Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Employment Schemes (Resumed).

Mr. Keyes

When the debate was adjourned last night I was discussing the necessity for the secrecy in which minor relief schemes were being shrouded by the Office of Public Works, and whether such secrecy was desirable. I was indicating that we had been invited by the Parliamentary Secretary to submit schemes which we considered of a useful character to enable his Department to give all possible relief under this Vote. I was wondering, and am still wondering, why it should be found necessary for the Department to shroud the schemes in secrecy even when these schemes had been definitely determined upon and sent out to the different county surveyors.

Why should they not be available to Deputies? I am not so guileless as to believe that all Deputies are kept in ignorance of these schemes. In fact, I have reason to believe that certain Deputies have been made aware of the schemes which have been adopted. I want to hear if that is so, because I contend that all Deputies should be treated similarly in having made available to them what schemes have been adopted for a particular programme, what schemes have been deferred for further consideration, and what schemes have been rejected. I think that would be only reasonable and fair to Deputies, no matter what Party they belong to, who are trying to get works done in various areas and it would avoid a good deal of correspondence between Deputies and the Department. If we were made aware of the programme which had been adopted for a particular season we could then bend our energies to having the rejected ones considered for the following season.

I have expressed my views and, perhaps, my speech has been more or less in the nature of a general complaint. I want again to reiterate that the Vote is supposed to serve two purposes: relief of unemployment and the carrying out of useful schemes of work for the improvement of local amenities. I am not unmindful of the good work that has been done under the Vote, but I am suggesting that it has not succeeded to anything like the extent which is possible with the same amount of money if the rotational scheme had not been introduced. I put the first item first and that is the relief of unemployment. As to that I say that the schemes are a ghastly failure as far as they go because the money paid to the recipients has not given any reasonable relief in the homes of the workers participating. They were not provided with the necessary means for maintaining their homes in any kind of decency or frugal comfort.

The fact of spreading a certain amount of money over an unnecessarily large number is not a sufficient justification; it is, I suggest, an abuse of the main and real purpose of the relief schemes. They ought to be relief schemes in the true sense of the word. I have stated already that that is done for the purpose of saving the Unemployment Assistance Fund. I repeat that and I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he has only a certain amount of money to disburse upon relief schemes it would be much better to give reasonable earnings to a reasonable number of people over the period which can be covered rather than to spread it over a much larger number than it is capable of supporting in reasonable or frugal comfort.

I gave an instance last night of a man who was alleged to be getting relief under these schemes and whose earnings approximated to 6/- a week ever a stated period, out of which he has to maintain his wife and seven children. I do not think I could stress that too much. Perhaps that is not a typical case, but it is by no means an unique case. If that is so, I think it calls for close consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary to see if such hardships are being inflicted, because as long as that man was called to that work he must go there.

The Parliamentary Secretary maintains that it was marvellous that the thing had worked out so successfully and that the maximum results had been achieved. I contend that a much better result in the actual achievement of work could have been got without the rotational scheme. I am not complaining of the type of work done, but I am contending that more of that kind of work could be done with the same outlay by having men working for longer periods than two or three or four days per week. In addition, I suggest that it is unreasonable to ask us to believe that men of all types, who are forced into these schemes without any question as to suitability for the work, can give a proper return to the people in charge. I have in mind the case of coach painters, who are not used to handling anything heavier than a lining brush, being forced into these schemes. I know of one such man, highly skilled in his craft, who was forced to make concrete footpaths, and if he did not accept the work he would lose his benefit at the exchange. I met a shoemaker last night who was disallowed benefit for refusing to work in a quarry. That man never worked with anything heavier that a wax-end and he was supposed to work in a quarry with a crowbar. Yet we are asked to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is getting results from the flotsam and jetsam of suitable and unsuitable types of people, over broken periods, which can compare favourably with that of men fitted for the work, working over a normal period from end to end of a job. I do not think that squares with common sense.

