Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £750,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochtha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Márta, 1938, chun Scéimeanna chun Fostaíocht do chur ar fáil agus chun Fóirithin ar Ghátar, maraon le costas riaracháin.
That a sum not exceeding £750,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for schemes for the provision of employment and the relief of distress, including cost of administration.

I have looked forward to this discussion with a considerable amount of interest for a considerable time because, as the House is aware, a very large and very significant experiment has been in process of operation in the country, in relation to the method of employing men and the method of using money which the State provides for the temporary and artificial employment of people who are in a state of distress for one reason or another. I was very anxious to get authoritatively from the House, from the 152 Deputies who have had experience of what is occurring in the country, their reactions to that system. I wanted to know from their knowledge, as distinct from the knowledge which we had through Departmental sources, exactly what was happening. What had happened was obviously something which was capable of being treated controversially. During the summer of the past year an experiment was made covering, I think, about £20,000 or £30,000, in five or six counties for the purpose of trying this thing out, to see whether or not the difficulties which we envisaged as possible in relation to it would occur, and whether or not there were some other incalculable snags of which we had not knowledge. These experiments were carried on throughout the summer. They were brought very fully to the knowledge of the Dáil and the public and every means was taken for the purpose of eliciting unfavourable comment. No such unfavourable comment was produced. The actual troubles which were envisaged did not occur and no troubles, other than those which were envisaged, turned up.

We had, as a result of the tests which were made in all these countries, very careful inquiries made from all those who carried out the schemes and all those who were in contact with them. It had been suggested that it was impossible administratively to employ men on a system of this kind without complications; that surveyors, local authorities, gangers and men would not understand the method and that it would break down. There was no truth in that. We left, as far as possible, the organisation of these things to those who were carrying out the experiments in the hope that some of them would break down and that in the process of breaking down, the difficulties we had to guard against would be revealed. They were uniformly and unquestionably successful from an administrative point of view. We investigated the question of the degree in which efficiency could be attained under this method during the experimental period. We have reports from all the responsible authorities who carried out those schemes. Those reports, with one single exception, are absolutely satisfactory and the reasons why that other was unsatisfactory have been investigated, ascertained and dealt with.

Having failed to meet any trouble by trying those things in the country districts, we then decided to experiment in what we regarded as the most difficult area of all, the Borough of Dublin. I may say perfectly frankly that we were looking for trouble. We wanted to find out, during the experimental, the laboratory period, the worst that could happen. When we decided to experiment on the register of a capital city like Dublin—on to which register, as you know, men of the very best and some not of the very best tend to gravitate—we thought and we hoped that we would find it. I am glad to say we were successful. From the time that scheme started, from the very first day, everything possible was done to impede and to break up the scheme. We had public meetings at lunch-time and at 5 o'clock. We had all sorts of outsiders doing everything humanly possible to aggravate and bedevil the position. That was the first time that anything of that kind had occured. We also—and we were glad to hear it—had the information that this was the first of all the schemes which had been put forward in which the men were not delivering the goods. We calculated that under those circumstances everything that it was humanly possible to find out to the detriment of such a system would be found out. We had regular returns showing the proportion of men who were doing a full day's work, who were doing a half day's work, and who were not doing work of any particular value. Those figures were kept. In the meantime, we investigated every possible objection or grievance that could be drawn up under those methods, and dealt with it, until we were satisfied that everything which was humanly possible to meet the difficulties had been done.

We then gave the instruction—which is the fundamental instruction in relation to rotation work—that every man on that job should deliver the goods or go. All I can tell you is that those men reacted to discipline and to organisation in a manner which was entirely creditable. The end of that particular experiment was that that gang was working as well as any gang I know working on relief schemes under any conditions. When it was notified that the work would be shut down, I think somewhere about 94 per cent. of the men sent in a petition for its continuance under those conditions. When that additional grant was exhausted a further petition to continue that scheme came from those men. At the same time, investigations through an outside authority were made into the social reactions in relation to those men who were employed, as a result of having been employed on part-time work of that character over a considerable period, as distinct from living on the dole. The report was in every degree and in every particular satisfactory. The whole home life and the individual life of those men had reacted in a manner which was entirely favourable. With that background behind us this year we decided to adopt, in relation to the large scheme of employment works throughout the country, a modified system of rotation. The system of rotation under which we worked during the summer was a strict mathematical rotation—that is to say, as far as we could work it out every man got in wages an amount of money which was equal to or slightly greater than his unemployment assistance, plus beef vouchers, plus 40 per cent., and during the winter we decided to adopt a modified system. As a result of that, some 20 counties which had no experience of this system, some thousands of gangs, some 50,000 men at one particular moment, with probably a total of 75,000 to 80,000 men altogether, have had experience of working under this system.

It was for the purpose of knowing what had been the reaction in that matter that I was anxious to meet the House and hear what was to be said. I wanted to hear the worst possible and the strongest case that could possibly be stated against rotation. I wanted that to be founded on experience. We have tried to make such a case. Quite frankly, we have failed to make a case such as would of itself be convincing. My own desire and my own wish would have been to open a discussion of this kind by a statement from inside, the very worst that could possibly be said, founded upon a sound experience of this system. Personally, I have not been able to formulate a case which seemed to me to be reasonably and sufficiently convincing. For that reason, I have had to wait in the hope that someone else would do it.

