of Relief Schemes, but it will give substantial employment.

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not a fact that only about 3,000 people in one year will be employed under this scheme, and is it a fact that most of the money to be spent will actually go out of the country for machinery?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, I do not think so. Most of the money will be spent on the civil engineering side. Then there will be a considerable amount of expenditure on buildings. There is an actual provision in this year's Estimates for £419,000 for new works which will enable Civic Guard Barracks all over the country to be built or reconstructed and work on the G.P.O. and work on the Four Courts, and other new work to be done. A certain amount of money will be spent under the Drainage Maintenance Act of last year. It is expected that a considerable number of districts will be restored this year, and the actual number will depend upon weather conditions.

A considerable amount will be spent in that way. We will have the Owenmore drainage. Money will be spent this autumn in connection with the sugar beet factory. It is hoped to introduce the Bill within the next two or three days. As soon as the Bill has been passed it will be possible for the actual site of the factory finally to be selected, and the work will then begin. It is intended that the factory should be in full operation next autumn. Certainly employment will be given during the current financial year in connection with the sugar beet factory. The question of opening a local loans fund for the purpose of making loans to local authorities to enable them to carry out buildings, sewage works and other works of that nature, is under consideration. I may say it is most probable that some opening up of local loans funds will be done in that respect.

It is also anticipated that very big sums will be given by way of road grants. The money will be spent on the improvement of roads. There will be a sum of £750,000, at any rate, given in that direction. We actually did make provision last year for advances from the Central Fund to the Road Fund. It was not found necessary to avail of the power that was taken. So far as the provision of money is concerned, we will not hold up work on the roads. It is anticipated, too, that some £330,000 will be paid in connection with housing grants. A large sum will be given to farmers, or it certainly is available, and it is being given out. Loans are being made to farmers under the Land Improvements Act for drainage, and all that will give employment. I think, on the whole, although there is only £115,000 appearing here in this Vote as against £250,000 last year, actually as much money will be available from State funds in one form or another for giving employment as there was last year.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister give us the dates when these works will begin?

Mr. BLYTHE

I admit there is one weakness in what I say there. There will be two or three months during which not a very great deal of work will be going on.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

They will be the critical months.

Mr. BLYTHE

We will pass from that. I just wanted to say that much.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Will the Minister tell us what provision, if any, does the Government intend to make between this and the autumn for the people who are now unemployed, and who are not entitled to unemployment benefit? How does the Minister suggest that those men should live and feed their wives and families in the meantime?

Mr. BLYTHE

Some of the things that I have referred to will give employment before the autumn. The position seems to be that the number of people who have no claim to benefit is less than one would think, when we hear it spoken of in general terms and not reduced to a question of numbers.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Has the Minister any figures in that respect?

Mr. BLYTHE

I have not them here with me, but I have heard them.

Mr. JOHNSON

We know they are growing every week—growing very rapidly.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not aware that they are growing so very fast. Of course, people will exhaust the amount of benefit that can be given to them, and there will be some increase in numbers; but that may be met to some extent by the speeding up on road improvement. Matters are always somewhat easier in the summer time. There is certain employment available in the summer time which is not available at other times of the year, and numbers of those works are going on. At this time last year I think none of the works was going on, because it was merely a question of their being arranged for. I think there was comparatively little doing in the way of relief works. We have quite a number of schemes in various towns and a certain amount of work is actually being done in Dublin at the present time.

Mr. DAVIN

There was no election this time last year.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not see the point. I do not know what the Deputy's point is. Perhaps he has a point. Now, with reference to what Deputy Baxter said, I may say frankly I do not take Deputy Baxter as seriously in the matter as I might take other Deputies. I do feel that, however cool he may think he is, he is not so cool, and some of the election fever is in his blood; he is not capable of giving an absolutely fair picture of the situation. These sums for relief were provided last year when it became apparent that there was going to be very considerable distress in the country and when it was apparent in certain places—considerable areas— that there was a crop failure. There was a cry about the failure of crops which was exaggerated, just as the distress arising from the fluke is being exaggerated now. It was substantial, but it was nothing like what it was represented to be. There was, however, a more widespread distress caused by the failure of turf.