I further suggest that a distance limit should be fixed over which men should not be asked to travel to work. It is unreasonable to expect that a man can travel six, seven, or eight miles to and from his work. I do not know personally of any case in which a man was asked to travel further than that to this work, but I am told that there are cases in other counties where men have to travel longer distances. But I can speak from personal knowledge of men being asked to go seven miles.

I heard of a case a fortnight ago of nine men being struck off benefit because they refused to travel six miles each way to their work, or 12 in all. How these men could be expected to perform an average day's work after travelling that distance passes my comprehension. I say it is manifestly unfair. If schemes were put into operation within a reasonable distance outside which men should not be supposed to travel, there would be some reason for pointing to them as evidence of the success of the schemes and of the willingness of the workers. If those objectionable features were done away with, the schemes would work out more satisfactorily and be of some assistance in the homes they are supposed to relieve, as well as giving a much better return to the taxpayer, whose money is being expended on these works throughout the country.

Mr. Dillon

I prefer to commence what I have to say to-day by taking the opportunity of repeating a tribute I have paid on previous occasions to the Board of Works. I think the machinery for allocating these relief works, the way they are allocated in rural areas, and the promptitude in which any reasonable proposal put up is fairly examined, reflects immense credit on the administration of the Board of Works. Anyone who inspects the maps that have been prepared, and that are to be found in the Library, showing the distribution of the works which the board has put through its hands during the past year, will see that it is a model of administration. I take this particular occasion for saying, as one who has to do a good deal with Government Departments, that the application form devised by the Board of Works on which to make submissions for minor relief grants is an admirable and a skilfully drawn document, and immensely facilitates the task of those who find it their duty to bring under the board's attention works that require to be done. It is a good thing, when one has an opportunity of complimenting a Minister for whose political judgment one has no regard, that I should take it to congratulate him; as in the distribution of grants of this kind nothing is more important than the impartiality and detachment which is a general rule now and which should be maintained no matter what Government is in office. It is a pleasure to me to find the Parliamentary Secretary and myself in agreement about that, and it makes it all the more painful that I have to direct the attention of the House to what is, in my judgment, a mean and contemptible departure from that spirit. All Deputies, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Independents, have to the best of their ability directed the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to schemes that might possibly be undertaken. At the foot of the form to which I have referred there are three possible kinds of recommendations mentioned—ordinary recommending, recommending for special consideration, and recommending very strongly. Many of us, when we weigh up the various recommendations, do, I think, carefully indicate our choice of them, and, as a result of that, work has been greatly helped. I understand that within the last week every Fianna Fáil T.D. in this House was given a list of minor relief schemes that either had been carried out or were scheduled to be carried out.

Mr. Flinn

That is not so.

Mr. Dillon

All I know is that this matter was not raised in the House until representations were made privately to the Board of Works. Documents were circulated.

Mr. Flinn

To my recollection no document was circulated giving a list of works. If the Deputy will give way, I want to repeat what he said, that it is of the highest possible importance that there should be complete understanding and acceptance by the whole House that the impartiality and fairness of the administration of these things should be maintained as anything that would affect it would, in my opinion, be deplorable. The fact that that spirit has been there for a period of years is the best proof that no departure from that will take place. No list of schemes, as far as I know, was given out. What happened was this, as I told the House last night: we have done some 9,000 or 10,000 minor relief schemes, and on four or five occasions I appealed to the House to come to my aid and to give me schemes. I am running out of schemes. I have used every possible human effort to get in schemes. I am entitled to go to members of my own Party and to put upon them a definite obligation to help me in the matter, and I have sent out to them a list saying that I wanted schemes for next year. I am short of schemes. They will be treated only on their merits, but let me have them. That is what is happening. That intimation and invitation I give to the whole House. There was a time when the getting of schemes by Deputies was something for which Deputies felt they owed gratitude towards someone. There was some kudos in getting schemes. Now the whole position has been altered. In the Department we are more grateful to Deputies who put forward good schemes than they can be to us. We are anxious that they should do so. My reason for intervening is because I value as the highest possible asset to this organisation the attitude of confidence in its impartiality which has been built up, and it is to remove any impression of any sort, accidental or otherwise, that might be there to the contrary.

