Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1932

Vol. 42 No. 7

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Relief Schemes.

I move.

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £150,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun síntiúisí i gcóir fóirthinte ar dhíomhaointeas agus ar ghátar.

That a sum not exceeding £150,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for contributions towards the relief of unemployment and distress.

This Vote is required for the immediate relief of distress. It is proposed to utilise it, according to the Budget statement, in works which absorb the greatest amount of labour, for instance, the levelling and the clearing and the preparation of derelict sites for building. The details, such as the apportionment to be observed in distributing the funds, the question of local contributions, the rates of wages and the allocations that are to be made to Government Departments will be arranged later.

I may say in this connection that £19,500 has already been sanctioned for expenditure on schemes by the Board of Works; and the Executive Council have also decided that £25,000 will be available for mineral exploration and other works to assist mineral development. Beyond these no other allocation has been made.

Can the Minister say what the basis of payment will be?

To the Local Authorities?

No, to the individuals employed—the same as previously?

I am not in a position to speak with regard to that, because the administration of the grant is in the hands of the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance whether, in regard to this proposal, he or the Department of Local Government has examined any scheme which would be directed towards providing work in lieu of benefit for the unemployed. This scheme, I understand, is designed principally for the purpose of providing employment for as many of the unemployed, who are in serious need, as is possible. I mentioned in this House on a previous occasion the possibility of the Minister for Finance, acting in collaboration with the Minister for Local Government and with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, examining into certain schemes that might be laid before them, of regarding those schemes as schemes of emergency and seeking to secure the co-operation of the representatives of Labour to allow of the employment of men in receipt of unemployment benefit at rates which would produce for them a larger income than the unemployment benefit, but at rates which, admittedly, would not be a standard for trade union wages. It is a difficult and a delicate point, because, as I understand, the position of the Labour Party and of the Labour leaders in the country, generally, is that it is dangerous to admit of the policy of labour on any Government scheme except on the basis of trade union rates, as the rates paid by the Government might be used for the purpose of pulling down the rates of wages generally. On the other hand, we are faced with an enormous number of unemployed; we are faced with an enormous amount of work to be done; and in this city the bulk of that work will be the rebuilding or the building de novo of houses for the poor, for the labouring classes, and for the unemployed themselves. The Government have put their hands to that work. They will be constrained in the carrying out of that work only by their resources. I suggested on a previous occasion that the community should be asked to make a contribution. I think the Minister has taken that suggestion in a very literal way, and he has asked the community to make a very substantial contribution towards the solution of the present problem of housing and the other work that he has undertaken. I ask him to ask Labour to make a contribution, and to ask such other sections of the community as will be in a position to help to do so. I ask him now to consider a scheme whereby he might provide persons on the unemployed register with work at special rates, on enterprises which, in the opinion of the Executive Council, are enterprises of urgency and enterprises largely directed towards the end of lifting up the social standard available for the working classes themselves, and for the poorer sections of this community.

It would be too elaborate to attempt to outline a scheme, but I hope I have made myself clear to the Minister. What I am suggesting is that where a man goes on the road with the unemployed, instead of becoming eligible only for unemployment insurance benefit he would have the benefit and, in addition, a further modest sum in consideration of the placing of his services at the disposal of a public authority, designated by the Minister or the Executive Council, which would be engaged on works of social improvement. Instead of having to exist merely on his unemployment insurance benefit, he would have the addition of a small wage, which would not be governed by trade union considerations. For that additional small wage and the unemployment benefit he would place his services at the disposal of public authorities in connection with housing or other such schemes as the Government would certify to be schemes of urgency, calculated to relieve the very class of person to which the man belongs.

The Minister is desirous of relieving unemployment and to that end he has asked that those who are unemployed should register in the Labour Exchanges, in the local Gárda Stations and in the Post Offices. I want to indicate that the real problem of unemployment exists in the rural districts from about the middle of November to the middle of March. During these four months conditions are very bad in the rural districts. I suggest that a certain amount of this grant should be earmarked to meet the situation that will obtain during the coming winter. In the rural districts now there are farming operations going on and they absorb numbers of men. Road-making, tar-spraying and various other activities are in progress. There is drainage to a small extent being carried out.

The City problem is a different one. There is unemployment in the City and it will probably have to be met immediately. The Minister will get no indication of the rural problem from the returns of the labour exchanges at the moment or from the comparative few who may register now at Gárda Stations or Post Offices. He will get a true indication of the problem in the winter time and I think it is desirable that portions of this grant should be allocated to meet the necessities of the country at that period.

While I am glad to see £150,000 allocated for the relief of the unemployed, I desire to point out that the sum is entirely inadequate to meet the existing situation. Judging by the reports on unemployment in the City of Dublin, it would take fully £150,000 to relieve the situation, not to mind the rural areas. I do not agree with Deputy Kennedy's suggestion that a certain portion of the grant should be earmarked for next winter. County Westmeath is different from the area I represent. In my constituency there is very little tillage and, consequently, there are large numbers of unemployed agricultural workers existing on home help. The amount proposed to be granted is scarcely adequate to meet the situation and I do not see how any portion of it could well be left by until the winter time.

I think the Minister should take his courage in his hands and face a situation which is one of the most serious with which the country has to contend. Let him not worry about large taxpayers like Deputy Good or others; let him consider the poor people who are dependent on charity and who are anxious to get work. Amongst the schemes suggested in connection with this grant of £150,000 clearance of sites and sewage have been mentioned. The Minister does not indicate on what conditions the grant will be made. There are numbers of public bodies already overburdened and it is their desire to alleviate the sufferings of the unemployed by providing useful work if they could afford to put schemes in operation. If schemes are put forward on the basis that local authorities will have to make a substantial contribution, then I am afraid the poor unemployed will have little hope of relief. The fact is that local authorities in many instances will be unable to make any contribution towards the completion of schemes.

So far as road improvement work is concerned, no doubt there are many local authorities anxious to put schemes into operation so as to give employment, but if they have to bear a certain proportion of the charge, I am afraid the schemes cannot be availed of. I fully realise the difficulty from the Minister's point of view, but at the same time I think it is well to point out the condition in which many local authorities find themselves.

It is disappointing to the members of the Labour Party to find such a small amount being allocated to meet the existing needs of the people. I believe the present Government are more sympathetic than their predecessors in this matter. I appeal to the Minister not to consider Deputy Dillon's suggestion, given no doubt with the best of intentions, about having a low rate of wage and other conditions for men who are looking for employment under relief schemes. The suggestion is that they should accept something less than the current rates. That is a dangerous thing. We all know that when Deputy Mulcahy was Minister he sent out an order fixing wages at 22/- and 25/- a week in various rural areas. We know the effect it had on employers all round the particular localities concerned. I am aware that in the case of certain contracts, even Board of Work jobs, they wanted to establish the rate of wage ordered by the Minister. In my area I will not agree to workers engaged on public works, such as housing or sewerage schemes, accepting a lower rate of pay than they should receive under local trade union conditions.

With regard to sewerage schemes preparatory to the development of housing sites, I agree that the Minister might suggest certain conditions to local authorities in the way of bearing a certain proportion of the cost. I suggest, however, that in relation to the development of sites and the making of roads, the Minister should consider the financial position of each local authority before deciding upon any conditions. He should not compel local authorities that have had to face during the last four or five years, £40,000 or £50,000 a year in the way of home help, big overdrafts and a large amount of outstanding rates, to accept the same conditions as local authorities in Cork, Limerick or Dublin where there are high valuations and where the burden will not fall so heavily on large ratepayers as it will on the poorer residents in rural districts.

I will ask the Minister not to delay with any of the schemes before the public boards but to sanction them immediately so as to prepare the way for some relief to be given to the unemployed during the next two or three months. I am sure the public bodies will co-operate in every way and I hope there will be a further Vote put forward for a further amount to relieve the distress.

We are discussing a Vote for £150,000 and the Minister for Finance stated that of that there had been already an amount of £19,500 sanctioned for expenditure on schemes by the Board of Works and that there was £25,000 set aside for mineral exploration. It would give us a headline if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us of the type of work on which the £19,500 was being spent and the £25,000 for mineral exploration.

I wish to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do something for the relief of unemployment in County Mayo. There are from 5,000 to 10,000 men out of employment in that county. Fully 2,000 men are out of employment in the island of Achill. Useful works could easily be started down there to absorb a lot of that unemployment. There is great necessity for drainage in the county, particularly the River Robe in the Claremorris area. Thirty-five thousand pounds was supposed to be allocated for that work four or five years ago, but nothing has been done. Fully 500 men could be put to work on that. In the lower part of the county there are three rivers requiring drainage and a scheme has been in the hands of the Board of Works for the drainage of these rivers. The County Council has already passed a resolution giving the necessary guarantees and still the Commissioners of Public Works have done nothing. I understand, of course, that the present people could not do much in the three months in which they have been in office, but I wish to point out that this is the time for drainage, so I hope they will do all they can to get this started.

The fencing of land is another question and the making of roads there— that is, lands in the hands of the Land Commission for the last four or five years. Nothing has been done in regard to road making or fencing or drainage of those lands and the people in possession of them are very anxious and there is a good deal of unemployment. I hope the Minister will do all he can to get some work started in this connection. In the case of the Clare-Dalgan River the County Council also gave the necessary guarantees, and yet nothing has been done, and I hope the Commissioners for Public Works will see to this also.

I think it would be rather a good idea if in the rural areas the portion of this unemployment grant devoted to road making were not spent on the roads usually maintained by the county councils. In every county in Ireland—at any rate in the county I come from, I know there are certain areas in which a considerable number of ratepayers live who have no facilities for getting down to the public road. They send letters to us here in Dublin and they appeal to all and sundry to have something done for their roads. When they go to the County Council they are told that they can do nothing for them. The roads have never been in contract, or if so they are not of sufficient importance, in view of the growth of motor traffic, to do anything for them.

Under such a scheme as this these roads could be dealt with. I am not suggesting that they should be put on the County Council register, but the people in these areas would be quite satisfied if a fair amount of preliminary work were done on the roads and they were put into such a condition as would make it possible for them to maintain them themselves. Any Deputy here, who is a member of a County Council, will agree with me that time and again we have been compelled to turn down appeals from people who, we knew, were really in a bad way. I know of people who are unable to come out of their farm. They have to come across fields and in wet weather their condition is pitiable. The ordinary road work of the County Council, that is on the main roads, can be done in the ordinary way. It is only fair to the ratepayers in those districts that something should be done for them, and under such a scheme as this that could be done.

Complaints are made from time to time that certain gangers employed in connection with these works employ pets of their own. This is a matter which should be watched also. I think it should be made a condition that, in the first place, married men should get preference and after the married men, single with dependents. Very often young men are seen working on the roads and it is complained that older men should be working, but in such cases the young men very often have people dependent on them. The only thing that should rule employment is that married people or single people with dependents should get first preference and the county surveyor or whoever is responsible should see to it that the local gangers should not use personal preference in these matters. Time and again we have got complaints as to this and, of course, human nature being what it is, the most deserving people are sometimes left out in the cold.

One of the statements made was tantamount to suggesting that grants for rural areas should not be put into operation until November next. I come from a rural constituency where unemployment is always acute, particularly so this year. In view of the fact that many of the avenues that in previous years were open, such as harvesting in Scotland and England and the fishing industry at home, are now practically closed, especially the fishing industry owing to unfavourable markets for last year's catches, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to hasten on this work. As I said the unemployment problem in Donegal is very acute. It is acute in the congested areas at all times of the year. I agree with Deputy Everett that public bodies in the Free State are overburdened with their present liabilities. I suggest to the Minister that he might see his way to put into operation sewerage and drainage schemes so as to lighten the load put upon those public bodies.

I take exception to the statement made by Deputy Dillon in regard to the wages to be paid to the workmen employed on these works. If we set out to employ men on these works we should give them a living rate of wages. I agree with Deputy Everett that men engaged on this work are entitled to a living wage——

I very much regret to interrupt my friend and colleague from Donegal, but if he is suggesting to my constituents that I would be in favour of a starvation wage he is giving an inaccurate account of what I said and he knows that.

Mr. Brady

I agree with Deputy Goulding that a portion of the money for road making should be spent on cul de sac roads. It is at present illegal for a county surveyor to give his approval for money to be spent on them. I suggest to the Minister not to postpone the allocation of this money, but to proceed with it as quickly as possible.

Táim ar aon intinn leis an méid adubhairt an Teachta o Phortláirge, An Teachta O Guilidhe, nuair adhubhairt sé gur cheart roinnt den airgead seo do chaitheamh ar na bóithre beaga go bhfuil ar na daoiní bochta úsáid do dhéanamh asta. Ba cheart congnamh eicínt a thabhairt do na daoiní bochta seo le haghaidh a mbóithre beaga. Is ar an gcaoi seo ba cheart bunáite an airgid a chaitheamh, mar measaim go bhfuil a ndóthain airgid á chaitheamh ar na bóithre móra le haghaidh na ndaoiní móra, agus siad na bóithre beaga atá thiar leis.

Mar sin, tá súil agam go ndéanfar rud eicínt le haghaidh bóithre na gcairteacha. Nách léir ó ráidhtí gach duine sa Teach so go bhfuil leithéidí na mbóthar so as a gcuimhne uilig. 'Chuile rud le haghaidh na mbailte móra, gach duine ag cainnt ar scéim chun uisce do thabhairt isteach sna tithe agus a thuille den ghalántacht san. Anuraidh do thug an Rialtas do ghaibh amach ceathnú milliúin púnt uathab agus an bhliain roimhe sin thug siad trí chéad míle ar a leithéidí seo d'oibreachaí, agus ba bheag cion gach duine dhe. Anois, níl an Rialtas seo ag tabhairt uathab ach céad go leith mile púnt. Shíl mé leis an gcainnt a bhí acab ar na boicht go dtabharfaidís a cheithre oiread seo uathab ar a laighead. Ach ní mar sin atá. An méid beag seo atá siad ag tabhairt uathab caithfe siad é roinnt ar na sé contaethe fichead. Tá tús roinnte faighte ag an mbaile mór seo agus má roinnfear dá réir sin an chuid eile is beag de bheidh fágtha nuair a shroichfe sé an t-iarthar. Tá faitchíos orm gurb é an roinnt a gheobhaidh sé ná baint de thíos agus é chur air thuas.

One is naturally inclined on an occasion of this sort to concentrate one's mind upon one's own constituency. I hope that the Minister in administering this wretchedly small sum, but relatively great sum for this State, will have regard to the interests of each borough and county borough. While I feel that the amount is small I rather sympathise with the officials who are to administer it. I find that the sum of £19,000 has already been eaten up, that £25,000 is allocated, leaving something like £106,000 to be disposed of. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how it is proposed to allocate this money. I heard the Minister state that the departments— I am speaking from memory and am open to correction—would co-operate with the County Councils and other bodies in the administration of the money. I feel that the whole administration of this money is beset with a lot of difficulties. I hope in its allocation regard will be had to the necessities of each case.

