Vol. 81 No. 2
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of any expenses incurred by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in the administration of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the execution by local authorities of works of public utility for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons and to provide for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.
Could the Minister give us any idea of how much money is involved in this—how much he estimates in respect of administration and how much he estimates he will spend otherwise?
I cannot give any idea.
Of either?
No.
It is rather important that we have not got a figure of any sort to go on. On the occasion of the Second Reading, I mentioned that one of the items likely to enter very largely into the cost incurred in connection with these relief schemes was cement, and it has been conveyed to me by some people interested in the cement company that my remarks were unfair. They were, briefly, that the company had paid 10 per cent., that the directors were well paid, that there was ample provision made for depreciation, and that there was a hidden fund amounting—I was reported as having said, and I believe I did say—to about 1/- per cwt. on cement. It is obvious, on consideration, that it was 1/- a ton I had in mind, assuming that there was any such thing, because 1/- per cwt. would represent a very large sum—£1 per ton.
It is fair to say of the company that it did not pay dividends for the first year—it could not because it was not working—but in respect of its first five months' working, it paid 4 per cent., with a very large sum to depreciation and a considerable sum off the preliminary expenses. In the second year, it paid 10 per cent., made a fairly large allocation to depreciation, and paid a sum practically equivalent to more than 50 per cent. of the dividend off the preliminary expenses. If the Government's policy in respect of profits is to be interpreted in the light of the report of the Prices Commission into the Pigs and Bacon business, the standard should be 7 per cent. Here we have 10 per cent. being paid, on a monopoly. I think it is unreasonable. It is held by some people that the profits would not allow of any material reduction in the price. So far as the hidden sum is concerned, there was a sum, because it is mentioned by the directors themselves, in some statements, that foreign cement is now to be charged for at a higher rate, by reason of the fact that funds over which they had some control were not now available in respect of that. Those funds must have come from some source; they must have come from the profits of the firm. There is scarcely any Minister in the State who should be more concerned with the cost of cement than the Minister for Local Government. According to the information which I have received, the Minister for Industry and Commerce exercises some sort of supervisory—if not control—observation over this firm, and it is a strange thing that one set of business men are limited to 7 per cent. while others can have 10 per cent. and over it.
I take it that, under this Bill, the Minister for Local Government is charged with providing employment. Normally, it is not his business; it does not enter into the scope of the scheme of local government that if should be. I take it that, if he is going to enter into anything of that sort, it should be his desire and his duty to see that the kind of work which is going to be undertaken will be of a constructive character as far as possible. On looking through the Bill, one comes to the conclusion that there is nothing else in mind but roads and road making. There are opportunities for spending money in a very constructive manner in this country. The very Department in question has such work within its scope, sewerage, waterworks, housing, and so on.
The desirability and the necessity in these times of getting value for money should be paramount to the mind of the Minister, perhaps more than any other Minister in the State, because in the last seven or eight years the rates of practically every local authority in the country have advanced, and advanced considerably. It may be urged that the people are getting extra services. The question of our ability to pay for the extra services depends very largely on what our production is, and it appears from any and every examination that can be made of the economy of this country, in the last eight or ten years particularly, that if we are to expect any real improvement in our economic position it is to the agricultural industry we must turn our attention.
Practically the only term that is employed in connection with this particular Bill, other than roads, is "works of public utility". It does appear to me that there are opportunities which might be availed of in the course of the operation of this Bill, to improve the productive capacity of the country in respect of the agricultural industry, mainly as regards drainage, and I should say also in respect of the extension of the electricity undertaking to farmers in quite a number of districts throughout the country. In one of the provinces of Canada, the province of Ontario, something like 50,000 fanners are at present being supplied with electricity. There the scheme has been extended on the basis of the provinces paying 50 per cent. of the costs. Quite a number of publications have been issued in connection with it. It is hoped that an additional 30,000 or 40,000 farmers will be enabled to get their farms connected with the supply of electricity during the next couple of years. Generally speaking, in no other country than America, North and South, has there been such an extension of the use of electricity for farming purposes, with corresponding advantages.
