At the closing stages of the debate last night, I was pointing out that, in the Midlands, we have many hundreds of acres of bog and that those of us who reside in those districts were aware that those bogs could not be developed up to ten or 12 years ago. For instance, the bogs in Turraun and Clonsast were completely covered by water. There are several other huge tracts of bogland where good turf is being produced at the present time and we must give the Office of Public Works credit that good roads have been made through the majority of those bogs. I believe that the sums the Parliamentary Secretary is estimating for such services during the coming year are altogether insufficient to carry on the development which, I am sure, the Office of Public Works would like to see undertaken and completed.
I am in entire agreement with the manner in which consideration is given to the representations made to the Office of Public Works in connection with any of these schemes. As I said here in this House about two years ago, I am absolutely satisfied that as far as allegations have been made by members of the Opposition—and I think an allegation was made here yesterday by a member of the Opposition—that political influence was used in the type of schemes sponsored by the Office of Public Works, those allegations are unfounded. I am sure there is no Deputy who has had as much recourse to that Office as I had and I am quite satisfied from my experience and knowledge of work they have undertaken in the last five or six years, that there is no question of political interference there. I challenge any Deputy, no matter what statement may have been made from this side of the House, to prove that political influence has been used by the Office in the selection of any schemes. It is about one of the very few offices in this State that has been completely clear of political influence. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is mainly responsible for the very capable and efficient manner in which the duties of that Department have been carried out. I may go further and say that if his colleagues in the Government carried out their duties in half as conscientious a manner as he, little difficulty would be experienced by members on this side of the House.
Deputy McMenamin made reference last night to our country being completely undeveloped. I am inclined to agree with him to a certain extent but he must give credit for the amount of development that has been carried out. Whilst there are many bogs in my constituency and in others that need bog roads and while, as I have pointed out to the Board of Works on numerous occasions, there is very little use in spending money on making such roads unless a sum is set aside at the same time for making bog drains, I have known cases where good roads were made but during the winter months the floods were responsible for removing the surface and at the end of 12 months further grants had to be secured. It is penny wise, pound foolish, to spend money on bog roads unless proper drainage is made also, so that the surface water will not lie in the centre of those roads with disastrous effects to turf cutters in the following year. It would be advisable in future to give instruction to the county surveyors to see that the drains are made at the same time, so that the job will be a lasting one.
Deputies have criticised very bitterly the system of employment on such schemes and I am inclined to agree with them. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could have some improvements carried out in that respect. I disagree completely with the system whereby there must be a certain number of registered unemployed in order that the money provided under this Vote may be spent in the area. In the case of electoral divisions where the unemployed never neglect to register, the grants are always secured and the money is spent, yet there are other areas where they do not register but where there are turf cutters and users of bogs appealing to the Government for grants for the repair of the roads and they do not qualify for those grants because the unemployed in the district did not register. The allocation should be made on some other basis. I have known cases in my constituency— and I am sure other Deputies have had similar experiences—where we knew that most essential works should be carried out by the Department but they could not be put into operation because sufficient unemployed had not registered in the district. There were hundreds and hundreds of unemployed who did not register—farmers' sons, whose season on the land was completed and who, though unemployed, did not desire to register—who would make themselves available for work on such schemes. There were also groups of small farmers, a little better than agricultural labourers, who would be prepared to take on carting work under those schemes, but who did not wish to register as unemployed. The Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to examine this matter and make some arrangements whereby the allocation of this money will not have to be based on the number of registered unemployed in a district.
In the Midlands, advantage has been taken of the rural improvements scheme, and rightly so. That scheme was a very good one, one at which very little criticism can be hurled. If we had more of such schemes it would be of some practical help from the Government towards the further development of the country. While a lot of good work has been done under the rural improvements scheme, there are still many areas where it could be applied, but on account of the regulations the local people are unable to reap the benefit of the scheme. There are laneways which could not be maintained in accordance with local government regulations by the county council. If we have a group of cottages where there are poor agricultural labourers living, it cannot be expected that they could subscribe in the same manner as a group of very big farmers.
I realise the difficulties that would arise, but I think some provision should be made in such cases where, in the opinion of the Office of Public Works, such schemes should be put into operation but cannot, through lack of the capital required under the rural improvements scheme. I do believe that some further help and assistance should be given in cases of that nature where real hardships are pointed out to the Office of Public Works. Those people may be anxious to have the work done but circumstances may not permit them to contribute the proportion of the cost upon which the Department insists. In such cases, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works should be prepared to accept a sum which they consider reasonable and which will not impose too great a hardship on the local people.
