Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1933

Vol. 46 No. 3

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 60—Unemployment Insurance.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £15,125 chun ioctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisi do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £15,125 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 Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

There are various increases in the amounts necessary under the various sub-heads to defray the cost of unemployment insurance arising during the course of the year. In the first place there is an increase of £9,390 in the amount necessary for salaries, wages and allowances. That increase arises out of the revised system of registration, which necessitated substantial additions to the staffs of branch offices as well as to the staffs at headquarters. As certain Deputies are no doubt aware, the number of officers in the employment exchanges and in branch employment exchanges is determined by the number on the live register. That is to say we calculate the amount of work that has to be done. In view of the increase in the number occasioned by the new system of registration, additional staff had to be secured. Additional staff was also required in the Claims and Records Office. We insisted on the practice of giving preference in employment on relief schemes to persons who are not in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit. That fact had a double effect. Not merely did it mean that persons entitled to draw benefit remained drawing benefit for somewhat longer periods than they otherwise would, but new claims were created in so far as persons entitled to benefit got work which did not take them out of benefit. The registers in that way were increased and increased staff became necessary.

Under sub-head B there is an incidental increase in travelling and incidental expenses also occasioned by the new work imposed by the new section of Industry and Commerce. In sub-head D—telegrams and telephones —there is an increase of £100 arising out of the same cause. During the course of the year the income from the Unemployment Fund in the sale of stamps proved to be substantially higher than was estimated at the beginning of the year. In other words, the amount of insurance employment in the country was increased beyond what was estimated. As the revenue of the Fund was increased beyond the Estimate, that is, the revenue from the sale of stamps, the State contribution has also to be increased. The State contribution is equal to three-sevenths of the revenue from the employers' and employees' contribution.

If Deputies will turn to sub-head J— Appropriations-in-Aid—they will see there also an increase which is due to the same cause. The State is entitled to take from the Fund one-fifth of its revenue to defray administrative expenses. As the revenue from the Fund was increased in excess of the Estimate, the amount to be obtained by way of appropriation-in-aid to meet administrative expenses is also increased by £10,000. There is an increased of £50 in the amount payable to associations in respect of costs of administration of unemployment insurance. That amount, of course, is always an estimate, and the estimate is never strictly correct. Ordinarily, a supplementary estimate would not be introduced to make good any deficiency, but as a supplementary estimate had to be introduced this year in any case, we are making that provision.

These are the principal items in the Estimate. The total additional cost is £25,290, of which £15,000 is represented by an automatic increase in the State contribution to the Fund, against which the appropriations-in-aid are increased by £10,065, leaving £15,225 to be provided. There are savings on other sub-heads of £100, so that the amount to be voted is £15,125.

I had hoped that the Minister would have given us more information on this matter, particularly in view of the very drastic changes the present Government has made with regard to unemployment insurance and regarding the work of the employment, or as we might now, I think, correctly call them the unemployment exchanges. I had hoped that the Minister would try to justify the scheme introduced by his Government last year, whereby many of those most in need of employment could not secure it, and as a result of which the responsibility was placed upon the branch manager of the exchange not only to supply names to employers and particularly county and town surveyors of men available for employment, but actually to select the men to be put into employment. I think it is agreed by all Parties in the House, and almost all the members of the Minister's own Party who are in touch with actual conditions in the country, that the scheme instituted by the Minister last year is the worst possible scheme. I am informed that latterly, perhaps as a result of the criticism directed towards this scheme at the end of last year by members of the Minister's own Party, by members from this side of the House, and by members of the Labour Party, a new scheme was evolved. I am informed the new scheme is that married men are to get one month's work on any particular scheme of employment in a particular area, that at the end of the month they are dismissed and single men, with or without dependents, are then taken on for a fortnight and at the end of the fortnight they are dismissed. So that, in effect, the first scheme introduced by the Minister meant that a number of married men unemployed got employment. None of the single unemployed, no matter how many dependents they had, got any employment, as the amount of employment available was never sufficient to absorb the total number of married men unemployed. The new scheme means in effect that the married unemployed will get one month's work out of twelve.

The Deputy's information, as usual, is very inaccurate.

I shall be glad if the Minister will tell me then. Do I take it from the Minister that no change whatever has been made in the scheme which he initiated last year?

A change has been made.

It is very hard for some of us to get any information from any Department, including the Minister's.

Some of them do not even answer polite letters of inquiry.

Mr. Cleary interrupted.

Deputy Cleary should be the last man to talk about unemployment. Deputy Cleary should remember what happened in Mayo last year, and particularly in Ballina

I stand over every bit of it.

I would not expect anything else from the Deputy.

I know the truth of it.

The Deputy knows that there were 6,000 odd unemployed registered in Ballina in one month and the following month none.

Does not the Deputy know that Ballina town is an agency and represents half the total constituency of North Mayo?

I do, but I know very well that the registration was for the purpose of the £1,000,000 robbed from the Road Fund. I know a little more about unemployment insurance perhaps than Deputy Cleary knows. I want the Minister to explain, when replying, what, in my opinion he should have explained when introducing the Estimate, what changes, if any, he has made regarding unemployment insurance. The Minister brushed over the new system. What is the new system?

Fianna Fáil first and everybody else afterwards.

The Minister told us about the increase in the staff and said that meant an increase in the number of people employed in insurable industries. Does the Minister really believe that? Does it necessarily follow that when you have greater compliance it means you have greater employment? The Minister knows quite well that it does not necessarily mean any such thing. The Minister is aware, as I am aware, that we have not 100 per cent. compliance either in connection with unemployment insurance or national health insurance.

If the Deputy is aware of that he is repudiating the leader of his new Party.

No. The Deputy is talking about something that he knows something about—that he has practical experience of, which the Minister has not.

A novel experience for the Deputy.

No. The Deputy is speaking as one who has had to claim unemployment insurance and who has had to claim national health insurance which the Minister or Deputy Ward never had. I am talking from experience. I hope Deputy Ward never shall.

You missed the point. I suggested that it was a novel experience for the Deputy to be talking about something he knew something about.

You talk about medicine sometimes and you know very little about it.

I take it that I must be getting even nearer to the point than I thought.

Mr. Corry interrupted.

I cannot understand these gutterals at all.

A Deputy

The Cork accent!

We are not now concerned with any variety of the Cork accent.

Do not call that a Cork accent.

The Department which surely was supposed to be controlled by the Vice-President and Dr. Ward is called upon to sanction outdoor relief up to the point of an increase of 60 per cent. over what it was two years ago. That is perhaps the point which is touching Dr. Ward. We know what the Doctor was when he was a member of the Opposition, and if I may say so with all respect, he has not improved very much since he took office. Perhaps the office which he now occupies in the new Government is not as high as he expected it would be. Perhaps the Doctor expected that he would be able to interject from the Front Bench rather than from the Second Bench. I do say that I can speak from experience on this particular matter, and I am doubtful if there is any member on either the Front Bench or the Second Bench of the Labour Party who will contradict me on that. I challenge any member of the Front or Back Benches of Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGaedheal or the Labour Party to deny that bad and all as was the administration of unemployment insurance from 1922 to 1932, it is worse to-day. It is a fact that there are men unemployed continuously, notwithstanding the efforts—I am prepared to admit that pretty good efforts were made—with regard to the relief schemes, for the last twelve months who could not get employment under the Minister's new scheme. I agree as a general principle that married men should get first preference, but I think it will be admitted by all parties that there are in exceptional cases single men who have a greater dependency than some of the married men, and you cannot lay down a hard and fast rule. I think the Minister's new scheme is much worse than the scheme he had last.

