Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1939

Vol. 74 No. 7

Private Deputies' Business. - Minor Relief Schemes—Motion.

I move the following motion standing in the names of Deputies Norton, Davin and myself:—

Being of opinion that workers employed on minor relief schemes should be paid at a rate of wages not less than the rate payable in the district by the county council, and that they should be guaranteed six days continuous employment in each week during which they are so employed, the Dáil requests the responsible Minister to make regulations for the purpose of carrying these intentions into effect.

I consider that this motion is one of very outstanding importance, even much greater importance than it would suggest, because, in asking the House to agree that people engaged upon minor relief schemes should be paid at the same rate as that applying to county council workers, I believe there is a principle involved which, in itself, answers the question as to whether or not the Government has a real appreciation of the seriousness of the unemployment problem or whether it is intended to treat a certain section of our people as going to be chronically unemployed, and, as such, segregating them into a separate class distinct from their fellows. The question arises as to whether, when the Government, through its various Departments, and the Board of Works or the Local Government authorities, embark upon minor relief schemes, do they not consider or does this House not consider that those people are engaged in work of national and productive importance or are they simply to be treated as being taken away from the door of the labour exchange to engage in some kind of work that is definitely marked down in advance to be of no use to the nation? I suggest that the intention of minor relief schemes is to do very useful and necessary work to improve the social amenities of the rural districts, to improve the boreens and drains and other things incidental to making the life of the farming and general community of the country more tolerable and, incidentally, to provide work.

So far, those grants have been of a very niggardly character, having regard to the magnitude of the unemployment problem in the rural areas, but I consider, whatever about the amounts that have been granted, the principle of treating them as a separate class and giving them a specially low rate of wages, with certain short times of work in a week, related directly to the amount they draw at the labour exchange, is utterly and absolutely indefensible and seems to indicate, as I stated at the opening, that the Government envisages the continuance of this class of people perpetually on the dole. If the work that they are doing is analogous in every way to the work being performed by regular employees of the county council—that at least ought to be the intention—why should there be a distinction drawn to mark these people down for lower rates of pay and lesser terms of employment than is given for the county council work? The obvious answer is that the Government seems to be sorry for having ever introduced the Unemployment Assistance Act and they are taking all kinds of steps, by means of red tape and all kinds of objectionable machinery, to take away with the left hand what they have conceded with the right.

A very fine principle was conceded in that Act—that every citizen of this country who was willing to work and able to work but for whom work could not be provided, was entitled to an honourable maintenance from the Central Fund of the State without any taint of pauperism or having to attend at the dispensaries of the poor law system as old, worn and decrepit old men, and that certain funds should be contributed from the local authorities and that, incidentally, the cost would be covered to an extent by the measure that has been discussed up to 9 o'clock, to draw from the nominal valuation of the poorest of this country a rate of 1/6 in the £—it is not the effective valuation that is called into question, but the nominal valuation. There is a considerable sum being contributed to the Government to help them to maintain this Unemployment Assistance Act and to provide maintenance allowances to the unemployed people until work would have been provided for them by the planned schemes of the Government.

The minor relief scheme is the principal medium for carrying this into effect, but we find it working from three days a week and four days a week at 4/- a day. We find they are working at a disadvantage when they come to work on the scheme, side by side with the county council workers who are entitled to six days a week, paid for out of the pockets of the ratepayers and the local authorities. The standards of the county councils throughout the country cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, and having regard to the cost of living, be alleged to be inordinate returns for the work that is being done. We find these employees of the Government on minor relief schemes are condemned to work three or four days at the rate of 4/- a day. The benefit of the short day on Saturday, which has been earned by workers for giving long hours, and which is prescribed by legislation under the Conditions of Employment Act and every other Act, is denied to these men. They work eight three-quarter days. If they happen to be working on a scheme which comes under the Minor Relief Schemes Vote, they do get, in that case, the county council rate of 5/- on that scheme; that is, the county council rate under the Local Government Department; but even there they have to work the same conditions and hours as county council men for two or three or four days. They do not get Saturday work at all, and the county council man works his his half-day on Saturday and gets a full day's pay for it. On the minor relief schemes under the Board of Works, they only get four days' work, and they work an eight-hour day. There is constant friction arising with the deputy surveyors and county surveyors with the inter-lapping of these schemes. Is there any reason why the men should not be knocked off after working eight hours, and get the Saturday? The whole thing is muddlesome and troublesome and irksome, and there does not seem to be any need or justification for it, except that it is more or less a subterfuge to try to save the funds of the labour exchange.

We contend that, if these minor relief schemes are to be of any definite benefit to the unemployed men and the country as a whole, they should be employed for a full week and as many weeks in that particular job as the number of men in the area would allow to give a rotation. We are not objecting to rotation if there is a full week's work given, so that, when they would complete that week's work, they would be able to go back to the labour exchange to take advantage of the full benefits of the Act that was provided to give them a maintenance allowance from the funds of this State when work was not available for them. At the present time they are as well off the week they are drawing from the labour exchange, or almost as well off, as they are the week they are working, for, with wet weather and broken time they do not know whether it is an advantage to them or not to be working on the minor relief schemes. There is no attraction in the schemes. They are asked to go long distances to them. If they do not go the long distance, after having their names sent out from the labour exchange, they are automatically struck off benefit. They may subsequently come along and make their case before a court of referees that the distance was abnormal, and the court of referees will use their discretion and say whether or not the man was entitled not to go to this work. The lines are not definitely set down, and week after week and month after month this sort of thing is still happening. The men are sent to a job five, six and seven miles away, without any means of locomotion to get there, and they are asked to go for a few days' work. They have been drawing unemployment assistance until now. If they do not go they are struck off at the labour exchange. They may eventually prove that they were not entitled to go there, and then they will be restored to benefit, but all the time the family is suffering. Our people are being taught not to do useful work, not to do an honest to God week's work, but they are studying the practices of the labour exchange and trying to exploit its mysteries. They are accused of not looking for work. The labourers are accused of not being anxious for work. It is said that this dole system has corrupted them and has smashed their morale, but the fact is that the younger men are going long distances with bicycles to the disadvantage of the older men who have not bicycles.

