Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 15

Vote 69—Relief Schemes.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg to move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £10,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Sintiúisí i gcóir Fóirithine ar Dhíomhaointeas agus ar Ghátar.

That a sum not exceeding £10,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for contributions towards the Relief of Unemployment and Distress.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Flinn)

On this Estimate, if the House desires, we shall be glad to hear a discussion on relief schemes in their administration during the last year and any improvement of any kind, in relation to the administration of minor relief schemes, which any Deputy may desire to put forward. I have found, as a student of these matters, temporarily charged with the responsibility for their administration, that there has been apparently an absolute lack of any previous co-ordinated thought as to the method by which this sort of work should be done. Outside the old history of the Congested Districts Board, where they were dealing purely and simply with the distress problem in the West, my experience of what has been going on is that for the last ten years —and I am not saying this in any controversial spirit whatsoever—the administration has been purely sporadic. There does not seem to have been any co-ordinated plan by which the money was definitely put either to the areas which required it at the time they required it or anything of that kind. It is very difficult to find what line of thought has gone through the matter. What apparently happened was that every year there was a discussion, and that discussion was just the same. Year after year we were told that the condition of the country was never worse, and in no area were conditions worse than in the particular separate area represented by each particular separate Deputy, and that at no time of the year has it been more urgent than at the particular moment at which that particular grant was made available. What I am anxious to do is that the House should, with the wisdom of 152 Deputies, representing each of them 6,000 or 7,000 electors, in their own particular individual knowledge of the individual areas and the necessities of the individual areas which they represent, try and give the House their views upon this Estimate, showing up the difficulties, the faults and the virtues of last year's administration, and treating as a perfectly open and fair question their experience of how to improve matters. I might talk for hours, but that would not give the ideas that I hope to get from the 152 members of this House, who, separately and collectively, are responsible for having this grant made available, and who, separately and collectively, are responsible for seeing the grants are administered as fairly and wisely as possible. Therefore, I am asking the House to use this particular Vote for this particular purpose. Any help given in that way to improve the matter of the administration of the grants will be very carefully availed of.

General Mulcahy

In asking for this money and for additional money what the House is most concerned about is the Parliamentary Secretary's ideas on the subject. He said he made a study of the way in which relief schemes were administered in the past. He administered them last year himself. He made a study of the conditions of unemployment throughout the country. He found the position such in the City of Dublin that he addressed individual owners of firms, asking them to pay off men who had been in their employment for the last 20 or 30 years, and to take on men who had been out of employment. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary, having seen such a state of affairs, and having administered his Department for the last 12 months, coming here now and asking for such large sums of money to administer, cannot expect the House to take him seriously when he says that he wants to hear what Deputies have to say, and that if he spoke first it would be only his own opinion he would be expressing. I submit the House wants to hear the information that the Parliamentary Secretary has when asking for this money, so that he may make plain the lines along which he proposes to expend it. From the experience we have had we are of opinion that the expenditure of this money will be along the lines that he decides.

(Mr. Dockrell rose.)

General Mulcahy

I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he will deal with this matter before we go further. If he does not do so, I shall ask leave to move to report progress, until the Parliamentary Secretary can be first induced to deal with this subject.

Mr. Flinn

I understand that another member of the Dáil desires to contribute to the proceedings.

General Mulcahy

Would I be in order, a Chinn Comhairle, in moving to report progress so that the House may hear from the Parliamentary Secretary the reason for the course he is taking in this matter? He is asking for a considerable sum of money. People in Dublin know, very definitely, that he has examined the seriousness of the situation in Dublin in regard to unemployment there.

An Ceann Comhairle

As a Deputy has risen to address the House, I am not prepared to accept a motion to report progress.

Mr. Dockrell

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has slightly altered his attitude. I think we heard him on other occasions calling on his Maker to witness that he could not think of any way of solving these relief schemes, and I think he offered £100 reward to Deputies on this side of the House if they would bring forward any concrete definite proposals. I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he certainly is correct in suggesting that these schemes are not co-ordinated; and with that object in view I should like to make a slight contribution to the debate in suggesting that these relief schemes should be classified under possibly three heads.

In the past what occurred is this: Various Deputies tried to get relief schemes for their own particular areas, and, I suppose, they tried to get as much as they could. They have been challenged to bring forward a scheme, which has usually been some scheme that is only a relief of rates. Now, I suggest to the Minister that he should classify relief schemes under three heads and allocate the money according to their desirability, not according to the district or the importunity, or the influence, of the Deputy making the application. I suggest to him, whether he calls it one, two or three, it does not matter, that the least desirable form of a grant for a relief scheme is some scheme that should be carried out under the rates and that really only thinly veils the fact that some particular district, it does not matter whether it is an urban or a rural district, practically did not exactly estimate its expenditure for the year, and when something came along that they could bring in under the head of relief schemes it was really brought in in relief of the rates. I suggest that that is the least desirable form for which relief grants should be made. There is another class that I will call class two, and that is something for the improvement of the district. I do not know how far trunk roads or something like that would be considered a grant under that head. A suggestion, that I heard some time ago, was for some reclamation of the land from Merrion to the Pigeon House. I mention that, not that I am pushing it in any sense, but as a type of thing that, in years to come, would bring back part of the money spent upon it. As another type of the same sort I might mention a matter that the Parliamentary Secretary is well acquainted with, namely the putting up of baths in Cork.

There is a grant under this relief scheme, I understand, or a partial grant, towards that and, personally, I consider that that is a very desirable thing. As the same time, I think there has been some discussion as to whether there was sufficient money available to do the job properly or not. I know that I made some comments on the scheme. I do not know whether they have been adopted or not, but I would beg the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is putting a scheme into operation, if he cannot do it properly, not to do it at all.

There is a third class and, to my mind, the most desirable class. I do not know how much money could be allocated to it under these relief schemes, but it occurs to me as the most desirable form in which money could be expended. That is, where the money that is expended will bring in a definite return. As an instance of that, and, practically, only mentioning one instance in each case—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that probably every Deputy in this House could furnish him with instances which he would have no difficulty in classifying under (1), (2) or (3)—but the idea I had in my mind about the most desirable form of relief scheme, or where partial money could be voted towards it is some such scheme as the supply of water for Dublin. I do not suppose that anybody suggests that there is not plenty of water available for drinking purposes, but I am thinking of water for industrial purposes. I think I am correct in saying that Dublin is classified as C. under the pressure of water. That is due to the fact that there is an inadequate pressure on the mains. I will not go into the reasons for that. There might be a good deal of controversy as to why there was not sufficient pressure on the mains; but the fact remains that you cannot get it and that is a very important point for certain industrial firms which have to pay higher insurance rates. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that where, for instance, Dublin has not got a proper pressure on the mains and that certain manufacturing firms have to pay additional insurance premiums owing to the classification according to the pressure, that that is the most desirable form in which money could be expended, namely, that money that is expended will immediately bring in a return to the City.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should classify these relief schemes rigidly under three heads. I have given an instance of the three heads under which I suggest they should be classified, and I think he should proceed ruthlessly to allocate money only to the most desirable form of schemes first, and then to the second most desirable form. Personally, I should like to see the relief schemes, that are only camouflage for money that should be expended out of the rates, done away with altogether. I do not know how far the Parliamentary Secretary considers that that is a suggestion along the lines he is looking for, but certainly if he follows out that suggestion he will find that there is plenty of food for reflection, and we might get much better value for the money that is expended on relief schemes in the future than we have in the past.

Mr. McMenamin

I do not want precisely to walk into this parlour suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, because this side of the House is not responsible for the administration of the affairs of this country, and I am somewhat reluctant to commit myself to the proposals of the Parliamentary Secretary. That is the Parliamentary Secretary's duty. In the second place, I regret that what the Parliamentary Secretary said on this question of relief schemes is now going to become a cast-iron part of the administration of this country. In other words, we are entering upon an era of subsidised paupers, and I must say that I regret that from a national point of view. I never liked to hear of the word "relief" or the phrase "relief schemes." I come from a congested county, and even during periods which appeared much blacker than this we never desired to see or get anything in the nature of relief except in the case of dire necessity. For that reason, I regret that I have to infer from the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary that we are going to create some new machinery moulded out of the wisdom of 153 members of this House whereby machinery will be set up and there will be official and Governmental departments for relief. That will create a feeling in the public mind of this country, in so far as areas that would normally in the case of exceptional distress, require this relief, are concerned, that other areas will come into competition and be competitors for large sums of this money. That will have a demoralising effect.

I remember, when I was a child of nine or ten years of age, there came a particularly bad year. I cannot remember now exactly what year it was. It may, probably, have been in the year 1889, but I am subject to correction on that. At that time, some of the British Government Departments in this country, things having been so bad and distress having been so great in the county which I represent, sent out various forms of relief. One of them was that biscuits were sent in barrels to the schools to feed the children, things were so bad. I remember then that these children in that school, starving with hunger as they were, out of sheer independence, refused to take these cakes. That is the spirit I want this country imbued with. It has become a professional thing now. Now, people who could do without these relief schemes will be demoralised, and there will be a competition for the relief, and they will not strike out to work for themselves and provide for themselves in the way they would otherwise, when they find that there is a Government Department that will provide for them. From a national point of view I regret that.

As to the proposal before us, I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how he proposes to spend this money. I think it is to be given in relief of rates in some form or another. It would be vital to know from him what he proposes to do with it. It is important that the county councils and other local authorities should know at the earliest possible date what form this is to take, so that they would be in a position to make arrangements accordingly. Deputy Dockrell suggested three heads. I am not going to commit myself to any concrete proposals, because I have no responsibility, and I do not think it would be wise. It is only by listening to criticism from us that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to come to a conclusion as to which would be the better policy to adopt.

