Vote No. 10 deals purely with staffs. It includes the staff which is used upon the administration of all schemes. It specifically covers the staffs used on the administration of the relief schemes. There is an increase of £13,788 this year which is practically all represented by an increase of staff. The net increase is accounted for by extra assistance under the provision of public works and buildings and new works, and with the necessity of providing the establishment branch with sufficient staff to meet the requirements of special works and to make provision in relation to the increase under unemployment schemes. Previously the unemployment relief Vote did not bear the cost of its own administration. The cost of administration was charged up to the Office of Public Works. This year, as the House is aware, there is a very large increase in the unemployment relief Vote to a sum of £1,565,000. Provision is made in that Vote this year for dealing with its administration.
As the House is aware, the Board of Works covers a huge variety of individual activities which it would be quite impossible to discuss in a general way. This particular Vote is more or less put down so that Deputies who have any particular questions to ask in relation to the work done under the activities of the Board of Works may do so, and may also satisfy themselves that every possible progress is being made.
The relief Vote of 1935-36, as Deputies are aware, consisted of a nominal sum of £500,000, and of a real sum of £350,000. The difference between the total amount voted, and the part which was a re-vote, was due to schemes which were already in process of being carried out and of being financed from previous votes. In this particular year the House has had a return in the form of maps and other particulars showing the complete distribution of that particular fund. They have also had certain maps which were intended to be of an informative character—to enable them to criticise the fairness, the equality and the efficiency of the distribution of those funds relative to the condition of unemployment or distress, as the case may be, in the country. These were put up for the purpose that Deputies would be in a position effectively and constructively to criticise the administration of that matter. I need only say that any criticism of that kind which any Deputy can bring to our assistance will be regarded not in any way as a criticism but as a help. Of the total of £371,000 available the sum of £142,000 was devoted to local government and public health schemes of one kind or another. The distribution was about even between the counties and urban areas. The sum of £25,000 was for land reclamation, seed oats, potatoes and matters of that kind. The sum of £50,000 was allocated to peat, and £4,500 to minor mineral investigation. The Office of Public Works was given £125,000 for minor relief schemes, and a total of £20,000 for other schemes of various kinds.
This year there was made, as the House is aware, an experiment in relation to another method of employment under the relief funds. There has been expressed throughout the whole country, and very strongly, I think, by members of all Parties in the House, that both from the material advantages and the social advantages that would be gained, it was desirable that, as far as humanly possible, men who were getting unemployment assistance money should have the opportunity of doing work for it. That problem was investigated purely as a problem, as to whether that could be done, and, if so, how it could be done, and what would be the reactions of one kind or another to the attempt. The line of country which was adopted was that, in proportion to the amount of money which a person was receiving from the unemployment assistance fund, he should, in the form of standard wages for work for which he was fitted in his own district, be given the opportunity of earning a certain sum representing more than that unemployment assistance. The actual formula used was to take the value of the free beef which the unemployment recipient was getting and the amount of unemployment assistance which he was getting, and to add to that 40 per cent.—to give a man as near as we could the amount of work at the standard local rates which would mean that amount. As Deputies can realise, it was not possible to do that with absolute accuracy in every case. What I mean is that while one man might get a little more than the 40 per cent., another man might only get 39 per cent. in the actual working out of a scheme. But, in practice, a very close approximation was obtained. It is obvious, under this scheme, that in a working month of 24 days different men would be getting different amounts. They would be getting the same rate per day, but they would be getting a different number of days' employment. Under some schemes it ran from a difference of 9 days in 24 to 16 days in 24. That difference would seem to suggest some very difficult administrative problems for any one who had to try and do normal work with gangs which would apparently, vary in that manner.
