Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10.—Office of Public Works (Resumed).

Mr. O'Brien

I should like to support what has been said by some previous speakers regarding Government buildings. The Department with which I am acquainted is the Department of Industry and Commerce, and it has been stated for a number of years that a building in Kildare Street would be constructed for that Department. I do not know whether or not there has been any reconsideration of that decision, or what may be the reason for the delay, but I do know that that Department in particular suffers very severely from want of proper accommodation. The staffs of the Department occupy at least 12 separate buildings in different portions of the city. I think, in fact, there may be more than 12. Most of the accommodation is very inadequate and unsuitable. The premises are in many cases converted private dwellinghouses, which obviously were never intended to give suitable office accommodation. There are many other Government Departments which are equally badly housed. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether this problem is being considered as a whole. Has any consideration been given to what is going to be done over a considerable period regarding Government buildings? Obviously there will have to be a good deal of building some time or another, and I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us that that will be undertaken as part of a comprehensive plan.

The ideal thing, of course, would be if all the Government buildings could be grouped in one part of the city. That may not be possible; I do not know. The next best thing would be if the Departments could be in a number of groups, and I should like if we could have some information as to what consideration has been given to that matter. This Parliament building, for example, is obviously only a temporary one. Nobody would seriously state it is going to last for all time. Anyone who visits the capitals of continental countries, even the very small ones, must feel ashamed of the absence of a proper Parliament building here. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if any consideration has been given to that? This question is very closely related to one which is the main concern of the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council, namely, the replanning of the city—a very urgent matter, and one that requires very careful consideration. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary tell us that his Department, in so far as they have any authority or influence in the matter, will be sympathetic to a broad and comprehensive scheme which will take in not only all Government buildings, including a new Parliament building, but the cathedral that we hear about, the new city hall, and the various other public buildings, whether national or local. This subject, too, is very closely related to the problem of congestion, which will probably never be solved unless we have such a comprehensive plan. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us an assurance that his Department is giving all the sympathy and support it can to the solution of that problem.

Mr. Gorey

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government will pay more attention to the needs of the country before they think of moving out of a building such as this; it is quite good enough. I think the Parliamentary Secretary gave an indication to Deputy Dillon in regard to a drainage inquiry. I should like to knew at this stage what sort of terms of reference are to be put before this inquiry; and what are the powers that it is proposed to ask for? Is there any body of young men to get instruction with regard to surveying, especially with regard to drainage surveying for levels? We have a whole lot of bogland and low-lying land in this country. Although we have not the same type of bogland and low-lying land as they have in Holland, I think, in proportion to our size, we have more of that type of land than any other country in Europe. The position here was the same as it was in England—that before land purchase operated here there was a certain amount of authority; there was a certain amount of supervision. The owners of estates had men attached to each estate who made it their business to walk the waterways and see there was no obstruction. They made it their business to see that they were maintained at a certain level. That is still done in England, and you have not the problem there that you have here. In England they have not lost land that was of any use. We have lost thousands and thousands of acres here in one county alone. When purchase began, the supervision by the landlord owners ceased. In many cases it ceased long before they went out of the country altogether, with the result that our waterways have all got choked up.

Some drainage systems which had their outlet on those waterways, especially the minor ones, were effective when opened up after a period of perhaps 100 years. I want to know what is contemplated by the Department in regard to this matter, as it is a very important one. It ought to be recognised that there must be some State authority over waterways, even the minor ones. There ought to be State control over any waterways that are considered effective and necessary for drainage purposes. If put into proper condition in the first instance they could be supervised by the Guards in two visits a year, without any more expense to the State. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is quite alive to the necessity for that. We see whole tracts of country destroyed because one part of the waterway has been allowed to become blocked up. In the course of time trees grow, and the whole place right back to the source is blocked and rendered useless. On his first Estimate in 1932 when the Minister for Agriculture referred to the number of cattle in the country, I made some of the suggestions which I am now making. The fact is that most of the land which is waste now was dairy land 60 or 80 years ago. Now, to maintain that standard of dairying, the arable land has to be encroached upon. Now, the arable land that could be used for tillage is dairy land, and the low-lying land has gone waste. One need only walk half a mile from one's own door in the part of the country that I come from to find whole tracts of waste land. A few years ago, when I had not as much practical experience of the matter as I have now, I followed up the idea that a certain place could be tremendously improved, and bought it for a few pounds. In order to do anything with the portion I had bought, I had to go half a mile into a neighbour's land. When I reached my own point I had gained a level of four feet. In that year, that was done in 13 days. It would be an education to anybody to see what has been done, and what are its effects. In the following year I devoted about three weeks to the work, and another fortnight in the year after, with the result that a large tract of country was drained, and about 500 acres of that are now arable land and have been tilled.

That is the position all over the country and that is the reason I say you must have some authority. A day for seeing that the waterways are kept clear would be more valuable to this country than an arbour day. I am prepared to go any distance to meet the man who wants to conserve water for cattle at certain seasons of the year, say, from May until October, because that can be done in a reasonable way. In these days of cement, when a man can put up piers on which he can have a temporary dam for the summer so as to conserve water, I can see the necessity for that and I am prepared to go any distance to meet that. But there ought to be a time varying with the different seasons, according to the rainfall, when all that ought to be cleared for the winter and give a free flow of water so as to make the drainage effective. The summer stoppage can do no damage. All this can be regulated and enforced but the time should come every year when all the waterways of the country should be cleared and kept clear. It should not be in the power of any individual anywhere to prevent that.

Mr. Flinn

How would the Deputy deal with a farmer lower down the stream whose water was dammed off?

Mr. Gorey

That could be arranged because it should be dammed before the water gets scarce so that it does not get the overflow. Some authority should decide that.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy will see that it can be a very difficult problem. I am not criticising the Deputy, because it is a good suggestion, if it could be carried out.

Mr. Gorey

I think it could. Of course if one waits until the last moment and then dams the water, it will absorb all the supply. If it is done in good time, it still can overflow and go on and everybody can be provided for.

Mr. Flinn

There is nothing to prevent a man putting up a dam in the summer and preventing the water getting down.

Mr. Gorey

That sort of thing will have to depend on circumstances, and the particular flow of water. It may be a little bit hard to work out. It may not, in every case, be possible to work it out in practice.

Mr. Flinn

It is a suggestion worth considering.

Mr. Gorey

It is worth more than considering. I wonder have we a school of engineering of real experience with regard to this? If some of the things that have come to my notice are examples of it, I say decidedly— although it is the last thing I want to say—that we have not. There were some embankments broken down in my county at Ballyneale and down to the Suir side, and three or four attempts were made to deal with these, but they have not been successful. How were the banks put up in the old days when engineers had not the facilities they have to-day? How were the fen lands in England and in Holland shut off if we are not able to repair a few bridges and embankments here? The Land Commission took on the doing of these particular jobs in County Kilkenny, and they failed to do them. They allowed the money advanced on these particular holdings to go by the board.

On Saturday last I went to view the problem presented by the Lough Cullen drainage. I understand that officials of the Department were examining that place for months. The result was that they decided to do nothing. If I were there for a month or two, not alone would I have decided on what I should do, but I would have done it myself if I had a shovel and a bag. There are 1,000 acres of swamp there because that has not been dealt with. The first obstacle in the way is the accumulation of stones under the bridge controlled either by the county council or the Board of Works. There is a tongue of limestone coming from each side. The bridge is a very old one, and unable to take heavy traffic— an engine cannot get across it. The level has been raised at least one foot in that particular instance, and 200 yards further down you get another foot. About 150 yards below that, a two-foot high fence of sods and stones and trees is built across the river for support. This small river is only a mile or a mile and a half long. There is a mill on it which has not been worked, I suppose, for 30 years. From the head race supplying the mill to the tail race, you will get a depth of 17 or 18 feet, or perhaps more. There is no necessity to interfere with that in order to deal with this problem. If the weir is removed, and you work back from that to the bridge, a distance of less than one mile, this 1,000 acres of land will be brought back to its original fertility. When the mill was working, the people who had the water rights kept the place clean, with the result that the water was one and a half or two feet lower than it is now. I saw that area in my young days supporting more cattle than any similar area in any other part of the county. To-day, nothing can go into it.

Owing to the nature of the country, I consider that water obstruction is a more serious matter even than road obstruction. It is much more serious than having animals straying on the road for which prosecutions are instituted by the police. I am the last person in the world who wants any force used or annoyance caused to the people in occupation of the land, but there is a certain standard you must maintain if you are going to keep the land in arable condition and not have it wasted. It also has a bearing on the question of national health. You cannot maintain the health of the people and of animals properly in a water-logged country where there is an atmosphere of dampness.

With regard to this particular area at Lough Cullen, if I were sure of my rights and of the power of entry, I would have organised the people of the district and done the job in a fortnight. But, probably, if I removed the stones under the bridge I would be committing an offence for interfering with the foundations. I do not think, however, that that would be so, as it must be built on the rock. If I were living in the district and had the land rights that the people there have—and they have certain rights as well as the former owners of the mill—I would consult a solicitor with a view to prosecuting the county council for allowing the obstruction at the bridge and the further obstruction down the river.

I have nothing further to say except that I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take his courage in his hands and claim certain powers and authority, otherwise he will not get this very necessary work carried out. He should take whatever power he deems to be necessary to enable him to have the works carried out. There will be an odd individual here and there who will not co-operate, and who will endeavour to obstruct him in the attempt to exercise his right, but it is up to some central authority to take whatever steps are necessary to improve these lands. In the past the landlord had the right of supervision over these lands and now that he has passed away, the State should have that right. I think everybody in the country will agree that something in reason is necessary to improve the condition of such lands. As I have said already, I am the last in the world who would want anything drastic done, but I think in the cases I have mentioned some action should be taken to put the land of the country back into its former condition. Serious encroachment on the arable land of the country has occurred as the result of this particular neglect in low-lying lands, although these were among the most productive areas we formerly had.

Mr. M. Morrissey

I wish to raise just a few points on this Vote. Splendid work is being done by the Board of Works all over the country, through the medium of these minor relief schemes. These schemes are very much appreciated by the different sections of the community whom they serve and benefit. For instance, the repair of old boreens and the widening of by-roads leading into farms and farmers' houses, are, to my mind, very useful works and should be continued and, if possible, intensified. There is one matter in this connection that I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, that is, the advisability of the Board of Works seeking compulsory powers for the acquisition of land from the owners wherever necessary. I know of a few cases in Waterford where owing to jealousy of neighbours, or for some other petty reason, the owners of certain land will not give the necessary permission for the work to proceed. I know of a number of desirable schemes in the constituency that have been held up for that reason. I believe myself that if compulsory powers were in the hands of the Board of Works, the knowledge that the Board of Works had such powers would in itself, without their being forced fully to exercise these powers, be sufficient to break down most of the opposition of the kind I mention. I think therefore, that either the Board of Works or the local authority should be given these powers.

Another point which I should like to raise has reference to the withdrawal of minor relief schemes from areas where there is not a sufficient number of registered unemployed. This applies in particular to mountainy districts. With very few exceptions, the population of these districts consists of very small holders who are in very poor circumstances. For different reasons these people do not register as unemployed at the Exchange. For instance, they may live six or seven miles away from the nearest Guards barracks and, because of the small amount of unemployment assistance they could get, they do not bother to register. There is no doubt that those people, in a sense, are no better off financially than the ordinary labouring man and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that those people should be considered in all future minor schemes. They should be considered as unemployed for the purpose of enabling these very necessary schemes to be carried out in the areas in which they live. If the Parliamentary Secretary would adopt that suggestion it would be a great benefit financially to those people and it would assist them considerably in tiding over the lean winter months when there is no income whatsoever coming into their household. As I have said before, they are in the unfortunate position that they are no better off than the ordinary labouring man whereas, at the same time, they have much greater overhead charges such as rent and rates. I think that that is a point that should be considered by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The only other matter to which I should like to refer is the desirability of employing men on minor relief schemes for at least six days of the week. This question has been raised by a number of Deputies. I am aware of a number of cases in Waterford where, last year, men were in receipt of, say, the maximum amount of unemployment assistance. They were then employed for two or three days on minor relief schemes and by reason of that fact they received less than they would have received if they were drawing unemployment assistance.

Mr. Flinn

Does the Deputy know of any single case in which that occurs?

Mr. Morrissey

I know that a deputation came to me in Dungarvan last year in which there were five or six men who stated that that was a fact.

Mr. Flinn

It was not true. There is not a single case of that kind so far as I am aware.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Parliamentary Secretary——

Mr. Flinn

I should be very glad if any one would produce proof of a case of that kind.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall go into that again. I was approached as I was leaving the town on that point. I am quite prepared to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's word, but I was given to understand by these men that they had that grievance. I think that is all I have to say on the matter. I should like if the minor relief schemes were continued on a greater scale and that the Parliamentary Secretary would take into consideration the case of people living in the mountainy districts that I have mentioned. I think it would be a great service to these people if they were allowed to register or were considered as unemployed for the purpose of having these schemes carried out in the mountainy areas.

Professor O'Sullivan

Deputy Gorey expressed a doubt as to whether we had the engineering capacity to deal with drainage works. I should say we have. Of that I have very little doubt and for the particular type of work, arterial drainage work, we have to do in this country, if we had not them I do not think we could get them from any other country.

Mr. Flinn

That is so.

Professor O'Sullivan

Not that they have no drainage problems in other countries. They have, but their drainage problems are different from our drainage problems. In connection with our big drainage problems we tried to get and did get outside advice but it was extremely difficult to get such engineers outside, even as consultants. They have drainage problems in Switzerland completely different from ours. The same applies to Holland— essentially different from both. This is such a specialised type of work that you want more than general engineering capacity. We can get plenty of that type of men—and very good men, and you can train them up to be drainage experts. You want, however, not merely men of engineering capacity, men who are familiar with other types of drainage problems, but you want men trained in our particular problems. I think you have these in the Board of Works. The difficulty does not arise from lack of technical knowledge on the part of the engineering staff in the Board of Works. It comes from defective administrative machinery, and powers. That would be common ground. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be the first to acknowledge that the actual administrative machinery at his disposal is not such as to enable him to deal with the different types of problem that come to him in connection with drainage. We have good material in the way of engineers throughout the country, and they could be taken and trained if necessary. I am sure the capacity is there to train others. If it is not there we shall not get it anywhere else. I am not quite sure when you come to the present drainage code in reference to the type of problem raised by Deputy Gorey, that you have the same technical skill elsewhere.

There is, for instance, the question of maintenance. Under the present law the duty of maintenance falls on county councils. Is there any guarantee that the county councils have the necessary staff to deal with that problem? They have engineers, but they are engaged in other work and it would not be fair to expect them to have the particular knowledge that is necessary, even for maintenance schemes. Therefore, what is really lacking is not technical capacity at the centre, but machinery—and that would require legislation. I cannot advocate that here, except in so far as it touches on the question of the setting up of the commission which may lead—and I presume will—to a new drainage code or a modification of the present one. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I am a bit sceptical about that commission.

Mr. Flinn

I will forgive the Deputy anything, but I will not agree with him.

Professor O'Sullivan

Perhaps you may. At least, you can see the grounds of my scepticism. The Parliamentary Secretary intervened in this debate on Friday last, at column 1496 of the Parliamentary Debates. Replying to Deputy Dillon, he said:

"Mr. Flinn: I will answer the Deputy's question now if he wishes. The personnel is practically completed."

More than 12 months ago, on April 1st, 1937, speaking on this debate, Deputy O'Sullivan said——

Mr. Flinn

Was it the same Deputy?

Professor O'Sullivan

The same Deputy as is now speaking. I was then indicating the extreme urgency of this matter, and said:

"My remarks are directed towards convincing the Parliamentary Secretary of the urgency of this matter and to help him administratively in connection with this particular subhead.

"Mr. Flinn: If I were to tell the Deputy that the commission is in process of being set up, would that save him any time?"

I was sceptical 12 months ago, and I replied that I did not think it would, that I had better put the matter forward, notwithstanding the fact that the commission was in process of being set up. I gather that it is still in the process of being set up. It advances at the same rate as the Awbeg river; and so shall we ever get that drainage commission? Twelve months ago we were told it was in process of being set up; things had advanced so far that at that time it was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was hardly worth while discussing the matter, as before the next 12 months we were led to understand there would be a new code of legislation before the House. To-day, more than 13 months later, should like to point out that we are in precisely the same position. I do not blame the Board of Works and I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary. That is a matter of Government policy. But I want to point out that Government policy has been remarkably slow when the commission is in the same embryonic state, apparently, that it was in 12 months ago. If the incubation period is as slow as that, I should say that there will be very little of the existing drainage schemes left to investigate, because all will have gone into full disrepair. Not merely has the commission to be set up but, after that process, it has to consider evidence and that will, possibly, take a couple of years. The Parliamentary Secretary, whoever he will be, and the Board of Works will then have to consider the evidence, prepare heads of Bills and submit them to the Government. Twelve months after, the Government will wonder if it is necessary to deal with the matter, and perhaps ten or 15 years will elapse before the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to have drainage schemes considered. I suggest that much more speed than that is necessary, and much more speed than was evinced in the passage that I quoted from last Friday's debates and from the debate that took place over 12 months ago. There is just one excuse for the statement that was made 12 months ago. It was made on the 1st April and, possibly, we were more or less victims of playful efforts by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible that Deputies took it that the 1st of April statement was too seriously meant.

Mr. Flinn

From the Parliamentary Secretary.

Professor O'Sullivan

We generally receive information. The schemes that I mentioned on the last occasion illustrate the two big problems that the country has to face in connection with drainage. I am speaking, not of the minor schemes, but of the larger ones. One deals with maintenance such as Deputy Gorey mentioned. The Akeragh Lough scheme was planned out and completed by the Board of Works and handed over to the Kerry County Council; what was the result? The estimated annual benefit to farmers was in a very short time exceeded by the annual amount they had to pay. That was the position 12 months ago. I will find out the position at the present day later, as I will put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary about it. What does the position show? It shows the necessity for urgency. The county council says that it cannot help, that it has to exact these payments because it is the law. When the Parliamentary Secretary is approached the reply is that the Board of Works have washed their hands of the question. There is plenty of water, anyhow, in these places to do that. The Board of Works say that they handed over these schemes to the county councils, that they had no more to do with them and could not intervene. Undoubtedly here is a case in which more is being charged than it is professed the scheme was worth. Worse still, the scheme is actually falling into deterioration. This year may have been an exception. The problem is that schemes are being handed over that are imposing greater burdens on the farmers than the alleged benefits, and not only that, but that are quickly getting back to the original state, so that in a short time you find yourself in this position, that farmers are saddled with a heavy annuity without any benefit to show for it. But still the answer of the Board of Works is quite clear: "We cannot do anything in the matter. We cannot go in and inspect it. We cannot send an engineer down to see why the scheme is not working, to see whether it has fallen into disuse, to see whether the lands are returning to the state they were in ten years ago. We cannot do it. We have no power." I doubt if that is the only case in the country. I think there must be several other cases of the same kind. I see the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me.

Mr. Flinn

This was a case where they did not pay their maintenance for several years.

Professor O'Sullivan

For the reason I have stated—because the calculated amount of the benefit was exceeded by maintenance plus annuity charge.

Mr. Flinn

Oh, no, no.

Professor O'Sullivan

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find that what I say is correct. Anyhow he refused to intervene although the county council was bound to collect the annuities according to the law independent of whether the farmers were getting any benefit out of the scheme or not. That was their answer. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was that by law he had no right to intervene. If there are any other cases of that kind—and I am sure there are a number of cases—where the benefits not merely do not come up to the estimation of the benefits but where they were actually overtopped by the maintenance expenses plus annuity charges, then all the more urgency for this commission being appointed.

There was another large case in the same constituency. I gave these as illustrations of different types. Here it is not a question of maintaining; here it is a question solely for the Board of Works. It is not a question of the local contribution. An arrangement was agreed to as regards that. So eager were the people, as I previously told the Parliamentary Secretary, that they were prepared to pay more than the Board of Works thought they would be liable for. Apparently agreement was come to between the then county council, who was the commissioner, the Board of Works, and the farmers whose lands were to be benefited. But once that agreement was reached—and up to this that was the principal difficulty, getting agreement on the percentages of the cost to be met by the different parties—but once that agreement was reached the scheme seems to have collapsed, to have stopped. Nothing else has been done and again I refer to the commission— to the commission that was in that advanced state of incubation 12 months ago and which has advanced just about a few minutes since then, and not much more.

This may be an exceptional year. Much damage may not have been done this spring to that "submarine estate" on the Brick and Cashen but, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that is a matter for which the farmers have to be thankful but for which the Board of Works can hardly claim the benefit. The Government will probably claim it but the Board of Works is much too modest to claim credit for that particular benefit. Every ordinary year that passes makes the amount of work to be done down there greater because there are embankments already in existence and they are yearly being destroyed. But the reply is that that is a scheme that is very difficult. I know it is. I admit it is. But, having to wait for a commission and new laws before any effective steps are taken even to keep the present embankments in the state they are in now is a mistake. It is a mistake to postpone everything to the commission. Some type of work might be done, some preliminary work that may lessen the work in the future, if you are ever going to undertake that work.