We have in Cork City a very large number of unemployed. I do not want to put the claims of Cork before that of any other city, but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it has been admitted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the reports of the various exchanges are not a true indication of the state of unemployment. If an exhaustive examination was made it would be found that there is a greater proportion of unemployed in Cork City than in any other borough of the Free State. Because of that I hope regard will be had to the necessities of the case when this scheme comes to be administered. In connection with the hope expressed by Deputy Dillon in this matter that the trade unions will not insist upon certain rigid conditions, and that their regulations will be translated freely in regard to wages, I would remind him and others that while these people, labourers and other workers in this country, are prepared to make sacrifices such sacrifices should not be asked all the time from this particular class of workers. I have no doubt that accommodation will be found, but I should not like it to go forth from this House that men are to be asked, because it is a relief scheme, to accept wages that will not give them a decent or fair living. Nobody regrets more than I do the necessity for these relief grants and I hope these things will not be recurring. While we all have the desire to relieve unemployment by these temporary expedients, we would prefer some larger, bolder, and more spacious scheme by which we could put an end to unemployment. I am not suggesting that the Government should work wonders. I said some time ago in this House that if 40,000 people were put to work, that had previously no work, I would be satisfied, and I would pay the Government a wonderful tribute for having done it. Any attempt they make to solve this problem, or alleviate it in any way, will have my strong support. I remind the House, again, that while I feel that the persons to whom this grant will apply will not be found unreasonable, still they will demand all they possibly can in order to get what is commonly known as a living wage. I speak for a class of men that are not organised. The majority of men employed in these relief schemes are not, as a rule, members of any organised trades union. I do not think that the bogey of trade unionism need have been trotted out at all, because I do feel that these men who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, and many of them lucky enough to be drawing unemployment insurance, together with those of them who are not drawing unemployment insurance, will be found very reasonable indeed, when it comes to discussing their conditions and rates of pay.

I do suggest, however, that those men should not be used to exploit the position of other workers, who are already in employment, because we cannot get away from this fact that, no matter how accommodating these workers may be—and they will be very largely unskilled workers—and no matter how accommodating they are found to have been, the position has always been exploited. I could give ample evidence and ample proof to the Minister, or to the Parliamentary Secretary, that what I say is a fact. The reason I stress this point is that I feel the impression might get abroad that certain exorbitant demands will be put forward, on behalf of these people, who will get relief by way of employment under this scheme, and I want to disabuse the mind of anybody who labours under the delusion, all the time remembering, that, no matter what sacrifices they make, they will not be taken in the spirit of sacrifices at all, but other people will use these sacrifices and exploit the whole situation to undermine the position of the organised trade unions in this country.

I look on this merely as a moiety, a small attempt, but a worthy attempt —I do not want to decry it in any way—but it is a very small sum of money, and I do not know, considering all the difficulties that have to be met, how the Department is going to satisfy all the representatives in this House, representing 26 counties. Even if you took it county for county, and divided 26 into it, you would not keep 2,000 people at work for a week at £1 a week.

So far as I can see, the difficulty before the House is to try to allocate this sum of money to relieve the unemployment that faces us. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he is allocating this money to weigh very carefully the schemes put before him, and to see that the work done under this grant will be the most reproductive work, and that the money is applied in the best manner possible. In the rural districts of the county I represent, there are certain roads, as was pointed out by my colleagues on the opposite benches, which have come up for discussion at the County Council for years past, and in respect of which we have received deputations. We know that the work is badly required, but, as Deputy Goulding pointed out, the legal difficulty is there that they were not under contract in olden days, and that in the case of 70 per cent. of them, they were not up to a particular width, and, also, that they were cul-de-sac roads. I hope that in the allocation of this grant, or in the Bill providing for its allocation, all these legal points will be wiped out. All that these people want is a road over which they can do their business. They do not require a road 14 or 15 feet wide. They want a reasonably good road, and they will be satisfied with that. A good deal of useful work could be done over a large district of the County Waterford at a reasonable expense.

In the City of Waterford, I know that unemployment is rife, and I know that as a member of the Board of Public Assistance. It is for that reason that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that this money is spent in something reproductive, or something that would be of benefit later on. I presume several schemes will be put up, and the Minister, with his expert information, will know, more than the ordinary man in the street, how best that can be brought about. I do not believe in paying a man to take clay out of one place, and to put it into another, in order to set him at work. I do not want to ask any man, and I have never asked any man, to work for anything less than a living wage, but I would appeal to the Labour Party to agree, that, when a work of public utility is started, the workers at least should continue that work at the local rate of wages, and that local rate I would take as what was being paid to the county council workmen. I do not think that would be unreasonable, and I do not think that anybody could say that the workmen under the county councils of Ireland are not getting an economic wage. It is suggested in some county councils—I do not say all of them—that the county council men are getting too high a rate of wages, and it is pointed out that one member of a family is working for a farmer at 25/- a week, while another is getting 35/- a week from the county council. Some of us do not agree with that, because I know that, in our county, a man working under the county surveyor has to be a more energetic and younger man than the man working for a farmer.

The only regret that I have is that there is not more money available, and that we have, unfortunately, to cut our cloth according to our measure, and that a sufficient sum of money cannot be put up by the country to relieve all the unemployment. Another matter that I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary is with regard to the sanctioning of grants for public utility schemes. The borrowing power of one particular district in my area is exhausted. It could not borrow £500, and certainly could not borrow £1,000. They would be prepared to go on with a scheme and to do it on a fifty-fifty payment, but they could not possibly do it. It would be like putting them in the same position that I heard a friend of mine describe once, of the man who was offered a coat and vest on condition that he would buy a trousers. He could not afford to do that, and he would have to go naked. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will probably understand what I mean.

I would give him a kilt.

When allocating the grant I hope he will take these points into consideration.

I am disappointed at the amount of money it is proposed to allocate for the relief of unemployment. When the amount is divided up amongst the Twenty-Six Counties it represents about £5,000 for each. As one Deputy stated, when the gangers employ men they select friends. Some counties will get very little of this money. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to have the grant increased. No matter how small a grant is made, I hope that the spending of it will be left to the discretion of the county council, the urban council or whatever local authority is in charge. I hope it will not be made a condition, as it was under the late Government, that where grants are given wages will be reduced and that people who have been unemployed for months will have to work at practically starvation wages.

What were they?

I agree with a Deputy who spoke previously that the rate of the wages should be fixed at the level prevailing in the area, or be fixed by agreement. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give preference to cul de-sac roads, of which there are four or five in County Dublin. An appeal was made to the ex-Minister for Local Government to deal with three of these roads in order to facilitate the farming community, but nothing could be done. On one of these roads in County Dublin £1,600 is paid in rates by farmers and nothing has been done with it.

What road is that?

A road in the village of Clondalkin. There is another road in the village of Finglas and another one in Irishtown, Lusk. I hope these roads will be attended to if County Dublin gets any money under this grant. The Board of Health in County Dublin has undertaken work on roads, also sewerage and water supplies, representing an outlay of £70,000, and other schemes are under consideration. I notice that £30,000 out of the £150,000 has been already distributed, so that there is very little left to relieve unemployment. I hope whatever work is to be done will be undertaken at once and not postponed. The workers are clamouring at meetings of county councils and boards of assistance for employment. It is a pitiable state of affairs.

I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the conditions that prevail in works in Co. Dublin, particularly in Rathmines and Pembroke, undertaken out of unemployment grants. These townships have been taken over by the Dublin Corporation and men are sent out from Dublin to Dundrum and to Milltown to work on sewerage schemes, while local men have to look on and to walk to James's Street to ask for relief. These local men have to go to the Labour Exchange in Gardiner St. a distance of 7 or 8 miles to register. Some of them have been doing so for two years. They complain that builders' labourers who have been fairly constantly at work are employed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that men in the locality are taken on, and that men who get employment from the Corporation are not sent out. Two of the men that I am referring to refused to seek relief. The men I am speaking for are honest men. They want work and they say that they would prefer to starve and to die on the street before seeking relief. I hope that in a short time another grant of £150,000 will be available for the relief of the unemployed.

In the allocation of this grant I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the position of counties that are affected by the stoppage of emigration. There is a surplus population in County Mayo for the past one or two years owing to that fact, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that it gets its share of this money. Most Deputies would prefer if the amount of the Vote was larger, and they have hopes that, perhaps, in a short time, another grant will be available for the relief of the unemployed. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should see that piers along the seaboard which are used by the fishermen are repaired. Some of the piers that are used are not suitable for the development of fishing. Some work might be done in that way. I impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity of giving special consideration to counties with growing populations.

On the discussion of the motion that was before the House in the name of Deputy Morrissey I represented to the Minister that the unemployment problem was serious in Limerick. I can say to-day, as I said last night, that I have never seen it so serious. I suggested to the Minister that roads, drainage and housing schemes should be immediately tackled for the purpose of relieving the situation. I further suggested that if it was the intention of the Government to experiment with turf as against coal the bogs of West Limerick should be utilised because certainly the problem of unemployment there is serious. I have intervened in this debate for the purpose of referring to a suggestion made by a Deputy on the Government Benches because I was under the impression that his remarks might be taken as representative of the condition in all rural areas. He asked that a certain sum of this money that is about to be voted should be ear-marked to relieve his constituency in the winter time. That may give an impression to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary that the conditions in his county exist in all the rural areas. I say with a full knowledge of the rural areas at the moment, at least as far as my county is concerned, that they are as much in need of relief as ever they were and I hope that when the Minister is allocating the money he will relieve the areas needing relief immediately.

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that first attention should be given to the fishing areas or to areas where the fishing industry has failed, particularly those in County Kerry. Three weeks ago, I approached the Department in connection with the allocation of a grant for the relief of the people in Brandon area. The position in that district is appalling. The fishery industry has failed and there is no source of employment. In the extreme portion of the Dingle peninsula, the fishing industry has also failed and the people are in a hopeless condition. One important point as regards wages should be borne in mind. Relief work has been started in the Maharees and the rate of wages announced was 21/- per week. The result has been that the men went on strike and the work has been held up. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the principle on which the wages should be fixed in future should be the fair rate of wages as prevailing in the district.

There is a good deal to be said as regards the allocation of the relief grant to local authorities. For instance, local authorities make provision for the expenditure of certain sums on road making with the proviso that the Land Commission should contribute half the amount. There is a certain amount of over-lapping in that respect because the Land Commission engineers come along first and carry out their portion of the work. The engineers of the local authorities come along later and carry out their portion. The result is that there is not that united effort to complete the work as it should be completed. As a way out, I would suggest that local authorities should get complete power to carry out what we might describe as Land Commission work, or that they should carry it out in future in conjunction with their ordinary work as local authorities.

As regards the point about valuation and the number of unemployed in each county, I think that in so far as Kerry and other poor counties are concerned they should get special consideration. Looking at it from the point of view of rateable capacity, Kerry could not, out of its own resources, nor could any other poor county like it, raise the necessary money for road making or other improvement works in the same way as richer counties. As an instance of that I might point out that Kerry must tax itself to the extent of 3s. 7d. in the £ to provide the same amount of work per mile of road as Dublin does for 1d. in the £. Kerry cannot, therefore, out of its own resources provide the same amount of work as these richer counties. Further, under a proper allocation of the grant, the amount to be given to Kerry should work out at £3 14s. for every £1 Dublin gets. That would be the proper basis in future. The poor law valuation in each county in conjunction with the number employed in that county should be the determining factor in making allocations. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that that would be a fair and equitable basis on which to proceed.

Mr. Brodrick

I am certainly pleased that this £150,000 is being made available by the Government. It is certainly needed and indeed much more would be needed at the present time. In allocating grants I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take into consideration works that were previously in hand by the Land Commission in the way of village roads and roads into turbary. A good many of these works were taken in hand, but for some reason or other in many instances there was not sufficient money to complete them. At the present time some of them are not of much use. I might also point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that at the present day you have hundreds and hundreds of acres of turbary which are still undivided in the hands of the Land Commission. I believe that if roads were made and the turbary divided the price that would be eventually obtained for the turbary would account for a good deal of the money expended on the roads. In fact, I saw one instance in my own constituency some few years ago where there was very little lost on the road when the turbary was divided and sold.

The Minister will probably be allocating some of this money to local authorities and I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to what are known as district roads. We all know that in the past district roads suffered at the expense of main and trunk roads. You have a number of district roads in every county used by farmers, particularly tillage farmers, which have been neglected. If they were taken in hands they would afford a good deal of employment. I believe that a light rolling and widening, something say that would cost about £200 or £250 a mile, would be a great advantage. I should also like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to proposals that have been before the local authorities for the past two or three years. They have found it very difficult to provide money for the carrying out of certain works. Those works were what we may call big village roads which connected two main roads. In several instances, if these roads were made available, it would shorten the journey of the farmers. In one instance, the farmer has to travel eight and a half miles to his market town. An expenditure of £600 would bring him within two and a half miles of the town.

There are several instances of this nature. I shall just mention one in north Galway. The estimated cost of the road from Cahermorris to Cummer is £600. The County Council have agreed to grant £450 for that work. That means that in or about £250 of a Government grant would put that road in order. Those works would give a good deal of employment. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to make grants available for water and sewerage schemes as well. In the small towns and, indeed, in some of the larger towns in the western counties, the water and sewerage systems are very poor and very ancient. In a town with a population of 3,000 in Co. Galway, the sewerage system consists of a flagged drain going through the principal portion of the town. I refer to the town of Tuam. The health of the people is bound to suffer when you have such bad sewerage, combined in many instances with a bad water supply. I believe that if the sewerage and water schemes were taken in hands seriously the rates would be much relieved, because in all these places there are frequent outbreaks of fever of different types and these involve great expense. The question of drainage does not come under this Vote, but if the Parliamentary Secretary could assist in that direction it would be of great benefit. Several schemes of drainage have been voted on already and nothing remains but to start the work. In Galway there are four dredgers working on the Ahascragh drainage scheme. Another scheme in the Mountbellew area is ready. The fear of the people is that the dredgers will be taken away and the work delayed. The Craig Abbey drainage scheme near Athenry is in the same position. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take these schemes in hands because the next five or six months will be the proper time for drainage work. The work would also relieve unemployment to a great extent.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this problem. There is a rather limited amount of money at his disposal, considering the total requirements and the inroads that have been made upon it. It seems to me that some Deputies are more concerned for those already in employment than for those who are out of employment, and who, we are told, and, I believe, are hungry. I take a different view altogether. Every week five or six men pass through my place looking for work. I have eight or nine men and I cannot afford to take on others. If I consulted my own convenience, I would keep two or three less and I may have to do that within the next few weeks. If I had to make a choice between one man at 35/- and two men at £1 each, I would prefer to give the two men work at £1 each.

The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, realises the stress of the times we are living in and the financial and economic condition of the country. I am sure he also realises that the agricultural workers who are not dieted in the farmers' houses are paid about £1 per week. In very few cases are they getting 25/-. Men are working for 8/- and 9/- per week, the farmer supplying their food. Ten shillings would be a common wage for good men. He would have to be a good man to get it. We should realise the position and deal with it as it is and not be living in a fool's paradise. There is talk of men already in employment. Here is the mentality that is shown in some places. I quote from the "Irish Independent"—I have not the date:—

The dispute between the Council and the local labour association in reference to the removal of the debris lying beside the main thoroughfares after the drainage of the River Fergus has ended in the U.D.C., against the advice of their surveyor, deciding by a majority to surrender to the workers' demand for 16/- a day, 12 standard loads to be removed per day. A local carter, who had been expelled from the union, had accepted a lower rate of pay but could earn 18/9 per day because (he wrote to the Council) he found it easy work to remove 15 loads in an eight-hour day. He was, however, only allowed to work for one day, as the Workers' Association would not tolerate a man doing so much work. The Council's decision was reached after a long discussion at a special meeting—the second within a week to deal with the question—and "the man that works too hard," together with the officials of the Workers' Association, were called in. The hard-working carter was appealed to by the councillors to rejoin his society and to conform to its rules, whilst the officials of the society were requested to reinstate him.

They were reconciled after a bit. That is Ennis Urban District Council.

Would the Deputy give the reference?

(approaching the Chair): There it is for you!

Deputy Gorey will have to conform to the rules of the House. He will not be permitted to approach the Chair and hand a paper in in that fashion. He was asked for the reference.

The paper is the "Irish Independent." I cannot give you the date.

It is a most improper and uncalled for proceeding for any Deputy to act as the Deputy has acted.

The paper is the "Irish Independent."

I have not got the date. Do you deny it happened?

The Deputy will not be permitted to cross-examine the occupant of the Chair or to ask him what he believes or does not believe. I have asked the Deputy for the reference for the purpose of the records of the House.