Another objection which was in our minds and in the minds of other people was that men under those circumstances would not work well; even if they wanted to work well, that the conditions of disorganisation and dislocation which would be represented by a condition of that kind would have very unfavourable reactions on the output from the scheme. In practice none of the difficulties that were anticipated arose. I may say that this experiment was carried out in seven counties, in two of the boroughs, in a couple of the smaller towns, under a variety of men and supervisors and in a great variety of conditions, the intention being to ascertain the facts. Somebody has defined an experiment as a question asked of nature. These were questions asked of the whole social condition here, and all the administrative conditions, as to whether a plan of this kind could successfully, comfortably and with the agreement of those concerned, be put in operation. All I can say—and I had very intimate personal acquaintance with what was going on; I think I saw most of the schemes personally, and I had an opportunity of discussing them with those who supervised and worked on them—is that, from the point of view of showing that these things can administratively be done and done with the agreement and consent and co-operation of all concerned, the success of those experiments was absolute.
The next question was whether the work itself was likely to be well done. Here again I can say from experience that the work was as well done under this system as it could be done under any system with the same men. A further difficulty which arose was that it was suggested that, even when the administrative difficulties were got over, it would be only used upon work of a very elementary character. Well, it has now embraced practically the whole ambit of possible local government activity, from the most elementary work in the sense of widening and straightening roads and clearing hedges, to the carrying out of a public health scheme, a scheme of sewerage under the strictest technical supervision. It certainly did not seem at first sight that the rotational operation, men working two or three days a week, a gang which varied practically every day, would be the material which anyone would choose for the purpose of carrying out a technical scheme which had to measure up in the end, both financially and technically, to the highest possible and most critical standard. We were fortunate in finding a county surveyor who was satisfied that that could be done and such a scheme has been put into operation both from the technical and from every other point of view. There is every reason to believe that it is going to be an outstanding success.
I remember when the scheme was first mooted that I asked the question of myself: "Even if it can be done, at what extra cost can it be done?" The evidence in our possession at the moment bears out the assurance that we were given that it can be done at as low a cost as it can be done by any other possible system of administration, given proper and sound technical supervision. That has to some extent solved one of the biggest difficulties which we had in relation to a certain portion of the Relief Vote of £1,565,000 as a State contribution and a further £825,000 as a local contribution, making a total with the £110,000 in Vote 69 of £2,500,000. It is intended this year on relief schemes where the system is applicable and to the degree to which it is applicable to use this method for the purpose (1) of getting value for the U.A. expenditure which is now being made and (2) for the purpose of the very high social value that will be obtained in enabling men to work who are willing to work and who desire to work.
I would rather like to say that our experience in relation to men who have been called to work in this matter has been entirely satisfactory. The proportion of men who apparently do not want to work is very low. The proportion of men who are eagerly anxious to work, instead of receiving money for nothing, is very high indeed. As I have told the House, I have had the pleasure of seeing these gangs at work and I have come in personal contact with a good many of them. I am perfectly satisfied that the vast majority of those at present on the U.A. panel will actively welcome an opportunity of this kind. There were a couple of cases where there was a proportion of people who did not, but it was very remarkable the way the scheme seemed to produce its own antidote to feelings of that kind. What I might call the better elements, the elements anxious to work, morally dominated those who had another point of view in the matter. There were only a couple of cases in which there was any difficulty at the beginning, and I am satisfied that at the end they were working as well as any gang and as willingly and happily as any gang could be expected to work under those conditions.
I think, with that preface, I might ask the House to do, as I am very glad to say in the last few years it has done, put at the disposal of those who have to administer these funds, to do those works, their experience and their co-operation. In the case of these rotational schemes, it would quite easily have been possible while these experiments were going on for people to criticise them destructively, to impede the possibility of their success. I have to pay a tribute to men of all Parties in the sense that, while these experiments were going on widespread all over the country and while I am aware men of all Parties were very closely in contact with them, I received from no one anything but constructive criticism and co-operation. I hope that that atmosphere which we have succeeded in building up in relation to this matter will continue. If so, I believe that it is probably the biggest thing which tends towards efficiency of administration. The House is aware of the distribution which took place last year. It is aware of the atmosphere in which the work has been done, and I shall be very glad indeed if, in relation to relief work—both now and in relation to the larger funds this year—they will give us co-operation. At the same time, there is an understanding to day that the Votes of the Board of Works generally, that is Votes Nos. 11, 69 and 73, can all be discussed on this Vote to-day.