While there has been a good deal of denunciation of the rotation system from four or five people, there has been no attack upon it. I want to make that quite clear; there has been no attack upon the rotation system. We have been told that it is abominable; we have been told that it is horrible. We have been told various things of that kind, but no one has come down to brass tacks—except one man—in attacking it as a system. Deputy Davin, with a courage which was far greater than his discretion, stated that the part-time employment of men was demoralising to those men. He was the only person who came down to the attack, and his courage, as I said, was greater than his wisdom. He was followed by two Deputies of his own Party, Deputy Corish and Deputy Everett, and both of them immediately got out from under that story. They wanted to make it perfectly clear that neither of them stood for the doctrine that it was demoralising. Neither of them stood for the idea that the dole was preferable to part-time employment. Apart from that, there has been no attack on rotation by saying that, intrinsically, there was anything wrong with it.

What has developed here is two schools of thought. The first demands full time employment for all men at full trade union rates, all the year around, on works of full economic value, placed near their homes. In addition, there has been a demand for employment on those terms for all men prepared to register, whether unemployment assistance men or not, as well as for widely distributed schemes of public works on the basis of their usefulness, independent of the poverty condition of the area. Now, that is not an attack on rotation. That is simply a demand for an unlimited amount of money to be used on unemployment schemes. Against that, we have put as our standard economic expenditure, as far as possible, on the most useful works available with the limited sum of money provided by the Oireachtas, in such a manner as to relieve the maximum amount of distress, by a wide distribution, in proportion to the individual needs of the poor. Now, these are the two schools that have been in conflict, and not the rotational system. Unless the Dáil is prepared to vote a sum of money for several years in succession to the order of about £15,000,000 a year, the needs of even the unemployment assistance registrants cannot be met under the standard of the first school, and the needs of the others could not be met in money or works at all.

Some form of rationing of money and works is inevitable. Unless, therefore, someone in this House is prepared to contend for an unlimited amount of money over a considerable period of time the principle of rationing, or whatever you call it, of the amount which is available must be and is universally accepted. Rotation, whether with or without unemployment assistance in intervals, daily or weekly, must be universally accepted as a solution. Our purpose is to convert the largest possible proportion of the present unemployment assistance payments, plus any further provision for the relief of distress, into wages for useful work at standard rates of wages.

The unemployment assistance and unemployment schemes together form the employment fund. The total is calculated on the actual estimated transfer of funds from unemployment assistance to the Employment Vote. We have previously been providing sporadic sums for unemployment relief, and, in addition to that, we were providing a sum of about £1,500,000 for unemployment assistance. What is happening now is that these two funds are being put together, and they are regarded as the State's provision for the purpose of dealing with unemployment and distress. What happens is not, that when a man on the unemployment assistance register is employed, there is any saving to the Exchequer, but that the money expended in the dole is transferred to the other fund, and our ideal is to see that the Unemployment Assistance Fund itself is reduced to the smallest limits; that the largest possible amount of that money is transferred to the other funds.

In doing that I am certainly no friend of the Minister for Finance, whoever else I may be a friend of. The cheapest of all ways to deal with the unemployment problem in this country is to ignore it. The cheapest of all ways to ignore it is by paying unemployment assistance. You can double and treble unemployment assistance to everybody who is now receiving it, and give it to a lot of people who are not receiving it, at a much less charge to the Exchequer than by any method of employing people. It is purely from the point of view of its social reactions that we prefer, and feel that we are bound, to attack the other line.

The relief schemes are justified in themselves on two grounds. The first is on the public work done, and, secondly, the social benefits to labour rather than payment for idleness. They cannot be justified on budgetary grounds. Now, I think at least six statements in relation to rotation have been put up during this discussion. Rather than seem to ignore them, I had better set them out. Deputy Davin said that it was an attempt to smash the trade unions. He also stated that it was demoralising for the individual. That disappeared on the testimony of Deputy Everett. Neither Deputy Corish nor Deputy Everett was prepared to allow the Labour Party to lie under the onus of having said, or suggested, that part-time employment was less desirable than the dole. There was a suggestion that our intention was to save the money of the Minister for Finance by robbing the Unemployment Assistance Fund. Deputy Norton made the extraordinary statement that it was intended to intimidate the Agricultural Wages Board, and Deputy Keyes said that men were forced unwillingly to work. I have dealt with the question of demoralisation and with the question of saving from the Unemployment Assistance Fund. It was also stated that in the opinion of competent engineers it was inefficient.

Now, let us take the question of trade unionism. When this scheme was first adopted there were rumblings in the shades, and we were told that the trade union authorities had their eyes on us. I said I would be very glad indeed if they would have their eyes on me at a little closer quarters. Their representatives came to see me. I gave them every fact and figure that was in my possession in relation to the whole scheme. I asked for comment, favourable or unfavourable. I asked for suggestions of any sort or kind for its amendment. I asked for any information which would show that this was an attack on trade unionism. They went away and made no comment and, as far as I know, they have made no comment since, except the statement that we have received here from Deputy Davin. We are paying the standard local rates in all places. Minor relief wages were fixed independent of rotation. I have had the closest possible contact with all sorts of people during the progress of the scheme, and up to the present no suggestion has been made to me that there was any attack, except by one Deputy. I told him I was extremely glad to hear that such a question had arisen; that I would be very glad indeed if the complaint, to the extent to which there was a complaint, could be formulated, and that it would be dealt with. I have heard nothing since. In other words, so far as I know, there is nothing whatever in that charge.

Now I come to efficiency. Deputy Keyes, Deputy Anthony and Deputy Pattison, all three, have told me that eminent engineers, none of whom have been named, have condemned this system. They have appealed to me, as an engineer who believes in and understands efficiency, to say that efficiency under such a system is impossible. Foreign cows have long horns; unnamed engineers may be very eminent, but no engineer, with the exception of one, has given a report unfavourable to this. With that exception, the whole of them have been favourable in their opinion. But I do not need to go to engineers; I do not need to go to my own experience, which is now very considerable. I have seen hundreds of these schemes; I have seen, literally, tens of thousands of men working on these schemes, and I know the result which is being delivered from them.

