Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Oct 1940

Vol. 81 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Ruttledge)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Upon the outbreak of the European War a year ago it seemed probable that the normal programme of public works would have to be severely curtailed. The cost of many imported materials rose sharply and it was uncertain whether those which were essential to constructional works would be obtainable after a time. While the war has adversely affected trade and industry with a consequential increase in unemployment, housing and other public works have been maintained at a fair level. In the four county boroughs a higher level of building has in fact been secured than in any of the past five years, with the exception of the year 1938 when the production of houses in Dublin exceeded 2,000.

At the present time, there are in course of construction in Dublin 1,586 dwellings. In addition, preparatory works are in progress in connection with the laying of housing foundations and the development of sites. In Cork, Limerick and Waterford, schemes have been continued practically at a normal rate, and I am hopeful that a fair level of employment on housing will continue to be maintained.

With the prolongation of war conditions, trade and industry may become more and more affected. The Government, therefore, deemed it necessary to make a close study of conditions and of the help which an enlarged programme of public works would give instead of resorting to direct relief for the unemployed. The examination of the position clearly indicated that there should be wider powers for the carrying out of public works as may from time to time he deemed necessary.

In Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, a considcruble advance has already been made in the survey of these districts and in the preparation of outline proposals for the future development of the areas in accordance with the recognised principles underlying town planning. Preliminary surveys are at present being made in the County Boroughs of Cork and Limerick, in 12 urban districts and in three counties.

Planning affords a very practical means of examining local government problems. A plan for the development of a city requires to be thought out as carefully as a plan for a water supply or a sewerage system. Towards the end of last year a preliminary report made by experts appointed for the planning of Dublin City was published in the Press. Amongst the works proposed for the consideration of the corporation were new ring roads on the north and south of the city to be constructed partly within and partly without the city boundary. The sketch development plans have not been officially submitted to my Department, and I am not in a position at this stage to refer to the merits of the general proposals as their adoption and embodiment in a planning scheme rests with the corporation. The value of such reports is very great. It is much easier to avoid mistakes than it is to correct them, and if we are to embark on large schemes of public works we should have the utmost evidence possible that the works undertaken will fit into a proper scheme of future development. We must try to envisage the possibilities that lie ahead rather than proceed in haphazard fashion.

In Cork, Limerick and Waterford as well as Dublin, and, in fact, in other populous areas, there are many problems created by circumscribed boundaries which might readily be solved under the provisions of this Bill. Owing to the absence of link roads between main roads a very undesirable form of ribbon development has taken place which could have been avoided by the provision of a system of link roads with sanitary services. I am fully aware of the additional duties cast upon local authorities and their officers during the past year in connection with A.R.P. and other matters arising out of the emergency, and I am, therefore, somewhat reluctant to press for the immediate preparation of planning schemes. I do think, however, that the work of making preliminary surveys should be pressed forward particularly in the larger cities and towns so that local authorities in the selection of employment schemes will have suitable proposals from which a choice can be made.

For several years past, large sums of money have been provided by the Government for the relief of unemployed persons and the reduction of unemployment. Every thinking person must realise the importance of having this money expended in a manner calculated to benefit the persons who are unemployed and to produce the most valuable results for the community. Obviously, the employment of men on useful public works is better from the personal and national aspects than the making of direct relief payments.

About two-thirds of the Employment Schemes Vote is devoted each year to works consisting of the construction and improvement of roads, sewerage and water supply schemes, and the improvement of public amenities, the execution and maintenance of which is either a responsibility of the local authority of the area in which the works are situated, or is within the powers of that body. For this reason, in carrying out any large programme of works of public utility for the relief of unemployment, it is essential to have the active co-operation of the public authorities of the country.

If the circumstances and conditions under which employment schemes have been carried out in the past were to remain unchanged, it would not be necessary to ask for the special powers which are now sought in the Bill. It is possible, however, that before the European War is over and before its consequences cease to be felt, the problem of unemployment and distress may become one of the utmost gravity. In these circumstances, and to provide against the contingency of abnormal unemployment it is necessary to take all reasonable precautions to make the way clear for such relief measures as may be considered necessary in the best interests of the State. As the great bulk of any employment schemes programme consisting of the execution of works of public utility must continue to be administered through the local authorities, it is considered essential to have all the powers necessary to secure the rapid and uniform application by local authorities of such measures as will enable works to be started quickly.

It is becoming more difficult to find suitable types of work in areas in which the numbers of unemployed are greatest. When there is a comprehensive survey made of an area the future choice of works of public utility and amenity value should be greatly simplified. I have already referred to the suggested ring roads for Dublin. In a planning survey of East Meath which has been made preparatory to the formulation of a planning scheme, there is a proposal for a new coast road from Drogheda to the boundary between Meath and Dublin. The proposal is worthy of examination as a large scale employment scheme. So also would a coast road in County Dublin in the manner of the new coast road from Portmarnock to Malahide. If feasible, such a scheme, apart altogether from the employment afforded by its execution, should enhance the district from the viewpoint, of tourist development.

In the case of housing and sanitary works local authorities have powers outside their areas, but at present there is no legal way under which the duty of making a road outside the area of a local authority could be assigned to that local authority. The present statutory limitations are unnecessarily restrictive. A local authority with extensive road and traffic interests should possess powers in relation to the reconstruction of main traffic arteries which constitute the approaches to their administrative area. The provisions of this Bill will provide statutory powers in this respect, and therefore widen the scope of employment schemes.

So much for the general principles underlying the Bill. Coming to the actual provisions thereof, Section 2 provides for the certification by the Minister of works which are being, or are about to be, undertaken by a local authority for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons. For the purpose of a certified work the provisions of Section 7 and following sections of the Bill relating to acquisition of land will apply. No certificate is to be given by the Minister after the expiration of two years from the date on which the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, ceases to be in force.

Section 3 enables the Minister to direct a particular work to be carried out by a local authority after consultation with that local authority. This provision is necessary for the purpose of a work situate partly in one area and partly in another, when it is desirable that the entire work should be done by the same local authority. Section 3 makes it obligatory on a local authority to carry out a work which the Minister directs to be undertaken and which is certified by him under Section 2 of the Bill.

Sections 4 and 5 provide machinery for the transfer of powers from one local authority to another in relation to roads, and for the payment of contributions by the benefited authority to the authority executing a certified work.

Section 6 will only have a limited effect. At present the Kilbarrack area of Howth is dependent on septic tanks. So also is portion of the Raheny district of the city. Instead of setting up a joint board by provisional order to be confirmed by the Oireachtas, the Minister, in pursuance of the section, can make an Order forming a united district, and then the provisions of the Public Health Acts will apply. The formation of a joint board to manage the united district will be postponed, and there will be conferred on the corporation, as executing authority, all the powers of the joint board in relation to the execution of works necessary for the drainage of the entire area, and the apportionment of expenses as between the city and the present urban district which will ultimately form part of the County Borough of Dublin. When that takes place the arrangements for the creation of a united district will cease. It may be mentioned that the drainage of this area will facilitate also the drainage of the Baldoyle and Portmarnock district of the County Health District of Dublin.

In Sections 7 to 11 there is introduced a new, simple and speedy manner of acquiring land by vesting order, without conveyance. The local authority will be able to take possession of the land with the minimum of delay, and every person to whom compensation is payable will receive interest on the amount of compensation during the period between vesting the land in the local authority and the fixing of compensation by arbitration, save where a local authority makes a written offer of compensation which is not accepted, and the compensation fixed at arbitration is not greater than the offer. In such a case it is proposed that the interest on the compensation should not be payable after the date of the offer.

It is expected that under this Bill local authorities will take in hand some of the projects which are likely to be provided for in future planning schemes. If these projects are allowed to wait until planning schemes are in force the persons who would benefit from their execution would become liable under the planning schemes for the payment of betterment to the local authority. It seems only reasonable that this liability should not cease because of the necessity of carrying out these projects in advance of planning schemes. The Bill, therefore, by Section 14 provides for the collection of betterment from owners of property which has increased in value by the execution of such works.

In order to simplify the procedure under the Public Health Acts there are certain modifications of the Public Health Act, 1878, proposed in Section 16. They mainly consist of shortening the time for giving public notices in relation to the carrying out of certain public health works. The reduction is from three months to one month which is considered reasonable in emergency conditions. The other sections of the Bill do not require any comment as they are common to most Bills regulating the procedure governing the acquisition of land for public purposes.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister probably deserves from the House more than the usual compliments which are paid on the introduction of a Bill. It is probably the first time since the change of Government that I have heard a Minister in this House introducing a Bill on which any sort of general explanation was given. It is usual for a Minister to take up the clauses of a Bill and go through them as if to say, "This has to be done, and no more about it." The Minister has at least earned more than the usual consideration from us when he favoured us with his observations in connection with the purposes of this Bill and what he had in mind regarding it. It is mainly a machinery Bill, but there are just a couple of points in connection with the general scheme outlined by the Minister which ought to be discussed here. In the first place, the Minister said that this is a Relief Works Bill, and presumably it will be employed for the purpose of relieving unemployment. It may be that the intention is to have employment given in much the same way as it is at present afforded in what are called rotational schemes which are operated mainly under the Board of Works. These schemes have now been in operation for some time. In my view, for what that is worth, they are wrong, fundamentally wrong. The idea of giving a man 14/- a week as a wage does not seem to be justified by the cost of living, by the expenses which would fall upon even a single man and, certainly, it is neither just nor fair in the case of a married man. If relief works are going to be inaugurated now, the Minister should insist upon finding out what is a fair wage, a wage upon a man can maintain his family and that, at least, a man should be employed for not less than four weeks at that living wage.

Taking it now that we are not dealing with what is called an unemployment relief scheme, that we are dealing with matters which affect the local authority, it is obvious that if an ordinary man who is unemployed gets engaged so that he will earn 14/- a week he can never keep himself in an economic position. If his home furniture has been disposed of in one way or another it will never be possible for him to restore it. Such a wage is not just or right. It is all the more iniquitous when we consider that Ministers are paid fair salaries, that the officials of the State regulating these matters, in the Department of Public Works, in the Department of Local Government or in the Department of Finance, are paid full salaries, with bonuses and so on. It is a hideous contemplation to think of men being engaged at, say, 14/- a week and, perhaps, not being employed for many weeks at that.

The Minister has mentioned materials. Some time ago an inquiry took place here under the Prices Commission into the price of bacon. The Prices Commission laid down that a fair return on the capital that is employed in the bacon industry was 7 per cent., and they held up the bacon curers and manufacturers and those engaged in the business to public opprobrium because their profits exceeded 7 per cent. My recollection of the increase is that it was about 3 or 4 per cent., not more. There is a monopoly in the case of one of the important items that are used by persons who are doing public works, that is, cement. It is some time ago since I saw a copy of the balance sheet of the cement company. My impression is that it paid 10 per cent., and quite recently there has been a very steep advance in the market price of the shares. That firm has got a monopoly from this House. We certainly do make ourselves look very foolish if we hold up old-established concerns which have not got a monopoly, and then start one ourselves and allow it to earn 10 per cent. on invested money, to build up at the same time a reserve, to pay its directors and its shareholders well, while the unfortunate man who is engaged in relief works earns, perhaps, half a week's wages. That is very unsatisfactory, and I hope the Minister will see to it. I ask him, in the first place, to use his influence with whatever Minister of State has any responsibility in connection with the starting of that cement works to see that the price of cement is reduced, that the profits of the company are kept within reasonable limits, and that the public works which need that particular commodity will not be made difficult by reason of the heavy price that has to be paid for cement. My information, for what it is worth, is that not only are they making that profit on that reserve, but that there is an additional hidden reserve of 1/- per cwt. to make extra provision for bad times.

The second point I want to deal with is in connection with public works. The Minister mentioned roads. There is no country in Western Europe so "over-roaded" as we are here. It may be that the existing roads are not in the proper places, but we have a very much higher percentage of roads than Great Britain. Local authorities are complaining in connection with relief schemes or rotational works, or whatever is the particular term, that they are not allowed to embark on any useful necessary public works, the Ministerial conception of the matter being that the local authority should undertake those works out of its rates. The rates of local authorities are fairly high in nearly all parts of the country. It may be that in the normal course of events the local authority would never undertake these necessary useful works, but when an opportunity occurs of employing some of their own money, together with some of the money of the State, they would be prepared to do that, but Ministerial sanction is withheld. I understand that it is not the Minister for Local Government, but some other Minister, who is responsible. I think it is the Minister for Finance, or the Board of Works.

The usefulness of the public works undertaken should be one of the main considerations in connection with these matters. It would be far better, in my view, if a public work were to be undertaken, that it should he something in the nature of waterworks or sewerage, rather than a new road. I do think, even in the case of a new road, that prior consideration should be given to the pathways of that road. After all, although motorists may complain, most motorists are supplied with shock absorbers and big tyres, and they can go slowly on those roads, whereas pedestrians ought to have a fairly level road.

Local authorities have complained about the character of proposals they put up being objected to on the ground that they are exclusively local authority works. The Government is employing local money in order to meet a problem which concerns themselves. The Government has had to undertake this relief work by reason of their own infirmities in having an unsound economic policy here over a great number of years. Very much of the relief work that has had to be undertaken in recent years and that we have to undertake now is entirely traceable to Government policy. Only to-day there have been circulated for us the figures of the trend of employment. I looked up the years 1938 and 1939 and I find that the increase in the number of persons registered for unemployment insurance is up by 1,000 or down by 1,000—I cannot remember which—and the increase of persons under National Health Insurance is up by 1,000. In any case, they balance out. For the five years previous to this Government taking up office the average increase in the number of persons registered under National Health Insurance was 11,000 each year. For the first six or seven years after the change of Government that number went down to 9,500. They were not able to keep up the pace which they had told the people was not fast enough. They said that they could improve it, that there was employment for everybody, that there was no reason why everybody should not have it, that the only thing required was a change of Government. I have shown you what has happened. That has happened notwithstanding the fact, that very considerable sums of money have been spent by the Government in relieving unemployment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance mentioned to-day that there were two pockets—the unemployment insurance pocket and the unemployment relief fund. In any case, notwithstanding the spending of all that money, the Government have not been able to keep up the pace. The problem is a Government-constructed problem; they have made it; they are responsible for it and now they are trying to deal with it. In order to have it dealt with, money from the local authority is employed as well as Government money. The local authority has a right to some voice as to the manner in which this money should be spent. They probably would be much wiser than a number of persons in a Government office. They would certainly be as wise in a very large number of matters. The usefulness of the work is the main consideration, in my view. The Government view may be that the main thing is to get men employed. The more road construction work we do in this country the more any person looking at the matter impartially will be convinced that there is a bankrupt economic policy at the back of it. We could find more useful things than roads. We have enough roads at the present moment.