Taking this particular measure, which is a costly one—according to the accounts which the Minister gave us on the last day the sum of money which is being expended is in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000—it is very desirable that we should get some value out of the expenditure of such a huge sum of money. Merely having additional roads, better footpaths and so on is no advantage; the straightening of corners and all that sort of thing may have its advantages, but it does not add in any way to the wealth and productivity of the country. It is held in quite a number of these publications which I have mentioned that there are many advantages in connection with the use of electricity for farming purposes; that those various rays have a vitamin or stimulative character; that egg production is increased; that they have utilised the power for chopping food stuffs; that they have utilised it for packing silos; that they have utilised it for making the agricultural life of the country more attractive, and for endeavouring to stop the trek from the land into the city.
That is one of the problems with which the Minister and the Government have been faced during the last eight or ten years. The fact that people are leaving the land and coming into the city makes the problem of dealing with unemployment a very much more serious, a very much more difficult, and a very much more expensive one. If it were possible to have a plan for making the land more attractive for those who are on it, if we could only do that by improving their living conditions and improving their conditions of prosperity, it is possible that very much more useful work would be accomplished than can be measured in terms of £ s. d. It is unfortunate that the Minister or the Government cannot tell us what sum of money is in mind in connection with this particular measure. From all accounts, it is in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000, and it would be most unfortunate if, after this measure had been operating for a year, we had nothing of a really constructive character to show for the expenditure of such a huge sum of money. It may be that I have taxed your patience somewhat——
Somewhat. Quite true.
——but it is possible that, by mentioning those matters now in the earlier portion of the discussion, the discussion on the Committee Stage may be shortened.
Can the Minister say whether the terms of this resolution are designed to cover the grant of any money from the national Exchequer to the local authorities for the carrying out of the works which he may order them to do?
In his reply on the Second Reading, in column 136 of the Dáil Debates, the Minister says:—
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 the position.
The latter statement is perfectly correct, but it would be equally correct to say that he gave no indication of any source from which the money was to come, and as far as my reading of the Bill goes, there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that it is to come from anywhere but out of the ratepayer's pocket. I would like to know from the Minister whether this resolution covers an allocation from the Exchequer to the local authorities.
As Deputy Benson has pointed out, the Minister gave some kind of vague reply as to where the money was to come from to finance schemes which he visualised. I think that before this Bill is passed we ought to be told by the Minister whether grants are to be given and, if so, if they are to be given in the same proportion as they have been given in recent years for the relief of unemployment. I think we also ought to be told if this three days or four days system is to be continued, because I suggest to the Minister that money is being lost to local authorities and to the central Government by the continuation of the rotational system of working. One cannot expect to get the best out of a man who only works for three days each week over a period of a month. Certainly it is not the best way to get work done. The men do not like it. They have to do it, of course; they have no option in the matter. Most of them—not all of them—prefer to be working rather than drawing the dole, but I think at this stage, when legislation of this kind is being enacted, we ought to be told definitely by the Minister what proportion of money is going to be provided by the Government so that this work can be carried out, and also if it is the intention of the Government to continue the rotational system of employment.
I take it the resolution before us is for the purpose of giving authority for the spending of money in the administration of the measure that has just been introduced. As I understand the presentation of the case that has been made by the Minister, he is not proposing a plan for the relief of unemployment, he is not outlining even the possible amount of money which is likely to be spent under this measure during the present year but, in anticipation that there will be an increase in unemployment in the country and perhaps a scarcity of money, he feels it necessary to direct public works along the most useful lines and to carry them out in the most economic way. For that purpose, he is taking a better Ministerial grip over suggestions that might be made as to the lines on which work would be carried out and a better Ministerial grip over the direction of that particular work. On this resolution, I should like to ask whether the Minister has given any consideration to the steps that should he taken in order better to administer unemployment grants and to get results from them and whether in giving consideration to that he has not come to the conclusion that the key to getting the best work selected, to getting the best work done and saving the greatest amount of money in carrying out the work is to have the work directed and supervised by properly qualified technical persons?