Mr. Dillon

I frankly confess my experience of the impartiality of the Board of Works. If for no other reason I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement at its face value. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, he is quite entitled to take up the attitude that he is a member of Fianna Fáil and that he does not make any bones about it if he looks for help to the majority Party. He is entitled to do that, but if he holds himself out as an impartial Parliamentary Secretary to Dáil Eireann if he desires absolute understanding he should not circularise only the members of Fianna Fáil but rather seek help and guidance from all sides. It is certainly calculated to cause the greatest possible misunderstanding on the eve of a general election if a requisition is sent to Fianna Fáil T.D.s to send him their schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary, if he was merely looking for help would, I think, have served the purpose better if he had postponed the gesture which was made only a week ago until the Estimate had been introduced. He could have warned all T.D.s who were prepared to make representations that they would be favourably considered, and that he hoped to have funds to finance reasonable requests. I do not believe in kicking up rows where they are not justified. I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. I think it would be helpful, in view of the reiterated determination to act in this matter as the servant of Dáil Eireann, if he sent copies of that invitation to other Deputies, directing their attention to the areas which required special co-operation. If he wants that cooperation, one Deputy can help as much as another.

An immensely grave matter has arisen in connection with the administration of the Public Works Department. Part of the funds which financed these works was estimated for by the Minister for Finance on foot of savings from the Unemployment Assistance Fund, inasmuch as they proposed to take a number of people off that fund by giving them work out of the schemes. It is only a small part of the total sum—about one-eighth. About one-fourth of the total sum has to be provided out of local funds and the rest of the money has to come from other sources but, on the strength of the estimated saving to the Unemployment Assistance Fund an administrative regulation was made that nobody would get work on relief schemes if he was not in receipt of unemployment assistance.

Any of us who know the congested areas and the livelihood of many people there realise that an immense number of small farmers find it very hard to make ends meet on their little holdings, and, while they can drag along on their holdings, and while they will be adjudged by the inspectors to have more means than would leave them eligible for an unemployment assistance certificate, at the same time, if they could get a little job of work now and again under these public works schemes, they would have a few pence to provide what for them is luxury, but what, in fact, is no more than the minimum standard of life which they ought to enjoy. There are a number of these men who are public spirited men and who have a kind of pride which I think is admirable. They will not make a poor mouth and they have a conscientious feeling that if they are able to carry on their little holdings, they have no right to seek unemployment assistance. They may be a minority, and I must say frankly that the majority of small farmers, if they can pull the wool over the inspector's eyes, will get their unemployment assistance certificate and draw their 1/- or 2/- or whatever their means allow them. That is plain fact and we all know it. My own neighbours know it and know that the vast majority of fellows think that when there is money going, they ought to get a share of it. It is unquestionably the position that they feel that if they are charged with having means, they are entitled to plead not guilty and that it is up to the Government to prove that they have. That is their view.

There is a considerable body of small farmers who have that kind of tradition, that they never were on relief, that they always earned their money and paid for their own family, and they do not apply. They simply say: "We are going to carry on." What happens? They see the fellows on Tuesday or Friday or whatever day it is queueing up for the dole and for free beef, and they say: "Well, we do not want that yet; we will carry on," and they forbear to claim. Relief works start in the neighbourhood and they go out with their shovel, or whatever implement they are in the habit of bringing, and ask the ganger for a job. That is working and earning, and they are proud to do that, but the ganger tells them they cannot get work because only men from the labour exchange are taken on. They go home and the wife says to them: "Did you get work?" At first, they said "No, we did not, because it is all Fianna Fáil people are getting it." That was their first reaction, but after a while, when the truth seeped out to the country, they said "No, because we are not on the dole," and the wife said: "Will you not get it if you are not on the dole?" and they replied: "No, nobody but men on the dole will get it." The wife is bound, and you cannot blame her, to say "Well, you had better get on the dole. If it is going to mean that you cannot earn a few shillings, you had better go on the dole." That man, who, from the highest motives and in a good sound civic spirit, declined up to this to make any attempt to get something he felt he could do without, is driven to going on the dole.