I had hoped that I would not have an opportunity of referring to the muddle of the labour exchanges on this Vote. I had hoped that representations which were made not alone by individual members of the Dáil but by individual public men all over the country, and by public bodies, would have produced from the Minister a scheme that would have removed the grave disadvantages and the grave hardships inflicted at the present time through the labour exchanges on the workers of the country. I say representations not alone by individuals but by public bodies, because to my own knowledge the Clare County Council has three times wired the Minister for Industry and Commerce pointing cut the hardship that is inflicted because of the operations of the labour exchanges in that county. I am prepared to give the Minister credit for wanting to get a true picture of the unemployment problem when he started the new registration scheme, but that picture is not what it ought to be at the moment. In endeavouring to get a true picture of the unemployment problem people were allowed to register at the labour exchanges who had no justification whatever for registering, that is to say people registered as unemployed workers who may in some sense be unemployed workers but who have not the same claim upon work out of relief schemes as the working man who has nothing but his daily labour and his daily wage to sustain him. I know cases in my own county where men with nine or ten cows are working outside the doors of a working man with eight or nine in family and nothing to sustain them —no land of any kind; nothing but the four walls of his house. This statement has been substantiated by very definite cases submitted repeatedly to the Department. I am not making these charges without having submitted very definite and specific cases to the Department, but no action has been taken. The county surveyor of my county no later than last Monday submitted a very moderate but still very strong statement showing that the officials of his Department were held up time and time again because of the representations made to them by the various public men in the county that the wrong type of men was put on the jobs being done in the counties. It could not be otherwise.

Clare is a big county. You have three employment exchanges operating in it, one in Ennis, which has to operate for the whole district from Killaloe to Ennis, which is about 32 miles, one in Ennistymon and one in Kilrush. How can a manager of a labour exchange in Kilrush, when a man who lives 15 miles away comes to register, say whether that man is a labouring man or a large farmer? How can the manager in Ennis, when the county surveyor or the assistant surveyor wants to employ a man, say whether Tom Sullivan or Jack Murphy from Whitegate, which is 32 miles away, is a labouring man or a farmer? We were told a questionnaire was prepared. I pointed out, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us there was a questionnaire prepared, that unless there was a penalty to be imposed that questionnaire was useless. I have not heard much of the questionnaire lately.

I am told there is a new scheme and that under the new scheme anybody over a pound valuation—I am speaking from rumour and do not know whether I am correct or not—is not going to get employment. What will that lead to? This is purely hypothesis, but if it is true it will lead to the worker in the labourer's cottage being knocked out of employment and the farmer's son with a valuation of £15 or £20 will be employed instead. I want to put it to the Minister that this is a serious problem. The county council and every public man are bombarded with complaints, and I am besieged every week-end with complaints of this kind. The Minister knows this; his Department knows it; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance knows it. Surely it is time that some thing should be done to remove the grievance and relieve the hardship. I spoke last night about the grievance of men working without unemployment insurance stamps. We are told that is to be considered and a decision taken. I hope that coincident with that and concurrent with it a decision will be taken on this matter, and that on another estimate we will have an opportunity of referring to it.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

It is rather difficult to know what line to take on this debate. Speaking, personally, I see the administration of relief schemes in my county, and my first reaction to them would be—I say this for Deputy Hogan—that it really does not matter who works on them, because it is a complete waste of money. I go along the roads in my own county or outside my own county and what do I see? I see men changing a fence from one side of the road to the other. I say the country cannot afford that. I know that the farmers and the producers——

On a point of order. Are we discussing the administration of relief schemes or unemployment insurance?

Unemployment Insurance.

Mr. Hogan

That is what I am discussing, but I want to make the point that it seems to me it does not matter who is employed. The money is being wasted. I want to put that to the Deputy. I do not think the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the chairman——

Neither is the Deputy.

A discussion on the value and administration of relief schemes is not in order on this Vote.

On a point of order, may I inquire whether those employed on relief schemes are liable for unemployment insurance?

Some of them, I understand, are so liable.

I submit, with all respect, that if they are it is a question that can be raised on this Vote.

Could we discuss the question of employment in boot factories in view of the fact that they are also insured under this Act?

The question of unemployment and unemployment insurance is related, but on a special Vote for unemployment insurance it is not permissible to go into the general question of relief schemes. They may, of course, be incidentally referred to.

I submit, with all respect, that if the Minister were to do his business, as we think in a proper way, there would be no necessity whatever for this Vote.

I only propose to refer to this incidentally. I do not want to raise anything contentious. I propose to refer to my point incidentally——

But it has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Hogan

I think the Minister should leave it to the Chair.

I appeal to the Chair. The facts arising on this Estimate have nothing whatever to do with relief schemes.

Mr. Hogan

It is quite obvious I am on a sore point. It is obvious that the Minister knows I am speaking the truth, and he does not want to hear that.

The administration of relief schemes is not in order on this Vote——

Mr. Hogan

I think I was always very law-abiding, so if you pull me up when I am travelling too far——

The Deputy has travelled far on that road already.

Mr. Hogan

Well, I think if money is to be wasted and thrown about in the name of the Fianna Fáil policy there should be some attempt to waste it properly, waste it on the right people and on the most deserving people, and that is not being done. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Speaking for my own county, my experience, to a very great extent, is this, that the necessary qualification for work is to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. That is my experience in my own county. I repeat it again that the necessary qualification for work is to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, and the essential disqualification for work is to be a member of the A.C.A.

You need not go half a mile from home and you will find more gangers belonging to your own Party. Every ganger in your area is a member of the A.C.A.

Mr. Hogan

Unlike the Deputy, I do not keep a list of the gangers.

They are kept for you.

Mr. Hogan

They are not. That is subjective. The Deputy is judging everybody by himself. I am quite serious when I say that I have not the faintest idea of who the gangers are in my area, but I do know this, from my own experience in my own parish, that there is not an impartial administration of these relief grants. I am quite sure that some Cumann na nGaedheal supporters and Labour supporters are getting in, but on the whole it does seem to me, looking on as an outsider, that the essential qualification for getting work under these schemes at the present time is to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. That does seem to be the position. That is a bad state of affairs. It is corruption of the worst type and it is the first time that that sort of corruption has been introduced. It is undoubtedly, and Deputies on the opposite benches know it only too well. I think I could get a good many of the Labour members to admit that. Our administration was always impartial.

Does the Deputy realise that he is still discussing relief schemes?

Mr. Hogan

I am dealing with exactly the same point as Deputy Hogan has dealt with and it is strange he was allowed to speak without any interruption. I think I have the same right as Deputy Hogan. I do not say he has anything to do with it. I am elected by the votes of County Galway to express the same points of view which he was allowed to express without any interruption, and what I do say is this, that the real test for employment at the present moment is not whether a man is in want, whether he is married or single, whether he has a family or not, but whether he is useful to the present Government. That is corruption of the worst type and will only lead to worse corruption.

I am not concluding the debate now, but Deputy Hogan has seen fit to make very serious allegations against officers of my Department. They are not here to reply, so I must reply on their behalf. He has alleged that these public servants, paid out of public money, have utilised their positions——

Mr. Hogan

On a point of order. I am not impressed with that sort of thing. Where are the officers of your Department, and who are they against whom I made allegations?

The only persons responsible for selecting men for relief schemes are the managers and branch managers of labour exchanges in the sub-offices, and they are the persons responsible.

On the Minister's instructions.

Those are the persons.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister does not know his business. He does not know what he is talking about when he says the only persons responsible are managers and branch managers of labour exchanges. May I make a personal explanation?

Mr. Hogan

Am I to be allowed speak again?

Yes, when I am finished. That is the rule of the House.

The House is in Committee.

The only persons entitled to select people for employment on relief schemes and on works financed out of State funds are the officers of the exchanges. They are the only persons.

Under the Minister's instructions.

It is these officers who are being accused of utilising their positions for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party.

They are instructed by the Minister.

Every one of those officers, with the exception possibly of half a dozen, was selected by Deputy Dolan and they were all selected on the understanding that preference was going to be given to ex-officers of the National Army. I have sacked a number of them for utilising their positions for the benefit of one Party —not very many though I am glad to say.

You sacked them without any charge?

There is a Deputy there who knows what I am speaking about. Men were removed from these positions after the most rigorous examination and investigations were made.

On a point of order. I want to know is it in order for any member of this House, even a Minister, to discuss members of the Civil Service in this House?

Have not very serious allegations been made against these officers?