The Minister, in the later portion of his observations, dealt with the different clauses. In the year 1925 the Act called No. 5 of 1925 was passed. It was there provided that a local authority could be dissolved, but before it was dissolved an inquiry should be held. I expect that one of the reasons why the House at that time passed that particular Act was that an assurance was given that the dissolution of a local authority would not take place until an inquiry was held. We now find that by a simple stroke of the pen we can take out the provision which gives security to a local authority; that no inquiry need be held and that the Minister can dissolve the local body. It might be as well if the original Act were amended and get rid of having a Minister placed in the position of being a judge. He cannot he the judge, advocate and jury, all at the one time. He ought to be either one or the other.

Mr. Brennan

And the executioner as well.

Mr. Cosgrave

Quite so—and the executioner. He ought to be either one or the other. The Minister, if he discharges his duty as an administrator, ought to be advised, and the advice ought to come from some impartial person who would hold an inquiry, who would sit as a judge and, having arrived at a decision, report to the Minister. The Minister ought not, in a matter of this sort, retain that particular provision. The reason why that Act was passed and why that power was given was because a trial would take place. Now we are to have the execution without a trial and I do not think that is good business.

The Minister mentioned, in connection with Section 13, that compensation was to be paid at the rate of £4 per cent. from the date on which such land is vested in such local authority until the date when such compensation is so fixed. I confess that the Minister has an advantage on me in relation to that matter. This is now going to be the basis of compensation, and what exactly does it mean? The local authority enters, on 1st January, into possession of land which is required for a particular purpose. Compensation is fixed on 1st April and the person is entitled to get paid interest at the rate of 4 per cent. from 1st January to 1st April, which in essence means 1 per cent. on his money. Let us say he is awarded £100 and he is entitled to £101 on 1st April. When is he going to get it? When will he be paid?

If there is one thing a State Department or local authority is particular about, it is getting paid any money that is due. If anybody here has had the good luck to owe the income-tax people any money, he will have experience of what I am saying. I notice smiles on the faces of some Deputies, and I presume they are not interested in matters of that kind. The fact is that you must pay. The compensation is fixed and I should like to know if the person is going to be paid for his land on 1st April.

The section sets out:—

"Where a local authority has made an unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation in respect of land acquired under this Act to any person and such offer is not accepted by such person and the sum awarded as compensation to such person by the official arbitrator does not exceed the sum so offered, no interest shall be payable on such compensation under this section during any period after the date of such offer."

The Minister did not tell us the reason for that. Let us assume that in the case I have mentioned the local authority offered £95, the man will not take it, and he gets £100. He will get his £1 for the three months, the interest being at the rate of 4 per cent. What is the reason for penalising him in the other case? The local authority officials or the Local Government Department are not penalised, assuming the arbitrator decides on more; nobody is penalised in that case. Why penalise this person because in one case out of ten the sum offered is the sum the arbitrator awards? There is no real additional expense falling on the local authority and I do not understand why it is that this should occur in the particular instance indicated.

In Section 14 we have a whole series of sections of the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934, indicated. The sum and substance of the sections is that in a case where premises have been improved by reason of any town and regional planning work, the owner of the property may be held liable in certain cases—I think by the local authority—for three-quarters of the improvement. Let us assume that there has been an increase in the value of property to the extent of £20 in the year. The person owning that property will be liable for £l5. Subsection (3) of Section 14 sets out that all moneys received by a local authority as payment for betterment in respect of a certified work executed by such local authority shall be applied by the local authority in or towards the discharge of the expenses arising out of the improvement that has taken place.

They go on to refer to the surplus, and I was horrified when I read about the surplus. The surplus remaining after discharging such expenses is to be applied as the local authority shall, with the consent of the Minister, decide. The individual is to be charged three-quarters of the actual improvement, but there may be a surplus. Let us assume the cost of the work is £100 and the man is liable for £75, according to the Town and Regional Planning Act. Under this, whatever sum may be fastened on by reason of the improvement that has taken place, the owner may have a surplus over and above what the local authority may have expended. The whole thing is very puzzling and perhaps the Minister will explain it. I should say that no local authority is entitled to get more money from any ratepayer than the actual job has cost. If it is intended to get more than that from him, I should like to hear about it.

I hope the Minister will bear in mind what I said about cement, and I should like to know what he proposes to do with regard to the betterment position—whether he intends to charge in the manner I have indicated or whether a ratepayer will be liable for more than the job has cost, which improves the value of his house or property, as the case may be. I would also like to know what would be the date of payment for land acquired and what is the reason for not allowing interest to fall in all cases.

With regard to compensation, let us take it that £100 is the value that is fixed by the local authority and it is refused by the individual and it is not paid from 1st January until 1st April. The local authority has that money during that period—it has the use of it. I could quite understand if it was offered to him based on a deposit receipt in his bank. Having done that, there would be no liability for interest. The fourth point has reference to the proviso in cases where local authorities are dissolved. It is proposed now to do that without holding any inquiry whatever.

Mr. Corish

One would like to have an opportunity of reading the statement made to-day by the Minister before making any comment on this Bill. I agree to a great extent with the criticisms levelled against it by Deputy Cosgrave. What we on this side of the House would like to know is, under what system is the particular work envisaged to be carried out? We are rather suspicious owing to the recent order of the Minister in connection with the wage increases recently given by local authorities. I should like to know from the Minister if he intends to have the work visualised under this Bill done under the rotational employment system. If that is the position I, for one, would be very reluctant to vote for this Bill. The Minister, apparently, stipulates the conditions under which certain work has to be done. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, some time ago the Ministry accepted responsibility for providing for the unemployed in this country. In recent years, the tendency of the Ministry has been to shift the burden from the central authority on to the backs of the local ratepayers. This Bill, to my mind, is going to carry that tendency still further. The Minister has stated, of course, that, in consequence of the fact that the war has made it impossible to get certain materials, he is of opinion that as time goes on the unemployment situation will become worse. I cannot understand why it is necessary to introduce a Bill of this kind in order to enable the Government themselves to deal with the unemployment situation.

Since 1933 the local authorities have been mulcted in very heavy sums in order to subsidise still further schemes for the relief of unemployment for which money had been given by the Government itself. One wonders in connection with this Bill if that burden is going to be made heavier. The local authorities will be very reluctant to accept greater liability for the carrying out of something which is not their business, and which, in fact, is not their responsibility at all. In recent years, most of the money given by the Government in that way has been expended on the remaking or improvement of roads. Certain schemes have been put up from time to time to the Government, and they have always contended that they have accepted the schemes in which there was the greatest labour content. Quite recently, the corporation in Wexford town were notified that a certain amount of money was available for works to be done during the winter period for the relief of unemployment. The corporation were asked to contribute an amount of money which was equivalent to one-eighth or about 12½ per cent. of the cost. The water shortage there became acute within the last three or four weeks, and the corporation asked that some of the moneys which it was proposed to be spent on roads should be diverted to the cleansing of the reservoir when an opportunity presented itself. The Government agreed to that proposal, but asked that the corporation should put up, instead of the 12½ per cent. which they were asked to pay had the money been expended on the roads, 33? per cent. of the cost. I think that is very unfair.

Here was a scheme put up by the corporation in which the labour content was 100 per cent. There was no material, good, bad or indifferent, required. It was a better scheme than any visualised by the Government, or any scheme submitted by the corporation itself hitherto, so far as the labour content was concerned. The corporation and the ratepayers think it very unfair of the Government to insist on a contribution of 33? per cent. when they were asked only for 12½ per cent. if the money had been laid out on road work. If the money were expended on road work, over 50 per cent. of it would be spent on material, and the most of these materials would be cement referred to a few moments ago by Deputy Cosgrave. We all know that the cost of cement since the establishment of the Irish cement works has been raised considerably. I remember that, about 12 months before the cement works were established, you could get cement for 32/6 a ton. Now it is nearly double that price. For the life of me, I cannot see any particular reason why there should be such an increase in the price of cement in recent years. If the Wexford Corporation had proceeded to spend this money on road work, we would have to contribute only 12½ per cent. of the cost, but when we produce a scheme with 100 per cent. labour content, we are mulcted to the extent of 33? per cent. If schemes of road work under this Bill are going to be carried out on the rotational system of employment, I for one am against the Bill, because one can visualise a situation arising, if the unemployment situation becomes acute, under which the Minister will insist on local authorities carrying out certain works in their area under the rotational system, and insisting that certain wages only shall be paid, wages which would not be similar to those paid to the regular employees of the council working in the area. The Minister has power, if the local authority refuses to carry out work of that kind, immediately to scrap the council. That is something that I do not think any of us ought to contemplate with equanimity. There is too much central authority in this country at the moment. Unless the Minister places his cards on the table, and tells us how the work is proposed to be done under this Bill, and under what system it will be carried out, I for one do not favour the Bill at this stage. Unless the Minister is prepared to clarify the situation before the Second Reading Vote is taken, we shall have to consider the position.

The Minister referred to the acquisition of land. That has been a source of great trouble to local authorities for a considerable time and, as far as I can see, the position is not very much simplified in this Bill. I should like the Minister to give us a little more information on that particular section of the Bill because, as he and his officials know, the people who are not disposed to sell pieces of their land for the purpose of knocking off corners and improvements of that kind, have held up work, in the towns especially, for a considerable period. Time and time again, the local authorities have approached the Department of Local Government with a view to having the law altered to enable land to be acquired more quickly for these purposes. I should like the Minister to indicate, when he is replying, how much simpler it will be to acquire land under this section of the Bill, than it has been in the past. From the phraseology of the section, it does not appear to me that it is going to be much more simple than it has been in the past. Again, I should like to ask the Minister to let us have the full facts of the situation as to what the Government propose to do under this Bill—if they are going to take any drastic measures against local authorities, under what system it is proposed that the work should be carried out, and if the Government is going to insist that every job done by a local authority would have to be carried out under the rotational system. It is a very dangerous thing, I suggest, to give the Minister the far-reaching powers he is seeking under this Bill.

I do not want to refer to politics as such, but one could visualise a situation where certain followers of any particular Ministry—I am not saying the present Ministry—may think that certain work should be done in the particular area in which they live. They may not be very friendly towards the public body functioning there and, for pure cussedness, they may make representations to the Minister and ask that certain works should be done in the area. They may take the first opportunity of getting what they consider to be "their own back" on a particular local authority. I see a danger in that connection. I am not saying this about Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, or any other body, but it might happen, no matter what Government would be in power, that a particular political Party would use the machinery provided in this Bill to make it hot for a local authority operating in their area.

Mr. Dockrell

We can, I think, all agree with a great deal that the Minister has said, for instance, in taking powers for providing the machinery under which larger schemes can be carried, out easily and placed on the requisite shoulders. We can all agree with that part of his statement. But I am afraid that some of us are a little bit suspicious that the Government are putting what should be national expenditure on to the local rates, calling the tune and asking the local rates to pay the piper. I am very much afraid that there is something of that in this Bill, although I suppose you could look through it without finding any direct evidence to that effect. This is, presumably, a scheme for dealing with unemployment. The Minister is afraid that unemployment may increase; at any rate, he is taking powers to deal with it if it does increase. That makes one wonder if the Government are taking a large enough and broad enough view of unemployment, what causes it, and what are the remedies. For instance, we have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in this House talking about places where he had schemes and no unemployed, and other places where he had unemployed and no schemes. We have heard a great deal about the famous 60 per cent. labour content in a scheme. That makes one wonder if the Government are not adhering too faithfully to what one might call principles which might be regarded as admirable as a guidance in connection with schemes.

For instance. I am wondering if the time has not come when unemployed labour will not have to be regarded, as mobile and shifted from one place to another. To-day a Deputy asked a question about a road round Poulaphouca, and the objection to that was that there are apparently only 60 unemployed in that district. It seems as if the Government cannot decide as to whether that is a really desirable scheme and, if it ought to be carried out, to bring unemployed labour in to carry it out. I know that there are certain difficulties about housing them, and so on, but I think the Government ought to face the fact that that class of problem is going to increase. In other words, is unemployed labour immobile, and must employment be provided for them on their doorsteps?

The next item that arises is the 60 per cent. labour content. That may be all right, but it leads to certain anomalies. I cannot help just looking at things that hit one hardest when one sees them every day. I come into town from Sandycove and pass along the road between Blackrock and Merrion. Parts of that road are narrow and dangerous. Between Booterstown Avenue and Merrion Avenue the road has been widened. Of course it wanted to be widened there, but I would say that that was the least dangerous part of the road from Booterstown Avenue to Monkstown. If one inquires one is referred to the 60 per cent. labour content and to the fact that the scheme was put up and had to be gone on with. I think that the Ministry are getting themselves into a black knot. I am afraid that they will have to give further consideration to schemes that have an ultimate usefulness, or that are part, of a larger whole, or that are going to bring about some other desirable end.

Deputy Cosgrave spoke about the number of roads that were being made, and said that apparently the Government could only think in terms of roads. I am sure that is quite correct. But, if you look around to find where people could put up houses or where the working classes could be housed along roads that have sewers, gas, and water laid on, I think you will find that there is not the surplus of roads that one would think. When considering it from the larger viewpoint, I am sure the various ends of the problem can be all agreed upon. It is when you begin to get nearer the centre, and the question of what ought to be done and what can be expended, that there is a certain amount of controversy.