But I will turn to Deputy Corish and Deputy Everett as witnesses. What Deputy Corish says rather sums up pretty well what my own opinion would be in the matter. As reported in column 903 of the Official Reports, Deputy Corish said: "I am talking now of the efficiency with which the work is being carried out in spite of the handicap with which the schemes were confronted when the local authorities and the Board of Works tried at first to put them into operation." He was amazed at the efficiency obtained. As reported in column 904, he said: "I should like to say that the amount of efficiency that we have seen in connection with these schemes is extraordinary." Deputy Everett, as reported in column 914, said: "Notwithstanding all the drawbacks, notwithstanding all the difficulties, notwithstanding the fact that the men have got no alternative but to accept, I say there is good value given in the circumstances. I say that in urban areas you are getting 100 per cent. return at the present time. In the rural areas you may not be getting it on the minor relief schemes." Speaking as one who has seen, as I have told you, literally thousands of men engaged on minor relief schemes in the areas in the West, I say that the efficiency in the minor relief schemes is higher than in the urban areas. I have actually had Deputies who have condemned the system coming to me and asking that schemes should be done under this system that the Local Government Department wanted to do on full time and contract work; and I have had such schemes carried out on rotation at their request. The truth of the matter is that efficiency in this, as in all matters, is a question of the ability of the men carrying out the schemes. It depends on the organisation. With good gangers, with good engineers, with a proper lay-out of the work, you can get, under this system, as high an efficiency as it is possible to get on this class of work with the same personnel under any condition whatever.

It may be thought that it is confined to works of an elementary character. During the summer I was very anxious to know what were the limits to which a scheme of this kind could be applied, having regard to the fact that there was a large capital State expenditure, on lines which were not of an elementary character. I asked a certain engineer to what work he could apply it. That man had had experience of it. He said he could do any work which was done in the ordinary way by a local authority. Greatly daring, I said: "Can you do a public health work?" He said he could. I said: "How much more will it cost to do a public health work under this system?" He said: "I will do it at the contract price." As a result of that, the particular public health work —a rather difficult sewerage scheme, containing a good deal of technical difficulty—which had had to be put aside last year on account of shortage of funds—was brought forward as an experiment. The men on that scheme were employed on a strict mathematical rotation over the whole period of work. The unemployment register of that town, and for three miles around it, over 5/-, was abolished for a period of about ten months. Men were employed for anything from six to 16 days in four weeks. There were only two men on the whole job who were not on rotation and off the register— the foreman and the pipe layer. That job has been completed. It has been completed in a thoroughly successful technical manner, and has been completed under the estimate. I speak now not merely as an engineer anxious to see efficient work done; I speak as an administrator who has felt that the responsibility of his work required that he should be able to speak with full personal knowledge in relation to what is going on; and I am satisfied that, given good organisation, good engineers and good gangers, you can get out of this system, with ordinary labour, on every class of work to which it is possible to apply it, thoroughly efficient results.

The next statement is that this was intended to intimidate the Agricultural Wages Board. Imagination of that kind is a disaster. The relief wages in every case were above the average agricultural wages of the district. My personal desire is to see agricultural wages rise. I have never understood how anyone could, upon any ethical grounds, defend the idea that the skilled agricultural labourer should be paid less than any other skilled labourer. I calculate that I could learn to do bricklaying very comfortably in a month, good enough to do the job. There are lots of trades of that kind that I could do. There are a good many of them that I could do at one time or another, but I do not pretend to think that I could be turned into a trained agricultural labourer, or that I would employ any amateur agricultural labourer to do some of the work the skilled agricultural labourers do. I am speaking now as one who thoroughly and deeply respects the profession of the agricultural labourer, and regards him as a skilled man. I would like to see the level of his labour raised. I have no intention of doing anything—and there is nothing in this scheme to do it— which will not help in that respect as quickly as possible. Agricultural labourers supply certain economic conditions over which I have no control. The suggestion that I or anyone else invented these schemes for the purpose of intimidating the Agricultural Wages Board is a diseased idea. These are some of the pictures that were drawn by Deputies: "Nothing has happened in my lifetime that has created such a feeling of indignation, and rightful indignation, as this rotational scheme." That is Deputy Keyes. Deputy Morrissey was a bit more gentle, describing it as "the most fundamentally unsound scheme of that shape ever started." Deputy Pattison's words were: "An abominable and a reactionary policy." If strong language and weak arguments were enough, the thing would disappear. Deputy Norton's words were: "It was fiendish."

I have made inquiries to see what has been the effect on the lives of the men and the universal testimony is that it has been entirely favourable. Here is a report which was sent to me, signed by the parish priest and spiritual director, the president, the honorary treasurer, the vice-president and the whole of the committee of a Conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in relation to one of these schemes:

"We, the members of the local Conference, beg leave to convey to you some impressions on the expenditure of the grant of £250 recently conceded by you in your bounty, for the relief of distress here.

"Demands on our funds (which are petty) have become much fewer; there are practically no unemployed in or about the town; we can notice an air of contentment where there was distress, and of comfortable clothing where often there were rags. We are happy to discover an added air of happiness and frugal comfort in the homes we visit. This is also the experience of another organisation. The relief to our own funds enables us also to spread our attention to poor country folk, and to procure for these seed potatoes. So your generous donation has brought a blessing on the community.

"The economic aspects of the grant are beyond our province but, in common with all the people of this area, we rejoice to see a splendid town park rapidly coming into shape, thus fulfilling a long-felt need in the athletic and cultural life of the community."