I will give the Parliamentary Secretary a concrete instance of that. It is not exactly the same, but he will readily see the analogy. A scheme of works scheduled for a parish in Roscommon came to my notice. It became known to the Parliamentary Secretary that there were not enough people on unemployment assistance in that parish to justify the initiation of the scheme, but there were a very large number of small farmers who could very well do with a bit of work on the roads.

Mr. Flinn

Is that this year or was it last year?

Mr. Dillon

It was just about the turn of the year.

Mr. Flinn

Of this year?

Mr. Dillon

About last May.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, I remember that case.

Mr. Dillon

What happened? A responsible person in the parish—I do not care to go further than that— summoned the men together and said, "You had better all get on the dole. There is no use standing on your dignity in this matter, because you will get no relief works in the parish at all." The fellows all went out and got on the dole, and they had been getting on without it before that. If a body of decent, respectable fellows are called together and told, "You will get no work unless the whole parish goes on the dole," it is to reduce the thing to absurdity.

Let us not overstate a case, because I see the immense difficulty of this problem. The object of the Department is to orient the works where the employment is worst, and, naturally, one is inclined to say, "If you are going to put it into areas where the employment is worst, it is the unemployed in that area who ought to get first preference." But it is there that there is the flaw in the logical conclusion, because the modern definition of an unemployed person receiving unemployment assistance really does not constitute an exhaustive category. There are a very large number of his neighbours who are just as much entitled to the help these unemployment assistance schemes are designed to provide as the people actually on the dole. I quite appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot abandon the general indication which the unemployment roll provides for him in allocating the work, but I do think that, having used the indication for the purpose of allocating the work, he ought to relax the proviso.

Mr. Flinn

Will the Deputy allow me? I have a good deal of sympathy with that view. It is one which is commonly expressed, and, I think, very sincerely held. There is a small proportion of people who are not on the unemployment assistance register. There are 287,000 people, as a matter of fact, who have unemployment register qualifications, so that it is not a small and segregated body. What I am concerned with is, whether the Deputy or anybody else can give me a practical means of ascertaining who those are, how I would recruit them, and how I would discriminate between them. It is a matter of practical machinery. It has been put up to me by two councils—I think Mayo and Roscommon—who want to employ non-unemployment assistance men, and what I am asking anybody who believes that there are a body of unemployment assistance men, of poor men, entitled men, who are not on the register, is to give me a practical means of identifying those and dealing with them.

Mr. Dillon

The Parliamentary Secretary will readily understand that a suggestion thrown out when I am on my feet might, on examination, prove to be impracticable, but for what it is worth, I will make this suggestion. The first step towards remedying it might be to provide that, in addition to the unemployment assistance men, married men on holdings under £6 valuation would get it. I could not say finally in regard to this until I have examined the question more closely as to whether you should go to £8, but I think you might safely do so.

Mr. Flinn

For the purpose of the Deputy being able to formulate a suggestion, I am prepared to put at the disposal of himself or his Party a map which gives the average agricultural valuation of every electoral area in the Free State. I should be very glad to see them attempt to co-ordinate the results we are now getting from the unemployment assistance map and the valuation map, and to see if they can make a suggestion. I am meeting this in this spirit because I think the discussion is going along the kind of lines on which useful work can be done, and I am anxious to find co-operation of this kind.