I suppose everybody is prepared to concede that we cannot let the unemployed starve. That is one side of the problem. At the other end I am sure a number of people would argue that we are very near the point of breaking the backs of the humbler taxpayers. It may be argued that there are plenty of citizens who have coats and overcoats and so on, but, at the same time, it is not sufficiently recognised that every additional burden placed on the backs of the taxpayers reduces the spending margin out of which the unemployed could find employment. That brings one, I suppose, to a delightful solution, to find some way so that the worker would contribute something towards his maintenance without costing the ratepayers more? I can imagine people saying that that is quite impossible. It might be impossible on a very large scale all at once, but I am one of those who believe that if unemployment is to be cured, there is no wonderful panacea for a problem that is troubling a large part of the world. It is not going to be solved by somebody getting a bright idea. It can only be solved by incursions into the whole field of unemployment from various angles. That is what is running through my mind. Possibly the Minister may have had some such lines already under consideration in connection with the schemes that are going to be carried out in the City of Dublin and in Dun Laoghaire.

A very large reclamation scheme was proposed from the Pigeon House to Blackrock Baths. I considered that a chimera, but I understand that it is quite feasible and would add considerably to the area of a very congested part of the city. In connection with a scheme such as that, could it be arranged that an able-bodied person could contribute a certain amount of labour? He would have to be paid a wage as well, but if he gave a certain amount of work, could such a person acquire some interest so that it would ultimately lead to the stage when he would have sufficient ground for his own use? We are prone to think of all these schemes requiring money. If a certain amount had to be paid, the labour equivalent ought to be converted into some valuable asset. During the present crisis I am wondering if a larger number of plots could not be laid out and ultimately turned into parks or housing schemes when wages and the cost of materials are not so dear.

What I really want to suggest to the Minister is, that while in this scheme he seems to be taking a larger view by debarring roads and possibly some other improvement schemes, I believe there is a much wider field to be explored. I doubt if the Government has ever seriously considered whether unemployment, could not be alleviated by dealing with various sections of the unemployed. First of all deal with the most hopeful section who would be physically fit. The provision for people who are not physically fit would be a much more difficult problem. At the same time any incursion into that field, if only as an experiment, could be made along such lines as I suggest, in which the worker who was unemployed might be able to provide either sustenance or something towards the provision of a home for himself and his family, and that that would not have to be done by way of a contribution from the rest of the citizens. Over a series of years there does not seem to have been any suggestion put before this House, beyond improving the machinery of these relief schemes. There has not been any question of taking a wider outlook. Even if such a scheme as I suggest failed, it would be well that posterity should know that some experiment along such lines was made. In the present lull—I hope not before the storm—the Government might consider how far some original ideas might be put into force for solving a problem that is a grave and growing one in this and almost every other country.

Mr. Norton

I think the Minister should give the House an assurance that this Bill will not be utilised by him or by his Department to insist on local authorities being compelled to carry out schemes of work under rotational employment schemes, or that the Department will endeavour to fix low maximum wages for any type of work carried out under them. It is well that we should also have an assurance of that kind from the Minister, in view of the unsatisfactory, and even reactionary, action of his Department in respect of employment schemes, and the unreasonable attitude that the Government generally has adopted in respect to rotational employment. Of course, I do not for a minute believe that this Bill or 1,000 Bills like it is going to have any substantial effect on unemployment. The introduction of a Bill of this kind is just one of these little illusions that legislative assemblies indulge in from time to time. I venture to say that in 12 months or even 12 years after the passage of such a Bill, we will still have as many unemployed here, and possibly more, because we imagine that we can deal with a problem by passing green Bills of this kind designed to deceive only "green" people. I do not believe a Bill of this kind would make any contribution whatever to the solution of the unemployment problem. Everybody with two eyes in his head knows perfectly well that there is no shortage of schemes of work which could be carried out. Everybody with any experience of local authorities knows that they are only too anxious to carry out schemes of work and where there is an abundance of work to be carried out and an anxiety to carry it out, the only impediment to putting the scheme of work into operation is the obvious impediment in the difficulty of getting money, the difficulty of carrying out schemes at the price which you have got to pay for money to-day.

Take, for instance, the position in this city in respect to housing. You have got about 90,000 people living under the most intolerable conditions in this city, which is a reflection on our Constitution and our vaunted civilisation. You have 10,500 building trade workers idle and anxious to build the houses to house the men, women and children who are rotting and festering in pestilential dens in the city. Yet you cannot get houses for them, with material available and workers available. In fact, the workers are fleeing to England and defying the bombs there in order to get employment, while people are looking for houses and cannot get them here. There is no want of enthusiasm on the part of the building trade, there is no want of desire on the part of those who manufacture building materials, and there is no absence of a passionate desire on the part of those living in the slums to evacuate from them and get into decent houses. Yet, these factors do not come into play, and the reason is that tho local authority—the corporation—cannot get money unless it is prepared to pay the very high ransom demanded for money to-day.

We have flats being erected in this city, and houses being erected on virgin soil outside it, and the rents of those houses are absolutely appalling, having regard to the relatively limited accommodation provided. People have to pay high rents and a substantial tribute for transportation from their places of residence to their places of employment. These wages and rents make an enormous demand on the slender incomes of these people. The extent of the demand and the local authorities' difficulty in obtaining suitable tenants who can pay those rents, together with the difficulty of obtaining money at reasonable rates of interest, is definitely causing a slowing down in the housing activities in this city and in the country generally. If we are going to proceed to deal with the unemployment problem upon the lines visualised in this Bill, we are going to make as miserable a mess of our efforts as we have made for the past 20 years.

We had a statement by the Minister for Supplies recently at the Red Bank Restaurant, that the test of this Government's success or failure was whether it could deal with the unemployment problem. Judged by that test, the Government has dismally failed. Then we have an occasional oration from the Taoiseach, in which he says that if we cannot find a solution inside the system, we must go outside the system; and then the Taoiseach comes back more within the system than ever before, and more determined than ever before never to go outside it. Might I suggest to the Minister for Local Government that this is an opportune occasion, and that the times in which we are living are conducive to an endeavour to approach a solution of the unemployment problem upon particular lines which have not been used so far.

What is the purpose in going to banks and asking for a loan of £10,000,000 for housing at 6 per cent.? What is the purpose of buying bank notes from the bank at 6 per cent.? What is the purpose of paying a rentier class in this country for the loan of money which we can create ourselves? Nobody but a hard-boiled conservative would justify a scheme by which the Government— the only authority within the country which can create credit—goes to an institution which lives on selling money and thrives on selling money, and asks them for a loan of the credit-creating facilities which, in fact, only the Government itself possesses. I would suggest to the Minister that he should endeavour to focus the attention of the Government on the possibility—it is by no means an insurmountable difficulty, as progressive New Zealand has shown—of creating money here for the purpose of financing housing. Then we could get rid of all the people in this country who manage to make a good living by selling money to local authorities and to the Central Government.

There should not be the slightest difficulty in the world in a local authority being able to get from the Government any reasonable sum of money for the purpose of erecting houses. The State can quite easily create the necessary credit and the money so raised can, in the course of time, be exterminated and the loan extinguished, by putting against the moneys so raised the rents received from the houses in question. Everybody, of course, in the Bank of Ireland would probably object to that as a scheme. It is not an easy thing to go to a butcher and ask him the best vegetarian course to follow. It seems to me a sensible arrangement whereby the State can utilise its credit creating capacity to raise money for the purpose of building houses and, in due course extinguish the loans by the rents received. So long as we create, with the money so raised, new capital works such as a house—a new capital asset which, in the course of time, will yield a return to the State, it seems to me that no damage is done to our financial structure. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that some attempt at a solution of our housing and other difficulties might be made along those lines.

It is rather amazing that even those people who are compelled to live in the city flats—flats which have been erected for the purpose, it is said, of housing; it seems more like a case of warehousing—are, while they are occupying those flats, compelled to pay rents which are twice as high as they ought to be, simply because the occupants have got to pay interest charges over 35 or 40 years. If the Minister would take the trouble to enquire, he would find out that the rents of those flats could be reduced by more than 50 per cent. if interest charges were not lumped on to the unfortunate slum dwellers who are "warehoused" in those flats.

If this Bill is offered to the House as something to make a serious contribution to the unemployment problem, I, for one, believe that it is necessary to start at the root of the problem. There is plenty of work to be done, and an abundance of labour, and it seems to me that there is only one thing preventing its being done and that is our political radicalism or complete financial conservatism in the matter of our approach to the money problem in this country. The Minister is quite right when he says he thinks the unemployment problem may get more serious. There are 60,000 on the unemployment register and there are large numbers drawing unemployment assistance benefit who do not find any advantage in being on the register because of the Unemployment Period Orders. When they go back to the unemployment exchange this month, a still more serious problem of unemployment will manifest itself in official statistics. That position will probably be further accentuated by the return of a substantial number of Irish people from Britain, and by a contraction of employment in this country, due to difficulties which perhaps to a large extent we have no control over.

I think that the Minister and the Government generally ought to attempt a solution of the problem of unemployment on lines other than those set out in this Bill. At most it is a machinery Bill. Its apparent purpose is to expedite the carrying out of work, and while presumably we will be told to make money available for work, we find on the other hand a complete contradiction of that policy by the Government itself in its Budget this year. Under the Budget, the Government have cut down the expenditure of money which formerly provided employment for a substantial number of people through the activities of the Land Commission, the Board of Works, the Department of Local Government and other Departments of State which were work-creating agencies. I would advise the Minister, in connection with this Bill, not to imagine, or attempt to give the impression, that it is likely to provide any serious solution of our unemployment problem.

That problem will remain as bad as ever, notwithstanding the number of Bills of this type that we pass. If we want to solve our unemployment problem then we have got to get away from methods which have yielded dismal and disappointing results up to the present. We can only get away from them by a determination to approach the solution of unemployment on the lines on which that problem has been effectively solved in countries which have approached the solution of it by grappling with the financial problem: by insisting that, when it comes to finance unemployment by the creation of large scale schemes of public works, the State will provide the necessary credits, and will not go for money to those whose business it is to sell money at the highest possible price.

Mr. A. Byrne

This Bill, to my mind will in no way solve the unemployment problem that we have here in the City of Dublin. It does not even touch the fringe of the problem. I do see in this Hill an attempt to shift responsibility for the solution of that problem from the shoulders of the Government to the shoulders of the local authorities, resulting in substantially increased demands being made in the near future on the ratepayers. The Minister, in his statement, did not make the slightest reference to the financing of this scheme. He did not give the House any idea of the type of employment that is to be given. Other speakers have said that the method to be employed is to give a man work four days a week in every six weeks, and then knock him off. That will not satisfy the large number of people who are unemployed in the city. I agree that road making will provide employment for the kind of individual who is physically fitted for heavy labour. But, in addition to that type of man, we have men who used to find employment in warehouses, storemen, clerks, and those who used to be engaged in small industries, who will not be eligible for road making. You have men of that type who are expecting work, and I am certain that 50 per cent. of them would not be eligible for road making. So far as road making schemes are concerned I should like to know from the Minister, will the same rules apply there that operate at the moment in regard to relief work. Deputies are familiar with those rules. Men who get employment on relief schemes must be drawing £1 a week from Government funds in the form of unemployment assistance. That means that the fund saves £1 a week. But think of the numbers of unfortunate men who are only eligible to draw 10/- a week. They are not called for a day's work at all. Think also of the 5,000 or 6,000 who are trying to live on home assistance. Are those people not to get a day's work either? I do not think it is fair that, because a man happens to be drawing home assistance, or some other form of relief provided by the ratepayers, he should be deprived of the opportunity of getting work. Apparently, it is only the man who has had the good fortune to have ten or 12 stamps to his credit, which enable him to draw unemployment benefit, who will be able to get work under this Bill.

I want to tell the Minister that this problem is getting very serious. I have had 20 or 30 men coming to my house day after day, looking for employment. During the past few weeks I have received a large number of letters from people on the same matter. I have had with me a number of men who were in certain of the affected areas in England. They crossed over to that country a year or two ago to seek employment. They got employment in some of the danger zones. One man told me that he was in an area that was bombed. He was told that he was going to be evacuated to another area. When he learned, however, that there was no work there he came home. What is going to be done for that Dublin worker? The man is physically fit, and he asked me to recommend him to the Roomkeepers' Society and to the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

I desire to avail of this opportunity to appeal to the general public to assist the St. Vincent de Paul Society and those other organisations that we have in the city which are doing such splendid work at the moment. I make that appeal because I am aware that their funds have been sadly depleted within the past few months. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to explain to the House the conditions under which employment will be given on the roads, the wages to be paid, what all this is going to cost the ratepayers, and to indicate what increase in the rates is likely to follow from this Bill.

Mr. Allen

I had not the opportunity of listening to the Minister's opening statement. I take it it is meant to provide increased employment for two years after the expiration of the Emergency Powers Act. At any rate, it will only operate for a limited period. I wonder does the Minister intend the Bill to apply to rural areas, or to urban areas principally. I think most people will agree that if there is a need for creating employment schemes in rural areas, the money could be better spent on the land than on roads. I agree, of course, that there is plenty of opportunity for spending more money on the roads. I take it that it is the local authority that will have to finance work carried out under this Act. At any rate, it looks like that. If the money is to be spent by the local authorities, then, of course, they will have to spend it according to law on public works—that is roads, or works of that kind. There is no provision in the Bill for providing the money. I listened to Deputy Norton speaking, and it seemed to me that he was going to produce the money for all the purposes set out very easily. I do not know where the money is to be got. I am not a financier. I see Deputy Hickey smiling. He is a bit of a financier, and I am sure he will tell us where the money is to be got.

Mr. Hickey

It is not so difficult if the Deputy wants to face up to it.

Mr. Allen

I notice that there is provision in the Bill for the compulsory acquisition of land. Deputy Corish has already pointed out that the Bill in that respect does not indicate any change in the old order. Most Deputies know that the acquisition of land is a slow and cumbersome procedure. It often takes local authorities a couple of years to acquire land for house building schemes.

Mr. Ruttledge

It need only take them six weeks under this Bill.

