Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 May 1946

Vol. 101 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 67—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Mr. Flanagan

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.

Mr. Smith

That is not so.

Mr. Flanagan

I have known it to be so. I have known cases in my constituency where the employment exchanges at Tullamore, Portlaoighise, Portarlington and Birr, gave instructions to a certain number of workers to report for work on certain schemes sponsored by the Office of Public Works. They were informed that if they did not report for work they would be debarred from receiving any State assistance from the Department of Industry and Commerce. When appeals were made to give sympathetic consideration in those cases, the manager of the local employment exchange and the authorities always made a report against the worker, stating that he had refused work. That is a state of affairs that should not be allowed to exist. Men who have reached the ages that I have mentioned are not able to compete against young men of 25 and 30 years of age. Some steps should be taken to see that provision is made for those that I refer to, and that they will not be called out to work on schemes such as we are discussing.

I want to conclude by complimenting the Office of Public Works on the good work that it has done. I believe it will be able to continue that good work, and to put more efficiency into it, if it alters the system of employment to which I have referred and increases the wages of the workers. The work provided should be made more attractive for the workers. The fact that supplies of fuel could be made available for the cities during the emergency was largely due to the wise expenditure of money by the Office of Public Works in the making of bog roads and the carrying out of drainage works. I think that the people would have a better appreciation of the schemes carried out by the Department if something were done by it now to make them more attractive for the workers by giving better employment conditions and an increase in wages.

Major de Valera

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but a thought has struck me about Dublin which I should like to bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's notice. These schemes which have been so valuable to the country in providing employment, on the one hand, and development on the other, have a certain application to the city and could, I think, with proper forethought be planned with a view to permanent development. In making these remarks I have in mind the situation that obtains on the outskirts of the city where virtually new towns have grown up. For instance, on the north side, you have Cabra and areas like it which are virtually new towns. The later ones were developed rapidly under emergency conditions, so that many of the amenities which are desirable at these locations are, as yet, absent. It might be possible to adapt some of the schemes administered by the Department to provide for the development of these areas in which there has been a considerable increase in population, giving rise to many local problems. Workers, for example, have to travel into the city to their work. That means a considerable outlay on their part for transport. If a worker is employed in a factory on the south side, he may have to go right around from, say, Cabra into the centre of the city and out again. Inquiries, I understand, were made about the possibility of direct transport, but it was mentioned that the roads and arteries were not suitable and that further development would be necessary before anything of that nature could be done. Schemes to cater for that kind of thing would be useful, apart from the development of the area itself. If possible, these outlying areas should be developed with a view to the location in them of industries so that workers would be spared the cost of having to travel long distances. The development of industries is, of course, as Deputies know, part of the general policy of the Government.

It is to be hoped that, following the reduction in the price of petrol announced in this year's Budget, relief in regard to transport charges will follow for the people living in the areas to which I have referred. Although the matter is not quite relevant to this Vote, I should like to put in a plea that that should be done.

That in itself, of course, would not solve the problem that I speak of, so that I think something in the nature of development schemes would be highly desirable, that is to say, looking at them from the point of view of internal development rather than from the point of view that they should be merely outgrown suburbs of the city. I rose merely for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to these areas for consideration in the location of the schemes which the House has been discussing.

Mr. Cafferky

I listened to Deputy Flanagan suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that the carrying out of drainage work in winter time would be more effective than at any other period of the year. That statement indicates, of course, that the Deputy does not know anything about drainage. If he did, he would know that it is almost impossible to drain or develop a bog in the winter time. If a drain is filled with water or sludge, how could drainage work be carried out? Obviously, Deputy Flanagan thought that the higher the water was the better he would know which way it was flowing. He never thought of taking levels. So far as Deputy Flanagan is concerned, whether the water was flowing up hill or down it did not matter, so long as it was flowing.

There are three schemes here, the minor, the rural and the farm improvements schemes. There is a difference of opinion among Deputies with regard to some of these schemes. I have already informed the Parliamentary Secretary that I never believed that the rural improvements scheme would be a success, particularly among the small farmers. My reason for so thinking is that people in congested areas feel they are paying sufficient in the form of local and general taxation, and when they are asked to contribute to another form of taxation, they consider it is very unfair. In addition to that, it is almost impossible to get the necessary co-operation in order to make the rural improvements scheme effective. I pointed out here on one or two occasions that it might be possible among the larger, well-to-do farmers. You will find that type of farmer in nearly every county. You will find him in the Killala area and in the Ballinrobe, Claremorris and Castlebar areas; but you will not find him in the Swinford, Belmullet, Achill or Tourmakeady areas.