Deputy Dockrell suggests works around Dublin for example. In areas like Dublin and Cork, that normally should not require relief, I think it would be very unwise that they should be in a position to look to a Government Department for relief. Taking the long view and the national view of it, I think that no provision for relief should be made except where the economic conditions of the people are such that in special periods, such as bad seasons, relief would be required. That is the difficulty with regard to the proposals put up by Deputy Dockrell. I think that this relief should be circumscribed to well-known areas, such as the congested areas, and particularly those parts of the congested areas where the failure of the potato or oat crop, or the impossibility to save turf to provide fuel for the winter, is a source of great hardship. These are the places, in my opinion, where this money should be applied and no others. Again I want to impress on the House that this relief money should be circumscribed to the smallest area unless this country is going to be made a huge county home. When I say that, I should like to say that no person has greater sympathy for the poor than I have, but what I want in this country is to build up a manly race and a manly State. Unless we do that, there is no future for the country. It is very hard when you come to a concrete proposal to put up hard and fast rules as to what should be done, because you are up against the fact that this is relief money to be given to people to put them over a period of distress. Being confronted with that, what hard and fast rules can you lay down? Every year things will be changing, circumstances will be changing, and you will find that relief will be required substantially in the same areas year after year. Are you going to go on making bog roads? If you are you will soon have no bog, it will be all roads. Are you to go on taking bends and corners off the roads? If you do there will soon be no corners, all the roads will be straight.

General Mulcahy

They will have to put them back again.

Mr. McMenamin

As Deputy Mulcahy says, having taken them off, you will have to put them back, in order to take them off again. That is the difficulty. We come back to the point that relief will be required year after year in the same areas substantially. Something bigger, something wider, something greater, will have to be conceived if these areas that require relief are going to be provided for. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the C.D.B. It was the aim of that Board, and to a limited extent its policy as carried out in practice, to inaugurate small industries in these areas. For many years I have contended in my constituency, not in a public capacity, that cottage industries should be developed. A man who is looked upon as one of the greatest authorities on this matter has always objected to that, because he says the machine age has killed them, that the articles produced in the cottages cannot compete with those produced by machinery. When I am up against a proposal, I am not just ready to submit to anything, and certainly I am not prepared to bow my head before the machine age. I think we should take the bit in our teeth and say that we are not going to be the slaves of machinery, that the national economy of this country requires that we should conceive our own economic policy and direct our own economic destiny, irrespective of what the outside world is doing with regard to machinery. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be worth while considering, if he is going to take control of this entire problem, as I understand from him that he is, getting away from this point of making bog roads when the reasonable number required has been made, and directing his energies to the development of local cottage industries in the Gaeltacht areas. It may be said that that raises a big problem. How is it a big problem? It is not any bigger than dishing out this money for the making of roads and the taking of corners off roads, and, having taken the corners off, putting them on again. That is imbecility; that is futility, and shows a lack of statesmanship. If the Parliamentary Secretary is taking charge of this department and is providing for these areas, he should set some big statesmanlike scheme before himself that will have real results for the country and that will build up an economic future for these people.

It may be said, of course, that this is a relief scheme. Of course, we will come up against the red tape that being relief money the Parliamentary Secretary cannot apply it in this way. If we are going to solve this problem we must get rid of red tape. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to solve this problem permanently, he can only do it by giving work in the congested areas and in the poorer areas of the country. He is not going to do that by giving a fortnight's work making a mile of a road in order to give two or three weeks' pay to men, particularly at the time of a general election. These men may say, "Well we are working now," but they forget that in a few weeks it will be all over. That will solve nothing and will get you nowhere, though it may get a few votes. It is not going to build up these areas and it is not going to lead to economic salvation. In my opinion, the only solution is to provide work in these areas where this problem arises and where this Vote must be expended, and the only way to provide work of a substantial character, as far as I can see, is to develop cottage industries. Do it on a large scale. Do it on a bold scale. We have now in existence—though it is not connected at the moment with the Parliamentary Secretary's Department—the Round Tower Industries. It is under the Department of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries. Again, that little piece of red tape cannot stand in the way. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to enshrine his name——

A Deputy

It is already enshrined.

Mr. McMenamin

——in this country, and in the history of this country, I would ask him to say to the President: "I will endeavour to solve this thing. I may fail, but I will endeavour to solve it. Give me a free hand. Give me entire control of those areas. Give me entire control of those funds, and I will endeavour to regenerate those areas and put an end to this perpetual relief." I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is the only hope of maintaining a manly race, because those areas are the places wherein the race is born and reared; that is where most of your population is reared and raised, and it is there the hallmark of the future people of this State will be found. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary or this House does not desire that the hallmark that they will bear should be that of pauperism and dependency upon relief. It might be suggested that difficulties arise in the way of technical training in a proposal of this sort. Nothing of the kind. The people in those areas are all expert craftsmen. The women, with regard to needlework of all kinds, embroidery and all the branches of embroidery, because there are various branches of it, are experts, I submit, who cannot be excelled in this world. The women of those areas cannot be excelled anywhere for needlework. Take then spinning, knitting and weaving; I think that, speaking substantially, the craftsmen in those areas will bear comparison with any to be found in the world. You have already, as a result of the Congested Districts Board's efforts of the past, the nucleus of creating this regeneration of those areas. Again I repeat that, while I like to see money provided for the poor people in their distress, while I say that in the hour of need the State should come to their aid, I submit that we should take the long view, that we should take the broad view, that we should aim at something bigger than this temporary provision of relief to keep the wolf from the door in the hour of need, and do something bigger, deeper and broader to help the future of this country and its people.

Mr. Norton

I listened with a good deal of interest to Deputy McMenamin's contribution to this question of the relief schemes. While I would agree that, if it is possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to tackle this question with all the comprehensiveness that Deputy McMenamin suggests, possibly good results would accrue, it seems to me that Deputy McMenamin is living in a paradise of porridge, possibly mixed with some little peat as well. Deputy McMenamin talks about getting back to the cottage industries, those handicrafts that existed long before machinery was developed to the stage at which it is to-day.

Mr. McMenamin

They exist to-day.

Mr. Norton

The cottage industries exist to-day?

Mr. McMenamin

Yes.

Mr. Norton

As a survival, and a very slender survival, of an industrial system that existed before the machine age. That anybody in any country in the world, even in an outpost of Western Europe, should suggest that we can develop cottage industries in the year 1933 and provide employment in those industries——

Mr. McMenamin

Certainly.

Mr. Norton

——at reasonable rates of wages is just fantastic. You might as well try to keep back the Atlantic Ocean with a fork as try to develop cottage industries in this country, having regard to the inroads which machine development is making——

Mr. McMenamin

Sweated machines.

Mr. Norton

"Sweated machines," says Deputy McMenamin. He talked about getting free from the machine, and from the language in which he expressed that viewpoint it is quite clear that Deputy McMenamin wanted all machinery abolished.

Mr. McMenamin

Certainly not.

Mr. Norton

Deputy McMenamin's speech, if it meant anything, showed that he wanted to cut out the machine.

Mr. McMenamin

Certainly, if you like.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy wants the machine cut out. He wants us to go back to breaking stones by hand. He wants us to go back to hauling stones in sacks on our backs. He wants us to go back to scratching flints in order to light our pipes. He wants us to go back to the rush candle, and instead of the farmer going to town on Friday or Saturday in a motor car or in a bus or a train the Deputy would have a sort of national procession on donkeys into the nearest town. Then, when this national procession marks the culminating point of the period of industrial life that the Deputy visualises, everything in the garden will be lovely.

Mr. McMenamin

Send them in Rolls Royces?

Mr. Norton

He wants that kind of national life in this country——

Mr. Dolan

Give us some suggestion yourself, and leave Deputy McMenamin's speech to be considered by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Norton

I have not been speaking one-twentieth of the time which Deputy McMenamin occupied. I say definitely that Deputy McMenamin's mind on this matter is just the type of mind you find on every bench in this House. I do not say it is particularly a Cumann na nGaedheal viewpoint. Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party are saturated with the same peat and porridge outlook, and it seems to me that that is the most dangerous outlook you can have in this country, or in any other country to-day.

The problem to-day is not a problem of providing work for the people. It is a problem of organising the leisure of the people; because the position is that with the advance of science, with the advance of mechanisation, with the huge development in technological industries, it is easier to get a livelihood to-day than it ever was at any previous period of our history.

Mr. McMenamin

That is news!

Mr. Norton

Machinery, technical development and scientific progress have made it easier than it ever was before——

Mr. McMenamin

To see things in the shop windows.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy can make another speech when I am finished. Technical development, mechanical development and the development of science have made it easier than it ever was before to win a living from the land and to win an existence on this earth. They make it easier to do it than it ever was before, and with less effort than previously. It is possible to-day to give the world a more diversified kind of life than the world ever had before. It is possible, by scientific development to-day, to give the world a multiplicity of goods undreamed of in other days. Yet in the face of the knowledge that it is easier to produce goods to-day, that they can be produced in a more diversified form than ever before, and in the face of the fact that scientific development is making available to the people of the world a greater variety of goods in a shorter space of time than ever before, we are talking to-day about trying to provide the world with employment on a basis of 55 hours per week under this relief scheme. That seems to be our contribution. The problem is not one of trying to work people to the last hour or to the last ounce. Our problem ought to be one of trying to organise the mass leisure which should be available to the people as a result of the technical and mechanical progress which has gone on over the last 50 years. The problem to-day is not a problem of scarcity. The problem to-day is a problem of plenty. There is nobody suggesting to-day that there is a scarcity of any kind of goods in the world. The only thing of which there is a scarcity is an appreciation of the problem confronting the world. Not even Deputy McMenamin will suggest that there is a scarcity of goods in the world to-day.

Mr. McMenamin

They are rotting.

Mr. Norton

Yes, goods are rotting because there is too much of them. On the one hand, you have got nations burning wheat and coffee. We are talking about trying to provide work for people. On the other hand you have poverty in an era of not merely plenty but even disconcerting plenty. In other countries you have coffee burned in order to try to preserve a market for what is left.

Mr. McMenamin

Tell us why?

Mr. Norton

Let the Deputy be patient. I listened with patience to the Deputy's own speech, and he might reciprocate. Deputy McMenamin wants to know why wheat is being burned and why coffee is being burned. The Deputy apparently does not know himself. One half of the world is crying out that they want wheat and coffee. One half of the world needs these commodities, and the other half which monopolises these commodities is saying: "You cannot have these goods unless you pay the ransom which we demand." You have plenty on the one hand and nothing on the other. Of course, with Governments the obvious explanation is to restrict the production of wheat and coffee and to restrict production in many other fields of activity. It is easier to produce goods than ever before, and you have a portion of the world that has goods, and another portion of the world that needs these goods but has not got the purchasing power with which to purchase them.