That is another disadvantage. We suggest that that should be wiped out and obviated. If there was a full week's work given to the men who were engaged on that work and at a rate equal to that being paid by the local authority in that particular county, surely nobody could suggest that that is an unreasonable request to make. Why should the State come along, setting a headline for undercutting in wages? If the local authority, representative of the various interests in that county, ratepayers of all kinds, fix and set down a certain standard which they consider reasonable payment for the type of work that is being done by workers in their district, why on earth should the Government, above all, a progressive Government of the type of Fianna Fáil, come along and set down its headline for undercutting that wage, and not even for a full wage, but for the few miserable days they are getting? If they are going to be employed for only two or three days, one would think that there would be an enhanced rate paid for a short time. But no; there is a definite cutting down, and that headline is naturally being followed by private employers who, perhaps rightly say: "Why should we be expected to pay a rate in excess of that being paid by the national Government, and if the county council does pay a higher rate, we are inclined to take our stand with the Government of the country? We are paying heavy rates and taxes." It is causing constant friction with those in the Labour movement who are trying to maintain standards for workers and trying to keep them somewhat level with the increased cost of living.

This menace of the minor relief schemes is sure to be utilised by the private employers, and we say that the Government has never attempted to justify the action they are taking in this parsimonious dealing with the unemployed. We say that they are treating them as a separate class, and segregating them from their fellows. The Government seem to have adopted a policy of despair; they seem to have abandoned all hope of ever solving the unemployment problem in a big, broad way.

I suggest that if the millions which we are going to spend now upon armaments, on anti-aircraft guns, artillery and war planes, had been diverted before now to the solution of the unemployment problem so as to bring our people into these useful schemes of work which are lying to the hand of the Government, if they would only open their eyes and see them—and there are plenty schemes throughout the country that would call for six days' employment—there would be less need for all these precautions and less disaffection in the ranks of the educated and uneducated young men of the country. The Government are creating forces of unrest and disaffection by ignoring the constant menace of this growing body of young men, and by treating them with contempt in giving them a few days' work on minor relief schemes.

For that reason, I say that my opening statement is warranted, that this is a much more important question than the actual phrasing of the motion would seem to indicate, because I believe it goes to the root of the major problem facing the country to-day. It is not the enemy from without but the enemy from within that must be faced. The principal enemy is with us—the unemployment menace. That has got to be faced up to, and I suggest seriously to the Government that they ought, even now, before it is too late, recognise and grapple in a big way with the unemployment problem before the country, starting on the minor relief schemes, and recognise these people as citizens of the State and not a hall-marked, ear-marked class who must stand out for all time, according to the despairing gesture of the Government, as separated from their fellows and must be thankful to God to get a few days' work at any rate the Government likes to throw to them.

A few of those millions would be wisely spent in the direction of giving hope to these unemployed and semi-employed people and of saying: "We are going to put you on relief schemes of national importance which are going to be reproductive even at the moment, and more so in the future, and we are going to treat you as citizens of the State," and that for the time there is not work for them, they will be automatically entitled to go back to the labour exchange until the planning machine of the Fianna Fáil Government can provide other schemes for them.

That economic thinking-box we have often talked of seems to have rusted very considerably since the fine promises that were made to us of how short a time it would be until all our people would be in employment, and about sending ships to America to bring our people back. We have not asked them to come back, but we are speaking for those of them that are here, who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, with families dependent on them, who are undergoing a miserable existence from one end of a year to another, and who are denied the benefits of legislation passed in this House—the young men completely struck off the benefits of the Unemployment Assistance Act from June to October, the £4 valuation mark from March to October—and those of them who are left confined to a three-day or four-day week on a standard of 4/- a day.

That, I suggest, is not in accordance with the wishes or views of any Deputy, and I believe that if this matter could be dealt with by an open vote, irrespective of Party, there is not a man in the House but would agree with me that the motion is modest and wise in its suggestion that the least that is due to the unemployed and the semi-employed is that they get the same standard of employment and the same number of days a week as is given by local authorities.

I second the motion. It is often a puzzle to me to understand what really is the mentality behind what are known as minor relief schemes, and I should like to get an official definition of these schemes. I have often wondered if the idea had been copied from the schemes we read of as being put into operation by the British Government during the famine times here. Certain schemes were set on foot at those times, not to serve any useful purpose to the community, but ostensibly to relieve distress. Now we are told that something similar is the idea underlying minor relief schemes, that they are not so much for any useful public service, but in order to relieve distress. Let us take it then that the underlying purpose is to relieve distress, and let us examine how distress is relieved by these schemes. At present a man with a wife and five children gets a maximum unemployment assistance of 14/- a week. Under the minor relief scheme system, that man would be entitled to four days' work a week at 4/6 a day, making 18/- a week.

You have, of course, to take into account that that means working four days a week without a break, and without taking into consideration the vagaries of the weather or other circumstances which may put a man off for one or two of those days. Even with four days a week, he gets 18/- and this is a scheme which is to relieve distress. The sum of 14/- is increased by 4/- and that is to keep a man, his wife and five children, I take it, in decent health. That is putting a very low value on human life and that is why I have often thought that there is some analogy between these schemes and the schemes that were put into operation during the famine periods by the British Government.