I am very anxious to see the system of rotational employment on such schemes completely abolished because I believe that whatever good results accrue from such schemes are largely nullified by this system of rotational employment and by the conditions the workers have to endure under such schemes. In the big towns, there are a number of decent citizens who are registered as unemployed with the result that, as Deputy McMenamin pointed out, these men are compelled even under the most appalling weather conditions to cycle perhaps four or five miles in the depth of winter to work on those schemes. In many cases which I have known, married men were allowed to work only four days per week and single men only three days per week simply because, in the opinion of the county surveyor, if full-time employment were given on the scheme the jobs would have to be closed down in a short time. I think whether a man is married or single, he is entitled to fair treatment. Whether a man is married or single, he should not be denied a decent week's work and I think the Office of Public Works should make very strong recommendation to the county surveyors who are in charge of these schemes, to see that no question of completely breaking up the week in this way arises, and that single men will be treated in the very same way as married men. I believe, of course, that a preference should be given to married men with families but at the same time the present system is such, that when a man is employed for three or four days a week, the remainder of the week is completely useless to him. These workers would much prefer to be working.
I also desire to condemn in the strongest possible terms the low rate of wages paid on those schemes. I believe that much more valuable work would be carried out under the minor relief schemes and the rural employment schemes if the workers were contented. I say that the rate of wages paid to such workers is a downright disgrace to civilisation when one considers the hard work they have to put into such schemes. As a Deputy pointed out last night, they are compelled to work under the most severe weather conditions. Most of these schemes are carried out during the winter months. I realise that such schemes cannot be operated during the summer months when turf cutting is in progress and, looking at the matter from the point of view of obtaining the best results, I think that the best time to carry out drainage is when the drains are full. Better results can be expected by carrying out these schemes in winter time. Therefore, whilst we may sympathise with the workers who have to work on schemes during the winter, we admit that such schemes cannot be economically carried out in the summer months. I think a great deal of the uneasiness that exists amongst workers on such schemes would be allayed if a decent wage were offered to them. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary realises that the wages paid can only be looked upon as outrageous, an insult to any human being. Many good schemes are completely held up because the workers refuse point blank to work under such horrible conditions.
If we are really sincere and in earnest about solving the unemployment problem, I believe that we could find many useful schemes which could provide almost constant work for those who need it. We have huge drainage schemes which are absolutely essential. We have the agricultural community loudly appealing for such drainage schemes. Most of the roads throughout the country are in a deplorable condition, more especially roads over which the county councils have no jurisdiction, roads which should receive attention from the Office of Public Works. I say it is a downright disgrace that while there is such an abundance of potential work in the country, anybody should be unemployed. The only thing which prevents us putting men to work is this question of giving them proper conditions and proper rates of wages.
In the Office of Public Works, there must be huge files of communications signed by ratepayers from my constituency who are anxious to have schemes of outstanding importance put into operation whilst, on the other hand, a large number of our citizens are unemployed. It is a disgraceful state of affairs to say that 185,000 of our able-bodied men were compelled to emigrate simply because they could not eke out an existence here on the wages offered to them and because they could get work abroad on much more attractive conditions and at much better rates of pay than are offered at home.
I say that considerably more work could be carried out by the Office of Public Works if they altered the conditions of employment and improved the wages paid on these schemes. The rates of pay, as I have pointed out, are a complete disgrace and no citizen could be expected to work under such deplorable conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that strong representations have been made by county councils in regard to the wages offered on these schemes. If the wages were increased, it would mean that workers would have a greater interest in their work, that better work would be carried out and that you would have more applications for such schemes. The workers would then look forward to those schemes during the winter months as a means of securing employment at decent rates of wages which would enable them to live and carry out their obligations to their families in a proper manner. I have known workers to say that they would be much better off walking the streets, begging from door to door than to go out and work on those schemes for the low rates of pay offered. If they carried out any sort of a decent begging campaign they would have a much better income than working under the conditions which obtain under schemes carried out by the Office of Public Works. While I have every respect for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of which he is in charge, I am sorry to have to admit that I believe the Department has given very little consideration to hungry men and half-clad men, and that these are deserving of much more sympathetic consideration from the State and the Department than they are getting. It is a disgraceful state of affairs, I think, to compel men who have reached the age of 65 or 70 to labour on these schemes. No man over these ages is able to work on relief schemes.
I know that men who have almost reached the age of 70 were sent out to work on them, and that, if it were not for the support they had from the shovels in their hands, they would have dropped dead from weakness and hunger. Men between the ages of 65 and 70 are beyond their labour and it is a crying shame, I think, to compel them to work on these schemes or to deny them State assistance if, on receipt of a communication from the local employment exchange, they refuse to take up work on them. The alternative offer to them is that they either take the work or remain at home and die from hunger.