I am sorry I cannot give it to you. My idea is that these relief measures in the times in which we are living ought to reach as many as possible and ought not to be confined to any favoured few. If two people are hungry and if we can reach the two people, the Parliamentary Secretary should not be influenced by those who are in sheltered employment. The farming community can only employ labour at the rates which it can afford. These rates are very small. The good men are employed and the men not quite so good are out of employment for one cause or another. Generally, the better men are in employment.

It is rather an unpleasant job for the Parliamentary Secretary to try to please everybody in the matter. The object of this vote is to relieve hunger and distress, and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not relieve hunger and distress in the largest measure in which he should meet it, then he is not meeting the situation in a Christian spirit. It is not being met in a Christian spirit. I deny that it is a Christian spirit that one man is to demand and receive 60s. or 55s. or 50s. or 40s. a week while numbers of other men are hungry. That is not a true Christian spirit. The statement has been made here that they would not be asked to work except at a wage that will give a man a frugal means of living. This is an emergency Vote and it is meant to deal with an emergency situation. It is not meant to be bound by any trades union rules or regulations or rules about output or rules with regard to hours. I think Deputy Dillon took the right note in the House. This is a Christian House and in dealing with a question like this it should act in a Christian way, but some of the men who were talking about a Christian spirit here do not know anything at all about a Christian spirit. Their idea as to what constitutes a Christian spirit is to give one man a good wage and let others starve. That is not a good Christian spirit and it is the sort of spirit that I have a very poor opinion of.

The resources of third country are not inexhaustible. They really are limited. There is very little question about that and the present Government, in trying to frame their Budget, has found that out. The shoe is now pinching in that direction. This country is a country of limited resources as compared with other countries. It is a question of cutting your coat according to the cloth. It is a question of passing legislation for the whole people and of helping the whole people. One man in this country has as much right under our laws and under our Christian principles as the other man. I will not stand for the aristocrat in labour or for the aristocrat in employment while another man is starving on the roadside unable to get employment. Deputy Flynn, of Kerry, referred to the wage of 21/- a week, but even with that wage you could not still absorb into employment all the unemployed in the country, taking into account the limited amount of money at your disposal. You cannot do it. There would still be people unemployed even at that figure, but you have only to go as far as you can on the road. That is the duty of any Government animated by a Christian spirit.

With regard to my county, the Minister has recently, I understand, received a deputation in connection with drainage works. We know that this is the season of the year when drainage works can be engaged in most profitably. In the fall of the year and in the winter time, work may be done on the roads, but the present summer season is really the time for drainage works on the lands and on the rivers. Drainage is a work that depends on seasonal conditions, but work on the roads can wait for the winter months. I say to the Deputies here who have drainage schemes in their counties that it would be much better to have men employed now on those drainage schemes than to be turning them on to road work. Road improvement and road construction can be carried out in the winter, but drainage schemes cannot. Where it is possible to carry out drainage schemes in any country they should be undertaken now, and road improvement left over for the winter period. I am sure every Deputy here will agree to that.

I understand the Minister had deputations waiting on him from my county in connection with some big schemes of drainage. These are big drainage schemes that no individual farmer or group of farmers could carry out. These are schemes even that no one individual county could be held responsible for. There is the drainage scheme of the Dinan and the Nore and this is a scheme for which any one county could not be held responsible. The Dinan comes down from the mountainous district, bringing down with it in the rainy season thousands of tons of rubble and gravel. All this matter is brought down with every flood and it would be impossible for one county to deal with a problem like that. The whole map of that district has been changed in recent times. A farm that at one time was on one side of the river is now on the other side of the river. The land along the Dinan and the Nore has been changed because of the action of these rivers. That is a big job for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider. With this money at his disposal I would urge him to use a considerable portion of that money to improve the position down there. That is a very urgent position—urgent from the point of view that there are hundreds and thousands of acres along the Nore under water because of this flooding. I understand a few schemes have been submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary, and if the work is going to be done at all it ought to be done so as to make a good job of it, otherwise the country will be continually spending money and continually coming to the Dáil asking for more money in order to deal with it. If this flooding is not dealt with it will be a source of trouble every year.

Then there is the question of Thomastown. That can easily be dealt with. It is only a matter of sinking near the bridge. The flooding in Thomastown has been caused every year for want of having that done. I take a different view from other Deputies in saying that we ought have an eye on the prevailing wages in the sheltered trades. That ought to be the view of all Deputies here. In my opinion we should set ourselves against that attitude entirely. In the relief of unemployment we should consider first relieving the most distressed. We should aim at relieving destitution. This is an emergency situation, and we should try to secure relief for the greatest number of people, and not try to help a few with the implication "to hell with the rest."

I think it would be helpful if the House would possibly keep to the general question as distinct from particular question in particular constituencies. If we simply deal with a series of possible relief schemes in each particular constituency we cannot get very far. We could all agree to add up the cost of a given number of works in each constituency and then one would get a figure larger than you could possibly provide money to deal with. A general consideration of general relief schemes would be more valuable and helpful.

I think a good deal of useful work could be undertaken, or rather useful work might be supplemented somewhat by giving the county councils certain powers in the handling of this money. In addition a good deal of saving could be effected in home help by local bodies as a result of the spending of this money, and perhaps augmenting what the bodies contribute themselves by what is available from Government sources. The Board of Works might be able to supplement the money available in some districts by special grant. I do know that local bodies are ready and anxious to avail of any opportunity they get to relieve themselves of the burden of home help. But where the necessity is great, where the urgency is great, and where the demand for employment is great, the need for grants of this sort is so great that it might be well if the public bodies could supplement in this way grants that are available from the Government.

I was more than interested in hearing the solution offered by Deputy Gorey to this House in the matter of relief. It was most interesting. He would solve the problem easily if it were left to him. He is a man with a great mind, and he has no difficulty in handling the situation. Where he had one loaf he would divide that loaf into two, and instead of giving it to one man he would give him half the loaf, and give the other half to the other man who had no share. He has seven men employed, and if the choice were given to him he would prefer to employ twice as many. Why does he not divide the wages he is giving to the seven between fourteen men?

How many men has the Deputy employed? He had a model farm in Leitrim once. How many men does he employ now?

Mr. Maguire

That is not the question that we are dealing with now. To show the magnanimous man with the Christian outlook we will see how he deals with the position when it comes to the dividing of the money down in this own county. He says to the Dáil: "Let us divide our loaf in a Christian spirit." But his actual demand was that a considerable proportion of the entire contribution by the State should be allotted to his county. There is the man with his magnanimous mind dividing his loaf in two. If there is only one loaf for distribution he will see it divided between two.

What I said was, and what I meant to convey was—perhaps I was not very clear—that of the portion coming to Kilkenny, the great proportion ought to be expended in the manner I suggested.

Mr. Maguire

A very considerable portion of the grant for this particular drainage work—that was the statement which the Deputy made. I only want to show how very inconsistent these kinds of speeches are. The man who is going to divide his loaf in two asks that a considerable portion of the grant available here should be spent on one drainage undertaking in this country.

Again I say that I did not refer to that. I object to the Deputy deliberately misrepresenting me.

Mr. Maguire

I am not misrepresenting the Deputy.

The Deputy must accept the interpretation given by the Deputy himself.

Mr. Maguire

I am prepared to do that. I merely quoted his words.

The Deputy did not quote me accurately.

Mr. Maguire

The Deputy said that a considerable portion of the grant should be spent on drainage in Kilkenny, in his own county.

I am not fool enough to expect that. The Deputy may give me credit for that.

Mr. Maguire

I am only contrasting it with the general statement which the Deputy made earlier. I do not believe that it would be good business that we should adopt Deputy Gorey's suggestion, that in dealing with the unemployment problem we should proceed by the way of reducing wages generally. The standard of wages should be the Christian standard. The wage should be a fair wage such as would allow a labourer to provide for himself and his family in decent comfort. These are the lines that we propose to go on, and anything that Deputy Gorey may say will not induce us to depart from those lines. Deputy Gorey suggests that a solution of the problem may be found in reducing the workmen's wages according to the general needs. In that event another aspect of the case may probably have to be looked at, and some person may say that there are other persons who have an excess, and that he is entitled to have it. I do not believe that these will be the right lines to follow, and I should be sorry to allow that particular policy to be placed before the House without urging on the House that the method of tackling the problem with which we are confronted suggested by Deputy Gorey would be a bad method.

The Minister, in introducing this estimate, offered very scant information to the House as to the manner in which he proposed to expend the money and as to the particular schemes that he has proposed to undertake. He did make the bald statement that it was intended to utilise this grant for the purpose of clearing old sites, and erecting new building upon them. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is intended to spend the greater portion of the money in clearing derelict sites in Dublin, or whether portion of the money will be allocated to the different cities and towns throughout the country, for similar work and for house building schemes following on the clearances. I understood also from the Minister that the expenditure of this money will be under the control of the Department of Local Government, and that the portion of the grant which is to be spent on road making will be administered by the county councils throughout the country.

I am not satisfied that the county councils are the very best body to administer a grant of this kind for the purpose of making new roads or improving existing roads. I think that the money could be very much better spent by a Department, let us say, like the Land Commission. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has discovered by now that the Land Commission is not the sort of institution that it was represented to be by him and his Party when in opposition. He has now discovered that it is one of the most efficient Departments of the Government. And I think that in that Department of the Land Commission they have got a machine by means of which it will be possible to carry out an enormous amount of work in constructing a number of very useful bog roads and roads generally designed to improve the holdings that were acquired under the earlier Land Acts. I mention this fact primarily for this reason that most of the sales that took place in this country under the Land Act of 1903 were direct sales effected between the landlords and the tenants, and consequently at the time of these sales no money whatsoever was spent in improving particular holdings and particular estates; and in many cases these holdings have deteriorated in value.

In some cases, at all events, these holdings have deteriorated in value since the sales actually took place for certain reasons. One reason, of course, is because no drainage work, or very little drainage work, has been done since. And in some other respects the holdings have not been improved very much. In connection with the sales of a good many of these estates new roads were necessary at that particular time, and in many cases it was necessary to carry out certain drainage work. I consider that in the case of a grant of this kind portion of the money should certainly be set aside for such purposes as these. I do not believe that the money could possibly be spent in a better way, and I agree with Deputy Gorey that at this season particularly a certain portion of that money should be spent on small drainage schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary will find, in the Land Commission offices, estimates of small drainage schemes for almost every part of the country, so that he has this particular source of information readily available for his purposes.

There is unemployment not alone in the urban areas but in the towns and cities as well. I have made one suggestion as to how it is possible to relieve unemployment in the rural areas, and that is by undertaking drainage schemes or drainage work, a description of work which, I say, is particularly suitable for this season of the year. In undertaking road work, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should exercise discrimination. I know very well that if the county councils are charged with the responsibility of carrying out road schemes all sorts of absurd proposals will be made to them. Perhaps the county councils will be very anxious to carry out works regardless of merit and quite regardless of utility. There should be some standard laid down by which it will be ensured that the works undertaken are works of real utility and of some advantage to the community.

There is another means of spending money for the purpose of relieving unemployment, and that is on waterworks and sewerage schemes. I do not think myself that the importance of schemes of that kind in country towns could be overstressed. The sewerage arrangements in some of our small towns are really a scandal. They are potent sources of disease. And I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should see that portion of this money is set aside for the purpose of enabling local authorities to carry out waterworks and sewerage schemes in towns where the conditions are suitable and where the local authorities are agreeable to undertake schemes of this kind.

I know many country towns, a certain number at all events, where the sewage arrangements are exceedingly primitive, where there is undoubtedly a possible source of disease, and where there is the possibility at some future time of a serious outbreak of disease. I think the installation of a suitable sewage system in these towns would be one means of spending this money very usefully and effectively and in the very best interests of the county.

The Minister mentioned two items of expenditure already undertaken. He referred to £19,000 for the Board of Works schemes, but he did not indicate what those schemes were. I assume they were undertaken since the new Government took over control. He also mentioned a rather intriguing item of £25,000 for mineral exploration. The Minister offered no explanation as to the type of mineral exploration that is being carried out. I assume the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the sort of minerals in the exploration of which this money is being spent. It is a pity the Minister did not go into detail beforehand. He would have given Deputies an opportunity of discussing these two items more completely, and he would have also given a lead in the discussion on this Vote.

I am quite certain Deputies are sincerely anxious to do anything they can to bring to the notice of the Ministry the serious conditions existing in their own particular counties. If anything should influence the Minister, everything else being equal, it should be the real question of unemployment as it exists in each county, and the fact that there are useful works urgent at the moment. I am glad that there is every intention to get on with the work. Where you have in a county 25,000 people, and where you find home help to the extent of almost £2 per head of that number, you will observe that it is a very serious situation. I believe the Board of Works are already undertaking schemes in Co. Kildare where the unemployment situation is very serious, the number of unemployed being the highest in the whole 26 Counties.

With regard to bog roads, I believe much useful work can be given. I hope the time is at hand when the Land Commission will be able to rid themselves of that responsibility. It is time that work was handed over to the Roads Department so that it can be attended to expeditiously. I make that recommendation, and I hope it will be adopted, if it is at all possible to do so. Bog roads have been very much under discussion of late, and it is very desirable that they should be given immediate attention. They perform a very useful function, and are of great utility to the people who reside in their vicinity. I urge the Minister to give every consideration to bog roads and to the schemes submitted by county councils and urban authorities when he is allocating this grant.

I welcome this particular Vote. No matter how small it may be, it is a step in the direction of removing a particular grievance that exists in the country. We all welcome any attempt to remove that grievance. I must confess I am just made a little bit suspicious by the Minister's statement when introducing this Vote, that portion of the money would be spent on clearing derelict sites for the erection of new buildings. We can all sympathise with the unemployed in the cities. It is in the cities in the main that we have derelict sites and that there is opportunity for building. If we are to believe all we have heard here for some months back, then there is a prospect other than relief votes for the relief of unemployment in the cities. We have read our newspapers day after day. We have listened to Ministers week after week. We have heard of the number of applications—frenzied applications—to start factories or to purchase sites in cities for the building of factories. If all that is to be believed, then the main portion of a Vote such as this should be expended in the areas where there is real depression and real widespread unemployment, namely, the agricultural areas.

I sympathise with any Minister and with any Parliamentary Secretary who is faced with a situation in which you have approximately 80,000 unemployed and with a sum of £150,000 to spend on the relief of unemployment, a sum which would really mean £2 a week for the lot of them for one week. I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in any attempt he may make, faced with 80,000 unemployed, to put that £150,000 as far as he possibly can. I sympathise with him also in his appeal to us to view the thing from a national point of view rather than from a constituency point of view. At the same time, each of us outside the cities must be conscious of the conditions in our own constituencies and our particular duty here is to call attention to the conditions which exist in our constituencies. Without urging the claims of one constituency more than another, it is our duty to call attention to any claims that exist in our own areas and then leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to decide how best to allocate this grant.

In dealing with the constituency of Leix-Offaly I might remind the Parliamentary Secretary that once upon a time, and not very many months ago, he addressed a meeting in a place called Wolfhill, together with a Minister of the Executive Council. In connection with this outline of expenditure on the mineral resources of the country, I might remind him that on that particular occasion the Deputy, as he was then, who is now a Minister, made a promise to the unemployed in the Wolfhill area and to the general voters of the district that, if a Fianna Fáil Government was elected as the Government of this country, the Wolfhill coal mines would be re-opened. I do not remind the Parliamentary Secretary of that particular speech by a Minister of the Executive Council in order to score any political capital. I merely call it to his attention in order to remind him how some expenditure of this Vote may be made.

There is another situation existing just a couple of miles away from Wolfhill. This is a matter which I think is receiving the serious consideration, and has been receiving the serious consideration, of his own Department, I think, for some six months. That is, the drainage of the Douglas river outside of Ballylynan. I am not sure but I understand that money spent in the way of labour in connection with drainage schemes goes furthest.

It does.