Mr. McMenamin

Why?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies might have a little patience. Every Deputy has an opportunity of contributing to the debate and should be prepared to listen to other Deputies. The matter before us is relief schemes. Deputy Norton has dealt with consumption, production of crops, science and technology. I suggest that he would now deal with the Vote before us—Relief Schemes.

Mr. Norton

If you look at the Vote you will see that it is moved for the relief of distress, and I suggest that I am entitled to make something even more than a financial contribution, because this seems to me to be pouring money into a sort of national bog, and I think contributions, even if not of a financial character, might very well be more advantageous than the scheme here. I think I am quite entitled in the interest of the relief of distress to correct the mentality of Deputy McMenamin.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not interrupt the Deputy in so doing.

Mr. Norton

I appreciate that. Deputy McMenamin, Sir, clearly wanted me to bring in a blackboard and check and work out this scheme for him here. I cannot do that. Deputy McMenamin wanted to know why the world cannot purchase what other people have in greater quantities than they need. The simple reason is this, and Deputy Dockrell would be able to explain it to the Deputy——

Mr. McMenamin

I did not make the statement that there was a larger quantity than was required in the way of goods. The goods are there but the people cannot purchase them.

Mr. Norton

I say that is perfectly true. I want to call on the technical knowledge of Deputy Dockrell. Deputy Dockrell has an intimate knowledge of pipes going into a house and pipes going out. I would ask the Deputy to spare me a few moments to explain to Deputy McMenamin how it would work out if, for instance, Deputy Dockrell were to instal into my house a system by which water would rush in on a 6-inch pipe. If I told Deputy Dockrell to put at the other end a one-inch pipe to take out that water the Deputy would tell me that I was "daft" and so I would be. What Deputy McMenamin cannot appreciate is this: that industries to-day are sending goods into a cistern which is the world trade on a six-inch pipe and the consuming public are trying to take out these goods but they have only a one-inch pipe. Deputy Dockrell knows what kind of a mess a house would be in when you had a six-inch pipe carrying the water in and only a one-inch taking it off. That is the problem of the world to-day. The world is producing more and more goods than it ever produced but the consuming world is represented by the one-inch pipe. The consuming world, therefore, is unable to take advantage of the plentiful supply of goods placed at its disposal by industry. The goods are being put there at the disposal of the world but it has not the purchasing power.

That brings me to this point that this method of relief in the form of a grant of £150,000 represents so much patching and so much of an effort to patch up a system which is tottering to its doom in every country in the world to-day. I had hoped that we would have had some statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to say that these relief schemes are only at most just a temporary effort to stave off perhaps the worst pangs of hunger and poverty which are following in the wake of long-continued unemployment. We might have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that the whole problem of employment might be tackled in a more comprehensive manner. It is impossible to solve the problem of unemployment by doling out £150,000 in grants. That is only a desperate remedy for a desperate disease. The patient will be just as sick after that medicine is consumed as he was before he got it.

There is no possible hope of solving unemployment on the basis of large-scale grants for unemployment. I agree that the Government have to do something, and I agree that anything is better than to see a man with his wife and family starving. Anything is better than that. We ought not suffer anything from the point of view of tightness in efficiency in considering a problem of that kind. But I do suggest that the Government's policy in this matter of relief schemes is a policy of patching up a system which is tottering and falling to its doom in every country in the world. I would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary or some other member of the Government come to the House and say "there is no possible escape from this problem that is troubling not only this but every country in the world to-day" and to put before us some scheme dealing with the national life and the national economy in a big way. Instead of trying to sweat people to the tune of a 55-hour week for a 21/- wage, the Government should do something to organise the production of the nation so as to make provision for those for whom it is not possible to provide employment. To-day, on the one hand, you have people working excessively long hours and, on the other hand, there are people for whom no employment is available. It seems to me that if this nation requires a certain quantity of goods the obvious duty of the whole nation is to assist in the production of the goods. But why allow one section of the nation to work a 48 or 50-hour week at low wages, while condemning another section to idleness and another section to poverty, simply because the world has not the courage or the ability to organise the nation on some more effective basis? I want to ask for some information in connection with this relief scheme. There is a method of employing people on relief. Is it intended that these people should be employed through the labour exchanges? Is that to be done in each case or is there to be local discretion in giving employment? I recently represented a case to the office of the Parliamentary Secretary. I think I wrote to his office in March, and it was three months afterwards that I came, to ask for a definite reply in the matter, after having exhausted my patience in writing letters. I wrote one letter much stronger than the others, and it was then I found that the complaint I had made had not even been investigated at that time. We had the Parliamentary Secretary recently talking about Rip Van Winkles in this House. He talked very learnedly about Rip Van Winkles. Considering that a complaint was made to his Department in March and it was not investigated until June, the Parliamentary Secretary might have been less vocal in his talk about Rip Van Winkles. That one incident should be sufficient to indicate to him the Rip Van Winkleism that apparently has characterised his own Department. When the complaint was investigated I found a whole scheme of evasion resorted to in order to send the fool further, as it were. I complained then that an ex-R.I.C. pensioner, demobilised by the British in 1922, and with a substantial pension, was put in charge of a relief scheme in a portion of my constituency. It is true, of course, that he is known locally as the secretary of the Fianna Fáil branch. He was not the neediest man in the district, but yet he was employed in charge of a relief scheme. He was not employed there through the labour exchange, either; somebody apparently intervened to have this person employed.

I can understand that was a genuine mistake. I can hardly imagine any member of the Executive Council standing for a thing of that kind. When I complained and had the case investigated, I was informed that this person was employed locally as a matter of discretion, and the Parliamentary Secretary did not know whether he was an ex-R.I.C. man. He said he had looked at the list of people who had resigned or were dismissed for political reasons from the R.I.C., but he had no record of the ex-R.I.C. men demobilised by the British Government. I think that was rank evasion and a deliberate attempt to dodge the very serious complaint I made. The Parliamentary Secretary disowned responsibility for what happened, but I find it very difficult to be satisfied with that kind of assurance in view of the fact that everybody within 30 miles of where this man lives knows he is an ex-R.I.C. man and that he has a substantial pension. The only people apparently who did not know it were the people who wrote the reply for the Parliamentary Secretary to sign. Every Civic Guard in the area could tell you about him.

Mr. Moore

The area mentioned by the Deputy would include Dublin, and surely that is an exaggeration.

Mr. Norton

I can find persons in Dublin who know all about it, too.

Mr. Minch

Castledermot is more than 30 miles from Dublin.

Mr. Norton

Anyhow, it is a most unsatisfactory position, and I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that before he comes here to talk learnedly about Rip Van Winkles he might make sure his own glasshouse is properly protected from charges of Rip Van Winkleism. It took them three months to investigate a simple complaint, and then a maze of evasion was trotted out apparently to justify the sleepiness of the Department, on the one hand, or to justify the inactivity of the Parliamentary Secretary on the other hand.

Certain statements were made in connection with relief schemes recently. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that many of these people who were employed on relief schemes were just expected to give a little work in return for their wages. In other words, they were almost going to decide to give them the wages for nothing, having regard to prevailing distress; but they thought it better to get some work done. We now find those people work from 48 to 55 hours a week for the sum of 21/- or 24/-. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell the House to-day that the 21/- and 24/- mentality is going to go by the board and that the offending paragraph in former instructions, advising county surveyors to pay less than the agricultural rate of wages, is going to be withdrawn definitely. These relief schemes, just like the Shannon scheme, have been disgraced by the shockingly low rate of wages. Just fancy 21/- or 24/- for 55 hours' work and with broken time in addition. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to stand for that kind of wage policy and that kind of social policy then, no matter how much Deputy McMenamin may disagree with him in many respects, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary is very near the wage outlook of some members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will issue definite instructions in connection with forthcoming relief schemes that reasonable rates of wages will be paid. Let us get away from that poverty-stricken mentality and the frightfully low standard of living that is conceived by the payment of a wage of 21/- or 24/- a week. It is impossible for a human being, if he has any regard for the physical needs of his family, to provide for them on such a wage. Any Government which offers that wage for 55 hours' work and that persists in such a policy must have very little regard for the human needs of a working man and his family.

Some months ago a question was raised here about the insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Acts of persons employed on relief schemes. The matter was discussed and a most chaotic state of mind was revealed on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Finance. The Minister apparently did not know much about the question of insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and the Parliamentary Secretary tried to defend the non-insurance of these people on the ground that relief schemes were not insurable under the Acts. These Acts take no notice of schemes; they are concerned with the nature of the work. Anyone who has had experience of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the thousand and one decisions given under them knows perfectly well that road and quarry work carried out under relief schemes is the kind of work insurable under those Acts. So far, however, those persons have not been regarded as insurable.

I think there would be no difficulty in showing the Parliamentary Secretary that decisions already given, plus the normal insurability of workers employed under county councils, will make it perfectly clear that these persons are properly insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the failure of the Government to insure them amounts to gross evasion. I do not know what is the explanation of the abnormal delay. One cannot help thinking that if a private employer were involved in a matter of this sort there would have been a decision arrived at long ago, very likely against him, by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Apparently another State Department may have a matter of this kind held up for six, nine or 12 months, without coming to any decision upon the insurability of those people. I believe they are properly insurable under the Act, and under many decisions given under the Act. I think they should be entitled to expect that the State will conform with that piece of social legislation, so as to provide some sustenance for those persons who are genuinely unemployed.