If the Minister would contain himself for a moment. I am addressing myself to the Chair. On a point of order, I submit, with all respect, that the procedure of this House is that no member, not even a Minister, can attack any member of the Civil Service in this House. I suggest that the Minister under a cloak, in order to shirk his own responsibility, is attacking members of the Civil Service.

I am defending them.

I submit that is completely out of order.

The Minister is in order in defending a body of civil servants against whom he believes allegations to have been made.

That is not my point. My point is this: that the Minister is attacking members of the Civil Service who, he alleges, earned dismissal at his hands.

For the information of the Chair, the Deputy and the House the officers concerned are not civil servants.

That only strengthens my case. That is a quibble.

Is this a point of order?

I am putting my point of order to the Chair, and the Chair is quite capable of judging without the assistance of the Minister. The Minister is going against the whole procedure of the House in attacking men who are paid by the State.

In the opinion of the Chair the Minister is not attacking any body of State servants.

The only persons concerning whom I did make remarks that might in any way be thought derogatory are no longer paid members of this State. I am talking about branch managers and exchange managers in the County Galway, persons who are not here to defend themselves. They have been attacked in the most scandalous manner and accused of utilising their position for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party although, speaking from recollection, every single one of them was put into his present position by Deputy Dolan, and put in definitely under circumstances which did not necessitate any competitive examination or anything of that kind.

These men are not civil servants. They are appointed as a result of applications made and of certain examinations carried out by officers of the Department. They are removable without cause at three months notice and with cause without notice. They have been instructed by me that one order of preference and one order of preference only is to operate in the selection of men for relief works, and it is the enforcement of that order that is causing all the trouble opposite. For ten years there was another order of preference. Deputies' memories are getting short. I do not blame Deputy Morrissey who is a new recruit to the Party opposite, but some of his colleagues can tell him that for ten years when they had the administration of the exchanges in their hands—not secretly but openly and above board—they used these exchanges for the benefit of their adherents. What was the order of preference then? The first preference was to ex-members of the National Army who were married. The second preference was to ex-members of the National Army not married, and it was only when all these had been provided for that the ordinary common or garden civilian got a chance of getting employment on relief works.

We had not so much unemployment in those days.

That was their way of doing it. We abolished that order of preference and that is the cause of all the trouble. A non-political order of preference was substituted for it. That order of preference may not be perfect. The fact that we propose to modify it is an indication of that. It is founded on experience. Although the principles upon which it was framed were just, in its practical operation it sometimes occasioned harsh treatment. We are changing it on that account, but definitely it is based upon this principle: that no political influence is going to operate in the selection of men for unemployment relief works or in the distribution of relief money. One consideration and one consideration only is going to prevail, the absolute and relative need of the persons concerned for relief.

At 4/- per day.

What will the Deputy switch on to next?

I would not have intervened until I rose to conclude the debate were it not for the fact that Deputy Hogan thought fit to make these allegations against these public servants who are not here. I have not found, I am speaking now entirely from recollection, in the case of any officer of the Department in County Galway, that any complaint of that kind, any complaint that political influence was being brought to bear on these officials and that they were using their positions for the benefit of one political party, was well-founded. These complaints come quite frequently from supporters of Fianna Fáil. In fact, so far as my Department is concerned, we get a hundred complaints to the effect that some official is using his position for the benefit of Cumann na nGaedheal to the one that we get of a contrary kind. In view of the fact that all the officials in these exchanges, with few exceptions, were men placed there by our predecessors, it is not unnatural that these complaints should bear that complexion, but I am glad to say that as a result of the investigations made— every one of them has been investigated down to the hilt—only very few of them were found to be justified.

Hear, hear.

And where they were found to be justified the officials concerned were instantly removed. So far as Galway is concerned, we get fewer complaints about Galway than we do about most other places. Speaking from recollection, I think I am correct in saying that in the case of Galway not a single one of them was found to be justified. I do not say that mistakes have not been made. They have been made. We imposed a considerable amount of additional work upon these exchange managers and branch managers. At the beginning they had not got at their disposal the staffs to enable them to deal with this additional work. A man in a branch exchange area that had a normal register of 200 or 300 found, as a result of the new system of registration and the inducement to register, that the register increased to 2,000. His work had been multiplied by ten. Naturally, in view of that, it took a considerable period before he could get the office and the staff organised so that the work could be done as efficiently as it was when he had to deal with a register of only 200 or 300.

In a number of areas the machine is not yet running smoothly under the new system. Because of that, when a man failed to get relief work that he felt he was entitled to, either because of some discrepancy in the records or some mistake on the part of the branch manager, he immediately wrote to his Deputy and alleged that the reason he did not get the work was because the branch manager was prejudiced against him. In all such cases, when a complaint reached my Department an inspector went down and examined the register. He examined all the information at the disposal of the manager as to the dependents and the relative need of the persons on the register. If it was found that a person had been placed in employment when others more entitled to it were available, then the necessary disciplinary action was taken.

What is the nature of the complaints that we are getting? It is just as well to get this cleared up. One is that the branch managers have not got the machinery at their disposal which will ensure for them accurate information as to the needs of the persons registered. The second is that the system of preference which we are operating is very unfair to single men with dependents or single men without dependents. These are the two main complaints that we are getting. As most Deputies will admit—we propose to alter the instructions to branch managers—certain difficulties have to be overcome, and the concurrence of the Department of Local Government has to be secured before that can be done. It is to be understood that the instructions apply only to relief works. As far as the ordinary works of the county councils or other work of a public nature are concerned, the function of the exchanges is merely to supply the names of available workers capable of doing the work. In the case of these public works where it is essential that full value must be got for the money expended, the first consideration must be the suitability of the worker to do the work and his efficiency—I mean his willingness to work hard and to get the job well done.

In the case of relief works another consideration enters in and it should, in my opinion, be the prime consideration—that is, the need of the applicant for relief. In his case efficiency to do the work or his physical strength becomes a secondary consideration to his need for relief, because relief works are intended mainly to be a device to case destitution wherever it exists. In connection with these relief works it is proposed to bring into operation, where feasible, and of course, it is only in certain cases it would be feasible, a rotation system. The rotation system that we have in mind would mean that a man would be placed in employment for a period of a month. If there were other workers available and seeking employment and for whom there was no work on the scheme for the first month, then they would get the second month's work, and the register would be rotated in that way so that everybody available for work, and entitled to relief work would, so long as the work lasted, get an opportunity of being employed upon it. So far as single men are concerned, it is proposed to retain for them a definite percentage of the work and also to retain the work amongst them to ensure that they also will, each one of them, have an opportunity of getting some part in it. The second complaint which has been made, namely, that branch managers and exchange managers are not in a position to get accurate information as to the relative needs of the persons applying for work will, I think, be met by a certain provision which it is intended to bring into operation and which will, in fact, result in the preparation of a separate register, a register of the persons eligible for this relief work, of those people who are, because of their circumstances or otherwise, considered to be eligible for these works.

On that register will be included only persons who ordinarily depend for their livelihood on working for hire. We would exclude from it persons who ordinarily are landowners, or are in a position to follow other occupations, and we will try to confine it to persons who are dependent for their livelihood on getting employment, with certain exceptions, because people may follow certain part-time occupations which, however, are totally inadequate to yield them a livelihood, and may have to work in addition to that part-time occupation, when such work offers to them. When that is brought into operation, I think we will have succeeded in dealing with the two main complaints against the present system and which have resulted from it. The full details of what we propose to do have not yet been worked out, because of the fact that there are two Departments concerned, but we hope to have them completed in the near future.

There is one other thing I want to say. I am anxious to have made available to members of the Dáil all possible information on this matter. I think that the only possible way any Government can administer any scheme that relates to relief works, or that is intended to ensure that hardship would be relieved in particular parts of the country, is by doing so in the fullest possible light of publicity and, unlike Deputy Hogan, I think that is the best politics. As Deputy Flinn said here yesterday, the best course to follow having regard to political considerations only, is to be as fair as possible and as above board as possible, and that is what we are trying to do, because it gets us votes. The other matters that were raised were not really relevant to the Vote——

Mr. P. Hogan (Galway):

The Minister is not winding up? It is just another speech?