Anyway, it is a source of very considerable employment, and employment of such a nature that the people on the spot can be brought in, in order to work on that particular type of work, because it is a type that does not require skilled labour. These are two sources of employment, two opportunities for expenditure of some of the money out of this particular grant in a particular area, where the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues were most impressed and most impressive in their language with regard to the volume of unemployment. For that particular reason, and merely for that reason, I transgress the Parliamentary Secretary's request not to deal with this from a constituency point of view. But I think that if he jogs his memory backwards and looks up the records of that area and thinks of the history of that particular area he will find that there is a strong enough claim for special consideration —strong enough even to outweigh his request that we should forget to view this from a constituency point of view. There you have a part of the country which within a few short years back was a hive of industry, a coal area with a busy railway line carrying coal from it, with every young boy in it a worker with his future assured so far as was possible, with a bright prospect, and suddenly the whole thing closed down, the railway line removed, the people without a hope in the world. Surely, that is a place where some little portion of this Vote should be spent, and seeing that a portion of it is to be devoted to an examination of mineral resources, I think it could not be better spent than in that particular area.

In view of the appeal of the Parliamentary Secretary asking Deputies not to take up the time of the House by bringing particular appeals to his notice, it is with reluctance that I stand up here to bring one grievance before you. I wish to draw attention to a part of the constituency which I represent, which I can say here was sadly, and I may add, wilfully neglected by the late Government. That is, the district near Banagher, where the people are driven from their homes three times annually owing to floods.

Representations were made in this House on various occasions about this condition and the result was that the Land Commission sent down their officials to investigate; but the only thing ever carried out in that particular area was an election road that was half finished at the election of 1927. Not only are they driven from their homes three times annually but they have lost their crops and stock every year. They have no access to any town except by means of boats on the Shannon. Their children going to school have to cross a foot-bridge over the canal, where the water is 30 feet in depth. They asked that a bridge would be constructed across the canal. The Galway County Council set aside a certain amount of money but the Land Commission would only give something like £2,000. The architect said it would take £2,500 to put a bridge across it. In any case, I believe a Mr. Keenan, of Dublin, agreed to put a bridge across it for £600. I think that that particular area where these visitations occur should be attended to and that a portion of this unemployment grant could not be expended better than by erecting that bridge across the canal. Such a bridge is sorely needed. These floods affect at least 30 families. I would also draw his attention to the fact that in certain cases the unemployment grants were given almost entirely to areas that were not in such need, and I would suggest that the present one should be given, as far as possible, to the districts neglected in the past.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, to let us know, as far as he can, how much of this grant of £150,000 will be allocated to town areas, how much to city areas, and how much to rural areas. I would be glad to have an approximate figure. I think, and I daresay he will agree with me, that nothing really can be worse than to stir up hopes which will not be realised. In the course of this debate, we have heard from Deputy after Deputy of the various things that ought to be done in his particular constituency, and every person in every part of the country wishes that particular bit of work which would give relief to unemployment and at the same time benefit himself to be carried out. A grant of this nature naturally leads, and always will lead, to a certain amount of disappointment, and for hopes to be raised and disappointed is very bad for everybody concerned.

Therefore, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know how much of this grant will be available for rural areas, so that the people in rural areas may not have their hopes unduly raised—hopes which will afterwards be dashed to the ground and disappointment follow. I gathered that a considerable amount of this money is to be spent in the clearing away of buildings on derelict sites in order to make those sites available for building purposes. Obviously these are practically all city sites. How much money of this grant will be spent for that purpose?

I would like also to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that, as far as the building trade in Dublin is concerned, it is going to have, for the next two or three years, a very prosperous time. It is going to reap, rather unexpectedly, a golden harvest. I suppose a sum amounting to something between £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 out of the sum which will come to the hospitals, as a result of the proceeds of the Hospitals Sweepstakes, will be spent in building in this city in the immediate future. As far as I can understand, Holles Street Hospital is ready to commence building operations.

It has commenced.

I am reminded that it has commenced. Other hospitals are also considering putting up new buildings. Therefore, as I say, the building trade in Dublin is going to enjoy an excellent time for some years to come. Quite apart from Government building, as a result of the Hospital Sweeps the building industry in Dublin will be in a most flourishing state.

Does the Deputy know what condition it is in now?

No, I do not. But I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to keep before his mind that there is a very excellent time coming for that trade. Deputy Good admits that, as far as one hospital is concerned, something like—I am not quite sure what the cost will be— £100,000 will be spent on the new building. The Parliamentary Secretary can verify the figures if he desires. There are various other hospitals that will also be re-building. Therefore I think that a very reasonable amount of this sum of £150,000 can be allocated to rural areas, because, undoubtedly, the farming community, and especially the small farmers, are going through a very bad time, the worst, almost, in human memory, owing to the terrible fall that has taken place in the price of live stock.

The Parliamentary Secretary made an appeal to the House that we would not attempt to go through the various things in our constituencies that we think ought to be done, but it has been always customary on Votes of this kind that Deputies get up and mention the different things they wanted done in their constituencies. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter that will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance. He was not very sanguine that it would be observed, and I am not going to observe it at the present time. I would like to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary what, at any rate, is my view as to how any sum of this nature that comes to a constituency like Mayo might be expended. It might be expended on drainage, and I shall come back to the question of drainage in a moment. It might also be expended on some of the larger roads which would not only give employment in these districts, but might help greatly to develop the tourist traffic. There are some very fine roads in that area that would enormously benefit by steam-rolling. I shall give examples of two, one partly in my own constituency, the main road from Headfort to Cong, which would give a great deal of employment and would bring tourists in comfort to very good fishing. Another would be a road like that from Westport to Louisburgh, which is one of the most beautiful drives and seascapes one could possibly imagine. I consider these as two schemes on which money might be spent; and, having now committed the very minor breach of the arrangement suggested, I pass on. I have indicated the kind of work that might be done in South Mayo, but to come back now to the question of drainage. I see that a sum of £19,000 is allocated to the Board of Works. We have not heard how that is to be spent. I take it that it will be spent principally in drainage schemes. I do not know how the Board of Works will spend it, or whether they will spend it on piers or harbours, but I venture to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he would tell us roughly—I do not want details—how it is to be spent, that would give the country an idea of what to look for, and it would prevent false hopes that the money might be spent in other directions.

I saw that when Deputy O'Higgins said that drainage gave more employment than anything else the Parliamentary Secretary shook his head in dissent. I would be perfectly in agreement with him in connection with money spent on very big drainage schemes where the bulk of the work is done by machinery as in the case of the Barrow drainage. Where a huge amount of work is done by machinery there is not as much spent in wages as there would be if the same sum were spent on roads. But if you take the smaller drainage schemes, like the river Robe, where £50,000 was to be made available, a very considerable amount of employment would be given because machinery which is used in a drainage scheme like that of the Barrow would not be used there.

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me, because this question is causing a certain amount of trouble. I was under the same illusion, but it is one of the illusions that I have scrapped. The position as regards drainage schemes is that in any of them which has any pretence to be economic, a large amount of the work has to be carried out by machinery which gives very little labour and no local labour. As far as schemes carried out by hand are concerned, they are very expensive, and as a rule are very difficult to defend on the ground of economy. I shall give an example. I have had two or three schemes which would be carried out by machinery estimated for as carried out by hand, and in each case the cost has been about 300 per cent. more than the other figure. You can find schemes 100 per cent. labour content in the way of drainage, but if they are anything like large schemes they are probably uneconomic; but there are some small schemes practically drains which are very valuable both from the labour point of view and the labour content.

I am in complete agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary, so far as that is concerned, because I heard that the Barrow schemes cost less now than in 1870, when the rates of wages were half what they are now. But I have been always under the impression—I am open to correction—that schemes done partly by machinery do pay a very considerable amount of wages, and I know of schemes carried out that did, in fact, give a very considerable amount of employment. I pass from that. There is only one other matter, and that is a question of a sum of £25,000 which is for the exploration of the mineral possibilities of this country. As far as I see, that will not be ready to give any employment for a very considerable amount of time, because, before any employment can be given, I take it that the very best experts must be called in, and that they will only begin very tentatively, and with a very small number of employees, at any particular place, until they get indications that the place is worth probing further, and, therefore, for a very considerable time the expenditure on employment must, of necessity, if the scheme is going to be carried out intelligently, be comparatively small under that heading, and that £25,000 will take a very long time to expend.

In this matter it would appear from the claims put forward by individual Deputies that everybody here represents part of the most distressful country that possibly exists on this earth, and an appeal to us to get away from what I would call the parochial outlook, and to regard this problem as a national one, I am afraid, is vain, because it is impossible for us to forget, when we come here, the problems we were sent here to rectify, and for which the people who live around us are clamouring for a solution. However, I shall do so, as far as possible, in regard to any observations I have to make on this matter, because the Parliamentary Secretary himself will know part of the country to which I shall be alluding, and some of the problems I may incidentally mention. First of all, with regard to the expenditure of this money, the suggestion has been made that it should be carried out for the most part through the county councils. From my experience of county councils, I do not think that they are at all the best bodies to administer relief schemes, except in one important particular, road making. They have the machinery and the officials for the making of roads, and, furthermore, road-making has this one particular feature, that it is the one thing that we can suggest that will give the greatest amount of physical labour in proportion to the amount of money spent on it.

In a part of the country, which I shall not mention—a very important county—there are about 6,000 miles of roads already in existence. They are nominal roads, and there are only about 1,000 miles of very good roads. There is a big field there for the expenditure of some of that money, and, with all due respect to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, it contains some of the most beautiful scenery in any part of the world. A beginning has been made through a pass, called after a very famous Irishman, who shall be nameless, for obvious reasons, and, in the future, when the present little depression in the world has blown over, we hope to bring back to this country a very large proportion of the tourist traffic that is at present being diverted to the Continent and other places. That is all I have to say with regard to administration through county councils, but I think the problem of the small town in Ireland is a problem that is crying out incessantly and most urgently for redress. The small town is the centre in which the greatest amount of unemployment at present exists. The small town in Ireland has suffered severely in the last ten years through various political changes, and also through the economic changes that have come about. The local market in the small towns has ceased, in some cases, to exist, owing to the facility with which the travelling shop or lorry brings requirements to the farmer's door, and takes from him his produce in return. The local market has suffered in this way, and as a consequence, local employment has suffered. Furthermore the railways have lost their traffic, and the railway employees have lost their labour, through the decline of these towns. So far, there have been two branches of the railway shut down in that part of the country, which shall be nameless. That is a very serious matter. These railway lines have shut down simply because these little towns, which were the distributing centres for merchandise in a region of about ten miles around the town, have ceased to exist as such distributing centres, owing to the manner in which goods are brought to the farmer's door.

There are towns on the seaboard especially, and towns that were garrison towns, which have suffered severely. One of these garrison towns, with which the Parliamentary Secretary will probably be well acquainted, has lost, through the loss of its garrison, an annual sum of £200,000, a very large sum for a town of 4,000 or 5,000 people. That was the price that the little town had to pay for its freedom. Some of us, perhaps, were glad to pay the price, and others thought it too high a price, but, at all events, the result at present is dire unemployment, and unless something is done to relieve that unemployment, these towns will go into decay.

There is another class affected in what I will call the coastal fishing towns, which are to be found along the seaboard, both on the east and south coasts. In some of the parts of the Gaeltacht there are fishermen with little plots of land, who, when they are not fishing, are able to eke out an existence by their activities on the soil, but in these coastal towns there are certain fishermen, mostly old men, who follow no other avocation but that of the sea. That calling at the present time is very precarious. In fact, as the Parliamentary Secretary will understand, fishing on the Irish coast, for the last five years, has been practically a failure, and these old people in the coastal towns have suffered accordingly. What we could put forward to alleviate their position it is impossible for me, at the present time, to suggest, but some time later, if I have an opportunity of speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary, with his knowledge of these conditions, a knowledge which is better and more experienced than mine, we may be able to hit on some way of solving their problem. The providing of boats does not seem to solve it, because there is no use in providing boats at a time when fish do not seem to exist in certain places. The town problem is the problem of unemployment, because in the rural districts there is always something to be had, and no Deputy has ever known of anybody in a rural district going hungry. Such is not the case in the towns, where actual distress exists and actual want is rife. That is the position in the towns, and particularly the small towns of 4,000 to 5,000 people, and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in dealing with any scheme that may be put before him, the problem of the small towns, with which the national life is most closely identified, will be treated sympathetically.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

The most obvious feature of this Vote is its inadequacy to meet, or even to make an impression upon the problem that presents itself to the Government to-day—the solution of unemployment. It will not make much inroad on that problem, and certainly will not relieve it to the extent that every Party in the House would like to see it relieved. I think it is up to Deputies to give all the help they can to the Parliamentary Secretary in devising schemes by which money can be usefully employed in absorbing the largest amount of labour. Deputy O'Neill spoke about tourist roads and an influx of tourists. What strikes one as most remarkable up to the present is that whilst we were always engaged in providing velvet roads to bring tourists to tourist districts, to some extent the condition of the roads in these districts was ignored. There are velvet roads to the tourist districts but, when one goes to these districts one finds the roads there in poor condition. That is the reason why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give particular consideration to that aspect of the question, and to see that there is some consonance between the condition of the roads leading to tourist districts and the roads in the districts. It may be no harm to say that work on the roads is probably the best means of finding employment. I might mention that there are some roads in tourist districts maintained by county councils under which the sea has eaten. It is obvious that county councils with limited resources cannot meet all the demands that are made upon them. This is a matter where the Board of Works or some Government Department should give assistance that would provide employment. As to roads through villages in a county the argument will be that many of these are under contract and that contracts of that kind could hardly be interfered with when endeavouring to relieve unemployment.

There are, I am sure, whether in the Land Commission or the Board of Works, many schemes for roads to isolated hamlets. People are paying in some cases rather large annuities to the Land Commission, and yet they have not the same advantages in the way of roads to their houses as people who are paying smaller annuities. That is a position that should be considered. There are propositions before the Land Commission that were previously turned down for some reason. People get buff forms stating that these matters will be considered when the lands are vested. I do not know how long it will take before the vesting is completed, but, in the meantime, people have to struggle through mud, briars, and undergrowth in order to get into houses in parts of the country.

In the Department for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible there are many drainage schemes which were turned down because they were regarded as uneconomic. Is that going to stand between the Parliamentary Secretary and the employment that might follow if these schemes were put into operation? Deputies connected with local bodies are aware that letters are received from the Board of Works by these bodies intimating that certain schemes are uneconomic unless county councils are in the position to undertake a large percentage of the expenditure. Everyone knows that county councils are not in a position to do that because of local burdens. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have a search made in his Department and to have the schemes for the various counties examined. He will find many schemes which, if put into operation, would give a good deal of employment. Notwithstanding the fact that, possibly, a good deal of machinery would have to be used in drainage schemes, a good deal of labour would also be employed, and in that way relief would be afforded to the unemployed. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider these suggestions, and will make whatever investigations are necessary, so that employment will be given as soon as possible. As I said, the most obvious feature of this Vote is its inadequacy.

I agree with Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney when he said that the bulk of this grant should be expended in the rural areas rather than in clearing building sites in the cities. After listening to the speeches that were made on both sides of the House I must candidly admit that my sympathies go out to the Parliamentary Secretary, who will have to deal with this unemployment question with £100,000. I think he might truthfully be called Minister for Unemployment. What can he do with £100,000 in the way of drainage, site-clearing, road-making, and the other things that were suggested? I presume that County Cavan will get at least its share—I am not asking for any more—of the £100,000, but that share will not amount to more than £2,000. If £2,000 is allotted to County Cavan, that works out in employment for 25 men for 12 months, 50 men for six months, and 100 men for three months. I cannot see that much drainage schemes will be carried out, or that the small towns in the county will be supplied with sewerage from such a small amount. Having regard to that fact, it is my opinion, in which I will be backed by my constituents, that this money could be most profitably spent, and give the greatest amount of employment, if spent on the by-roads, or, as the Parliamentary Secretary called them, cul-de-sac roads. In my opinion there is no other way in which the largest amount of employment could be given with the amount of money available. I know of many places, and I expect the Board of Works knows of them, where drainage could be carried out, but I would not insult the Parliamentary Secretary by asking him to bring drainage under this Vote.