I suppose this relief scheme will be the kind of one that will find its way and its operations into bog areas more than into towns. I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the towns there is really more unemployment than in the rural areas. It seems to me that the towns have been rather neglected from the point of view of the application of relief schemes, or the grant of moneys, in the past. I know a town in my own particular district that is absolutely reeking with unemployment. The whole constituency is bearing a population absolutely outside its capacity to sustain, under the existing circumstances, The whole County Kildare, at one time, lived on the fact that it was the area for the accommodation of large numbers of British troops. These troops are now gone. In the national interests the people of Kildare have made great sacrifices in the loss of employment that has followed the departure of these people from the county. Rightly and as cheerfully as possible, the people made these sacrifices. I am not making a speech for local consumption upon this Vote, but I would point out that in this particular county there is a case for recognising the state of things that prevails there.

A large section of the population came into the county by reason of the fact that, at one time, it was the biggest training centre for British troops. The departure of these troops has led to a lot of unemployment. There is practically no local industry in Kildare except horse-breeding and raising, and that industry is now absorbing a considerably lesser number of people than formerly. There is special reason, I repeat, for realising the sacrifices that a county of that kind has made in the national interest.

I suggested a number of schemes to the Department. I come back to one scheme that I think will be dear to the hearts of the people who believe in economic schemes, and that is that something should be done with the derelict site of the Newbridge Military Barracks. Portion of the barrack was dismantled this year; and it stands there now a bleak, gaunt structure. If the remainder of the barrack were dismantled, I think it would be possible to realise a very substantial sum from the sale of the materials. I understand that when the partial demolition was carried out a substantial sum of money was realised from the materials, and, I think, having regard to the nature of the material used when the barrack was constructed, it would be possible to realise a very large sum from the sale of the rest of the materials available after the demolition. In any case, if the Parliamentary Secretary looks at the figures through the employment exchanges in that county and compares them with other counties, he will find that instead of decreasing they are actually, in some exchanges, increasing. I know there is almost despair in some districts of registering in the exchanges in order to obtain employment. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary especially to consider the position of that bleak barracks at Newbridge. Its demolition would be the removal of an eyesore, and a very large sum of money could be secured by reason of the value of the material.

Mr. Flinn

Before the debate goes further I would ask that Deputies should, as far as possible, not use the debate for the purposes of simply putting forward individual cases in their own constituency. I have, as Deputy Norton knows, actually before me, and tried to meet the particular problem he has raised. The Deputy asked me to deal with employment through the labour exchanges. That I propose to state to the House in considerable detail later on. What I am anxious to get from Deputies now is their own idea of what should be done. I am asking everybody, not in a controversial spirit, to say whether they think that the whole of employment should be through the labour exchanges in every district, and, if not, what modifications they would propose to put in. May I tell the House roughly what the position is? The position roughly has been, that, on minor relief schemes, the county surveyors, acting as agents of the Board of Works, were entitled to take their men from the labour exchanges or otherwise. In certain districts they did the one, and in other districts the other, due to circumstances. I shall tell the House if it likes, exactly what happened in other particular districts. What I am concerned with is that the House should advise me, from their own experience, as to whether or not that should be done. Roughly speaking, the arrangement has been to use the labour exchange in every place in which it could function: that is to say where schemes were carried out and people normally registered at the exchange. Take a place like Mayo, where at least 95 per cent. of those available for work never registered at a labour exchange before, and were only registered in this particular case ad hoc, and were people about whose circumstances the labour exchange knew nothing before. What I am suggesting is two entirely separate conditions. In a County like Mayo where about 88 per cent. of the total population are farming, and about 75 per cent. of the total population are little farmers with ten acres or under, there is practically no paid labourer of the ordinary kind. Compare that with conditions in County Dublin, where only 6 per cent. of the people altogether are in that position, and where there is a largely developed labour exchange system——

General Mulcahy

The Parliamentary Secretary has made a statement now which, as far as I know, is entirely contrary to any statement we had before. The statements we have had up to the present are that persons employed on relief works, or on schemes on which Government money is spent, must be employed through the labour exchanges. I understand we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that that is not necessary in Mayo.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy heard me distinctly and understood me correctly.

General Mulcahy

The Parliamentary Secretary objects to Deputy Norton giving suggestions as to what might be done, based upon his own constituency. Here again I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he does not think he is acting in an entirely unhelpful and almost obstructive way, when he asks for a substantial vote to carry out relief schemes, and informs us that he examined the way in which relief schemes were carried out in the past and knows all about it. We know that he carried out relief schemes himself last year, and he has obviously examined into the condition of unemployment in the country. If Deputies are not to roam the world and deal with matters like the burning of wheat and the destruction of coffee the Parliamentary Secretary ought to make a statement as to what his experience has been, and what he proposes to do with this money unless some suggestion is made by the House that would convince him that it might be better employed in another way.

Mr. Morrissey

There is one question I should like to ask. Is it not a fact, as it appears on the face of the Estimate, that this money has been ear-marked already and that it is for schemes which were sanctioned before 31st of March last and that, therefore, it is only waste of time on this Estimate to be suggesting new schemes? Is not that so?

Mr. Flinn

That is so. I do not mean that it is a waste of time to suggest a method by which they could be administered in a better way.

Mr. Morrissey

Oh, no. That is not my point. I mean that, since the £150,000 has been ear-marked already, it is only waste of time to be putting forward new schemes of work.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, to put forward new schemes specifically.

General Mulcahy

When the supplementary estimate for relief schemes was before the House the other day, it was decided that the debate on the general question of these schemes might be postponed either to this debate or to the Vote on the Office of Public Works itself. From the Parliamentary Secretary's opening remarks, as well as everything else, I understood, and I think it would be reasonable, that the debate that would take place on this Vote would cover not only the moneys carried over from last year but the whole question of the moneys that were going to be spent on relief schemes in any way during the current year.

Mr. Kent

Do I understand that this £150,000 is ear-marked already and that, therefore, it is useless to bring forward any new schemes in order to get portion of this money?

Mr. Flinn

That is so. The whole of this money is in process of being expended.

Mr. Kent

Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that it is all spent?

Mr. Flinn

No, it is in process of being expended. The vast portion of it is expended already. Deputy Morrissey is right in what he said. It is written down on the Estimate that it is for schemes sanctioned before 31st March.

Mr. Kent

The reason I asked was that I had a scheme which I was going to put before the Parliamentary Secretary which is very badly needed in my locality.

Mr. Flinn

Do not do that. Under minor relief schemes alone, including those we took over from the Land Commission, there are something like 9,000 schemes. Therefore, you may take it that a considerable number of schemes has been put in. In the old days it was the practice for every Deputy to get up and speak for his local newspaper. He advocated the schemes which he wanted the people in his own district to know that he was trying to get for them. The result was that we did not get much done. I suggest that the House should use it in a more general way for suggesting the method or the nature of the schemes.

Mr. Kent

Could the Parliamentary Secretary bring in a suppliementary estimate to carry out these schemes?

Mr. Flinn

I am a Parliamentary Secretary—not a prophet.

Mr. Minch

I had intended to make some suggestions in regard to schemes, but in view of the fact that this Vote is the carrying over of money already ear-marked——

General Mulcahy

On a point of order. I submit that the debate is not confined to the moneys that were simply carried over.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In the debate on Estimates the Deputies range over the administration of previous Votes of this kind and there is no restriction on Deputies suggesting that more proper or more labour-absorbing schemes could have been initiated.

Mr. Minch

I quite appreciate the position, from the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view, that the question of local employment is bristling with difficulties from the point of view of trying to satisfy everybody, but judging by the correspondence that one gets from the different areas where minor relief schemes and works are in progress, and making due allowance for disgruntled individuals who might never be pleased, yet there is no doubt whatever that, on minor relief schemes particularly, a rigid rule ought to be brought in that two or three men out of the one household should not be employed and that such work should be distributed as widely as possible. That kind of thing, undoubtedly, does exist and how to counteract it I do not know, unless some authoritative letter was sent pointing out to those in charge locally, whether gangers or otherwise, that this method of employment will be treated very seriously indeed if it is discovered that there is any abuse taking place. I admit that it is very difficult to bring about justice and fair play for all from an office or a department unless there is somebody in the form of an inspector quietly sent around to see for himself, so that impartial distribution of the work will be given to all as far as is compatible with the scheme and with the money available.

Deputy Norton referred to certain peculiarities of Kildare, and the Parliamentary Secretary stated that generally a vote like this was looked upon by every T.D. as an opportunity to be able to get himself into the local newspapers. That is quite true. It is, to a very large extent, news in that respect. However, I can support Deputy Norton in one thing as regards the peculiarities of Kildare, and that is that there are many towns in the county in which it might be a very good idea to keep the relief work in the urban areas absolutely and totally distinct from the relief work in the rural areas. It would be a good thing and, undoubtedly, it would meet with the approval of the local bodies, the urban councils and the local administration as a whole. Deputy Norton, always, when he is flicking the flies off the Parliamentary Secretary, likes to have a little attack on Cumann na nGaedheal so as to be able to ingratiate himself back again. For that reason, if he had remained, I intended to say a little more as regards his attitude of always attacking this Party when the opportunity presents itself, whether it be small or narrow. However, I do not wish to enter into polemics of that nature now.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

The Parliamentary Secretary has appealed to us to come to his aid in suggesting some big scheme whereby the relief vote may be distributed over the country. I submit that we are not in a position to offer a suggestion, that would be likely to meet with his approval, that would cover the whole country. Our contribution to this debate must necessarily be the outcome of our experience in our various constituencies. We can only be expected, I submit, to approach the matter from a parochial point of view. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary is in the position to have the combined wisdom of 152 Deputies here and I think we may safely leave it on his shoulders to formulate a plan when 152 of us have spoken here. I think I might be pardoned if I refer to the fact that in the constituency I represent these relief votes have been expended on the repair of laneways which, as the Parliamentary Secretary is no doubt aware, lead to the holdings of small ratepayers. These people, although paying rates annually, have never before had facilities offered to them out of the expenditure on the roads that people along the main thoroughfares had. That expenditure of money has given general satisfaction to the people living on these laneways and, indeed, throughout the whole constituency. I submit that no better value could be had for the money expended.