What I suggest is that there is also a device entangled in these minor relief schemes to relieve the Unemployment Assistance Fund of a certain amount, because 14/- a week is given to the unemployed man with a wife and five, or more, children and a maximum of 18/- given to that same man on these schemes, and we are told that the people who have first claim on those schemes are the people who are drawing the largest amount of unemployment assistance. That is a fact, and I have the idea that the reason for it is to relieve the Unemployment Assistance Fund of the amount they get, and that the whole thing is conceived without any regard for what we prate about so much, Christian principles. This motion demands that, at least, the county council rate should be paid on these minor relief schemes and that six days a week be the amount of the work given. We may be told that there is not enough money to go round, but I think that argument will scarcely hold when we remember that last week we had millions talked about here for the defence of the people of the country. As Deputy Keyes has rightly said, the greatest enemy we have is the enemy within—unemployment, misery and starvation and all the things that arise from unemployment. That is the enemy I think we should seriously set about tackling here.

In my constituency there is a good deal of unrest because of these schemes. Not very long ago we had an example of that in Little Island where men were put to work on one of these schemes, and they demanded the county council rate of pay, which was refused to them. They then asked for at least a week's work in rotation, and that again was refused to them. Those men were working side by side with county council workers, and yet their demands were refused. It was not that they refused to work in the sense of not wanting work—they wanted to work— but there was not a sufficient inducement for them to work. They were prepared to work for the 27/- a week, but as a result of their action they were struck off the unemployment assistance fund. The case was brought up before the court of referees, at which I was present. The deputy surveyor was brought there, and he told me that he could have put those men on for a week but that the regulations did not allow him to tell them that they had a week's work. I should like to know why these regulations stipulate that a man must have so many days' work, even though the men only have two or three days in the week to work. At any rate, the result in that case was that, after careful inquiries and the argument that was put up—an argument that, I think, was put up with justice—it was ascertained that these men did not refuse the work as work: they were willing and anxious for work, but they did not want to work under the conditions I have described. In my opinion that was a legitimate reason. It must be remembered that side by side with these men were county council workers in regular employment receiving 35/- a week and having continuous employment for the six days of the week, whereas the men to whom I refer were only offered three or four days' work in the week and were refused unemployment assistance on the ground that the scheme concerned was a minor relief scheme. One of these men was a man with a wife and seven children, and I think that a number of weeks elapsed before he got any assistance of any kind. Yet we hear all this talk about Christian principles and about the unemployed.

Then, again, we had a case recently in Ballintemple, where men were employed—I do not think that this was a minor relief scheme—on breaking stones, and they were supposed to break so many loads of stones in a certain number of days. These unfortunate young men were not able to break the stones within the specified period, and they had to work extra time in order to complete the number of loads that would entitle them to benefit. These are some of the things that arise in connection with these minor relief schemes. We had other cases in my own constituency showing that there is general unrest with regard to the way these minor relief schemes are being operated, and with regard to the regulations governing them, and I think it is about time that this very modest demand in regard to minor relief schemes should be put into operation by the Government. Now, Sir, underlying all this, there is the principle, as Deputy Keyes has pointed out, that employment should be found for the army of unemployed we have at present. Undoubtedly, there is a definite segregation of the unemployed people of this country. Means should be provided to get work for the unemployed—to enable these people to keep body and soul together. There is no definite plan with regard to the relief of unemployment in this State. Despite all the promises we got, and despite all the hopes that were held out to us for a number of years by the present Government, to the effect that they had a plan to abolish unemployment, there seems to be no end to this state of affairs. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that the rotational schemes had come to stay. Well, I hope that he will at least take into consideration the terms of this motion, and that something approaching a regular standard wage, as laid down by the local councils or the local authority, will be put into operation with regard to these things.

As I have said, there is a number of these schemes of which, I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary has got word in which there is unrest, and I am equally sure that he has got word of what has happened in regard to some of these schemes. Undoubtedly, there are causes for unrest in connection with these schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary, I believe, has investigated the causes of the unrest with regard to some of these schemes, and I am sure he will agree that the causes of the unrest are such as I have outlined. It is my belief that the remedy for that unrest is what is outlined in this motion. There is no reason why this motion should not be implemented in connection with those schemes, many of which are useful, and there is no reason why these schemes should not be able to bear the same rate of wages for the workers employed on them as are given to the county council workers in the same district, or why a full week's work should not be given to men employed on those schemes. For that reason, I strongly support the motion.

I think it is a very reasonable demand on behalf of a big section of the people of this country. We do not want to see that section of the people of this country segregated and alienated from the rest of their fellow-citizens. We want to see them fully employed, and, on behalf of the community in general, we want to see the services of these people fully utilised. The work is there and the schemes are there, and there should be full employment on these schemes for every man who is able and willing to work, and if the people who thought out those schemes originally would also think of schemes that would employ usefully the people of this country who are able and willing to work, then the present Government would have something to their credit.

I think that this motion deals with one of the biggest problems before this nation at the present moment, which is the providing of employment for the entire population of this country. I think it is rather a pity that this motion was not more definitely worded. The first duty of a a Government should be to provide work for its citizens, and to see that the least possible number of its citizens, and particularly the younger people, should be forced to suffer the humiliation of being registered as unemployed.

In order to achieve the object of providing work for the entire population, it should be the duty of the Government to plan works of national importance on national lines. Now, as far as minor relief schemes are concerned, we are told that they are devised solely to relieve unemployment and that they are designed or devised to meet local conditions —that is, in accordance with the number of people who happen to be on the local register in each district. You cannot plan a solution of the unemployment problem, or you cannot plan national economic development on such lines. If the big question of reducing the number of people now on the register of unemployed is to be tackled by the Government, it must be tackled on different lines. You must have a national scheme and a big scheme of development which will absorb at least the majority of those now on the register. First of all, you must have a scheme of development in the agricultural industry which will enable that industry to expand.

On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but it seems to me that the purpose of the movers of the motion will be defeated if we go into a general discussion of things instead of the actual specific matter of the motion.