Mr. Allen

Under the law, when the Minister has made a compulsory order, they cannot go in on the land until it is paid for. Lawyers have advised local authorities to that effect and that has often held up local authorities for a long time.

Mr. Ruttledge

Under this Bill they can go in.

Mr. Allen

That may be provided in the Bill, but I cannot find it. I can see nothing whatever in the Bill to enable a local authority to occupy land until the money is either paid into court or paid to the vendor unless the vendor consents to their going in.

Mr. Ruttledge

That is provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Allen

I hope it is. Otherwise all our unemployed will be employed before you can give them any work under the present procedure for acquiring land. That procedure is very slow and cumbersome and it has prevented local authorities from building houses. As I said in the Dáil on the last occasion, hundreds more houses could have been built but for this procedure regarding the acquisition of land.

The Town Planning Act is mentioned in the Bill. I hope the Minister is not going to compel the county councils to put the Town Planning Act in operation in rural areas. Many local authorities are averse from putting the Town Planning Act into operation in rural areas. It suits urban areas fairly well but it does not suit rural areas at all, and they should not be compelled, under this Bill, to put the Act into operation. The local authorities who have studied the Town Planning Act, with their officials, believe it is a very cumbersome and unwieldy measure, and could not be put into operation in rural areas unless local authorities had some better advice than is available to them.

I should like if the Minister would tell us if money will be provided, from the Local Loans Fund or otherwise for any schemes local authorities may undertake under this Bill when it becomes an Act, or if he would say where the money is to come from. Must it be raised directly by taxation or will it be provided from the Local Loans Fund? I hope the Minister will further examine the Bill and see if it will be possible for local authorities to acquire and enter upon land in a speedier fashion than they can under existing Acts.

Mr. Benson

In the Minister's introductory remarks, he said that the report of the town planning consultants in Dublin had been published in the Press. I should like to correct that statement. There were some remarks published in the Press purporting to be the consultants' report, but that report has not yet been published, and I am not going to say whether the remarks published were intelligent anticipations or not. It is hoped that the report will be published within a month.

This Bill is consistent with Government policy in at least two respects. It carries on the existing policy of transferring liabilities from the central authority to the local authority, from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, thereby hoping, I suppose, to earn some kudos for the Government at the expense of the local authority. Furthermore, it takes, to my mind, one further step towards dictatorship because, under Section 3, if a local authority is told by a Department to do a job and does not do it, the local authority will be simply abolished without an inquiry or anything else. That power exists, I think, only in one other measure— the Air Raid Precautions Act. Why it should have been put into this Bill I do not know, and I do not think that the Minister explained the reason very clearly.

So far as I can discover, the Bill makes no provision for any contribution towards the expenses of the works which may be dictated by the Government. The only portion of the Bill which refers to maney is sub-section (4) of Section 4, which says that any expenses incurred by a council in the performance of duties transferred to it under the Bill in regard to roads "shall be raised and charged as if such road were situated in such county or other borough...." The local authority is, apparently, to provide all the money. The function of the Government is merely to tell them what to do. The local authorities will have to find all the money and will, evidently, get no help from the Government. That is even worse than the position in Dublin at present, where the Government grant towards relief work is as low as 33? per cent. Although the contribution from the Government is so small, they have taken to themselves the right to say that certain works shall not rank for the purpose of this grant. Now, they are going to dictate as to the entire work to be done and are, apparently, going to pay nothing at all.

The question of payment for betterment also arises. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in fact, the payment contemplated hy Section 14 has, as yet, been made to any local authority under the Town Planning Act. It seems to me that while, in theory, it is an excellent thing to make a person pay for some improvement which he has got, in practice it is extremely difficult to carry out. The fact that this provision is put in the Bill suggests that the Minister has some faith in it. Possibly, he has had experience of its operation under the Town and Regional Planning Act. I should be glad to hear of any such cases and whether any difficulty was experienced in securing agreement.

Section 15, which deals with the disposal of surplus land, is another section to which objection must be taken. The Minister may argue that it may be necessary for road diversions to take a whole tract of land whereas only half of it may be required. However, it does not seem right that a local authority should be given acquisition powers so drastic as are given in this Bill and, at a further stage, should be empowered to dispose of that surplus land—admittedly, with the Minister's consent.

The Minister seems to have had great difficulty in making up his mind whether a local authority is a singular or a plural body. Some of them are, admittedly, very singular but not in the sense I mean. Under Section 10, a local authority is a plural body. Under Section 11, it reverts to singularity and, under Section 15, it becomes plural again. Possibly, the Minister will be able to make up his mind before next stage which it is.

Mr. T. Murphy

If this measure is intended as a kind of peace-offering to the workless people whose unemployment assistance was taken away in the last few months or to the very large number of additional people who are even attending meetings of the boards of health to see if they can get any assistance in their distress, I am afraid it is a very poor peace offering, indeed. It is a miserable measure, following the same miserable form to which we have been accustomed here for a long time. It is surrounded by the same regulations and it will end in practically the same way as other wretched measures of the same kind which have gone before. Of course, it would be too much to expect that, even within its very limited provisions, we could escape the atmosphere which the Government built up in the last few years of favouring low wages and conditions of that kind. Consequently, this Bill comes shortly after the issue by the Minister of a circular to local authorities, ordering them to deprive their employees of whatever little increases they have given them in recent months, and so the atmosphere for this very generous measure to relieve unemployment in this country, God help us, is being prepared. The fact that that is recognised not alone in this quarter of the House but all around the House is proved by the very little enthusiasm, sympathy, or even interest, which the Bill has provoked amongst the Minister's colleagues in the Government Party.

I think that a Bill of this kind, coming at this time of great gravity and of very great distress in this country, is a sad commentary on the ability of the Government to realise the position in the country and bears on its face a complete confession of failure by that Government to do anything in connection with unemployment. This is a time of great gravity, but at the same time I think it is a time of unequalled opportunity, and that the Government have sat frightened and indecisive in regard to matters of the kind is typical of the policy they have carried on for a number of years. The historian of the future in this country will write of many things, but he probably will have few sadder chapters than the story of the complete failure of self-government over almost 20 years in regard to the idle people and the ordinary people who have had to endure what those 20 years have meant for them. This Government, like the Government in another part of the country, is getting tired. It is getting weary of these matters, and whether it is the ease of office or other things brought about that situation, it is clear that they have no remedy for this problem and that this measure is just an illusion to persuade the people that they still have some desire to tackle the matter.

Of course, the real story in connection with this measure is that the Government are prepared to do nothing, but that they are going to hand over to the local authorities the responsibility they so eagerly undertook in 1932, having completely failed or refused to do anything themselves of any consequence in the meantime. The local authorities will get the responsibility for doing this work and for providing in the areas over which they exercise control the money for doing it, and they are going to be sacked if they fail to do it. That is also an amplification of the Ministerial viewpoint in regard to local authorities. They are going to be made the stalking-horses for the failure of the Government to do anything in regard to unemployment. It is a deplorable state of affairs that at a time of very serious import for the people, there is no leadership, vision or energy in regard to this problem. Other countries have made strides in this respect and, whatever the present time means for the people, there is one thing certain—that the end of the war in the next few years will mean that there will have to be a stocktaking about this matter, if there is not going to be very serious retribution demanded of those who have been lazy and inefficient in dealing with it.

There is no leadership or vision in the country in regard to dealing with these matters, and the result is that we have measures of this kind put over on the Dáil for the purpose of preserving the few illusions that remain in a country that has been sadly disillusioned. Even down the country, we have had new technique displayed in some of the local authorities by friends of the Minister and others. The new policy is an endeavour to enforce economic conscription on the country. The people are being told that nobody should be employed on the roads except those who join the Local Security Corps, and people who are asked to join it, amongst the employees of local authorities, are getting, in return for their patriotism, the reduction in wages which the Minister's Order has recently conveyed.

It is only in a country of this kind and amongst our own people that that state of affairs would be tolerated for any long time; but I think that even though the Government have no serious realisation of the position, a short time will go to prove that the people, and especially the working people, who are the victims of the treatment which the last few years have meant for them, will not alone look on measures of this kind with cynical derision, but will look also with contempt, and perhaps with something worse, on the people who are responsible for meting out this treatment to them.

This measure is not worth any serious discussion. It is an attempt to palm off on local authorities the responsibility, financially and otherwise, that ought to rest on the Central Government. The central Government has failed to do anything with their responsibility, and, in the inefficiency of their old age, it is sought to make the local authorities responsible, or to sack them if they fail to do this work. There has never been any desire on the part of local authorities to avoid doing their fair share in the matter of providing for unemployment. They have been willing and eager to do this work as far as possible, but I suggest that this method of dealing with unemployment in a time of serious gravity in the country is certainly the confession of failure which is carried on the face of the Bill. I, for one, feel that this Bill is going to do nothing but prolong the agony of the people who had a right to expect that long before now some reasonable, sensible, decent effort would be made to improve their conditions. In that spirit, and because it is obvious on the face of the Bill what is intended by it, I consider that the Bill is not worth very serious discussion, because it offers no remedy, or even an attempted remedy, of the conditions which prevail in the country at present.

Mr. Brennan

This is apparently an emergency measure, as Section 2 points out, but it is really hard to find out what was in the Minister's mind in introducing it. It does appear to me, as it appears to Deputy Murphy, that it is a shelving of their own duty; that it is, in fact, shifting the baby from the shoulders of Deputy Flinn, who nourished it so badly and has now apparently abandoned it, to the shoulders of the local authorities; but, even doing that, I cannot find a reason for introducing this particular type of Bill, because it has many peculiarities. The Minister, in fact, is not taking power to deal with unemployment. What he is doing is taking power to deal with local authorities if they do not deal, with unemployment, and that is all he is doing. He is making a certain provision for the carrying out of certain works by local authorities.

On reflection, one would think that the only justification for the introduction of a measure of this kind would be that local authorities were to some extent prevented by some statutory limitations from doing certain useful things which they ought to have done, and which they would have done, if these statutory limitations did not exist.

If that is so, I must say that, while the Minister did give us some information about a few things around Dublin, he has not given any, information about any such useful schemes which had to be abandoned because of statutory limitations. Against that, if that were the only thing in the Minister's mind, there is surely no justification for bringing in, with that, a threat to the local authorities that if they do not do what he asks them to do he will abolish them. If the Minister had tried to impress us by holding out certain large schemes all over the country which were held up because of limitations, which he wanted to remove by this Bill, then we would say that there was necessity for the Bill. But he has not done that. What he has done is he has brought in certain powers for local authorities, to unite, or for one to assume the authority of another in a certain district, and carry out certain works.

There was quite a good deal of grumbling by local authorities for some years past with regard to the manner in which the Minister, or the Minister for Finance, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance made certain allocations to councils for the purpose of relieving unemployment. It was very hard to find out on what basis those allocations were made. Some counties had to pay a considerably higher rate than other counties. The grumbling was because the local authorities were mulcted and the rates were mulcted to make a contribution towards the relief of unemployment which they were never intended to make. Now, under this Bill, they can be compelled to do work without a Government contribution at all. That is a new idea. I think the Minister has certainly not made it clear to the House, as has been pointed out by the Labour Party, that the carrying out of the work is going to be dependent on any Government contribution whatever. Surely the local authorities are entitled to know about this before they hang a millstone of that type around their own necks. Some of us here represent the local authorities in our own counties, and we ought to be told what we are doing. If the county council, of which I happen to be a member, is compelled to do certain work, under pain of being abolished, without any contribution from the Minister, or with only a very, small contribution from the Minister, then I ought to know that. The Bill does not tell me that. It simply tells me that, if I do not do a certain thing, I am going to be abolished, and there is no reference to the terms under which I am to do it. I do not think that is fair.

The whole Bill appears to me to be a puzzle. I do not think it is any contribution towards the relief of unemployment, and I do not think it is meant to be that. I really am afraid it is nothing more than a shifting of the baby. I hope it is going to be useful. Every person in this country who has any interest in the country or in the people of the country is anxious about the present situation and about the future. We all fear that the repercussions of the war will bring further unemployment, and if the Minister thinks that this Bill is going to deal with it he is making, in my opinion, a huge mistake. It may do something, but, if it is going to do something, we should like to know on what terms it is going to be done, and the Bill does not tell us that.

I must say that I do not share the fears of Deputy Allen—I am sorry he has left the House—with regard to compulsion. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister has gone from one extreme to the other in this matter of the acquisition of land. I do know that the local authorities have been complaining for years and years, and rightly so, with regard to the roundabout methods of acquiring land for public purposes. There are appeals and appeals and, eventually, the machinery of compensation comes down to arbitration. That is a very prolonged method, and it is financially bad for the council. We have been trying to alter that for a long time, but I am afraid the Department seems to be tied up in red tape so far as that is concerned. Now, the local authorities are given the right of acquisition under this Bill, and I certainly think that is going altogether too far. There is no right of appeal to any court, and, as Deputy Benson has pointed out, I think it is manifestly unfair that local authorities should have the right, under any circumstances, to acquire land by making an order, or, after acquiring that land and possibly finding that it is no use to them, that they should have the right to sell it. I think there ought to be some safeguard there. I also think that the matter of serving notice with regard to an order is not complete either, and that there ought to be some further sub-sections introduced there. However, that is a matter for the Committee Stage.

I should like to see the Minister bringing in some measure which would be of real benefit to this country. As a matter of fact, when I first saw this Bill I thought it was a Bill which had been promised by the Minister for Agriculture. Some time ago, before the House adjourned, he told us he was going to introduce some kind of Bill which would give the right of employment of unemployed persons on the land for production purposes. I must say I was very disappointed when I read this Bill. To my mind, it does not make any contribution whatever towards the relief of unemployment, and it does carry with it all the dangers which have been pointed out by the Labour Party. We have the right to assume, from our past experience of the Local Government Department, that it will do exactly what it has done during the past couple of months, that is, insist on the local authorities reducing the wages of the labourers before they carry out the work. It is really a pity that the Government should shift the baby on to our shoulders, and if that is the kind of thing the Minister leaves himself open to—as far as the Minister is concerned it may be at the back of the whole thing—then I think the Bill is not worth bringing in. In so far as it removes statutory limitations on the carrying out of work, everybody in the House welcomes it, but, in so far as it purports to represent any kind of attempt to deal with unemployment, I really think it is useless.