I am just putting the discussion on the right lines because of the nonsense that the Deputy and some of his colleagues talked.

Mr. Hogan

You are long enough at it.

I will conclude then with this remark that the Deputy should be very careful about making slanderous allegations against anybody.

Mr. Hogan

I am not going to be taken in by chaff of that sort at all. I know the Minister's technique of old The best way to meet a case, according to the Deputy, when he knows that a certain point of view is the truth is to state exactly the opposite with a great show of conviction. I am not making any charges and the Minister knows it perfectly well. That is not my technique. I am not making charges against the Civil Service but against himself and his political ward heelers through the country——

What is the charge?

Mr. Hogan

You spent half an hour refuting them.

What is the charge against me?

Mr. Hogan

You spoke for half an hour refuting them and you ought to know them. I presume you know what you are talking about. I made no charges against the Civil Service and I never did. I know too much about it to make any such charges. The charges I have made and which the Minister spent half an hour trying to refute are charges against the Minister, as I say, and his political ward heelers through the country and not against the labour exchanges.

What is the charge?

Mr. Hogan

Do not interrupt, please, and, further, the Minister ought to know his business a little better. He states that it is the labour exchanges choose these men. Of course, it is not. Who chooses the men for work out of the Road Fund? Of course, he knows perfectly well that it is not the labour exchanges, and all this show of indignation and pretence at defending the Civil Service is so much eyewash. He knows perfectly well that the people who choose these men are the gangers.

If that is correct, it has nothing to do with this Vote. I am talking about the selection of men for relief work which has something to do with it.

Mr. Hogan

What about work done out of the Road Fund?

It does not arise out of this Vote.

Mr. Hogan

Does it not? Does the Deputy say the gangers have nothing to do with the selection of men for relief works?

Yes, for relief work the gangers have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister does not know what he is talking about. The men who select them are the gangers, and who select the gangers?—the local Fianna Fáil T.D.s, and the supervising gangers also, and well the Minister knows that and all this talk about my attack on the Civil Service is beside the point.

I will nail the Deputy down. Where was it done? Where were the workers on a relief scheme selected by the gangers? I want the information, and I promise the Deputy that if he gives me that information I will take action on it and those responsible will be dismissed the public service. Come out now and give the facts of one single instance where that happened.

Mr. Hogan

Will the Minister conduct himself? I did not interrupt him. I am supposed to prove that Thomas Murphy, ganger, of Ballydehob, has been appointed by so and so, a Fianna Fáil T.D. Everyone knows it. We all know his politics. One of the great advantages of the Dáil is that you can speak your mind, and I am not going to be prevented from speaking my mind by any of this sort of bluff from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Everyone in the Dáil, and no one better than the Deputies on the other side, knows the facts, and knows that no one who has not got a visa from the local T.D. can be appointed ganger now. I am supposed to come here and prove it——

We are not talking about the gangers at all.

Mr. Hogan

Do not talk nonsense. These are the men who employ the men, and no one knows that better than the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is not the Civil Service we appoint. And, as I am on that point——

I wish it were true, and it would not be the ganger you have in Galway.

Mr. Hogan

As I am on that point, I do not mind what regulations are made so long as they are made openly and so long as we know where we are. We made a regulation, and rightly made a regulation, that the men who founded this State, the State we are all now administering and some of us are trying to wreck, should get first preference—a perfectly just regulation. I stand over it and I am proud of it. Everyone knew where they were and that ex-soldiers were getting a preference. I think it quite right that ex-soldiers should get a preference. Deputy Hogan might disagree with me in that——

Mr. Hogan

I would expect that. The Minister for Industry and Commerce might disagree, but at least there was this to be said, that there was some general rule, some general regulation, some standard to be applied about which everybody knew and of which everybody could judge. Here, what have you? You have merely the influence of the local ward heeler of the Fianna Fáil Party. He is the man to say who is not to be appointed and who is not to be appointed. That is the present state of affairs in the country with regard to the administration of relief works. The Civil Service have no responsibility whatever for it, and I am sure there is not a decent civil servant in the country who does not object to it and dislike it, but the present situation in the country is that men are employed not because they are poor, not because they deserve work, not because they are married men and have children, but purely on a political test and on no other. It is well that that should be stated openly here in the Dáil and that the country should know it, and I tell the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and his colleagues also, that it is not going to last for ever. That sort of rottenness and corruption cannot last for ever and it will not last for ever, and I believe that the country will ultimately react against it.

I would like to ask the Minister if I am correct in taking it from his statement that gangers for relief schemes should be taken from amongst the unemployed.

I have nothing to do with the selection of gangers.

Who selects them?

It all depends upon who is responsible.

I took it that gangers for relief schemes would be taken from amongst the unemployed.

The gangers are employed by those authorised to carry out the works, whether the Land Commission, the local urban councils or local authorities.

Does not the Minister think that they should be taken from amongst those on the unemployed list?

I am not expressing any opinion on that. In the case of gangers suitability for the work should be the first consideration.

I took it that the Minister said a while ago that suitability would not be taken into account so much on relief schemes.

That is quite true, I said that. But I think I also stated that other matters would have to be taken into consideration.

I can speak of cases that I know of. One man who was appointed is a comfortable tradesman. He is also an undertaker and takes contracts. In the other case the man is a farmer and never worked for anyone but himself. As far as I know the only qualification in the former case was that when Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Professor O'Sullivan passed through my constituency during the General Election this man got into a temper and put his fist through a pane of glass.

I wish to emphasise the point made by other Deputies with regard to the unfair discrimination that is exercised, because of a rule of the Department to prevent single men with dependents getting work before married men without dependents. Many genuine cases of hardship have been brought to my notice where single men with dependents running into four and five persons have been unable to procure employment on relief schemes because of this unfair discrimination. I suggest to the Minister that that particular rule should be altered, because so many cases of hardship have arisen under it. In my view a married man with a wife and no family is not as serious a case as a single man with four or five dependents. Although the Minister's Department was given the facts in a case of genuine hardship in Cork, by the Minister's orders a man was precluded from getting work. The case I refer to was afterwards treated by the City Manager and the man got work. That does not get away from the fact that this rule operates in the Minister's Department and causes grave hardship to many single men with dependents.

I deprecate very much the introduction into this debate of any strictures on the Civil Service. So far as Cork City is concerned the manager and officials there never discriminate but administer the law according to the Act. I am aware that up and down the country preference is exercised by managers. That is not so in Cork City. I must say that in the county preference is exercised in favour of persons who have a certain political bias.

That should not be the case, unless, as I feel, we are beginning to Americanise all the institutions of our State, and I know where that will end. Assuming that Deputy Cosgrave's Government comes into power at some future date I suppose he will be justified, according to this code of morals, in "sacking the lot." I merely suggest that it is about time the present Executive Council cried "halt" to this practice. Just as violence begets violence, there will be certain reactions, and they will have only one effect, to Americanise all the institutions of the State. The discussion will have a rather disturbing effect upon many managers of labour exchanges. I deprecate the introduction of the names of civil servants into the discussion, as it will have a very disturbing effect. We are after sacking General O'Duffy because he did not please the Fianna Fáil Party. It naturally follows that the position of every manager in the labour exchanges in this State will be in jeopardy if he does not employ at least ten Fianna Fáil followers to one Cumann na nGaedheal supporter in any relief scheme, while supporters of the official Labour Party and the nonofficial Labour Party will have no following.

Who are the unofficial ones?

I happen to represent more Labour people in this House than any other Deputy.

Give the figures?

I suggest to the Minister that he should remove the regulation which compels managers of labour exchanges to employ married men without dependents before employing single men with dependents.

I understood from the Minister that he has a scheme, and that while other people have had notice of that scheme, and have certain criticisms of it, he is going to stick to that scheme, with, perhaps, some modification with regard to the line of preference. Do I understand, rightly, that there is a definite scheme, in so far as unemployment relief work is concerned, and employment on the £1,000,000 for road work, and that persons employed—other than gangers, about whom there is some dispute— must be taken through the labour exchanges? At any rate, proceeding on the assumption that that is so, I ask the Minister to give us a chance of seeing his scheme in its purity.