The Minister has indicated that housing is going on splendidly at the present time. The Minister cannot but be aware that very poor housing work has been done in the past, that a very large amount of money has been spent, a very substantial portion of which might have been saved if there had been greater technical supervision of that work than he was able to provide with the staff and the use of the staff that he had at his disposal. For many years we had a housing board. There was one technical member on that board, but the technical member went. The result was that we were paying a housing board over a considerable number of years that gave no guidance as to the direction in which we might look to get good housing for the money we were spending or as to how money that was being spent on housing could be saved. When that Housing Board went, a Housing Commission was set up to consider the position. At a time when a large amount of money was being spent through local government on road-making, sewerage schemes, water schemes, housing, etc., a very serious inroad had to be made on the professional engineering staff of the Department to look after that Housing Commission. After what I thought was the fiasco of the housing board, when it was proposed to set up a housing commission, I, personally, refrained from criticising the Way in which that commission was being set up. I thought a quick, thorough job was going to be done and that we would have the result of that commission's considerations and reflections quickly. I felt that in an important matter we might be charged with queering the ground and prejudicing the work of that commission by saying some of the things that we had in our mind. A very long time has passed without any report from that Housing Commission, and we are in the position that anybody looking at the administration can see that the head of the engineering branch of the Department of Local Government has his attention distracted from the direction of his staff and the supervision of work in the country by the work that is quite unnecessarily thrown on that branch to review the housing position. The result is that the Housing Commission has not carried out its work properly in any reasonable amount of time. It has not reported in any kind of satisfactory or reasonable way. We do not know when we are going to get the report.
This is not an investigation into the work of the-Housing Commission. To point a moral may be all right, but to go into detail about alleged detects of the Housing Commission is not relevant.
I am drawing the Minister's attention to the reaction on the Housing Commission of not having technical staff to look after the housing side. I am drawing his attention to the fact that neglect on the housing side has eaten further into the professional resources of the engineering staff and that, at a time when a terribly large number of public works are being carried out, he has not had the necessary amount of technical staff to look after it. I ask him to consider now, when he is looking for a better machine, a better Ministerial grip over the, carrying out of public works, if he is going to increase the administrative costs of looking after this work, whether it is not to be on the lines of getting greater technical assistance to look after a technical job? There is not a single department of State at the present time where the technical man's work is not interfered with, is not interrupted, is not held up, is not prejudiced by people who have purely the administrative, file-keeping, safety point of view in mind. Nothing will solve some of the problems that we have at the present time in the country, or will make good use of the money we are spending, but proper technical men whose judgment is accepted and whose work is not interfered with by what I call the routine, delaying, safety-seeking clerical machine.
I think this is a suitable occasion for saying to the Minister that in his Department and other departments of State where technical work is being carried out now is the time for seeing that there is the necessary amount of technical supervision and the necessary amount of professional advice first before any other consideration is gone into, that where you get technical experience and professional advice it should be accepted, and in a situation which requires decision and effective work the judgment of our technical and professional people should be relied on, as they are the best people that we can get to guide us in some of the matters that have to be attended to.
I take it that it is in order on a Money Resolution to review the main features of this Bill. As I can grasp it, this is an alleged cure which will spread the disease that it is supposed to cure. I was glad to hear Deputy Mulcahy dealing with that abortion that should never have taken place, the Housing Commission. That emanated from a motion carried by the Dublin Corporation over a year and a half ago, when those of us who were concerned with employment and housing, and who understood the problem, knew that there was only one thing that stood in the way, and that was finance. We did not want anything investigated. At the best, it was only a delaying commission, and how admirably it has done its work! In this Bill the expression "work of public utility" means a work consisting of the construction or improvement of a road, a sewer or waterworks, etc.
If the Deputy desires to deal with the sections, opportunity will arise later; for the present, we are dealing with a Money Resolution.
I do not want to deal with the sections in detail, but I would like to point out that the whole Bill is founded on works of public utility— the construction of sewers, waterworks or other works which tend to improve or protect the public health. Our trouble in Dublin is that we have too much land developed and the proposal in this Bill is that we spend more money in putting down sewers, making roads and drains—burying it in the ground, where we have perhaps hundreds of thousands buried already, producing nothing. I challenge contradiction on that, and the Minister knows I am right. Now we are proposing to bury more money in the ground instead of raising houses on the land we have already developed.
The Minister has been told on several occasions that there is only one thing required to keep building going while we have the raw materials, and that is, to finance the purchasers of houses. If you give them money to purchase houses, building will be automatic. I am a builder in a small way, but I could produce sites for a thousand houses without laying a single sewer. Why are not facilities given to do work instead of taxing work? That is what is being done, taxing the people who are trying to do work.