There are many of these areas in South and North Mayo where there is considerable congestion. In these areas there are very small farmers who will definitely refuse to have anything to do with the rural improvements scheme and, therefore, that scheme will not be of much benefit to these small tenants. They simply laugh at the idea. I have made sincere efforts, and so has my colleague, Deputy Commons, and, I assume, Deputy Blowick, to try to get them to adopt that scheme, but if you were to persist in your efforts they would simply think you were mad. They would ask you what would you expect them to do; was it not sufficient to pay high rates and taxes and pay for the necessaries of life without being called upon to contribute towards the repair of the roads? They told me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to request Córas Iompair Éireann to make a contribution, notwithstanding that they are paying high taxes for the vehicles they run along the roads. They say: "Will you ask Córas Iompair Éireann to pay some extra allowance for the construction of the highways along which they travel?"

Some of these people may be poor and simple, but they are not quite so simple as to adopt the method which the Parliamentary Secretary has in view, under the rural improvements scheme. I would like if we could make it a success. I acknowledge that there are many roads of the type that could be repaired under a rural improvements scheme in Mayo, parts of Galway, West Roscommon, Sligo, Donegal and elsewhere wherever you have congestion such as exists more especially in the West of Ireland. A road may lie there for years without receiving any consideration and the only way in which it could be reconstructed or repaired would be under a rural improvements scheme. Deputy Blowick suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he could increase the grant it would help considerably those who now refuse to co-operate and they might be enticed to adopt the scheme. It might be desirable also if the percentage asked was small. There might be something in that, but I am convinced that this scheme will not meet with the success which the Parliamentary Secretary thought it would meet with when he introduced it. That is my candid opinion. I regret that it is not a successful scheme, but it cannot be with the position as I have indicated.

We have a sum of £400,000 for the farm improvements scheme. That is a totally different scheme. On a number of occasions I have asked that that scheme should be made a permanent one. I do not think it is permanent now; I understand it is an emergency scheme. I will say it has helped to brighten up small country holdings. It is decidedly an asset to the small farmers and they have availed of it to the full. They desire to be in a position to do a lot more on their holdings, such as the erection of out-offices, pigsties, hen-houses and granaries for threshing and holding corn. Those things are very necessary on large or small holdings. The farm improvements scheme is quite different from the rural improvements scheme. There is no co-operation required; it all centres on the individual. You are not asking two, three or four farmers to co-operate. The benefits which accrue from the farm improvements scheme fall upon individuals and not on groups.

With regard to seed distribution, in Mayo there have been general complaints, particularly in the congested areas, that there is not sufficient seed for distribution. In fact, we had almost a kind of riot in the town of Charlestown early last spring because the young man responsible there for seed distribution had not sufficient to go around. He made every effort to distribute it as evenly as he could, but there were people who were not satisfied. It is very hard for a young man in a large area, consisting of three or four parishes, to know who is a small farmer and who is a large farmer. There are some very poor farmers with valuations of 50/-, £4 10s. 0d., £5 and £6, and there are others with much larger valuations. That young man has at least 1,000 people within his area and if he could have before him a list of the people in the two or three villages, with their valuations, he would be in a better position to know the small farmers and the large farmers and he could divide the seed in a more equitable manner. He would know that Thomas Byrne had a certain valuation and James Faulkner had, perhaps, a slightly higher valuation. With such a list before him there would be a more equitable division of the seed. By doing that it would not be necessary for 200 or 300 people to stand outside the door or window waiting for the seed. Sometimes it might happen that the better-off farmer would get the seed and the poor man would get little or none.

No blame can be attached to the young man responsible for the distribution of the seed. It is the plan of distribution that is wrong. He had not the necessary information to guide him. The unfair system of distribution cannot be blamed on the agricultural instructor or overseer, or whatever you may call him. It is all due to the lack of a distribution plan. If I were there I could not do it any better, unless I had some knowledge of the various valuations.