I said that my sympathy went out to the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps I was wrong. I can see promotion for the Parliamentary Secretary if he is able to wriggle through with £100,000, or to satisfy one per cent. of the Deputies or the people outside. It would not be a precedent if the Minister for Unemployment here failed in his task and got promotion, because we had a visitor here a few days ago who undertook to find a solution of the unemployment problem in England, and not alone did he not find a solution, but he utterly failed in his task. During that Minister's period of office unemployment figures soared. I hope that will not be the case with the Parliamentary Secretary here. Whether the Parliamentary Secretary fails or succeeds in his task, he will, I hope, get the same promotion as the late Minister for Unemployment got in another country.

My observations on this question of the allocation of money for the relief of unemployment will be brief, because I believe no good purpose would be served by going into schemes in detail here. Finally, these schemes will rest with the local bodies, and it is up to them to get suggestions from the people in their areas as to how the money should be allocated. I am in agreement with some of the Deputies who stated that any great percentage of this money should not be given to the cities or big towns. In every discussion that has taken place about unemployment, the cities and big towns have loomed largely, but we heard nothing at all about the rural areas. It happens that the people in the rural areas are not as loud in their complaints as the people in the cities and towns. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not because these complaints are not forthcoming from these districts in the rural areas he should not apportion as good a percentage of the money that is being given under this scheme for the relief of unemployment to these rural areas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle made a very wise suggestion when he said that the time has come when the roads in the tourist areas should be improved. After all, it is very little benefit to have the roads leading to those places inviting if the conditions in the places themselves are not inviting. I know that in my own county, Kerry, some of the roads in what I might describe as the most beautiful parts of Ireland are impassable, and tourists who might be inclined to spend their holidays there are loath to enter these areas on account of the bad condition of the roads. I think it would be a very wise move to spend some of the money on the improvement of those roads in the tourist areas. Cul-de-sac roads should also be taken into consideration. In my part of the country the people are chiefly concerned with the making of roads into turbary. There are places where people have to struggle against terrible odds to save their turf. If short roads were made here and there it would obviate the difficulties with which they are confronted.

There is one aspect of the question which has not been touched upon by any speaker yet, and that is that those responsible for the allocation of this money should make sure that the proper people will get employment and that big farmers will not get employment. In my own area, for instance, lately it has happened that a big farmer has got employment to the utter exclusion of a good many labourers living around him. That is a state of things that should not be permitted any longer. The motto should be to provide employment for the unemployed and not to expedite work by placing it in the hands or under the directorship of men who happen to be in a position to do the work more speedily than those who are entirely dependent on such a scheme for their existence. I would also suggest that the time has not yet come to undertake the big drainage schemes that we have heard about recently, because the money allocated under this heading is not sufficient to carry out these drainage schemes. I think it would be better to confine the money to the making of cul-de-sac roads, roads into turbury, and the improvement of roads in the tourist areas. I am sorry that Deputies are disappointed with the amount of the grant. We are all disappointed, but it cannot be helped under the circumstances. At any rate, it is a beginning, and we hope that the time will come when another grant of this kind will be made for the carrying out of other schemes.

Mr. Lynch

I must say that I believe the Parliamentary Secretary made a bad tactical error when he expressed a wish at all that Deputies would not turn the debate into a discussion of their own particular bog roads, no matter how necessary they might be. I express sympathy with him because I have had to listen to this type of debate in the past. I shall, myself, carry out his wish in that respect. I am not going to refer to any matter in my own constituency in any way in this debate, no matter how necessary it may be. I believe that leads nowhere, that discussions on a relief Vote should be on the general matter rather than on the particular matter, and that the particular matter should be sent up to the particular department in the ordinary way. I have always felt, and I still feel, that when you discuss this bog road or that bog road, that particular drainage scheme or this particular drainage scheme, it is purely and simply for the local Press.

I was not, unfortunately, able to be present when the Parliamentary Secretary made his opening statement, but I believe he said that there was £19,500 allocated for expenditure by the Board of Works and £25,000 for mineral exploration, about which we would like to hear a good deal. That leaves a sum of over £100,000 unallocated, if I am rightly informed. Presumably, that amount will be divided as between the Local Government Department, or the local authorities if you like, and the Land Commission for expenditure. From my experience in the past, there are a few things that I should like to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with that expenditure. One of them is that many schemes on roads were started under former relief schemes. Certain roads were started in various places all over the Saorstát. The amount of money available at the time was not sufficient to complete these particular works. I think that those should be taken right away as the first charge on the present relief Vote, and, where the Department is satisfied that the work is of sufficient importance, uncompleted work should be at least completed. Deputy Corish raised the question here, I think, yesterday on another matter, that the making of an allocation to a particular area should not be contingent on the giving of an equivalent vote from the local body. A point I would like to stress is that there are many roads that have been made by the Land Commission, for instance, into bogs that are public utility roads. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, as far as he can influence it, to insist that if the local authority is not compelled to make a contribution to the making of a given road, it at least should guarantee to take responsibility for the maintenance of the road after it has been made. The completion of existing roads and the getting of a guarantee from local authorities that roads made under these schemes will be maintained are the two points I should like to stress.

Another matter which I should like to mention, although probably it does not come under this heading at all, is minor marine works. They have been referred to by certain Deputies. I think there is an estimate in the Parliamentary Secretary's own Department, the Board of Works, to deal with minor marine works, as recommended by the Department of Fisheries. I can deal with them under that Vote rather than on this Estimate. There was one in particular to which I intended to refer. I know there is a report in connection with it, but I shall wait until the Minister's vote is taken.

Would the Deputy in the meantime call my attention to it so that I can look it up?

Mr. Lynch

I shall. Mr. MacNeill made the report. Amidst what we might call Deputy Curran's perpetual disappointment—Deputy Curran suffers from being perpetually disappointed on everything that is brought forward— he raised one point that appealed to me. It had apparently been raised before by the Parliamentary Secretary. That is, that moneys should be allocated, so far as they will be given to local authorities, to roads that do not come under the ordinary purview of other grants. Cul-de-sac roads may be a good description. There are certain roads which are not dealt with by the county council and which have not reached such a low grade that they have benefited by former relief votes. I think it would be a good idea if some of this money was allocated for putting these roads into the repair they were in, say, a few years ago— again, if the local authorities were prepared to maintain them in the future. Many by-roads which were not repaired by the county council have been allowed to go out of repair. They were in such a position that, under former relief grants, the Land Commission was unable to spend any money on them and the local authorities were unable, or unwilling, to spend any money on them—I think they were unable under the conditions on which they got the grant. These roads were between the devil and the deep sea, one might say. They were not helped from either end. Some of these roads are really useful not alone in my own constituency but in other constituencies. They have been, more or less, abandoned by their own county councils and have not been helped by former relief votes. I think the most necessary of them, as the Parliamentary Secretary would be advised, should be put into a decent state of repair under this scheme if the local authority is prepared subsequently to maintain them in repair.

The Minister for Unemployment, having heard the speeches from all parts of the House, must be impressed with the necessity for taking back this Vote, bringing it before the Cabinet, and convincing them, as he can in his usually eloquent language, that the Vote should be considerably increased. If I had the right to do so, I would feel inclined to move the reference back of the Vote. I feel that I would get the unanimous approval of the House in so doing for this particular purpose. Deputy Lynch has rightly reminded the Minister for Unemployment that the total sum likely to be made available for the various relief schemes is in or about £100,000. I do not know whether or not the Minister has read a speech delivered at a recent meeting of the Dublin Corporation by Deputy Briscoe, who promised the Corporation, presumably on behalf of the Government, that they would receive a grant of £40,000 in addition to the grant of £10,000 already made. I ask Deputies who represent rural constituencies to realise the position we are in in taking part in this debate if the statement made by Deputy Briscoe was made with the authority of the Government with which he is associated. A sum of £150,000 is, on that basis, to be made available to local authorities and the Land Commission to carry out schemes which will relieve unemployment in the country. I wonder if that represents the Government point of view regarding the extent to which unemployment exists outside Dublin. On what basis have they arrived at £150,000? Has the Minister for Unemployment called for any returns from the Land Commission of the schemes lying in the pigeon holes of that big Department for the construction and maintenance of bog roads. Every Deputy who takes an interest in his constituency can truthfully say that there are many schemes in the pigeon holes of the Land Commission, approved by inspectors as a result of visits to the areas concerned, for the construction of bog roads which are absolutely necessary. Neither the previous Government nor this Government has made the necessary money available for the construction of these roads. The repairing or constructing of bog roads is a national necessity. There are many bogs in the Midlands to which the people could not gain access last year to get out their turf. Money should be made available in almost every constituency for work of that kind.

If the Minister for Unemployment has not got that return, I would ask him to request his colleague, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, to provide him with such a return as soon as possible. He will then realise the extent to which useful work of that kind can be carried out. I agree with Deputy Lynch that people who are likely to benefit as the result of the carrying out of such works should make a contribution in some way. Until such roads are taken over by the local authorities, it is impossible for the local authorities to impose a rate to effect that. In any case where the Land Commission or the Minister for Unemployment under a Vote of this kind makes provision for carrying out these works, they should also provide, as suggested by Deputy Lynch, that the future maintenance of these roads should be undertaken by the local authority. The Minister for Unemployment is in charge of one of the biggest Departments of State. I believe I heard him, when in Opposition, refer to his present Department as the "Board of No Works." I am sure he will convince everybody that since he was put in charge of that Department it has really become a Board of Works. That being so, I hope he will take off the red tape that surrounds many of the drainage schemes in the pigeon-holes of the Department, that he will come to the assistance of the local authorities who are prepared to make contributions to start these schemes and get on with the work. There are yards of red tape wound round some of the schemes which have been lying there for three or four years. Deputy O'Higgins referred to one scheme, and suggested that it should be carried out without further delay. I believe that representations have been made already to the Minister for Unemployment in connection with that matter—presumably by other Deputies as well as Deputy O'Higgins. I hope the Minister will review the particulars of that scheme and see if it cannot be set going without further unnecessary delay. In that area unemployment has been created for reasons which the Minister is well aware of. He accompanied the Minister for Defence into that part of my constituency before the last general election. He announced that Wolfhill coal mine would be opened up if Fianna Fáil were returned to power. I hope now that that promise will be carried out. I can assure the Minister that he will get the support of the seven Labour Deputies in encouraging and, if necessary, coercing those responsible to do as suggested.

I thought it desirable to intervene in this debate, because I think the amount provided for in this Vote has been put before the House in a thoughtless way, without consideration of any kind as to the extent to which unemployment exists in the country, without regard to the number of waterworks schemes lying in the Department of Local Government and without regard to the other schemes in the Land Commission and Board of Works which could be carried out without delay if reasonably generous assistance were forthcoming from the Government. How many schemes are there lying in the pigeon holes of the Department of Local Government for the provision of provincial waterworks which cannot be carried out unless reasonable financial assistance is available?

In the Deputy's constituency.

I understand that there were a few grants made to Donegal, and I hope we will hear Deputy White eloquently supporting the demands which this Party are putting forward. Speaking with the limited knowledge of such schemes as I have, I do know that there are many such schemes at present in the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and I do know that many of these schemes should be carried out in the interests of the public health of the country. Will the Parliamentary Secretary call for a return of the number of schemes of waterworks and sewerage schemes for which plans have been already prepared and for which the local authorities have paid their engineers? Will the Parliamentary Secretary call for an estimate of the carrying out of these schemes and state the extent to which he is prepared to help in the carrying out of these schemes? I do not believe that the ratepayers of a dispensary district should be expected to find the money for the cost of carrying out these schemes. I think that the local rate for these schemes should not exceed, at the furthest, 6d. in the £. There are many good schemes which, if carried out at the cost of the local rates, would amount to 2/-, or perhaps 3/- in the £ on the rates, and under present circumstances I am not prepared to see the ratepayers of the locality called upon to find such huge sums. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for Unemployment to call for certain returns from the Department of Local Government and Public Health and the Department of Fisheries, and I am certain that the Departments will furnish him with the returns I have indicated, and having those returns, he will very soon come to this House and ask us to provide money for the carrying out of these necessary relief schemes.

I hope the first return that the Parliamentary Secretary will call for will be the grant that Deputy Davin secured for the carrying out of the Rathdown waterworks. The Deputy wangled £12,000 from the late Government for the carrying out of that scheme. There is only £150,000 in this Vote, and the part of it that can come to any one county will, in relation to the various schemes, be much the same as dropping a needle into Lough Swilly. After the smiling exchanges that I saw between the Minister for Unemployment and the Cumann na nGaedhael Deputies for Cork, I am of opinion that there will be very little consideration given to Donegal under this Vote. In this I am going to take a broad national view of this question, and I am going to suggest to the Minister, and I will be as brief as possible in bringing it under his notice, that portion of any money that is allocated to the Land Commission should be earmarked for schemes of afforestation. I am not going to go over the same drainage, reclamation, sewerage and waterworks schemes that other Deputies have brought before the House. I have a great amount of sympathy for the Minister. I join with Deputy O'Hanlon in offering him my sympathy, because I believe he is faced with the problem of putting a quart into a pint jug. I would specially ask the Minister to earmark some of the money that has been allocated to the Land Commission for the proposal I have made.

I am very glad of the announcement that it is the local bodies who are to operate this grant and not the Land Commission. I say that because, being representative men and in touch with local conditions and having their officials on the ground, I think they are the proper bodies to operate it. I, too, like the Deputy from Donegal, am going to take the broader national view of this matter. I think that instead of putting forth constituency grievances my idea has always been that whatever is best for the largest number of the community must be best for the whole. Unlike some of the Deputies who have spoken and have advocated the making of cul-de-sac roads and by-roads, I would be more in favour, at this season of the year, of going on with drainage works.

In the County Cavan there are either one or two bodies known as drainage trustees. And in one particular area anyway there is a body called The Lough Oughter Gowna and River Erne Drainage Board. I think that is their designation. I do not know how these trustees came to be appointed. I have only a vague idea of the Act under which they operate. I think it is a very antiquated one. One thing I do know anyway and that is that these trustees meet once or twice a year or perhaps it might be four times a year. They strike a levy on a particular area. Last year that levy was £700. This year it is £1,300 I think. The unfortunate people in that area who have to pay that money in annuities or drainage rates find after the money has been paid that the work which these drainage trustees are supposed to see carried out is practically nil, or at least very little of that work has been done. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this matter. I do not know whether it is a matter over which he has control or not, but I do know in any case, and I say it with a full realisation of the consequences that these drainage trustees and their officials are the greatest set of rascals with which any country could be burdened. I do not think that I can add any more. I know the kind of body they are. I have nothing more to say except to add that at this season of the year the carrying out of drainage work is far preferable to the making of roads. These can very well wait for the winter months.

It was a very pleasant surprise for me when I entered the House to see the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Government Benches. I had very strong reasons for congratulating myself because I have come up from Cork where they are preparing an elaborate list of relief schemes in that particular county. I emphasise that particular county because not one penny of the last relief grant was allocated to the County Cork. Therefore I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's Department will consider very favourably our claim at present, particularly as the area that I have the honour to represent has a very considerable number of schemes awaiting. I refer particularly to Cobh, Fermoy, Buttevant and Charleville. I know there are other Deputies who will put forward claims for these areas. As the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware there are some of the finest roads in the country passing through tourist areas and these could be very materially improved. At the same time the intentions of the grant would be carried out and thus a double purpose will be served. I am rather disappointed to find that the grant has been reduced instead of being increased. In view of the position of unemployment, one would have imagined that a very much larger sum would have been added to the grant instead of having a big reduction.