The Deputy should keep to the terms of the motion as far as possible.

In view of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is clear that a mistake has been made in the wording of the motion.

The Deputy cannot correct that.

If we are to confine ourselves to the terms of the motion, I am afraid we can do very little to improve the condition of those who are on the unemployed register.

There is a motion to that effect later on. Read your Order Paper.

We can do very little, because the main point in connection with unemployment is that in providing employment we have to take into consideration the general rate of wages prevailing throughout the country, particularly in the agricultural industry. Now, if you are to provide work on minor relief schemes at a higher rate of wages than prevails in the agricultural industry, and that is what is implied in this motion, you will completely upset the agricultural industry.

What about county council workers?

You will also upset the working of the county councils. We must remember that the county councils when employing men on the roads select the men whom they employ. They take steps to employ men who have some experience or knowledge of road maintenance work, some definite standard of efficiency. If a worker proves unsatisfactory, the county surveyor or the official of the county council has no means of securing an efficient worker except by dismissing that man from his employment. If you have the same rate of wages prevailing on minor relief schemes as for county council employees, then there is no means by which the county councils can secure higher efficiency amongst their employees. Therefore, the whole scheme of road maintenance and the whole scheme of employment in the agricultural industry completely would be upset if this motion were given effect to. The motion proposes to increase the rate of a wages on minor relief schemes to a higher rate than the wages in the agricultural industry and to the same rate as the wages prevailing amongst the employees of county councils. Obviously, such a motion would completely upset all employment, both under the county councils and in the agricultural industry.

This motion is, however, a very desirable one, because it directs attention to the immediate need of reducing the number of people on the unemployed register. It cannot be contended that all the workers at present on that register are not efficient in some branch of work. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that the first aim of the Government should be to reduce the number of people on the unemployment register by seeing that they secure permanent remunerative employment. So far as the question of whole-time employment is concerned, I am in entire agreement with the motion. I hold that no worker should be compelled to work part-time or short-time, and that every worker is entitled to a full week's employment. I do not agree with the speaker who suggested that the State is doing its duty to the workers if it provides them with maintenance in lieu of work. No rate of maintenance is a satisfactory alternative to full-time employment, because full-time employment is not only advantageous to the nation but it is advantageous to the individual. Having regard to the fact that we can find money for grandiose armament schemes modelled upon schemes adopted by militaristic nations on the Continent; that we can find money for a useless scheme of revaluation; that we can find money for increasing the salaries of Ministers and Deputies; having regard to the fact that money can be found for everything, why is it not possible to find money for works of national development which will give full-time employment to every man able and willing to work? I ask the Government not to be misled by the fact that it is suggested that there is not sufficient money available to provide full-time employment for workers. Money is available and money can be made available for useful work, because useful work is money in itself; it is wealth. Useful work will increase the wealth of the nation; it will increase the productive capacity of the nation. There is unlimited scope for useful work in this nation in the improvement of our land, afforestation schemes, drainage schemes, etc., and all this work can be done if it is planned on a national basis and the necessary money is made available.

I want to treat this question precisely in relation to the terms of the motion and entirely objectively. The House knows that I am always ready to discuss any question in the broadest possible way where unemployment schemes are concerned.

If that is so I think it would be better if the Parliamentary Secretary waited until he has heard other speakers first.

No, I prefer to go on now. I have been asked to do certain things. Now every single thing in connection with this motion has been present to our minds. This question has been examined in every possible way, and put forward by every possible person. But a great deal more information has been laid at our disposal in connection with this problem than the whirling words the Deputy is likely to put before us. What I am prepared to do is to meet the convenience of the House and, so far as I can by an objective examination of this motion, to help all Parties.

The first part of the motion proposes that the rate of wages paid on minor relief schemes—now more generally called minor employment schemes— should be not less than the rate payable in the district by the county council. The rate at present paid on minor relief schemes is 4/6 per day or 27/- per week, while the rate paid by the county councils to their road workers varies from 28/- to 37/6, per week. A higher rate is paid to road workers in County Dublin, but no minor employment schemes are carried out in that county. There are actually ten different rates in operation in different parts of the country.

The definite policy of the Government since 1932 has been to pay for each class of employment scheme financed from the Employment Schemes Vote the same rate of wages as are paid for analogous work in the same district; and the only condition, in relation to the rates of wages attached to the grants is that local authorities should not pay a higher rate than that paid on their own works of the same kind. Again employment schemes which are carried out by contract are subject to the fair wages clause which is usual in contracts for ordinary works of the same kind.

From this it should be clear that the spirit and intention of the Government's policy to pay the same rate of wages on employment schemes as are paid on normal works of the same kind, are, in fact, being carried out in all cases in which a clear and unmistakable analogy is to be found for the type of employment scheme which is being undertaken. It is also undoubtedly the intention in the class of works known as minor employment schemes to fix the rate of wages on the same principle.

The question has often been discussed whether the rates of wages paid on works provided specifically for the relief of unemployment should be less than the rates paid for similar classes of work in normal circumstances. That is quite common in many countries of the world but that is not the principle here.

The issue which is raised by the first part of the motion is clearly, therefore, whether or not minor employment schemes should for the purpose of fixing the rates of wages to be paid the workmen engaged in them, be regarded as analogous to road works carried out by the county council.

The term minor employment scheme is used to describe the following classes of work: (a) the construction and repair of accommodation roads to the houses and lands of land-holders; (b) the construction and repair of roads to open up turbary; (c) drains and embankments. The works are carried out exclusively in rural areas; where roads are undertaken they are never public roads maintained by a county council and in all cases the work can be shown to be directly or indirectly for the improvement of agricultural lands or for the benefit of those engaged in agriculture.