In regard to securing employment through the Labour Exchanges, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be advisable to have the matter examined in each county. What may suit in Mayo may not suit in Meath, where the problem is quite a different one. I can say from my own experience that the obtaining of workers through the labour exchanges for relief work has not been successful in Meath, at least it has not been as successful as I would like to see it. In the past, the county surveyor has given general satisfaction in County Meath and that, of course, may account for the fact that the labour exchanges have not come up to the standard. The Parliamentary Secretary has precluded us from going in detail into the case that we could put up in favour of having the system changed in our constituency. I would, however, ask him to consider the matter from the point of view of whether the conditions in each county are different and call for different treatment.

I should like to point out that we could have the money provided for minor relief schemes expended on small drainage schemes that do not come under the jurisdiction of the country councils. Flooding takes place in various areas along rivers, and because some landholders along the river may not suffer to the same extent as other people, because their houses are not flooded as other houses are flooded, they object to the carrying out of drainage schemes and hinder the county councils, if they were favourably inclined, from going forward with drainage schemes. I would also ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the advisability of removing obstructions from large rivers. We have, of course, schemes in hand for the cleaning of rivers where such schemes would be economic. But, as to the uneconomic schemes that we could not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to undertake up to this, I would ask him to consider the advisability of devoting some of this money towards the removal of obstructions such as deposits of mud in the river beds. It will relieve flooding in many instances and help to give employment.

Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary in relieving unemployment cannot be expected to put up a scheme for the permanent relief of unemployment. I realise that he is only charged with putting up schemes for the temporary relief of unemployment. After a couple of years, when the blessings of the policy of this Government come to be diffused amongst the people, when our agricultural and industrial policy comes to bear fruit, there will be no need for such relief schemes. I am well aware that the Parliamentary Secretary is not charged with the building up of a nation. Therefore, I submit that the removal of the turns on our main roads, the removal of obstructions in our rivers, the repair of laneways, etc., even though they only afford temporary employment, will meet the present needs and that is all the Parliamentary Secretary has to deal with. Deputy Norton, of course, went into a much larger question. It may be that at some date in the very near future we may have to consider, on a Vote such as this, what the relationship between the machine and the worker is to be. My own opinion is that the machine should help man instead of being an obstruction, that where ten men were employed before the machine came into operation one man only may now be employed and the ten men should have some relief because of the operation of that machine. In conclusion, I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the diligence with which he has carried out his work during the past year. At no time had I any fault to find with what the Parliamentary Secretary has done as far as my constituency is concerned.

Mr. Flinn

I should like to read for the information of the House, so that they will have it clearly in their minds, the actual instructions given in relation to the recruiting of labour on minor relief schemes. I am anxious that the House should have the actual information. There were two letters written to the county surveyors who were carrying out these minor relief schemes. The heading is "Minor Relief Schemes—Recruitment of Labour." The first letter is as follows:—

"Please note in connection with employment of labour on minor relief schemes the necessary authority has been obtained to relax the general regulations affecting employment on Government relief schemes to the extent that, subject to the usual rules of precedence as regards the degree of necessitousness of the applicant, eligible persons living beside or within a short distance of the works are to have preference over those living at a greater distance. Subject to this provision, consideration should be given to applicants who have registered with an employment exchange."

On 6th December, as there seemed to be some misunderstanding, there was issued a further letter stating:—

"With reference to circular dated 18/11/1932 on the above subject, please note the circular is not to be construed to mean that the recruitment of labour for a particular work is to be confined to the immediate vicinity of the work. The radius of recruitment will vary with the sum to be expended, i.e., as the amount increases the area from which workers are drawn will increase proportionately."

For instance, if we were doing a hundred pounds job, the area would be very small; if we were doing a thousand pounds job the area would be larger. In no circumstances is the area of recruitment to be restricted in such a manner as to secure a long term of employment for a limited number of workmen.

Mr. Morrissey

I just want to ask one question. I take it, therefore, that the procedure in connection with employment out of State funds which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about earlier in this debate, and which had been sanctioned by the Department of Industry and Commerce, is being departed from?

Mr. Flinn

Direct sanction will come from the Minister for Finance, who is the employer of everybody.

Mr. Morrissey

But the procedure laid down is laid down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

Mr. Flinn

That is so.

Mr. Morrissey

Therefore, in this case there has been sanction for a limited departure from it. Is that so?

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy is correct.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position at the moment to give us approximately—I know it would be impossible to give an exact figure—the number of men who are employed at present on those minor relief schemes?

Mr. Flinn

Minor relief schemes at the present moment are finished.

Mr. Morrissey

They are finished?

Mr. Flinn

Yes. There may be 100 or 200 men scattered all over the country. There were something like 12,600 men employed. You may take it that that is over.

Mr. Brodrick

I am more or less dissatisfied with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, because I expected that after ten months' experience he would be able to inform us as to what would be the best means of relieving unemployment in this country. We know that when the Government of to-day were on these benches they believed they had ideas to deal with it. Several of their Deputies on the Front Bench time and again told us that if they were the Government they would relieve unemployment in a short time. In fact the present Minister for Industry and Commerce told us on one occasion that if unemployment were not relieved within eight months of the Fianna Fáil Government taking up office they should not be the Government of this country. Now we have seen the figures. The intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary are apparently good, but I thought he would have some schemes to offer instead of, as Deputy McMenamin stated, taking corners off roads and continually making bog roads. That gives relief only for a short time, and it is practically worthless, because the men on those schemes get only one or two weeks' employment and are generally from four to five weeks idle.

I think very useful work could be done in the way of water and sewerage works throughout the different counties. Apparently those schemes have been held up for a considerable time. It is not known whether the reason is that the grant is insufficient, or that the local authorities are not taking the interest that they should. I will take, for instance, the constituency I come from—Galway. There are towns there with a population of from 500 to a few thousand. For a number of years there has been nothing done in regard to water or sewerage works. Those towns lack both sewerage and water, and even the smaller villages are very often for months during the summer without a supply of fresh water. The result is that you have your county hospital from time to time filled with fever patients in those particular towns and villages. That comes directly as a result of the bad water and sewerage systems in those areas. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to send one of his inspectors or a few inspectors for a tour throughout the different counties in the Free State. They could visit the different towns from which complaints have been received, and where medical officers have been making reports from year to year for the past 15 or 20 years, and investigate the necessity for a water or a sewerage system in those areas. I can see that the principal trouble with the local authorities is the area of charge. It is apparent at every county council meeting and every board of health meeting throughout the country that they cannot satisfy themselves as to the area of charge for a particular water or sewerage scheme. I know towns of a population of 2,500 where the sewerage system at the present day is an open, flagged sewer, the flags forming the road surface. That is the system in some of the towns, and if the Parliamentary Secretary wants the name of any of them I can name them, even in the County Galway.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy is aware that we spent £260,000 out of relief schemes on public health works of that kind?

Mr. Brodrick

Yes, but I am referring to areas where no attention has been given. I quite agree that there are areas which are well served. There are areas where the local authorities did their work well, where they probably brought the matter to the notice of the Government and had the particular works carried out. It was not done in those areas. Where the local authorities are not prepared to do their duty I would ask the Government to see that that duty is carried out by somebody else. The Government could certainly send some of their inspectors to those towns in the different counties to find out the necessity for such schemes.

I appealed here during a recent debate, I think it was on housing, that an inspector should be sent from the Housing Board to the different counties to find out the number of houses necessary. One of the members of the Housing Board visited the town of Ballinasloe. The Galway Board of Health had a scheme for 100 houses for the whole county. The Inspector of the Housing Board came along and said that for the town of Ballinasloe 156 houses were needed immediately. If you had the same thing applying in the matter of water and sewerage, I think it would, by preventing outbreaks of fever in the country, do a good deal to save the rates.

In regard to water and sewerage systems, you find that every engineer and surveyor down the country has a different specification. If there could be some standard for sewerage pipes, water pipes and fittings, if the one specification applied, and, when works are being done, if all the material could come in bulk to some particular depot for a county, there would be a great saving. Those small works are carried out to different specifications, with the result that if it is a £1,000 job the transport charges, taken in relation to, say, a £5,000 job, are very heavy. If something could be done in that way, you would, I believe, get schemes carried out much more cheaply, and much more employment would be given. I will refer again to a small town with a population of 800, where the water and sewerage system was installed about 18 years ago. An application has come from the waterworks committee in that area for the extension of the water and sewerage mains. It has been before the Government for over 12 months, as far as I know. Nothing has been done so far. In that area the water rate is ?d. in the £. It would be impossible to ask the people in those areas to pay more. If they carry out the works they would have to pay more, and they are paying ?d. in the £ already for the water and sewerage scheme as it stands at the present time. Other areas quite adjacent to that particular town are now paying ?d. also. That is really the reason why I brought up this matter of water and sewerage. I know that the West is not being fairly dealt with. It may be the fault of the local authority.

In another way, I should like that some money would be spent out of this Vote to help the small farmers to clear their lands in particular areas. Already some grants have been given to small farmers in certain areas, and I think it would be a great benefit if the Government would do a little more in that direction. First of all, this gives employment to the particular farmer and his sons, and then it helps to clear his land of stones and bushes and carry out small drainage operations there. In the West of Ireland this would be a great benefit and would give a great amount of employment to the farmer and his sons for a portion of the year. I think every Deputy from the West of Ireland will agree that there is need for that work in the way of removing stones and carrying out drainage works. These things would certainly benefit the land while giving much-needed employment. The lands that are mostly concerned are owned by small farmers.

There is just one other matter that I would wish to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not quite satisfied yet that employment on these relief schemes has been given to the people most deserving. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would make inquiries from the different engineers as to what pressure is being brought on them to employ only a certain section of the people on these works. This thing is pretty general, but not quite so bad as it was six or eight months ago. You have to be a member of a particular organisation in order to get work. I am glad to say that the county surveyors and the assistant county surveyors are doing their best to see that justice is done. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would get up and say that the people entitled to employment will get it irrespective of their political opinions. I brought this sort of thing to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary three or four months ago, and up to the present I got no reply. I was told that the matter was going to be investigated. This was in connection with relief work in the town of Galway. I have here the original letter from the Secretary of the County Galway Board of Health. It was written to Mr. R.G. Emerson.

Mr. Flinn

Is it in connection with relief work?