I take it the scheme is the scheme of the Executive Council and that it stands over it. A certain preference was indicated by the Minister when he was last dealing with this Estimate for relief work. If there are to be modifications made, I would ask the Minister to make known as early as possible what these modifications are, and what the new preference is to be, with a view to enabling us to see his scheme in all its purity, and to judge it, apart altogether from misunderstanding or wrong working.

I wish to draw attention to a matter about which I have already tried to get an explanation from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. If the Minister is standing over his scheme he should see that the officials endeavouring to apply that scheme are not obstructed, and that it is not one of waste paper in certain districts. I ask him, if he has not already done so—as he ought to have done—to look at the discussion that took place on the 30th November last, and to the charge made by the county surveyor in Mayo as regards the way his scheme was working. We are told that all the people were selected by the labour exchanges. That is not so. The Minister has a statement over the signature of a most responsible county official that, as far as Mayo is concerned at any rate, his Department is not being allowed to work there or was not being allowed to work in November last. There, instead of the labour exchange selecting the men for this class of work, the county surveyor states, as quoted in column 491 of the Dáil Debates of 30th November last, that: "In a number of cases gangers are putting men to work on receipt of notes from different people not connected with the county council and works committees have been set up in areas to select the men in advance and supply the names to the gangers."

I would ask the Minister, if we cannot get any satisfaction from the Minister for Local Government, does he not consider that he is responsible for the scheme which the Executive Council have asked the labour exchanges to operate? Will he look into the matter and give us an assurance that his scheme will work in Mayo, until we see what it is really like in operation, because while there have been many complaints in regard to the bad results obtaining from his scheme, they are not at all so bad, to my mind, as compared with the results which this responsible county official reports have arisen from the repudiation of that scheme. In the same column the Minister will see that the county surveyor reports that " in one case a ganger had twelve men employed. One was a boy about 15 years, working in his father's name, ten were single young men, both of whose parents are alive and land-owners, and not one of them had dependents. In fact two were working in their brothers' names, not having registered, and there was only one married man."

In another case a ganger had 19 men employed, 13 of whom were single men, and only one had dependents. Several married men with families, up to ten in number, came along and complained, but were refused work on the job. So if Deputies from different constituencies have to complain that the scheme as intended by the Minister is working badly, goodness knows it cannot be working as badly as that. I submit to the Minister that he should deal with these complaints, and see that his scheme is worked in all its purity until we get a chance of judging it. I should like if the Minister could tell us when he expects to let us have the facts which he is preparing in respect of the unemployment position.

I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce now realises that there was no necessity to work himself into such a passion over an idea that he appears to have in his head about an attack which no member of the House has made. There was no attack made by any Deputy speaking here on the officials administering the labour exchanges, but there was a definite attack from every quarter of the House in regard to the regulations which he had imposed on these officials in the carrying out of their duty. The managers of the labour exchanges are carrying out their duties as fairly as it is possible under the regulations that have been made. I think that is the general impression of every Deputy in every Party in the House, but the case that is being made —and it appears that the Minister is not aware of it—is that in the employment of men on relief works all over the country Fianna Fáil clubs are assuming responsibility for saying who will or who will not be employed. The Minister has asked for instances. I can give him several instances. I can give him two from the town of Manorhamilton, where a prominent Fianna Fáil leader in that town organised a mob of hooligans to go out and stop work that had been started on a relief scheme two miles outside the town because he was not satisfied with the men who were employed upon it. That work was stopped and negotiations were going on about it immediately after the elections. It was stopped during the period of the elections.

Of course the Minister is aware that the election was announced so hurriedly, that works had to be started all over the country, and it may not have been possible to make the necessary arrangements to have things done in a regular way in every area. I can tell him that his local leaders in Leitrim made sure that no supporter of Cumann na nGaedheal was allowed to get one week's work before the election in Leitrim. In another instance this mob stopped the relief scheme that was going on. They then marched out next day with a band. They thought that it would be more spectacular and would show people that they were an authority, and they started another relief scheme in another district. I can give him an instance that happened in the Kileyclogher district, where four poor boys who did not get any earnings in that backward district for perhaps twelve months made application to be employed on the local relief works. Having approached the ganger they went to the local county councillor and the local county councillor told them that the only chance of getting employment on the work was to go round to the Fianna Fáil club, and if the club approved of them he would see that they got work. That is the way the relief schemes are being operated in Leitrim.

It appears the Minister is not aware of these facts from the speech he has made. I hope now that he is aware of them he will take steps to see that there is no party test in giving employment where employment is needed in any district, and that there will be a fair administration of relief work in that part of the country. The same practices I know prevail in various other parts of the country. When the Minister had worked himself into a heat—I do not know whether he was genuine in that heat, he may only have been erecting a smoke-screen to divert an attack that was made on himself on to his officials—he remarked that I had responsibility for appointing some of the branch managers. In the case of any appointments I made in the exercise of my discretion, during my administration, I think if he examines the records of the men appointed and their fitness for the position, he will admit that they had the necessary qualifications, and that I always took care to see that so far as possible any of them that were appointed had a record of national service in this country.

I was a bit mystified when I listened to the Minister's intervention in this debate. I think the Minister, in a rather heated and bellicose manner, spent some twenty minutes refuting or attempting to refute some alleged charges made by Deputy Hogan, and after the Minister had sat down and Deputy Hogan resumed his statement, I heard the Minister asking the Deputy what were the charges. It was obvious to me that when the Minister was previously speaking he did not really appreciate or understand what he was speaking about. After he sat down he announced that to the House by asking Deputy Hogan to tell him what the charges were and what the charges were about. Having listened to the Minister from the beginning to the end, I heard one statement at the end of his speech which I believe was a thoroughly sincere and honest statement on behalf of the Minister. The Minister said: "We are endeavouring to carry out this work along certain lines because it gets us votes." I believe that was sincere.

What were the lines?

I believe that that was honest and sincere because I believe that the whole policy of the Minister is framed around that particular sentiment: How best to get votes. I believe that the policy of the Minister is framed, not around what is nationally good or what is nationally sound or even economically sound, but that it is framed on the question of how best to get votes. I propose to assist the Minister. I propose to assist him even to the extent of helping him to get votes. I want to assist the Minister in carrying out this scheme along impartial political lines and I want to re-echo the sentiments already expressed here by other Deputies that the weakness and the corruption of the whole scheme of relief works lies in the ganger. Gangers are taken on right through the country through Fianna Fáil clubs, and those gangers in turn take on workers only through those Fianna Fáil clubs. Straight away, I admit to the Minister that at this moment I am not in a position to produce absolute proof of the statements I am making, but I hope to be able to do so within a very short time. I had hoped that I would have been able to produce it by to-day but the hold-up in the country during the last week prevented it. Had it not been for that hold-up I would have been in a position to produce ample evidence.

Might I suggest that the Deputy should postpone the allegation until he has the evidence?

I am stating what the people are saying generally and I have travelled through too many counties and heard too many complaints to think for one moment that all those complaints are lies. Right down throughout the country we heard complaints in recent months that men are only getting employment out of these relief works if they belong to a particular political club. I have knowledge that men who did not previously belong to such clubs, when they got a tip in time to join such clubs, found that it was not long before they got employment. That is a general belief and that report or that story has been told to me too often for me to believe that everybody who tells that story is either politically corrupt or a liar. Generally, throughout the country, these statements are being made. My position shows any number of allegations to that effect. The Minister says that he has received hundreds of complaints from Fianna Fáil supporters to the effect that the supporters of that Party are not getting a sufficient amount of that work; but later on, in reply to an interruption, he said that if Fianna Fáil were to get their fair proportion of the relief work the proportion would be ten to one.

In certain areas.

Did the Minister not say that in reply to an interruption?

I said "in certain areas."