As you know some years ago—I think it was the year before last—a series of questions in relation to this matter were subjected to a court of law—the question of whether or not, in fact, minor relief works were not that class of major agricultural work. That was submitted to a judicial decision. We collected a dozen typical cases for the purpose of submission to the judgment of the court. The judgment of the court was:—

"I may say, generally speaking, that each portion of this (minor employment) scheme is of a local character in which work is to be done upon farms or for the accommodation of the farms of particular holdings of agricultural land, and I am satisfied that in every instance, if the work were not being done by the Board of Works and if the owner had undertaken it himself, or if a group of owners had combined to carry it out co-operatively, it would have been regarded as work of an agricultural character."

Would the Parliamentary Secretary mind if I ask him a question at this stage?

I think on the whole it is wiser not. Mr. Justice Johnston in his judgment in the High Court on the 8th April, 1938, is the authority for this judgment that such workers were engaged in work of an agricultural character and were not, in fact, insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Prior to 1932 the Land Commission administered the relief allocations that were made from time to time for works in rural areas; and it is true to say that there was no difference then, nor is there now, either in kind or in purpose, between the works done as employment schemes and the ordinary works carried out by the Land Commission in their land settlement schemes. The main considerations in the matters are that the two types of work are carried out exclusively in rural areas; the same classes of people are employed and the object of both is much the same, namely, the improvement, in one way or another, of conditions in agricultural areas. The rate of wages paid on minor employment schemes is the same as that paid by the Land Commission for similar work.

Again, minor employment schemes are specially provided for the relief of unemployment amongst agricultural labourers, owners of uneconomic holdings, and their relatives working on the land; and the great majority of the workers engaged do actually belong to these classes. It is, of course, true that road labourers and other workers who are better paid in their normal occupations than agricultural labourers, often work on minor employment schemes; but there are many similar cases in other types of employment schemes, as when skilled workmen are given employment as unskilled labourers; and the phenomenon of workers who cannot find employment in their own occupations taking work of a different kind at a lesser rate of wages is often met with in cases outside the sphere of employment schemes. It may be argued that road work, as such, is common to both county council work and minor employment schemes; but a certain amount of road work must also be done by farmers and their labourers; and, again, road work is only one of a number of kinds of work done under minor employment schemes.

It is, in these circumstances and for the reasons set out, that the rate of wages paid on minor employment schemes is related to the rates paid to agricultural labourers; and in this regard it may be pointed out that when the minimum rate for certain classes of agricultural labourers was some time ago raised from 24/- to 27/- per week in all parts of Éire except certain districts around Dublin, a similar increase was simultaneously given to workers engaged on minor employment schemes. For workers of 20 years and upwards, and for a 54-hour week, the minimum agricultural rate has been fixed at 27/-, except in certain districts around Dublin. The minimum rate for any week in which less than 54 hours are worked is 6d. per hour, or 24/- for a 48-hour week, and this is only for workers of 20 years and upwards. When the age is from 19-20, the minimum rate is 21/4 per week for a 48-hour week— this is the agricultural wage—and 18/8 when the age is below 19. On minor employment schemes, however, the rate paid is 4/6 a day, or at the rate of 27/- per week, for all workers including large numbers under the age of 20.

Mr. Morrissey

For how many days in the week?

We will come to that later. The rate paid is 4/6 a day.

Mr. Morrissey

You are comparing that with a full week.

And the number of hours' work is limited to eight per day, or such lesser number as may coincide with the hours of daylight during the winter. It will be understood, of course, that it would scarcely be possible to fix varying rates of wages for minor employment schemes in different counties and districts to meet the varying rates of agricultural wages paid, and a uniform rate must, therefore, be applied, whatever it is. It may be stated that a return made some time after the increase of the minimum agricultural rates in May last, shows that the average rate now paid to agricultural workers is 27/- per week, and it is reasonable to assume that in the majority of cases, where a higher rate than 27/- is paid, the workers are picked men, with long experience and service. The question of a higher rate in those districts around Dublin in which the minimum agricultural rate exceeds 27/-, does not arise, since no minor employment schemes are carried out in these areas.

To sum up: the rate of wages paid on minor employment schemes is related to the rates paid to agricultural labourers, for the reasons (a) the schemes are provided primarily to relieve unemployment amongst agricultural labourers and the workers on uneconomic holdings; and the great majority of the workers are, in fact, recruited from these classes; (b) the work done is for the improvement of agricultural lands; (c) it is strictly analogous to the estate improvements works carried out by the Land Commission, and the same rate of wages is paid for minor employment schemes as for the Land Commission estate improvements works.

The second part of the motion proposes that workers on minor employment schemes should be guaranteed six days' continuous employment in each week during which they are so employed. At present the available amount of work on employment schemes is distributed amongst the largest possible number of unemployed persons by means of a rotational or part-time system of work, under which a worker receives three, four or five days' employment per week, according to the scale of unemployment assistance to which he would be entitled if unemployed, and to the rate of wages paid on the work. This system of rotation is used not only on minor employment schemes, but on all other employment schemes to which it can be made applicable.

It should be pointed out that the sums provided in any financial year for (a) unemployment assistance, and (b) special employment schemes for the relief of unemployment and distress, are, in a sense, complementary to each other, and that together they may be regarded as a joint fund which represents the direct provision which the State, having regard to the requirements of other necessary services, can afford to make in any year, for the relief of unemployment and distress among able-bodied persons. When the total amount which is available for these two services has been fixed, an estimate is made in advance of the savings in unemployment assistance which will be effected by reason of the operation of the employment schemes, and the amount represented by this saving is added to the amount available for the provision of employment schemes. From this it should be clear that the two votes are, to all intents and purposes, interdependent, and that the amount made available for the provision of employment schemes already includes the estimated saving in respect of unemployment assistance payments.