It was felt then that the only way to relieve the distress that existed was by way of making provision for carrying out different works. Even before money was voted in the Dáil, certain preliminary preparations were made by the Land Commission. Certain schedules of work were submitted to the Department of Finance. In the circumstances they could not be submitted to the examination that such proposals ordinarily would get. They could not be taken and gone into with a view to giving the complete explanation and justification asked for in each case. We had the general reports received from agricultural instructors and overseers and others as to the distress in districts in which there was distress existing. We had certain proposals for relief, by way of works, put forward by the Local Government Department, and there were also proposals in regard to the distribution of fuel and the provision of meals for school children in certain areas. Money was allocated in the best possible way in connection with the various cases put up. Money was allocated to the Land Commission on the basis of the schedules of work that were put forward. These works, however, were frankly put forward in a somewhat tentative way. Every specific work was not fully examined. The schedules of works were rather provisional.

When we authorised expenditure by the Land Commission on works such as making, improving and extending bog roads, making a bog pass, improving road drainage, extending roads to a bog, and drainage work on a river, we gave the Land Commission power to vary the work and to do other work of a similar character in the neighbourhood of the places affected by the works mentioned in the Schedule, if it would be found convenient to carry those additional works out, and if it would be found, on further examination by the Land Commission, that they would be better works. All that was done. The work of preparing these schemes of relief by the Land Commission was put into definite shape when it became apparent, as a result of the failure in the turf harvest and the partial failure that occurred in crops, that big works would be necessary.

Deputies should realise what it means for the Land Commission or any Government Department to go over the country to deal with widespread distress, to get a scheme of work into operation, and to do that quickly. I think Deputies should realise by now how slow Government machinery is ordinarily. I hear great complaints about delays. Delays are, to my mind, inseparable from the system of organisation that prevails in the country; they are inseparable so far as we can see at the present time. What really causes delay is the bottle-neck process. Things go from one individual to another, and the number of people authorised to take decisions is very small. It must necessarily be small because of the responsibility that rests on the Minister, because of the question of Parliamentary control, and because decisions can only be taken by people who are in touch with the Minister. We have that bottle-neck system which results in the formulation of schemes. and the approval of works being ordinarily a very slow matter.

Delays occur in the doing of works in a Government that would not occur in a private firm, because there is no Parliamentary responsibility there. There is a devolution of authority that so far as I can see, is very difficult to achieve in Government offices. We had to get these works through. Instead of still being talking about them, instead of still being in the position of having angry letters going to and fro from the Land Commission to the Department of Finance about them, we had to give the Land Commission this power to go ahead. The people at the top in the Land Commission could not await the reporting and the writing out of justifications for their proposals, before anything was done. There had to be a general degree of devolution of authority, that is not usual in Government works, in the carrying out of Government administration, but it was necessary because of real need. I think, in spite of the exaggeration we heard, there was real need for these works. There was real need for the relief of distress.

We had at the same time an election going on. We had the other side trying to claim credit for everything that was being done to please the people. I do not know what Deputy Baxter claimed. I do not read the Cavan papers, but I know that it was put round by his supporters in Co. Cavan that he had got £15,000 for Cavan. There was that sort of attempt to claim credit for anything that was done. I do not say Deputy Baxter did it, but at any rate his friends did put forward that claim, that Deputy Baxter had got Cavan £15,000. I believe that on another political platform it was stated in regard to that £15,000 that if Cavan had been depending on Deputy Baxter, a penny would not have come to Cavan. That was the sort of atmosphere you had going on. Everybody, as far as I can see, was trying to claim credit for anything that was done. You had these people also surrounding anybody who had the authority to take any decision about works to be done, whether they should be done, and what sort of work should be done. You had them going along making representations. A man who was sent down to get information in regard to works is not like somebody living in the county all his life. He had to get local information, to see people, to discover whether there was distress, whether the people would work and who needed work, and to find out what sort of work could be done.

There was the question of local representation and local pressure being put on anybody in that atmosphere. What I really feel about it—and I am at one with Deputy Baxter in what I feel is right—as far as Deputy Baxter's Party is concerned, as far as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party is concerned, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Everybody was trying to get work done in any particular district that suited them, and they were trying to claim credit for anything done, that brought any sort of feeling of satisfaction amongst the voters. I suggest that, because that was the fact of the case, we did not hear a word about this when the election was going on, because people feared that if they objected there would be a loss of votes if they said anything. I honestly think that is an unfair representation of the position. As far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in agreeing with Deputy Baxter that there could be nothing worse for the country or for any party, even for the party that might do it, than to have works carried out on a political basis.