Mr. Brodrick

Yes.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy raised that question with me before and I said that, as far as I knew, that was not carried out under the Board of Works relief schemes. My recollection is that on inquiry we found it was not work that came under the Board at all. At least that is my recollection.

Mr. Brodrick

Well, the communication I have here is headed "Relief works" and as far as I know there was a sum of £1,200 at the end of the year for relief work in Galway. This letter is from the Secretary to the Board of Health and it is to Mr. R.G. Emerson, Taylor's Hill, Galway. The letter reads:—"Dear Sir, Please note by order of the Board that Michael Tierney, carter, is to be discontinued as from to-night and replaced by Michael Kelly. Patrick Horan is to be taken on as extra carter. It has also decided that Peter Curran, Fair Hill, and Michael Collins, St. Patrick's Avenue, be engaged in addition to existing labourers." The letter is signed J. Gallagher.

Mr. Flinn

Yes; but that is a case which does not come, in any way, under my Department.

Mr. Brodrick

It is headed "Relief Works."

Mr. Flinn

Yes, it may be headed "Relief Works" but that is a purely local thing and does not come in under this Vote.

Mr. Brodrick

Well, now there was £1,200 expended on that relief scheme by the Government. I do not know what Department was in charge of it. I have endeavoured to discuss it and to find out in what Department it is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in control of the administration of that particular work you cannot discuss it. It may have to do with the Local Government Department.

Mr. Flinn

In that particular case I did look around to see if there was any control which I could exercise which would enable me to make an inquiry into the matter. I found there was no way in which I could make an inquiry as it was not in my Department and in that case it would be purely irrelevant and impertinent for me to proceed with the inquiry.

Mr. Brodrick

Well, I put the case before the Parliamentary Secretary and I got no reply.

Mr. Flinn

If the Deputy asked me what was the composition of the moon I would not be supposed to reply. This had nothing to do with my Department.

Mr. Brodrick

At least the Parliamentary Secretary should have let me know at the time that it did not come under his control or the control of his Department, but he did not do that. I think I am within my right in stating that at the time I endeavoured to find out why this man was dismissed. The man who signed the letter was a paid officer of the board of health. The man dismissed was doing his work in a satisfactory way but there is another man appointed at £4 4s. 0d. a week and this £4 4s. 0d. a week is to be taken out of the relief work. It is for some Department to take this matter up. That was why I raised it. I believe even yet that there is pressure needed from the Parliamentary Secretary to see that justice is done in the matter of these unemployment relief works and I hope he will bring on that pressure so as to give justice to the people.

Mr. Kent

I was somewhat hopeful that I would be able to collar some of this £150,000 for a water scheme which is very badly needed in the area from which I come. The Parliamentary Secretary has informed me already that this money has been allocated to minor relief schemes. I wish to place it on the records in the hope that perhaps it may be done under some future scheme. I hope there will be no necessity for further unemployment schemes, but I am afraid, judging from the financial position of the country at the present moment, that in the very near future there will be another large sum passed for unemployment and that there will be need for it. There is a population of 100 persons in the area for which I speak. These are largely dependent on a polluted stream. They are dependent for their water supply for domestic requirements and otherwise on this stream and they have to go a distance of three miles to the village of Castlelyons in order to get water for drinking or for making tea. These poor people have to depend on the farmers who send their milk to the creameries to get a gallon of water every day for their tea. That scheme for these waterworks has been held up for some time owing to the economic state of the country. I would not like, personally, to have a further burden put on the ratepayers by the imposition of extra taxation in the carrying out of this scheme. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication whether he would bring in a relief scheme or a Supplementary Estimate in the near future and he told me he was not a prophet. I certainly agree that he is not a Moses with a magic wand in his hand to relieve unemployment or to solve the unemployment question.

As regards the employment of local labour where schemes are carried out, I would like to mention that in East Cork there is very little employment, in the rural areas particularly. A great grievance down there is that when relief schemes are started, labourers from outside districts walk out of their employment without giving a moment's notice to their employers and they seek to be engaged on those minor relief schemes, which they look upon as very easy work. It is not a question of 21/- or 24/- a week. Not even two guineas or four guineas a week would induce some of those work-shys to come along, so long as they draw the dole which, in my opinion, is a great encouragement to idleness and a great inducement to those men to walk around the towns in country districts. Nothing will induce some people to work on minor relief schemes so long as they can get State assistance in another way.

Certain cases have been brought to my notice within the last couple of weeks with regard to labour exchanges. It appears some men already in employment can be registered in the labour exchange, and when the deputy surveyor wants labourers he cannot find them at the labour exchange because they are actually in employment. That is a matter that should be investigated. In my opinion the giving of employment should be left in the hands of the deputy surveyor. When he wants men he will be in a position to make inquiries from the gangers, who will know what men are out of employment.

Mr. O'Neill

Leave out the gangers.

Mr. Kent

It is their duty to report to the deputy surveyor when they need men, and they are also in a position to know the people who need work. In that way any men badly requiring employment can be brought to the notice of the deputy surveyor.

I know how difficult it is for a Government to solve the unemployment question. Relief schemes are only a temporary remedy. I would like to see the men who are now unemployed getting permanent productive work. They might, for instance, be put breaking stones or steam rolling. In the case of relief schemes, a lot of the work is unproductive, and the money expended is dead for all time. If afforestation schemes were initiated many men could be employed all the year round clearing land and preparing for the plantations.

In the rural areas where there is a great scarcity of labour, men might be usefully employed by farmers thinning mangolds and saving hay. During six or eight months of the year there is no necessity for any young man who is willing to work to remain unemployed in a rural area. If it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to bring in a supplementary estimate, I hope he will bear in mind the great necessity that exists for a water supply scheme in my area. In the town of Fermoy, through which the Blackwater runs, an island is forming, and it is getting larger every year. Some attempt should be made to remove it, because it is a great danger to the health of the people of Fermoy, particularly during the summer months.

Mr. Flinn

Would it not be a good idea if the Deputy wrote all this to me? Then it would get into direct production, if that is possible.

Mr. Kent

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware how my valuable time is taken up. This is the only opportunity I have, and if he notes what I say now it will save me a lot of trouble. When I get home I have to deal with a large amount of correspondence, and then I have to look after cattle, sheep and lambs during the remainder of the week.

Mr. Flinn

As a matter of fact, the Deputy's points will be printed now.

Mr. Kent

I hope conditions in the country will improve very much, and I hope there will be no necessity to bring in other estimates to relieve unemployment. I hope the country will become prosperous and industrious, and that we will have very little unemployment in the future.

Mr. Victory

I rise to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that if minor relief schemes are carried out in my constituency as they were carried out last year they will receive a warm welcome. There are a few improvements, however, that might be made. As Deputy Minch said, we will have disgruntled individuals in every area. I do not agree with Deputy McMenamin that relief schemes are demoralising to the nation. In years gone by I met honest labourers who said time and again: "Why not give us a few shillings more and let us do some work of a reproductive character instead of taking the dole?" I have visited centres in Longford County, and I can assure the Deputy that there is no ill-feeling with regard to the wages paid. Last year in some cases men were not employed through the labour exchanges. So far as I know there are not very many complaints in that respect. There is no need for insurance, because I believe insurance would mean setting up more red tape. The only thing I regret is that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to set aside more money. Last year the only little fault I observed was that some gangers lived ten miles away from their work. That meant that gangers had to be paid extra in order to cover their lodging allowances. In a large number of cases the money was absorbed in that way when it could have been more usefully spent.

I do not approve of gangers working far from home. If they live a distance of five miles they could go home at night, and the large wages which they are now paid because of the extra allowance could be considerably reduced. That, to some extent, would relieve people like myself, who may be approached to try to make everyone a ganger rather than a worker. I would say also that in regard to regulations made by the Department with county surveyors, county councillors should have authority to approach the surveyor in a matter in which he thought the different regulations could be improved and better carried out. With these few suggestions, I welcome this improvement scheme and I only regret that the sum available is not more than it is.

Mr. Everett

I wish to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that notwithstanding the various relief schemes, and the employment given under them, there is one class of workers that have not benefited. I refer to that class that the Ministry for Industry and Commerce alluded to as the wounded soldiers of the economic war. I often heard that term "wounded soldiers" applied in the past to a certain class of farmers. The class that I am referring to now is that of sailors who have no stamped cards because of being employed on British cargo boats. As a result of the economic war these people have lost their employment on British boats. There are many of them in my constituency without employment owing to that state of affairs. These men are too proud to look for charity but they are in very poor circumstances owing to the fact that they have been deprived of their employment and are unable to procure work at the present time. If work were available they are not the class of men the county surveyors would select for the making of roads or work on the roads. I suggest that a certain sum should be put by for relief work to suit that class of men who are unable to obtain maintenance through unemployment insurance through the labour exchanges. There is a class of work that would suit these men on coast roads. In the County Wicklow, you have thousands of tons of gravel which has been washed up by storms and which could be used on coast roads and would give employment to hundreds of these men. Large numbers of them would be capable of employment on that particular class of work. I suggest it is the duty of the Government to make provision for these men.

We heard complaints about industries that have failed because of the departure of the English troops from the County Kildare. A similar position exists in Arklow. In Arklow munition factory men from all parts of Ireland came to Arklow and found employment in that work. When that work ceased these men were not in a position to go away or to return to their own parts of the country. The county council and the board of health have made every provision that they could for these people by taking advantage of the relief schemes. In the last few years, during the tenure of each Government they have promoted sewerage and water schemes and were always ready to avail of every grant in order to provide employment. In Arklow, there is only one kind of work that the rural workers could do and that would be the opening up of coast roads. Through the Local Government Board, the three urban authorities, and the county council in Wicklow, have, in previous years, agreed to take over liability for the maintenance of that particular road, and they would be prepared to contribute their share if the Government would at least, bear 50 or 60 per cent. of the cost. That would be a benefit and an asset to the various towns as well as absorbing a large number of men in those areas for whom there is no work available at the present time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this suggestion favourably. In the rural areas, I agree with Deputy Norton, these men are not given agricultural work. They are employed on stone breaking and work like that and they are entitled to consideration under unemployment insurance. It is not a question of making ditches and roadways on estates which is treated under the Unemployment Insurance Act as agricultural work. It cannot be contended that men employed on quarries, simply because they are employed on relief work, are not doing similar work to county council employees engaged on such work who must be insured. That class of work is altogether different from the work of men employed on the land. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary through the Department of Local Government, or the Department of Industry and Commerce, will assist public bodies in connection with coast roads in giving employment, as these bodies are desirous of taking advantage of any relief grants that may be available. The Parliamentary Secretary asked for suggestions. I do not agree that a county councillor should take responsibility on himself for hundreds of men employed on different works as was suggested by one Deputy.