It is wrong, therefore, to suggest, as has often been done, that the principle of rotational or part-time employment is merely a device to save unemployment assistance payments. There is no possible way in which you can employ people which will save the Treasury any money under the head of unemployment assistance.

For the current financial year a sum of £1,160,000 has been provided for unemployment assistance payments, and provision is being made for an employment schemes programme representing an expenditure of more than £2,000,000, of which £1,500,000 is provided by the Oireachtas, and the balance by local authorities. The issue which is raised by the motion is, really, whether the employment provided by the expenditure of more than £2,000,000 on employment schemes should be confined to a limited number of workers, each having full-time employment, or whether the benefit should be distributed over the greatest possible number of workers by giving to each of them part-time employment in proportion to the degree of necessitousness as compared with that of other workers.

As is well known, the Unemployment Assistance Acts are based on the principle that the weekly payment made to each eligible unemployed person should be proportionate to the degree of his need, as measured by reference to the number of his dependants, and adjusted in respect of any means of which he may be possessed; and, this being so, it is difficult to resist the inference that the distribution, as between individual workmen, of the sum provided by the State for employment schemes should be governed by the same general principle of graduated benefits. This, in effect, is the principal justification of rotational or part-time employment on employment schemes. For example, the Unemployment Assistance Acts provide that an eligible unemployed workman with dependent wife and five or more other dependants, shall, other things being equal, receive a weekly payment more than double that given to a single man with no dependants; and considering the interdependence of the two separate votes for the relief of unemployment, and their common purpose, there seems to be no reason why, to the extent to which it is possible in practice, a similar differentiation should not be made with regard to the wages earned on employment schemes. It is only by doing so that the benefits of the moneys provided for employment schemes can be distributed over the largest possible number of necessitous workmen, and in proportion to their individual needs.

The basis of the rotational system at present in use is that each unskilled workman receives such number of days' employment each week during the term of his employment as represents a reasonable percentage in excess of the value of unemployment assistance to which he would be entitled in the corresponding period if he were unemployed. The following are examples of various scales of unemployment assistance and the corresponding number of days' work given to workmen on minor employment schemes on which the rate of wages for unskilled workers is 4/6 per day:— Unemployment Assistance Scale—not exceeding 9/6, three days' work per week; from 10/- to 13/- inclusive, four days' work per week; exceeding 13/-, five days' work per week.

If broken weather intervenes to render it impossible for a workman to work in any week the full number of days to which his scale of unemployment assistance entitles him, he receives in the following week or weeks one additional day's employment for each day so lost, so far as this may be possible in practice.

Rotational or part-time employment applies usually only to unskilled workers. The advantage of the rotational method of employment on special employment schemes, as compared with full-time employment, is that it distributes the benefits over the largest possible number of workmen, and preserves the principle embodied in the Unemployment Assistance Acts of adjusting the amount of State relief to the degree of necessitousness of the individual workman. Full-time employment means the same provision for a married man having six dependants as for a single man without dependants at all. Rotational employment permits of a certain degree of differentiation being made.

Under the system of rotation at present in use on employment schemes a workman earns in many cases from two to three times as much by way of wages as he would receive in unemployment assistance payments. That is markedly so in relation to the whole of the poorer districts in the West of Ireland. For this reason it is clear that even when working on a part-time rotation workmen are placed in a privileged position as compared with less fortunate unemployed persons who continue to draw unemployment assistance. Full-time employment on employment schemes would carry the process of discrimination still farther and emphasise still more the disparity of treatment by concentrating in the hands of a still more limited number of workmen all the benefits of the employment schemes votes. Numerous alternatives to the system of rotational employment at present in use have been proposed. First of all, there is the suggestion of full-time employment all the year round for the unemployed on the register. This would be desirable, no doubt, if it were practicable, but the cost of a scheme of this kind would probably run into many millions per annum.

Give us the figures.

Between £10,000,000 and £15,000,000, as far as I know.

If you could make a present of £10,000,000 to England, surely you could do something better for the relief of unemployment here?

We are not making a present to England of £10,000,000. We are getting £90,000,000 in return for it.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not able to make a closer estimate than that?

It would be difficult to do that.

Mr. Morrissey

Could the Parliamentary Secretary not come within £5,000,000 of it?

The Deputy may think that is easy, but you would have to work out in actual detail the whole of the scheme for all the different districts which all the people could get to, schemes made up of public health works, minor relief works, sewerage works and so on, in which the actual factor of the cost of the work relative to the wages varies from two to ten or twelve, and nothing but an absolutely complete survey of that kind would enable you to get an accurate figure. My own feeling would be——

How do these figures compare with 1932?

One moment. I cannot answer every Deputy at once. I am trying to answer Deputy Morrissey. My feeling is that I would certainly regard myself as requiring £12,500,000 to do the second year of the work, and I would regard that as a figure which would be rising in amount every year, due to the difficulty of fitting in the schemes. We are at the present moment actually in the position of envisaging the running out of schemes of a practical character in the urban districts inside a couple of years. I mean schemes with which we are familiar. We all know we are doing certain schemes and we would rather find better schemes to do. There is no question about that.

Anyone who thinks there is an unlimited pool of employment schemes on which men can be employed, in which there is going to be a large labour content, in which there is going to be a large proportion of the money to be given to labour, is entirely mistaken. Every year as we go on we are going to find it more and more difficult to get schemes, and we are going to find that the lower proportion of the total of money spent is going to labour, simply due to the exhaustion of the obviously easy and economic schemes. I appeal to the House; if anyone can devise any addition to the series of schemes which we have at our disposal, in relation to his own district or in general and which he will corelate with the people disemployed in that district, and submit it to me, I shall be deeply grateful.

Mr. Morrissey

May I take it that that is a summary of the Parliamentary Secretary's three or four years' labour as chairman of the committee concerned with the relief of unemployment—that he is now giving a summary of the prospect for the future?