It has been asked, where will this money come from? It is sticking out where it will come from. If the local authority do not discover works, do not make roads to nowhere, the Minister will certify that a road must be made to nowhere, or he will certify as to the putting down of more sewers, and if the local authorities do not do that work he sacks them. The local authority that will be subservient to the Minister, or the creature he will put in its place, will find the money. How does the local authority find the money? By striking a rate. There is no use in burying our heads in the sand. The little industry, agriculture, that we have in this country able to employ people is going to be taxed further in order to create the type of employment that the exigencies of the situation do not yet require.
What will be the repercussions? For one thing, it will curtail the employing capacity of the employers; it will increase overhead charges instead of diminishing them. Such a monstrous proposal I could scarcely conceive coming from any sane body of men. I wonder why the representatives of Dublin City are silent on this matter? In this city large establishments are on the point of closing down because of overhead charges, shortage of business due to shortage of money which, in turn, is due to shortage of employment. Is it not a terrible indictment of the whole administration? I have not in mind any particular Government, but I have in mind our 18 years of self-government when I make that statement. We are now proposing to build a State laundry, as it were, where we will exchange one another's washing.
Let there be no illusion about it. I can speak for the employers of my constituency in County Dublin, employers in the industrial and agricultural spheres. With one voice they say: "Our overhead charges are too high. We want a Government that will reduce overhead charges, so as to enable us to increase our business and give more employment. In that way only can we absorb the unemployed of the country—there is no other way of doing it." That is the unanimous verdict. If this Bill is passed, it will need no prophet, but an ordinary man of business, a man who has to square his accounts, weekly, monthly, or quarterly as the case may be, to foresee that in 12 months we will have reached a stage ten times worse than now.
The Minister must not consider that, my criticism is directed against him or his Government. I appreciate that he has a very difficult job on hands. I am sure he has given it considerable thought and that he has done his best. But it is only a palliative, a putting off of the evil day. What you should do, in order to set the wheels of industry going, is pump capital into industry and agriculture. If you cannot do that, you cannot relieve unemployment; any other way would be merely tinkering with the problem.
On the Second Reading a certain suggestion was made, but it is not a suggestion that I could agree with 100 per cent. It is time we considered such a suggestion. As a business man, one with some knowledge of business and agriculture, I say without fear of contradiction that until we as a nation act as the ordinary business concern acts, we will not succeed in solving the unemployment problem. If you start a company to undertake the manufacture of any article, what is the principal concern of that company? Its paid-up capital, its banking balance. If that company gives control of the banking balance to any other persons, do you think it will be administered in the best interests of the company? Of course not. We as a nation are trying to run the country and give employment to the workers without at the same time controlling our banking balance.
On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill an attempt was made to discuss the financial position of the State. To that attempt the Deputy has referred. The Deputy who made the effort was not allowed to pursue it; neither may Deputy Belton. It is not relevant to this machinery Bill.
This is a Money Resolution. I am not in any sense challenging your ruling, Sir, but I should like to be clear on it. Is it your ruling that in dealing with the unemployment problem we cannot discuss the banking policy of this country?
This is a Money Resolution. The Department requires money for the administration of a Bill dealing with one aspect of unemployment. Quite obviously, the Deputy cannot, in connection with that Money Resolution, discuss banking, currency and cognate questions.
I shall pass away from that, with just this comment: that it is a contraction of credit in this country that has given us unemployment——
The Deputy may not persue that line further.
With that comment, I am passing away from the subject.
General Mulcahy made a remark which was not heard.
You will pass away from North-east Dublin the next time as you did before.
The Deputy will resume. These compliments might be exchanged elsewhere.
I can exchange them with him before his constituents if he likes. I will fight him as I fought him before.
Will the Chair tell us what is under discussion because I cannot?
Your disorderly interruption. You will not get away with it from me. I have nothing further to say except that this Bill is being taken very seriously by business people who have to work for their living. It does not matter, of course, for people who can get their cheques every month, but we who are bearing the burden of industry and agriculture, who have to meet our wages bill, keep our men paid, get a return and keep the wheels of industry and agriculture going, view with alarm the inevitably increased burden that is being put on our shoulders. In conclusion, I would appeal to the House to consider very carefully applying this remedy unless Deputies are quite sure that it is a remedy that will effect a cure and not further spread the disease.
I hope that when the Minister is replying, he will give us some assurance that the question of three or four days' rotational work will be dealt with when money is being provided for the administration of these schemes.