Mr. Dillon

I see that this must be an empirical procedure. We cannot lay down binding principles. We can only grope along to a solution of the problem by the excellent liberal tradition of peace, retrenchment and reform, reforming each evil as it manifests itself and hoping that eventually we will reach Utopia in that way, and not getting a rigid principle and following it. Therefore, I am in favour of the somewhat illogical plan of orienting the works first in the way the Parliamentary Secretary is doing, on the basis of the unemployment assistance register; then, having fixed where they are to take place, to say: "Now you can employ on those schemes not only unemployment assistance register men, but, in addition, married men whose holdings are less than a certain valuation." Logically, you cannot defend that because, if you take the unemployment assistance register and the men coming within that category for the purpose of the orientation of the schemes, the orientation might be very different and far more widespread. I think that you might stop there and see how they got along. Later, you might, for the purpose of orientating the schemes, say: "We are going to take into consideration all the married men living on small holdings in that area." That would present immense administrative difficulties in Dublin, but it would not do so in the rural areas where the work was actually being done. You could devise a plan, in collaboration with the county surveyor, to ensure that only married men with holdings under a certain valuation would be admitted for employment, because the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the personal acquaintance of county engineering officials with the people of their district is quite astonishing.

Mr. Flinn

It is very close.

Mr. Dillon

The assistant engineers know the family circumstances of practically every man who habitually applies for road work. I now depart from that general question and I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary realises how urgent and difficult it is. I have mentioned on four successive Estimates of the Parliamentary Secretary a plan which, I think, is one of the most hopeful for the allocation of small sums of money under these schemes. That is, a plan whereby farmers living on small holdings would be permitted to open flagged drains on their own land and, where the levels and the size of the drains corresponded with the minimum requirements of efficiency laid down by the local agricultural inspector, the Board of Works would give these people a grant of so much per yard of drain. That scheme has this dual advantage—it removes all necessity for a taskmaster because every farmer becomes his own taskmaster. The more quickly he digs the drain the more money he gets. If he digs 100 yards of drain in two days and gets x per yard he will receive 100x. If he takes a week to do it, he will only get 100x for the week. It is, therefore, in his interest to do the work as quickly and as industriously as he can. In the second place, no matter into whose hands that land may come, it will remain a national asset. The man who has drained it has improved it for all time. The productive capacity of the land is increased and, when you put together the small increases in productivity that could be created on thousands of small holdings in this country, you get a very substantial addition to the national wealth. I do not want to labour that point because I have dealt with it already on more than one occasion.

I notice that on the map this year there are more allocations of substantial sums than I have ever seen before —£2,000, £1,000 and so forth for particular works. That can be amply justified if the schemes are of a peculiarly useful nature. It is rather a relief to the people to see some permanent mark being left after an employment scheme. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us, generally, some kind of headline of the circumstances under which he would be prepared to accept a suggestion on these lines. In the early stages, we remember that if he desired to spend more than a certain sum on a special work he had to apply to the Executive Council for special authority.

Mr. Flinn

I do not quite follow.

Mr. Dillon

I remember an occasion in the early stages of these schemes when the Parliamentary Secretary was asked to spend £500 or £1,000 on making a breakwater in the neighbourhood of Burtonport. The scheme impressed him very favourably—so much so that he said he would go to the Executive Council and ask special sanction to spend more than he had discretion to spend on any given scheme. Has he now full discretion?

Mr. Flinn

That would be where a grant would not be justifiable either in respect of the labour-content of the work or the poverty-factor of the district. There is a small fund for works of national development out of which we might take the money.

Mr. Dillon

That may have been the case. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find that people are deterred from putting certain schemes before him because they feel that if they are going to cost £2,000 or £3,000 they could not be described as minor relief schemes. If he would lay down a general headline—not a binding rule —for the guidance of the people and say, "If your scheme falls within that general framework do not be afraid to put it forward; we will be able to spend money on it," it would be useful. He could add that there might be further exceptional cases in which they would be glad to spend larger sums but, as a general rule, that was the kind of case which would be considered.