Mr. Victory

My point was that county councillors should investigate in order to see that the regulations sent down by the Department of Local Government were observed.

Mr. Everett

We have had several schemes in connection with relief work but I have not known any cases where the country engineers did not comply with the orders of the Department. Where you have such large numbers of men employed, some men who fail to secure employment will always have a grievance. In minor relief schemes the county councils have nothing to do with the work; it is a matter between the engineer and the Parliamentary Secretary. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the stand taken up by him to treat these matters in a non-Party way. Certain political organisations in the past got it into their heads that these relief schemes were intended to give work only to their friends. If you did not belong to their Party you did not get work, but as soon as the matter was looked into, and the engineers took it in hand, that condition of things ceased. We maintained that no matter what a man's politics are he should get work.

I sympathise with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who is in the Chair, that he is not in his place on these benches, at the moment, to advocate the grievances of his constituents in Clare. If he were in his place we would hear about the beauties of Clare and its salubrious climate. Although not here, vocally, at the moment, I am sure he will use his influence with the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of his constituents. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary as he does not agree with the first point put up to him of putting a lesser number of men at work at higher wages, that he should consider the alternative which is adopted in other countries, that is, that the men should work a lesser number of hours, so as to absorb more men in the work. That is the only solution. He asked for suggestions and I am giving him some. Probably in a few years' time he will be forced to accept the principle of lesser hours and more men. I welcome this scheme. Unlike Deputy McMenamin, I face facts and recognise that we have unemployment. While we are unable to put men to work in industry we must be prepared to give them sustenance. Having made these few suggestions I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear specially in mind the wounded soldiers, to whom I have alluded in connection with this Vote. They are the first concern. The farmers have got their share. We have heard all their grievances and an effort has been made to satisfy them, and rightly so. We support it. Now that they have been satisfied, for the time being at least, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Executive Council will devote some of their time to consider the men in the towns who have to pay high rents—no exemption for them—and high rates, without any consideration whatsoever. The result is that while the country people, the farming and agricultural community, have received all the consideration from all the Governments here, we find very little talk here in the interests of the people in the towns. I say that it is necessary to do something for the towns because nothing has been done on their behalf by any Government. They have to pay, out of their wages, their unemployment insurance and other charges, along with high rents and high rates, and with nothing in return. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider these points and get on with the work as soon as possible.

Mr. Dolan

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has given consideration to the suggestion I made at the commencement of this session when he asked for suggestions for relieving the situation created by unemployment. At that time I suggested that he might be able, in the rural areas, to work in a scheme of making a grant in aid towards the drainage schemes, many of which have been held up all over the country on account of the difficulties of complying with the terms of the Act. Deputy Kelly has made a similar suggestion to-day, and since I made this suggestion at the commencement of this session I have discovered that not alone in my own constituency in County Leitrim are there many schemes ready, but I understand that in practically all the congested counties in the Saorstát there are many schemes held up. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary again that he has a good opportunity there of spending money usefully. It will be reproductive. In the congested districts there is no land for division. In most of the congested districts, particularly in the County Leitrim, with which I am best acquainted, there is no land to divide amongst the growing population there. It would be a great advantage to the farmers in that county if the best land they have, which is now flooded, were drained, and the best land is flooded because it is along the river banks. Their crops are being lost, or a portion of them, every year; and some years, when there is intensive flooding, it is a calamity that faces the people. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will be faced with difficulties in working in a scheme whereby he would provide additional grants-in-aid.

If I may refer to the question of arterial drainage only in passing, I think that he has discretionary powers as to the amount of the grant-in-aid under the Arterial Drainage Act. If he would give consideration to that in working out a scheme to relieve unemployment, where suggestions are made for an additional grant-in-aid in exceptional circumstances where the rates are already high and where it would be perhaps an uneconomic proposal to carry out the arterial drainage scheme, I think the Parliamentary Secretary, in his dual capacity, if I may say so, in charge both of the administration of the Arterial Drainage Act and in his capacity as administrator of the relief of unemployment, could work in the two. As he seems to be anxious to get useful suggestions, I hope that he will agree with me that it is a useful suggestion.

Mr. Flinn

It certainly has not been forgotten.

Mr. O'Neill

I should like to make a few remarks to stress the necessity of trying to relieve the urban problem in connection with these relief schemes, and I should like to support and emphasise the problem that has been put before us by Deputy Everett with regard to seaport towns. I do not want to make any sort of appeal that might be purely local or parochial but I cannot help referring to a very important place which I represent in this House, which is part of the County Cork. There are towns there with a population of over 1,500 people, and they are hit by a variety of peculiar circumstances, with some of which the Parliamentary Secretary, as another Cork representative, is very well acquainted. The particular problem that confronts our maritime or coastal towns is one which is very difficult of solution, and it is very difficult to get practical relief schemes that will come to the assistance of men of the type mentioned by Deputy Everett, such as seafaring men who have lost their employment through the failure of fishing, through the depression in shipping, and through the closing up of dockyards and ship repairing yards, but in the County Cork it is a very particular problem.

At the same time, I must thank the Parliamentary Secretary for going into the peculiar phases of this matter last year with me, and I think we hit on some things which, though they might not have had the practical effect we would have wished them to have, still that should not deter us from going ahead with the resources at our disposal. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, with the co-operation of the members here, will perhaps reach, if not necessarily the best solution, at least as practical a solution as can be arrived at. I want to protest against the fact that we in the County Cork have never got our proper share of these schemes, whether minor relief schemes or other kinds of schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary, naturally, being a Corkman, has a very deep and sensitive regard for fair play, and in this respect it is perhaps to avoid any accusation of discrimination or favouritism that he has gone to the other extreme, and withheld from Cork what should be properly due to it under the scheme. I should like to remind him of the fact that this County and City of Cork represents one-eighth of the whole of the Free State, both in its area and its valuation, and if one looks at the mileage of its roads it will be seen that it is far and away ahead of any other county. It is more than double the mileage of the next biggest county, which is Donegal. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 miles of roads in Cork. Having regard to the extent of the mileage of the roads, when money was being allocated for expenditure on road work, it will be seen that Cork County did not get, through its County Council, a proper allotment of that money. Of course, we are dealing now with schemes that were arranged formally, or at least with the completion of schemes sanctioned up to last March. For the future I would recommend the Parliamentary Secretary to see that in all these schemes and all these plans Cork will get its one-eighth share, and then he can deal with the other 25 counties in any way he wishes.

Mr. Flinn

I should like, if possible, to get this Vote before the Dáil adjourns to-day. I do not want to take up any time unnecessarily if the Dáil would give us the Vote to-day. We have certain work on hands which we want to get on with, and we are using money for which we want authorisation.

Mr. Coburn

I will not take up much time.

Mr. Flinn

I do not require even time to reply.

Mr. Coburn

I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is in rather good humour this morning; that he is adopting a cooing attitude towards the Opposition. There is an explanation for that attitude. He put it in a simple way. He asked Opposition Deputies to help him in trying to solve a problem which, in my opinion, it is utterly impossible to solve, and at the same time, satisfy everyone; that is the problem of unemployment. As far as I am concerned, I feel great difficulty in speaking on the Vote at all, because, as I have stated previously in the Dáil, as well as in the country, I have not much faith in the power of any government, present or future, to solve this problem. I hold the opinion that the more governments try to solve the unemployment problem the more unemployment they create in other spheres. However, as it is the intention of the Government to try to solve this problem, as far as lies in their power, it is our duty to help them. As to whether the present system of recruiting labour is satisfactory or not, I would say that, even if the Parliamentary Secretary had the wisdom of Solomon, he would find that this question is very difficult of solution. So long as the demand is greater than the supply you will always have dissatisfaction. As we have had labour exchanges operating in this country for the past 13 or 14 years, and as they have cost the country a considerable sum of money, I think it would not be wise to adopt any other scheme for the moment. My experience in regard to the employment of labour on relief schemes is that in addition to the fact that the demand is greater than the supply a great deal of the criticism of the Government is brought about by over-enthusiasm on the part of many supporters in the different counties. I often sympathise with people placed in a position like that of the Parliamentary Secretary, who are honestly endeavouring to do their best with the means at their disposal, because their efforts are often set at nought by what I might call dishonest propaganda carried out by certain of their supporters.

In connection with these relief schemes, it has come to my notice that men who are fortunate enough to secure employment on one of these schemes were actually charged with being traitors and hypocrites because they accepted work and took money from a Fianna Fáil Government. These were men who, perhaps, did not vote for the Government. Another matter which gives rise to criticism of the Government is that Fianna Fáil clubs are established all over the country. I have no objection to that, as they are entitled to have them. It is pretty well known, however, that certain men who occupy positions of importance in these clubs make it their business to visit labour exchanges and also to call upon county surveyors and almost threaten that unless they give employment to a certain percentage of people of a certain political persuasion in a certain district they will hear more about it. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out when I say—and it applies also to the Minister for Local Government, who has a great deal to do with relief work in the form of water and sewerage schemes in the various towns—that he is inundated with letters from supporters all over the country with reference to the question of employment under these schemes. As I have said, I sympathise with men in the position of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I take the view that it should be my concern, as it should be the concern of every Deputy, to secure employment for anybody and everybody, no matter what may be their political persuasion or their religion. If the people in general would co-operate a little more and be a little more charitable in their attitude towards their fellow-men, a great deal more could be done and a great deal more credit would be given the Parliamentary Secretary, as representing the Government.