He did not say that at the time. It is within the Minister's right, of course, to mend his hand as the debate proceeds. It is my hope that he will mend his hand a little further and that he will attempt to differentiate by districts in proportion to the amount of work for the various parties in certain districts. I would be quite prepared to accept the principle that the supporters of the various Parties in this House would get work in proportion to the strength of the respective parties in the particular areas involved, if that is what the Minister is driving at now. Heretofore, as Deputy Mulcahy said, we knew where we stood with regard to relief work. Men who had served the State, men who had fought in order to consolidate the State and in order to make it possible for a Ministerial front bench to function over there— such men were given preference in relief work. That preference was removed, and I remember that at the time when the regulation was introduced into this House the Minister said that that preference was being removed in order to bring about a situation of absolute equality. He said that it was being removed in order that people of all parties should get equal right to work or at least an equal place in the queue for work. Since that announcement was made we have experienced anything but equality in getting work. There is no use in nibbling at words. We have absolute corruption and victimisation right throughout this State with regard to employment out of relief work. We have victimisation of the supporters of certain political parties. We have members and ex-members of the army denied work because they belonged to the army. We have members of another organisation, the Army Comrades' Association—it does not matter what the aims and objects of that association are at the moment; it was brought into being for really pure and clean and democratic principles—but we have members of that organisation told to withdraw from it if they want to get work; and we have evidence that if they do withdraw from that association they do get work.

The Deputy has mentioned evidence. Has the Deputy got that evidence?

Yes; I will submit the whole lot to the Minister. Inside the code of regulations we have a topsy-turvy position. Nominally, the married men are supposed to get first preference, and the single men, irrespective of the number of their dependents, have to go to the bottom of the list. No regard is paid to a man's efficiency as a worker. No regard is paid to what satisfaction that man gave in his previous job. No regard is given as to whether that man was a good worker or a bad worker, whether he lost his employment through no fault of his own or through his own fault, whether he was a victim of the closing up of the firm in which he was engaged. No regard is paid to whether he was a man working for 17 or 18 years continuously without drawing home relief or any other kind of assistance—since he is a single man, and the last to be out of work, he must go to the bottom of the list, and any rogue or any criminal or any shirker who has always dodged work may come before that man on the list for preference. I understand that the single men and married men who are longest out of work have got to go to the top of the list, and that single men and those most recently out of work, irrespective of the conditions of their former employment, must go to the bottom of the list. I think that some encouragement should be given to the good workman. I think that some consideration should be given to the man who has held down a job through good years and bad years, but who has now lost his job through no fault of his own, and that a certain length of time of satisfactory service in a job should at least equate the fact of his being a married man or a single man. I think, if we are going to stir up a spirit of work or a spirit of endeavour and of giving satisfaction to employers, that the grading in the line of preference for work should depend on a man's references, and the satisfaction which he, as an individual worker, gave in his previous employment.

I did not intend intervening in this debate at all but Deputy Hogan made the statement that all the gangers employed on this relief work had to be appointed on the advice of the local Fianna Fáil T.D. I can speak for the County Waterford. I was not asked to suggest anybody as a ganger. I do not know who the men appointed are and no suggestion was made at any time that I should propose anybody for one of those jobs. Dr. O'Higgins states that victimisation has taken place. I have a letter here which may interest him. Probably every Deputy has got a letter similar to this but in view of the fact that such strong statements have been made by Deputies on the other side as to victimisation and preference, this letter may be of interest as showing that all the complaint is not on one side. The letter I have in my hand states: "The person in charge of this job is not giving justice——"

What is his name?

The name of the writer is given.

Mr. Burke

What is it?

I shall give you the name all right. The letter goes on to say: "Men that were good means of electing Fianna Fáil are left idle and White Army lads working. So far as I can see, we are the laughing stock here." That is the sort of letter that is coming to Deputies on every side of the House. If members on the Opposition benches bring forward complaints, we can bring them forward too. That is only one instance from my county. I have been approached by men again and again who told me that a certain ganger would not appoint them because he happened to be Cumann na nGaedheal in sympathy and they were Fianna Fáil. These statements should not be taken too seriously. Very often, the men applying for the job did not happen to be in the category of men who should be employed—married men or single men with dependents. Perhaps, they were not on the register. Despite that, they state that they are not employed because they are Fianna Fáil or Cumann na nGaedheal, as the case may be. There is, of course, a certain amount of truth in this, because human nature being what it is, gangers here and there will take up this attitude. I saw letters sent out before the election by very big, respectable people containing veiled threats of reprisals, if employees voted Fianna Fáil, and if I read them here and did not say where they came from they would be described as "shameful."

On the question as to whether single men should get a preference, I think they should. Single men are very often in a worse position than many married men. I know single men with quite a large number of dependents and very often the discrimination works out very unfairly against them. If the Minister could devise any regulation by which single men would get a preference, I should be very glad because it would save me a tremendous amount of worry. These men come to me and blame me and blame the authorities because the preference is given to others.

I was rather amazed by the statements made from the Opposition benches last evening and this evening. I heard a Deputy from Donegal say that in order to be a ganger in Donegal you must belong to the Sinn Fein Party. I heard a Deputy from Mayo say that in order to be a ganger in Mayo you must be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I happen to come from County Longford and the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation there does not seem to realise that there has been a change of Government. The victimisation carried on under the last administration is being continued up to the present. The result of that is that in County Longford there is a strike on the roads, brought about owing to a man who was very active in the last election for Cumann na nGaedheal. Men who were hungry and applied for work did not get it, while others got constant employment. The result was a strike. I went to see the county surveyor to bring about a settlement and was accompanied by the county councillor for the area. He asked the county surveyor when he visited this place. He said that his car broke down and he could not go. "Did you not promise me six weeks ago to go?" he was asked. He said, "I will take no dictation. The rules and regulations are in my office and I am going to be bound by them."

I attended the meeting of the county council yesterday week and there was a letter from the parish priest of the area pointing out that a man with fifty acres of land and eight cows and horses got constant employment, while two Free State Army officers with an income of £130 also got work. If this festering sore is not immediately dealt with, it will lead to trouble that may be hard to settle later. The county council asked for a sworn inquiry into the matter and when that inquiry is held we will let Cumann na nGaedheal know who is responsible for the victimisation in Longford. Although at the last election we had a 65 per cent. poll, we do not want to victimise anybody but we ask for fair play and we hope we will get it.

A lot of the misunderstanding which is evident from some of the speeches made will be removed if we get the facts stated. So far as minor relief works are concerned, the exchanges have nothing to do with employment. These works are carried out through the Land Commission, and as they are mainly in the congested districts, in the very nature of the case the employment must be given to persons living in the immediate vicinity of the works. So far as other relief works are concerned, the selection of persons for employment rests with the labour exchange managers. So far as all other classes of works—county council works, road fund and similar works—are concerned, the selection of the persons is, in the first instance, in the hands of the exchange managers, but as in these works the prime consideration must be the suitability of the person applying, there is very wide power of rejection in the hands of the surveyors and assistant surveyors. We have had a number of allegations, and I was struck by the fact that as each Deputy rose and made his allegation, he immediately hurried out of the House in case he should be nailed down to his allegation and made justify it. Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Anthony and Deputy Dolan went out, while Deputy Hogan got up there and hoped I would not see him.

Deputy Hogan is still here.

I am referring to Deputy Hogan, Galway.

I am not responsible for what he says.

Deputy Hogan talked about the charges that I was asking to have made specifically. He alleged that I was contradicting myself because I had asked Deputy Hogan to indicate the charge he was making against me. The Deputy started off by making charges, not against me, but against those responsible for the selection of workers for the relief schemes. As I have pointed out, apart from minor relief schemes, they are selected by officials of my Department—the managers of exchanges and branch exchanges.

You made that speech before.

The Deputy got away from that and he said "I am making a charge against the Minister." What charge is he making against the Minister? With what does he charge me?

The Deputy is an authority on corruption. I am not quite clear what it means. What does the Deputy mean by "corruption"? Does he think that I write down to the exchange manager in Galway saying "Pat Smith voted for Fianna Fáil and, consequently, you must place him on work in that area?" Does the Deputy think that that happens?

You are too innocent. There is a much better way of doing it—appoint the right ganger.