There is no better way of assisting unemployment than by roadmaking, and if you can serve the purpose of improving roads for traffic, particularly where unemployment is most rife, you will be spending the money to the very best advantage. Money can be spent usefully in another form. I have in mind arterial and minor drainage schemes. More work could be given on minor schemes than on large arterial drainage schemes. Such schemes would be serving a purpose which unquestionably must enlist the sympathy of the majority of Deputies. As most people are aware, in the days when the landlords had control they were able to carry on improvment works of this nature on their estates and farmers had no responsibility. Now the farmers are in possession of the land; they are in an independent position; there is no cohesion and they cannot carry out these necessary works without Government control. A very useful purpose would be served by relieving unemployment and at the same time bringing back to its original productivity land which is naturally good but which, at the moment, is unproductive because it is overloaded with water and undrained. By draining such land you will make it a big national asset which will practically repay all that has been expended on its drainage by reason of its productive qualities. It will certainly add to the country's wealth.

I feel those two works are the most important that could come under the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have in another fashion drawn his attention to a very fine work in my area, for which we received a considerable grant from the last Government. They gave us 50 per cent. of the expenditure, the local authority contributed 25 per cent. and the remaining 25 per cent. fell on the farmers. There is a minor scheme prepared for a district in the vicinity where two villages were flooded, together with a considerable area of land. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider carefully the scheme which has been forwarded to the Department and I would like him to give a substantial grant towards that scheme. There are large numbers of schemes prepared all over the country and the survey of them would indicate the enormous wealth which would accrue to the country, the increase in the value of property and general productivity if the schemes were carried into effect, with Government assistance. Such schemes would go a long way towards relieving unemployment. Nothing will be gained by allowing our people to be unemployed. We have to relieve them from the rates. I believe a grant from this fund will relieve the rates and at the same time carry out a huge national work which will eventually add to the wealth of the country.

I do not know whether it gives the Parliamentary Secretary much satisfaction to have received so much sympathy from all sides of the House. He certainly deserves the sympathy of the House when he has to distribute this comparatively small sum of money. When the debate will be reported in to-morrow's papers hopes undoubtedly will be raised throughout the country. Unfortunately it is quite evident very little can be done to satisfy those hopes. During the next few days every Deputy will receive dozens of letters, and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that most of those letters will have reference to the repairing of old roads. The most useful purpose to which the money could be devoted, the purpose which would please people most, is the repairing of old roads, particularly cul-de-sacs such as were mentioned by Deputy Kissane and roads leading to bogs. I would like to emphasise the desirability of applying as much of this money as is possible to the repairing of those old roads.

I do not think there is very much use in talking about arterial drainage. There are different methods by which arterial drainage could be carried out, if it were at all economic. Under the Minor Drainage Schemes Act 25 per cent. of the cost is provided by the Government in the case of any scheme that will be carried out by local authorities. On the other hand, as much as 50 per cent. is given by the Board of Works in the case of larger schemes. Notwithstanding that, in a great many cases occupiers of the affected land, when they are asked to vote for or against these schemes, although they are promised in some cases 76 per cent. of the cost by way of free grant, very often vote against them. In such circumstances it is very difficult to have arterial drainage carried out.

There are numerous small drains running between townlands, and if some of this money could be applied to them it would be decidedly useful, because the work could be carried out under the inspection of a Land Commission inspector, and thereby the cost of carrying out a detailed scheme, which ordinarily is very high, would not have to be reckoned with. At this time of the year one of the most useful works that could be carried out is the drainage of the smaller drains.

The Parliamentary Secretary has asked us to take the broad view and, in the circumstances, I am not going to mention any particular schemes. There is no necessity, in any case. I have personal knowledge of hundreds of schemes tabulated, typed and numbered and they are all lying, as Deputy Davin says, in the pigeon holes of the Land Commission office. Some of the areas with which those schemes are concerned have been inspected and approved; the inspectors have reported that it would be very useful if those works were carried out. I am not going to refer to those matters in any detail. All I will say is that if I got half the amount proposed in this Vote it could be usefully applied in the County Roscommon in carrying out urgent necessary works on old roads. I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in the task he has facing him. I will emphasise, in conclusion, that the most important works in rural areas are the repairing of old roads and the clearing up of the smaller drains.

Listening to the Deputies who have spoken on this Vote, one would imagine that we were dealing, not with a sum of £100,000, but with a sum of at least £100,000,000. If all the schemes which have been suggested, or even one-millionth part of them, were to be given effect to, we would want at least the sum that I have mentioned. We have had references to trunk roads, county roads, cul-de-sacs and bog roads. All have to be put into proper condition with this £100,000. We have had references also to drainage schemes. We are to have enormous schemes of drainage, both arterial and minor. Then we are to have elaborate sewerage schemes. It must be remembered that sewerage schemes are very expensive. We are also to have waterworks schemes. Necessary waterworks and sewerage schemes in the constituency I have the honour to represent would take up much more than the £100,000. As it is, there are more than enough calls on that money. We are told it could be utilised for the clearing of sites for houses. I was expecting some Deputy to say that the grant would solve the housing problem in the Saorstát. Afforestation has also been mentioned. I wonder what becomes of the revenue of the country if this £100,000 will do so much.

There are just a few points that I would like to refer to. It has been stressed that there is no unemployment in the country as compared with the towns and cities I am well aware of the amount of unemployment existing in the towns and cities, but I would like to remind one of the speakers, who made the point, that there is not so much hunger and unemployment in the city that anybody would be allowed to go to bed hungry, and that in the very constituency which I represent an unfortunate family died from hunger within the memory of us all. I only mention the matter to show that such conditions are rampant in the country as well as in the towns. With regard to the disposal of this money, the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to hand over that amount—it is not so large—to the people who have the machine ready at hand to do useful work and provide the most employment. I refer to the local authorities. They know where unemployment is most rampant in their own particular areas. They are impartial judges, and in my opinion would be the right people to carry out work that would give the best return?

The last speaker referred to a family that died of hunger in his constituency. Would he mention the name?

It happened in Adrigole, in the County Cork.

If the Deputy consults with his colleagues and the Minister for Local Government and gets the facts of the case, he will not repeat that statement. I seriously suggest, in view of the implication of such a statement as that a family was allowed to die of hunger in a country where there are so many boards of health, not to speak of the various charitable organisations, that it is too big a reflection to make on the country, and I assure him it is a very grave misstatement of the facts and that the country ought not to be allowed to lie under a charge of that kind.

I wondered, when listening to Deputy Davin, what transformation has come over the Labour Party in this House. I remember, when, on former occasions in this House, those who now sit on the Opposition Benches introduced a Vote of more than double the amount now introduced by the Ministers. That Vote was absolutely derisively received at the time by those who now sit on the Labour Benches to represent the working people of this country. Deputy Davin, in the course of his speech, stated that he hoped the Minister would listen to a very reasonable demand. I never thought, from my own experience of the Labour Party in the old Dáil, that we would ever hear such views expounded on behalf of Labour in this House as the views Deputy Davin has expressed. I can only compare the Labour Party to a party of tame mice since they fell in behind the new Government to carry out any and every scheme, no matter how inadequate, or how insufficient, to deal with the problem for which this money has been introduced. Labour is behind the new Government, and what justification have they for being behind it on a vote for £150,000 to deal with the problem of unemployment.

Payment on account.

Mr. Byrne

We had a motion moved by Deputy Morrissey that either work or maintenance should be found for every unemployed man in the country. The first thing that is proposed now to deal with the problem is a vote of £150,000 of which the Minister is good enough to earmark £40,000 or £50,000 for his own Department. Yet, Deputy Davin gives the Department a new name. Formerly, he said, when the Parliamentary Secretary was on the Opposition side, that it was the "Department of No Work," but now he refers to it as the Board of Works.

Are you quoting me correctly?

Mr. Byrne

I will quote you as correctly as I can, Deputy Davin. I have no desire to misrepresent you. What justification is there for this new appellation in view of the Estimate being lower this year than for the preceding year and the years before that? I cannot understand what has happened to the Labour Party in this House. I have no doubt whatever that the Parliamentary Secretary will be quite delighted with the very reasonable demands that Labour has put forward because they have not put forward demands which the serious nature of the problem would justify. Deputy Davin says his demands are reasonable. I quite agree. But what did he say when £250,000 was introduced? Did he say it was reasonable? In my opinion, it is only a drop in the ocean or as a member from Donegal expressed it, a drop in Lough Swilly.

I said so.

Mr. Byrne

You said so! If you said so why did you not oppose the introduction of such a vote?

Because I am not a fool.

Deputy Byrne should address the Chair.

Mr. Byrne

I will, sir. I suggest that the interests of Labour are not being served by the attitude of the Labour Party. They are not serving the needs of the unemployed by their attitude on this Vote, and the introduction of this Vote is a piece of pure hypocrisy to deal with the situation which now exists. He goes on further to say that he will not stand for the imposition of a further 2s. in the £ on the ratepayers of Leix and Offaly, but the ratepayers of Dublin City have to stand for approximately 2s. 6d. in the £ and he has no criticism to pass.

That is your business!

Mr. Byrne

That is my business! Well, thank God, there is a Dublin man here to oppose it.

A Deputy

God help Dublin!

Mr. Byrne

I suppose that I am just as much entitled to say I am a Labour Deputy as any of the Labour Deputies on these benches, for I have the interests of the labourers as much at heart as any of them. I am grievously disappointed with the attitude taken up by the Labour Party in this House, if the attitude of the Labour Party is expressed in the views just announced by Deputy Davin. We are told that local bodies are going to operate this grant. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say if that is true, because I had occasion last week, in the interests of an unemployed man who has been idle for the last eighteen months and whose family has been living on poor relief, to approach the Dublin Corporation to see if work could be obtained for this idle man.

I was informed by the officials of the Dublin Corporation that they were no longer carrying out any relief scheme work, and that the relief scheme work was being administered by the labour exchange. What I want to know about this munificent tribute to the Fianna Fáil Party for this £100,000 is, what portion of it is to be earmarked for the City of Dublin. We have been told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that at present in Dublin City there are something like 35,000 men unemployed. We all know the contribution of Dublin City, under the Dublin Poor Law Relief Act, is steadily going up. It was over £4,000 a week and it has now risen to the £5,000 per week mark, yet Deputy Davin and the Labour Party think this vote is their vindication. How do they justify the position they took up when they derided the idea when this Party introduced a vote for £200,000 when they were in office? I want to see some consistency on the part of the Labour Party towards the labour problem that they are facing up to. I say there is no consistency in an attitude of that kind. I cannot see how Deputy Davin can face his constituency in Leix and Offaly if he has been returned by the labour workers, as he says, seeing the attitude that he takes up in this House.

Will you come down here and test the matter?

Mr. Byrne

I can tell Deputy Davin that I am not afraid to face the electors of Leix and Offaly. I heard him get up and talk about re-afforestation, drainage, roads, arterial drainage, and all sorts of things. What I want to know is what is to be done for the 35,000 idle people in Dublin city. We have the principle accepted by the new Government which was never accepted by the old Government—either work or maintenance for the unemployed. I, for one, although not a labour representative, will do everything that in me lies to see that principle put in force, but it is a mere travesty to introduce a Vote for £100,000, which gets the benediction of the Labour Benches, to deal with these problems. Dublin City is the storm centre of unemployment, and nobody knows that better than I do. Deputy Cooney, who represents another division of Dublin City, is content with the introduction of a vote for this sum of £100,000, but he has not told us what that is going to do for the 35,000 workless people in Dublin City. What is it going to do towards reducing the distribution of £250,000 per annum in poor relief? This is the policy of the Party that was going to create a new heaven and a new earth, and it is supported in this House day after day, and week after week, by the submissive Labour Party which we are told stands up for the rights of their constituents.

And will continue to do so.

Mr. Byrne

Yes, until the Labour Party goes back to the country and then, if I have a word to say in the County Dublin, Deputy Curran will go back to the place from which he came.

It will not make any difference to me what you do. I do not much care whether I am here or not.

Mr. Byrne

I would remind the House that at the present time things are at a standstill in Dublin. On a former occasion I referred to the fact that a feeling of insecurity was created by the advent of the new Government to office. It is admitted that it has had the effect of increasing the problem of unemployment in Dublin city. The building trade, for instance, is at a standstill at the present moment in Dublin.

Mr. Byrne

I have spoken to men in the building trade, and they have told me that people are afraid to buy houses because of the feeling of insecurity.

Because your Government stopped the building grant.

Mr. Byrne

People are afraid to invest money under existing conditions. I say it is ludicrous for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to this House and ask men sitting here to forward grandiose schemes with such a sum, to suggest that such schemes can be forwarded by a sum of £100,000 is pure Parliamentary piffle.

Why do you not repeat what you said when you were sitting on this side of the House?

Mr. Byrne

I am not afraid to repeat what I said when I was sitting on that side of the House, and I stand over it. I say that the problem of unemployment is increasing since the advent of the new Government. Uneasiness has increased in commercial circles and in trade circles, and if Deputy Cooney is an honest man he knows that. He knows that so far as solving the problem of unemployment is concerned, the solution of that problem is now more remote than when the Government of this country was in the hands of those who are now sitting on this side of the House. We are told that a sum of £2,000,000 is to be introduced in another Estimate, but on examination the amount to be found for unemployment in that Estimate is of almost negligible proportions. We are told we did nothing to deal with the unemployment problem, but the fact is that more houses were built when our Party were in office than would be built if the present Government were in office for double that length of time. When we were having houses built to the extent of £11,000,000 we did not boast that we were solving the unemployment problem. When the Shannon scheme was undertaken, and gave work to thousands we did not say that we had solved the unemployment problem. We brought in a relief scheme for £250,000, but we did not say we were solving the unemployment problem. Why the Party opposite, when it brings in a Vote of this kind, should receive the benediction of Deputies on the Labour Benches passes my comprehension. Let them turn to their speeches on former occasions in the records of the Parliamentary Debates and compare them with the speeches they have made to-day, and let them try to give a reasonable explanation of their attitude to those they represent in the country.

It is all very well to talk in this mild fashion, but if Deputy Morrissey's motion is accepted in theory let us have it accepted in fact also. If the new Government have undertaken the principle of work or maintenance for the people it is time that we had an instalment of that put into operation. Will the leader of the Labour Party suggest that this vote for £100,000 is a reasonable instalment of the promise made to Deputy Morrissey? Will he contend that the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing honestly with the problem of unemployment? The Parliamentary Secretary has been called by Deputy Davin the Minister for Unemployment. Probably that is his title. He is the Minister for Unemployment in essence and in fact, but certainly he is Minister for Unemployment if this paltry scheme of £100,000 is to represent all the things that we are told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and by the Minister for Finance, that Deputy Hugo Flinn had up his sleeve to deal with the workless people of this country. I want to know what value is this £100,000 when it is asserted by the Government that there are 80,000 unemployed in the country. I am told that the great tariff policy of the Government is going to prove the true and correct solution of the unemployment problem. I agree with the leader of the Labour Party who stated in this House that if the Government rely upon tariffs for the solution of the unemployment problem, they would be very speedily disillusioned. At least, the leader of the Labour Party has some practical knowledge of what he is speaking about. What practical knowledge have these men who occupy the Front Bench of the new Government Party? They know that there are so many men idle and they are relying on a policy of cast-iron tariffs that has been demonstrated in this House, on more than one occasion, to be more productive of national injury than national good. Then, they come in calmly with a vote of £100,000 as a splendid thing that should satisfy the needs of the hungry and the workless in the country to-day. I want to know, and I ask it honestly, if this money is going to be operated by local bodies? If it is to be operated by local bodies, I want to know whether the information I was given the other day was incorrect, and, if so, will steps be taken to see that the Corporation will be again put in charge of the expenditure of whatever sum of money may be earmarked for Dublin City. Because one thing I can say is, that, under the present management of the Dublin Corporation, every pound that is spent for the relief of the unemployed is spent to the best possible advantage.