I referred to the spring weather, to the weather we have had for the last two months. I admit the Board of Works could not have foreseen that but at least, they could have had schemes of this kind ready so as to take advantage of it when it did come. I know no better chance of dealing with difficult river schemes than the type of weather we have had for the last two months. But here, as I say, there is no scheme ready. These two cases, the Akeragh Lough and Brick and Cashen schemes, I bring forward as typical of how this matter is being dealt with, the slowness, I was going to say, of the advance, but, candidly, with the examples before me, I cannot register any advance. I should be a person to whom faith comes very easy if I saw any evidence of an advance between now and 13 months ago. I am not, as I say, blaming the Parliamentary Secretary; he may have difficulties with his Government and with his Minister for Finance, but he should let us know why it is that, 12 months after that statement was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, namely, that the commission is in the process of being set up, we are still in the same position.

Now, there are one or two other matters to which I may refer. A matter has come up here for discussion, for consideration perhaps. That is the question of rotational employment. The Deputy from Waterford, Deputy Morrissey, was speaking and he made the statement that they receive less than the dole. That was promptly denied by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Flinn

I do not know anything about it.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am not going into that, but shall I put it this way —a number of people do not receive very much more. One of the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary is this, and I am not at all throwing any doubt on this:

"...until recent years a traditional laxity and inefficiency has grown up in this and in other countries in respect of relief works, and this was due, in part at least, to the hasty manner in which it was always found necessary to organise and to carry on..."

and so on. But then I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit there is another reason why that should be so. He goes on:

"In these circumstances it is not surprising that relief works came to acquire a poor reputation in the past for efficiency, and there is no doubt that this bad tradition still persists in one degree or another."

If you give men a few shillings per week more than they get for doing nothing, that is practically dole. The work would be counted as dole, looked upon as dole, and you will not get efficient work. That would be the tendency. You may, in certain instances, get it, but, on the whole, there is the danger that if you give men only a few shillings a week more than they get for doing nothing, they look upon the relief work as dole, and you will not get the full return. That is natural, human nature being what it is. You may give me instances in which you may get a good return, but, I say, the temptation will be in the direction I suggest. Therefore, from the point of view of getting a return for money, and of efficiency, I think you are embarking on a wrong line by simply giving men for doing hard work a few shillings a week more than they would get for doing nothing. I remember when I was in the Board of Works we gave people pay for drainage work; it was not a high rate, indeed, but they did excellent work because it was constant work. I saw the returns in some of these drainage districts, and there was nothing to complain of. That was, at least, my experience for the short period, the very happy period, that I happened to be there.

Mr. Flinn

I have been hearing the complaints since, unfortunately.

Professor O'Sullivan

Of the work done then?

Mr. Flinn

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

I did not hear complaints then. I cannot speak now of whether the work was permanent or not but certainly we got the information at that time from our engineers on the spot and from our experts, that there was excellent return given in the way of work. But with this doling out of work you cannot expect men to give you their full work. They look upon this merely as dole and the temptation will be to do as little as they can. That is human nature and that is one of the worst results that I see flowing from this particular system. The Parliamentary Secretary says: "Very good; it will require £10,000,000 a year to deal with unemployment if you deal with it fully." That is a very interesting figure. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that on more than one occasion he stood up in this House and pointed out what use we could not make of the unemployment figures. I never got from him what use we could make of them, but he was very clear and very eloquent that any use anybody ever made of them was wrong. In fact I never knew, if he were correct in his views, why these figures were published. Nobody apparently could see how they were to be interpreted. I think that is not a misinterpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude here with regard to the question of unemployment returns. A sum of £10,000,000 a year at the rate of wages paid puts at a very high figure the number of unemployed in this country. I should say it would work out at something like 110,000 unemployed. That is the figure most critics of the Government pretend it is. There were one or two other matters which I think I put to the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion——

Mr. Flinn

Does the Deputy suggest that I should spend anything like £10,000,000?

Professor O'Sullivan

I am dealing with it. If the Parliamentary Secretary vacates that position he holds, I am quite ready to deal with that matter.

Mr. Flinn

But does the Deputy suggest that I should spend £10,000,000 a year on this?

Professor O'Sullivan

It might be better to do that than to continue what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing. We are getting into the position from which it is harder to get salvation. It is worse to continue doing what he is doing.

Mr. Flinn

I would like to get from the Deputy whether his suggestion includes £10,000,000 or reducing that amount, or is he coming down to any competent plan?

Mr. Pattison

What about the plan?

Mr. Flinn

Oh, the Greek chorus.

Professor O'Sullivan

From the statement of the Minister for Finance —last year, was it? —we have to take it that we shall always have the unemployed with us, and from the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary we are to take it that we shall always have the rotational system with us. We are no longer going to solve unemployment by the plan! That is now the confession from the Government Benches.

Mr. Flinn

We are not getting much help from the Deputy.

Professor O'Sullivan

It was the Government who undertook to do this thing. They undertook it then, and they had no doubt they could do it. What I am protesting against is a different thing. The Parliamentary Secretary is doing much more serious damage to the country than any mere wastage of money. He is interfering with the morale of the country. Take his own statement. The system which is there can only do something which will lead to inefficiency in the work. The Parliamentary Secretary complains of inefficiency in this type of work. What else can he expect from the modified dole system?

I now put to the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions connected with another matter. Is what is being done in the way of school buildings anything more than keeping level with the deterioration that is taking place? I even doubt if we are doing so much. I remember there was an inquiry several years ago. The Board of Works and the Education Department were both dealing with the matter. They made a census of unsuitable and bad schools, and it was calculated that, at the rate school-building was then progressing, it would require something like what you have on this Estimate to keep up with the deterioration alone, to say nothing of making good the huge arrears of one kind or another. On one occasion I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether it was not possible to get a cheaper type of school. I know the Board of Works is very keen on building very substantial schools. I doubt the wisdom of that. In this as well as in other matters ideas change every 50 years. Building a school that will last 100 years is, to my mind, a mistake. One of the difficulties about unsuitable schools at present is that the buildings are really so solid that there is a reluctance to scrap them. I think a cheaper kind of school, such as the Vocational Department is setting up, would be much cheaper and would be quite suitable for the next 30 or 40 years. At that time a future generation could solve the difficulty about the type of school it needed, and in solving that difficulty they would not be up against the difficulties that we have to face now.

Another matter to which I should like to direct attention is this: The Parliamentary Secretary became almost poetic when dealing with the work he is doing in the opening of vistas of scenery. I agree that nothing is more irritating to a tourist than to find when he is going through the country that there is excellent scenery on the other side of a belt of trees and that he is not able to see it through the obstruction. There is another problem not merely having such occasional vistas, but making it comfortable for tourists to get through the country at all to get to it. We have tourist difficulties owing to the weather and a short season and why add to these by bad roads? Some of our most beautiful scenery is approached by roads that are very bad. The beautiful scenery at Sleigh Head is unsurpassed, but is approached by a road that is almost impassable. But the Parliamentary Secretary need not go down as far as Kerry to look for first quality scenery being approached by bad roads. I have no doubt the Minister would like to go down there. Everybody should. But if he takes some of the best and finest scenery within 20 miles of us he will find the position is the same. I do not think there is any other country in Europe that lays itself out to make something out of the tourist traffic where such a thing could occur as you have here. Now the road from here to Sally Gap is bad. But if you want to know what is a really bad road, go from Sally Gap to Togher or Roundwood and then all your worst fears will be fulfilled. Here are two cases that illustrate the point to which I was referring—one here near Dublin, the other the roads in Kerry, approaches to one of the most beautiful pieces of coast scenery I know. These are Government problems. The county council cannot solve them. These are matters that I want to raise on this Vote. The Parliamentary Secretary asks am I in favour of spending £10,000,000. I will answer that question when the Parliamentary Secretary spends a much smaller amount voted and gets better results.

Mr. T. Kelly

The matter I want to raise on this Vote is of some importance to the City of Dublin. I refer to the position of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. That is a question that is very much interesting the Dublin Corporation at present. Some time ago a very important report was received from the Medical Officer of Health of Dublin and we had statements from the people of the Cork Street Hospital. The position is that if an epidemic of scarlatina or measles were to break out there is no room for children in the Dublin hospitals. In a city like Dublin where so many thousand families have to live with five, six, seven, eight or sometimes ten children in one little room, if one of these little ones gets the measles or scarlatina, one can just imagine the position that would arise. I am sure Deputy Larkin could give very graphic examples from the people whom he meets each day to bear out my fears. The Corporation were asked was it possible to get temporary accommodation under such circumstances. They tried and failed. I have some knowledge of the interior of this building and the very old buildings that are attached to it. It maintained 400 pensioners more or less during its career. There are no pensioners in it now. It was built as an hospital and has still most of the equipment that an hospital needs but certainly it is not up to date. However, it could be easily turned into use as a temporary makeshift to meet the difficulties I have mentioned should an epidemic break out. Application was made by the Corporation to be allowed to go in to see the place. Some of the members did not exactly believe me that this place could be made suitable. The reply that the City Manager got was to this effect, that whoever wrote the letter did not think any good result would come of an inspection. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary, and he is a man of good heart, that this building might be made adaptable for the accommodation of people during an epidemic that might occur in the city in the late autumn, the winter, or the spring. It could be utilised just as a makeshift; we do not want the permanent use of it at all. The position here is very bad during these portions of the year that I have alluded to and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to allow an inspection of the building by members of the Corporation and their officers.

I desire to refer to one or two other matters; they are only minor matters. One is with reference to the Chapel Royal in the precincts of Dublin Castle. Interiorly, it is one of the most beautiful buildings in Dublin and it has this attraction for craftsmen—and Dublin is a city of craftsmen—that the carvings there are absolutely the finest in the country. The building is closed; no one can get into it for the purpose of seeing the beautiful interior. If a visitor wants to get in there he has to go in a roundabout way to get admission. It is not used now for religious purposes. I have not been inside it for a long time and all I know about it now is what people tell me. I think this place should be left open to the people.

Mr. Everett

Ghosts of the past!

Mr. T. Kelly

I see that there is a sum of £680 for the purpose of improving the lighting of this Chamber. I am one who sits a great deal here and, on occasions, I have been glad of some distraction rather than have to listen to the spate of oratory that we have here. As a matter of fact, I have counted the chairs in this establishment possibly a thousand times; indeed, I have counted them so often that I quite forget the number now. If you look at the seats you will observe that some of them are becoming rusty, so rusty indeed that if you bring a stranger here at a time when the lights are not on, the interior of the Chamber is quite shabby. I think you could get the skins off and have them dyed a different colour. Now that we are all brothers, we might have them all the one colour. Deputies need not laugh. I would want to have a marble in my mouth pronouncing the word "brothers" in order to give it a proper roll. I think a different colour scheme would be advisable for the chairs. When the lights are not on, the place presents a very poor appearance. These lights are just for the good of our complexions—I do not see any other use for them. I suggest that the seating of the chairs should be coloured differently so as to give a better appearance to the Chamber.

Mr. McGovern

On the last occasion when this Vote was before the House I referred to certain matters of administration in County Cavan that seemed to me, at any rate, to be more or less irregular. The Parliamentary Secretary feigned indignation, or perhaps he felt it, at the suggestion that there was anything out of the ordinary. I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I had no desire then, and I have no desire now, to misrepresent, or indeed to blacken, him in any way. It would ill become either the Parliamentary Secretary or myself to attempt to blacken one another. What I propose to do now is to submit facts to the House. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take notice of them and he can then judge for himself. He can admit them, deny them, ignore them, or explain them away. I know the Parliamentary Secretary's eloquence, and his ability. I believe that no matter what hole you put him into, he will get out of it. I know that if I happened to be in the same hole, there is not a man in Eire who would get me out of it.

For the last 12 months I have made recommendations to the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides. I recommended anything from 30 to 60 works, and I do not know that one of them has been carried out. There are some hundreds of works going on in the county, but there is not one of those I recommended included. After all, the supporters of Fine Gael pay taxation as well as other people, and if schemes are submitted they should be considered just as carefully as other schemes, and the Fine Gael people are entitled to their share of the schemes. Of course, I am open to correction in regard to schemes that are being, or have been, carried out. If the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me and point out that any of the schemes I recommended have been done, I shall be very glad.

I am merely indicating the position as I see it, and it is really a position which the average individual cannot understand. It is especially difficult to understand the situation when it is known that these things are discussed in the Fianna Fáil club, and that Deputy Smith asked people in Killkonny Hall how many supporters of ours are living along a proposed work. You cannot blame the people if they form conclusions of their own. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this, but it is as well to let him know now. I hope when this Vote is under consideration again that there will be no need to refer to this matter.

Mr. Smith

Might I ask the Deputy to say if he was in the hall on that occasion?

Mr. McGovern

I will send the name of the person who is my informant to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not going to give names publicly here.

Mr. Smith

Your informant knew your own form, and knew the type of mind you possess.

Mr. McGovern

I did not catch what the Deputy said. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants the name of my informant, I will give it to him and he can communicate with him directly. I am not inventing anything. I would much rather be complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary as I heard others compliment him. I hope, when all this is thrashed out, that the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for these things. I always regard him as a man whose heart is better than his tongue—like my own.

Mr. Everett

No hard feelings.

Mr. McGovern

I know of one work that was started and it was in Deputy Smith's neighbourhood. It was one of the works I recommended and £15 was laid out for it. It passed the Board of Works engineer, or it would not have been started. It concerned the drainage of a bog, a small affair. For some reason or another, however, that work was stopped. My information is that it was stopped because the ganger first raised objection. It went from that to the county surveyor and the county surveyor discontinued the work. Now, that did not look so well for the engineer to the Board of Works or the county engineer who was directed by the ganger. In fact, it looked rather as if the tail were wagging the dog. Anyway, that, added to the other facts, makes something like two and two, which ought to make four—of course, anybody who wishes to try to explain it otherwise can make two and two make five or six, or only one, but I shall believe that two and two make four, until the contrary is proven.

Now, there is another matter to which I referred last year. It is connected with a certain work, and the Parliamentary Secretary asked me to give him the names in the particular case in question. Well, I have an objection to giving the names of individuals in public, no matter what Party they may belong to.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy can give the names in writing.

Mr. McGovern

No matter what side we may happen to belong to, I suppose none of us wishes to expose the other.

Mr. Flinn

How can I remedy the matter, if the Deputy will not give me the names or the particulars?

Mr. McGovern

The Parliamentary Secretary knows the particulars. I gave the particulars and names in the Board of Works Office.

Mr. Flinn

I do not think the Deputy has done so.

Mr. McGovern

I furnished the particulars to the Board of Works, since, and I gave the particulars of a principal Fianna Fáil leader in the district concerned—it is in my own district. The man concerned was a ganger, who had practically £200 a year coming into his house and owned a large farm; he was in charge of a road as ganger, and he began at one end of the road, which led to another road, and when he came to the mearing of a Fine Gael supporter, he stopped and began the road at the other end and stopped again when he reached the mearing on the other side of that man's land and left the road unfinished. If the Parliamentary Secretary will come down to that part of the country, I promise him that I will point out the place, actually from my own door, and I think I can prove to him that it is there as a standing monument to the impartiality of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Flinn

I hardly think there is a person in the House who believes that.

Mr. McGovern

I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to come down, and I will point out the place to him. As a matter of fact, I am sure that the fresh air of Cavan will do the Parliamentary Secretary good, and, at least, if he should come there he can see for himself what is going on and I hope that if he should come, he will take a note of these things so as to prevent such happenings in the future. Now, I am quite prepared to draw a sponge over the whole slate of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Flinn

We do not want the Deputy to do anything of the kind.

Mr. McGovern

I know, of course, that facts will melt like snow before the eloquence of the Parliamentary Secretary when he gets up to reply, but, all the same, I have doubts if he will be able to get over the facts so handily. I have always found that facts are stubborn things to remove, and when there are too many facts supporting one another, that is something which simply cannot be disproved. However, no matter what may have been done in the past, we have hope for better in the future. I would ask him anyhow to consider a scheme lately brought to my notice, and that is a scheme in Sallaghan Bog, near Cavan. I understand that there are about 400 farmers getting good turf from that bog, and I think that a scheme in connection with that bog would be very desirable. I hope that when the board send down their engineer, the engineer will be able to report favourably and that the Parliamentary Secretary will endeavour to carry out whatever scheme may be proposed.

At the present moment, there is another urgent scheme on foot, which I shall try to explain briefly to the Parliamentary Secretary in order that he may take special action in connection with it, since there are some 30 small farmers involved. There is a lawsuit pending in connection with the case. The scheme to which I refer is Brackley Lake. There is an obstruction there because of certain water rights, and a number of small farmers have lost as a result of the lowlands, in which their farms are situated, being flooded. As a matter of fact, the obstruction was so bad that two lives were lost as a result of the flooding there some time ago. Therefore, it is very important, from every point of view, that something should be done by some public body or other to remedy this matter. So many people were involved and suffered losses, their hay and crops being ruined by flooding, in the year before last, that I was asked to communicate with the Board of Works to see whether or not something could be done to relieve this matter of flooding. I did communicate with the Board of Works, and I got a reply to the effect that they had sent an inspector there in 1933, but that the mill-owner concerned objected to the drainage being carried out. When the farmers concerned in the matter heard that, they called a meeting in order to see what action could be taken, and there was a proposal to buy out the rights of the mill-owner concerned. The mill itself had been lying idle, as it happened, for nine or ten years, and the mill-owner did consent to sell out her rights, but the price was prohibitive. The farmers then decided to sue her for the loss sustained by them as a result of the flooding. The matter came before the courts in November last, and Judge Sheehy drew attention to the expense that had already been incurred and to the further expense that would certainly be incurred in continuing the action. He advised both parties to go home and consider the matter between themselves, and suggested that the engineer representing the farmers—Mr. McCarthy, here in Dublin—should propose a scheme that would lower the lake in question sufficiently to relieve the flooding and that would also still leave sufficient water for the mill. Mr. McCarthy has submitted his scheme to the mill-owner and her engineer, and both the mill-owner and her engineer have agreed to the scheme. In other words, both parties to the dispute are agreed on the solution, but the difficulty is the question of who is to do the work. If the Board of Works take over this scheme, then the difficulty will be removed and the case will be settled up and there will be no more law about it; but if the Board of Works, or some other public body, do not take up this matter, then the law will have to go on. The case will come up in June— the next quarter session—so I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this question with the least possible delay.

In conclusion, I want to say that every time I have ever called to the Board of Works I have received nothing but courtesy. Indeed, it is literally true to say that I got nothing else but courtesy from them, but in any case I always did receive courtesy from the officials of the Department, and I hope that I shall get something more than courtesy in the future.

Mr. Smith

It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but my colleague, Deputy McGovern, from the County Cavan, has again made a charge of incompetence—I may say of unfair treatment to the political opponents of the Government—against, not members of this Party, but against the county surveyor of Cavan and his assistants. Now, that charge was made here last year by Deputy McGovern, and I think, when this House and the people generally understand the circumstances that exist in the case of the Cavan County Council, they will appreciate how much foundation there can be for the allegation made last year by the Deputy, and repeated here this evening.

Mr. McGovern

I only stated the facts.

Mr. Smith

The Cavan County Council is presided over by a member of the Party to which Deputy McGovern belongs. I also am a member of that council. Deputy McGovern's Party have not a majority on the council, but by a combination of Unionist and Fine Gael members they have succeeded in controlling the council since the coming into office of this Government, and, indeed, prior to that. How does it come, then, if there is the victimisation to which Deputy McGovern has referred on two occasions in this House—if there is any foundation or substance in the allegation that he has made—that not on one occasion has any allegation whatever been made against the council's officials by any member of the Deputy's Party in the local council chamber?

Deputy McGovern has complained that the Board of Works have failed to carry out some schemes that were recommended by him. To what extent that is true or false, is a thing that I am not able to say, but if those of us who do not know the nature of the schemes submitted to him are to judge them by the type of speech or suggestion to which we have just listened from the Deputy, then I think we can easily understand why no responsible Department, having examined any scheme or proposal put forward by a Deputy having a mind such as his, would approve of any such scheme or proposal. He has made the charge on two occasions that members of this organisation have been employed by the Cavan County Council, and by the engineering staff of that council, and put in charge of work. I ask Deputy McGovern, or any other member of the House, or people outside of it, is there any reason in the world why a man, because he has Fianna Fáil tendencies or Fianna Fáil sympathies, or because he works for and votes for this Party, should not be competent for, or given responsibility for, ganging men, just the same as a man from the ranks of some other Party who possesses the same degree of competence.

Mr. McGovern

And making a road at two ends.

Mr. Smith

I do not think that such men would produce anything as hooked or as warped as the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not indulge in personalities.

Mr. Smith

In connection with this rotational system of employment we have heard criticisms from the members of the Labour Party on more than one occasion. The mover of the motion to refer back the Vote, and some members of the Labour Party who followed him, took exception to this rotational system. I said here on the last occasion that the members of this Party would be delighted if the Labour Party would indicate to us to what extent it was feasible, or possible, to give continuous and constant employment to all those who are in receipt of unemployment assistance on this rotational system.

