The whole objection is in the arrangement made with the labour exchange. I have had experience of large numbers of men with families who are in receipt of home help and the men who were the first to get employment were the owners of ten and twenty acres of land, with a number of cows, against men in receipt of 5/- and 6/- a week. We recognise that we are dealing with a national question but I do suggest that when public bodies put up proposals to the various Departments the least that should be done is that these proposals be considered with a view to remedying the state of affairs I have mentioned.
On the last Estimate I pointed out that, in my county at least, we had men receiving 32/- and 35/- a week and that, under the regulations made by the Board of Works, you were going to place men alongside them who, owing to starvation and unemployment in the area, were to be forced to accept 24/- a week, longer hours and not the same facilities with regard to the stamping of their unemployment cards. We had the Parliamentary Secretary adopting the attitude that these men were agricultural labourers employed by the Land Commission and, as such, not bound to be insured in respect of unemployment benefit, although doing similar work to that done by employees of county councils, on engines, in quarries, raising stones, breaking stones and spreading them in various places. I suggest that some change will have to be made, and I know that it is not the policy of the Government, having adopted the policy of maintenance, to force men in the present wave of unemployment to accept 24/- a week. I have advised men that it is better to take the 24/- than to have to live on 5/- or 6/- a week home help, but I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that there are men organising various clubs who will demand in my county maintenance for the unemployed, and I am not going to be a party to having men working at 24/- a week in company with men who are receiving 32/- and 35/- a week and working a lesser number of hours. It may happen in the West of Ireland, but even there such conditions should not exist. The principle whereby farmers paid for the improving of land running up to their houses under a minor relief scheme was all right, but when you accept men from a labour exchange and put them to work, I say that these men should be paid the same rate of wages as is paid by public bodies and they should receive the same benefit.
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has suggested that it would be better to give men 24/- or 25/- a week and not ask them to do anything. Under the relief schemes sponsored by the previous Government's predecessor I have not found that there were any useless schemes put up. Any scheme to be sent up would have to be put up by the county surveyor and submitted to the engineers of the Department and it must be approved before they give it sanction but, according to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, it would be better to give them 24/- or 25/- a week than to have them pretending to be working. My whole objection is that in my county at least—I do not know what happens in Mayo—men have to work longer hours and have to work harder for a lesser wage than they ever had before, and no scheme has been put forward unless sanctioned by the various Departments. I am not going into the question of political favour because I realise that it may happen under the labour exchange system, but I do suggest that the method of employing men through the labour exchanges must be changed. We want to get the most deserving men no matter what army they were in or what political party they belong to. A man is entitled to work, and let an Irishman get preference over others; but give no favour to any man because he happens to be a supporter of Labour, Fianna Fáil or anything else. I objected to that system when the previous Government maintained that unless you had been in the National Army you were not to get work. The Minister's officials know that I have fought it in my own county and that we got work for every man no matter what his views were.
The Parliamentary Secretary asks for schemes. I have sent in to the Forestry Department schemes in respect of thousands of acres of land in my county which is suitable for afforestation. You can absorb a large number of men and get useful work done under these schemes. I admit that our county is suitable for it and we have had large numbers absorbed on minor relief schemes and under relief grants but much more can be done. On another estimate, I want to say that you will absorb a large number of men and give plenty of work, work that will give a return, by placing men on forestry operations. In Wicklow, owing to the recent storm, a large amount of property is in danger and you can put men at work on coast protection and absorb them in employment, instead of paying them home help, while saving a large amount of property. I admit that you are not going to get 20/- in the £1 for it but you will save valuable property and give plenty of employment. £150,000 is not going to do very much and I agree with Deputy Corry that it is insufficient to meet the demands of the unemployed. Boards of health are overburdened at present. We have deputations and marches from the unemployed demanding maintenance because they have got letters from the Local Government Department pointing out that it is their duty to go to the board of health and that it is the duty of the board of health to provide maintenance. The boards of health. I know, went out of their way to do all they could to relieve distress, but the Government should not ask boards of health and other public bodies to bear full responsibility for the maintenance of able-bodied unemployed.
Most of the public boards have taken advantage of the relief schemes. In County Wicklow every village and small town has availed of the relief grants for waterworks, sewerage and drainage. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind what I have said about the small wages, the long hours, and the unfair conditions that prevail where men are engaged on minor relief schemes. I ask that a change be made, because if it is not made the men will make it themselves. I, for one, will not continue to be an advocate of support for a Party that would ask men to work for what is merely sufficient to keep body and soul together, not to mention their wives and families. On the other hand men employed by public bodies are treated fairly in the matter of wages, hours, and conditions. Instead of the hours being reduced for the unemployed an effort is being made by officials in the Land Commission, who have the old British mentality, to increase them. Men are being asked to work 60 hours a week for 24/-. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have that state of affairs changed, and to say that he is not going to be a party to increasing hours and paying 24/- for work for which the men should receive 36/- a week.