I shall end in the traditional manner on this Vote. I often regret that the good old style of getting up and speaking about your own parish pump is beginning to fade away on this Vote. There was a time when we could spend two or three days discussing the parish pump and awkward corners in our own particular neighbourhood. Nobody seems to have the courage to do so now. Being somewhat of a conservative in these matters, I shall return to the happy practice and mention one scheme which was not brought under the Parliamentary Secretary's notice because it was felt it would cost £2,000 to carry to completion. I do not think it would. At a recent meeting of Roscommon County Council, representations were made on behalf of a number of people who are cut off from their market town and all contact with the outside world by a lake. There is a narrow portion of the lake and if a causeway or bridge could be built across it, these people's journeys to town and church would be shortened by about five miles. It has come up for years as a supplementary work when the county council estimates came to be struck. Every year, it has been wiped off as involving too much expenditure for a supplementary work. Money has never been found for it, and it has now become one of the hardy annuals which cause an immense amount of local irritation. I am sorry Deputy Brennan does not happen to be in the House, as he could give the name of the scheme, but I shall send particulars to the Parliamentary Secretary. I can tell him that all Parties in the council would like to see this work done. It is quite likely that he will be approached by a deputation from all Parties but, lest other matters might make it impossible for them to approach him as early as they might wish, I direct his attention to the matter. The position is somewhere about Roscommon town.

Mr. Flinn

A letter is about four times as useful as ten deputations.

Mr. Dillon

I shall arrange for a joint letter, giving particulars of the scheme, to be sent to the Parliamentary Secretary. To tell the truth, I have never seen the place and I do not know much about the people. I have, however, heard so much about it that I know it is becoming a source of chronic irritation to the people in that area and it is one of these things which minor relief schemes are peculiarly suited to end, because I am afraid it could not be defended on purely economic grounds. The number of families to be accommodated would not be, perhaps, more than 20, but it would be of immense relief to those in the neighbourhood if this general wail from that part of the country was silenced once and for all.

Mr. Hogan

After the gentle purring of Deputy Dillon and the cooing of the Parliamentary Secretary, I wonder if I shall be entitled to a growl or two. I want to say, at the outset, that with the administration of the Department of Public Works I have no fault to find. I believe it is efficient and that it is fair. The Parliamentary Secretary treated us last night to a very careful and very useful statement. It was an exposition and defence of his system and his method of experimenting upon the workless under the employment relief grants. He told us how this machine synchronised at every stage, how we have perfect synchronisation between peak distress and peak supply. That would be all very interesting in some kind of academic discussion—the discussion of a literary and historical society of some kind—but it falls far short of what we expected from the Parliamentary Secretary on this Vote. Some points spring immediately to the mind in connection with these schemes. First of all, I noticed that more than half of this Vote is re-voted. That is to say, that what we voted last year was not spent and it is being re-voted this year. How much of this £1,500,000 that is being voted now is going to be spent this year?

Mr. Flinn

I expect the whole of it.

Mr. Hogan

I cannot open up the books of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I imagine that if I were to put to him last year the question I have now put he would have told me the same thing. Yet something over £400,000 was unexpended out of last year's Vote. The first thing that naturally occurs to one's mind is whether the Parliamentary Secretary considers anything in connection with these schemes except the economic factor. I heard a lot of excellent terms used by the Parliamentary Secretary in describing certain phenomena in connection with employment schemes. He used the terms "labour content" and he said something about poverty——

Mr. Flinn

Poverty content.