Mr. Hickey

I was rather interested when I heard from the Minister that local bodies will have to do what they are told. He also stated that when you arrived at the united districts you decided on certain work to be done, and if they did not do it the body or corporation could be dissolved. We have been for quite a long time trying to carry out useful works under the relief grants, but each time we have been prevented from doing so. At one time we went to considerable expense in getting a sewerage scheme. As everybody knows, we pay 1/8 in the £ on the rates as a contribution to unemployment funds. We felt that the best way we could attack that sewerage scheme would be to do it in sections. That work has a very high labour content, but each time it was turned down.

We have also need for a new reservoir, and, as the Minister knows, that work too has a high labour content. Again, we have asked the Minister's permission to put the unemployed to work under the relief grants, and again we have been refused. There is also the fact that we felt that if the relief grants were expended in developing housing sites, the cost of the houses would be considerably reduced, and that the rents would also be reduced. Again, we have been refused sanction for the spending of any of those grants on the development of housing sites. I am at a loss to understand the consistency or inconsistency of the whole thing. I do not think anybody can claim that this Bill is going to make any contribution towards the solving of the unemployment problem.

I do not want to waste the time of the House in repeating what Deputy Murphy and Deputy Corish have said, but there is one point on which I would appeal to the Minister: under those relief works let us hope he will consider the question of giving a man at least a week's employment. We had it to-day from the Parliamentary Secretary that the thing cannot be done. It is a great injustice that a man who is employed for three or four days a week has to contribute to the unemployment fund and to the National Health Insurance Fund as well as the man who is consistently employed for the 52 weeks of the year. I think that is one matter to which the Minister should give consideration. There is another question about which I was disappointed; I was hoping to hear how moneys were to be found under those schemes for putting the unemployed to work. No matter what Deputy Allen may think about where the money is to be found, I am satisfied that the one major matter confronting the Minister—or any other Minister, no matter who he may be— is that until such time as you take charge of the money and credit it to the country you will never be able to deal effectively with the unemployment problem. I hope the Minister will be bold enough to tackle that problem immediately.

Mr. Dillon

A subject that I think requires review in connection with this Bill has been touched on, in what appeared to me sinister terms, by Deputy Hickey of Cork. I think it is vital, in contemplating a Bill of this kind, that we should momentarily halt and consider the finances of this country. Up to now we have never attempted to maintain a military establishment in this country or a defence programme comparable with any other State in Europe. During the last six months we have put our hands to that task and to date we have had very gratifying results of the common appeal of all public men in this country to the people to take their places in the public service. A quite unexpected number of voluntary soldiers and workers in the defences of this State have responded to that call. Let us not be blinded by the glamour of that, considerable achievement because, after that effort has been made, it behoves us in the Legislature to find ways and means of financing it. When we come to examine that, we have got to ask ourselves whether we can carry on the kind of works we used to think indispensable at the same time as we find funds to pay for this new service of national defence which we never attempted before upon the scale which we are attempting now.

This Bill gives the Minister power to direct local authorities to carry out certain works and there is no use in blinding ourselves to the fact that taxes and rates are the same thing. Rates are merely taxes under another name. Rates and taxes may sometimes appear as loans, but loans ultimately turn out as taxes in the long run because they have got to be repaid and their service has to be maintained. What I am asking for to-day is the avoidance of panic. Let us not swing frantically in the direction of irresponsible retrenchment at a time when retrenchment might be fatal to more important things than financial solvency for the time being. Let us not, on the other hand, swing widely away from all thought of paying our way and make up our minds that we shall spend all we can put our hands on now and let to-morrow take care of itself. What I am asking this House now to do is to study Scylla and Charybdis and determine what is the best course between the two.

I want to be quite frank. I knew something about finance along classical lines. I knew something of the theory of finance as it operated during the last war and in the period that elapsed since the end of the last war, but when I ask myself the question now: what form will the financial problems of the world take after this war? I do not think it is anything disgraceful to admit that my mind is largely a blank.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon began by stating he would base his speech on a point barely touched on by Deputy Hickey. This is a measure of limited scope. As said by the Leader of the Opposition, it is mainly a machinery Bill. It does not deal with finance. The Deputy's speech seems to be quite out of order.

Mr. Dillon

May I make a submission before you make a final ruling on this matter, Sir? As you are aware, the House meets comparatively infrequently owing to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. This Bill, while it is a machinery measure, clearly anticipates the institution of public works, money for the financing of which must be found. I readily admit that if the House were meeting regularly and if opportunity were given at frequent intervals to discuss the kind of topics that normally arise, the trend of my observations might be deemed to be irrelevant. But, in view of the limited scope of our discussions, I suggest that it would be imprudent to dispose of a Bill of this kind without some animadversion to the financial implications of it, because they are vital. I do not wish to trespass on the indulgence of the Chair, but I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to permit of some recollection on the part of the House of the financial implications of the measure we have before us.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's contention might be tenable on a measure introduced by the Minister for Finance, dealing with financial matters. It is true that the House does not meet very frequently. There are, however, very few measures which do not involve expenditure. The Deputy's speech would be equally relevant or irrelevant on almost any Bill. The Chair cannot permit the Deputy to pursue that line any further. It is obvious that you cannot at this stage initiate a discussion on the present financial position and the probable financial aftermath of war. The Deputy must desist from discussing finance.

Mr. Dillon

It is contemplated in this measure that local authorities will be directed by the Government to undertake certain works for the relief of unemployment. We must ask ourselves, if this be the purpose of the Bill, what sort of enterprises has the Minister in mind. If we are going to spend money now, we have got to ask ourselves whether we can make a substantial investment now or whether we are going to find ourselves, in regard to each scheme proposed, straitened and restricted by financial limitations. I think that, in our present circumstances, to be dribbling money out through a hundred holes in ineffective relief grants is about the worst possible thing we could do. If we are going deliberately to spend money for the purposs directly of relieving unemployment, and if we feel that the financial circumstances permit of our doing that now, then, in my submission, instead of approving a thousand microscopic schemes to be administered by a wide variety of local authorities, we should think rather of some substantial national schemes which might be put into operation through the instrumentality of the local authorities but which would leave us with a substantial national asset no matter what financial situation might develop after the war.

I would much rather see the ratepayers of County Cork, who are unemployed, brought into Cork City and put building a reservoir, or some water system far in excess of any probable Cork requirements, than to see those same men employed on a thousand little schemes throughout the County Cork, the permanent value of which would be nil in 20 or 30 years' time. If we are going to do this we have got to do it on a bold and comprehensive stand and, far from concentrating on the desire to devise schemes of such small size that county surveyors can attend to them in their spare time, we should fix our minds on big schemes, analogous to the Shannon scheme, which would leave Irelaud with some property, after this crisis has passed away, which no financial catastrophe, no matter what it is, can affect, in so far as its permanent value is concarned.

What group of schemes can the Minister have in mind that would have a comparative value, for the relief of unemployment, with a bold scheme to establish a system of arterial roads in this country adequate to carry all the traffic that passes in the country at the present time, even if it became impossible, owing to a scarcity of oil or coal, to carry on the railways? Suppose the Transport Tribunal recommended to this House that railways had become as much out of date as the coaches of long ago, and that we must face the fact that in the next 20 or 30 years railways would no longer be economically run, and that we should, therefore, build throughout Ireland a system of roads sufficient to carry the maximum traffic that reasonable men could foresee at a time of the highest development to which this country could aspire. How better could we employ the men of Ireland than in starting that work now?

It is a scheme for which we have the raw materials in this country. I understand the raw materials of the cement industry are here. We can expand the cement industry, to which we are now committed, to a point at which we would be able to provide all the raw materials for the purpose; we could move the unemployed men to the scenes of that labour, and we would have before us a task which would employ some of the most difficult types of unemployed persons for as far ahead as any reasonable man can look. The unskilled labourer constitutes the hard kernel of every national unemployment problem in the world. There is work for every unskilled labourer in Ireland for the next decade, and it does not matter what financial catastrophe may sweep across the world, those roads will stand both for the strategic defence of this country and for its economic defence as the autobahnen of the German Reich at the present time.

There is very little in the way of example that I care to take from the administration of the Nazi Government; there is very little of the system of dictatorial destruction of individual liberty that I would care to recommend to a democratic assembly; but let us not be repelled by the tyrannical system of Germany and Russia from extracting anything that is of value. Let us recognise that work as something that might profitably be done, and let us extract from that mass of error that one desirable element, the capacity to plan courageously, and to use those plans, not only for the relief of a passing problem, but for the creation within our State of assets that no one thereafter can take away from us.

I am saying all this—and I do not now want to continue to name the series of other schemes of kindred natures that might be similarly recommended; there are many—on the assumption that we may properly expend large sums of money now to meet the social problems that confront us. In my introductory remarks, I desired to make it clear that I am not at all sure that we can do that. I think, upon another day, this House must turn its mind to that general problem. I do not want to leave the House under the impression that my mind is made up in regard to the financial implications of our present situation. I am glad to admit, and not ashamed to admit, that I am quite confused in regard to the economic future of this and every other country in the world. But, whether we like it or not, so far as the financial implications of this crisis affect Ireland, we are the responsible people.

It is a common practice amongst men, when they are face to face with an exceptionally difficult problem, to think back to the days of their youth, when they were free to say, "Oh, I suppose they will find some way out." They are slow to recognise in middle age that "we" have become "they". The people of this country are now saying, "Oh, I suppose they will find some way out", and when they say "they" they mean us. Do I do my colleagues on all sides in this House an injustice when I say that, if the people are trusting us at present to find a way out of the financial difficulties that lie ahead, they are depending on a very broken reed, because not 1 per cent. of us has any intelligent foresight of what the problems are going to be, much less what they are, and still less of the best way of overcoming them?

If the people trust us, such as we are, to apply our minds, such as they are, to these problems with a view to doing our best to meet them when they arise, are we not failing if we cheerfully pass legislation of this kind without considering carefully the other difficulties that legislation of this kind may give rise to, difficulties which it is hard to understand but which, it is nevertheless true, will weigh most heavily on the poorest sections of our community? I ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in addition to giving us his views on the comparative advantages of broad national schemes analogous to the Shannon scheme, or the substitute transport system which I have adumbrated, to give us an assurance also that at an early date the Government will afford this House an opportunity of hearing the Government's views on the financial prospects.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister might find himself pulled up by the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

I should like him at least to express a word of sympathy with me in my desire to see the financial future of this country discussed at an early date, not only for the information of members of this House but for the information of the Government as well, so that together we may all envisage, as best we may, what the future is and, to the best of our ability, devise plans to meet it. I think when we come to discuss those questions, instead of the discussion being reduced to a dry-as-dust economic argument, we may discover that the very essence of individual liberty will be at stake and that its survival in this country will depend upon the capacity of those who are in this Legislature now to meet the difficulties that lie ahead without bankrupting the country while at the same time doing our duty in maintaining social services and carrying the burden which independence has laid upon us.

Mr. Everett

I was somewhat disappointed by the speech of Deputy Dillon. I expected that he was going to speak in connection with this Bill and that he would give his views upon it instead of giving us a lecture on what may happen in the years to come. In this Bill we are called upon to deal with an attack on public administration. The Leader of the Opposition to-day complimented the Minister on the statement he made, but my criticism is directed against what he did not say, what he has kept back deliberately in regard to the manner in which he intends to carry out these schemes. What is the position? We heard some time ago that the operation of the County Managers Act had been postponed for the sake of this so-called unity. The Minister failed to implement, as he would wish, that attack on democratic control in the Twenty-Six Counties. We now find that he has introduced a Bill, one clause of which is aimed at abolishing public bodies so that the Minister's nominees and yes-men can do their work, and so that there will be no public representatives to criticise the Minister for his failure to carry out work which he should do.

The Minister has pointed out that under Section 3 of this Bill public bodies shall be dissolved if they fail to comply with certain conditions connected with schemes for the relief of unemployment. I was expecting that the Minister would give us some statement or some figures showing the number of public bodies, if any, in the country which have refused to carry out any schemes for the relief of unemployment. Is it not a fact that the pigeon holes of the offices of the Minister's Department are packed with schemes, coming from even the smallest public bodies in the Twenty-Six Counties, and appealing to the Minister to put them into operation to relieve unemployment? What has bsen his reply: "The Finance Department have refused to sanction these schemes because they will allow only a certain amount of money to go from the Unemployment Vote to areas where there is a certain number, ovr 20 or 30 unemployed." Why is this section now put in the Bill? We have got no information from the Minister as to why it should be considered necessary to take over the duties of local bodies and transfer them to the central Government.

Ministers in their election promises said that this would be a poor man's Government that they were going to solve unemployment and that they were taking full responsibility for the unemployed. We believe it is the duty of the Government to assume full responsibility for the unemployed, but now the Government say: "No", that it is the local authorities that must accept that responsibility, and that should any local authority refuse to accept the responsibility, it will be dissolved and its functions transferred to the county manager. The Minister does not give any explanation as to why he thinks the local body will refuse to carry out these duties. It may be that the Minister is determined to insist that the local body must raise a full 100 per cent. of the amount necessary to relieve unemployment. The Minister does not state in any portion of the Bill what contribution, if any, is going to be made by the central Government. In a letter sent to a public body, not in my constituency, the Minister gave the excuse for refusing to sanction the increase of 3/- per week to road workers in that area, that the unfortunate ratepayers were faced with the problem of higher rates and that he could not see his way to sanction an increase of 3/- per week as it would inflict such a hardship on these ratepayers. I think that was in County Kildare. Now, however, he wants, not alone County Kildare, but other counties to undertake the greater hardship of bearing the whole cost of maintaining the unemployed. In practice, they are doing that at the present time because owing to the fact that unemployment assistance was abolished in the rural areas, the local bodies had to give home assistance to able-bodied unemployed men and their families in the rural areas for the past three or four months. If these bodies refuse to carry out the Minister's orders under this Bill, the threat of abolition is held over them. People are being humbugged with all this talk about county commissioners and regional commissioners, and it is hoped that they will he prevented from indulging in criticism as a result of the so-called unity we have amongst three or four Parties, if not amongst all Parties. There is independence at least amongst some individuals. These individuals can criticise, and will criticise, defects in the administration in spite of all this talk of unity. It is a well-known fact that all the schemes put forward by the Department for the past six or seven years have resulted in increasing the rates.