The purpose of the resolution is to enable the national Exchequer to provide money for the administration of the Bill, but the whole principle of the Bill, so far as I can see, is to relieve the central Exchequer of the obligation of making any provision towards the relief of unemployment and to throw the entire burden upon the shoulders of councils and, through them, on to the ratepayers. I am satisfied, from discussions I have had with ratepayers and fanners throughout the country, that the provisions of this Bill if carried into effect, will cause something in the nature of a revolution throughout the various counties. If the Minister wishes to prevent that state of affairs, I think at least he should give an assurance that whenever his Department take action to compel a local authority to undertake certain works, they will see that at least 50 per cent. of the cost of the work is borne by the central Government.
I thought that on the last day on which we discussed this Bill I had made it sufficiently clear where the money required to operate the Bill was to come from. In replying to statements by a number of Deputies, who suggested that this was an attempt to throw the whole burden of these schemes on the ratepayers, I said that the same system that has obtained in the past with regard to improvement Votes, maintenance Votes and unemployment Votes, is going to obtain with regard to works started under this Bill. There is no change whatever in the system, and I do not know how anybody on the last day could have been so foolish as to imagine that a change was intended. The allegation was made for some ulterior purpose, as some little thing that one could stick on to, to support the suggestion that the Bill was a bad Bill. Deputy Cosgrave on the last day referred to the Bill as a machinery Bill, and that is all the Bill claims to be. You may call it, if you wish, a planning Bill, a Bill the object of which is to see that the ratepayers will get something that may be of greater use to them in future than they have been able to get through the haphazard schemes operated in the past. We have the position from time to time that we get reports from county surveyors, technical persons and other people competent to deal with these matters, saying that when they have to deal with proposed schemes on the basis of the unemployment content in an area, they cannot get suitable works in that area. Deputies and other people going through the country will frequently see a number of minor works being carried out that do not seem to be very essential or to be of very great utility. Our aim in this measure is to get the assistance of technical experts so that we shall be able to plan in such a way that we can afford the greatest possible employment in an emergency and, at the same time, leave something tangible as a result of that planning that will be of value to the local authority afterwards. As I say, it is a planning Bill. It gives an opportunity to local bodies to plan ahead. Deputy Belton to-day referred to burying pipes. One of the schemes put before the Dublin Corporation was the Kilbarrack-Artane-Howth, sewerage scheme. Does Deputy Belton suggest that that is a scheme for burying pipes? Will he say that in Kilbarrack, Howth or Artane? It is easy to indulge in that sort of talk in this House.
I was referring to the development of land for building schemes.
The Deputy was talking about burying pipes.
In developing land or which the Government were going to build.
That is the sort of scheme that could be planned out ahead. After the Town Planning Bill was passed, a body was set up by the Dublin Corporation and, those panning experts having devised what they called ring roads in Dublin, I understand that the corporation has been proceeding with the work, and has outlined certain plans and schemes. I wish that other bodies would take the initiative in the same way as the Dublin Corporation. We have been told that we are trying to dictate to them. What we have in mind is that, if the Dublin Corporation, when carrying out a big scheme of that sort, were confronted with opposition from the county council when it has to go into the country area, then the Minister, if they cannot agree between themselves, has the right to come in and, if necessary, remove the body obstructing the corporation in carrying out these schemes that extended into the county.
So far as agreed to.
Where is the dictation there. Is it not absolutely necessary? Do not the people who are charged with these matters in the corporation know that it is absolutely necessary that these powers should be there? Are not the Dublin Corporation officials themselves waiting for these powers to be given to them? Yet we hear talk about dictation under the Bill. I saw a report of a meeting of the Dublin Corporation at which there was talk about dictatorship. Where one public body may have to enter on the area of another public body to carry out certain works, such as sewerage, waterworks, link roads, etc., it is necessary that the executing authority, as it is called in the Bill, should have power to compel the other people to allow them to do that work. When I first thought of this Bill it was in connection with such schemes as these ring roads in Dublin. We all know that in Dublin unemployment is greater than elsewhere. It was such schemes as that we had in mind. But, as it has developed since, we believe it will be of general utility in other parts of the country.