Personally I do not recognise anything fiendish in an effort of that character. I am perfectly satisfied that the universal testimony and experience of those who have lived with the job will be in its favour. It was also stated: "The men are forced unwillingly to work." I have a return of those employed in the different counties. On the 13th February, 46,146, were employed, viz.: Carlow, 385; Cavan, 1,626; Clare, 1,390; Cork, 2,567; Donegal, 6,749; Dublin, 1,122; Galway East, 378; Galway West, 2,295; Kerry, North, 5,685; Kerry, South, 2,654; Kildare, 1,414; Kilkenny, 768; Laoighis, 367; Leitrim, 1,459; Limerick, 1,139; Longford, 1,002; Louth, 596, Mayo, 6,824; Meath, 829; Monaghan, 443; Offaly, 526; Roscommon, 797; Sligo, 1,737; Tipperary, North Riding, 444; Tipperary, South Riding, 831; Waterford, 673; Westmeath, 751; Wexford, 430; Wicklow, 465. The maximum numbers were in Kerry, 8,339; Galway, 2,673; Donegal, 6,749; Mayo, 6,824. There you have four open quotas of men who were working on the schemes at the same time. Let any man who thinks that I have forced these men unwillingly to work go and gather in one of these quotas, and he will go home without his deposit. I have seen the men working. I have seen them working willingly and gladly, men who were proud to feel that every penny they got was earned. This House is not in a position to apologise to any one of these men, nor am I in the position of being in any way embarrassed in meeting any of them. I spoke to hundreds of them, and I know that they did not want the dole if they could get the money in the form of wages. I am perfectly satisfied that they were not merely willing, but anxious to continue to earn their money instead of receiving it in the form in which they were receiving it.

Certain detailed objections have been put up which have nothing whatever to do with rotation, but all of which have a certain amount of significance. There is distance, there is the question of unsuitable people being sent, and provision for wet weather. There was a suggestion that schemes are left in the pigeon holes of the Department undone, and that schemes which might have been completed one year take several years. There was complaint that there have been delays in payment and that there has been a burden on the boards of assistance. There were complaints that high scale unemployment assistance men have been employed; that men on a low scale and single men have not been reached; that non-unemployment assistance men have not been included in some small areas. There were also complaints of the non-expenditure of money voted and about individual earnings being too low. There was a demand that useful works in non-poverty areas should be done, that summer drainage should be done, and that drainage generally should be tackled from this Vote. Another complaint was that local authorities were contributing when they should not have to do so. There was an amazing complaint about deductions for stamps. Two other amazing complaints were that men had been ill-treated by the exchange officers, and that there was political preference and corruption shown. These are two charges with which, on our record, we do not need to deal.

I am taking these up seriatim because I want to feel that when we are finished with this debate we have met in the gate all the objections which can be urged. Firstly, as to the distance men have to travel, the map which is hung up outside ought to be the best answer to that. There have been about 3,000 schemes done in order to get the degree of localisation which we have. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go. The total number of men who have been sent out by the labour exchanges to walk excessive distances is not, in my opinion, one quarter of one per cent. of the whole lot. A case of that kind will loom up very large. I have made a great deal of effort to get hold of a series of these cases, but all I have ever been able to get at a time is one. We do recognise that it is humanly impossible for the labour exchanges to avoid occasionally sending men distances which are much longer than they ought to travel. These things will happen, but we are making administrative arrangements to see that so far as possible they do not suffer by that. I think that, between now and next year, the arrangements which are being made will be watertight to the extent that no man will be harmed in that way.

The same story is told of watchmakers and cobblers being sent out on minor relief schemes. Such things will occur, and nothing we can do will prevent them. The number of cases is negligible and arrangements are being made to deal with the matter. With regard to short time, due to wet weather, arrangements are provided whereby the men, if they cannot work on a particular day because of wet weather, get another day, but sometimes that is not easy to do, partly due to the fact that surveyors and those running these schemes have cooperated with us to the extent that they have put on the maximum number of men. You can imagine that if in a scheme on which, say, 100 men are engaged, due to a wet day, it was necessary to put the whole of the other gang on, the scheme would be absolutely tied up and hampered. There are certain cases in which you could not work 200 men. To the extent to which we can deal with that, we will, and, while this year has been an extremely bad year from the point of view of an experiment of this character, I think we are over our difficulties now.

Deputy Davin complained that some schemes were not completed in the year, but were carried over three or four years. We have discussed that here before. The question arises as between two schemes, one of which is a very good scheme which may require a larger amount than is available for the district for the year, and, in the interest of doing the best scheme, we sometimes divide it up over two or three years. As a matter of fact, I have had a great deal more pressure in the direction of doing schemes by compartments than I have to the contrary. We can only use the best discretion we can in the matter.

We come now to what I regard as the real difficulty of the whole thing— delays in payment. There is no question that that has been the real snag of the position. The local authorities are accustomed to paying their men after an interval of two weeks.

That refers only to the county councils.

Yes, I know. In the other cases it has not arisen. In the case of relief schemes in the districts, the delay has been considerable. That, of course, is a difficulty which arises only at the beginning of a scheme and which departs as soon as the scheme is in operation. We are having a conference in my office as between the different Departments concerned to see what can be done to reduce that delay. In certain cases, we have already got rid of the delay completely, but there was undoubtedly that difficulty, that where a man is in regular employment, or goes into regular employment, his credit immediately comes into existence and he can operate. Sometimes that is not done in relation to relief schemes and to the extent to which that difficulty exists I will see that it is remedied as far as possible.