What of the plan?

I am expressing, in relation to the distribution which is required over this country, and over a period in advance, my impression of the prospect of keeping an adequate supply of public works of the character in which a large proportion of the money that is spent by the State will go to labour, and I regard the position as very difficult.

Mr. Morrissey

So that the problem will be a question of finding work as well as money?

Definitely, yes. I would say that the problem of finding suitable works is at least as difficult as the problem of finding money.

Where is the plan?

We are not dealing with controversial matters now.

Where is the plan of 1932?

I am going to deal with this in a purely objective manner and I do not care twopence ha'penny about these interruptions. If I get a suggestion which will contribute in any way to the understanding of this problem by students who want to solve it—if I can get a suggestion from any Deputy that will enable me to cope with the problem, I will be glad to diverge and deal with it. There is nothing in the knowledge of my Department, whether it is politically suitable or unsuitable, which I will not say here if the necessity arises, but I will not be dragged away by any sort of interruption of the kind in which Deputy Davin is at present specialising.

Splendid.

Another alternative is in relation to full-time employment in respect of whatever sum is made available for employment schemes. This would reduce the number of workmen benefiting by the schemes to a little more than one half of those who are employed under the present system of rotation, and would increase the disparity of treatment between those employed and those who remain on the register. Under the present system of rotation as many as 45,000 workmen are simultaneously employed during the winter months, but if full-time employment were to be given, it would have the effect of excluding some 20,000 of these workmen from participation. The third alternative is a species of rotation by which workmen would be employed full-time for alternate weeks or fortnights, and would be entitled to unemployment assistance payment in the weeks or fortnights during which they were not working. I am glad to note that Deputy Keyes, in opening, did say quite clearly that there is no longer a contest on the question of rotation, as such.

There never was.

There is no contest on the question of rotation—that is accepted.

Mr. Morrissey

What is accepted?

Well, the Deputy does not admit it, then?

Mr. Morrissey

Does not admit what?

Does not admit that there is no quarrel on the question of rotation.

Mr. Morrissey

I certainly do not agree with that.

For the moment we will deal with the Labour Party. They have no quarrel on the ground of rotation. The only thing they object to is rotation by days, not by weeks.

A Deputy

And an additional week for the men.

Now we are going to deal with this point. This has the disadvantages referred to in the previous case, but in a much lesser degree, of course. It would mean the employment of a somewhat smaller number of workmen, for the reason that it would entail increased payment of unemployment assistance, the amount of which would reduce the sum available for employment schemes. That is the difficulty.

You said it had no relation to that a moment ago. That is the real object.

Mr. Morrissey

He had not read the brief given to him then.

It would not save the State one penny, and it would not cost the State one penny. What it would do would be to deprive some workmen of participation by enabling a more limited number to get paid for a week and paid in the interval, and cut out other people who would not get any benefit at all.

What is the motive?

The motive is discounted from the beginning, because we make up the amount for the Minister for Finance, showing how much money the operation of these schemes has saved, and that money is transferred from the estimated unemployment assistance figure to the employment schemes figure, and therefore the whole of the sum saved, whatever the amount of it, is discounted from the very beginning. The policy of the Government is to expend as much as possible of the joint provision for unemployment assistance and employment schemes on the provision of suitable work rather than on unemployment assistance. The object is to convert as much of the total fund as is made up of unemployment assistance plus relief scheme expenditure into wages as distinct from unemployment assistance, and that, I think, has the consent of the whole House. That is the policy, and this other proposal is going to change that. It is going to increase the proportion of the total sum that is paid on unemployment assistance, and it is going to decrease the amount of money that is paid upon schemes for the relief of unemployment.

Money does not matter, does it?

That is again a typical Deputy Davin contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.

No income tax.

Another contribution!

One of yours.

And all these contributions sent you back a very lonely body after the election.

You made good use during the election of the rotational "stunt."

Furthermore, it should be stated that there has always been a well founded objection to providing full time employment on relief schemes at the same rates of wages as are paid for the same work when carried out in normal circumstances for the reason that agricultural workers might be attracted by the shorter hours and leave their normal employments. Our experience, when we were paying 24/- a week on minor relief schemes, was that the agricultural labourers did in fact desert their ordinary employment.

How could they get work on relief schemes?

At that time we had not the elaborate and careful register which we now have. When we were paying 24/- per week on relief schemes, we were paying a wage which was much higher than the agricultural wage in every county in Ireland but one.

That would not operate to any extent.

We had a regular plan. We have in fact to make provision that it does not occur.

There was machinery to deal with that before the Parliamentary Secretary began to deal with it.

It is suggested that the people who are engaged on minor relief schemes are in a state of deep discontent. Deputy Hurley states that.

Ask Deputy Corry, and he will state it too.

I shall give you all the information and all the evidence you want because every single one of these complaints from every place in which there is any complaint, comes to me.

I know that.

I know how many there are and I know they are not one-fourth of 1 per cent. I know that they do not come from the areas in which there is a large amount of unemployment. It is from areas in which there is only a very small amount of unemployment and in which there is only a very small amount of minor relief work that we get complaints.

Had you a report from Ballintemple?

I could not tell you. Wherever a complaint does come from, it has got to come to me because it cannot be discharged otherwise.

It was sent to your Department last Thursday week.

If the Deputy would like to recite to me the circumstances of the Ballintemple complaint, I shall deal with them. Every one of these complaints comes to me, and any complaint that I get for minor relief work, comes from areas in which there are very few minor relief works. It has been suggested to me that we ought not do any minor relief work in certain areas, that we ought not do any minor relief works in what you might call well-off districts.

Mr. Morrissey

Where are they?

A great many people who come into this country think that it is very well-off as compared with the country which they left.

Mr. Morrissey

It is very well off for them compared with the country which they left.