As the Parliamentary Secretary is, no doubt, aware, in my constituency and, indeed, in the whole of the county, there is a large number of unemployed who never register at the labour exchange and who never will register for reasons best known to themselves, and yet they would be prepared, as Deputy Flanagan says, to take work on the roads. The peculiar point about it is that these minor relief schemes can only be started in an area in which there is a certain number of registered unemployed. I feel that that is unfair. I have time and again made application to the Board of Works and have always got reasonable consideration, but have been told that their hands are tied— that I can well understand—and that the work in which I was interested could only be considered in the light of the number of unemployed in the area. As I say, that is unfair. The Parliamentary Secretary, coming from Donegal——

Mr. Smith

Not so far down.

Mr. Cafferky

The Parliamentary Secretary comes from a congested area, at any rate.

Mr. Smith

I am an Ulsterman.

Mr. Cafferky

That being so, he is well aware of congested conditions and of what I am trying to point out. It has often been said that those who get employment on rural improvement schemes are not inclined to work. Can you blame them? First, the scheme is looked on as a relief scheme, and, secondly, those working on it know full well that they are not getting a return for the labour they are putting into it. They feel that they earn the few "bob" they get by getting up early in the morning and walking to the job and walking back in the evening, without doing anything more. They feel that, if they never dirtied a shovel, they have done sufficient in having to get out of bed in the depths of winter, walking to the job and then walking back to earn the 5/- or 6/- they receive, although they must wait a fortnight before getting their first week's pay. No consideration is given to how they are to live in the meantime, or how they are to get food to keep themselves alive. The Parliamentary Secretary must admit that that policy is completely out of step with the times.

It has often been said from the opposite benches that our propaganda is the cause of people emigrating. It is not. No propaganda could force anybody to emigrate. It is the system under which we live that forces them to leave. Is there anything worse than a system under which a man must go to work on a bog road or drain and must wait a fortnight for his money and then find that what he gets is not sufficient to keep tobacco in his pocket not to speak of enabling him to provide for those for whom he has responsibility? Is it any wonder that these young men are anxious to get away? A man may go to the job on a rainy morning and find that there is nothing doing. I suggest that these works should be carried out in springtime. We have 70,000 unemployed.

Mr. Smith

Not so much.

Mr. Cafferky

The Minister for Finance gave us to understand that that was the number.

Mr. Smith

It is only 13,000 less.

Mr. Cafferky

That makes the figure 57,000. I think that would be a sufficient number of men to put on these jobs at a more suitable time of the year than the middle of winter.

Mr. Smith

What would the Mayo farmer say if we did that?

Mr. Cafferky

In Mayo, it is customary to have large families and this is the cause of congestion. There are always one or two sons in a family who are available for work on this type of scheme and these young men will tell you that it is unfair to ask them out in the middle of winter to work in a drain which is half filled with water and slush, or to make a road in places where a horse cannot walk. A road was made in my village this year and if the weather had been more suitable, a better job could have been done—not that a good job was not done—and in less time. Every second day it rained, and it was impossible for a man, not to speak of a horse, to work on the job. The horses got bogged down and endangered the men. Commonsense should have suggested that it was almost impossible to do the job they were asked to do, but they did it eventually, but I suggest they could have done twice the amount of work in half the time if the job had been carried out in the early part of the year, instead of around the Christmas period or the month of February.

Mr. Smith

Surely there are some bachelor farmers in Mayo who would object to that? They are not all people with large families, I suspect.

Mr. Cafferky

The bachelor farmers are in a minority in Mayo, and, not only in Mayo, but in every county, even the Parliamentary Secretary's county.

Mr. Smith

I doubt it.

Mr. Cafferky

I am speaking on behalf of the unemployed man, and if I tread on large farmers' corns, I am not at all afraid because they are a very small minority. I am interested in the unemployed man who must go out in such circumstances and make that sacrifice for a few shillings to enable him to keep body and soul together.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration the number of young men who come home from England in November and December, and who are unemployed, although not registered at the labour exchange. I have often put their case to the Board of Works and have been told that it is no use, that there must be such and such a percentage of unemployed in the area. I have pointed out that 50, 60 or 70 men had come home in the previous month and had nothing to do, and that, if they go down to register, the investigation officer comes along and humiliates them and their parents by seeking to find out everything about their lives and what they have. It is a deplorable state of affairs that men should be paid £6 and £7 a week for the job of investigating old age pensioners' means and the means of those who seek to register as unemployed. It is disgraceful and insulting and completely out of step with the times.