Reference has been made by some Deputies to the fact that power is given in this Bill to acquire land for certain purposes, but this Bill does not give power to acquire land unless the Minister states that the land is required in connection with schemes for the relief of unemployment. The Bill does not give local authorities any more power than they have at the present time. If they want to acquire, say, ten yards of a bit of land to remove a dangerous corner or to repair a bridge, it will take two years to acquire even ten feet of ground. County engineers at present have the power to remove hedges and ditches, but they have not the power to go in and take a few feet of land without agreement. Here is a Bill with the title of Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill, with compulsory powers here and there in it. But if a, public body wish to acquire a few feet of land there is still the same cumbersome procedure to be gone through. It will take two years to acquire ten or 12 feet of land to remove a dangerous corner if there is no agreement. There is no power in the Bill to enable them to do that.

Deputy Dillon spoke about a national scheme. We are all in favour of the Government adopting a national scheme for the relief of unemployment. I do not want to go into other matters, as there will be another occasion for raising them. I do not want to refer to the people who were found out some years ago. They were never sincere, and they never meant what they said. We were all disillusioned. The position we are faced with at present is that the Government are determined to take advantage of any criticism of public administration. Under this Bill they will have an excuse for the introduction of commissioners by getting the unemployed to put the blame on the local bodies. I ask the Minister to mention any particular public body, large or small, in the Twenty-Six Counties, which has refused to carry out any relief scheme up to the present. The Minister must have something at the back of his mind when he inserted Section 3 of this Bill. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, under a previous Act passed here, public bodies could only be abolished as a result of mismanagement, and then after a public inquiry. Now they are not to be given the right to have any inquiry or to defend themselves. The order will come down and the public bodies will be dissolved. I am not saying that a number of public bodies will cry out about that. I assure the Minister that when this is put into operation he will find it will not work. He will find that he is going to get much more trouble than the British Government got in their day from certain areas—I do not say every area, but some areas will give a lead.

It is my intention to oppose this Bill and I hope other Deputies will adopt a similar attitude. I do not believe that it is going to serve the purpose indicated by the title. In the absence of any statement from the Minister that public bodies have refused to co-operate with him, I will oppose this Bill. Other Deputies may do as they wish, but I am satisfied that the Bill is only a pious gesture like the parish committees. The unemployed will think that the public bodies have the power to give employment to all of them. That is the position with regard to the parish committees at present; they believe that they have power when they have no power. As a result of this Bill the unemployed in the different areas will believe that the public bodies will have money available to give every one of them a week's employment. The Minister has been silent in regard to the statement that Deputy Corish made. Apart from the defects I have pointed out, will there not be the other matter of the three days per week and the 4/6 per day for the workers? Then if the county councils and other public bodies refuse to employ men on relief schemes at a lesser wage than they pay themselves that will be another excuse for the introduction of commissioners. I am certain that if the Bill is put into operation there will be plenty of commissioners and a bigger unemployment problem to solve than we are faced with at present.

Mr. Hughes

We all recognise the urgent necessity for providing a means of living, through some source of employment, for the large number of necessitous people that exist in this country at the present time. The Minister proposes to take power under this Bill to enable him to make use of local authorities to provide that source of employment. The unemployment problem is certainly a great source of danger to the security and stability of the State and it ought to engage the very earnest attention of the Government and public representatives generally. But, with the method adopted by the Government for the solution of this problem I have fundamentally differed. That same method is still being employed in this Bill, and that is, first of all, the method of trying to provide work themselves and providing work of a character that is not of great public utility and not of a character that is productive. For that reason the huge sums of money which have been spent in the past and are being spent even at present are a tremendous drain on the resources of the country and a tremendous drain on agriculture and industry in general.

The solution that we and the Government should aim at is some sort of national work that will be productive and will produce wealth for the country. Then, no matter how great the sum that is expended on the work, at least we need not anticipate financial danger or bankruptcy resulting from it. That is why I have been critical and am critical of the methods adopted by the Government to tackle this big problem. I admit that when I read the title of the Bill at first I thought it was the Bill we had been anticipating for some time, which we had been promised, and, as a matter of fact, voted a sum of money for here, namely, a land improvement Bill. I think it is on that type of work that much more money should be spent, because you have a considerable acreage of land in this country that is practically barren, and that is not a real asset at all. It would not be so very difficult to convert that land into a national asset.

It is on that type of work large scale expenditure should be incurred at the present time. It is absolutely unfair for the Minister to throw the responsibility of providing work on local authorities, without first examining the financial capacity of these authorities to shoulder such a burden. As far as I am aware most local authorities are carrying on with huge overdrafts, and find it very difficult to make ends meet. For a number of years the tendency has been for the rates to show a definite upward trend all the time. That burden is thrown back really on our principal industry, agriculture, and has prevented increased production. In this Bill the Minister proposes to throw back on that particular section of the community the increased burden of providing for unemployment schemes.

This is only a palliative measure, being purely temporary, and the work to be done, in my opinion, is not of sufficient national utility. Examining the position of local authorities in recent years, it will be found that the rates have gone up by something like £3,000,000, apart from the capital commitments incurred. Now a further financial responsibility is to be thrown on these authorities, the Government simply saying: "You have got to do this work or you will be squelched." These bodies will have no opportunity of defending themselves. The Minister is simply taking up the position of a dictator and can say: "You are dissolved; get out, and someone else will do the job."

No matter how local authorities feel it to be their responsibility to protect the small hard-working farmers who, they believe, are laden down with the burden of the rates, that consideration will not stop the Minister. It is not proposed to give them an opportunity of explaining why they refuse to carry out the proposed schemes. Speaking as an agriculturist, I view with alarm the ever-increasing burden of local taxation that is being put on the back of agriculture. This Bill proposes to put a further burden on agriculturists, while professional men and people in commercial life earning good salaries, living in houses with small valuations, are to make little or no contribution, relatively speaking, out of their incomes for such purposes. It is small farmers who are to make the real contribution. Are we to throw further burdens on that section and let others go scot free?

For that reason I deprecate this attempt to deal with unemployment. I do not want to make little of the problem. We all realise that it has existed for many years, and that it has defied the efforts of the Government to reduce the number of unemployed, notwithstanding the fact that huge sums of money have been voted for their relief. Fundamentally, the problem has not been attacked in the proper way by the Government. All along it has simply provided palliatives that were not a national asset, and that did not leave anything of value after them. The position regarding national housekeeping is similar to housekeeping by individuals. The individual cannot afford to spend a huge amount of money on work that is not of a productive nature. If a farmer continued to spend most of his money adorning his house and clipping his hedges he would not long remain a farmer. He must concentrate his energies on work that will produce further wealth. Similarly, the nation should concern itself with work that is going to be productive of wealth. I think there is such work to be done. If we can find such work we need not concern ourselves, to the same extent, about the financial commitments.

The Minister told us that he proposed to make some new coastal roads. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that we are overburdened with main roads, while others could do with quite a lot of improvement. About 40 per cent. of the cost of maintaining the main roads is met from the Road Fund. The cost of our county roads has to be met exclusively by the local authorities, although they have five times the mileage of the main roads, there being 46,000 miles of county roads as against 9,000 miles of main roads. The county roads load to centres of production, to small farms in backward parts of the country, which cannot be reached by modern means of transport. If we are going to spend money on roads we should spend it where it will be an asset to such centres, so that small farms that are producing wealth will have greater access to the main thoroughfares. It is on work of that type we should concentrate rather than on providing coastal roads.

I admit that from the tourist point of view coastal roads are important and might be an asset but, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, there is an appalling uncertainty about the whole world position, and we do not know whether we will have any tourists. We should concentrate on work in connection with big schemes that will be of national utility and that will be of some real value to posterity. As far as I understand, what is envisaged by the Minister is not work of that character. I am doubtful if there is any indication in the Bill of a real effort on the part ot the Minister or the Government to tackle the unemployment problem in its present magnitude. It is going to put a financial burden on certain sections of the people to find the necessary finances to tackle a million and one small schemes all over the country which, when they have been done and finished with, will not be a real national asset. Above all, the work ought to be of national utility and have some real value when it is done.

Mr. Esmonde

In my opinion, this Bill is an expression of despair on the part of the Government—a public declaration of political insolvency, in that there is no desire or ability to solve the unemployment problem. With the experience of years of government that have lain behind them, and with the existence of this unemployment problem—which now appears to have come to stay—one would have thought that the Government would have realised that the only possible solution would lie in some gigantic centralised national effort. So far from realising that, however, they have sought in this Bill to delegate to local authorities, to groups of individuals here and there, the problem that they, under solemn covenant with the people who returned them to power, agreed to solve themselves as a Government at the head of a political party. There is no disguise whatsoever in the method in which it is sought to bring about this state of affairs. This Bill is a Bill for one purpose only—to bring about a certain method of doing certain things. It frames the rules under which—with one sweep of the hand— the Government can get rid of their responsibility and delegate and impose and impress that responsibility upon a number of local authorities.

Everyone, not only in this country but in other countries, realises the importance at the present day of the unemployment problem. It is one that is capable of solution. It is the duty of the Government to solve it, a duty which they accepted, a duty which they said they could solve; yet now, in the year 1940, this problem is going to be thrown from the hands of the Government into the hands of the local authorities. The present problem that confronts this State and a number of other States is the problem of defence, but trotting hard on its heels and equally important for this nation is the problem of unemployment. Would any Deputy in this House or any responsible citizen suggest that the problem of defence should be delegated to a number of local authorities? I submit that the unemployment question is almost as important as that of defence. As I have said, this Bill is introduced to act as a conduit pipe or a corridor down which the Government can get rid of their responsibilities. It is one which has been hastily drafted and to which, I submit, true attention was not directed before it was introduced. It is natural that the Government, when it socks to rid itself of its responsibility in this matter, would find itself up against great difficulties, and I sympathise with the Minister in the difficulties that he had in drafting a Bill at all—a Bill which is a negation of all democratic reasoning.

In this Bill power is not given to the local authority to do anything, but the local authority is ordered—under threat of dire punishment and dismissal—to do a job which the Government here now publicly proclaim they are incompetent to do, to take part in solving a problem for which they, as a Government, now admit they have no solution. It is not left to the good will or good sense of those local authorities, but it is a command coming down from the top that they should do such and such a thing under threat of destruction. This Bill places the Minister— and through the Minister, of course, his subordinates—in a position to move local authorities round the country like pawns on a chess board. It imposes the duty on one local authority to pay for something that another authority has done and, in assessing the amount of the compensation that that other authority has to pay—I think it is described as the benefiting authority—that particular authority has nothing whatever to say in the fixing of the compensation.

This Bill affects the rights of individuals. It affects the rights of all local authorities, it affects the rights of property holders and of the workers. It involves the question of compensation and the question of the rights of one local authority against another. It is practically the only Bill that any Government has had the face to introduce into this Dáil which does not give that local authority or the individual concerned some right of appeal to some tribunal other than the Minister himself or his underlings in the office. Courts are not mentioned from the beginning to the end; there is no appeal of any kind to any authority but that of the Minister and, if the Minister's commands are not complied with, the local authority is abolished.

As I said, I sympathise with the Minister. He had a difficult job when the Government decided to delegate the solution of these problems to other bodies. He is the Minister for Local Government, and had to find ways and means of doing this, and he has done it by producing this Bill here. No doubt, there will be a considerable amount of comment when it reaches the Committee Stage. I do not wish to go through each section, but a good deal could be said on practically every section. Legislation of this kind never intended that, by a short Bill of this character, the duties—not duties imposed, but duties self-imposed—of a Government could be got rid of so lightly as it is sought to get rid of them in this particular measure.

There never was a time in the history of this State when, if the unemployment problem were grappled with, the Government would receive such wholehearted assistance from every section of the community. With the spirit of unity amongst us, with the desire to help the Government on every occasion, with the desire to help our neighbours, and with the desire that we should all work together for the common good, the atmosphere never was so bright as it is now for the introduction of some national State measure, sponsored and financed by the State, to solve a problem that, under solemn covenant with the electors, the Government undertook to solve.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

I am interested in this Bill, and would like the Minister to elucidate a few of the sections in his reply. Section 3 says:

(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that, for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area, it is expedient that a particular work of public utility which a particular local authority has power by law (including this Act) to execute, should be undertaken and executed by that local authority, the Minister may, by order made after consultation with such local authority, require such local authority to undertake and execute the said work, and thereupon it shall be the duty of such local authority to undertake, execute, and complete the said work with all reasonable speed.

I should like to know what method the Minister will employ to ascertain the works that should be carried out by local authorities in the various areas. Is it the Minister's intention to get thai information through the Department of Industry and Commerce and the labour exchanges set up under that Department? How will he find out that local authorities are not friendly to the Bill?

I listened to some of the speeches delivered on the Bill by members of the Labour and Fine Gael Parties. As one who has been a member of a local authority for a big number of years, the Bill, in my opinion, meets a general demand that has been made for quite a long time by the representatives of all Parties. We are all familiar with the demand made to the local authorities: "We want work, and we do not want the dole." This Bill represents an effort to provide work, and not the dole, through local authorities. The Labour Party should be the last to raise an objection to it. The Bill is entitled an Act "to make provision for the execution by local authorities of works of public utility for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons". That, in itself, should satisfy the Labour Party. If the Bill cannot do any good, at least it cannot be contended, I think, that it will do any harm. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what method he proposes to employ in regard to putting Section 3 into force.