Mr. Hogan

Read the plan.

Mr. Smith

We have asked repeatedly for some such indication from the members of the Labour Party: as to how we were to give that constant employment that we all want to see those people getting.

Mr. Hogan

Read your own plan, the plan that you went to the country on.

Mr. Smith

That is——

Mr. W. O'Brien

Nonsense.

Mr. Smith

——not my point. I say that the members on this side, when they hear from Labour members a proposition or suggestion as to how, instead of this system of rotational employment, we can offer to those people constant employment, it will then have to be shown whether that proposition is feasible or not.

Mr. Hogan

Have you scrapped the plan?

Mr. Smith

No suggestion, good, bad or indifferent, has come from either the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party as to how that is to be done. I think it has been indicated on more than one occasion from these benches that the sum of money that would be required to give effect to such a proposal, and to give these men constant employment, would be very great: that while it might be possible to do that for one year and while you might get suitable work to absorb the amount of money available for one, two or three years, that it would be impossible to keep that up.

Mr. W. O'Brien

When did the Deputy discover that?

Mr. Smith

The members of the Labour Party should be able to say, in so far as money is made available for dealing with this problem, whether they want more money given to a smaller number of people or whether they want the system as it stands at present to continue. I think that the people of the country will accept it that we are just as anxious as the members of the Labour Party not only to provide those people with work on three, four or five days a week, but with a full week's work if that were feasible or possible. Surely, it is not any harm for those of us who have been listening to the critics of this scheme to ask them to suggest ways by which that can be done.

Mr. Hogan

Read the plan.

Mr. W. O'Brien

What about the people who have to listen to the Deputy's nonsense?

Mr. Smith

We never accused you of having any plan.

Mr. O'Brien

But you published a plan.

Mr. Smith

As I said at the outset, I had no intention of intervening in the debate. I have covered the few points that I wanted to deal with, and that is all I have to say.

Mr. Davin

I am sure that the members on this side of the House, and those who want to face the facts properly, will be very grateful to Deputy Smith for the very blunt and straightforward speech that he has just delivered, and for his admission, in the concluding portion of his speech, that the plan which was published previous to the 1932 election has either been lost or forgotten. The details of that published plan have been read so often in this House by other members from these benches that I do not propose to trouble Deputy Smith by again reading it for him and reminding him of what it contains.

Mr. T. Kelly

I never heard it read.

Mr. Davin

If the Deputy has forgotten all about that plan I would advise him to go into the offices of the Fianna Fáil Party in Mount Street, or into the offices of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to read it.

Mr. Kelly

I thought you said it was read here.

Mr. Gorey

It is in the museum now.

Mr. Flinn

Where the Fine Gael Party are going.

Mr. Davin

I have always given credit to Deputy Smith for being a democratically-minded member of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Deputy claims to be a member of a Christian Government, to be one of the chief whips of a Party that calls itself a Christian Government. I remember the Taoiseach on one occasion saying that, if he could not solve the problem of unemployment within the existing system, he would go outside the system in order to do so.

Mr. Pattison

But the Minister for Finance will not let him do that now.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Smith comes along now and says that the sum of money that would be required to be raised for the purpose of giving continuous work to the workless would place an impossible burden on the State. I always understood that it was the duty of a Christian Government to pledge the whole resources of the State to provide work and a decent livelihood for all its citizens—to provide food, clothing and shelter for every citizen of this State. Now, we have this admission from Deputy Smith— the Deputy must have been talking to some bank managers—that it would be an impossible burden to bear if they were to face the problem of finding all the money that would be necessary in order to provide continuous work for the workless. The Deputy's statement is not going to be lost sight of in the immediate future. I daresay that Deputy Smith, being one of the principal spokesmen for the Fianna Fáil Party in this House, was saying bluntly what he believes to be the present attitude and policy of the Government of which he is such a strong supporter.

I am supporting the motion for the reference back of this Estimate in order to give the Parliamentary Secretary plenty of time to reconsider the question of maintaining this objectionable method of employing men on public works under the rotational relief scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary was candid enough also to say that the rotational relief scheme has come to stay. If that means anything, surely it means that unemployment has come to stay and that there is no intention of putting into operation this plan which was supposed to be lying in the pigeon holes of the Board of Works and the office of the Fianna Fáil Party, previous to the 1932 General Election.

An Ceann Comhairle

There has been an election since and this is a different Dáil.

Mr. Davin

Yes, and we still have over 100,000 people waiting for the work promised over six years ago.

Mr. Victory

And a by-election coming on.

Mr. Davin

We are also asking that this Vote be referred back because the Parliamentary Secretary still persists in paying relief workers at the blackleg rate of 24/- a week. The position to-day in that respect is different from what it was last year, because, as a result of an order issued by the Agricultural Wages Board, the wages of the agricultural workers of this country, I am glad to say, have been fixed, as from yesterday, at the rate of 27/- per week. I understand that if a Deputy wants to speak a second time, he will be given the opportunity, and I should be very glad to hear Deputy Meaney, if he can be induced to make one of his usual eloquent speeches, saying, as the spokesman to the farmers of the South of Ireland, as he claims to be, that the farmers of this State should be compelled——

Mr. Meaney

On a point of order, I am not the paid Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and I suggest that it is not fair for Deputy Davin to ask questions of me which should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, although I do not mind answering him, if I am allowed to do so.

Mr. Davin

The reason I am inviting Deputy Meaney to give us the benefit of his advice is that, when speaking here, he emphasised that he was speaking on behalf of the farmers of Cork and the South of Ireland generally. I invite him to say whether he is in favour of compelling the farmers of the South of Ireland to pay their agricultural labourers at the rate of 27/- per week and whether, at the same time, he thinks it right that the Government, which is supposed to be the best employer in the State, should continue to pay workers on relief schemes at the blackleg rate of 24/- a week. That is a fair question which I hope the Deputy, or somebody else who speaks with some authority, will answer before the debate concludes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary speaks with authority on this Vote.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary gets more abuse inside and outside this House than he is really liable for in respect of matters of this kind. He is merely the useful and willing tool of the Cabinet responsible for this low wage policy.

Mr. Flinn

Then he deserves all the abuse.

Mr. Davin

It is the Government and not so much the Parliamentary Secretary who should be criticised and censured for this portion of their policy. The Parliamentary Secretary gloats in taking on a job of this kind and that is why he is looking a good deal better this year in defending his Estimate than when he was defending it last year. It is true that his salary was increased since the Estimate was last before the House and for the same reason, as well as for other reasons, the workers employed by his Department should also get an increase in their low rate of pay. It is also true that a commission was set up to inquire into the question of salary and expenses of Parliamentary Secretaries and others. That commission gave a very hurried decision and, as I suggested here before, if the Parliamentary Secretary and members of the Cabinet, who apparently stood behind him in this matter, want to get this sympathetically and hurriedly considered, I advise them to refer the issue to the same body.

I am glad to know that since this debate commenced, the workers at the Rhynana airport who were agitating for an increase in their pay have been given an increase. I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that increase is due to the generosity of himself and of members of the Cabinet. I would challenge any such assertion. If he and members of the Party standing behind him had a generous and Christian outlook on such matters, why did they not fix a rate of 35/- per week when the work was commenced, rather than strike a rate of 27/- and then raise it to 32/-? Now, as a result of the agitation and a strike, which I am glad to see had the support apparently of the priests and people of County Clare, the rate has been fixed at 35/-. The workers employed on the Rhynana airport scheme are as intelligent in matters of this kind as the Parliamentary Secretary, and they know perfectly well that were it not for the fact that they came together in an organisation, and stood together, they would have had no hope of getting the wage of 35/- a week which they are getting to-day.

Mr. Meaney

Although they got 32/- a week without doing so.

Mr. Hogan

They had a strike.

Mr. Flinn

They had not.

Mr. Hogan

They had.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Meaney would be well advised to have a private talk with the Parliamentary Secretary and to read the file in connection with the wages dispute on the Rhynana scheme. I am afraid he will be letting the Parliamentary Secretary down if he interrupts too often on this matter. I desire to congratulate the workers of Rhynana for the way in which they conducted their agitation and for the loyalty and solidarity which forced— and I use the word deliberately—the Parliamentary Secretary and the Cabinet to raise their wages to a rate of 35/- per week. It is true, as I think Deputy Larkin and other Deputies know, that the workers in Rhynana had no powerful trade union, but they had—and I am very glad to recognise it—the sympathy and support of the people of County Clare, and that is what drove the Parliamentary Secretary into the position he is in to-day. I hope that other workers employed on public work schemes provided by taxpayers' money will learn a lesson from what has happened in Rhynana, if the Parliamentary Secretary does not see his way to meet the reasonable demand put forward by the mover of this motion.

Deputy Smith invited members of this Party to put forward suggestions which would enable the State, if it had the necessary money or the courage to raise it, to provide continuous work for some of the workless citizens of the country. I think if Deputy Smith makes inquiries he will find that suggestions of that kind have been put forward from these benches both on behalf of the Party and by individual members of the Party, in connection with works of a national character as well as works which would provide useful employment at decent rates of wages in the different constituencies represented by the Labour Deputies. The files of the Board of Works, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not deny, do contain many suggestions and recommendations put forward by members on these benches. I am not going to make any allegation that because they were submitted by Labour Deputies they have not got proper consideration, because I know that the reason why many of those recommendations have not received consideration is the limited amount of money which the Cabinet have set aside for carrying out relief works of this kind.

I do complain, however, about the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works in not allocating, at the one time, the necessary amount of money for the purpose of completing whatever schemes are undertaken. During previous discussions on this Estimate I have already drawn attention to the fact that those schemes are being carried out in a patchwork way. My attention was recently drawn to a case close to the village of Kilcormack—I do not want to go into local schemes, but this is a glaring case—where three small grants have already been allocated for the repair of one bog road used by a very large number of families in the district. Those three grants have been provided in three different years and it will require a further small grant to enable that work to be completed. Why in the name of goodness does not the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is, as he claims to be, a good businessman, set aside a sum of money which will enable the work to be started and completed in a satisfactory way, instead of carrying it out in the patchwork manner in which that scheme and others of the same kind have been carried out during the past three or four years? At any rate, I invite him as a good businessman to set aside all the money required for the carrying out of whatever work is undertaken, so that that work can be completed, giving employment to men who are waiting for work on schemes of that kind. I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is a large number of unemployed in that area at the present time, while that work is awaiting completion until the Parliamentary Secretary allocates the small sum required. I could quote many other cases, but I have furnished full particulars of cases of this kind to the Parliamentary Secretary.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has any access to the suggestions coming from other Departments of Government; whether, for instance, he has any knowledge of a bog reclamation scheme of a national character which was submitted and which was, I believe, considered some time ago. If he has, will he tell us whether the scheme has been approved of, and if so what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Departments concerned to proceed with work of that national character which would provide valuable and continuous employment in almost every county in the State until that scheme is completed? I should like to hear from him whether he is prepared to give the House his views on the scheme, if he he has any knowledge of the particular one to which I am referring. For his information, I should like to remind him that the Minister for Lands is apparently fully acquainted with the details of that scheme, because he referred to it when discussing his Estimate here in the House. I am aware, and have been aware for some considerable time past, that that scheme has been shelved in some of the Government Departments. By carrying out a scheme of that kind you could avoid the necessity for migrating people to the midland counties, and causing—as a scheme of migration has caused—considerable annoyance to the local people in many places. I understand it is possible under that scheme to make a very large tract of land arable. I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about the scheme. If it has been approved of, I should like to hear whether it has been held up as a result of the failure of the Government to provide the necessary money to carry it out.

I should also like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any proposals have been put up by anybody at any time for the construction of coastal roads, which would enable tourists and our own citizens who desire to see the beauty spots of this country, to see them to better advantage than is possible at the present time. I believe a good deal of continuous work could be provided on a scheme of that kind. If the Government have any desire to improve the natural coastal scenery which we undoubtedly have in this country, they could do so by setting aside some money which would provide a good deal of continuous work in the construction of coastal roads, which in my opinion could be constructed in counties like Clare, Kerry, Galway, and so on. I also heard a suggestion put forward some time ago at a meeting of members of this Party that if the Government could see their way to provide money from some source, it could be usefully spent on widening and straightening our main and trunk roads. Work would be provided in every county in the State on a scheme of that kind. I have travelled on some of what are known as the trunk roads in England and some Continental countries, and one cannot fail to admire the way in which those roads are constructed and maintained. Many of our main and trunk roads could be considerably improved by being widened by a yard, or two yards if possible. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, for the information of Deputy Smith particularly, whether any such scheme is in the files of the Board of Works, whether a scheme of that kind has been given any consideration, or whether, if he had the money at his disposal, he would sympathetically consider carrying out a scheme of that kind.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing this Estimate, stated that the maximum number of men employed at a particular period on those minor relief works was 36,924. That reference can be found in Volume 7, column 999 of the Official Debates. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary for how long on an average were the 36,924 men employed, and how much in the shape of wages did they receive from the great, almighty, and generous Parliamentary Secretary through the operation of those minor relief schemes. I am sure the figures would be very interesting, and I am sure the very efficient officials whom the Parliamentary Secretary has at his disposal will enable him to provide those figures for the information of Deputies, and for the information of the workless throughout the country as well as the taxpayers as a whole. It is only by having figures of that kind at our disposal that we can really judge the effect of the operation of those minor relief schemes. I should also like to ascertain from the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope he will not overlook the matter when replying— whether it is the intention of his Department to honour the court decision given recently in the High Court by Judge Johnston. For many years past Deputies of this House, including Fianna Fáil Deputies when in opposition and possibly since the Government came into office, have been criticising the Board of Works and other Government Departments for their failure to stamp the unemployment insurance cards of men employed on major and minor relief schemes and arterial drainage schemes. A number of cases were brought to the High Court, and a decision was given quite recently by Judge Johnston indicating clearly that in his opinion——

Mr. Flinn

That question was asked and answered on Friday. The Deputy will find it in the records.

Mr. Davin

Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not think he answered this part of it—to apply that decision retrospectively?

Mr. Flinn

That question also was answered.

Mr. Davin

I am sorry I was not here at the time.

Mr. Flinn

I did not want the Deputy to waste his time further.

Mr. Davin

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is a question which was addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary by Deputy McGowan on 13th January last, as to whether it was the intention of the Board of Works to make any improvements for the purpose of enabling the Great Southern Railways to deal with the passenger traffic at Dun Laoghaire pier in a more efficient way. I was listening the other day to some Deputies speaking in the House, and apparently they are under the impression that I am an official of the Great Southern Railways. I want to disabuse their minds of that, because that is not so, and therefore I have not any personal interest in this matter. But I am interested, and for many years, long before I became a Deputy, had been interested in the development of the tourist traffic. I have, of course, some access to information, and have some experience in connection with the working of the tourist traffic, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply, said:

"The pier is large enough to accommodate the normal number utilising this service."

I should like to inform him that the pier is not large enough, and was never large enough, to accommodate at one time the number of mail trains required to handle the traffic even in the winter period. I should, therefore, like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go back to his advisers and get them to look into the matter from that point of view. If there is a desire, as I believe there is, on the part of the Ministry, and particularly on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to provide reasonable facilities for the development of the tourist traffic, something will have to be done, in my opinion, to provide better facilities for the conveyance of the passengers landed at Dun Laoghaire who have to be carried to Dublin and all parts of the country in the winter as well as in the summer period.

Mr. Gorey

No one goes that way now.

Mr. Davin

I should like to inform the Deputy that something like 600,000 people were handled last year there and it is a miracle that they were able to be dealt with, particularly at one busy period. As I say, I speak with some knowledge, and I also know that the Parliamentary Secretary has been personally investigating this matter. I was looking at his pleasant face there one evening when he was touring the surroundings and I am sure that he has some knowledge of the requirements there. I want to say quite sincerely and seriously to him that the statement that the pier is large enough to accommodate the normal number utilising that service is not correct.

Mr. Flinn

The only complaint we get is in exceptional periods.

Mr. Davin

I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary, and it can be confirmed by any working railway man who has knowledge of the place, that not alone is it impossible to put the three trains required in the winter period on the pier at present, but it is not possible to put two of the three full main trains on the pier for the purpose of dealing with the traffic. The fact is that the pier is out of date. I should also like to disabuse the minds of some people that that pier is the property of the railway company. The pier is the property of the Board of Works and it is the responsibility of that board to make such improvements as are necessary for the efficient working of the traffic to be dealt with both in the summer and in the winter. I do not speak as an expert, because I believe that it requires technical experts to deal with a matter of this kind. If the Parliamentary Secretary called into conference technical experts who have a knowledge of the requirements of the place, from the point of view of the railway and shipping companies, the Board of Works, and the Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporation, he could get some very valuable information which would help him to move in the right direction. I raise this matter because I understand that the Board of Works refused to attend a conference some time ago which was convened by the Dun Laoghaire Corporation for the purpose of dealing with this matter. However, I should like him to look into the matter again. This reply also contained the statement that no suggestions were put forward by the railway or shipping companies or the Dun Laoghaire Corporation. I do not think it is the duty of the Dun Laoghaire Corporation or of the railway or shipping companies to put forward suggestions.

Mr. Flinn

I do.

Mr. Davin

I think it is the duty of the Board of Works that owns the pier and gets a very high revenue from it to take that responsibility on its shoulders and if necessary call into consultation the people who are in a position to give some valuable information, although their suggestions might not be coming from an infallible source. It is a big problem and one which the Parliamentary Secretary is, I am sure, prepared to face up to. If so, instead of refusing to attend a conference convened by an interested local authority, I suggest to him that he should use his good offices for the purpose of calling the technical experts of the parties concerned into consultation with himself.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Estimates are considered in Committee. Nevertheless, it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for a Deputy to intervene twice in the discussion of an Estimate. When the House rose on Friday last, Deputy Larkin moved to report progress and intimated his desire to continue his remarks to-day. The discussion was resumed to-day at the abnormally early hour of ten minutes past three. Deputy Larkin was not in his place then. In the circumstances the Chair is prepared to call on Deputy Larkin later. Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Bartley

There are one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with marine proposals. I am interested in a number of proposals in connection with the Galway coast, particularly some of those on the islands. I know that the proposals must be carried out by some Department other than the Board of Works—at least that certain aspects must be referred to another Department. But, so far as that work has been done by the Department of Fisheries, I am not satisfied with the results obtained in certain cases. As an example, I should like to refer to the case of a place known as Dog's Harbour. The job there is really a small one, costing £15 or £20, but the case made for it was that it was necessary for the lobster fishermen in order to enable them to get back on returning from fishing expeditions and that if it were not attended to the consequences might be very serious. As a matter of fact, three or four years ago two lobster fishermen were drowned in the vicinity. I cannot understand why the Department of Fisheries could not give the necessary approval that the Board of Works asked for in a case of that kind. There are other considerations in dealing with these marine proposals that do not come within the province of the Department of Fisheries at all. Very often these places are used for fishery purposes, but they are also used for getting in seaweed and turf. Very often that is what they are principally used for and I do not think the Department of Fisheries are competent to deal with any proposal from either of these two points of view.

While on the marine proposals, I should also like to draw attention to the necessity for the carrying out of works on the two small Aran Islands and also on Innisboffin. The county council are responsible for the road adjoining the sea wall in the latter place, but the sea wall has been eaten away and the erosion continues. Some houses have been already evacuated, and more will have to be evacuated, including the post office. I do not think responsibility in the matter is entirely that of the Board of Works, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bring whatever pressure he can to bear on the other Departments who have an interest in the matter.

In the case of the two other islands mentioned, the extension of the existing pier and the construction of a quay or a slip for the landing of turf are works that are urgently required. The purpose which the pier would serve, that is, the landing of turf, could be achieved by the extension of the existing protection wall, or what is known locally as a "slash" wall. That is a very necessary work. The Parliamentary Secretary may have seen, or could have seen, these men bringing turf ashore. The turf has to be loaded out of the hookers into currachs and then brought into the slips, and the people have to work feverishly to get the turf away before the tide comes in. I would direct his special attention to these three places, Innisbofin, Innisheer and Innishmaan.

Another point in reference to employment schemes in general is that the work sometimes is started too late. I do not know that it is a widespread complaint, but it has happened in a number of cases to my own knowledge. What I mean by late is that no works have been commenced in certain areas before Christmas. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in all those districts where works have been listed a start should be made before Christmas, so that some income would be provided for the homes of people who are registered as unemployed before the Christmas season sets in. As regards the rotational aspect of these schemes, about which there has been a good deal of talk, I think I can say, speaking for the majority of the people who find employment on these works in Connemara, that the scheme suits the requirements of the majority of the people who benefit by them, that is, people who have some land which does not occupy their full time. I had the extraordinary request made to me in the case of one scheme in my area that, owing to the lateness of the season, the work should be suspended. I was asked to try to get the work suspended for a fortnight or three weeks so that potatoes might be planted. I did not convey that request to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I thought that once you get works going it is not a proper or a desirable thing to have them suspended, and if you do succeed in having them suspended, the Parliamentary Secretary will probably take you at your word the following year and will not start works at all.