There is a lot of credit due to these young men who go to England for five or six months to earn sufficient to keep them for the other half of the year, and, in addition, they are saving taxation for this country. If the Minister for Finance had to provide for these men over the whole year, instead of introducing a Budget of £57,000,000, he would have to introduce a Budget of £107,000,000. These men are making the position easier for the Minister, and yet, when we make a reasonable case on their behalf, we are turned down because of red tape in the Board of Works.

Then, as Deputy Flanagan pointed out, men who are in receipt of unemployment benefit get a card to go to such-and-such a job which may be four or five miles away. They may have a very genuine excuse. They may not have a bicycle, or they may not be able to cycle, and the distance is too far for them to walk. I do not suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would stand over a man being victimised or that the officials of the Board of Works would stand over it. The manager in the labour exchange is the culprit; he is the gentleman who is at fault. When a report comes before the Department of Industry and Commerce as to a man not taking up employment when requested to do so, the Department will accept what is put before them by the manager of the local labour exchange. In many instances the manager is prejudiced. I know that, otherwise I would not state it.

Mr. Smith

The man can appeal to the court of referees.

Mr. Cafferky

I had the pleasure of going before courts of referees as an ordinary working man and I know the procedure and it is pure humbug. You find four men sitting there; three of them are against you and one is with you. That is the position and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

Mr. Smith

I do not.

Mr. Cafferky

That is the procedure not only in this country but in Great Britain. The procedure in connection with the court of referees is copied from Great Britain.

Mr. Smith

It is fair, no matter where it is copied from.

Mr. Cafferky

From my personal experience I maintain that it is not fair. I have had personal experience of it and I am assuming the Parliamentary Secretary had not. He had not to go on trial and be convicted, although innocent. I maintain that some of these managers or assistant managers in the labour exchanges should be more considerate. After all, they are living amongst the people and they know the position very well. Going into a labour exchange is like going into the Department of External Affairs. You must be "a person" or otherwise, in many instances, they treat you in a most rude manner. Poor working men going into a labour exchange get no consideration. I know that, otherwise I would not say it. The way they are treated is deplorable. These minor officials down the country suffer from swelled head. When a poor man goes into one of these exchanges he may not be able to write or to explain his case properly and, instead of trying to understand him and to help him, they will tell him to get out. If he loses his temper, woe betide him. It is all right for the official to lose his temper. That is what is happening down the country at present. I am in agreement with the policy of bog development. But, to be frank about it, in Mayo we have been disappointed about bog development, especially under the turf development legislation passed through this House.

Mr. Smith

I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Cafferky

Taking into consideration what the people of Mayo have done and the contribution they have made towards supplying fuel, they feel that they have been very much neglected in connection with bog development. It is no use developing a bog and spending money on drainage if there is no way by which the water can flow from the bog. I have brought before the Board of Works one instance where a bog has been divided and developed and drained and where the water was held up and could not get away. The reply I got was that the scheme would be too costly, that it would not pay to clean up the river in question. The water there went perhaps 200 or 300 yards and was then held up. I venture to say that in four or five years from now that drain will be closed up by dirt and weeds. It is a waste of money doing work like that—going to the trouble of making very good drains and developing bogs when there is no way out for the water. I admit that the Parliamentary Secretary is a very reasonable man and that the officials of the Board of Works are very reasonable men. But they can only go a certain distance; their hands are tied. They are always obliging, willing to help you in every possible way and to consider suggestions or plans put before them.

So far as minor employment schemes are concerned, the system by which the number of unemployed in a district is taken into consideration before a scheme can be started is wrong, particularly in congested areas such as we have in the county I come from. I am afraid the rural improvements scheme will not be a success there. I support Deputy Blowick's idea of having the contribution from the Board of Works increased from 75 to 87½ per cent. That may encourage people to co-operate who otherwise would not be anxious to co-operate. I wish the farm improvements scheme every success and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to keep on agitating until he succeeds in making it a permanent scheme because it has done a tremendous lot of good in my county and, I suppose, in other counties as well. It is the best scheme ever introduced by any Government in this House.