Mr. Hogan

Yes, "poverty content." These excellent terms were used by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hogan

The Parliamentary Secretary has no copyright in them, and I expect the terms will be used later. But he does not take any account of the humanity content of some of these jobs. Does he take any account of the necessity of keeping people alive, of keeping them fed and clothed? Is that humanity content ever taken into account when a scheme is rejected on account of the labour factor? Take the wages paid. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that the wages paid on these schemes are sufficient to maintain anybody in any sort of frugal comfort? Has he endeavoured to relate the wages paid to the cost of living? Has he endeavoured to relate the wages paid on these schemes to the wages paid by agriculturists in the districts where the schemes are operated? He may say he has, but I know cases where the wages paid on these schemes bear no relation to the wages paid either by the public bodies in the county or the agriculturists in the county. The wages on these schemes should bear a very close relation to the wages paid by the public bodies and to the wages paid by the agricultural community. Indeed it should bear a closer relation to the wages paid by the public bodies than to the wages paid in agriculture, which, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself will have to admit, is a depressed industry at the moment.

The rotational system has been discussed here, and Deputy Keyes met the case made in favour of that scheme very fully and adequately last night. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the workers were overjoyed at the introduction of the rotational system. He said they were in ecstasies over it. I know that in one case where this scheme was introduced the workers got three days' work; they had to wait three weeks for the money they earned in that work, and they had to wait a fortnight to be reinstated at the employment exchange. Therefore, it is clear that these people would be much better off if they had not got that work at all. I know that; possibly that happened in the initiation of the scheme. I am prepared to admit that. The Parliamentary Secretary had not the machinery to carry out the scheme effectively at that time. But what is the general opinion with regard to the rotational scheme? He says that the people are satisfied with it and that it was a very effective system. Now, the Clare County Council is not a revolutionary body. It is composed in the main of representatives of the agricultural community. The Parliamentary Secretary's own Party has a majority on that council. Yet it passed a resolution unanimously condemning the rotational system, because, in the first place, it is not fair to the workers concerned, and, secondly, it does not give the best results so far as the work is concerned. After three days you put off a man who may be a man who is useful and expert in the matter of quarrying. You put him off and you have to take in somebody who is of little value as a quarryman; you may have to take in a man who may be quite useless as a quarryman and you turn the expert man away. That matter was discussed at the Clare County Council, and a resolution was unanimously carried condemning the rotational system. There are only three Labour representatives on the council, and it is a council that has a majority of Fianna Fáil representatives. That council decided that the system was bad in principle and bad in its results.

There is another matter in reference to rotational work in connection with which I would like to see present the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am aware that the Conditions of Employment Act is being infringed in a great many cases because of the operations of the rotational system. I know of cases where despite the Act people have worked for 54 hours per week. Under the rotational system a man works three days one week of nine hours each, and he works the next week three days of nine hours each. That is to say, he puts in a 54 hour week instead of a 48 hour week. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see if something cannot be done to put a stop to that sort of thing. The Minister will have from the Clare County Council a unanimous resolution on that matter also.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the area of employment—the electoral area. I do not think that that works out as well as he imagines it does. I have in mind several electoral areas where there is rather extensive unemployment and no relief work. He may not think there was sufficient unemployment in a particular area; or that in the area there are not any suitable schemes, although there may be extensive unemployment. The Minister may think that in a particular electoral area there is not sufficient labour to make the scheme an economic proposition, but it may happen that you may have two or three other areas bordering on that area, and then you have labour that could be used. Sometimes the Parliamentary Secretary may have no scheme that would be suitable in the electoral area where there is unemployment, but he may have a scheme available in a bordering area——

Mr. Flinn

I entirely agree with the Deputy in that matter. What we would do in such a case is, we would draw the unemployed from other areas. If the Deputy has a particular case in mind I would like to take it up.

Mr. Hogan

I have a few cases in mind, but I do not want to introduce them in detail now. They have been brought to my notice, and they bear out exactly what I am saying.

Mr. Flinn

I should like the Deputy to bring me those cases. What the Deputy is anxious to do is just what we are anxious to do in that particular matter.