I would say that the rotational system does serve the man who has some land to attend to, and in the rural areas practically 90 per cent. of those who benefit by the schemes either own land themselves or are immediately interested in land and have work to do on it. I do not think that, from the point of view of serving the people who have some work to do on their own land, a better system than the rotational system could be devised. I have nothing more to say on this Vote except that my experience has been that the Board of Works has done its work perfectly in every area of which I have experience, and that it is, in my opinion, a marvel of efficiency. There may be grievances on other scores, but I think, at all events, the system whereby money is allocated to the various electoral divisions has raised the whole administration of the scheme above any reasonable complaint. It does not make a bit of difference whether or not a Deputy recommends any area specially. Under the system as it has been worked out, each area gets its due share on the basis of the amount of unemployment prevailing in the area.

Mr. Larkin

I want to thank the House and the Chair for permitting me to continue the discussion on the shortcomings of the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not believe that if the motion to refer this Vote back goes to a vote, it will be carried. I think the object of moving it was to provide us with an opportunity of commenting on the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary and his office, his lack of capacity and his lack of vision. It is for that purpose that I avail of it. To continue my, I hope, helpful criticism of this episode in Collinstown, I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary again that those who are interested in this new form of transport are particularly anxious that no hitch should occur either in the opening up of the work or in the continuity of it. But you cannot, in existing circumstances, get established the relations that should exist between Government Departments and those who speak in a representative capacity for the workers employed in carrying out this work. You cannot get it because of the mentality of the Department, which is peculiarly affecting Deputies in this House, particularly the Deputy who last spoke and who said that, of course, this rotational system was almost perfect. When I referred on Friday to this lack of perfection on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, he laughingly agreed to it. The system of employing labour in the Board of Works is unsatisfactory, uneconomic and, if I might adopt the phrase of my friend in the front bench, Deputy Davin, unChristian. At least we ought to give to the humblest amongst us, the same treatment that we would expect to be given to ourselves and if the men in office abuse their privileges and powers then I think they fail to come up to the standard set up by the eminent Deputy, Deputy Davin.

In Collinstown we have a peculiar set of circumstances. Reflections on the political honesty of certain Parties have been cast backwards and forward during this discussion. Malversation of funds has not been referred to but actually there must have been malversation of funds if moneys were given in the country because of political opinions and political affiliations. That charge has been made and it should be substantiated or withdrawn. That is a crude form of criticism, but when it is made and stated, it should be probed to the bottom and, if there is one iota of proof for it, then the person responsible should be removed from public life. In North County Dublin I definitely make the charge of political interference in the employment of these men. I stated here, in correcting the speaker who was discussing it in the first place, Deputy McGowan, that the men had been employed three weeks before Christmas, 1936. I want to repeat that. The wages paid to them were 30/- per week for work which the Parliamentary Secretary and his officers had agreed to pay the recognised rate of wages—recognised and adjusted as between the employers in that particular area and the representatives of the workers.

What was the rate of wages agreed to? There can be no argument about it. The rate was agreed to and was reaffirmed. Since Christmas, 1936, there has been a prolonged struggle for a readjustment of the relations between employers and workers in the City and County of Dublin. The rate was 30/-, but after representations being made to the Board of Works, and after two meetings with the commissioners—the chairman of which is a personal friend of mine—at which everything was gone into, sympathetically on our side, because those representing the workers, skilled and unskilled, were enthusiastic about this work, the matter was discussed and settled. I want it to go on the records of the House that the Corporation of Dublin agreed to associate itself with the work, and to charge itself with an expenditure of £150,000—not £250,000 —towards completing the scheme. Why did the commissioners, the three groups and the Corporation of Dublin accept the statement of myself and those who represented the organised workers in the corporation? Men like Deputy Kelly, who has given the service of a lifetime to Dublin, his fellow loyal political fanatic, Deputy Doyle, the Whip of the Fine Gael Party, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who is not here with his chain, agreed unanimously to co-operate in every way in demanding a measure of justice, because of the breaking of a gentleman's agreement. The 30/- was made £2 2s.

The Board of Works told me on two occasions that they were paying the rate of wages agreed to and recognised in County Dublin by the county council. I told the Secretary of the Department that he was wrong. I say now that he is wrong, that the board have never paid that rate, but have simply taken advantage of conditions for which their Party was responsible. I take it that they believed they were morally right then, and that they were prepared to face the issue of exacting these terms from persons outside this territory. Whatever the aftermath, we have all to share it. The whole burden was not cast on the farmers, who were not hungry, but on the hungry men on the roads of County Dublin. They were to get £2 2s 0d. if they worked the whole week, but labourers in Dublin County Council employment get £2 7s. 0d. a week, a fortnight's holidays, and they get regular work, and boots and clothing in some cases. These other men have to come ten or 20 miles, and have to walk if they do not get a "lift," and, without any break to make tea, or place to boil it, and then walk home again. If that is the treatment you are going to give ordinary people, it is about time you woke up. I hold in my hand the minutes of an agreement that was entered into after a dispute. It was made with the Parliamentary Secretary and with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who gave it his unwearying attention night and day over a period of five months. I want to give him that credit. In that document the Board of Works agreed to accept the agreement as the governing issue in the relations of the workers with his Department. What do we find? Since 1896 there has been a gentleman's agreement—it is not in writing—under which, whatever wages were arrived at, or whatever adjustments were made in wages between employers and workers in the City of Dublin, the Board of Works would also recognise. That was reaffirmed in the 1907 dispute. In 1913 it was again reaffirmed, by which Board of Works employees were not to be called out, and that, whatever wages were arrived at, at the end of a dispute the board would pay, and pay retrospectively. In 1937, we were waited on and met the commissioners to provide them with information concerning employment in the Civil Service, about which there were complaints at that period. A contract was drawn up, and we were asked if we could get any more men. We told them that we could not until the question of wages was adjusted. Discussions took place, and the strike was brought to an end. Rates of wages were set down for these areas.

In our judgment, we did something that had never been done before. We made three zones for the city and county. Dublin and Dun Laoghaire was one, and there was also zone B and zone C. Collinstown being in B area, the rate of wages is 1/5 an hour. In Dun Laoghaire they pay skilled men 1/5 without any hesitation. Public bodies agreed to that rate in the city, including Grangegorman Mental Home, the corporation, the gas company, and the Electricity Supply Board. All others pay according to the terms made in the agreement. But the Board of Works is above and beyond all such equity. They pay the rate to the City of Dublin labourers, but in Dun Laoghaire the labourers appear to be considered a different type of manhood. In Swords and Collinstown the labourers are still considered as being on the agricultural rate. I submitted months ago that any fair employer or any architectural or constructional engineer would agree that the work there is engineering constructional work. The Government Department charged with the carrying out of it would not agree. The Parliamentary Secretary's Department says that it is only agricultural work. Fancy getting ready such a site for great buildings to meet the needs of a big form of transportation and to have the type of mind that calls that ordinary agricultural work. A man who is a good agriculturist should be able to do anything. A good farmer ought to be the best educated man in the community, not only ought he know everything about life, he ought to have vision and he ought to be able to lift his mind out of the drains and look up to the light. But he is far from that. We are not perfect in the city. Let us take the city man. I do submit to you that no man would dare go and intrude upon that site at Collinstown and dare to suggest that he had the knowledge to lay down the levels or get that site ready for the construction of the building it was necessary to put upon the site. I made a point and, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give me this information, or I am going to get it—who is responsible for putting up the building that was put up—a steel erection—and then taken down almost immediately and put on another site? Why did they have to bring foreign experts over when we have got engineers, graduates of our own universities? Why is the work not done in a right and workmanlike manner?

Deputy McGowan made a threat that this particular job is going to meet with difficulty. The job is black to all skilled workers in this country, national unions or international unions. To all organised workers this job is black, and no decent union man can go and work on it. That blackness will not be wiped out until there is an adjustment. The gentlemen who are working there at the present time have been drawn from all parts. Some are small farmers who are generally the backbone of this country, and I hope they will always remain the backbone of this country. They have been induced by some influence, whether political or otherwise I do not know, to go in there. They are working there under those conditions, taking two guineas a week for a job that ought to be paid £2 7s. Our wages in that area are not £2 7s., and no man who has got any character in the City of Dublin or county will work for those wages. For the county man the rate ought to be at least 54/-. As long as I have any breath, the Corporation of Dublin are not going to put any money into it and are not going to take any share in it. But to-morrow the Corporation, unanimously, I think, will agree, if the job is only made a decent and a clean job, to take their proportion and take a pride in that particular aerodrome. Of course, people will ask how are these things going to be adjusted. They have been adjusted with private employers even after a long struggle. But with the Board of Works there is no approach. They will not listen to any representation. You will get courteous treatment. You will get an official to take you upstairs; you see the secretary and the commissioners. Deputy McGovern over there said they always get courtesy. We also get courtesy, but we were able to compel them to recognise our claim in regard to skilled workers. Under his own name, the Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to try and divide the sheep from the goats, that he is going to recognise the skilled workers at Collinstown Aerodrome site, but the labourers are still going to be the step-children of this nation. But the labourers are going to see that they are not going to be the step-children of this nation any longer. When we were discussing these things a rather peculiar thing arose. The Parliamentary Secretary's secretary, one of the ablest men I have met in the Civil Service, suggested that we were wrong, for this reason, that our own organisation had accepted a lower rate of wages in the county than even offered by the Board of Works. It is true. I do not know whether I influenced the Parliamentary Secretary, but he went on the stool of repentance between Friday night and Sunday morning and, to everybody's surprise, this most ridiculed organ of publicity, a good deal of which is deserved, our national radio—Radio Eireann— blazoned all over this country, Great Britain and all the Dominions across the seas that the Parliamentary Secretary had gone on the stool of repentance and had given those working on the Rhynana Aerodrome an increase of 3/- a week. That was to his credit. I hope that he is still in the repentant mood and that he is going to treat these people in a more generous manner. But I do not see how you can get fairness in the laws that govern relations of men in this country when you have an official of the Labour Party who objects to these cruel wages being paid to these unfortunate men, creatures of circumstance, and rightly brings the attention of the public to this unrighteous act of the Parliamentary Secretary. There is an ordinary phrase: "Physician, heal thyself." The man who was discussing the matter in debate himself as an employer was paying less in the North County, but the Leader of the Labour Party and his union belongs to an organisation that officially accepted 9d. an hour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the attitude of any particular organisation in reference to any wages matter. Deputies may only discuss what the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for. The Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for that.

Mr. Larkin

I submit to your ruling, Sir. I was pointing out that a conversation took place in the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary in which one of the reasons why we should accept these wages as offered and paid by the Parliamentary Secretary's Office staff was because our own individuals accepted a lower wage in the county area even closer to Dublin, as some people think, than what is paid by the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials. What is our position? How can we logically and equitably get up and condemn a public board when such a condition of things exists? Is that true or not? The wages for 45 hours in Poolaphouca were 33/- a week. The Parliamentary Secretary has been called to account because they are paying 24/- a week to farm labourers. That comes under his Department. Who fixed the 24/- a week? So-called representatives who were asked to go and sit upon a wages board, certain alleged farm labourers. There never was a public meeting called and yet they decided the wages for a farm labourer was 24/-.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt Deputy Larkin too much but the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for agricultural rates of wages.

Mr. Larkin

He was paying that rate. He never took occasion to correct Deputy Davin when he was quoted as paying that rate in connection with minor improvement schemes carried out under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The agricultural rates of wages will come under the Vote for Agriculture.

Mr. Larkin

But it was quoted here that this was the rate of wages paid by the Parliamentary Secretary on minor improvement schemes—24/- a week. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has corrected that mistake to some extent and there has been a measure of improvement in wages for the labourers in County Clare. Why not carry that a stage further, as I suggested? Some years ago I was called in to help in the adjustment of differences between employers and workers. Why cannot we get a small committee of the members of this House to sit along with the Parliamentary Secretary and representatives of the workers to go into this immediate question, and get this position clarified, and get an adjustment in regard to the workers at Collinstown Aerodrome in which all of us are so deeply interested; make it a success and carry it into fruition? It is not a very happy thing for the people who are charged with a knowledge of the needs of workers to stand in the way of progress. It is not. We do not want this trouble. We want to get it removed. A question was put at an intellectual contest, and again I have got to refer to that organ of publicity, Radio Eireann. The question was "How far a rabbit can get into a wood?" There was no one who could answer that question. The answer was "He can only get half way in," as he would then be running out. The Parliamentary Secretary is half way in a hole. I think he ought to pull himself though and get this thing adjusted. I am not going to labour this matter of Collinstown further. It is for us who represent the minds of the people of this country, if we do represent them, at least we kept them together as an army——

Mr. O'Brien

Who kept them together when you ran away?

Mr. Larkin

I do not know what the interruption is.

Mr. O'Brien

The speaker ran away to America when there was danger.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Larkin should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Mr. O'Brien

He should not be allowed to make innuendoes against other people.

Mr. Larkin

I have not made any innuendoes. I have spoken about facts. As to my purpose in America, I have had occasion in this House to prove that it was official and in connection with labour. I have not lived in the ghostly mantle of a man who is now dead in the flesh.

Mr. O'Brien

You lived behind the guns, 3,000 miles behind them.

Mr. Larkin

As long as you and ex-Senator Foran were there to take my place everything was safe in this country. I left my gun in good hands. I was dealing with a portion, Sir, of my criticism in reference to Collinstown. I want to go on to other matters which, I feel, concern the Parliamentary Secretary deeply. During the course of the dispute in Dublin we came to the conclusion that we should ask the Parliamentary Secretary would he not see his way to engage men directly in the Department. The House is aware that for years there has been a system of contract. The majority of the work carried on in the Department is not carried on by the advisers of the Department, skilled or semi-skilled. What happens is that the work is marked out, estimated and given to contract. The contractor gets paid for the wages he expends, plus 10 per cent. for paying the wages and for keeping time. Why that is necessary I do not know. I do not know any businessman who would carry out his work in that way. The contractor is getting 10 per cent. for paying the wages.

Mr. Flinn

And he pays the insurance.

Mr. Larkin

I agree but the insurance would be no more than one per cent. or one and a half per cent. and in some cases it is only one half per cent. As against that he gets ten per cent. Not only that but the same contractors seem to be there generation after generation. Now in every contract we have some competition, perhaps not always, but the peculiar state of things is that one set of contractors have always been the contractors to the Board of Works. When the firm did pass out as a firm and became re-organised, the same firm still got the bulk of the contracts given by the Board of Works That is a very peculiar condition of things. I do not say that it is wrong. But if the work is to be done by tender, then that tender ought to be published. I know what tenders are, having been engaged for years in opening tenders. I know there is a great disparity between the highest and the lowest tender. To my mind it would be better to have the work done direct by the Board of Works and save the ten per cent.; at least six per cent. of it could be saved. A set number of men could be passed by the Employment Exchange for continuous employment.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his attention to the case of the Widow Byrne and to ascertain the cause of the delay in her case. I know it is not due to the Parliamentary Secretary at all. This woman's husband was killed in Dun Laoghaire Harbour. It was held it was an accident. Nine months have passed. A claim for compensation was submitted at the time. If such a claim were submitted to a private employer such a long period would not intervene between the entering of the claim and its adjustment. Another thing, the son of the widow might have been given employment. As it is the widow and the family of five or six were left to the ordinary mercies of the Poor Law though the eldest boy is fit in every way to be employed by the Board of Works. Deputy Dillon made the point of a man being dismissed on a few minutes notice after having served the board for several years. That is a matter that should be inquired into. There is another matter in which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an answer and that is as to the wages paid to the men employed by his Department in Dun Laoghaire.

On the question of the schools, I know the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer for the policy of the Department of Education, but I want to know from him if it is true that a site for a new school for Crumlin has been agreed upon, and that plans, specifications and quantities have been drawn up. Why the delay in the building of the school? When it was agreed that there was to be a school there, why is the Board of Works not going on with the work? Why is it that thousands of young children have to be carried daily to and from Crumlin to the city schools at a cost of over £3,000 a year? Why are these children sometimes suffering from diseases brought into juxtaposition with the children attending city schools? When the plans have been passed, why not get on with the building of the schools quickly? Is it not possible for two Departments of State to get together and have this work carried out? In a few months from now we will have 1,000 additional families in that area. I think there should be the ordinary courtesy between two public Departments in expediting the erection of this school. Deputy Tom Kelly will tell the House that we are harassed every day by the parents of these children because of the delay in the building of this school. The children are suffering very much inconvenience. Thirty, 40 or 50 of them, after standing for a while under the rain at a corner, are packed into one bus. After waiting there in the cold air of the morning, they are packed into this heated bus. That sort of thing could be obviated, and in obviating it, employment could be provided for people who need it. This, too, would save a good deal of the self-respect of the people.

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the point made by Deputy Dockrell? It is part of his functions. In Dublin the transport problem is becoming most difficult to handle. In Stephen's Green we have a fine parking place and Deputy Dockrell suggests that we ought to use it in a different manner from that in which it has been used. There is the problem of parking cars. Deputy Smith might suggest to the Executive Council that a considerable amount of work might be given in Stephen's Green in having it turned into a parking place. Why not take these unemployed men who, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, are now working uneconomically and put them on an economic job? Why not make a parking place there and let those who use it pay for it? I could put 10,000 men at work to-morrow in Dublin on something useful. In one sense every Government Department is non-productive and I say this, that the work should be done either by contract or by direct labour. It is the duty of the Government to control Stephen's Green Park and not allow anybody to interfere with it. I endorse the submission made by Deputy T. Kelly that you give us a right to go in there and to make an underground garage. You may have to go down there to garage your cars as I did in America. This is a matter that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to discuss with Deputy Dockrell. It is a practical proposal and would give useful employment.

I challenge any Deputy to give the differential between a man usefully employed and a man on the dole. Men were employed at Chapelizod at three days a week and they were given 30/- for the three days. They had to pay 4d. a day for a bus or a tram and sometimes 6d. I had on many occasions to go to the manager of the tramway company to get them to reduce the rate. But if they were not employed there at all they would have saved themselves getting up in the morning, saved themselves the exhaustive agonies of body and mind, working under exceptionally difficult circumstances in trenches 12 to 14 feet deep, up to their waists in water, badly clothed and wet most of the time. Yet they were only getting a few shillings more than if they were not working. It took us four months of hard preaching and propaganda to get the Board of Works to agree to extend it to four days a week.

I can produce figures for you, together with names of the people, the numbers of their families and the jobs they were on, and I will prove that it was not only uneconomic and unscientific, but it was unhuman. Many of the men broke down and they had to enter a hospital, all because of that policy. It is true that in a small farming area, where a man has a few acres, he may think it great value to have three days rotational work, but there is no analogy between a seaboard town or even a midland town dweller, and the man with an acre or two. There is no comparison between the small landholder and the man with no property who has to pay possibly 12/- a week for a room in Dublin and in that room there may be dwelling, as Deputy Kelly pointed out, five, ten or 11 persons.

I must thank Deputies for listening to me so attentively. I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary will answer in a sympathetic way all the points that have been raised. He generally answers all questions in a sympathetic manner and we all realise that behind that facade there is a gentlemanly demeanour and a kindly respect. Some people say he has a heart of stone, but I know it has been melted for the last week. We know we have a sympathetic listener when we refer to matters that require rectification and adjustment.

I do not think that anyone would dare suggest that the entrance gate to this country is a fit and proper entrance gate. Any person who would suggest that must surely be irresponsible and cannot have a true sense of balance. There is no country in the world that has a port like Dun Laoghaire, if it were properly looked after and improved. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no blacker spot in any part of the world than the dark hole we come into when we arrive at Dun Laoghaire. It makes a very bad impression on visitors to our country. Anyone arriving on a winter's morning finds it absolutely desolate, scarcely a place open or a light to be seen. Anyone who talks about the marshalling of traffic does not know the realities of the position.

Again, we should like to know why was the appointment given to the person who now holds the position of harbour master. Was it because he was in the Royal Naval Reserve? One wonders why he was selected, while men who forfeited their jobs as captains and who lost other distinguished posts had not their applications entertained. Some of these men forfeited their liberties in other countries, risked their lives for this country, and we should like to know why they were ignored, and not given an opportunity of becoming the harbour master at Dún Laoghaire or some other of our ports.

How much has it cost this Government to build the memorial park in South County Dublin to the memory of the men who died for the Empire? Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the work is completed, if the funds are exhausted, and if we have to make another supplementary grant? I should like to know when that park will be opened, and I hope the opportunity may be given to this House later on to give as much, if not double, the amount to a memorial in North County Dublin to the men who gave us an opportunity of sitting in this House.

Mr. Meaney

I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the letting of lands under the jurisdiction of the Board of Works. The lands I allude to are those formerly held by the British defence forces, and they are now under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. I suggest that in letting these lands in the future they should be let in small lots. The present system, I understand, is that tenders are taken for small lots, and a tender will also be taken for a certain number of lots, and even tenders will be received for a whole collection of lots. That is not fair competition and it does not give an opportunity to the small farmers and labourers to get little plots. I know it is open to everybody to tender, but why not do away with the system of having one tender for a whole group? Why not let it field by field, as was done in former years? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's Department to get into touch with the Department of Defence and find out how much, if any, of these lands will not be required in the future for defence purposes. If there are any such lands they should be handed over to the Land Commission for distribution, the same as is done with ordinary estates through the country.