I have not criticised this Estimate very much. I am only saying what I feel to be the truth and trying to help. I meet these young men who work on the roads and the bogs and they tell me their tale. It is not necessary for them to tell me because I know it too well from bitter experience. I think it is the view of Mayo Deputies that in districts like Belmullet, Achill, Tourmakeady and Swinford, where you have congestion and thickly populated areas some consideration should be given to the people. In Ballinrobe, Killala, Balla and Castlebar districts, where the land is better and the valuations are higher, the rural improvements scheme might be effective. But I think Deputy Kilroy, Deputy Browne and myself, who come from the worse-off areas of Mayo, are agreed that we have got very little out of the rural improvements scheme. When we put minor employment schemes before the Board of Works, I think we should get a little more consideration than the Deputies who come from the more prosperous areas where the valuations are higher and the farmers are better off.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I wish to say just a few words on some points which I have already brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to County Dublin. We are faced with coast erosion around the coast of Dublin at the present time. The county council will not take any responsibility in that matter and so far the Board of Works has done nothing. The situation is getting more serious every day, especially in Skerries, Balbriggan and Donabate. I understand the position is somewhat similar in south County Dublin. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter in his own time and see what can be done. It is possible that if the Office of Public Works took the matter in hand employment could be provided in these areas. We have an unemployment problem in Balbriggan. We have also got quite serious coast erosion there. In north County Dublin too there are inlets, especially at Malahide and at Rogerstown, and at Donabate. Successful reclamation work could be done in these areas and I am sure that any work done in that respect would in time prove beneficial.

There would seem to be some difficulty at present in relation to rural improvement schemes. In some cases you may have four, five, or six families using a Land Commission road. This road was constructed by the Land Commission and left in good order by them. In course of time that road falls into disrepair and requires some further work to be done on it. What happens? An application is made under the road improvements schemes to have the road put into proper repair. One man will refuse to contribute his share towards improving the road. The result is that this road then becomes impassable and it is very hard for the other people using it to carry on. I am sorry, too, that the farmers in County Dublin are not taking advantage of the rural improvements schemes to the same extent as in other counties.

My suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary is that where disagreement takes place amongst the people themselves would it be possible to make the grant 80 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. in order to encourage the people to make their contribution? That might encourage some of the people to whom I refer. Moreover, now that we are starting to develop our tourist industry and various other things, I would suggest that an inspector from the Office of Public Works should co-operate with the Tourist Board and the county council in order to discover what useful work can be done to improve our seaside resorts and the laneways leading to them. The county council has no power to take over these. They seem to be culs-de-sac, but if they were improved it would enhance the beauty of the country for our visitors and for our own people.

Now there is another matter that arises—drainage. We have no major flooding in County Dublin but we have what I would describe as semi-major flooding in some areas during the winter months. I know a lot of land which could be made much more valuable than it is at the present time if the rivers were properly cleaned. I know one man who has about 20 acres of land marching with a river. If the season is wet that man loses all the hay on that land and all the grazing. If the river were cleaned, not alone could that land be used for hay and grazing but it could also be used for tillage. I know this drainage problem is a big one particularly as the Parliamentary Secretary's first concern is the major drainage schemes in other parts of the country to prevent major flooding. I do not say that there is any danger of anybody in County Dublin being flooded out. But I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to keep that in mind. I must say here that I have always found him very sympathetic and courteous in any representations I have had to make to him; I have heard others pay him the same compliment. So much for drainage.

We have now another problem and that is the harbours which come under the Board of Works in County Dublin. I have had numerous complaints, especially about Howth harbour. That is directly under the Board of Works. The fishermen there and the residents say that the harbour is really too wide. When stormy weather comes—from the east especially—the boats are battered against the west pier. They advocate the building of a wall down the middle of the harbour in order to provide some shelter for the boats on the west side. That might be a costly operation. They also ask for the dredging and deepening of the harbour, and the provision of proper boat slips. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider all these things——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matters to which you refer now would hardly come under this Vote.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I will withdraw then.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I merely want to point that out to you. They come under the Office of Public Works, but in another form.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but I would like to stress the matter of the roads and drainage in County Dublin and coast erosion. Coast erosion is a particularly serious matter at Skerries. House property has been completely undermined there as a result of such erosion during the last winter.

Mr. Sheldon

Sir, listening to some of the criticisms here I certainly do not envy the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply. In regard to minor employment schemes particularly there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what the schemes are for and what they are supposed to do. I think it is quite bad enough to find the people down in the country not appreciating the position, but a good many of the Deputies seem to be rather hazy on the subject also. It is not my job to answer for the Parliamentary Secretary, but there are times when one is almost tempted. I understand that the difficulty arises in relation to the minor improvements schemes because of a statutory regulation that these schemes must be provided to relieve unemployment. They are not provided for the purpose of doing certain works, but to provide work.