Yes, relatively to the circumstances of the people.

Mr. Morrissey

They have made more than 24/- a week here.

It would be well to deal with this question a little more seriously.

I have dealt with these cases absolutely objectively. We have the suggestion that there has been some "stunt" in relation to the rotation scheme.

That was during the last election.

We will take that for the moment. There was a rotation system in the City of Cork, and the people engaged upon that rotation system produced a petition for the Corporation of Cork.

Who were they?

The representatives of the men.

Do not tell me that.

An alderman in the Cork Corporation, when that question came up, said: "I do not like rotation, but I have the signatures here of 300 men asking for it, and that is good enough for me." Here is the petition from men who worked under rotation, a petition for rotational work from the Cork Unemployed Workers' Association dated the 20th July, 1937.

There is no such body, and you well know that.

I know there are hundreds of men, and I know they organised to vote for those who are providing these schemes.

Mr. Morrissey

Is this in order on a motion dealing with minor relief schemes?

It is, speaking on the question of rotation.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy wants to slip something across his colleague from Cork City, I suggest that he should not be allowed to avail of this motion to do so. This deals with minor relief schemes.

I support the point of order made by Deputy Morrissey. The Parliamentary Secretary interrupted me because he said I was out of order. The Parliamentary Secretary is not dealing with the motion.

Let him go on.

The Parliamentary Secretary wants to deal only with rotation.

I shall read the motion.

Mr. Morrissey

Is this in order?

It is certainly in order to read the motion. (Motion read.) Every single word I have said has been definitely related to and is relevant to that motion.

"Minor relief schemes."

The question here is the question of the six days.

On minor relief schemes.

They do not want the opinion of the rotational workers on minor relief schemes.

So long as we are not precluded from dealing with that matter in the same way, we do not mind.

What has been our experience of the people working on minor relief schemes? Their only complaint is that they do not get enough work. The complaint we normally get is one of not being able to get on these schemes. The total number of complaints we get of the kind and order put forward here to-night is negligible. The complaints we get are complaints of not having an opportunity of participating in these schemes, and complaints that certain people have been employed who were not on the unemployment assistance register.

We have allegations that certain people have had a preference, that they were on before, or more often than, their proper time, but the number of complaints we get in relation to the matters raised here is negligible. We have had demands to have these works extended to places to which we cannot extend them. At the present moment, we are operating in 1,700 or 1,800 of the 3,000 electoral areas in Ireland. A great many of those are covered merely by minor relief schemes, and the agitation we have is to extend these schemes into other areas in which there are not any. The amount of complaint we get from men employed on these schemes is quite negligible.

Let us take the areas of the Deputies who have moved this motion—Deputy Davin of Leix, Deputy Keyes of Limerick, and Deputy Norton of Kildare. The proportion of minor relief schemes done in Deputy Davin's constituency—and Deputy Davin is an authority on these schemes—is .86 of 1 per cent. The proportion of minor relief schemes done in the constituency of Deputy Keyes—another authority on the operation of these schemes—is 3.34 per cent. In Deputy Norton's constituency the figure is 1¼ per cent. That is to say, less than one-twentieth of the total. In fact, the whole Labour Party have not got representatives in more than one-eighth of the territory. Certain places have had a very large experience of the operation of minor relief schemes. Take a place like Donegal North, where there are 4,500 men employed on minor relief schemes.

What is the average period of employment?

At the present moment, we are trying to keep them on for about four or five months—over the winter. The period has been much extended compared with what it previously was, but that is much more possible in those districts than it is in the other districts.

What is the average period of employment per head?

That is about the average period.

Every man gets five months?

Four or five months, over the winter. The aim is to employ two-thirds of the total on the unemployment register over that period of time. Sometimes, the same men are employed on a minor relief scheme and on a roads rural scheme. We have had no difficulty in the transfer of men from one scheme to the other. We have experience of the two schemes going on side by side, and there has been no friction, and no cause of complaint. Take Galway West. There are 3,000 men employed on these schemes there, and we have no complaint from Galway.

Mr. Morrissey

Why should you? It is a question of rotation or starvation.

At any rate, they have no complaint against rotation.

Mr. Morrissey

Because the alternative is starvation.

Whether the scheme is rotational or otherwise, the total amount of money to be spent is the same. Whether we rotate or do not rotate, we have the same amount of money, and we can give them only the same amount of money. Therefore, the alternative is not between rotation and starvation, but between the Dáil voting this amount of money and voting a larger amount.

Mr. Morrissey

Have you asked for it?

We are getting off the point. It is not a question of rotation or starvation, because, whether we rotate or not, we have only the same amount of money to give to the individual. You have places like Sligo, with a large number of people on these schemes. You have Clare, with a considerable number similarly employed. You have Kerry and Donegal. Where is the complaint from them? In those districts you are dealing very largely with people who are small holders. The scheme of three days a week is better for them than a scheme of continuous employment, and they prefer it. I have actually got into trouble on the suggestion that, in the Aran Islands, I was destroying the system of agriculture because I was employing too many people too long and it was interfering with their work. Let Deputies not laugh. That complaint came from a Bishop.

Was the work compulsory?

Could they not go off?

They could have gone off and attended to their work. On investigation we found that, due to the excellent organisation of the employment scheme, there was no cause of complaint whatever on that score. I have gone into these matters as fully as I can in this debate, and I have no doubt that I shall have another opportunity of doing so. I cannot possibly deal now with the answers to all the questions. I have given you the experience we have had. That is, that there is no measure of discontent in relation to the rotation system amongst the vast majority of those employed under it; that under it the State is getting good work, and that, if we had more money, the decision would not be to abandon rotation but to increase the number of days in each week to be given to each man under rotation.

Mr. Morrissey

Then it would not be rotation.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 23rd February, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share