Deputy Davin invited me a while ago to say something with regard to agricultural wages. I believe he asked me something about 22/- a week for agricultural wages.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Meaney

I know that, but this arose in the course of the debate. If I am out of order I submit to your ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Because Deputy Davin referred to it that is no guarantee that it is in order.

Mr. Davin

Sir, I did not mention 22/-. The Deputy has 22/- on the brain.

Mr. Meaney

Deputy Davin is not in order. When he is in order——

Mr. Davin

That is a nice way out.

Mr. Meaney

I am not looking for a way out. Whenever I wanted I got my way out, and I got my way in when I needed it. At any rate, a suggestion was put up by Deputy Davin as regards the rate of 24/- a week. The agricultural rate is at present fixed at 27/-. I suggest that our agriculturists should be put in as sound a position as it possible to put them, within the wers of the Government, and the Government should pay as high a rate as possible to their employees. I believe the discrepancy between what the agriculturist gets out of his industry and what those in industry get is too great. It is not Government policy that is responsible for that; it is world conditions and it is a system. I trust the Government will help to lessen that discrepancy.

I believe that in rural areas the agricultural rate should be higher. The Parliamentary Secretary was attacked during this debate as regards the rotational system. It would be an ideal thing if we were in the position to give every man permanent employment at a decent wage. I hold that, so far as the Government are concerned, they are making an honest attempt, but they are not given the co-operation from other Parties to which they are entitled. Last week certain Deputies on the Labour Benches made a vehement attack on the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the Rhynana airport.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy is on dangerous ground now.

Mr. Meaney

No. I am safe, no matter what ground I travel on.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy has a good conscience.

Mr. Meaney

Certain allegations were hurled against the Parliamentary Secretary, which, to my mind, were entirely unjustified. He was blamed for causing suffering to these men who were employed at Rhynana, and for prolonging the agony, but we find, since then, that these men were only back a week at work when they got an increase of 3/- a week. I think that that is to the credit of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Davin

Why did he not do it before that?

Mr. Meaney

Well, I think that it shows that if the leaders or spokesmen of these people had been prepared to come down to business, and discuss the matter in a proper manner, there would not have been a strike at Rhynana.

Mr. Davin

Sure. The Deputy is letting everybody down now.

Mr. Meaney

I am letting nobody down, but I suggest that the Labour members did let these people down. Allegations are also being made of particular discrimination in regard to the relief schemes. I think it was Deputy McGovern who stated that, within the last 12 months, he had submitted between 30 and 60 schemes for consideration, and nothing was done. Well, I am sure that I submitted at least 130 schemes for consideration, and I know that they received due consideration, but we do not expect all these things to be performed overnight. I think, as Deputy Larkin has pointed out, allegations of that sort should be either substantiated or withdrawn. The only other thing to which I should like to refer, before sitting down, is that, in view of the improved conditions, I think the Parliamentary Secretary should review this 24/- a week basis.

Mr. Heron

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the discussion on this Estimate, there are one or two things that I should like to say. It seems to me, judging by the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary on this Estimate, and also by the attitude of most of the members of his Party who have spoken, that Fianna Fáil have completed a circle. The kind of criticism which they now appear to resent from other sides of the House is precisely the kind of criticism in which they, when they were on these benches here, excelled. We have been asked to indicate a plan. When we look for full employment for those who are now employed, and when we look for the payment of those who are employed on a basis in keeping with the protestations of Fianna Fáil and with the principles laid down in the new Constitution, we are told that it is our responsibility to indicate where the money is to come from. Is not that a great come-down for the Party which hawked its plan around this country in the last election and in the previous election? Is it not a great come-down for the Party that told us a few years ago that, according to their ideals, when they had the responsibility of Government in this country, and when they had the affairs of State in their hands, they would provide for the people of this country conditions of decency and comfort on what they called a Christian standard? Now they tell us that they cannot do these things because they have not got the money. I suggest that, when Deputies from these benches here ask the Parliamentary Secretary to depart from the rotational system and provide schemes which will give full employment, and when they ask the Parliamentary Secretary to observe a decent wage standard in Rhynana and on relief schemes in the country generally where his Department has jurisdiction, it is not our business to find the money.

We had a Budget introduced in this House recently by the Minister for Finance, and, if sufficient money was not provided by the Government for the Department of the Minister for Finance or the Department of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, it is not the responsibility of members of the Opposition in this House to tell the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary how he should have dealt with it. If he is the Minister of a Government, which, professedly, has set out to solve the economic problems of this country, whether inside or outside the present political system, then it is the business of that Government to solve that problem, either inside or outside the present system, or else to give up entirely the pretence of being able to solve the problem.

Now, there has been criticism with regard to this miserable wage of 24/- a week. It comes as a surprise to me to find that any Deputy of this House —and particularly Deputies of a Party that came into power on promises of better wages, better conditions, and a progressive programme generally— should attempt to defend a wage of 24/- a week. Reference has been made to this business at Rhynana, and we have been told that, out of the goodness of his heart, the Parliamentary Secretary has raised the former miserable wage of 32/- a week to 35/- a week. Let it be remembered that that small increase, such as it was, only took place after a strike of some months. Are we seriously told now that the workers would have got that increase if they had not had a strike? Of course they would not have got an increase without that strike, and everybody in the House knows it. However, it is probably not reasonable to expect any better treatment for the workers in Rhynana when that was supported by Deputies who, I understand, on the Agricultural Wages Board, believed that 22/- a week was enough for an agricultural labourer. Of course, it is a great game to bring the level of wages for agricultural labourers down to 22/- a week, and then base other wage rates upon it, but I suppose it is what one must expect from a Government that sets such a standard, not alone in respect of their own direct employees, such as the civil servants, but of those employed on these various relief schemes—a standard that is a disgrace to the country.

One thing to which I should like to refer as a further instance of the complete lack of sympathy on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary with the lowest paid sections of the workers of this country, is that during the recent building strike, as has already been pointed out, the employees of local authorities in the Dublin area remained at work on the understanding that when the building strike was settled they would receive the terms of the settlement and not only that, but receive them retrospectively as from the commencement of the strike. In fact, the Dublin Corporation paid their workers retrospectively as from the commencement of the strike on the terms agreed on at the conclusion of the strike. But the people who were employed on relief work in Dublin, the relief workers of Dublin, and, of course, the worst paid workers in the city, were not paid retrospectively notwithstanding the fact that the corporation agreed to the principle of paying them. They were not paid, because the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance would not agree to their being paid retrospectively. That is a further instance of the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary for the workers, and particularly for the lowest paid section of workers.

I think it is so obvious as to be hardly worth saying, that if we are going to establish a decent social system in this country and use whatever degree or control we have over our own affairs in this country, it is the duty of the State, and particularly of a large employing Department of the State like the Office of Public Works, to lay down standards in this matter of wages. There is no use in expecting private employers to pay decent wages; there is no use in the Department of Industry and Commerce intervening in trade disputes and trying to assist in whatever way it can to improve standards if you have a Government Department actually lowering standards and maintaining standards which are a disgrace to any country, and particularly a disgrace to a country which boasts of a Constitution such as ours, a Constitution which lays down general principles that are not carried out in practice.

I do not know that it is a matter of very great interest, but I understand that one member of the Fianna Fáil Party, I think Deputy Kennedy, recently suggested in a public speech that when Ministers of State visit centres in this country that the Tricolour—the national flag—should be flown over the buildings they visit. I do not know whether there is any particular reason for it or not, but the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is responsible, I understand, for the flying of flags on buildings over which it has control. I understand that, on the occasion of the Taoiseach's recent return from the London negotiations, the flag was not flown on Dun Laoghaire pier. Just as a matter of interest, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether or not that was merely an oversight, or whether it had any special significance, because it is rather interesting side by side with the fact that, I believe, for the first time in history the Tricolour was flown on that occasion over the Royal St. George Yacht Club in Dun Laoghaire.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary was not present on that occasion.

Mr. Flinn

There should be two flags for me.

Mr. Heron

I want to say in conclusion on this Estimate, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is not the business of the Opposition to find the money to put the unemployed at work or to put them to work at decent rates of wages. When the Fianna Fáil Party were in opposition they never recognised it as their business to provide the money, the plan notwithstanding. We hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some indication that he is prepared to follow on the lines belatedly adopted in connection with Rhynana, and effect some improvement in the wage standards that are obtaining generally in connection with schemes carried out under the Office of Public Works. Until he does that, I do not think there is much justification for any member of this House paying tributes and compliments to him.

Mr. Flinn

The compliments that I get at any time are not very many, and any bouquet that is thrown to me generally has a pot attached to it. A man starts off by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary is very nice, very courteous and kindly, that he is a human, soft-hearted man of amazing and unbelievable efficiency, but, and then the "but"—

Mr. Heron

I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary's officials who were described as being efficient and not the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Flinn

On occasion the Parliamentary Secretary has been so described. Certainly, the softness of his heart has almost been treated as a matter of poetry, but there is always a "but." The fact of the matter is that the Parliamentary Secretary has a certain job or work to do; he does it as well and as conscientiously as he can do it, and he proposes to continue to do that without any regard to compliments or the opposite.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Sez you!

Mr. Flinn

I am sure the House will recognise that there is a huge variety of stuff here to be dealt with and that to co-ordinate it—to deal with it in a consecutive or comprehensive order— would be beyond the Parliamentary Secretary even when he is being most complimented. One typical statement was made by Deputy Hurley. He said that the Parliamentary Secretary has no regard whatever for the health of little children. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary is a sort of ogre who has one of them for breakfast. That is about the standard which the Parliamentary Secretary is supposed to have when he comes to deal with schools. In order to prove that, Deputy Hurley went on to say that less and less money is being spent each year on the maintenance of schools. Now, Deputy Hurley said that twice. He said it after he had read figures proving the contrary. That is an amazing attitude of mind for a man to take who has been given the actual figures—who has made out the figures himself, and having done that twice, to misrepresent, and then add that scandalous addendum. The actual facts are that the Office of Public Works has been spending more and more money on schools during the last three years. The sum spent in 1935-36 was £126,000; in 1936-37, £132,000, and in 1937-38, £159,000—the year of the building strike. I think that any fair-minded man will say that whether or not £159,000 is the right amount to spend, there is evidence here that the Department is trying to do what it can to bring about improvement. I do not think there is a Deputy in this House who, talking to another Deputy down in the smoke-room, has any doubt that we are trying to do our best and that we intend to do our best. Not even Deputy Hurley will say to himself outside a platform where he is trying to get some little very despicable political kudos, that the figures for the building of schools represent that callous disregard for the health and welfare of children which he suggests. I suggest that is going altogether below the belt, and the sooner that sort of thing is cut out the better.

It might be said: "After all, what is £159,000?" In the three years before we came in the figures were £89,000, £65,000 and £100,000. I can tell the House that there has been a complete reorganisation on the staff and on the administration side in the Office of Public Works for the purpose of improving the school position. That could not produce its complete result last year, due to the strike. We hope it will produce it next year and increasingly as the years go on. One thing I will say is that we, as a Department, accept it as a conscientious responsibility, to the limit of our powers, in relation to any funds which we have at our disposal for the purpose of schools, to spend them as rapidly, as efficiently and as fairly as we possibly can, and I do not think that any person in the House doubts that.

Deputy Hurley raised the question of the wage of 24/- a week on relief schemes, now that it is 27/- a week for other work. As the House is aware, we have a motion before us here to refer this Vote back. Deputy Norton, who put down the motion, was courteous enough to inform me of the basis on which he moved to refer it back. He did so on the basis of 24/- a week and on the basis of rotation. I was very anxious that the House should have a full opportunity to deliver its attack on that basis uninterfered with by any announcement on the subject. The wages on minor relief schemes are now 27/-. They came up at once.

Mr. Davin

From what date does it operate?

Mr. Flinn

From the 23rd, from the same date as the other. Deputy Hurley also wanted preference given to married as distinct from single men. I do not want to touch on the original process at all, because I think the less we say about what used to happen, the better. In our original system, we did give employment to married men first. They got it practically exclusively, but that was found, in practice, to be unfair, and especially unfair in the rural districts, where we found that single men had a good many dependents. It has changed to the extent that 25 per cent. of the total employment was given to single men, but that was where we were working on a rule of thumb method of recruiting labour. At that time there was no employment exchange, unemployment assistance register, and we had no statutory means, as to some extent, we have now, of ascertaining the different levels of distress of individuals. As soon as there was set up under the law a system of ascertaining in a mathematical form the relative distress of people who were suffering from unemployment, we changed over to using that register. The unemployment assistance register at the moment is a direct measure of the difference between the minimum amount of money which the State regards as necessary during a person's period of unemployment and the amount of income which he has been ascertained to possess, independent of his wages; in other words, it is as near as we can get it a comparative, if not an absolute, measure of the distress due to unemployment as between individual men.

That was a standard which we were all very glad to get. It was something which every honest man who had anything to do with or any responsibility for employment schemes was very anxious to get, and as soon as we got it we said: "All right; we will use that basis." Now, the unemployment assistance basis takes into account the whole of a man's commitments relative to other men. It takes into account all his income, apart from wages, relative to other men; of his title to receive from the State a share of any artificial funds of that kind. For that reason, and that reason only, we decided that preference should be given in employment schemes to men in proportion to the amount of unemployment assistance they receive, whether they are married or single men. I, personally, know of no fairer method of dealing with it. If any fairer method can be offered to me, I shall be in the debt of those who will give it to me.

One of the difficulties we had in previous years in taking men off the top end of the panel, with an inadequate amount of the total funds, for the purpose of fully employing them was that that meant that only those men got employment, and the single men, and men relatively less in necessity further down, might find themselves getting no advantage at all. It meant that the married man being taken on might be kept on for the duration of the scheme and, as a result, the money did not go around. I am speaking of a system which has been in the process of evolution. We have come out of chaos now into some degree of reasonable order and what I am speaking of now is the process in which that came. This year, we decided that that defect, at any rate, would be remedied and that the mere fact that a man automatically came on the register because he was at the top end would not mean that he would remain in employment for the whole period of the scheme. In addition to that, there was the difficulty that a man who remained in employment for more than five weeks could not, when his period was over, go back directly on the unemployment assistance register. He had to wait a week. Those two factors taken together induced us to say that we would limit the period, where there were more men available for work than the scheme could absorb, to four weeks. At the end of that time (1) the man would automatically go back on the unemployment assistance register without losing the week, and (2) the next set of men, more necessitous, judging by that standard, on the register would be brought in. We calculated that we were able this year to deal with something approximating to two-thirds of the register in that way. Exactly how far it has worked out I cannot say yet. It is a matter of a considerable amount of accountancy and calculation, but as soon as they are available, I will let the House have the actual figures of the degree of success or failure which has been attained in the matter. At any rate, I think the present system, under which we employ men not because they are married and not because they are single, but in proportion to their necessity judged by the unemployment assistance standards, and under which we change them at intervals of four weeks, is the best way that I know of using the amount of money which I have at my disposal. The question of the efficiency of schemes of this kind was raised. Quite a number of people conscientiously believed that efficiency could not possibly be achieved under a system of this kind. As I said in my opening brief, neither I nor any other sane man is going to pretend that you are going to get out of any relief scheme —where you have to take men purely and simply on the ground of their necessity and employ them for the purpose of their benefit—the same efficiency that a contractor could get by employing people purely and simply on their merits as workmen.

Mr. Heron

And on decent wages.

Mr. Flinn

I will take even that. I am quite satisfied that in a great many State activities at the present moment, local and otherwise, a contractor could go in and pay better wages and get better results, because he would insist——

Mr. Heron

Certainly, if he pays better wages he is bound to get better results.

Mr. Flinn

No, he is not, but he would jolly well see to it. When I first came across this particular scheme— which I may say originated with a letter from a young Mayo priest, asking for some use of the unemployed men in his district of more benefit to them and more benefit to the State than paying them what is called dole—I certainly did not realise that it had the possibilities which I now believe it has. I certainly assumed that under it we could do a great deal of fairly elementary work, but I could see the limitations and I could see many of the reactions which are now pleaded against it. Experience has shown that our fears in that respect were certainly not well-founded. What happened was that an experiment was made in four or five counties in one year, costing somewhere about £20,000, on a strictly mathematical rotation, that is to say, a rotation in which a man got in the form of wages exactly 40 per cent.—or as near to it as possible—more than his unemployment assistance, plus beef. The success of those schemes was so surprisingly greater than we had expected, and the difficulties which we had anticipated were so completely absent, that we revised our ideas of the possibilities.

I was speaking to a county surveyor who had been using the system successfully for us, and I asked him what work he could efficiently do under it. Very much to my surprise, he said he could do efficiently any work which he was then doing as county surveyor. Rather for the purpose of carrying it to an absurd point, I asked him if he could do a public health work of a technical character, and he said he was prepared to undertake it. I said: "How many key-men working full time and selected by yourself will you require in order to do it?" He said: "Practically none." I asked: "What amount will you add to the ordinary contract price in order to do the job?" He replied: "I will do it at the contract price." I think we will all take off our hats to the courage of that engineer, having regard to the obvious difficulties and limitations of a scheme of that kind. A scheme of some £6,000 or £7,000 was found for this purpose. It was most strictly and critically estimated by two Departments and the local authority which had to deal with it. It abolished the unemployment register in a certain district for practically 11 months. I have here a certificate of the high technical efficiency of that job. It was a difficult job in a hilly district with cascade manholes and deep cuts which had to be strussed and supported. It had all the difficulties which I, as a devil's advocate, would have chosen for the purpose of trying out a scheme of that kind to destruction. The estimated cost was £6,788. The actual cost was £5,529. The saving on that scheme, by doing it in this particular method, as compared with the price at which it would have been done by contract, was £1,259. This is the sort of thing which makes one think. We have had a series of cases in which we have had costed accounts. The conditions under which they have been done have been various, but in every case in which a costed account has been produced the result has been better than we expected.

The reason I have raised this particular point in this particular way was because Deputy Hurley raised the question of a particular job which was done in Cork by the Cork Harbour Commissioners. They applied for a grant for doing certain works in concreting quays and the like. During the discussions which took place after that grant had been applied for by the local authority very strong expressions of opinion were made as to the utter impossibility of doing work of that kind efficiently with rotational labour taken from the unemployment assistance register. I replied that I was satisfied, from the experience which I had previously had, that under proper supervision as good results could be got—I am speaking now of technical and economic results —under a rotational system of labour as under any other method of employing that labour. I stated that the work would be inspected before, during and after construction, that costing accounts would be required and that on that it would be tested.

There were two works done in the City of Cork under this scheme. They were estimated on the basis of the ordinary production of the full-time workmen of that local authority. The estimates were made by their own engineer, the supervision was under their own engineer, and the certificate of completion, of cost, and of efficiency is by their own engineer, backed by the separate, independent inspection of the technical officers of the Office of Works. What is the result? One of these works was carried out under the conditions which are specified, that is to say, uninterrupted work. The engineer certifies to the harbour board that more work was done for the money than by his own workmen acting under permanent employment. In relation to the other, it was very greatly interrupted by traffic conditions. It was on a quay, subject to vessels coming alongside, and so on, and he certifies that no part of the discrepancy is due to any other cause but that and specifically that no part of it is due to rotation or the quality of the workmen got under rotation. Yet, in spite of that certificate, we have Deputy Hurley, a member of that board, saying it cannot be done. The man who went to the zoo and said: "There ain't no such animal" is in exactly the same position. Nothing that we can do will prove it to those who have made up their minds that it cannot be done.

Do those two cases represent the average? I do not think so—I wish they did. It is my intention, so far as in me lies, to see that that system is set up under which they will represent the average. I have county surveyors employing 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 and 9,000 men at the same time. Those men certify that they are getting 90 to 100 per cent. efficiency. I have county councils which are employing 400 men, and they tell me that they are getting 60 per cent. efficiency. I think the whole case is a case (1) of the efficiency of supervision, and (2) the quality of the men. If you take the Western seaboard—take Mayo, Kerry, Donegal and places of that kind—the great proportion of the men on the register are fairly typical of the districts in which they are.

Mr. Davin

Small farmers.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, small farmers. I would ask those who do conscientiously look at this thing as a matter of conscience, not as a matter of polemics, to go down and really carefully examine the two maps which are lying near the Library. They will tell you the story of the distribution. They will tell you where these 100,000 men that we are speaking of are unemployed. They will show you the incidence of the problem. If you compare the other one with the distribution of the works and see the meticulous accuracy—it has gone too far if anything—with which that map of need is translated into a map of service in the form of works, I do not think that any of you will have the face to accuse the Department that is responsible for it of any other attitude of mind than that of a deep sense of responsibility in relation to this problem and every part of it. The leopard does not change its spots. We do not make a scheme of the kind which will stand any criticism in relation to the mass and then mess it about by doing something wrong or something careless, or something even inconsiderate in the matter of how we employ men in those rural districts where 90 per cent. of the men over a period are employed.