Except in so far as bog roads are concerned, I think priority can be given there, even when the percentage of registered unemployed is not sufficiently high. Certainly in the country there is a very widespread belief that the necessity for that work is the important thing. If the Department could manage in some way to stress the fact that the necessity for the work is not the important thing, but the actual giving of the work, it might help to allay some uneasiness in certain districts. As to the criticism in regard to giving the work in the depths of winter, under the dreadful conditions that we have heard described, I wonder what Deputies would say if the Department were to give the work in summer, when other employment can possibly be obtained, and to leave these unfortunate men without any employment in the winter time. I have a firm belief that the criticism would be even more bitter. I am not suggesting that everything in connection with the minor employment scheme is as good as one would like it to be but, as far as I can see, the real difficulties concerning it would require new legislation and are not a matter of administration.

With regard to the rural improvement schemes, the only criticism I have to make is that it has been suggested to me that in several cases the estimate made of the cost is too high. The result is, of course, that the people concerned are scared of going any further with the work. In connection with one scheme in particular, I have been told that the official estimate was about four times an unofficial estimate made by a qualified man. The effect of that was that the people concerned felt that they were going to pay for the whole job because their 25 per cent. contribution really represented the amount involved, according to the unofficial estimate. The Parliamentary Secretary should look into that and check up as to the accuracy of some of the estimates. I am not prepared to make a complete allegation that that is a policy in order to put some schemes on the long finger, but in some cases that has occurred. The cases brought to my notice were the drainage and cleaning of small streams and open drains. Otherwise, the scheme seems to be admirable.

I do not see much point in suggesting that the solution of difficulties is to increase the State grant because, if the State grant were made 80 per cent. or 85 per cent., it would be suggested that it should be 90 or 95 per cent. I would not agree with Deputy Cafferky's criticism that it ought to be done free, gratis and for nothing. In my opinion there is too much spoon-feeding as it is. The people are rapidly getting to the point when they are not willing to do anything for themselves. My own farm road has been maintained for the last 100 years without any grant, by keeping it in repair and not allowing it to get into too bad a condition. The Deputy who last spoke referred to Land Commission roads falling into disrepair and now needing a grant under the rural improvement schemes. Any cases of that kind that have come to my notice are cases where the new tenants did not bother about it for the first two or three years, when all it needed was a few barrow-loads of stones in the bad spots to keep it in repair. Criticism is all very well but a little self help now and again does no harm.

So many bouquets have been thrown at the farm improvement scheme that there is no need for me to throw any. It is undoubtedly a very good scheme and the only criticism I have in regard to it is that in some parts the estimate of labour cost is rather low particularly in connection with work which involves the use of concrete, such as the building of new stalls and byres. That work requires fairly skilled labour because very exact specifications have to be kept to. If they are not kept to the job is ruined. I have personal experience that the actual labour cost was so far removed from the estimated labour cost that there was no relationship between them whatsoever. That matter should be considered. I suggest that some discretion might be left to the inspectors. That also applies to work where clay banks have to be moved to improve the shape or size of fields. There is a fixed rate per perch. Clay banks differ very widely. In the case of a bank that is not too old and in which there are no hedges growing it is a mere matter of tumbling down very loose soil and, in fact, the soil is a great asset to the surrounding parts of the field but, where hedges have grown for a long number of years, especially in wet soil, the only thing that would move it in an efficient and quick way is a bulldozer.

The rate per perch is absolutely out of proportion with actual costs. The only way in which that could be dealt with would be to leave some discretion to the inspectors. The inspectors that I know are highly efficient men whose services the State does not recognise quite as well as it should but that is a matter that arises, I think, on the Vote for Agriculture, not on this Vote.

The same criticism applies to the improvement of farm roads. All sorts of difficulties may be discovered in connection with a particular road which mean the estimated labour cost at a fixed rate per perch is altogether out of proportion with the real cost. As far as I can discover, the estimated labour cost seems to cover only the actual filling in on the road and nothing is allowed for providing the material. In some cases, that may involve a fairly high labour cost. I know of one particular case where the work was finished to the farmer's satisfaction but when the inspector saw it he said it would require a topping of gravel. To provide the gravel would cost more than the whole grant so, of course, he did not top it with gravel.