Mr. Hogan

The principal point in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was the abandonment of the idea of solving the unemployment problem. He has clearly abandoned that idea. He told us it would take some £15,000,000 to put all the unemployed working every day of the week, I do not know at what wages. However, I will take the Parliamentary Secretary's word that it would take £15,000,000. He said that, of course, was a thing the State could not attempt to do. Therefore the unemployed are to be left unemployed, and this Vote is not aiming to prevent unemployment; it is rather a Vote to perpetuate unemployment.

What is the position of the unemployed to-day? We have 25,000 people, according to the statistics provided by the Department, who are absolutely destitute, drawing full unemployment assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary has not indicated in his statement to us what he proposes to do to afford employment to these people. There are 25,000 people who, if they had any visible means of any kind, would not be drawing full unemployment assistance. We then have 60,000 registered who have some means, and the Parliamentary Secretary has no solution for the problem that faces these people. We do know that the Government has a policy of industrial revival. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that this policy of industrial revival is going to absorb these 25,000 people who are absolutely destitute at the moment, in a reasonable space of time? Does he think that commerce or industry is likely to absorb the 60,000 registered who are in need of employment but have some means? These are questions the Parliamentary Secretary ought to give us some light and leading on. It is a problem that his Government promised to solve.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Flinn

May I call attention to the fact that the Deputy is reading a paper?

Mr. Dillon

I am not. I am studying a statement containing a promise by Fianna Fáil to solve unemployment and to bring home the emigrants.

Mr. Hogan

Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary is not the only person unable to solve the unemployment problem. If the Parliamentary Secretary were looking for a very bad headline he could find it given by a colleague of Deputy Dillon. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a very good paraphrase of Deputy McGilligan's statement, that it was not the duty of the State to provide work for the unemployed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has made a very good paraphrase of that when he says that the State cannot afford to spend £15,000,000 in order to afford work for the unemployed. That is his paraphrase of Deputy McGilligan's general statement. I want to know what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to do within the coming 12 months with those 25,000 people who have absolutely no visible means. Does he propose to give them work on only three days a week on a rotational system? What about the 60,000 who have some means?

Mr. Flinn

Are those the correct figures?

Mr. Hogan

On the total live register on the 30th March last there were 84,411 men and the total, including boys and girls, was 93,426. Do not blame me if the figures are wrong; I did not prepare them. The statement says that the number of persons with means registered on the 30th March was 42,401 and the total, including women, boys and girls, was 43,543. What I wanted from the Parliamentary Secretary was not a statement regarding the perfect synchronisation of his machine or the rather excellently worded peroration last night, but rather a statement as to how he proposes to cure the unemployment problem or whether he has totally abandoned the idea of solving that problem.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

In connection with the minor relief schemes, I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he need not entertain any anxiety in relation to the question of furnishing sufficient schemes to his Department. I am satisfied that a plentiful supply will be forthcoming. Indeed, so far as the people I represent are concerned, we have schemes lodged for a considerable period. In fact, some schemes have been lodged for three or four years, and we are becoming somewhat disheartened when we are asked to furnish new schemes and nothing has been done with the schemes we furnished a couple of years ago. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should devote some attention to the question of having those schemes taken in hands, because the people have been appealing for such schemes for a long period.

While I make that point, I must compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department upon the administration of various relief schemes. The money that has been expended in the county I come from has been devoted largely to repairing boreens and carrying out minor drainage works. I must say that the work done has been of great value. The labour content has been essentially high and the people who were assisted by these works are satisfied that the money could not be better spent. People who had to use the old boreens were paying rates for a considerable number of years, and although they were considered good ratepayers their interests were not seen to until the Parliamentary Secretary came to the rescue. They feel now that something has been done for them and that all the money is not being concentrated on the main highways.

In connection with minor drainage work, I believe very valuable assistance has been rendered to people who heretofore have had their small holdings flooded, and indeed their houses flooded. I witnessed several cases of very serious flooding in rural areas, flooding of small houses. I have seen the minor drainage schemes put into operation, and I realise the wonderful benefit that has accrued to these people. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Wednesday, 14th April.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th April.