You may take it, as Deputy Davin stated, that you are dealing with the small farming class, and they are all pretty well efficient. I will say this, that when they turn out on a job of this kind they do give their best. I have seen men working on rotation schemes in a blizzard, and I have seen them honestly and deliberately giving all that was in them in return for their wages. I personally have the highest and deepest possible respect for the men whom I have seen working, and all I can say is that there is no evidence of failure of discharge of duty on an average of those people which would fit in with the a priori, synthetic reasoning on which we have been going that this thing must be inefficient.

You turn away from that and you come to a gang which I was shown by a public official some time ago working in a city. They also were working on rotation. It was perfectly obvious that a considerable proportion of those men were definitely sub-standard. You could not expect to get from those men the output that we were getting in other districts, or that you would expect to get from good men in the cities. To that extent, no matter what we do, whether we employ them whole-time, week about, or otherwise, you are not going to get from those sub-standard men the performance of standard men. But what we are doing is, we are trying to some extent to recondition them into standard men. With the inadequacy of the inadequate resources which we have—

Mr. Davin

What is the measure of inadequacy?

Mr. Flinn

We will take this quietly, if you do not mind. Rotation itself is not responsible for a small payment to men, nor in the Office of Public Works are we responsible for deciding how much assistance will be brought to unemployment. That is the duty of this House as a whole. How much money would the State provide for the purpose? Once that has been decided, then the question of the efficiency of its spending and its distribution enters. What we are attempting to do is, with whatever resources we have to meet the problem as broadly and as fairly as we can. Rotation is a very flexible instrument.

At the present moment men are employed at a minimum of three, and a maximum of five, days per week. Though a very considerable number of employment schemes are carried out on a full time basis, public health schemes and things of that kind, broadly speaking, rural road relief and minor relief schemes, are carried out on the three, four, and five day basis. Even then, last year, when we employed at the maximum 50,000 men, I had still 90,000 men on the register. Now unless somebody is going to say to me that I must employ less of the 50,000 and increase the 90,000; unless someone is going to say that I shall give more to the few and take it from the many, then some form of rotation, some form of division, is absolutely necessary. It does not matter whether it is bi-weekly, bi-fortnightly, three days or otherwise. It is the machinery of distribution. If we have more money for the purpose, we can either employ more men on the present standard or we can give more days to every man who is now getting a limited number. At the present moment what is happening is that all the money we get, we distribute in every county, every village and every electoral area in proportion to the necessity of that area relative to all other areas. We try to distribute it between every man in these electoral areas in proportion to his necessity relative to all other people. If anyone can suggest a higher standard of distribution, I am at his disposal.

Mr. Davin

On the point of the amount of money to be expended, is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that it is only a Minister who can move for increased expenditure in this House?

Mr. Flinn

I am not dealing with any question of polemics in this matter at all. I have never talked polemics or politics in connection with these schemes.

Mr. W. O'Brien

But the Parliamentary Secretary said that the House could increase the expenditure on these schemes. The House cannot increase expenditure beyond a certain point.

Mr. Flinn

What the House can do is to avoid going into the lobby to vote against an unpopular tax. That is exactly the problem. The whole issue is this: if we bring in a series of budgets which mean raising money, which can only be raised by an unpopular tax, is the Labour Party going into the "No" lobby against them?

Mr. Davin

Is income tax an unpopular tax?

Mr. Flinn

Yes, it is.

Mr. Davin

And you wanted to abolish it.

Mr. Flinn

I will not deal with that at this moment. The Deputy has raised a point which I think ought to be met, up to a point. If the Deputy can get a majority in this House in favour of an increase in income-tax let him come to the Minister for Finance and ask him to increase that tax, but the Deputy will not. He would rather have the popularity of saying: "I will vote for a tax that I know there is not going to be a majority in this House for." The only time that the Minister did attempt to raise income-tax, because it affected some people who might vote for the Deputy he and his colleagues went into the lobby and voted against an increase in income-tax. I should like to drop that atmosphere. I want to put it to the House again that if there is to be a larger number of days given to any man, or if there is to be a larger number of men employed, then it means that the taxation of this country will have to be raised. There are no popular taxes left which the Minister for Finance can introduce. The whole question at issue is whether the House is prepared to vote for additional unpopular taxation for the purpose of getting that money. I have stressed that point because there has been no attack on rotation here in this debate. No attack on rotation has been made in this debate. Somebody has said that it is scandalous and somebody else has said that it is one thing or another, but when they were asked to come down to brass tacks, no one had any attack to make on the system except that there was not enough money. I am emphasising that. There is no attack upon rotation. No one is saying at the moment: "We want more money spent on unemployment schemes; we want more money given in each week to each individual person."

Mr. Larkin

That is not correct. I definitely challenge that your system is not rotation. I do not want to make any political or polemical statement either but I say it is not rotation.

Mr. Flinn

I do not quite follow the Deputy.

Mr. Larkin

I say that it is not rotation.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy says that the scheme we are following is not rotation. I think that may pass without my saying anything. I should be very glad if anyone in this House would deliver a considered attack on rotation and I would be specially and particularly grateful if they would give that to me in writing. I promise anyone who can find for me a method which will, in any detail whatever, improve the existing method of the distribution of the money, I shall adopt that method without any hesitation whatever, wherever it comes from. I think the House knows that.

Deputy Tubridy raised the question of small farmers and others not in receipt of unemployment assistance, and who, therefore, were debarred. That again boils down to the fact that I have a particular fund to deal with. If I use any portion of that fund for people who are not now regarded as people in need, then I must give less to those who are in need. I think there is something—I want to be quite frank —to be said for the point of view which is advocated there, but I do not think that I am entitled to spend one penny of this money for that purpose unless I am in a position to treat adequately all those who are entitled to it. My line of conduct is that I am not entitled to be generous to anybody until I have been just to all. Here is what is happening. I can see the urge which it is producing. We have carried out somewhere about 9,000 minor relief schemes alone since this Government came into office. Those consisted mainly, as the House knows, of bog roads, accommodation roads, and works of that character, works which are largely amenities to farmers and people of that kind. I am quite satisfied that a good many of them have meant the difference between mere existence and living in the country for many thousands of people. Those have all taken place in poor areas, and farmers in other areas, who are not poor, find that their poorer neighbours are getting these amenities while they are not. The problem boils down to that. I have never heard the claim seriously put forward that farmers in those areas should get the money required for such works. Everyone says: "Bring in your unemployed men, and do what you like, but do not have us travelling to our houses with our knees in mud while all our poorer neighbours have fine roads to theirs." There is a lot to be said for that, but there is nothing to be said for taking money out of this fund for it.

Look at the map, and ask yourself whether you would abandon any scheme in any area, or take it out and put it somewhere where we have not put it. Until you are prepared to do that, and say that it would be the proper way to use the money, you are not entitled to ask that such work should be done under this scheme. A certain number of schemes of that kind may eventually be done as an experiment, in order to find out its reactions. That would be right and legitimate, even under a Vote of this kind, in so far as all information relating to the unemployment problem would be of legitimate use for the money, but any large scheme would be outside the ambit, and would be held up by our friends, the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputy McGowan said that the rotation scheme was a matter for local authorities. All I say is that apparently they understand it. I should like to give the Deputy an example, and an opportunity to work out the rotation system for, say 20 men, who had to work anything from 16 to five days a month. I mean strict mathematical rotation, and to keep a regular gauge while doing it. That was the problem we offered local authorities during the experimental period and we gave them no help. We wanted them to work in their own way, and to our amazement everyone of them solved that difficult mathematical problem.

Mr. McGowan

It is a very difficult one.

Mr. Flinn

It was well done. They got to the bottom of it. It may be taken that that element is gone. Every one of them has been through troubles and trials, but they know how to do it now, so that there is no difficulty. I think the Deputy raised a question about certain people being afraid to take employment on "off" days while on rotation work. A man employed on rotation work is perfectly entitled to take any casual employment. What happened was that men on unemployment assistance were afraid to take casual employment or, if they did, it was sub rosa. Now a man can take extra days' work over and above the three days.

Mr. McGowan

I was comparing the system of a week on and a week out with the system of working three days and being off two days. I suggested as an alternative that a man should work an on and an off week, because after working three days he might secure casual employment, but might say to himself: "I will not take it as I would miss my chance of getting the rotation." The alternative of a week on and a week off would be better.

Mr. Flinn

That has been brought up in the case of Cork, where a grant of £26,000 was actually refused by a combination of Labour and Fine Gael rather than take rotation. That is the only case on record in all the millions of money. I had the pleasure of administering in this particular way. The only money ever refused and lost by local authorities was in Cork Borough by a combined vote of the two Opposition Parties rather than have rotation in spite of the fact that they had a petition from the men engaged on rotation work saying that they wanted it; in spite also of the fact that they had a petition saying that they wanted the three days rotation instead of the weekly rotation, and declaring from their experience of working under it that there had been a great social improvement. That is amazing, almost unbelievable. There was £26,000 belonging to their own constituents thrown away rather than face the facts. The question came on again this year on another £20,000 which they were very likely to lose on account of the same prejudice. Alderman Ailen then got up and said: "I do not like rotation, but I have got here the signatures of 300 men asking for it, and that is good enough for me." I think that will be good enough for the Deputy. The only complaint I got from the workers in relation to it is one I am trying to deal with, by giving successive panels, as enough men were not getting access to them. I heard complaints about unemployed workers from Waterford, and they said they had no complaints in any way; that it was very good, but that only a very small percentage got the benefit of it.

Deputy Dillon, having thrown a bouquet at me, followed it up with a very large pot, of the character that makes the bouquet very unacceptable. I do not value a tribute to the efficiency of my Department which impeaches its good faith. Some years ago, before this Government came into office, our predecessors had found money for an unemployment scheme by voting £250,000 to a Department which was already overworked, and that had to choose between failing to spend its own money or failing to spend that sum. They had not, as a matter of fact, to raise the money by taxation. The British owed it to them. Undoubtedly, they said, the British would pay, so they decided to spend it for the purpose of unemployment relief. They sent the money to a Department that could not spend it. In other words, they fooled the unemployed. Deputy Dillon, having paid a compliment to the efficiency of the Department, then turned round and said we were doing the same thing. The justification he pleads for that is the fact that there was a re-Vote in a particular year of £167,000. From the very first day we handled unemployment we had a re-Vote of one kind or another. On the first occasion I accounted for that in this House I said that it was utterly impossible to carry on a system of Unemployment Vote from year to year unless there was a re-Vote. Each year successively we explained the machinery by which that was done. Because that re-Vote appears we are now told we remain in the same category as the people who had the £250,000 Vote. It is an outrageous accusation, an accusation that fits in with nothing in our records. You might as well accuse us of doing the other things that were done. Why not tell us that our gangers are publicans who pay their men in their own publichouses; that the men have got to give testimonials to their gangers; that gangers could take home their men to work on their own farms instead of doing their work? Why not tell us that we also allow our gangers to be political gangsters? Why not say that every ganger in a particular district was the personating agent of the Party that was administering the fund? Why not say that every man who got employment had to get it because he was somebody's political henchman and only held his job as long as he remained that political henchman? Why not say that our schemes are administered and distributed on the same system as they once were when Deputies got them scullions who got tips to carry round on to political platforms and to change into cash?

Colonel Ryan

‘Would you permit me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary does he mean what he has said?

Mr. Flinn

Undoubtedly; every word of it is true.

Colonel Ryan

Only since you came into power.

Mr. Flinn

None of that has occurred since we came into power.

Mr. Lawlor

I question that.

Mr. Flinn

By all means question that. Prove it. Show that any single scheme of ours has been informed by that corruption.

Mr. Lawlor

It is difficult to prove, but that does not say it is not true.

Mr. Flinn

When in doubt, believe the worst. Our schemes have been clean. Every single scheme that has been done is there for everybody to read it. When did any other administration of relief schemes put up visibly the evidence which we put up, upon which we can be criticised? Again, I did not mean to diverge into this matter, but I do regard it as a gross insult to mention in the same breath our administration of the schemes and the administration of our predecessors.

Colonel Ryan

I say, Sir, it is brazenness on your part, from what I know of your schemes for four or five years.

Mr. Lawlor

Would the Parliamentary Secretary admit that it can be done without their knowledge?

A Deputy

No.

Mr. Flinn

Oh, yes; there may be cases of that kind.

Mr. Lawlor

Somebody answered for the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Flinn

There is not a man in this House, there is not a man outside this House, who does not know that our schemes to-day are honest and clean.

Mr. Lawlor

I wish they were.

Mr. Flinn

There are 50,000 workmen in this country every year who would bear that testimony.

Mr. Lawlor

I wish there were.

Mr. Flinn

Where is the Deputy's evidence? If the Deputy has any evidence to the contrary he is bound in honour to table it and I am bound in honour to investigate it and lay it before the House. The Deputy has no evidence. It is only cod. But, at any rate, I am not prepared in future to receive any compliments tied up with the pots of the character which Deputy Dillon handed out in that particular case.

Deputy Dillon referred to swimming pools. He said that we had been very good to him in the matter of swimming pools and he wanted that developed. We would be very glad indeed to do anything of that kind if a plan is put forward. His suggestion that we should draw up a series of typical plans, in my opinion, will not be feasible. I will try it but it will not be feasible. Our experience of all swimming pool projects is that they are special to the district. I mean, anything you do depends simply and solely on an exact topographical knowledge. At any rate, all I can tell you is that we will help in any way we can.

Deputy Anthony attacked rotation. Being asked for his objections he said he objected to the system of so many days on and off, and he suggested week on and week off. That is not an objection to rotation. That is a different form of rotation. At any rate, this is a form of rotation which the unemployed people who have had experience of it have asked should be left as it is.

Deputy Kelly asked whether there had been at any time a reduction in the number of days' employment given per week to married men. The answer is no. What happened is that, at one time, single men used to get two days' employment. That was raised to three days' employment, but there was not necessarily a corresponding rise in other rates and, very curiously, it may appeal to the sense of humour of this House, it was not the men who were getting two days a week who were responsible for the agitation to get an increase; it was the men who worked three days who wanted the two-day men to have to work for their third day instead of drawing it in the form of unemployment assistance.

Deputy Kelly raised the question that where minor drainage schemes had been started in one year they should be completed in the next. That is the intention. Last year, some 450 schemes of summer drainage were done, involving amounts of £150, and that kind of thing, but to any extent to which these had been left incomplete—I do not think there were many —the intention would be to complete them.

Deputy Brodrick raised, I think, the same question as the previous Deputy, and said that he did not agree with the selection of schemes in accordance with the number of unemployed on the register. Within the ambit of the Vote, it is quite clear that any departure from that would be wrong, but I think that his idea was to get work of social amenity done in non-poverty areas, a thing which can be argued on its own basis but which cannot be financed out of the employment Vote.

Deputy Beegan said he did not like to see men breaking stones about Christmas, that they were not used to breaking stones, and some other method ought to be adopted. I will tell the House quite frankly that in relation to the small towns, I think the first time that unemployment works were ever done in the small towns it was about two years ago under this scheme and the number of schemes which are available seem to be very limited. I want the House to take my point of view in the matter. My point of view is to see that as much as possible of every £100 I spend goes into the pocket of some poor man. The schemes which are available in the little towns which have a large proportion of unskilled labour in them apparently are very limited; they seem to boil down to footpaths. All I can say is that I have used all the brains I have and all the brains that I can borrow to find schemes that are suitable for those areas which will have a considerable labour content. Can anyone tell me something that we have forgotten? You all know the story of the man who forgot Goschen—we may have in this matter forgotten Goschen—but at the moment we are finding it extremely difficult and over a period of years, I think, we are going to find it impossible to keep up the supply of schemes which have a large unskilled labour content in the small towns. I am passing schemes now that I do not like. I am passing schemes with 50 per cent. of labour content and I tell you quite frankly that that is on my conscience.

Mr. Larkin

Cannot you industrialise the country and produce your crops industrially and absorb all the men and thousands more? You don't want schemes.

Mr. Flinn

That is another point. The question of an airport at Midleton has been raised by three or four Deputies. The original intention was to build that airport as an unemployment scheme. We had two big pools of unemployment—the Borough of Cork, where there would be about 3,000 on the register of unemployed; in Cobh we might have 400, and we had a very small number in the Midleton area itself. It is a peculiarity, and a very uncomfortable peculiarity, that these acrodromes are falling in the very rich areas. If only they would fall in Donegal, West Kerry or somewhere like that it would help us more in solving the unemployment problem. But in every single case they are falling in the very richest areas. In the three we have dealt with now they are falling in the three richest areas in the whole country. For instance, Collinstown, Rhynana and Midleton. The problem of getting people who are entitled to work on the unemployment fund is very difficult. We found it was not practicable to transport them from the Borough of Cork to Midleton. The arrangement was to transport them from Cobh. In Cobh most of the unemployment has now been dealt with by another means. A considerable portion of those who will remain on the register will not be suitable for work on the aerodrome. Therefore, financing it by an unemployment scheme, however willing we might be, is going to be very difficult. In addition, the whole scheme seems to be altered by those who are interested in it. At the present moment there is an element of indefiniteness as to what is required. All I can say in relation to the Midleton aerodrome is that when we get a definite programme we will go into it as rapidly as we can. I could not bring it any further than that.

Deputy Dillon raised a very difficult question when he raised the matter of a man who had been in the employment of the Board of Works, but who, due to reconstruction, became superfluous. He was perfectly fair. I am not complaining in any way of what he said, but he raised a very difficult problem; he did it in a manner which was, in my opinion, perfectly right. He took the line that in those cases the Board of Works should not disemploy that man. Well, if this were one case, one would say, "yes, one can stretch a point." But this is occurring to a considerable extent in a good many departments. Sometimes, where you go to reconstruct a place, you will find on proper reorganisation of the work that you will have ten people unemployed. That happened in half a dozen cases; we have dealt with them in every case as sympathetically as we could. In some cases we have been able to absorb them into other portions of the works. Sometimes we have been able to get them into other departments, and in some cases we have kept them on for a considerable time as supernumeries. This is one of those very unpleasant problems you have to face. In no case is a man dismissed, or anything of that kind, without my taking personal responsibility for doing it. I am not at all willing to have a man dismissed if it is at all possible to keep him on.

Mr. Larkin

Tell us categorically what a carpenter's clerk is.

Mr. Flinn

It is this way: For instance, there is a carpenter in charge. A carpenter in charge is practically the same as the clerk of works or the foreman. His clerk is the man who deals with the requisitions for supplies, deals with the time sheets and things of that kind. That is the type of person he is. All I can say is that we deal with this matter where a man is superfluous as sympathetically as we can.

The question of the Dun Laighaire Pier was raised. To me the pier calls for the consideration of the railway and the navigation problem. It is agreed that improvements are desirable, particularly to deal with the rush periods. The exact form the improvements can take is not so easy a problem. The Great Southern and the L.M.S. are mainly concerned with the traffic and it is up to them to say what facilities they consider desirable. The companies know that we are prepared to consider any proposals put forward. Their interests may clash and it may be that the extension of the Carlisle Pier would render navigation more difficult. We refused to attend a conference at Dun Laoghaire because no useful purpose could be served by the conference. That was because no actual proposals had been put forward for technical examination. Until we have proposals to work on there is not the faintest use of going into a room and saying: "Now, we will look at so and so." If people want to put forward something let them give us an idea of what they do want and then we will be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Davin

Is not the pier the property of the Board of Works?

Mr. Flinn

It is, but it is the user who wants to tell us what to do with it.

Mr. Davin

Have you asked the Great Southern Railway Company?

Mr. Flinn

We asked everybody concerned to put forward any proposal they like and we would be glad to consider it.

Mr. Larkin

You asked everybody except the user. You never asked him.

Mr. Flinn

Considering that most of the trouble is with the non-users.

Mr. Davin

Did you charge them for getting there?

Mr. Flinn

Even that cannot keep them off.

Mr. McGowan

What is going to happen the money available if you do not spend some of it?

Mr. Flinn

Is the Deputy asking us to put on more taxes? Then when the taxes are produced it would be another story. On one occasion a Labour Deputy asked me to take my courage in both hands and do this, that and the other thing. I asked him and his colleagues to take their courage in both feet, go into the unpopular lobby and vote for these taxes.

Mr. McGowan

I suggest it is not necessary for Dun Laoghaire Pier, while there is money available there.

Mr. Flinn

There is not.

Mr. McGowan

But that was the answer the Parliamentary Secretary gave me recently.

Mr. Flinn

You may take it definitely that if that problem has to be faced in anything like the spirit in which it was talked of that is not the way in which it should be done.

Mr. Davin

Is it not possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to call in technical experts and others concerned, including the Dun Laoghaire Corporation?

Mr. Flinn

When did they become technical experts?

Mr. Davin

They have technical experts.

Mr. Flinn

All I can tell you is that if the technical experts write down just what they want, it will be considered— and they do not even need a stamp.

Mr. Davin

That is the way you shelve your responsibility.