Deputies are sometimes worried about the fact that they have left a scheme in my office for a couple of years and it is not done. They generally put it that "for one reason or another it is not done," but they do not, I think, really believe that there are any such reasons. The reasons why schemes are not done are as follows:—

(1) Limited public utility (the number of families benefiting too few);

(2) Refusal by land owners whose lands are affected to sign consent forms;

(3) Claims for compensation by land holders for lands or other rights surrendered;

(4) Inspection discloses that the work is already in relatively good repair;

(5) Work would involve expenditure considered to be out of proportion to its public utility or the cost would be altogether excessive for the employment needs of the area even if the work were done by instalments;

(6) Works unsuitable for execution during winter months. Summer drainage works are sanctioned in areas in which sufficient unemployment assistance recipients are available during the operation of the Employment Period Order;

(7) Drainage works situation in a drainage district or proposed drainage district;

(8) Drainage works which in our opinion would cause flooding further down stream;

We have had a lot of trouble, as a matter of fact, as a result of drainage schemes we have done. In every case, whether there is ground for it or not, there is a demand, founded upon flooding further down, for further works. The other reasons are:—

(9) Works that are maintained by other public authorities;

(10) Insufficient unemployment assistance men in the electoral division or within convenient distance;

(11) More suitable available work from the point of view of their utility and location in relation to other selected works in the area.

In future, therefore, when Deputies say that "for one reason or another works are not done," they will understand that there are at least 11 good reasons.

It is suggested that in some cases a burden has been thrown on local boards of assistance, due to delays in payment. Again, such cases have occured. One occurred in Wicklow and two occurred in Cork. Probably the number that have occurred altogether could be counted on the fingers of one's hand, but none of them represents a serious condition. As one has been dealt with here to some extent in detail—the case in the area of the South Cork Board of Assistance—I think it better that the House should have the facts. There were three cases in this case in which payments were asked for by relief workers from the local board of assistance. The first was one in which the men had gone on strike, and it is worth while getting to the bottom of this strike. When this matter was brought up at the borough council, a certain representative said: "The men are striking against rotation." The city manager said: "The men have no objection to rotation," and the leader of the men said: "The men have no objection to rotation." The strike was on something entirely different. They struck over the method of paying wages, which might have arisen on any scheme.

The second case was a case where, due to the intervention of the Easter holidays—the Good Friday and the Easter Monday on which the men could not work—the scheme was thrown out of gear. As a result of that, a special instruction will, undoubtedly, be issued next year in relation to any scheme operating over holiday periods. Here is the letter of the city manager in regard to the third case:—

"During the week ended 10th April, one of the road gangs worked Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—that is, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. The second gang only worked on the 9th and 10th—that is, Friday and Saturday. They expressed the view they should not be paid until four days were completed and claimed home assistance on the ground they had not received any wages that week."

The claim was refused by the home assistance authorities. I do not think I need go any further than that. We do appreciate any help the home assistance authorities have been able to give us. We shall put as little strain on them in the future as we did in the past, and we shall see that they are not burdened to any extent that is avoidable. The next objection is that the men on the high scale of unemployment assistance are being employed to the detriment of the others. The suggestion is that this is done in order to save money to the Minister for Finance. As a matter of fact, it is done for the reason—which, I think, will be universally accepted—that those first to be relieved, where the whole of the people cannot be employed, must be the people in the greatest necessity. I do not think that anyone is going to question that.

In the Unemployment Assistance Act there was set up statutory machinery for ascertaining, not merely who were in a state of distress, but their exact measure of distress, relative to one another, rendered in terms of money. That test is the unemployment assistance scale they receive and, in employing the first men on the highest scale of unemployment assistance, we employ those who have a statutory right, ascertained under the law, to be regarded as the people in the greatest state of necessity. That the low-scale men are not reached, I recognise as a definite defect. Until a system of rotation is adopted which will enable us to deal with the whole of the men on the register in proportion to their needs, as measured by their unemployment assistance scales plus some addition, I shall regard our task as not being finished. My anxiety is to do everything I possibly can in that matter. The difficulty is that we have to work under the Act as it is at present. Men have to be employed for a certain period or they can take money out of both funds —the Employment Fund and the Unemployment Assistance Fund—which would be undesirable. As Deputies know, a new Bill is in process of incubation—it has already had its First Reading—which will deal with these difficulties and which, we hope, will give us a system in which there will be none of these inequalities which are now necessarily present under the rule of thumb.

It is complained that non-unemployment assistance men are not included. If I were to include the whole of the unemployment assistance men, it would mean that I would have to divide the money even further than I am doing now. If, in addition, we had to include non-unemployment assistance men, the position would be more difficult, especially as we have no means of ascertaining non-unemployment assistance men. in the same way as we have of ascertaining unemployment assistance men. The unemployment assistance men come off the register in a mathematical and entirely impersonal manner. Neither I nor, I think, any other man had to be asked by any one of the 50,000 men employed this year to get him a job. They are now perfectly free and independent, and they show it. There was a time when you got a job through knowing the ganger or through a county councillor, or through some local official. I think I may say for every county councillor, every local official and everybody who has had to do with that kind of work, that they are glad and thankful to be rid of it and to have it handed over in such a way that it can be dealt with impersonally. The actual position now is that I can be called to account in this House for every single one of these 50,000 men by name. I should have to justify his employment or non-employment, and no preference, no act of anybody outside can affect that except the fact that the regulation, as laid down, does or does not apply. The men have now become perfectly free and independent agents, earning money on work to which they are sent in an entirely impersonal and impartial way. While I myself should like to deal with men who are not on the unemployment assistance register and who can be shown to be in necessity, I see great difficulties in the matter. We do meet it to this degree: we have the two standards, the standard of the total number of unemployment assistance men in an electoral area and the poverty map which gives the characteristic of every one of the electoral divisions in the Free State. Where the unemployment assistance map and the poverty map contradict each other —in other words, where an area can be shown to have a low agricultural valuation per head of the population even though there are an insufficient number of unemployment assistance men— we do our best to meet that difficulty. That, at the moment, is the best, so far as I can see, that can be done.

