When the Vote for the relief of distress was introduced last November, the Government had great lip sympathy for the unemployed, particularly those in the rural districts. We were told by responsible Deputies on the other side not to be talking on this subject and wasting the time of the House, but rather to let the Vote go through, so that the work could be gone on with immediately, in order to relieve the prevalent distress which the Government speakers alleged was due to the bad season. If there was one thing apparent to-day in the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to me, and the reply which the Minister for Finance gave to Deputy Davin, it was the insincerity of the Government in this matter. That was quite apparent to us when we coupled the evasive answers with the statement of the Minister for Finance when this Vote was being introduced, namely, that provision would be made at the end of the financial year, if this whole sum had not been expended, to carry forward the balance to be spent in the new financial year. In other words, at a time when unemployment is being relieved to some extent by farming work, for some reason the balance is to be carried forward and spent on the relief of unemployment which would not then exist to the extent which it existed during the winter months. The President, speaking on the matter, stressed the large amount of unemployment in the rural areas. We find from the answers of the Parliamentary Secretary that out of a total of £300,000 only £69,000 has been earmarked to be spent in the rural parts by the Land Commission. That is the sum that was to be spent, but it has not been spent. In contrast with that we have the following: In 1924-5, when £385,000 was spent on the relief of unemployment, £186,000 was spent by the Land Commission; in 1925-6, when £336,000 was spent, £137,000 was spent by the Land Commission; in 1927-8, when £101,000 was spent, £51,000 was spent by the Land Commission.
Deputies will recollect that in those years by the month of February most of that money had been spent. Work was started immediately after Christmas and was carried on through January and February into March. I have spoken to Deputies of all Parties in the House on the subject and I find that there has been practically no money spent up to now on the relief of unemployment by the Land Commission or by any other Government Department. We can, therefore, understand the Parliamentary Secretary's evasion in his answers, that he could not give the amount spent. It would mean a tremendous amount of work to make up what proportion of the £69,000 was spent up to a week ago, say. Neither could the Minister for Finance give the number of persons employed as a result of this grant. The gentlemen who leave that very perfect Department on a Tuesday to carry out their work in the various counties and return home at the weekend surely have time in their hard socialistic week from Tuesday to Friday to get the necessary information for the Parliamentary Secretary. The amount is so small that it would be a disgraceful answer to give in the House. It would be an indictment of the Government's absolute neglect of the unemployed and of their attempt to carry forward this sum, so that if an election is suitable in the Summer of this year this money can be spent in an attempt to bribe and fool the electorate.
I notice that in Westmeath we have got the very large sum of approximately £400. We are getting a slap for the slap we gave the Government last June. It is the smallest sum yet given out. Even so, I should like to know where the £400 is being spent or has been spent, whether in its allocation the Government have taken into account the most populated areas and the areas with the greatest number of small holders. Have they based their allocation on the returns of the census? Have they taken, for instance, the Coole electoral area where there is twice the population, twice the number of small holders, and three times the number of unemployed in any other area in Westmeath? I believe they have not and that they will not spend a threepenny bit there because they do not get any sort of vote there. The unemployed can exist on home help. Deputies who are on public boards and who have a knowledge of the conditions in the Free State know that the demand for home help is greater this year than ever before.
Memoranda galore has been sent up to the Land Commission and we are told to prepare schemes. We prepare schemes and so the matter goes on. Inspector after inspector is sent down. When all fruit fails and the work is obviously work that should be done and work that would give relief to the unemployed, we are asked next will the County Council maintain that work if done by the Land Commission. These questions were not asked in 1924-'25 or in 1927-'28. What is the reason of their being asked now? Where works have been started have all these stipulations been put up? I doubt it very much. I notice that notwithstanding the anxiety in this House to relieve unemployment in the rural areas £75,000 has been earmarked for the borough and urban areas to be administered through the Department of Local Government—a sum which is in excess of the sum given for the rural areas through the Irish Land Commission, which is not spent, but which is about to be spent.
After three months of doing nothing on the part of the Land Commission surely they should make some endeavour now at this late moment to get on with this work? They can have their election in April and have the gain of spending the money before it. But surely, in common humanity, in view of the serious unemployment, they should try and spend the money that they have at their disposal during the next six weeks, and not be scheming and shamming the way they have been since they passed this vote last November.