In connection with the question of relief schemes in general, I am aware that many schemes carried out through the medium of the Board of Works have been of great advantage to the district in which they have been carried out. I am referring to the repair of side roads and cul-de-sac roads that do not come within the ambit of the county councils and are precluded from being kept in repair out of the rates. In these cases the work carried out has given general satisfaction. As regards the point raised by Deputy Everett in regard to men living in seaport towns, I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for giving that matter his immediate attention. A large number of men all along the east coast, at Clogherhead, Blackrock, Dundalk, and right on to Greenore and Omeath, depend for their livelihood to a large extent upon fishing and also upon the shipping business. For various reasons both those businesses are in a very deplorable state at the moment. If the Parliamentary Secretary can do anything to relieve that particular type of person in the near future it will be a work for which he will receive general commendation from all Deputies in this House who represent those particular areas.

I should like also, if it were possible, that the Parliamentary Secretary would do something by way of assisting drainage schemes, and also expedite the carrying out of schemes which have already had the approval of the local bodies concerned. I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to a drainage scheme known as the Rampart River Drainage Scheme, Dundalk. It has been an old sore as regards the Dundalk Urban Council, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has come across this particular case in the files. In fact we are inclined down there to use the same expression towards the Parliamentary Secretary as he used on a recent occasion here in referring to Deputy Pattison, when he called him Rip Van Winkle. I think the Board of Works have gone to sleep on this question of the Rampart River Drainage Scheme. We find it absolutely impossible to get any satisfaction whatever from the Parliamentary Secretary or his officials in connection with this matter. I know there have been certain small local difficulties in the way, but I think, seeing that this work is absolutely necessary, seeing also that it would provide a large amount of employment, that the urban council and the county council have made what is, in my opinion, a very generous contribution towards the capital cost of such a scheme, and that the Ministry of Finance were also prepared to make a very large contribution, it is extraordinary that some definite decision cannot be come to by the Board of Works in regard to this very important matter. I quite understand and realise that there were certain difficulties raised, and raised perhaps on the part of the Dundalk Urban District Council. I am quite prepared to take a rap on the fingers on that head from the Parliamentary Secretary, but alternative schemes were being proposed by the engineers, by Sir Philip Hanson and others a few years ago, and up to the moment we have had absolutely no word from the Parliamentary Secretary as to whether that scheme has been definitely turned down or not. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if it is at all possible, to give this matter his immediate attention for the reasons that I have stated; first, that it would give much-needed employment; secondly, that it is very essential to relieve from flooding a very large area that is at the moment affected; and thirdly, that it would be the means, if I may say so, of giving the Parliamentary Secretary a little rest from the criticisms that have been levelled at him during the past year or so by the various local bodies.

Mr. Jordan

I do not intend to delay the House very long in connection with this debate. Having listened to the views put forward by different Deputies I should like to say at the outset, if my contribution to the debate would be of any assistance to the Parliamentary Secretary, that I suggest that there should be concentration on bog roads and bog drainage in connection with the expenditure of this money. He has asked us to give our views as to the best way in which this money should be spent. Like other Deputies I find it very difficult to, as it were, nationalise a scheme, and I fear that I must confine my ideas to the immediate surroundings that I see in my own area. The drainage of bogs and the development of bog roads would be the most representative work, in my opinion at any rate, for the utilisation of this money. The question is what form should bog drainage take. There are certain areas in County Galway where, instead of three or four or probably five or six small drainage schemes, the Parliamentary Secretary would be better advised if he would get his engineers when going to that area to try to influence the people there to accept a big drainage scheme that would take the water, as it were, from the minor schemes that those people themselves can carry out, because the situation is such that one big scheme carried out by the Board of Works would meet the demands of the people much better than two or three or four or five smaller schemes. I said at the outset that I did not intend to delay the House, and I have just received stable information that it is not advisable to do so.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it were possible for him to use some of this money for the development or making safe of piers in certain seaboard towns. As Deputy Good said the other day, there seems to be a difference of opinion sometimes as to whether those piers come under the Fisheries Department or under the county council. I think that when moneys are going to county councils in future it would be well if some were earmarked to be utilised for the making safe of certain piers in certain parts of the West of Ireland, where incidentally they would benefit the peat scheme that is at present on foot.

There were other matters which I intended to refer to, but I do not believe that it would be advisable to do so now, seeing that, as I say, I have received stable advice to be as brief as possible. I should like to say this, however, that there were references made to political victimisation. I think the people who made those references were rather indiscreet. One particular Deputy said the surveyors in his area were now being swayed by political motives more than they were some months ago. I do not think that that was very complimentary to the surveyors in that particular county. I happen to know the county, and I will say that, through all stages, the surveyors in that county gave employment in the most deserving cases, and they were never swayed to my knowledge in any political way, no matter what Government was in office. I resent the remark that was made about those surveyors who are not here to defend themselves. At all times they have given work to deserving cases, and they are doing so now. With these few remarks, I will permit the Parliamentary Secretary to begin his reply, for he has now only ten minutes.

Mr. Flinn

By the kindness of the House, it has been arranged that we should get this Vote by 2 o'clock. It is quite impossible to deal with the matters raised in the discussion on this Vote by the various Deputies in the ten minutes that is left to me. I will deal with the points raised in inverse order. First of all, to begin with, the suggestion that Cork has suffered in its allocation of these grants, because of the Parliamentary Secretary who had the administration of them is a gross libel on the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. O'Neill

On Cork?

Mr. Flinn

Cork did not get one penny to which it was not entitled, and it did not get less than one penny to which it was entitled. The question of minor drainage schemes was raised. The difficulty about minor drainage schemes is that 90 per cent. of them are uneconomic. We have the greatest possible difficulty in persuading the local councils to go on with them and to do the drainage. Immediately you start to do a drainage scheme out of unemployment money you are getting yourself into a hopeless difficulty and making an attempt to do an impossibility. That is my difficulty. The second difficulty is that you want to carry out these schemes of unemployment work in the autumn and winter. Everybody knows that that is the cycle when unemployment is highest apart, of course, from certain districts with the hungry July complex, but the period for these works is in the winter and autumn. But those are not the periods in which to carry out drainage works. I am anxious to know how we should help drainage schemes out of unemployment money. I am quite frank with the House on this matter. I do not know at the present moment how to use unemployment money on minor drainage schemes without wrecking the whole position. If it could be done I would be very anxious to do it.

Deputy Everett raised the specific question of unemployed sailors. Those are people who have been, unfortunately, hit very hard, apart from other workers in certain areas. But where there were unemployment schemes near the ports efforts have been made to see that in relation to these works some preference will be given to sailors. I think that is a fair thing to do in relation to a specific problem of that kind. If we can mitigate the rigour of the rule we undoubtedly will do so. Deputy Victory has raised a question about the ten-mile gangers. The object of the ten-mile gangers was to try to get rid of what is naturally happening where you have a ganger out of the immediate district. In that case not merely is there a liability to unfairness, but there is an immense increase of the liability to individual unfairness. We have asked the county surveyors, who have had experience of the two schemes, to appoint gangers outside the immediate district. Except for the difficulty that Deputy Victory has put up that you have to pay these gangers more than the ordinary ganger the approval of the county surveyors is in favour of the distance ganger. There is a difficulty of the extra payment.

Mr. Victory

Why not a five-mile limit?

Mr. Flinn

We will look into that. You have supervising gangers and ten-mile gangers who would be supposed to be outside the local family personal and friendly interest, acting as charge-hands on individual schemes. Those charge-hands are not being paid an excessive rate and are not taking a very large amount out of the relief funds. Deputy Kent wants afforestation. Afforestation as temporary relief is impossible. If £10,000,000 were put into the possession of somebody and he was told to administer it during a number of years for the purpose of dealing with unemployment, afforestation would not be so difficult a matter. You would have to take three years' schemes. I must admit that I am very much disappointed personally in the matter of afforestation in regard to using it for the relief of sporadic unemployment. I thought at one time that afforestation could be used much more effectively in unemployment schemes.

Deputy Brodrick raised a question of providing out of this grant moneys for the reclamation of land. A sum of £10,000 is being spent for reclamation in the Gaeltacht and a considerably larger portion is being asked for by the Department of Agriculture for work in the Gaeltacht, a sum amounting to £50,000 or £60,000. That is to be used for the purpose of land reclamation. As far as reclamation in the Gaeltacht and the amount required goes every consideration will be given to the matter.

Deputy Minch complained that in some cases two men out of one house have been employed. That should not have happened. I recognised that any case of that kind is a defect in the scheme and it is the business of everyone of us to co-operate so as to see that such cases should not occur again. I will give every help to prevent these cases arising.

Deputy Norton raised the question of the Insurance Acts. The difficulty in this respect in minor relief schemes is definitely this, that the normal amount of employment on minor relief schemes was never previously insurable. That is roughly the position in 90 per cent of these schemes. Assume for a moment that employment on minor relief schemes was employment that came under the heading of insurable occupation, a man would have 12 weeks in it before he would get any benefit. The only effect of such insurance would be to deplete the unemployment fund of the total amount of the insurance and to hand that over to somebody else who was not at all interested. That is one of the difficulties as to the question of relief works being insurable or not. That matter has been submitted for judicial decision and it has nothing to do with me in this Vote. All I can tell the House is that the works now carried out are precisely the same kind of works that have been carried out for the last the years. The principle of all this relief is non-insurane.

Deputy Norton raised the general question of unemployment. I would be glad to see this House settle down to a discussion of that kind and to try to get away from most of the long words which are being used. The whole world for the last five years has been talking about this matter. There is a whole lot of words used about the "consuming capacity" and "purchasing power" and "currency" of which people do not even know the meaning. I am not now referring to Deputy Norton. People use all these long words and quarrel over them. I sincerely hope we will have a discussion on the question of unemployment here some day. As I have only one minute left, I simply thank the House very heartily and sincerely for the tone in which this discussion has been carried on to-day. It has been discussed very fully and every Deputy has tried to help on the job.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Tuesday next.

The House adjourned at 2 o'clock until 3 o'clock on Tuesday next, 11th July, 1933.