Mr. Flinn

No, it is not. What is the use of the Department building a pier of the type that they may not want. If they write down just what they want, then the position will be clearer.

Mr. McGowan

Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite sure that this money is not available for carrying out various works?

Mr. Flinn

What works? What money? Do you mean the huge profits?

Mr. McGowan

Yes.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy is dreaming. As it is, there is a whole lot of maintenance work being done for the benefit of Dun Laoghaire. All these things are being kept in order free by the State and if they do not take the trouble to write down what they want, then what can I do?

Mr. W. O'Brien

Ask and you shall receive—that is what the Minister for Finance says.

Mr. MacEntee

No, that is not what the Minister for Finance says.

Mr. Dockrell

There is one thing that I should like to mention to the Parliamentary Secretary. The L.M.S. case, I understand, is: "Our contract is running out for the carrying of the mails and what is the use of discussing a new pier or new boats when we have a contract which is just going to expire."

Mr. Flinn

Does that prevent them indicating what they would like in a pier? If what the Deputy says represents the intelligence of the company, then they ought to sue him for libel. Deputy Hogan referred to half a dozen schemes in County Clare and he said that the county council would not allow the county surveyor to take them over because they were not completed. So far as I know, there are seven in all and two have been taken over by the county council. The final award is not complete in the case of the other schemes. Deputy Ryan mentioned the case of the Ballybeg drainage scheme and he also called attention to the drainage scheme carried out on the Black River. He said a large amount of the good work done by the drainage of the Black River was nullified by the amount of damage done from the point where the drainage was stopped to the mouth of the Suir. That is an example of the shortcomings of the present drainage code and it is one of the matters that gave rise to the idea of a drainage commission.

He also raised the question of the very marked discrepancy between the estimates of the Board of Works for doing a particular job, and the estimates of the officer acting on behalf of the local body. His own surveyor apparently provides merely for cleaning up shoals and bushes and so on, while we were calculating on the expensive work of redraining the river. There is an idea that you can go into a river, take away a few bushes and a weir, and everything is all right. In practice it is no good unless you go back over the whole thing and make the whole channel the same size as the new place which you have cleared.

Colonel Ryan

I understood from the assistant county surveyor that there could be a good job done on this river for £1,000.

Mr. Flinn

I am quite satisfied it could not be done. We have had dozens of cases where we had estimates and where we were going to spend as much as £20,000, and when we examined them we found they had been only opening the door for us to come in and do the work. Deputy Nally raised questions about the drainage of the Gweston, Pollock and Yellow Rivers and he referred to drainage on the Claredalgan River. These have been all subject to critical examination and it was found they would be extremely uneconomic. The same applies to the Brick and Cashin to which Deputy O'Sullivan referred. He also raised the question of another river in which he stated the maintenance cost which the people were being asked to pay was altogether out of proportion to the improvement. In that particular case there were four years of unpaid maintenance charges included in the figure. What happens is that a scheme is handed over to the county council and they are then responsible for the maintenance of the river. They do not do it, or, if they do, they find they cannot collect the instalments from the people who have been benefited. Once we have handed it over, our responsibility finishes.

Deputy Brasier referred to the Maglin river. This was brought to an award in 1900. There is a drainage board still functioning in the district, and any question of maintenance will have to be referred to it; we have nothing to do with it. Deputy Linehan asked if we proposed to build a President's residence. It is proposed to do so, but for the present we have decided to use the former Viceregal Lodge, while the whole question is being gone into. Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Benson referred to the question of parking. That only concerns us in so far as it is alleged that some particular area which is under our control is kept out of that use. There is no area at the present moment under our control, which, in my opinion, could be more properly used for parking than it is now being used. I think the Deputy suggested taking down the pillars around Stephen's Green. I am quite sure it would produce a storm of protest if we were to touch them. At any rate, we have no legal power to do so. We have that in trust, and it would require legislation to enable us to do what the Deputy wants. However, he ventilated that particular question, and that is all he requires.

Mr. Dockrell

I think the Parliamentary Secretary does me an injustice. I want to contribute something to the solution. I think the Parliamentary Secretary had been confounding the pillars and the railings.

Mr. Flinn

At any rate, we cannot touch it without legislation. I think that is sufficient answer for the Deputy. If we could give him any help in reason, we would, but we are stopped by law.

Mr. Larkin

Is there any reason why you cannot excavate?

Mr. Flinn

No, none whatever, except money. It is all a question of money. You would be amazed the number of things one can do if one had unlimited money, and one had not to raise that money by taxation.

Mr. W. O'Brien

When did you discover that?

Mr. Flinn

I have always known it.

Mr. O'Brien

Even when you supported the plan?

Mr. Flinn

At no time have I been in doubt.

Mr. Murphy

You kept the secret well for a time. You should have passed it on to other Deputies.

Mr. Flinn

If it can be pointed out to me that at any time I said I did not know that the people had to pay for all they got, I would be glad to have that quotation.

Mr. Brennan

What about the famous no income-tax stunt?

Mr. Flinn

I would be delighted to discuss it——

Mr. W. O'Brien

With the Minister for Finance?

Mr. Flinn

With anybody.

Mr. Davin

Or the Banking Commission?

Mr. Flinn

You ought to be able to tell us something about that.

Mr. Davin

Wait until it gets into print.

Mr. Flinn

Deputy Hurley asked for particulars with regard to the leases of Haulbowline. These have been laid on the Table in accordance with the State Land Acts. They are in the Library if the Deputy wants to see them. I think it was Deputy Larkin who raised the question of the financing of the memorial park. The Government put £40,000 in the Unemployment Vote into it—that was voted by a previous Administration—against £56,000 put in by the trustees of the memorial fund. The work is practically complete. The Government moneys were used to develop the park, and the trustees' money built the memorial. Of that sum of £40,000, £10,000 have been kept for the purpose of maintenance, and, of course, it will eventually go into the same thing.

Deputy Larkin raised the question, much to my surprise, that there had been political interference in the employment in Collinstown. I can assure the Deputy that I am not aware of it, and I should be very glad if he would give me any particulars of any such political interference.

Mr. Larkin

Will the Parliamentary Secretary investigate the matter if particulars are furnished to him?

Mr. Flinn

Certainly. I am absolutely going to discourage anything of the kind. I want to make that quite clear. After all, we have got to do our jobs, and to do them properly. Deputy Larkin also raised the question of the periodical contractor as distinct from employing direct. Well, that again is a matter on which two opinions can be held, and on which two opinions are held. On balance, at any rate, we have decided that the present arrangement is the best arrangement. We do not regard as exorbitant the actual cost of 10 per cent., of which the Deputy speaks—of course, I want to be gentle in the matter—but we do not regard it as exorbitant, and it covers quite a good deal, and is in many ways a convenient and proper method. It gets over some of the difficulties which the Deputy himself is raising in connection with a question which he has put down to me, and which he knows I am investigating. Of course, nobody can speak ex cathedra on the subject, but we have looked at it from both angles, and, of course, the contracts also go before the committee.

Mr. Larkin

But what about the possibility of a contract going each year to the same contractor?

Mr. Flinn

That may be, but it is perfectly straight. After all, if there is anything straight in the country, it is the method of contract.

Mr. W. O'Brien

And this is a good contractor?

Mr. Flinn

Oh, yes. He does his work very well, but it must be remembered that we are only dealing now with the question of integrity of contracts. At any rate, the Deputy can have absolute assurance on that point. Deputy Davin raised what, I think, is a hardy annual of his when he asked that any scheme that is started should be completed in the year in which it is started. As against that, however, I have had the strongest representations, both from the Deputy's own Party and from other Parties, in the other direction. The problem is this: You have an area which is entitled to a certain amount of money, and let us say that there are five small schemes and one big scheme. Let us assume that the big scheme is outstandingly better than the small schemes. Well, then, you can do either of two things. You can either abandon the big scheme altogether, because it is too big for the amount of money which belongs to the area concerned, or you arrange to do it in three successive years, or you can take money from some other area and give it to that area. In practice, what we do is this: If the big scheme is obviously better, we do it over a series of years. That has been our practice, and we shall continue to follow that practice.

Mr. Davin

What is the maximum amount covered by what you call a big scheme?

Mr. Flinn

It would depend on the area concerned. Deputies do not realise the differences that exist in different areas. For instance, within seven miles of Rhynana, when we first started there, there were 11 men on the unemployment register, whereas within a similar area in Mayo, there were 1,740 on the unemployment register. In other words, what would be all right for Rhynana, or the district around it to which I have referred, would be only a flea-bite to a similar district in Mayo.

Mr. Davin

Well, I was talking about a £300 job in one particular area.

Mr. Flinn

Well, I do not intend to take from one area its money in order to give it to another area, and, if I possibly can, I do not propose to do a poor scheme in priority to another which is a good scheme, even if it takes three years to do it.

Mr. Davin

Even on a £300 job?

Mr. Flinn

Whatever the job may be. Now, Deputy Beegan referred to the number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance, and he took a different attitude in that regard to most Deputies. He said that a lot of men were in receipt of unemployment assistance, or were on the unemployment register, who should not be on the unemployment register. That, definitely, is not the function of this Department, but, to some extent, I must say that we have contributed to it. There is no question at all about it, that the fact that unemployment relief schemes are being run does induce people to go on the unemployed register who otherwise would not go on that register, and I think that, to some extent, the unemployment register has been swelled by that activity of ours, and I should be very glad to know of any means by which it would not be so swelled. Deputy O'Sullivan raised the question of the Drainage Commission. All I can say in that connection is that we are very anxious to move it on as rapidly as we can. The Deputy was perfectly correct in pointing out that the drainage problem in Ireland is peculiarly our own. The drainage problem in Ireland is sui generis, and I do not know any case where the same problem exists or where the specialised experience of specialised drainage engineers would be so useful. We are going to get any outside knowledge of that kind that we can get, naturally, but I do believe that the problem here is a problem of our own. Deputy Gorey raised certain points which I shall look into, with a view to seeing what can be done in the matter.

Mr. Gorey

What about the terms of reference of your commission?

Mr. Flinn

I am sorry that I have not got them, but the Deputy may take it that, broadly, they will include the whole question of drainage. We are really up against both a financial problem and an administrative problem. There is the question: Who is going to take over the jobs when they are done, and who is going to be responsible for the collection of the moneys required to maintain them?

Mr. Gorey

To maintain them?

Mr. Flinn

Yes, to maintain them. That is a very important matter. The whole 1925 Act was delayed owing to neglected maintenance. Every scheme that was covered under it was delayed in neglected maintenance.

Mr. Gorey

Is the Parliamentary Secretary confusing two things? Is he confusing the restoration of a scheme with the maintenance of it after it has been restored?

Mr. Flinn

No. There is the making of a scheme. Then there is the failure to maintain it; there is the restoring of it, and then there is the maintenance of it after it has been restored. These four stages are, I think, clear in my mind and in the Deputy's. As the House knows, there is a real problem that we have to deal with, and that is that Ireland is a flat plain, practically a cup. The gradients over which you have to drain from that central plain are very poor. There is the question of getting the water away. Up to the present, there has not been that amount of money spent on the outlets which will enable the upper drainage to be affected. None of that outlet drainage is going to have a direct value in the sense of improving land. Deputies may take it that a large portion of the money spent would not directly benefit any measurable amount of land. One of the jobs that a drainage commission will have to face will be, how to extend outfall drainage of that character.

Mr. Gorey

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the question of getting a number of qualified advisers who would be available in each county to give technical assistance to individuals, or bodies of individuals prepared to undertake the job themselves. At the moment these individuals have not the experience required because the work I have in mind has not been done for the last 60 or 100 years.

Mr. Flinn

We will consider it. What I suggest to the Deputy is that he should place all that information before the Commission. If he can find some better way of doing the work we are quite ready to hear him. We do not think the present machinery is adequate to deal with that problem. The Commission will consider the whole of this problem from the outlet to the source. If there is anyone who can contribute any light or wisdom as to a better way of doing the work, or suggest a better method of financing it and maintaining it, we will be very glad to hear of it. What I would suggest to the Deputy is that he should write down what he has to say on this. It is amazing the number of people who are ready to make speeches in comparison to the number who are ready to subject themselves to the more exacting test of putting their considered recommendations on paper. It has been said that "writing maketh an exact man." I should say that talking maketh a voluble man.

Mr. Gorey

Would I be expecting too much if I were to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to allow me to see the files in his Department with regard to some of the schemes that have been put in, the estimates for them and all the rest?

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy would be expecting too much in view of the fact that at the moment he is alleging that some people outside the Department have knowledge and information which they can give to us.

Mr. Gorey

In this case I am alleging nothing of the sort.

Mr. Flinn

Then I misunderstood the Deputy. Deputy Kelly raised a question about Kilmainham Hospital. It is required for a definite Government purpose and is not available. The question of the lighting of this Chamber was also raised. I would ask Deputies to observe the effect of the two new lamps which have been installed, and I think they will agree that there is a marked improvement. They are certainly an improvement compared to the others.

Mr. Benson

The two that have been put up are not the same, and I was hoping that the whole lot were not going to be different.

Mr. Flinn

These are purely experimental.

Mr. Gorey

What about improving the seating accommodation here for members?

Mr. Flinn

On two or three occasions Deputy McGovern has got loose with various accusations. I have given him every possible opportunity to come to the test with proof, but he has failed to do so. What I want to say is that any man who knows of anything wrong in connection with the administration of a relief scheme and does not tell about it is no friend of this House. Any man who does know of anything wrong and says it in such a way as to make it effective is no enemy of this Government. We want all the criticism that we can get

Mr. Davin

Some of your friends say differently.

Mr. Flinn

I am sure the House absolutely believes what I have said. Deputy Davin referred to some contract schemes put forward for labour. If the Deputy was alluding to mere incidental schemes put forward in the ordinary way for contract works, I want to say that they got exactly the terms as anybody else.

Mr. Davin

I said so.

Mr. Flinn

That is why I could not quite understand the Deputy. Everyone speaks of afforestation, of roads, tourist roads, and all that kind of thing. What I want to say is that when you come down to the labour content of those schemes——

Mr. Larkin

What about the Blue Lagoon? The potentialities of that scheme are greater than these of any of your schemes.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy may be right, but the Dublin Corporation do not agree with him.

Mr. Larkin

They do. To-morrow night there will be an active demonstration of that.

Mr. Flinn

We went into that scheme with great care, and found that it would cost £500,000 of money at least, and that if it was given as a gift to the Corporation they were not prepared to maintain it.

Mr. Larkin

That is not the official statement. That has been publicly corrected.

Mr. Flinn

I have put a moderate figure on it, but if a scheme which was going to cost all that money is not even worth maintaining by the people you give it to, what can you do? There is another technical difficulty that the Deputy knows of. The harbour authority objected definitely to anything of that kind.

Mr. Larkin

But they have changed their minds three times in three years.

Mr. Flinn

Unfortunately, I have got to live with them.

Mr. Larkin

If I was living with them——

Mr. Flinn

That is another matter. Deputy Davin raised the question of a large scheme of bog reclamation. The whole question with regard to bogs is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce. All requisitions that we have received for bog development have been met.

Mr. Davin

Bog reclamation and drainage.

Mr. Flinn

All that I can tell the Deputy is that any scheme of that kind that we have had has already been met. So far as I know there is nothing outstanding.

Mr. Davin

Has the Parliamentary Secretary seen the schemes?

Mr. Flinn

I do not know what schemes the Deputy is referring to.

Mr. Davin

The ones referred to by the Minister for Lands in the House.

Mr. Flinn

So far as this Vote is concerned, and so far as the Office of Public Works is concerned, I can tell the Deputy that everything we have been asked to do in relation to bogs has been done. The Deputy raised the wildly original matter of coastal roads.

Mr. Davin

I did not say it was original.

Mr. Flinn

We are spending £400,000 on roads this year, and are giving a preference to tourist roads in every possible case. You could spend £10,000,000 on them, but would the Deputy be prepared to vote the cost for them?

Mr. Davin

Increase the income-tax.

Mr. Flinn

You would not get £10,000,000 out of income-tax by increasing it. With regard to the questions raised by Deputy Bartlett in relation to the Aran Islands, the Deputy knows that in that matter our hearts are very soft. Anything we can do with reason for those people, because they are all practically in black areas, is done automatically; but whenever I am asked for a pier it is always in the one place in which fishing is required, and I actually have gone to places where I found all the currachs from hundreds of miles around collected to prove the goodness of the case. They do not appear at any time except when I am there. All I can say is that we do all that kind of marine work that is possible very willingly.

There are two other questions with which I shall deal briefly. The House will have noticed that in the introduction I did not say anything on the subject of Rhynana. I deliberately avoided that subject, except to the extent of giving that financial information which enabled everybody to raise the whole question if they willed. It was because, in my opinion, no useful purpose was going to be served——

Mr. Heron

From the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view.

Mr. Flinn

Oh, no. Because I deliberately exercised all the restraint which I thought was right and proper in the matter. Deputy Anthony last night spoke of the men in Rhynana as miserable wretches, driven back like dogs. He would not treat a dog like that, he said. That is the atmosphere which has been injected into this matter. I am perfectly sure that there is no man in Rhynana who recognises himself as a miserable wretch or as driven back to anything.

Mr. Anthony

That is the information, at any rate. Let the Parliamentary Secretary read my speech.

Mr. Flinn

I have the Deputy's speech. The Deputy said he was acting on certain information and he told us that it was limited. He then went on to say, broadly speaking, that if that was true, then, these were miserable wretches treated like dogs. It is because that propaganda has got loose that the Deputy believes all that.

Mr. Anthony

Deputy Hogan was on the spot.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, more than on the spot. It is said that this strike was started by gross underpayment and that the men were forced into the strike by economic pressure and forced back by economic pressure. There never was a strike in history with the starting, the maintaining, or the stopping of which economic pressure had less to do. That strike was a tactical strike, organised from outside —by a section of men who were working there, but principally from outside —and run under the impression that this was a rich international corporation which was exploiting them. That is what the men were told.

Mr. Hogan

By whom?

Mr. Flinn

By the Deputy.

Mr. Hogan

That is not true. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to quote me as saying it at any time in any place.

Mr. Flinn

Let the Deputy go down to the people in Rhynana——

Mr. Hogan

Answer the challenge. Do not be hedging.

Mr. Davin

Tell the truth.

Mr. Flinn

"An international transatlantic transoceanic"—trans what? We had weeks of it.

Mr. O'Brien

Give us the quotation now.

Mr. Flinn

The men were left under that impression——

Mr. O'Brien

What about the quotation?

Mr. Davin

Ask Deputy O'Grady to give you the quotation.

Mr. Flinn

They were also left under the impression that a very short strike would be effective.

Mr. Hogan

Who told them that also?

Mr. Flinn

Go down and tell the men in Rhynana that they were not told this and that they did not believe this.

Mr. Davin

Who told them?

Mr. Flinn

I know what they were told. They tell me what they were told.

Mr. Davin

Who told them?

Mr. Flinn

Their leaders.

Mr. Davin

Who are they? The Parliamentary Secretary is hedging again.

Mr. Flinn

I am not hedging at all.

Mr. Davin

Absolutely.

Mr. Flinn

They were also under the impression that they were in a highly good tactical position for a strike, that this Government was under commitments in the matter of time, and all the rest of it, and that striking at that particular time would be very effective. None of those things was true.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary has made an allegation against Deputy Hogan. I submit that he should either substantiate it or withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not hear any allegation.

Mr. Davin

He accused Deputy Hogan of having said certain things to the workers.

Mr. O'Brien

Which Deputy Hogan stated was untrue.

Mr. Davin

Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to withdraw his statement?

Mr. Flinn

No, I am not withdrawing anything.

Mr. Murphy

I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the procedure in this House prescribes that when a statement of the kind is made and when a Deputy denies it, the statement is withdrawn. May I say, with very great respect, that I have heard you rule time and again that a Deputy's declaration that a certain statement was untrue meant that the statement should be withdrawn?

An Ceann Comhairle

A Deputy's word as to what he actually did say is always accepted in this House.

Mr. Flinn

If the Deputy says he did not say it, I will accept it. All I can say is that it was said at meetings at which the Deputy was present.

Mr. Heron

Even if that were true, it is different.

Mr. Flinn

I am taking it that there was a responsible organisation running these things and that they were not going to run away from things said publicly on platforms.

Mr. MacEntee

Something very like it was said in the Dáil.

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but I wish to say that I do not want a withdrawal of any statement which the Parliamentary Secretary makes in respect of me. If withdrawals are made, they are made in deference to the House rather than to me. I did not say what the Parliamentary Secretary alleges I did say and I did not at any time tell the men that the position was of tactical advantage to them.

Mr. Flinn

I did not say the Deputy did.

Mr. Hogan

If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to be fair in debate, he ought to substantiate his statement by quotations from my remarks, either in the local press or anywhere else.

Mr. Flinn

If the Deputy will look up his own speech when he was opening he will find that he went as far as he could to suggest that this was an international piece of property.

Mr. Hogan

I quoted the Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Education.

Mr. Flinn

None of those statements, by whomsoever made, was true. This aerodrome is the property of this State; every single penny that is spent on it is spent by this State, and by no one else.