Local authorities find, for example, great difficulty in the acquisition of land. Works carried out with moneys provided out of the Improvement Fund are, as we know, financed by the Government. The labour employed on them is recruited through the labour exchanges. I would suggest to the Minister that he should apply the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 7 to all works carried out by local authorities under the direction of the county surveyors. These works are generally financed out of the Road Improvement Fund. They are undertaken with the object not altogether of giving employment but with the idea of improving the roads. There is a good deal of employment given on them and the labour engaged is, as I have said, recruited through the labour exchanges.

I should like to see some amendment inserted in this Bill which would ensure that the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 7 would apply to such works, and that the certificate of the county surveyor would be conclusive on that. If that were done it would help to expedite the acquisition of land. At the moment considerable difficulty is experienced in acquiring land for the purpose of removing dangerous corners on our main roads and improving them. That happened in the case of the main road to Bray. Landowners there caused considerable delay to the county council in acquiring land to improve that road. The same thing happened in the Skerries area. In some cases it has taken years to acquire land for carrying out those road improvement works. I think this Bill should go a long way to satisfy complaints that have been made over a number of years by all sections of the community. I should like the Minister to tell the House what procedure is to be followed in order to bring to the notice of the officials of the Department of Local Government that certain works are of a public utility character and should be undertaken with a view to relieving unemployment, especially in the various areas where perhaps unemployment has been on the increase. Generally speaking, I think it has not been on the increase although I suppose if I were in opposition I would find that the people were starving, that everyone was in a terrible state, and that unemployment was rampant. That used to be the position when I was in opposition myself—that unemployment was rampant.

Mr. Pattison

But the Deputy had a cure for it at that time.

Mr. Fogarty

Still we find people who have the audacity to tell us that our neutrality is going to make things worse so far as unemployment is concerned, and that we will not be able to deal with it. But in Northern Ireland we find that to-day they have 8,000 more unemployed than they had on the day war was declared. To my mind, what is wrong is that we do not appreciate what our Government are doing. Yet, when the Government do something that will help to relieve unemployment, when they bring forward a Bill of this kind, Deputies stand up and find fault with it. I suggest to the Minister that those who will be entrusted with the administration of this Bill should give consideration not only to the main and trunk roads, but to the county roads as well. In County Dublin, and I am sure the same thing applies in other counties, the members of the county council are for ever receiving complaints about the condition of certain county roads leading to farms of land that have been divided by the Land Commission. I know that some of these roads are in a terrible state.

Sufficient money is not forthcoming. They are neglected in order to put up certain schemes to qualify for the 40 per cent. grant from the Central Fund for main and trunk roads. I think that the Minister should include in his certificate as public utility works under this Bill those local and county roads to which I have referred. Finally, I ask those people who are entrusted with the administration of the Bill to give special attention to the local roads.

Mr. McGovern

I dislike this Bill very much. I agree with those people who say that it is not going to solve the unemployment problem. We are all anxious to see some solution of this problem. Seeing that the Government had an opportunity such as no other Government had since the State was established to do something really effective and to find some scheme on which all parties would be prepared to co-operate, it is regrettable that they can produce nothing better than this Bill. This Bill is a contemptible failure before it is tried. That is as plain as daylight to everybody. I do not rate the Minister's intelligence so low as to suggest that he thinks this Bill is going to solve any problem. It is part and parcel of the general scheme of centralisation. This Bill, the County Managers Bill and the Local Authorities Bill are all of a piece. Each is complementary to the other. The Minister had a golden opportunity of dealing with this problem, and it is a cause of dissatisfaction to everybody that he has not availed of the opportunity. On whom does the Minister propose to force this extra burden? I do not want to come in here and make lamentation about the condition of the people whom the Minister proposes to burden in my own county, but I can refer to an item which appeared in the public Press a couple of days ago about a matter which is known to everybody in the House and in the country. It referred to the percentage of rates paid in County Galway—8 per cent., I think it was—and it was explained that the people had to hold up payment of the rates until they would make money in the fair which was then approaching. The great fair of Ballinasloe has come and gone since. Perhaps the Minister read the report of the fair. Not much money was made by the peoople who went to that fair. Are these people rogues, or are they unable to meet their liabilities? If they are now bankrupt; are they the people on whom responsibility for relieving unemployment should be thrown? That is a Government responsibility. The Government freely took the responsibility upon itself. Now Ministers propose to throw that responsibility on the ratepayers whom they have already bankrupt. The unfortunate farmers who have been suffering for nine or ten years are the people who must principally carry this burden, according to the Minister. He knows that the scheme will not work, and that it is merely carrying the centralisation plan into operation.

I am sorry that the Minister missed his opportunities. Some speakers have said that the duty of carrying this Bill through was imposed upon the Minister by the Government. I do not think that the Minister deserves the sympathy of members of the House. He might not have taken on the responsibility, as he knows that the scheme cannot succeed. It would not be just to impose any further burden upon the ratepayers until there is an equitable incidence of local taxation. Neither the Minister nor any member of his Party would get up and say that there is equitable incidence of local taxation. Nobody in this House ever pretended that that was so. There are a hundred ways of explaining the position away, but we all know that the present system is not fair and that any increased burden is an increase of the injustice imposed upon a section of the people—the very section who are the backbone of this State and without whom the State could not exist. It is a very serious position. We know the past, but we do not know the future. We do not know what is going to happen when this war is over. We see the prices of everything the people on the land have to buy going up—and going up at an alarming rate—and the prices of what they have to sell insufficient to cover the cost of production. What may we expect at the end of a war like the present war which is likely to bankrupt half the world? I am afraid that the position will be very serious. I agree with those speakers who say that something should be done to relieve unemployment and put unemployed people into some form of production. I would support a big scheme which would do something in that direction, but I will not support a pettifogging, haggling, intimidatory scheme like this in favour of which nothing can be said and against which everything can be said.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Fogarty strongly recommended this Bill, mainly on the ground that it has got a rather attractive title. If this House were to pass Bills after merely examining the titles, you would have a very simple task to perform, but I am afraid we should be discharging our duties to the country very inefficiently. I know that names mean very little. Many otherwise sensible citizens of this country have suffered very grave financial loss from persistently putting their money on horses with attractive names. I think that this House would lose its reputation as a sensible and responsible Legislative Assembly if we were to be guided simply by the titles which Ministers append to the legislation they are introducing. This Bill is a very objectionable one in many respects, particularly because it places upon local authorities the task of financing and solving the unemployment problem. We have got to ask ourselves from what source the local authorities can derive the necessary finance to carry out these compulsory employment schemes. As everybody knows, they have no source of income except direct taxation, levied on a certain type of property in their areas. Everybody knows that the present system of financing local administration is inequitable. Everybody knows that a large section of the community escape the making of a reasonable contribution to the cost of the local services. Yet, it is the local authorities that are called upon to deal with and solve the gravest and most urgent national problem of the day. In addition to the fact that the local authorities have neither the finance nor the power to collect revenue equitably from the community to deal with this problem, they have not the necessary machinery or experience to cope with it.

Local authorities are mainly concerned with the upkeep of certain old-established services and certain social services. They have never been called upon to carry into effect schemes of a productive nature. The schemes with which they are concerned are mainly social schemes and schemes of general improvement, but never schemes of a productive nature, and, because they have no experience of dealing with schemes of a productive nature, they are, I believe, incapable of dealing with the unemployment problem because everybody who considers the question of unemployment for one moment must admit that unemployment cannot be solved unless those placed in employment are placed in employment of a productive nature, of a nature which will add something to the real wealth of the community.

The Taoiseach, in various statements in regard to the economic condition of the country, has compared this State to a small farmer who has to maintain upon his small holding a large number of grown-up dependents. That is, I think, a sound way in which to approach this problem. If a small farmer wishes to maintain a large family upon a small holding, or a holding of any size, he must concentrate mainly upon having the members of his family employed on reproductive work, that is to say, on producing goods or commodities which can be used by that family, or which can be sold, or exchanged, for other goods which are required. The question we have to consider is whether the local authorities can utilise the unemployed for the purpose of producing useful goods or commodities, whether they can utilise the unemployed for the purpose of producing the things which will add materially to the wealth of the nation, apart from housing. I believe they are not in a position to do so.

Roads may be very useful, but at a time when the income of this, nation is declining and when everything possible must be done to add to and to increase our national income, that is, by increasing the production of goods which can be exported, or can take the place of goods which are imported, I do not think that roads are the most useful means of employing the unemployed. I believe that if this country is to survive the trying years immediately ahead, we must add to the goods and commodities which can be exported, and, since these are limited in extent by various restrictions, we must set ourselves to produce goods to take the place of those things which We at present import. In other words, I believe that the main work to which the unemployed should be directed is the production of fuel to take the place of imported fuel.

There is another aspect of the matter: that is, in regard to tillage products which are most essential at present. Local authorities cannot undertake any work of that kind, and therefore this Bill does not make any reasonable approach to the solution of the unemployment problem. I think that if anything is to be done directly by the State in the production of food, it should be undertaken by another Department. There is a Department, the Department of Agriculture, in respect of which a considerable expenditure is incurred. That Department claims to advise farmers as to how to get the greatest production out of their land. I do not see any reason why that Department should not acquire a number of holdings in every county and, by working these holdings on the most productive and up-to-date lines, demonstrate clearly to farmers that they have some message to give to the agricultural community and that their views are really sound.

I do not know whether this Bill, which authorises the acquisition of land, gives the Government power to acquire land for the purpose of handing it over to the Department of Agriculture for demonstration farms of this kind. I think that would be at least one way in which the Government could directly approach the question of providing productive employment. If the Department of Agriculture cannot work land efficiently, there is no excuse and no real reason why that Department should be in existence at all. I think, moreover, that the placing of this additional burden upon the local authorities, and thereby increasing the local rates, will have the effect of increasing unemployment in other directions, because everybody realises that owners of land and other property are at present unable to make ends meet. If their rates are further increased, they will be forced to reduce the number of their employees, thereby increasing the number of unemployed and adding to the difficulties of the problem.

I think this is an irresponsible measure inasmuch as it places upon the most inefficient and cumbersome Department of the State the task of dealing with this most pressing and urgent problem. Everybody knows that schemes undertaken by the Local Government Department, or by local authorities under the Local Government Department, have always been characterised by the inefficiency with which they have been carried out, from the point of view of their expense in relation to the amount of useful work done. Everybody knows that the cost of carrying out any particular work under the local authorities—whether it be the building of a house, or the maintenance or reconstruction of a road or even the removing of a dangerous corner—is far higher than if the work were carried out by any ordinary contractor or any other citizen of the country, or even by any other department of State. Therefore, I think that this Bill, viewed from almost every angle, has nothing to recommend it except its title.

Mr. J. Flynn

There are just one or two points with which I should like to deal. Mention is made here of certified work, and I should like to know from the Minister when he is replying whether it will be for the county surveyor, in the matter of roads, to submit a scheme, that scheme to be subsequently certified by the Department. Is that the meaning of the statement here that, when the Minister issues a certificate and approves of the work, the council or local authority must put the scheme into operation? There is one point which strikes me about this measure, and that is that there is a great deal of suggestion and elaboration with reference to roads. If it is a matter of the relief of unemployment I submit that other types of work should be mentioned. Why not deal with this question of afforestation for instance, and have some co-operation between the Local Government Department and other Departments with a view to having extensive and far-flung schemes in operation in each county? That, in my opinion, would be the proper approach to this problem which is confronting us at the moment in this country.

Mention has been made here by Deputy Dillon and others of the question of production and productive works. In our county—and I take it in other counties as well—we have had various schemes turned down during a period of years. I refer now to afforestation schemes, which would be productive, and which would give a great deal of employment. I submit that, under this measure, the Minister should co-operate with other Departments— for instance, the Board of Works and the Land Commission—with a view to getting all those schemes brought under one head, instead of transferring most of the responsibility to the local authorities. In other words, I would suggest that the direction come from the central authority, from the Government itself, through its various officials and inspectors. By all means, if it is a question of roads or housing, let the local authorities co-operate, but there are other avenues that could be explored with regard to this question of employment. I should like if the Minister could see his way to consider any of the suggestions which I have put forward. In so far us our county is concerned, if this Bill is restricted to catering for employment on housing or on the roads, we cannot fit in; our people will not be employed; whereas, if other schemes are put forward, say through the Ministry of Local Government in co-operation with other Departments, we may and would, I believe, be able to approach this problem in the proper way, and cater for thousands of unemployed persons, instead of having them looking forward to unemployment assistance or any other type of assistance while those productive schemes could be put into operation.

Mention has also been made here about the question of dictatorship. I believe that this Bill is a move in the right direction, and that before many months have elapsed you will need similar measures to deal with our problems as they arise. The old idea of slow motion under democratic systems is fast disappearing, and I believe that in order to deal effectively with the problems which will arise as a result of this war, and with other problems in our own country, you will have to make an effort to meet the requirements of the people. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestions I have put forward with a view to having a wider interpretation here with regard to works for the relief of the unemployed.

Mr. Brodrick

I entirely agree with Deputy Flynn's remarks. There certainly should be more co-operation between the different Departments of State. What we find down the country is that you have the Department, of Local Government, the Department of Agriculture, and the different branches of the Board of Works all working on their own. If there were more co-operation you could get much more work done, and could get many more persons employed on the different works throughout the country. You will find a road scheme being carried out by the Board of Works, and the Land Commission coming along to do a drainage scheme alongside it. Then you have inspectors from both Departments and from several other Departments going around. I cannot see why there should not be some co-operation there, in order to cut down the cost of the inspectors on the different schemes, and the cost of the motor cars in which they are flying around the country.