I believe definitely with Deputy Baxter that to have these works done on a political basis would create a mob of political mendicants who would turn on anybody who had been giving them moneys as soon as they ceased giving them moneys. That would have brought corruption into political life that would extend throughout the State. So far as I am concerned, I certainly would not stand for any giving of money to a particular district because of any political object to be gained. So far as I know, I made no promise, and I certainly took no action—I am very sure of that—because of any political pressure that was brought to bear on me, and there were all sorts of political pressures. Fellows came up here from Cavan in motor cars to see about some resigned and dismissed R.I.C. cases. Fortunately the President had kept me late. I was in a bad temper, and when I met them on the doorstep I told them to go somewhere else. I did not listen to them. That sort of business was going on, but I must certainly say I would not for one moment stand for any differentiation politically. I would not give work to a district which did not need it because of the political complexion of the inhabitants, and I would not refuse any district which was in need of work because of the political complexion of the inhabitants. If anything such as Deputy Baxter says was done, in the case of a drain, and if it was done in the way he suggests, and that it was not merely a sort of coincidence or some bungling in the work, I say that was disgraceful. That sort of thing should not be stood over.

I think the first complaint that came to my ears about work in Co. Cavan came from Deputy Baxter himself just immediately after the elections. I was not in that county except in the early days of the election. As I say, Deputy Baxter made some complaints to me personally. I made enquiries about them, and I found that we had complaints of the other character from other people, complaints about Irregulars having got all the work in certain districts. I do not know whether they were true or not. I do not believe the stories as to the works being bad works. I think Deputy Baxter suggests, to some extent, that a great deal of useless, unnecessary work was done.

Mr. BAXTER

I did not say that.

Mr. BLYTHE

I gathered that from the Deputy.

Mr. BAXTER

There was some good work done, but the point I wanted to make was that there was work done which clearly indicated that an engineer was not responsible for starting it. There was one particular work where £500 or £600 was allotted, and there was a case in the High Court over it.

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy Baxter did not go so far as I thought he had gone. All I could hear, and I made a good many inquiries, was that the work being done generally over the country was good and useful work. I asked all sorts of independent people in different counties about the matter, and, as far as I could understand, the money was as well spent as such money could be spent.

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister has not met the main point I made as to allocation of the money, as to the people who were responsible for saying that there would be £40 spent here, £60 in this district, £80 in that district, and £200 in another. He has not met the point that the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation were the men who, on their own responsibility, decided that the money would be spent like that, or accompanied the Government engineer round and got the work started wherever they wished. I want the Minister to meet that point. The Minister makes the point that he did not hear anything about that until the election was over. Deputy Sears listened to me stating it publicly at a meeting early in the election, and if he was doing his duty to his party and thought there was any doubt or question about what was put forward, would he not have come to the Minister and asked if this scandalous state of affairs was prevailing in Cavan?

Mr. BLYTHE

I was going to come to that. I was saying that, so far as I could hear, after making inquiries, the money was fairly well spent. There was not one hundred per cent. of value got for it, or anything like it. I do not suppose that could ever be got for it. In view of the haste and of the particular way that the works had to be undertaken, there probably were certain bad works—I mean works that were bad from an engineering point of view, because even if you send a competent man to decide on works, if his business is to get work started and money spent to give relief, no matter how competent or conscientious he is, that man will from time to time simply rush into a scheme without proper consideration and start it going. I would say that the number of these works that were bad from an engineering point of view was not very large, that the position was no worse than you could expect in such a situation.

With regard to the allocation, I cannot see how what Deputy Baxter alleges could have happened. It may be that the people who were organisers for the Cumann na nGaedheal in a particular place managed to hang on to the engineer in certain cases. They might have been the people who took the most trouble to get into touch with him or had representations ready to make to him, who accompanied him round to recommend works that were favourite works of theirs, but certainly the works had to be started and vouched for by the official of the Land Commission. There was no possibility of any works being started in some peculiar way and being paid for out of this relief Vote other than through the ordinary machinery of the Land Commission. The whole work was really placed on the Land Commission and was done through officials of the Land Commission. The officials of the Land Commission had to recommend the various schemes and they had to vouch and account for the expenditure of the money. I could not tell how an impression could have got out that other people could start works. I certainly know that they could not. I I do not see how any official of the Land Commission would—and it certainly could be investigated if any official of the Land Commission did it —vouch expenditure that he had no act in starting. The work was entirely the duty of the various Land Commission officials detailed to do it. I do know, of course, as has been stated by two or three Deputies, that every sort of political organiser in the constituency was anxious to claim that he did everything, that he was responsible for getting things started, that such organisers would be round any engineer like flies around a honeypot, and that all sorts of representations might be made to Deputy Baxter and to people in the locality. But as to what the Deputy alleges having happened, I do not see how it could have happened. I simply cannot see how it could have happened.