In relation to ordinary relief works, apart from those special——

The Minister has asked me a question. My reply is he really is too innocent for his job if he is serious in his question.

I am anxious to get the mind of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party on this matter. Deputy Hogan has been a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Ministry and Deputy Morrissey is a member of the Party. But it is clear they have not the same mind in this matter. Deputy Hogan alleges the instructions published are not being carried out. Deputy Morrissey alleges that they are being carried out too rigorously. Deputy O'Higgins takes both lines. He started with one allegation and ended off with the other; but they both cannot be right. Either the instructions are ignored, and persons are placed in employment for political reasons, or else they are enforced, and enforced in too rigorous a manner. Judging by the complaints I have received, I am strongly inclined to the view that the main cause of grievance is that the instructions are too rigorously enforced and too conscientiously observed by the branch managers. It is because of that that we are proposing to modify the instructions so as to encourage, so far as it is possible to do so, that individual cases of hardship may not arise. But I want Deputies to realise that it is not their function to come here and make wild allegations and say that everyone knows there is corruption; that a ganger cannot be appointed unless he is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, and that, as soon as he is appointed, he proceeds to select from the members of the local club those to whom he will give employment. We want the facts. Deputies should turn their heads from the methods they are adopting. If they can justify their allegations let them give the names and the dates and the places, and we will undertake to have the fullest investigation made, and to have everybody responsible dismissed, whether they are in the public service or not, in order to prevent them acting in a similar manner in the future. That is a fair undertaking. I repeat, that is the way to get the facts and to play fair. The reason the Party opposite are in opposition now is because they did not play fair. The way to get public support is to play the game fairly, to eliminate political influence wherever possible in public administration, to give everyone a fair deal and to do everything above board. We are doing that and we are getting more votes. If Deputies opposite would realise that that is the way to get votes there might be some chance of their coming back. When I say that we have adopted that line of policy because it gets more votes this is what we mean: a right and fair policy always gets public support. Good administration coincides with good political tactics—we start off with it-but we would have adopted good government in any case. I am inviting Deputies Anthony and Dr. O'Higgins, and Dolan and Hogan and all other Deputies who made allegations of political influence to come forward with the details. Let them give instances that on such and such a date, and at such and such a place, John So-and-So was placed in employment to which he was not entitled and John So-and-So was dismissed for political reasons or some similar allegation. If that is put down in detail, in writing, we will have it investigated, and that would enable us to make efforts to have such a thing stopped; but if Deputies are afraid to do this they should cease making these general allegations.

That is exactly what we will not do.

I know you will not. Deputies opposite will go on making these allegations but they cannot prove them. Deputy Dolan started off by saying that every officer of the Department was carrying out his duty as conscientiously and as fairly as possible, and, then, he proceeded to allege that they were not. He, like Deputy Hogan was trying to have it both ways. Either what he says about the officers of my Department is not true or else his allegations are not true. If they are not in fact carrying out their instructions fairly and impartially and efficiently, then his allegation of political influence, in placing men in employment where the branch managers have the selection of the men, cannot possibly arise.

There is another warning that I give to Deputies, and I think it is wise, because my Department is a sort of clearing house for whole batches of complaints. Frequently I get a letter from a Labour Deputy, a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy and an Independent Deputy showing that John Smith complained to him that he was deprived of employment because he was a supporter of his. It is clear that the complainant sent a letter to each of the three Deputies stating to each separately that he was refused employment because he was a supporter of his Deputies should not believe everybody who writes to them. I am sure if many of the Deputies opposite got as many votes, as they receive letters of complaint, they would have done much better than they did in the recent elections. At any rate, I am prepared to produce to the Dáil a file of letters received by me in one week all containing allegations that the system operating, and the men operating it, and everyone associated with it, are tending to give the work to the supporters of the Party opposite and not to the supporters of the Government Party. Everyone who fails to get work always attributes that failure to some political reason, and never to the fact that the work is not so easy, and that he is not suitable to the work. As regards suitability I agree with Deputy O'Higgins. He talks of giving first preference to the man with a good industrial record and other qualifications of that kind. That is quite sound, in the case of ordinary employment, but it does not apply so far as relief work is concerned. That kind of work is intended to secure relief of destitution wherever it exists, and obviously employment must go to those most in need of it. We tried to get a rule of thumb which although it would not apply in every case would apply in most cases. We give preference, in such work, to those married against those single; those not entitled to unemployment benefit against those who are. I am quite prepared to admit that any general rule will work harshly in some cases, but the real way to work is to work on sound principles and with modification until, with experience, we will be able to get a system that will operate unfairly only in a very small proportion of cases. I think these are all the matters that arise to be dealt with.

Deputy Mulcahy asked me when the analysis of persons upon the register, which I informed him was being prepared, will be available. I am not in a position to say. I think the returns are now in, and it is possibly only now a matter of tabulation. And it is in that connection that difficulty will be experienced. As to the publication of the analysis I have yet to decide the best course to take because, as Deputy Hogan pointed out, the information obtained by means of questionnaires has sometimes not been accurate. Consequently, the conclusion is drawn that tables prepared upon the basis of these questionnaires might be inaccurate. However, we will try to get the best information available for the Dáil, so that Deputies will have a clear appreciation of the position.

I am afraid most of the matters we are discussing are not at all relevant to the Estimate. The Estimate provides for certain increases in administration costs, due to an increase in the number on the register of unemployed, that increase being due to the new system of registration that has been introduced. It also provides for an additional £15,000 in respect of the State grant to the Unemployment Fund, caused by the fact that there are more people in unemployment than we estimated at the beginning of the year.

The Minister went on to explain the new system in connection with the submission of names by the branch managers. Perhaps he will go further and say what is the practice adopted if twenty men are sought for in connection with a particular job. Are those men sent to the ganger? How long are they kept on, and how are the next twenty men taken on?

What we are proposing to do is to prepare a relief register. That register will be prepared, in the first instance, having regard to several considerations such as the period of unemployment, the number of dependents, whether the man is married or unmarried, whether he has other means and considerations of that kind. Number one on the list will be the person who, in the opinion of the branch manager, is the person most in need of employment in his area.

Is that a new line of policy?

What has been the practice in this respect? The Minister dealt only with variations of the register. Deputy O'Higgins referred to important aspects.

That is the practice at the moment. What we are proposing to institute, where it is feasible, is a rotation scheme. At present if 20 men are required for work—in some areas we have agreed to a modification— the 20 men deemed to be most urgently in need of work in accordance with the regulations we have laid down are sent to the person who requires them and they stay there until the work is finished, even though it lasts for several months.

And they are not dismissed by the ganger?

No. That is as far as relief work is concerned. Now, as regards county council work and work arising out of the Road Fund, the officer of the local authority, the assistant surveyor, for instance, has much more right to reject men sent by the local exchange on the ground that they are physically unfit or are otherwise unsuitable.

There are two phases to be considered, one, whether the exchange manager exercises his own discretion or follows out the regulations——

He follows the regulations.

Are they the normal regulations or are they new regulations?

They have been in force for the past seven or eight months.

Are those regulations known?

They have not been given to us—to the Dáil.

So far as I know they have been published in the Press.

They have not been given here Have those regulations been adhered to by the exchange managers?

They have.

And on that principle the first 20 names are sent out—that is the Minister's statement?

Quite so.

If the manager of an exchange is requested by a ganger or engineer to make provision for 20 vacancies, would it be in accordance with existing regulations or the new regulations for the manager to send 40 men instead of 20 men and leave it to the county engineer or the ganger to make his own selection?

That would not be in accordance with the regulations.

Under the relief grants the practice is that we ask for twenty men and the exchange manager selects them and we have no option but to take them. Of course, if the men are unsuitable the borough surveyor would have power to dismiss them.

But does the borough surveyor give him any advice in regard to the selection?

Mind your own business. It is fun you want—not to relieve unemployment.

If Deputy O'Higgins took a little more interest in his own constituency he would be better acquainted with the condition of things there.

Of course, in the case of a man being rejected the branch manager would supply the next deserving man on the list.