There is another objection which, I think, is a legitimate one, to the carrying out of our scheme. That is, that certain areas which just happen not to have the quota of men which would entitle them to a scheme are excluded. It has been suggested by Deputy Smith that these areas will be in perpetuity in the position that they cannot get schemes. The administrative difficulties of reaching upon these areas is going to be very great, but we do feel there is something in that case. I think it ought to be met, but the administrative difficulties will be very considerable.

It has been complained that we did not expend the whole of the money voted this year. We have lifted the expenditure this year to about two and a half times what it was last year, and we have laid down the machinery by which we can spend in this financial year £2,500,000. It is possible to start up a whole lot of works in a hurry if you do not mind what happens to the works and if you do not mind where the money goes or what is done with it. We had just to choose ourselves whether or not we could take those precautions which would enable us to set up a machine which would do the work properly in the future or whether we should get whatever kudos would belong to coming and telling the Dáil that we had spent the whole of the money without regard to those considerations. We have chosen to take the other course.

Remember we are not doing the whole of these works ourselves. We have to work not merely through different Departments, but through hundreds of local authorities. They have to be consulted. They have to get their schemes together, and there is the whole difficulty which is involved in hundreds of schemes. However, we have reached the position that next year we will be able more effectively to do these things. I will say this in advance. If the Dáil in its wisdom is prepared to spend, say, six, five, or four million pounds, or whatever it was, on unemployment relief schemes of this kind, if we are given due notice that the money will be available by a certain time, and if we are given the staff and resources which would enable us to deal with it, then we will set up machinery to deal with it. The machinery to deal with it is as economic as is humanly possible. But I will not take responsibility for suddenly expanding a scheme of this kind, acting through all sorts of channels over which I have only partial control, unless I can do it under such circumstances as I can tell the Dáil that the money which has been given into my hands in trust for the poor—and that is the main consideration—has been spent economically for their benefit.

It has been said that the earnings are too low. Now let us face that. I am asked whether I think 10/-, 16/-, 21/-, or 30/- or something of that kind is enough for a man on which to live. I think that is not the question that arises on this Vote. That is the question which arises when the Minister decides that he will provide a certain amount of money. On this Vote we are simply discussing its administration. If you can induce the Minister for Finance to give us, say, £5,000,000, well and good. I will promise that every penny of that which comes into my possession will be evenly and honestly distributed in relation to the necessity of the people for which it is voted. But I cannot get out of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 more than is in them. If we are to deal with 146,000 people who were on the unemployment register on the 3rd February last year, and deal with the whole of them, then the amount of money which is going to come to any of them is definitely limited. What I have tried to do is to see that the whole of the money which we have to deal with does come to them. We have set up machinery. Next year we will spend on those people as near as possible the whole of that money. If then the Dáil in its wisdom thinks it is not sufficient, it is for the Dáil to change the amount of money which is available. My responsibility is to see that whatever I do get is honestly and fairly spent.

A big plea has been put up that useful work should be done in non-poverty areas. I do not need to say at the moment that I cannot do that out of the employment fund. The function of that fund is to deal with poverty areas. But it is strongly held by a good many Deputies on all sides of the House that there are works of development, as distinct from works of poverty and the relief of distress, which ought to be attended to. But it certainly ought to be done out of a separate fund, whether it is administered by the same people or not; the two classes of work should not be confused. So far as the employment fund is concerned, the position ought to be maintained by Deputies that they can criticise the distribution of the money and the question of the fairness of its distribution. If you mix that up with the question of works which are desirable on other grounds, then you are getting into the area of opinion and preference and the rest of it. While I would have no objection to handling a fund which was for development, I would strongly object to the two funds being mixed together.

Summer drainage took place last year to the extent of about £30,000. I think it is generally recognised that we can in drainage work get perhaps two or three times as much value in the summer as in the winter. These works in which there is employment content are going on this year in every area, and wherever there is a proper scheme submitted we will try to carry it on. I hope with the programme that is actually in process of intensive organisation at the present moment, to see a start at this work by the beginning of this month. To the Dáil that is not a definite promise, but I will undertake to do the best possible in the circumstances.

Deputy Corish and other Deputies raised the question of the local contributions to any of these schemes. I am entirely in favour of local contribution, however small; even though it were practically negligible in amount I would enforce local contributions in every case I possibly could. I would do so on high State grounds, though it is the most inconvenient thing that could possibly happen in relation to my Department. If we did not have these local contributions one of the big difficulties in administration would disappear. I would simply have to make out a mathematical statement of relief plans available and send them out, and the only answer I would get would be a request to double the amounts. Delay is due to the fact that the local authorities think they can get away with something by a little bit of pressure here and there. Local authorities in thinking that a little bit of pressure might help their areas, cause a great many delays in the carrying through of these schemes. If the local authorities can get into their heads that we do not send out these grants for consideration, that we do not send out the allocations of their contributions without at least as full consideration as possible it might save a lot of trouble to them and to us. What we are doing at the present moment is to divide the total fund available, in proportion to the necessity of each county and each area in each county. This year we have tried to carry that one step further.