As far as I can see, those inspectors are tripping each other up all over the country at the present time, in spite of the conditions under which we are living. That is the only point on which I wish to dwell. Every other day you see inspectors of the different departments tripping each other up in inspecting the different works. Even in the case of an ordinary reconstruction grant of £40, you will have at least three inspectors flying around in motor cars. I do not see the necessity for that. Certainly, as far as the local authorities are concerned, I do not at all agree with some of the speakers that they could not do much better work if they got more room to work, but they are rather tied down. If the local authority sends out their inspector, apparently the Local Government Department are not satisfied with that; they have to send their own inspector. This country is flooded at the present time with inspectors. If there were more co-operation between the different Departments I think there would be many more people employed in this country and there would be much better work done. Every inspector that I see has a general knowledge of all the work that has to be carried out, but I do not think there is any reason why inspectors should be sent out from every little department of State in the country. All these inspectors are fully qualified men, and they could be employed on more useful work. Their, education has cost a good deal. If the number of inspectors was cut down so that every inspector would have his own particular work to do, and there would be no overlapping, I firmly believe that you could get very much better work done at a lesser cost.

Mr. Ruttledge

I thought perhaps that the line that had been taken by the Leader of the Opposition might be some lead to Deputies in their criticism of this Bill. His criticism was reasonable, and his criticism was constructive, but practically every Deputy from that time on has proceeded to attack this Bill on the basis that it is dictatorial, on the basis that the Government have failed in the task of solving the problem of unemployment, and are now shifting it over to the local authorities. Every Deputy, or practically every Deputy, certainly from the Labour Benches, including Deputy Cogan, has taken the line that local authorities, who are already overburdened, are now going to have put on their shoulders the burden of solving unemployment. If one were asked where the money was to come from, it would show at least some idea of responsibility or some sort of constructive criticism, but, instead of that, it is assumed, for the purpose purely of criticism and for the purpose purely of attacking the Bill itself, that all this money is going to be a further burden on the already overburdened ratepayers. I did not give any indication, when I was moving the Bill, that that was the position, and where Deputies could get the idea is something that I fail to understand, especially in the case of Deputies who are members of public bodies throughout the country and who have been dealing with the various moneys that have been voted to them from time to time for unemployment works in the country.

In the same way, we are told that there is nothing to be done under this Bill except roads. Again I would suggest that if Deputies read even the first section of the Bill they would not fall into that error:—

...the expression "work of public utility" means a work consisting of the construction or improvement of a road, sewer, or waterworks, or a work which tends to improve or protect the public health or to improve the public amenities and the execution of which is within the powers of the local authority concerned.

Any of these things that a local authority can already do they are enabled to do under that Bill. It is not confined to roads.

Take the amounts of money that have been voted to local authorities for the present year. Under rural employment schemes, including roads, £527,400 is being spent. Of that, the local authorities are asked to contribute £78,000. In the urban employment schemes, including roads, a total of £330,350 is being expended, of which local authorities are asked to contribute £57,000. Roughly, in all those schemes, you find that something like 16 per cent., in some cases lower, has to be provided by the local authority. For the Road Improvement Vote, 100 per cent. is given from the Central Fund. For road maintenance, 40 per cent. is given from the Central Fund. When we have that experience behind us, why do we assume that, when there is an extension or an attempt to extend that scheme, some similar method will not be found to deal with it?

This is purely a machinery measure. It is a machinery measure to assist and enable local authorities, from the experience we have had, to deal with particular problems in their own area, and particularly to deal with the problem of unemployment in a bigger way than we have been able to deal with it up to the present. Many Deputies have mentioned here that this is not the way to tackle it, that we should tackle it in a bigger way. We are certainly trying to tackle it under this Bill, or, at least, we are making provision under this Bill for tackling it on a more comprehensive scale than we have been able to do up to the present.

We are asked why do we not provide works that will be of some permanent utility to the people. That is what we are trying to do under this Bill. We are trying to provide that if this problem becomes more acute, we will be prepared to deal with it in a more comprehensive way and, to that end, we are hoping that, being able to plan ahead, we will get more useful works done than we have at the present time. In many cases, when local bodies through the country are trying to get as much as they can for unemployment, by not planning ahead, not having the time to plan ahead, money is applied to works some of which are not very necessary. That money could be much more usefully employed in other directions. I do not know if it was Deputy Hickey who made the complaint in this House, but I have heard that in Deputy Hickey's area the position was that they were ripping up streets that were in pretty good condition, simply because they had no other schemes on hand on which they could utilise the money.

Mr. Hickey

We had quite a number of schemes. That is what we complained about.

Mr. Ruttledge

We are trying under this Bill to have certain schemes here in Dublin that would give considerable employment over a considerable period, which would contribute in a permanent way to the amenities of the city, which would constitute something permanent, and add to the value of those places that would be improved. Since that planning has not been done in many areas, I cannot give more than the outline I gave at the outset of the sort of schemes we have in mind. One example was the circular road. Such a work would contribute to the amenities of the area, would constitute something additional and permanent, and add to the local authority's revenue in the long run.

There are borough councils through the country and they find themselves in the position that if they want to extend or improve their waterworks systems they have to go outside the borough boundary. If they want to make roads for the benefit of their district, they cannot go outside the borough boundary. It has been mentioned here that it is dictatorial to make a council, that is probably not agreeing, do a certain thing. The purpose that is in mind in the Bill is this: if the Dublin Corporation, for example, want to carry out a work which goes into the county area—let us say that we have not the Greater Dublin scheme in operation—and want to give employment on that scheme partly within and partly without their own area, they should not be prevented by the county council if the scheme is such as will be of benefit to both the council and the corporation. If there is not agreement between both bodies, someone must step in to decide between them and the corporation and county council will benefit from whatever is done in that way. That is the only dictatorial attitude that could be construed as being behind this Bill.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that he would rather see it applied to other public schemes rather than roads. Probably in some areas something other than roads would be much more valuable. We have to bear in mind, however, that there is expended in this State something like £300,000 each year on public health schemes. Not having seen any planning except the planning I referred to in what I said at the outset, I cannot visualise the various schemes a public authority might put forward if they had plans and the expert advice which they would have in dealing with any of the problems that might be particular to their own area. This Bill will enable them to provide for that and to plan schemes that will be of lasting utility and that will give employment to people in various districts.

Deputy Dockrell asked if something could not be done about transport where people were somewhat removed from a scheme outside a city. So far as the making of the coast road through Meath and its continuation in County Dublin is concerned, not only would such a work add to the amenities, but it would provide considerable employment, and I should like to say that it would be possible, in schemes of that sort, that some system of transport or other arrangement could be provided so as to get some of the unemployed people from the city to take part in that work.

If we were to create credit, as Deputy Norton suggested, this Bill would give wonderful assistance and would be absolutely necessary to him in going ahead with schemes if he happened to be connected with the Government of this country, unless he wanted to expend the money in a haphazard fashion and without any planning or definite object in view.

Deputy Cosgrave complained about the section dealing with betterment. I suggest that that is a matter that might best be dealt with in Committee. The section has been taken practically as it stands from the Town Planning Act. It might, at first sight, seem unfair that a person should contribute more than the actual work costs, but we should bear in mind what the total value is. It is presumed to represent the increase in the value brought about by the work done. The local authority gets three-fourths of that and the person contributing gets one-fourth. It does seem to me that is a reasonable way. When a local authority performs work of that sort and improves the value of a place—it may not happen very often—I do not think there should be any grievance, especially as it is for the general good.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why should the person concerned pay more than the cost?

Mr. Ruttledge

It is possible, in certain cases, that the individual could pay more than the cost, but I think they would be very exceptional cases. I think that sort of thing would be very unlikely to arise, but if it did arise I do not think it would be unfair or unjust that the local authority should benefit in that way from it. Deputy Cosgrave referred to cement. I am not responsible for that Department. That is a matter for another Department, and I am sure the Minister concerned will keep it under review.

So far as the attack that has been made on this Bill is concerned, it is all on the basis that this is an attempt to shift the responsibility over on the local authority and get rid of the problem of unemployment in that way. Nobody has attempted to deal with the Bill in the critical manner in which, perhaps, it wight be dealt with. One or two Deputies endeavoured to point out that the powers we have taken under the Bill to enable people more easily and readily to acquire land for the purpose of widening roads, among other things, are of practically no use.

There are few Deputies, I think, who are members of local authorities who do not know that where it has been necessary to acquire land for the widening of a road or improvements of a similar character, and where opposition has been offered, the proceedings have gone on for a considerable time before the land has been acquired. Under this Bill the method of acquisition is simple. The local authorities serve a preliminary notice on the owner and he is given 14 days or, where there is an occupied building on the land, 28 days within which he may object to the order. Then, unless the order is annulled, the land can be vested in the local authority. That represents a great improvement on the roundabout procedure of the past. If a loeal authority desires to have a road widened, the land will be vested in the local authority within six or seven weeks at the outside.

Mr. Corish

What is the actual procedure?

Mr. Ruttledge

The actual procedure is that the local authority serves a preliminary notice and makes a preliminary order declaring that they propose to acquire the land. The preliminary order is posted on or near the land or a copy is served on the interested persons within seven days. An appeal against the order may be made to the Minister within 14 days of the making of the order, or within 28 days if there is an occupied building on the land. If there is no appeal or should the appeal fail, the local authority makes a vesting order in the prescribed form which shall come into effect on a specified date not earlier than seven days after the making of the order. I remember on a previous Bill here criticism was directed to the fact that nothing had been done to facilitate local authorities in acquiring land needed for purposes of this description. It is true that where lands are compulsorily acquired under this Bill they have to be acquired for work in connection with the relief of unemployment, but if local authorities want to avail of these facilities to carry out schemes which they have in mind, they can provide that the work will be done under the Unemployment Vote.

Deputy Cosgrave made some reference to the payment of interest. Interest is payable from the date of the vesting until the award is made. That is in cases where the award exceeds any offer previously made by the local council. No interest is paid where the award does not exceed an offer previously made by the council. This is a matter that can be considered in Committee. Where the award exceeds an offer made by the council, I think it is perfectly clear that the person to whom the award is made can take up his money immediately after the award is made. That is no hardship.

Mr. Cosgrave

No, but that is not the practice.

Mr. Ruttledge

I shall look into the matter before the Committee Stage, but where you have an occupier taking up an unreasonable attitude, and where the council have made a reasonable offer, I do not conceive it just that the council should be called upon to pay interest. Otherwise, an occupier may be induced to take up an unreasonable attitude, because he can say: "Even if I have to remain out of the money for some time, I shall get my interest in any case." Another Deputy raised a point as to who was to find out whether the work would be certified or not. That is a matter that would arise through the county surveyor. He may want to get certain work done but it may go outside his area into another area. If it is road work, it will be a matter for an inspector of the Department to say if the work should be certified or not.

Mr. Corish

Can he approach the Department off his own bat?

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not imagine that he will do so. The council would be consulted to ascertain their views. I think these are the various points that arose on the Bill; others mentioned are Committee points. Any amendments that may improve the Bill would be welcome but I would have been more pleased if the Bill were approached in a spirit of that kind, rather than the spirit in which it was approached by certain Deputies. This Bill will not solve unemployment. I do not for one moment presume that it will, but when an attempt is being made, to ensure that any work carried out by the unemployed will be carried out on some sort of planned basis, and that schemes will not be devoted, as we have seen in the country sometimes, to some little road or other that is of very little utility, it is unfair to say that this is an attempt to shift the burden over on local authorities. In some areas, too many works were undertaken whereas in other areas works that were not so necessary were undertaken. As a result of this Bill, it is hoped that councils will be in a position to plan and look ahead and that they will be able to devise works of permanent utility and avail themselves of whatever assistance they can get from the Unemployment Vote. It is unfair, I repeat, to say that this is an attempt to shift the burden over to local authorities. Local authorities are the most suitable bodies for carrying out works of the character we have in mind. Experience of the past has shown that the State has contributed very generously towards works of this kind. That has not been confined to roads alone. Deputy Flynn mentioned afforestation but, although that does not come within the Bill, local authorities may be able to co-operate in the carrying out of such schemes by planning to have roads made in conjunction with them.

Again, where you have two areas, particularly a city area adjacent to a county area, you are bound to have certain services that are common to both areas or, if they are not common to both areas, there may be some portion of the system in the county area and another portion in the city area. For that purpose it is necessary that we should have power, if one council fails to take the necessary measures, to give the other council the right to take steps to have the work carried out.

Some Deputy made a point about the power taken to abolish local bodies. Under Section 72 of the 1925 Act power was given to the Department, where a council disobeyed an order, or refused to allow its accounts to be audited, to abolish the council without inquiry. The dissolution of a council is a thing that does not happen very often. There will be no attempt to exercise that power unless a council deliberately tries to obstruct the Department.

Mr. Cosgrave

Did the figures mentioned by the Minister include moneys given from the Road Fund?

Mr. Ruttledge

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

What does the Minister say are the percentages of contribution from Dublin and Cork to these funds? The last question I would ask is whether it is intended to give more than three or four days' employment in connection with this sort of work. Is it intended to give a week's work to men who are engaged? One matter I did not mention in my earlier statement is that a three-day or a four-day week does not get a good output. It cannot be expected to get it and, the cost to the local authority is consequently heavier.

Mr. Ruttledge

I am afraid I cannot give the Deputy that answer at the moment. I have not the percentage of the road fund for Cork or Dublin.

Mr. Cosgrave

The percentage of the contribution from Cork and Dublin.

Mr. Ruttledge

In Cork the contribution was £7,000 out of £42,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is about 16 per cent.

Mr. Ruttledge

In Dublin it was £20,000 out of £60,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is 33? per cent.

Mr. Cogan

Might I ask the Minister if, in cases where county councils or other local authorities are compelled to increase their expenditure under the Bill, there is any provision by which the Minister can increase the allowances to these bodies, particularly in regard to county roads or the improvement of county roads?

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not know about that. Everything will have to hang by its own tail. That is a new problem.

Mr. Hughes

With regard to the Minister's compulsory powers, the Minister stressed the point that where there was an outside body involved this power would be only exercised in that case. Are we to take it that where there is only one local authority involved and they refuse to carry out the work——

Mr. Ruttledge

I did not say "only". I said that was what I had in mind. It might be possible, where a road engineer certified a road and was satisfied no employment was there, without any consultation, that then we may have to take some action. I am only giving another example.

Mr. Hughes

That may crop up just as often as the other.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is very unlikely. You see dangers that are not there.

Question put and declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered to be taken on Wednesday, 16th October.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 16th October.