There is really no advantage in prompting an engineer, because the branch manager makes the next selection also.

Quite so. Of course I am not denying that mistakes have happened. I know that branch managers have a hard task to perform. They were selected and put into these positions when the work was much less onerous than it is at the moment. The new work placed upon them necessitates a considerable knowledge of the regulations and various Acts of the Oireachtas and other things. Although we have been getting the machine to run a lot more smoothly recently, it is not yet perfect and mistakes are still occurring. Wherever the mistakes are genuine we generally deal with them by sending a headquarters officer to stay in the area for a period until he has the office put into shape. If the mistake is a deliberate one, then other action has to be taken.

I think Deputy Davin is right about the labour exchanges sending out more names than are asked for.

I know it.

I know it, too. That it what happened in County Roscommon. Perhaps it is not a bad practice. I would like to know from the Minister on whose recommendation are gangers appointed. A ganger has a certain power of discretion. I have never seen an instance where the exact number of names is sent down; usually there are more sent than are required, and if the ganger has a certain hall-mark and makes a particular recommendation, then that's that. On whose recommendation are the gangers appointed?

By whatever authority is carrying out the work. If it is the Land Commission, then the recommendation is made by the Land Commission officials; if it is the Board of Works, then the officials of the Board of Works make the recommendation and the same applies to the local authority; but the recommendation is never made by Fianna Fáil.

I do not think the Minister is quite correct. The gangers are appointed by the county surveyor from a list supplied by the Board of Works.

What is the position, in relation to public works, of people with a certain amount of land? Are they at any time in free competition with people who have no land? Are they in certain cases preferred to ordinary labourers, notwithstanding that they have land, and that their means are better than those who possess no land? It is alleged very frequently—I am getting complaints every day in the week—that men who have property are getting work under public schemes, whereas people who have no property are being deprived of an opportunity of such work. What is the position of those people who have property? Are they being encouraged to register? Is there any limit beyond which they will not be allowed to register, or is the position simply that if a man with land registers for public employment on the ground that his land is unable to support him, it will be within the discretion of the exchange manager to say that the man's means, or lack of means, entitle him to a place in a certain scheme of public work, and that that man might be preferred to people who have no property whatsoever?

I said already that one of the complaints for which there is reason is that branch managers and exchange managers have not got at their disposal the machinery which will enable them properly to estimate the need of applicants for work. In consequence of the absence of that machinery, it has happened that persons who were not as urgently in need of work as others obtained employment. We are trying to get over that difficulty by the preparation of a special register. That is as far as relief work is concerned. There are cases where cart work is concerned in which the man who owns a cart and horse, and others of that kind, get preference over unemployed men. It is a frequent source of complaint that cart work is given to small farmers, and indeed sometimes to large farmers. But that is a special case, and we may be able to devise means of dealing with it. So far as ordinary employment goes, my aim is to secure that it would be confined to people who have no other source or adequate source to provide them a livelihood, men who have nothing except what they get from their work.

May I take it then that substantial farmers are not registered for employment?

There is nothing to stop substantial farmers from registering. Anyone can register for work. What we are discussing now is placing them on relief work which is quite a different matter. The labour exchange has another function altogether. That has been one of our difficulties. I can go down to-morrow to the labour exchange and register and if the branch manager asks me if I have any other means of livelihood I can say to him that that is no business of his—that he has no business to ask me.

With regard to work on the roads financed out of the Road Fund what is the position?

Work done by the aid of the Road Fund is not relief work. I mean work which is ordinarily done on the roads. In respect of that expenditure the main concern must be to get the best value for the money spent. As far as relief work is concerned the main consideration, on the other hand, must be to give relief to those who are most in need of it.

My question has reference to work done out of the Road Fund as well as other work done out of public funds. Is it in order to ask whether the Minister has made any discrimination as between people who have land and people who have no property? Is there any instruction to the branch managers with regard to the ordinary work carried out by the county councils through means of the Road Fund? Is it possible for small farmers to get work where people who have no property whatever and who are living on their labour would be denied employment?

Only through a mistake or through a refusal to carry out the regulations. The regulations in the carrying out of relief schemes are first of all that the work must be given to those most in need of it.

That is irrespective of any property they may have?

So it is possible for a man who owns land to get work as against a man who has no property at all.

Yes, people who own land can get work under relief schemes but they are not entitled to that work if there are other people in the area from which the workers can be drawn who are more urgently in need of work. As a matter of fact, in the West of Ireland there are practically no labourers at all in the strict sense of the word. All the people there own some land, and the work is done by people in occupation of land.

It is often the case that a man who has a farm of, say, 15 acres may have a large family and may suffer from poverty just the same as a man who owns no land and who has no family. In that case, can the man with the land be preferred to the man with no property?

I do not imagine that that is likely to arise.

According to the letters we get it is arising every day.

There is one question I just want to ask. It is with regard to the scheme of cottages in Macroom. The contractor lives outside the town. He has lorries of his own which he uses for his own purpose and for hire at certain times. The local carters complain that they are entitled to the cartage of the materials for the building of these cottages.

I have nothing whatever to do with that. As far as contractors carrying out housing schemes are concerned, the position is that they are required to recruit their labour from the labour exchange. But they are quite entitled to keep on rejecting people sent them until they get people who suit their requirements. In practice what they do is to get their own men. A contractor must be entitled to take his employees at his own discretion because he has got to keep his costs within the contract.

With reference to the discrimination as between landless men and small farmers, I question whether a man who owns land and has a large family is not worse off than a man who has no property at all. Owners of land, especially for the last twelve months, are not able to make a livelihood. Many of them have to go to Scotland or England to secure work in order to make both ends meet. As these men cannot live on their land it is necessary, in order to make both ends meet, that they should get work. They cannot get work in England or Scotland, and for them relief work is more necessary than for a man who has no family, is standing alone, and who has no land. I trust the Minister will bear that fact in mind and I trust the Deputy will bear it in mind when he is discriminating as between these two classes.

I expressed no opinion whatsoever. All I was trying to do was to explain the position.

If the Minister finds it feasible to make separate relief lists, would it be his intention that persons registering at labour exchanges would then be advised as to whether they were being placed on the relief lists or that they were not being so placed? Secondly, as to the question raised by Deputy Moore as to the range of work to be done under the relief schemes:—There is, first of all, a sum of £800,000 or £900,000 out of the Road Fund, and then there is £1,000,000 in the way of relief and there are the moneys spent under drainage works. Then as to the road work, this is half maintenance work and half constructional work. Do I understand that works operated through the road moneys, as distinct from the ordinary annual grants and constructional grants from the Road Fund, will be relief works?

In the case of all works financed out of State funds the labour exchange managers will send on the men. The ordinary road workers will be sent to the work by the branch managers in the order of preference. But if the work is being carried out by the county surveyor he can, in the case of ordinary road work, reject the men as unsuitable and take other men instead. In the case of relief works, however, that right of rejection is limited. In the case of relief works the question of suitability becomes a second consideration to the question of means. The man who is in most need of the work must get it. Different considerations, however, apply in the case of drainage schemes. In these cases it is a question of carrying out the work locally, and the work is generally done by the owners of the land on which the drainage operations are being carried out. For ordinary relief work the names must be submitted by the branch managers of the labour exchanges, according to their instructions. We sub-divide these works into two classes: ordinary labour or employment and relief. As far as ordinary labour is concerned there is the right of rejection on the part of the county surveyor or the officers of the local authority. As far as employment on relief works is concerned there is only a very limited right of objection by the county surveyors.

Assuming that a relief register was in existence as distinct from an ordinary register of unemployment, would that relief apply to the work done under the million pounds grant?

The relief register would be part of the ordinary register, but so far as it was in the province of the branch manager of the labour exchange in selecting men for works financed by the State fund, it would be followed.

Do I understand that in regard to State funds, including the million pounds borrowed for roads, the relief list will have to be exhausted first before the normal list from the labour exchange will be called upon to supply men?

Not necessarily. I think I had better publish the regulations first before arguing about them.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolutions come to to-day and on yesterday in Committee to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Resolutions reported and agreed to.
Top
Share