In every individual area we will divide the money that belongs to that area amongst every necessitous individual there in proportion to his necessities. That decides how the money is to be sent out. The method of deciding the contribution is exactly the opposite. We decide the amount each district will contribute in proportion to its capacity to bear the burden, in other words, in proportion to its incapacity to deal with its unemployed. As a result, the contributions from the local authorities vary from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. Every contribution of that kind is calculated on that basis, and it can be justified up to the hilt on that basis. That brings us down to the question that the local authorities can have no complaint as to the amount they are asked to contribute. It is only a question whether they should be asked at all. And why should they not be asked? Why should they not be reminded that it is they who are paying for the relief scheme, not us? It is not the Dáil that is paying for the relief scheme; it is not the Minister for Finance and it is not some abstraction called the central taxpayer. Exactly the same people are taxed as are rated. When the local authority gets from the Government a grant of £20,000 subject to their paying a contribution of £4,000, it is time they knew, and it is time that the local representatives had the courage to tell them so, that not merely are the local authorities paying the £4,000 but they are paying the £16,000 as well. It is merely a matter of convenience where that money was collected.

I have given a case here to-day. Take, for example, the Borough of Cork. So far as I know it is, roughly speaking, the average from an unemployment assistance point of view that we have in regard to the country generally. The total amount of money which is spent on unemployment assistance and on relief schemes in the City of Cork for last year was equivalent to 14/7 in the £ on the rates. The corporation is paying somewhere about 2/- or 2/6 of that, knowingly and openly; but they are really paying the whole lot, and it is time they recognised it. I have said before that democracy is a hard faith, and the principal doctrine of it is that those who are democrats in relation to their people shall tell them the facts of the case. It is for local officials and local authorities to know that they are getting nothing for nothing from the central authority, and it is good that they should be openly taxed for a part of that money in order that they may fully understand it. I will admit it is inconvenient. Deputy Corish spoke of the annoyance of it. In the course of the finance debate he said it was all very well and very easy for the Minister for Finance to juggle with millions, but it was a very different thing when a local authority had to put a tax of 9d. on the rates. I do not see why all the discomfort of raising taxation should be here. I do not think the fact that it is inconvenient and annoying is any excuse for not facing up to the situation. Deputy Corish said that the amount the State provided was infinitesimal.

By comparison.

It is not infinitesimal by comparison. The inconvenience of having to tax people yourselves instead of saying that somebody else taxed them is enormous. It is very easy to say that the Minister for Finance raises the taxes and Deputy Corish spends them, or the Mayor of Wexford spends them, or the local authority spends them; but, as a matter of fact, in consenting to their being raised by the Minister for Finance every local representative is consenting to the equivalent of a rating on his own district to the same amount. I am very often, in fact throughout the whole of this debate I am torn between love and duty. I have to be inexorably just because I cannot be generous to one man without being definitely unjust to another; unless there is an amount of money which is more than sufficient justly to deal with the proposition, any unnecessary generosity to any individual or any district is a wrong. I would be very pleased indeed to be able to say to a local authority: "Here is all the money and you will have no trouble and no contribution whatsoever"; but I do not think it is sound public policy to do so and for that reason I do not advocate it.

One objection that struck me as rather peculiar was in regard to the deduction for stamps. I always understood stamps were part of the machinery of government by which the State to some extent looked after people who were not able fully to look after themselves. Take unemployment insurance, for instance. The employed man pays a certain amount of money, his employer and the State also paying a certain amount. In the case of national health, a man pays a certain amount of money and the employer and the State pay a certain amount. In the case of widows' and orphans' pensions, I think the stamps for those started at the beginning of this month. The individual pays a certain amount and the State pays, and the result is that for every stamp for which a man pays he gets probably three times that value. If you go on the principle that that is a benefit until a man is in receipt of wages, and then you deduct it, and if you say he is not getting anything for it, then anybody who believes that should have voted against unemployment assistance and against the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts and the other Acts. The fact that we were all in favour of them means that we recognised that a man gets in a stamp a great deal more than he pays for.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that I said that.

No. Various things were said by various people.

You mentioned my name some moments ago, and it might be connected with that statement.

Somebody as virtuous as yourself is responsible for it. There has been one objection to the rotation system, the present scheme of unemployment works. It did not come from any Deputy in the House; it came from a priest in the West of Ireland. I only quote it because it seems to be fundamentally important. Complaint has been made that, due to the time over which relief schemes are now operating in certain districts such as Western Donegal, Western Galway, Mayo, and places of that kind, where the men are very largely small cottier farmers and to some extent fishermen as well, the actual work which the men ought to be doing —the fundamentally important work of looking after farms—is being neglected. I got complaints from very responsible people who would not make them without some justification. I do believe that is significant, and that we will have to go into the case carefully to inquire in regard to the system of agriculture and the actual condition of the different people on different portions of the seaboard. We shall have to inquire as to the period in which employment on relief schemes, even for three days, shall not be allowed to interfere with the conditions affecting their ordinary, everyday life. I think that will vary very much in districts. In some of the eastern districts conditions may be entirely different to the western districts.

It may mean that in certain districts we may abandon relief works over portion of the winter period, and we may transfer the money which belonged to that particular area for the winter to the summer period, and even if it meant employing the people in the period of the year which, normally, we have not regarded as an employment period, I think that would be a right and proper thing to do if, in fact, the present period of employment is interfering with preparations of that character. I am only warning the Dáil in that matter because the question may come up as to how it is that in certain areas we are carrying on work at periods in which we would not do it in other areas.