So far as schemes are concerned, I would not think it worth my while to waste half a moment suggesting any scheme to the Parliamentary Secretary under a Vote of this kind. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what justification there is for a Vote of such dimensions? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he sat on these Opposition Benches, and when a Vote of £250,000 was introduced by the late Government, said that that sum could be expended in Dublin City alone and that it would not be sufficient to deal with the problem of unemployment in Dublin? The Labour Party meekly submits to a Vote of £100,000, and all I have to say is that that attitude must be justified in the country. Since the Labour Party came into this House, and followed submissively the dictates of the new Government, they have, I believe, sold the interests of democracy in that action. If this problem is to be attacked in a reasonable way, is it not time that something was done in furtherance of the promises given in respect of the motion that Deputy Morrissey introduced? If it is true, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, that £250,000 was insufficient to deal with the problem in Dublin City alone, what justification can the Parliamentary Secretary give for coming into this Assembly and asking it, in the existing conditions, to accept a Vote of £100,000? I may be told that the unemployed are going to wait for all these new factories. Anybody who looks at the "Irish Press" can see nearly two new factories in each of the Twenty-Six Counties.

Mr. Byrne

Yes, two a day; but I cannot see any new factories in Dublin. I can see, however, the threatened unemployment of 300 employees in Messrs. Gallaher's tobacco factory in Dublin City, and I can also see the closing down of one firm in Abbey Street with 24 hands completely disemployed, and I can see from 300 to 500 commercial travellers, who never came for any dole or relief Vote, being thrown out of their occupations by the policy of the new Government. We are asked to accept this Vote as the first reasonable instalment of a sum sufficient to deal with the unemployment problem in this country. What is to become of these 300 commercial travellers, men who have always brought up their families in decency and comfort and educated them well, and who never came to the State for any help in carrying out that work? It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to smile, but 300 is the figure I mentioned and I adhere to it— 300 employees thrown out of employment in a business in which £250,000 of capital is invested. We are all waiting to see what action Labour will take when it comes to the passage of this Vote.

The Deputy did not say anything about the people who were crucified in 1924 when they were sent to the wilds of America. There was not a word for the 30,000.

Mr. Byrne

Is it worth while replying?

Yes, it is worth while.

It is worth while talking about the Estimate, I suggest.

Mr. Byrne

All I have to say is that when we introduced a vote of £250,000 on a former occasion to deal with the problem of unemployment when it was not nearly so acute as it is at the present day, we had the Labour Party going into the Division Lobby against us. We want to know what they are going to do this evening on this Vote for £100,000. Are we going to wait until these mythical factories come into actual operation and absorb the unemployed? Speaking as far as Dublin City is concerned, I see no hope for the unemployed if we are to wait for the operation of these mythical factories. We are told that the 300 hands disemployed from Messrs. Gallaher's factory will be absorbed elsewhere, but I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that they do not want to be absorbed elsewhere. They want to be allowed to remain at their own work and to stay there, and if the Government have the interests of the unemployed at heart, as they have protested they have, again and again, through the country, such action should be taken as would leave these employees in their employment and not have this sum of £250,000, which has been sunk in a great enterprise, destroyed. It is all very well to talk about bog roads and drainage and all this sort of nonsense. What will £100,000 do for schemes of that kind? What are the unemployed people, who have been living on poor relief in Dublin for twelve or fifteen months past, to do, if, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has suggested, this problem is to be put on the long finger? Is the Labour Party going to stand still while this problem is put on the long finger? What we ask the Labour Party to do is to do their duty to the workless people of this country to-day. We ask them not to stand for the passage through the House of a Vote of £100,000 that can only be an insult to the wants of the unemployed under existing conditions. I do not know whether there will be a division on this or not, but we shall wait with expectancy to see what action Labour is going to take——

We have the courage of our convictions anyway.

Mr. Byrne

Deputy Curran, will you keep still? Even if there is no division on this, the Labour Party to-day possess a power that can be exercised for great national good, if it is properly exercised. We, on these benches, ask them to exercise that power on behalf of the people they represent.

Do you want to be put back again?

Mr. Byrne

We ask them to tell the Parliamentary Secretary before this discussion finishes, that they have no intention of accepting the paltry offer of £100,000 that he asks the House to pass this evening.

Have you any tears to shed now?

Mr. Byrne

I can talk to you, my boy, when the necessity arises.

You tried it before and failed.

Mr. Byrne

I did not cry while waiting for the last count, as the Deputy did.

Let us talk about the Estimate and not about the counting of the votes.

Mr. Byrne

Cried like a child.

I was tempted to intervene in this debate by the speech made by Deputy Byrne, whom I congratulate on his new-found freedom on the Opposition benches. For many years, while Deputy Byrne occupied these other benches, he sat there like the other muzzled and well-disciplined Deputies of the Cumann na nGaedhael Party, and, during all those years, he could find no expression of sympathy for the needs of the unemployed. He sat on these benches and said "Hear, hear," to everything done by the late Government, which meant, so far as the unemployed were concerned, saying "Hear, hear," to nothing. In a by-election last year, I happened to be speaking in a certain town with Deputy Byrne, and, it being a cross-road audience, Deputy Byrne gave them very little credit for any intelligence. In the course of a long oration, something similar to what he is accustomed to deliver in this House, he told the assembled people, many of whom were living examples of the inaccuracy of his own statements, that the problem of unemployment under the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had now diminished to such small proportions that it was really not a vital problem.

He took excursions to New Zealand, to Australia, to Canada, and to other places throughout the world in order to show that the unemployed in this country were not really as hungry as they were elsewhere. All this was done, of course, just to put a face on the record of the late Government in respect to unemployment. The Deputy comes along to-night and tells us that the late Government made a grant of £250,000 for the relief of unemployment, but he forgot to tell the House that that grant of a quarter of a million for the relief of unemployment was made on the eve of a general election.

Mr. Byrne

Was that £250,000 the first grant that the late Government made for the relief of unemployment?

Election propaganda.

No. It was not the first £250,000 nor the first election dodge either. Although Deputy Byrne imagines that he is the successor of Adam Smith, he is rapidly acquiring the reputation of being an economic jester. In this House last night when talking of the mentality of low wages— advocating by inference, if not openly, a low wage policy—Deputy Byrne, in his usual learned fashion, told the House that high wages had not saved America from economic depression. Deputy Byrne's memories, however, do not extend very far. He forgot to tell the House that America can produce in five months all that the American people require; that the productivity of the other seven months must be exported; and he forgot to tell that the low wage policy which he advocated last night——

Mr. Byrne

I deny that absolutely. I challenge the Deputy to prove that I advocated a low wage policy.

If the Deputy reads the speech he made last night he will see that there is no other inference to be drawn from that speech. Certainly no other inference could be drawn from it.

The Parliamentary Secretary is living in a glass-house in that respect. Read his speeches.

Mr. Byrne

Brass hat labour.

Deputy Byrne forgot to say that it was the low wages in other countries, and the impoverished condition of other countries, that made it impossible for America to secure consumption of the seven months' productivity which, being kept at home, was causing, in a large measure, unemployment and the economic crisis which exists in America. The Deputy went on to give us another gem this evening, when he told us that if the Labour Party was standing for democracy they would vote against this proposal. What democracy has to do with the proposal in the sense that Deputy Byrne used the word "democracy" I do not know. Deputy Byrne is a good judge of democracy, because, not so many months ago, the Government of which he was then a member steamrolled through this House, by a machine majority, a Constitutional Amendment Act which abrogated all democracy—abrogated every constitutional guarantee the people had. Then, when he is freed from the responsibility of office, and freed from the Whip of the Party, he goes to other benches to advocate democracy. One would have thought that his memory would not have deserted him so quickly. Indeed, if Deputy Byrne had spoken correctly on the attitude of the Labour Party in connection with this Vote, he could not have made any speech at all, because he deliberately misrepresented the attitude of the Labour Party, and gave the impression that we regard this as an adequate contribution to the problem with which we are faced, and which was largely caused by the incompetence of Deputy Byrne's Government. His whole speech was built up on misrepresentation of Deputy Davin's speech, suitable, of course, for consumption tomorrow morning in North Dublin. It was quite inaccurate, in so far as it purported to quote Deputy Davin's speech. Deputy Byrne told the House that he wondered why intelligent people voted for the Labour Party. If making noise, a long speech, or using the gestures of the jester are any indication of intelligence, then Deputy Byrne is a mountain of intelligence, perhaps more than any one else in this House.

So far as the Labour Party are concerned, they make no apology to Deputy Byrne, or to anyone else in this House, for their action in this or in any other matter. They will decide to do whatever they wish in the fullness of their own mind. Neither the temporary bouquets of Cumann na nGaedheal nor the rosy promises of Fianna Fáil will induce the Labour Party to do anything other than what they believe to be the correct thing. Having said that, I would like to deal more directly with the relief scheme set out in this Vote. Some two years ago the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was then Deputy Lemass, went to the West of Ireland and there delivered a speech in which he stated that the outlook of the Labour Party was bounded by relief schemes and relief grants.

Political mendicants.

Yes, political mendicants. We have to-day a relief scheme introduced by the Government of which the then Deputy Lemass is a prominent member. In any case, I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will acknowledge that, when he made that speech, he made a speech designed primarily to misrepresent the attitude of the Labour Party. Personally, I am glad that he has been compelled to acknowledge to-day that just as we advocated relief schemes, in order to relieve the immediate needs of the unemployed, so also has the Minister for Industry and Commerce been compelled to do so in the same circumstances in which we advocated these relief schemes. But if this £150,000 is intended to be anything like an adequate contribution for the public health works, the minor road works, and the arterial drainage schemes referred to by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement then this is a hopelessly inadequate contribution. It will really make no impression on public health works, to say nothing whatever about minor road works, or arterial drainage schemes. There are large towns in this State where there is practically no modern sanitation, to say nothing of any other kind of public health schemes. This contribution of £150,000, which is acknowledged to be a contribution towards works of that kind, and which is described in the Vote as "relief of unemployment and distress" is an utterly inadequate contribution. It will not touch the fringe of the unemployment problem, and will not deal in anything like a comprehensive way with the necessity which exists to-day for dealing with unemployment as a problem of urgency, a problem that requires the organisation of the powers and resources of the State in an endeavour to find a solution of it. Personally, I would prefer if the £150,000 was regarded as interest and principal charges on a very substantial loan, because to scatter £150,000 amongst twenty-six counties will simply make no impression whatever in the relief of unemployment and distress, or on the public health, minor road works and arterial drainage schemes which were referred to by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech.

I want to say definitely that so far as the Labour Party is concerned, it regards this provision as inadequate. We believe that something more substantial could be done and should have been done, even making generous allowance for the fact that money will be provided under other heads for the relief of unemployment in other ways. I hope this is not to be taken as an indication that unemployment and distress are going to be dealt with in the same manner by this Government as they were dealt with by the late Government. We want to see unemployment tackled as a matter of national emergency. Just as the nation would organise all its resources to deal with an armed invasion or to deal with civil commotion on a large scale, so should all the resources of the nation be organised to grapple with unemployment, not on the basis of small relief schemes of this kind but on the basis of the principle enshrined in the resolution passed in this House recently, on the basis of guaranteeing to each citizen work, or failing work, adequate maintenance. Nobody who has a sense of Christianity left in him could possibly suggest that our unemployed people should be allowed to starve.

Christianity!

Deputy Gorey, although his Party voted for the provision of work and maintenance, now jokes gleefully at the idea of work and maintenance being provided. It just shows perhaps the element of humbug that enters into political life when a Deputy can accept a motion and plead for time to discuss a motion, and then laugh and jibe at the sentiments enshrined in the motion. The main purpose of my intervention was to deal with some of the inaccuracies of Deputy Byrne and to express definitely the view of the Labour Party in the most formal and official way that we regard this grant as wholly inadequate. I want to express the hope that unemployment and distress are not going to be dealt with by this Government in the same piecemeal, haphazard fashion in which the last Government dealt with it. We want unemployment tackled as the biggest problem confronting the nation to-day. I am prepared to give the Government time, and to help them to deal with that problem, although I believe that in some respects they are not working along the right lines. Still they are making an effort to face up to the problem. I hope that in reply we shall be assured that this is not anything like the end of the Government's resources to deal with the problem of unemployment. I hope we will have a promise from whatever Minister replies on behalf of the Government that so far as unemployment is concerned they will continue to come to this House for more and more money if it is necessary to provide a decent standard of maintenance in lieu of work for the unemployed people.

I desire very briefly to deal with two aspects of the discussion. One of them is that I understood various Deputies suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary that when roads are being made under a grant, a condition should be imposed on local authorities that these roads should be maintained by the local authorities when made. I am afraid that these Deputies overlooked one fact, and that the Parliamentary Secretary also overlooked it when he was evidently giving his assent to their proposition that local authorities should maintain these roads, cul-de-sac roads and bog roads, when made. I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be dangerous to impose this condition, and that it might hold up the expenditure of this grant if he adopted that attitude, because until the law is changed, local authorities cannot put on the county a rate for repair of any road that does not connect two main roads. I should be very sorry if in their eagerness to impose this condition on the issue of the grant Deputies overlooked that fact. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will keep that in mind and that he will not impose that condition in making grants to local authorities.

The second matter to which I should wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is this. An appeal has been made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and Deputy O'Hanlon on behalf of the rural areas as against the cities and urban areas in the allocation of the grant. I wish to support that appeal and I do so for this reason: Deputy Davin quoted a speech, apparently made by Deputy Briscoe at a meeting of the Corporation or at some other place, that a sum of £40,000 under this Vote was being earmarked for the City of Dublin for the relief of unemployment. I do not want to be taken as in any way opposing the granting of any sum that can be made available for the City of Dublin. When this Vote was originally introduced, I forget by whom, on behalf of the Government, he stated that it would be used for the clearing of sites in the city. Perhaps Deputy Briscoe was speaking from his brief when he said that a sum of £40,000 was going to the City of Dublin.

I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, if that is the policy that has been decided upon, to reverse it somewhat for this reason. I think it is generally understood that at the end of about three years the Hospital Trust, as a result of the Sweepstakes, will have realised the substantial sum of money that the hospitals require. Immediately thereafter the proceeds of the sweeps, if they are continued, will be devoted to the purposes of housing. If that be so, and I think it is very probable that it will be so, a substantial amount of the money will go to the City of Dublin. For that reason I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to put aside for a moment the question of clearing sites in the City of Dublin. Let it remain in abeyance until the question of housing can be adequately and efficiently dealt with under the money which the country will receive from the Hospital Sweeps. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to divert the largest amount possible to rural areas. I support the pleas put forward from every side of the House for the improvement of roads that are not main or trunk roads in various parts of the country—they will be nameless for the moment—roads running along the beautiful valleys in counties which we all can name, and also for the making of bog roads and the improvement of what have been called cul-de-sac roads. These are the two matters to which I wished to refer— that the Parliamentary Secretary should not impose the condition of maintaining bog roads on local authorities, because the County Council can not, as the law stands, accept that condition, and if the Parliamentary Secretary attaches it to the grant it will only result in holding up work, and secondly, that the Parliamentary Secretary will go as far as he can to divert as much money as possible to rural areas.

The chief portion of the discussion, in my opinion, has been conducted under a misapprehension. It is a question of the adequacy of this amount. I am afraid this is only a prelude to the swelling theme of unemployment provision. I wish it was not necessary that larger provision should have to be made, but it has to be made, and this is only the beginning of it.