We have been criticised in connection with this rotational scheme and that matter has been debated in this House several times. The aim of this Bill, so far as planning is necessary, is the aim of all unemployment schemes, namely, to try and give the greatest amount of employment; and to give the employment to the greatest number you have to have a rotational scheme. I would agree straight away that perhaps it is not the best scheme; that it is not perhaps the most economic scheme; but I am not going to argue that with anybody. When you are up against the problem of trying, as far as yon can, to alleviate the distress that may exist among the unemployed and trying to deal with that problem as best you can, you must try and spead the employment, over the greatest number. Again I say that perhaps it is not the most economic way, but it is the best we can do in the circumstances.
Why not give the men a week's rotational work?
We know that being out of work for a considerable time has a very deleterious effect on people. It has been pointed out to me by the Board of Works and others that very often, when men are a good while unemployed they are not so able for a time to do a whole week's work. The aim is to try and give employment by that system to the people who are in receipt of the largest amount of unemployment assistance; that is, the people who have the largest number of dependants to support. In every case where employment is given to these people the amount paid to them is never lower than 30 per cent. over and above what they would receive in unemployment benefit. It goes very much higher in most cases, but in no case can it go lower than 30 per cent. over and above what they would receive as unemployment benefit in the ordinary way.
Then you are still standing over the three- or four-day week?
I am still standing over it. I say that I have not found anything better at this stage to deal with the problem there is there; in other words, to spread it over the greatest possible number.
What we are suggesting is a continuous week's work. You can have the rotational scheme as well.
I have not been charged with the carrying out of many of these schemes directly. The Board of Works have more experience of them than I have, and I am sure that, if they found the system they have devised in any way faulty, they would be quite prepared to change it, if it is going to help in any way. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the price of cement. The Deputy can be assured that my Department and myself are concerned with the question of prices and the question of supplies, and that we are in daily communication with the Departments concerned in these matters. My problem would be very much easier if the prices were very much lower and if supplies were available. We are in communication with the Department of Supplies on various aspects of that matter, and with the Department of Industry and Commerce on the question of costs. It is perhaps, primarily, their problem, but it certainly affects our Department in a very acute way.
What is the explanation for the increase over the pre-war price of cement?
That is not my problem; that is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce to satisfy themselves as to why the price has increased.
It is not wages anyway.
A bit of it seems to be.
Is it wages?
Part of it, I believe.
One of the reasons is that the cost of imported cement has gone up.
I know that wages did go up; I do not know exactly what the amount was, but I think it was 6/- a week or something like that. Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that all this work should be planned and looked after by technical experts. I fully agree with him in that. In every case, I think, where works have been carried out by local authorities they have the assistance of experts and, at the top, of course, we must have the experts. If we want assistance, we have to make representations to try and get the extra assistance needed. The Deputy can be assured that when we get that assistance, if we do get it, the Department is always guided and influenced by the advice, direction and assistance given in these matters. We are only anxious in this Bill to see that they are planning ahead so that useful works and works that will give the most employment will be carried out.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to drainage works. The Deputy knows that in 1928 a Drainage Act was passed to assist in the carrying out of small schemes of drainage. That Act was to be renewed after five years, but it was allowed to lapse because very few counties availed of it. I think only Offaly and some other counties in the Midlands availed of it to any extent.
We availed of it very considerably.
And County Limerick also.
When that period was up there was no demand for the continuance of the Act. Apart from that, drainage is a matter upon which a commission has reported. I do not know what that report is, but it is a matter that should be dealt with in that way. It certainly is outside the province of local authorities primarily, just as I contend that the repair of harbours, ports and docks would also be outside the scope of local authorities. There was a Grand Jury Act which, I think, enabled local authorities to repair piers or make roads to piers and do other things like that for which they could give something like £1,500 of a grant, or two-thirds of the cost, whichever was the lower. The present position in regard to the repair of docks or piers is that, if anything has to be done, it is primarily under the control of the Harbour Commissioners who are confined to the dues they collect in the port. They can only proceed with improvement or construction works by getting a private Bill passed here or by a Provisional Order. I feel that harbour works are outside the scope of this Bill, which is directly concerned with the local authorities through the country. I feel that ample works of public utility, useful works, works that would be of lasting benefit to these local authorities, can he devised by good technical experts who are in their employment, assisted and aided by experts at the top if it is considered necessary, and also that considerable employment can be given by such works of public utility.