As I have said before to the House, I do very greatly value, from a purely administrative point of view, and from the point of view of its convenience and everything else, as an administrative asset, the fact that there has been built up in the House a confidence in the administration of this Department. I mean, it is quite possible here at the present moment, I am glad to say, for a man to get up and attack anything we do. They may have the lowest possible opinion of any particular and individual act of ours and of our policy and administration, but the fact that it is recognised that in everything we do we are doing the one thing in intention, and that is the carrying out of the trust that the Dáil gave us in relation to this money, to see that it goes for the benefit of the poor, is a very good thing. It is for that reason that sometimes I explain things with more fullness, and perhaps use a patience and moderation, which may be foreign to my ordinary outlook, in a discussion of this character. In other words, in this particular case I regard it as being for the purpose of seeing that good work is done.

We have come to the end of this particular year in which we have administered £1,500,000. We propose, as I hope, to administer a considerably larger amount next year. We will follow on the lines on which we are going, and we will accept from any Deputy in the House any criticism and any suggestion of any sort or kind, however made or in whatever manner it is made, with the intention of regarding it as constructive. What I mean is that, in the course of this debate, certain descriptive phrases have been used, such as "abominable,""dreadful," and so on. I regard myself as bound to ignore the whole of them and to look behind any statement of that kind for what might be constructive. I regard any heat that may be shown in it as a generous heat—in other words, I regard it as a resentment at what they regard as injustice—in the hope that we may between us hammer out a better system. All I can say is that that spirit will continue in relation to this Department and that that cooperation which we have received, which we have asked for, and which we value, we are going to ask for and receive again.

The work of the Department, in my opinion, at the present moment has reached the limits of the capacity of its existing organisation. If the Dáil wants more work out of this Department, if it wants a higher perfection in it in the sense of distribution, if it wants to ensure against the odd incidents of the kind which come out in debate here, then that means that the organisation will have to be extended, not merely here, but in the country. We have put upon the local authorities this year the onus of carrying out thousands of schemes. I am amazed at the way they have responded to it. They have been asked to do it under a new system, a system in which 20 out of 26 counties had no experience. Thousands of raw gangers have been asked to administer this scheme, and I would not have been a bit surprised, nor would I have been a bit apologetic, if it had broken down in two or three places. All I can say is that they have responded to that. Speaking now of the administrative side of our Department, to which I am grateful and of which I am proud, they have done their work splendidly, as I think I said before; but if we are going to put more of a load on them, then we will require that they shall be helped in numbers. I could not improve on the administrative staff which I have got, both in the country, in the field, and at headquarters. If the Dáil requires the things which the Dáil has required in the complaints they have put up to me, they will have to face the fact, and they will have to back the Department in seeing that it has adequate staffs and resources to do its work.

There is one question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible that the Parliamentary Secretary has already dealt with the point, but I am sorry that I was not able to be here to-day before this, as I had to attend a funeral. I do not know whether he dealt with the question of single men or not. Perhaps he did?

Single men are the same proposition as the lower-register men. I think the Deputy has a question down for to-morrow.

Yes. Perhaps I can wait till then for the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with it.

As a matter of fact, I can answer it now. The point is that married men and single men, as such, are not recognised under this scheme at all. Married men and single men are measured under the Unemployment Assistance Act on the ground of their dependency, and we work from that register. We have taken a census, as a matter of fact, in different places. The Deputy will remember that we used to have 25 per cent., single men, but we found that in the rural areas that 25 per cent. is considerably exceeded under the Act. Apparently, it does not work as well in the urban areas. However, we have behind us now a year of experience. Up to the present, we have been so fully engaged in doing the jobs that we have not had time to go into certain other matters, but all the criticisms and all the objections that Deputies have had to urge in relation to the scheme, and all the experience we have had in this year, will be used to improve for next year.

I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to answer this question, or perhaps it is unfair to ask him at this stage. The local bodies have just received intimation that a certain amount of money will be available very soon, and they have been asked to put up a rate. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to say whether that is the full amount they will get for the financial year ending March of next year or not? It may be unfair of me to expect him to reply at this stage.

The two grants to go out to them are rural roads and minor relief schemes.

The urban people have got the same intimation.

Previously we did not get these intimations, and we were not in a position to issue these intimations last year until July, but the Minister for Finance this year has broken all the traditions of the Finance Department by giving us the opportunity to make the announcements. There are certain districts in which they already struck their rates, and so on, and, as the Deputy knows, the general understanding this year is that it is to be raised out of revenue, but that cannot be done in certain cases.

It cannot be done in Wexford.

I know, but having regard to the fact that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and ourselves are on the same side in this matter, I have no doubt that the resources of civilisation will not be completely exhaused by this.

Well, that is not the point I actually raised. What I want to know is whether the intimation which is being sent now covers the period from this until the 31st March next, or will there be any other commitment with the Board of Works or the local people in that connection? Perhaps it is unfair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary that question at this stage.

As far as this year's grant is concerned, yes. In connection with this grant, ordinarily speaking, we have run on the principle of carrying on by a large re-vote. This year, to meet the objection that we were putting down moneys that we were not spending, we have decided to run practically to a dead end, and that means that well before the end of the period a new arrangement will have to be made, and intimations based on that will have to be sent out in advance.

The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with quite a large number of questions, but there was one lacuna missing with which I should have liked him to deal. He said nothing about the unemployment of women, or what was being done for them, and I hope he will extend the scope of his activities in that connection and that he will include in his schemes the taking of their needs into consideration. Perhaps some scheme might be considered on the lines adopted by the London County Council to give them some sort of training. For that purpose there must be cooperation between the different Departments.

I should be very glad to go into that matter with the Deputy herself or with any other of the lady members of the Dáil, to see whether or not some scheme could be formulated. It is not quite easy to do it.

I know that.

To the extent to which it can be done, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share