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister is too innocent.

Mr. JOHNSON

The statement that the Minister cannot see how it could have happened is not sufficient refutation of the statement of Deputy Baxter that it did happen. It seems to me that it is a conflict between what Deputy Baxter says and what the Minister says did happen—whether what Deputy Baxter said is accurate, whether it is correct, and whether it can be proved. The Minister does not deny it. He only says: "I cannot see how it could have happened." I think that the Minister ought to accept Deputy Baxter's challenge and have his charge refuted, if possible. I suggest to the Minister that it is a matter of the very gravest concern. If it can be believed by any number of people in the community, and if a case such as is submitted by Deputy Baxter can be supported by a responsible party, such as the Farmers' Party, undoubtedly it ought not to be allowed by the Minister to go through the country as a statement that has not been disproved. I think some more response to the very definite charge made by Deputy Baxter ought to be made by the Ministry—that he should be challenged to prove his statement, that the responsibility should be put on him of proving the statement and, if possible, have it disproved.

Mr. BAXTER

I am prepared to do it, and I hope the Minister will challenge me.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would be very glad to hear any details from Deputy Baxter. He has had a good many opportunities of raising the matter in the Dáil, and so far I have not seen that he has taken any advantage of them. There are ways in which he could have put a particular case before the Dáil. He could either have raised it at Questions or on the adjournment, and given the Minister for Lands and Agriculture an opportunity of having some investigations carried out and of making a reply. When a case is put like that before the Dáil and discussed, we would know just exactly the state of affairs, and if there was a prima facie case. At present dealing with generalities and speaking in vague terms, I do not see that we have anything established.

Mr. BAXTER

I think it is not right for the Minister to say that I got a chance and did nothing. I went to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and told him a month ago that I intended to raise this matter on this Vote. I told him I would give concrete cases. I want to say that I thought it was under the Minister's Department the money was administered that I am claiming was mal-administered. I say that it is up to the Minister to throw out the challenge that Deputy Johnson suggests he ought to throw out, and let the question be submitted to a vote of the Dáil. I am prepared to put the facts before the Minister and the Dáil. I am more disinterested in the matter than the Minister would probably give me credit for. I could have raised it in other ways and said a good deal more, but I am not satisfied to let the matter rest as the Minister has left it. The Minister has not met the case, and I want to have it cleared up definitely.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of a Minister answering not to have a concrete case put up or to have a concrete case put up without notice. The Deputy could put up a concrete case. He could have asked a question which would lead to investigations by the Minister, and the facts would then be in the Minister's hands. If the Deputy had raised the matter we could have one, two or three concrete cases discussed.

Mr. BAXTER

There is only one way in which this can be fairly and impartially decided. It will not be decided by the Ministry that I say have made the mistakes. It will only be decided by a Committee of the Dáil representative of the different Parties. It is an issue big enough to be decided by such a Committee, and no other Committee will fairly decide it.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy should have taken the ordinary and necessary steps to make a prima facie case by having given a fair opportunity for the discussion of a certain number of selected concrete cases, and not merely asking to have a Select Committee appointed to investigate a general and somewhat vague statement.

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Davin made a statement with regard to bank deposits and advances. I am prepared to say that the statement made by Deputy Davin cannot be true. The figures do not disclose that there is any truth in the statement. I understood Deputy Davin to say that the Standing Committee of the Banks had decided that they would only advance to customers 25 per cent. of the amount held on deposit receipts.

Mr. DAVIN

Yes.

The PRESIDENT

It would be impossible for them to come to any such decision. At the end of 1923 the difference between bills discounted and advances and deposits was £92,400,000. The deposits amounted to £188,000,000, and the advances and bills discounted to £95,600,000.

Mr. DAVIN

I said this was a recent decision of the Standing Committee.

The PRESIDENT

At the end of 1924 the deposits were £182,800,000, and the bills discounted and advances made were £92,500,000. On the face of it there were even more favourable advances to customers last year than the year before as far as deposits are concerned. I leave it to the Deputy himself as to what possible chance there is for a bank in any country where you are going to call up £45,000,000 or £46,000,000 in twelve months. It could not be done. People ought not to be spreading these stories, as it is a serious thing in the interests of the business of the country. It would be absolutely impossible to call in £45,000,000 or £46,000,000. The banks would be mad to do so. I am a child in banking matters, but I am old enough to know that it is an impossible situation. It could not possibly have been a decision of the Standing Committee of the Banks.

Mr. GOREY

I move to report progress.