In addition, there is provision of £350,000 intended for other works which require further consideration. There is provision of £100,000 for meals for necessitous children. There is provision of £250,000 in relief of rates on agricultural land. There is provision of £100,000 for additional housing subsidies. There is provision of £550,000 for loans for public health works and there is £1,000,000 borrowed on the Road Fund, so that the £150,000 with which we are dealing to-day is merely what might be described as the beginning or opening of the emergency work. I need hardly say that I do agree with the House that, having regard to the actual conditions with which we are faced, the problem of attempting to distribute £100,000 or £150,000 to meet even immediate necessities is very difficult. But that sum is not intended to be adequate. It is to be used until we can get on to the proper and complete campaign. Generally speaking, the discussion has run as if we were on the broad unemployment policy. Certain suggestions have been made. A speech made by Deputy Fionan Lynch contained some very practical suggestions which we will take into account. Every other suggestion made will be considered in relation to the main scheme to see if we can get even a better and more economic result than we have been looking for. The object has been to distribute this money in a way in which it will nearest fulfil the requirements—in the first place, that it will give, as nearly as possible, an economic return, because this country cannot afford to waste any money on unemployment. The person who, in my opinion, suffers most in this country from waste or extravagance of any kind whatever is the working class person and the unemployed person in the working class who is seeking for employment. It is for that reason that we are trying to make this £2,000,000 unemployment scheme as nearly economic as possible. The second consideration is that the labour content of the work shall be high—that the largest possible amount of the total amount of money which is spent upon nearly economic work shall be money which will go directly in wages. The third condition is that that money which is nearly economic and which has a high labour content shall be spent in the districts in which there is unemployment as nearly as possible in proportion as there is unemployment. That is the basis of the whole of the work and that is what we are trying to do.

In relation to that, we will welcome the co-operation of every man on every side of the House, who may have some little knowledge in respect of his own district, in bringing that to a head. One of the big difficulties is in making what I might call an unemployment map of the country. That would seem, at first, to be a very easy thing to do. I asked that an unemployment map should be prepared, coloured, and otherwise marked from the figures available from the unemployment exchanges. When I saw that map, I noticed that there was one very remarkable thing about it. There was no unemployment west of the Shannon. Taking the unemployment figures, the main indication on which we have been going, and mapping them out in relation to the country, we found that very remarkable fact—that there was no unemployment west of the Shannon. On investigation, it emerged that 75 per cent. of the people west of the Shannon, whether they were employed or unemployed, would never appear upon an unemployment map. They were small farmers themselves or were engaged as members of families on farms or with relatives on farms, and not more than 25 per cent. of them could possibly come on the unemployment register. The second line we took was a line very commonly taken in debates here—the home assistance figures. These are being analysed to see if, with the aid of the unemployment figures, they would enable us to get that map. The difficulty in using the home assistance figures is that they are not an indication of unemployment per se. They are practically an indication of unemployability. Not more than 25 per cent. of the total number of people who come under the home assistance survey—I have the figures here and at any time I shall be very happy to show them to any member of the House and go into them with any member of the House who would be able to increase my knowledge by criticising them—are any indication whatever of the condition of unemployment. But there is a big trend, if you take out the individual counties and graph them over a year. You can see some indication there, and I am not without hope that from those two figures we may be able to get something in the nature of a reliable map. Even then, in my opinion, the result is not satisfactory and it is urgently necessary that someone should find some other means of giving us more accurate information than we now have of the distribution of unemployment, so that we will be able to place the relief which is available in the areas in which it is required. The second question raised, which struck me as being of a general character, was that certain moneys should be put aside now for the rainy day which is coming. I do not know whether or not Deputies can see the graph in my hand. That represents the seasonality of unemployment in the country in a year. We are now practically at the lowest point of the ordinary seasonality of unemployment, and in any scheme which we have to work out——

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say on what that graph is based?

On the unemployment returns.

From the unemployment exchanges?

I think it is a four years' average.

These are not accurate figures, of course?

The seasonality is, in all probability, correct, though the figures representing the total are probably quite incorrect. The suggestion is that this Vote of £150,000 is inadequate. It would be if it meant that this was the maximum of our effort. But we have to get away somewhere in this period, and we have to regulate somehow the total amount which is going to be spent in relation, to some extent, to that graph.

It is upon lines of that kind that we are trying to work. I will now show the House another graph which may interest Deputies. It is a seasonality graph of Home Assistance, which Deputies will notice is slightly different. There is undoubtedly a common characteristic of a rise in the Autumn and a rise for the Winter periods. Due to the fact that there is a certain amount of employment at agriculture in the summer, and in part due to the fact that the pressure or bitterness of unemployment in the warm summer weather is probably not as bitterly felt as at other periods, this extra element of seasonality of unemployment makes it necessary that the money should be distributed to some extent according to records of that kind. I put the proposition to the House that our desire is that the Deputies will give us their help in this matter of using the money which the taxpayers of this country are providing on the basis of an economical scheme—a scheme of high labour content, a scheme which will be administered in the unemployment areas, and to some extent according to the seasonality of unemployment. There you have the basis of the scheme on which we are working.

As to the suggestions in regard to the different schemes that are of value, I think turbary roads are of the highest value in this connection. Small drainage schemes which include the drainage of turbary areas are very valuable schemes. Cul-de-sac roads which do open up valuable transport lines which are now closed have much economic value. These cul-de-sac roads are of value to minor drainage, that is to say, smaller drainage schemes even under the £1,000 limit. There are numbers of such small schemes. In this matter I am speaking as one subject to correction, and one who is anxious to learn. There are a lot of small schemes for which a relatively small amount of money is being distributed, and these produce 100 per cent. labour content and at the same time they have very high economic content. The idea would be that in determining the larger amount, consideration should be given to them.

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in relation to what he said about the co-operation of the members of the House, to what extent co-operation has been invited or had been given by the county councils?

I will come to that later. The co-operation of all the county councils has been invited. I think it was Deputy Roddy who suggested, as one of the most desirable pieces of work, the work that was left uncompleted by the Land Commission. His suggestion was that we should complete that work. At any rate, that was very strongly stressed. I will take it that there are schemes partly carried through by the Land Commission and that a small amount of extra expenditure would now leave them altogether more valuable than they are. We will certainly take that into consideration.

I am anxious to use the Land Commission as much as possible, but, speaking quite frankly, my difficulty with the Land Commission is this: the capacity of the Land Commission to spend money upon that kind of work is apparently limited. The Land Commission is carrying through two kinds of work: work of improvement on unvested estates and work on vested estates. This has been very largely done by unemployment relief money. The experience in the past was that the money which they were asked to spend upon unemployment relief schemes meant that they had to return to the Treasury practically the same amount of their own normal Vote which had been left unexpended. The way I look at it, so far as these small improvement schemes are concerned, is: that in the Land Commission engineers we have the experienced people who were dealing with that work and who know it, and we would be very anxious to use the Land Commission for that work as far as we can do that without interfering with their ordinary work. There have been a whole series of small schemes, bog roads, small drainage schemes and a certain amount of embankment work which for a period of years has been approved of by the Land Commission.

I think it was Deputy Davin who asked if we had sent for these schemes that he said were prepared and held over in the other Departments. We have these schemes and they will be used as far as possible as the basis of that work. At the moment the difficulty is that the Land Commission has its own work to do and we do not want to clog the machine by throwing unnecessary work on it. But we do require their co-operation and I have no doubt we will get it.

Deputy O'Neill stressed very strongly the position of the small towns. In the small towns unemployment under the present conditions is a very big problem. Broadly speaking we are not spending any of the road money on what are called the main or the national roads for purposes of relief. What we do propose to do is: that wherever any of that is spent on national roads it will probably be spent on the concreting of the main roads and streets of the towns where you get probably the best results both from the labour content point of view and from the fact that you give work in a number of small towns that you could not otherwise provide. From the public health and the psychological point of view that, in my opinion, is work of the highest possible value.

The fact of the distribution of the Sweep money on buildings in Dublin has been taken into consideration. The estimate of £3,000,000, which was the estimate of the sum that was going to be spent on hospital buildings in Dublin in the next few years, was, I think, a most extreme estimate. What is happening there is that though there may be £3,000,000 of money for the hospitals, a great deal of that money will be used for the purpose of providing an income to maintain the much less costly buildings which they are going to build out of part of that money.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that it is very un-undesirable to concrete roads in towns especially where there is a likelihood of sewerage works and waterwork schemes being carried out there later on?

That is perfectly correct. Certain places which would in the ordinary course have been concreted have been held up from being concreted until these schemes are completed first. There are places now where these sewerage and waterwork schemes have been completed that we are about to have concreted and these were places that we could not concrete up to this. There are other places that we want to concrete but cannot do so, because the sewerage and other schemes are to be carried out there this year.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into consideration that it would be practically impossible for horses to travel on these roads he proposes to have concreted in the country towns owing to the way in which the country cart horses are shod? The horses would go sliding about on the concrete roads.

That again is a problem for the road engineers. There are all sorts of different road surfaces now, as the Deputy knows.

It will be taken into consideration?

It will.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is entirely wrong. A concrete road is more safe than a tar-macadam road.

You can get such concrete that even Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney could get a horse to fall on it. The object will be to avoid that kind of road. I think it was Deputy Hogan who remarked that there was no use in making fine tourist roads into tourist districts if the roads inside those districts were unfit for tourists or anybody else. I think that is a suggestion which should be passed on to those concerned. I will give merely one incident. I was at Killarney and wanted to go to the Gap of Dunloe. Half way out I had to turn back; I could not suffer the agony any more. We have been providing velvet highways parallel to all the railways that lead into Dublin, but there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that when we come to the end of the velvet highway we have not even a softened approach to a very different kind of road. That is one instance where a good economic content could be found with a good labour content for the purpose of improving certain roads.

Deputy Flynn suggested a standard for what you might call the necessity value—the thing which would decide where you put unemployment money. I should like some members of the House to think over it and see if they could get a better standard. To take merely the number of unemployed and relate it to the population does not seem to be a sufficient standard. Deputy Flynn suggested that the unemployed factor in relation to the average valuation would be a proper standard. I would like to consider that.

Re-afforestation has been suggested. That again is one of the illusions I have shed. Re-afforestation for the purposes of immediate relief of unemployment is practically negligible. The difficulty is that re-afforestation has to be part of a settled scheme over a period of years, with at least two or three years of preparation. While, undoubtedly it is a good work of a somewhat permanent character, and while it would tend to relieve the residuum of unemployment which one would get even in a prosperous country over a period of years, it would be quite useless from the point of view of dealing with immediate and critical unemployment.

I think it was Deputy Mulcahy who asked about the £19,000 which is being allocated to the Board of Works. That is being used generally over the country. It has been divided deliberately amongst skilled and unskilled workers. It includes such skilled work as the stone work on the Museum and the National Gallery. It includes such completely unskilled work as preparing the approach road to the Royal Hibernian School. It includes even the model school in the county which Deputy O'Neill would not violate the rules by mentioning. There are various other activities of that kind. It has all been calculated to give a high economic content and a high labour content. It is all work which in the ordinary case would be done if the country had the money.

As far as the £25,000 for mineral investigation is concerned, I am going to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give at a later date more information upon that subject. I do not think it is necessary to have too long a discussion on these matters. All the suggestions which have been put forward by Deputies will be taken into account and will be utilised, if possible, for the purpose of assisting the scheme for the relief of unemployment which has been undertaken.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us a rough approximation of how much of the £150,000 will go to cities, to country towns and to rural districts? I think it would be very bad if hopes were raised too high. It would be desirable if the people could have an idea of what will be done.

My answer would be too rough to be even an approximation.

To be even of any value?

Yes. We have decided to work as far as possible through original sources so far as this unemployment grant is concerned. There was an idea of dealing with it ad hoc, as a separate organisation, but when we came to analyse the actual sources of unemployment relief they mostly fell into categories already covered by existing organisations. The intention is that all schemes relating to housing, roads, small drainage schemes, etc., shall be done through their respective departments up to the point at which the strain put on the existing organisations might seem to clog them. To that extent an attempt will be made, not to duplicate, but to strengthen and help existing organisations. All these different schemes will come together at the finance end. The fact that it will have to be financed through the Finance Department will bring about the co-ordination. I have here a quotation to the effect that hunger grows by what it feeds on. If I am to judge by the amount of hunger for more money which has been produced by the existence of £150,000, I am inclined to think the appetite of the House for unemployment money will be much greater than even the most optimistic Minister for Finance in a Budget statement could possibly provide.

I would like to point out that the extra burdens thrown on county councils, when they have to deal with the unemployment question, are going to be truly enormous. The feeling is that the strain will be terrific on the ordinary officials in view of the numerous schemes that will be submitted, as distinct altogether from their ordinary duties. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to use his influence to see that county councils will not be overburdened with work. Urban councils should be asked to co-operate to a greater extent than in the past. The trouble has been that the county councils did too much while the urban councils did too little. If the urban councils co-operate it will relieve the strain on the county councils in the future.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that for some years Part 3 of the Road Scheme was held up by the last Government, and in the ordinary way county council officials will have to carry out that portion of the Road Scheme? Surely this particular grant could not possibly bear the expense of that scheme.

I am referring to the general question of unemployment relief, and I am pointing out that it would be unfair to ask the county councils to deal entirely with it. The urban councils should take a share of the work.

Mr. Lynch

I am anxious to find out how the remainder of the money, after segregating £19,000 for the Board of Works, and £25,000 for mineral research, will be allocated between different departments. I am anxious to know how much will go to the Land Commission. Presumably any improvement of bog roads or other such work will be done through the Land Commission. How much will be given to the Department of Local Government for small sewerage schemes in various country towns? I would like to have some idea of the proportion of the total grant, which will be given to the Land Commission and to the Department of Local Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary rather indicated that he was going to say a little more about the co-operation he was hoping for from the county councils than he actually said. I wanted to know whether he was going to make every effort that could be made to pick the brains of the county councils and convey to them the principles, which he has so clearly conveyed to the House, on which relief should be distributed to the best advantage.

A great number of local bodies are considering ways and means of raising money for such things as waterways and sewers. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if any inducement has been held out to them by way of giving them cheaper money. Could he give us any indication as to the rate of interest on monies advanced to local authorities out of the Local Loans Fund? Is the rate going to be as high as it has been hitherto?

In the devolution of work to urban councils and smaller bodies in relation to drainage and other schemes we are anxious, if possible, to get down to the co-operation of smaller units. In certain counties they have competent drainage engineers who were appointed for the purpose, and in other counties they have not. In certain counties they have very efficient and expert people in connection with the local maintenance of roads and drainage areas. To the extent to which we can possibly use those people for local drainage and other work, our ambition is to do so, which is, I think, what Mr. Minch wanted.

As far as the co-operation of the county councils is concerned, they have been asked to put forward, through their officials, schemes which they themselves have approved and can say are things of value in themselves and in relation to their own knowledge of the unemployment conditions in the particular areas with which they deal. On these lines I think we can ask their co-operation. After all, people do know more about their own county and their own housing and their own necessities than anybody else can teach them, and we are very anxious to secure their advice and co-operation. As far as local loans are concerned, I am going to leave that —as it may be a dark secret—to the Minister for Local Government, who will tell you about that when he comes to deal with local loans. The desire, however, is to provide you with money at a cheaper rate than before and in such a way that you can use it better. Many local councils and authorities who are very anxious to do work, cannot do so due to the present borrowing position, or, on account of the increase in the rate in paying loans, are afraid to tackle such work. We recognise that it is holding up their activities in the matter and the idea is to relieve them.

Am I to understand that this £150,000 is probably to be spent within the next two or three months? In that event it would be much better spent, in my opinion, on drainage within the next two or three months, and leave other schemes, such as roads, until the November instalment, which would probably be half a million, I suppose.

I quite agree, but the difficulty is that there are people actually hungry now, and the amount of roads you can make in the City of Dublin are few. That is our difficulty. We have got to try to find a mixed scheme which will enable us to find work in each particular area.

My point was drainage versus road-making in the rural areas.

Vote 69 agreed to.
Votes Nos. 69, 70 and 71 reported and agreed to.
Top
Share