Mr. Hogan

And wages should be paid.

Mr. Flinn

We are dealing with the mere question of whether or not it belonged to this State.

Mr. O'Brien

Is that bogey gone?

Mr. Flinn

That bogey is gone and that bogey was at the root of the strike. It was also alleged that men were being paid four or five times as much on the building of other aerodromes which were part of this business, and that was not true. It was also alleged that this Government was going to be recouped, that the money which was being spent on this was actually going to be refunded.

Mr. Hogan

Again I ask for quota tions.

Mr. Flinn

I will give you quotations.

Mr. Hogan

Give them now when making the charges.

Mr. Flinn

The statement was made, and made by a leader of the strikers ——

Mr. Hogan

Give quotations when making the charge.

Mr. Flinn

I am making the charge, and the mere fact that I give the quotation will not alter it.

Mr. Hogan

No, but it will prove it.

Mr. Flinn

There is no question at all about it. It is made in writing. The suggestion also is that those people were driven by economic pressure. The thing which causes economic pressure is when men are thrown out of an existing and established trade, men who have large elements of dependency, and who have no alternative economic background. How does that apply to Rhynana? This was not an old-established business out of which they had been thrown.

Mr. Hogan

They were starving.

Mr. Flinn

It was a sporadic enterprise brought in artificially. It could have been interrupted without explanation or complaint at any time. It could have been put anywhere else without explanation or complaint.

Mr. Hogan

Rob the poor because they are poor!

Mr. Flinn

We are dealing simply with the question of whether economic pressure caused the strike. Let us get the economic background. This is a farming area in which the valuation per head of the agricultural population is £7 15s. With the exception of the richest part of County Dublin there is no higher agricultural valuation in the country. What was the economic position of the men themselves? The total number of men on the unemployment register previous to the time at which we started was 11. At the time the strike took place, when somewhere between 450 and 500 men came out, the largest number of men in our employment who had ever been on the unemployment register was 58. About 10 per cent. of the total number of employed people had ever been heard of on the unemployment register.

Mr. Heron

Where?

Mr. Hogan

Bosh!

Mr. Flinn

I have got the list.

Mr. Heron

They struck for fun!

Mr. Flinn

71 per cent. of them were single men, and the rate at which they were being paid was higher than any rate they had ever earned at that kind of occupation in that area.

Mr. O'Brien

They never built an aerodrome in that area before.

Dr. Davin

Why did you pay them 35/- at all?

Mr. Flinn

We are dealing with the point that Deputy Anthony was told that those people were miserable wretches, driven by economic pressure. I am pointing out that the area was rich and comfortable, and when the strike started 70 men in one village went straight back into employment on their own land or on the land of their relatives. In a fortnight I traced 120 men into paid employment.

Mr. Heron

That must have been disappointing.

Mr. Flinn

Oh, no. The Deputy will see the effect in a moment. I traced over 120 men into paid employment— sometimes higher paid employment.

Mr. Anthony

What happened the other 380?

Mr. Flinn

Over half the men went straight into employment. The number of men on that scheme—and this is my complaint about it—who could have been subjected to economic pressure was so small that with the slightest possible pre-vision, with the slightest possible organisation on the part of those who were responsible for the strike, with the slightest possible assistance from the Labour Party who pledged their support to them, no economic pressure of any kind could ever have been exercised upon them.

Mr. O'Brien

Why did you give them 3/- extra?

Mr. Flinn

We are getting off the question very rapidly. I am perfectly satisfied that however long that strike lasted, within any reason, there was no necessity for any man to act under economic pressure. It could have been properly looked after, but it was not.

Mr. Hogan

We did not conduct it rightly?

Mr. Flinn

You did not conduct it rightly, I quite agree. You let them down every single time.

Mr. Heron

Deputy Hogan is a bad boy. The Parliamentary Secretary should have been running the strike.

Mr. Flinn

If I had been running it, no man would have had to fall on the ground of economic pressure.

Mr. Heron

We will get him the next time there is a strike at Rhynana.

Mr. Hogan

It was not run properly.

Mr. Heron

They got 3/-. anyway.

Mr. Flinn

Deputy Hogan said:—

"This is a great national service, we are told. It is not alone a State service but a national service. It is not alone a national service, it is an international service; and we have acting together, as I mentioned a moment ago, a mighty Empire, a powerful Republic, and a powerful Dominion."

Mr. Hogan

Is it not right?

Mr. Davin

That confirms your charge?

Mr. Flinn

Then we move on——

Mr. Hogan

No wonder you would.

Mr. Davin

Are you sorry you read it?

Mr. Flinn

We were told there was no negotiation; that we treated the men with contempt.

Mr. O'Brien

The Minister is getting very restive.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not.

Mr. Flinn

About a week or ten days after the strike started the whole of the men were collected together in Rhynana for the purpose of having their wages paid to them. All the men were there; all their leaders were there. The properly appointed and accredited officer of the Board of Works, the engineer in charge, sent for the chairman of the Union and said: "Have you anything to say to me?" The answer was: "I have nothing to say to you."

Mr. Hogan

Did deputations ask to be received? Were they refused?

Mr. Flinn

The answer was "I have nothing to say to you". Were the men told that? Publicity is objected to. It is suggested there was something wrong in the publication—I think it was over the radio—which is specially in the Deputy's mind, of a letter of mine in answer to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Hogan

The chairman of the Union.

Mr. Flynn

Yes, the Union, though it was in the name of a committee, not of the Union, that the strike was started. It was a committee gave us notice, not a union.

Mr. Hogan

They were all there.

Mr. Flinn

We are dealing now with the question of publicity. Something very wrong was done in publishing that letter. Why was it published? Because it was only written incidentally to the chairman of that Union. It was written to the men on strike, and they did not get to know about it until it was published.

Mr. Hogan

Bosh. Your friends across the water got it.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, our friends across the water got it after that same committee had telegraphed to Lindberg.

Mr. Hogan

He is a director of it.

Mr. Flinn

Our friends across the water had got it then.

Mr. Hogan

That riled you.

Mr. Flinn

Not a bit. I am only asking why you complain of publicity after they had declared through Lindberg to the world that there would not be any aerodrome built unless we gave way to that committee. Then Deputy Hogan invented a menu for the men in the huts. He discovered that it would cost 17/6 for food, and he alleged that he got it from the horse's mouth.

Mr. Hogan

So I did.

Mr. Flinn

I think that was the expression. The horse might have told him, but no one else did.

Mr. Heron

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Flinn

No.

Mr. Hogan

I took your 15/3 and dealt with it.

Mr. Flinn

We will take these things gradually. We are dealing with the credibility of a witness. The Deputy got it from the horse's mouth. No officer of the Board of Works communicated directly or indirectly that information to the Deputy. No officer of the Board of Works contributed that information to anybody, and the particular menu which he read out was a figment of his own imagination.

Mr. Hogan

That is a direct charge that I misinformed the House on a matter. I ask if that is in order. He says that what I told the House was a figment of my own imagination.

Mr. Flinn

I propose to prove it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be very difficult for the Chair to decide whether a particular menu which was presented to this House as being given to the men in Rhynana contained correct figures. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy may differ radically as to the purchasing power of money.

Mr. Hogan

He said that I invented the menu, that it was a figment of my own imagination.

Mr. Flinn

We will amend that and say he got it from the horse's mouth.

Mr. Heron

It is not the horse's mouth we are getting it from now.

Mr. Flinn

If the Deputy will stay quiet it will come out.

Mr. Hogan

It is not the Board of Works, but the contractors, the suppliers.

Mr. Flinn

No contractor or anyone else gave that information.

Mr. Hogan

That is not true.

Mr. Flinn

He had not got it. There was no such menu in existence at any time. Let us come down to the precise and special portion of that menu of which the Deputy is the father, mother, and elder brother.

Mr. Hogan

There was no sausage in it.

Mr. Flinn

We will deal with the sausage. The Deputy has discovered now that there was no sausage. There was one finger of sausage which has been held up in the face of this country for the last three months.

Mr. Hogan

There was not—that is the worst of it.

Mr. Flinn

Last week it was divided in four.

Mr. Hogan

There was not.

Mr. Flinn

There was no sausage. That sausage is the invention of the Deputy. Let me get down to facts. Nobody, neither the contractor nor any officer of the Board of Works, ever gave the Deputy that information, wherever he got it.

Mr. Hogan

If there was no menu in existence, why did you tell me in the Dáil that 15/3 was the cost?

Mr. Flinn

There is a menu in existence; that menu came out of the horse's mouth. Now we will deal with the 15/3. The 17/6 menu did not exist —there was no such charge as 17/6. There was a series of three standard meals over seven days——

Mr. Hogan

There was a menu?

Mr. Flinn

——which cost 12/3, plus 3/- for lodging. Now the 17/6 disappears and there comes the actual authentic 12/3—quite a big difference. I took the trouble—it was a very great deal of trouble—actually to find out the value of the Deputy's menu, the one that came out of the horse's mouth. It is not 17/6, it is not 15/3, it is not 12/3, but, as near as I can make out, it is 10/6.

Mr. Davin

That is the Mountjoy. menu.

Mr. Flinn

What we are concerned with is that it was the Deputy's menu. He said it cost 17/6. In other words, the Deputy was only 70 per cent. out, which, of course, was a very mild allowance to make for any statement of the Deputy's.

Mr. Davin

Why did they get 3/- per week of a rise?

Mr. Flinn

We are getting back to that—anything but the subject we are discussing.

Mr. Lawlor

Was the Parliamentary Secretary's menu 15/3?

Mr. Flinn

No, 12/3?

Mr. Lawlor

Did you not make that statement in the House?

Mr. Flinn

No, I did not. I said 12/3, plus 3/- for lodging.

Mr. Lawlor

Is not that 15/3?

Mr. Flinn

That is not a menu.

Mr. Lawlor

Out of the magnificent sum of 30/-, and that in a Christian country!

Mr. Flinn

We are told that this union gave us adequate and proper notice and that it was a regular and proper union. They came along to us on the 7th February and told us that unless every man working on the ground became a member of the union all workmen would be withdrawn at ten o'clock the next day— 24 hours' notice for shutting down the whole scheme! When the men themselves, through their representatives, had arranged to return, these leaders came along and said they must not return and that they would not return and that there was no necessity for us to open the works because the men would not come unless and until it was made clear that no man would be allowed to work except a member of that union.

Mr. Hogan

The Parliamentary Secretary ought to be fair and tell the story right.

Mr. Flinn

That is the whole story.

Mr. Hogan

It is not the whole story; it is not the story at all.

Mr. Flinn

In other words, when the men were willing to return they tried to prevent them.

Mr. Heron

How could they?

Mr. Flinn

They could not—that was it. By the way, we have been accused of strike-breaking.

Mr. Heron

Who are the mysterious leaders anyway?

Mr. Hogan

The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken about giving notice. Will he say if an application for an improvement in wages was received by the Department and refused, and that the strike notice was formally served?

Mr. Flinn

Yes, by a union which never took a ballot of its men and gave us twenty-four hours' notice to create a strike.

Mr. Hogan

And it lasted 11 weeks.

Mr. Flinn

A union which has only one rule—that no ballot vote will be taken. No ballot vote was taken. If a ballot vote had been taken during the strike, the strike would have come to an end. The men were accused of being traitors, of treachery to their class and everything else, merely because they wanted a ballot vote to decide whether or not they would continue to strike.

Mr. O'Brien

Majority rule is a good thing sometimes.

Mr. Flinn

Oh, yes, but not when it applies to a ballot vote.

Mr. O'Brien

Quite so.

Mr. Flinn

We have got the philosophy exactly. I am told that I am trying to break up unions and to prevent the right to strike. Here Deputy O'Brien tells us that the one standard rule is that no majority rule, by ballot vote, will be allowed in the unions which he controls.

Mr. O'Brien

Who said that?

Mr. Flinn

That is exactly the philosophy.

Mr. O'Brien

You quote badly.

Mr. Flinn

No ballot vote in eleven weeks. Time after time the men asking for it, and no ballot vote.

Mr. Davin

You misquoted Deputy O'Brien, deliberately misquoted him.

Mr. Flinn

Then we were told that we introduced blacklegs. The accusation can be easily made that no attempt was made by the Office of Public Works to bring that strike to an end. No attempt was made to break that strike. Does anybody suggest there was.

Mr. Hogan

You tried every exchange round about.

Mr. Flinn

We did not. We did not try to take on a single man, nor did we take on a single man.

Mr. O'Brien

Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce not refuse to do his duty? Did he not refuse to call a conference to settle it?

Mr. Flinn

That does not constitute strike-breaking. It is alleged that we did everything to break the strike and brought in blacklegs.

Mr. Hogan

You tried Limerick and Kilrush at all events.

Mr. Flinn

I give the House a definite assurance that no attempt was made to recruit a single man during that period.

Mr. Hogan

And I say that there was.

Mr. MacEntee

I say that is not true, and the Deputy, having made the allegation, can withdraw it now.

Mr. Flinn

If these men had had the Labour support that was promised to them, they could have gone on indefinitely. I do not believe that this strike would ever have been broken by economic pressure. Look at the position. Quite a number of them farmers in the district who went straight away from the works to do their ordinary tillage operations which were interfered with.

Mr. Heron

Why would they need Labour support?

Mr. Flinn

They did not need it.

Mr. Heron

I thought you said that they wanted it.

Mr. Flinn

The whole point is this: were they broken by economic pressure? Any support given to them would have prevented their being broken by economic pressure.

Mr. Pattison

That was your hope.

Mr. Flinn

No, it was not. I was quite satisfied that they could not be broken by economic pressure. They were not broken by economic pressure. They were broken by common sense.

Mr. O'Brien

You will never be broken so.

Mr. Flinn

No. I do not think that that can ever be used against me. What happened was this: the men recognised the position. They recognised that they had been led out on a strike at the very worst possible moment to start a strike, I mean from the point of view of winning.

Mr. O'Brien

Are you an expert on this?

Mr. Flinn

Yes, I am. The technique of a strike is quite simple. It is a fight, in some sense. You should go out on strike at a time when your opponent does not want you to go out.

Mr. O'Brien

Strike while the iron is hot!

Mr. Flinn

Oh, no, strike when the iron is cold. Then you should go out on strike on conditions under which the longer you stay out the more your opponent wants you to come back. Is that not so? Now, what happened?

Mr. Davin

That is how you carried on the economic war.

Mr. Flinn

They went out at a time when they should have stayed to negotiate. They were two or three weeks there during which there was some pressure to keep them on but once they were out, every day and every week that passed made it less necessary or less useful to bring them back in a hurry. In other words, they were led out by leaders who did not know what they were doing and when they were led out they were deserted by those leaders and left in the lunch.

Mr. O'Brien

Was there any mistake that they did not make?

Mr. Flinn

I do not think there was any mistake that these leaders did not make.

Mr. Davin

Why did they get 3/-a week of a rise?

Mr. Flinn

I shall tell you that in a moment. We are gradually coming to it. They were not driven out by economic pressure. Were they driven back by economic pressure? As far as a considerable number of them were concerned, they were men who had done their harvesting operations.

Mr. Hogan

600 of them!

Mr. Flinn

Not 600 of them but a very considerable proportion of them.

Mr. Hogan

600 farmers?

Mr. Flinn

I shall tell the House the truth exactly. When I speak of harvesting, I should, perhaps, say husbandry. It is rather curious that their critical necessity in relation to husbandry coincided exactly with our critical necessity. It was when we wanted to plough and sow that they wanted to plough and sow. They went and did their own ploughing and sowing and left us to do our ploughing and sowing. There has never been a strike in history which I think caused less distress in relation to the number engaged and the period for which it lasted.

Mr. Hogan

And you will stand over that?

Mr. Flinn

I wish to have it on record. I know of no strike which caused less distress,and any distress which was caused was due to the culpable mismanagement of those who led them out and deserted them. In the end the men decided that the longer they stayed out, the longer they would stay out; that there was no reason, in reason, why the strike should not last for ever. Remember this was work brought into that area. If the Government had abandoned it altogether, no one would have a grievance. If the Government had not put it there, no one would have a grievance. A big mass of artificial work had been created. They came into it from all sorts of places and they were very eager to get back to it, and eventually they decided to come back. Instead of staying out until they were—what-ever few of them were so concerned— in a state of economic pressure, they came back before that condition had arrived. It takes a good deal of wisdom to recognise that a position to which you have advanced is not tenable, and it takes a good deal of courage to abandon an untenable position before you are called upon to make any attempt to defend it.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Flinn

These men did. They went back unbroken. They did not go back as miserable wretches. They went back as a solid body—140 of them the first day, 160 of them the second day, 510 in three days.

Mr. Hogan

All farmers!

Mr. Flinn

No, a considerable portion of them farmers or farmers' relatives. Five hundred and ten of them went back in three days and then they started to negotiate. They offered good value in return. They were in a position to negotiate. They were not broken men. They were not a broken army, and they were not miserable wretches. They were men with self-respect. I respect the courage that was shown; and because they went back in that spirit, capable of negotiating, we were not merely willing but glad and anxious to help them in the matter. They have given something which is well worth the money going to be given them. They have given us a promise of good value for their wages, and we are satisfied. I commend the courage of the men who, abandoned by their leaders, betrayed by their advisers, in an abandoned and untenable position, went back, and fought forward to gain the position they have deserved.

Now we will take Collinstown. As everyone knows, the question at issue there is, whether or not a particular work was agricultural work or building work. We hold that it is agricultural work. I think £78,000 roughly has been spent at Collinstown up to the present. We found a field which was fairly well drained, and fairly level, but not as well drained and not as level as it required to be. When that £78,000 was spent we had still a field, and nothing but a field, and no one going over that field will be able to tell that anything has been spent there, apart from the road we put in during the last two or three weeks. The whole of the £78,000 was spent in reconditioning that field, and trying to grow grass on it. We recognise that during that particular period a wage which would be based on the agricultural wage would be the wage which would be paid. In so far as we recognise that there would be certain other activities, which might be controversial to a limited extent, and, in order to have complete freedom to transfer men from one job to another; and having regard to the fact that if we wanted a great many more men than are normally available in the district, we set the wage, not at the agricultural wage of 30/-, which was then the wage, but at the very much higher rate of 42/-. It has been alleged that we have been employing certain men who were better off than people who were not employed. What happened in Collinstown was this. We first took every man who was on the unemployment register, three, five or seven miles distant, and when it came to a further extension, before we absorbed any other man who was not on the register, we arranged that the option of coming to Collinstown should be given to every man within a radius of 15 miles. In other words, if ever an effort was made so that work went to necessitous people, it was in Collinstown. A strike took place and, in the end, we took back to work every single striker who applied, without any exception whatever, as far as I know. How there could be any cause of complaint on that ground I do not know.

It is alleged that there was an agreement in relation to Collinstown which we broke. There was no such agreement. There was never an agreement at any time to regard the agricultural work which was being done at Collinstown as building work. It was always recognised that there would be two stages in Collinstown, one in which the vast majority of the men working would be employed on agricultural work, and, therefore, could be paid upon the basis relating to agriculture; and that there would be another period, probably much more extensive, in which work done there in the form of building work and hangars would be obviously building, and of a non-agricultural character.

It was recognised that there would be a period in between, where predominantly agricultural work was turning over to predominantly building work. It was decided from the beginning that the wage paid when it was predominantly agricultural and unskilled labour should be 42/-. It was decided when the work was predominantly of a non-agricultural character that it would be done at ordinary contract rates, under the ordinary fair wage building clauses, and, at the period which would be between the two, when the number of agricultural labourers had fallen to a level which might be relatively unimportant compared to the total, that we would not have two rates of wages. What has happened to Collinstown? A total of something about 1,000 men has sunk to somewhere about 80, of whom I should say three-quarters are engaged on purely agricultural work still, and a certain number on road work. I think the building contracts are let, and I should imagine that building will start there in a few weeks. At that time, it is obvious the number of agricultural workers will have fallen so small that it will not be reasonable or convenient to pay them a different rate to the others, and, at that time, the two rates can be assimilated. I see no difficulty and no cause of controversy or trouble in the change over.

The plan we are working on is the plan worked on from the beginning, first, agricultural rates, and eventually building rates. During this little interregnum of the change over, there will be a gradual assimilation of the two rates. There will be a measure of increase in the rate, not on the ground that the work is not agricultural, not on the ground that anything has been done that should not be done, but purely and simply for the purpose of merging these two periods quietly into one another. I am very proud and very glad to have seen the action taken by the men at Rhynana. I think the State is going to receive full value for the increases which have been given, and I hope the same spirit of reasonableness, common sense and courage, which was shown in the negotiations which came successfully to an end there will continue in Collinstown, as the best basis for the mutual cooperation of the State and its workmen in producing a thoroughly national asset in property at Rhynana and Collinstown.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The Committee divided: Ta, 31; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard S.
• Bennett, George C.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Davin, William.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Heron, Archie.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lawlor, Thomas.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGowan, Gerrard L.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Shaughnessy, John J.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Micheál.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Davis, Matt.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Heron; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Motion declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.