I think that most of these schemes are on the whole working fairly well. Everything is not just as well as it should be but there seems to be, in all of them, progressive improvement from year to year. I do not want to follow Deputy Flanagan too far in casting bouquets at the Parliamentary Secretary because that is a dangerous procedure. A little candid criticism would probably produce better results. I admit that Deputy Flanagan did intersperse his bouquets with some candid criticism in the latter stages of his remarks. Is there any provision in this Vote for arterial drainage?

Mr. Smith

No. That is Vote 10.

Mr. Sheldon

It does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Kilroy

I am in agreement with Deputy Cafferky in regard to minor employment schemes. I believe that is one of the best schemes ever put into operation and that it will be of great benefit to the country.

As regards Erris, the minor employment schemes there are more suitable than the special employment schemes, which, I am afraid, would not be effective in that area. It would not be possible to get the necessary co-operation in some districts there. Another question to which I desire to refer is the removal of the pier at Belmullet. That pier was built about 40 years ago by the British Government, and now it is to be dismantled by our Government. I think that that is wrong. The harbour should be dredged from there to Belmullet. When that is not done, it is a big loss to the country. The pier would be of great benefit to the country if it were kept in repair. It would be particularly helpful in connection with the turf schemes and its repair would be to the benefit of every shop and farm. I should like to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that if the pier is removed, alternative accommodation will be provided and that the harbour will be dredged up to Belmullet.

As regards the turf scheme in that area, I am afraid that we were let down badly. A generating station should be erected there and the turf produced there utilised. In Erris and Achill mineral deposits were worked for years by the British Government. If the Parliamentary Secretary would spend some money and see that these were operated again, it would be of great benefit to the locality. The rivers in that area overflow nearly every year and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should take steps to see that the flooding will not continue. In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this area the full benefit of the schemes being operated by his Department.

Mr. Coburn

As far as I can understand, this is more or less a token vote to provide employment at certain periods of the year for those who cannot otherwise obtain employment. If my memory serves me, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, on one occasion, when twitted by members of this House as to the large number of unemployed, that these grants were only being given until such time as the Government would be able to industrialise the country to such an extent that unemployment would cease.

I am sorry that the hopes expressed by the Minister have not materialised. I do not say that by way of criticism. I am afraid that, in the years to come, the Parliamentary Secretary who may be sitting in the seat now occupied by the present Parliamentary Secretary will have to ask for a bigger Vote to meet the demands of the people out of work. This is not a healthy sign so far as the future of the country is concerned. Side by side with the increased grants for minor improvement schemes and rural improvement schemes, there must be less employment in the farming industry. That is one of the causes, I think, why so many men are looking for work on schemes of this type. Instead of this Vote of £1,250,000, a sum of about £10,000,000 would be required to meet the demands put forward by Deputies in respect of drainage, coast erosion and the giving of constant employment to men seeking such employment.

I am not one who is out to exaggerate the difficulties confronting the Parliamentary Secretary. Neither do I want to minimise them. I do not agree with Deputies who talk about men going out to work in the cold and rain. I may remind Deputies that I belong to a trade the members of which have to face those conditions year in and year out. Workmen realise that they cannot have carpets under their feet while working. There will be a hardship so long as the world exists, because it has been decreed that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. Men cannot always work under ideal conditions. There is no use in engaging in exaggeration as regards the lot of these men. We all know that it is not a happy one. We should like to see them enjoying better conditions. We all realise that men who have endured long spells of idleness are not physically fit to engage in hard work in inclement weather.

Going through this Estimate, I notice that about 500 minor schemes of drainage were carried out at an approximate cost of £32,000. That would work out at about £60 per scheme on the average. I do not know what type of drainage scheme could be carried out for £60. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would let us know. According to the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary, the number of applications in connection with rural improvement schemes was 4,306 of which 3,000 had been reported on up to 31st March. Do I understand that there were 4,000 applications in one year, 3,000 of which had been reported upon at that date? The number accepted in the year was only 906. That is only about one in every six, for which grants totalling £108,270 were sanctioned, towards a total estimated expenditure of £138,205, the balance being contributed by the applicants. That 900 cost £108,270, or an average of £100 to £110 per scheme. I suppose they would be schemes initiated by the Board of Works by means of a contribution of 75 per cent., plus the 25 per cent. from those benefiting. There again, I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the value has been as good as possible for the money expended. This country is too small to be paying out money for the sake of paying it out, or to be giving work for the sake of giving work. Work should be done which will be productive and of lasting benefit to the people concerned and to the country as a whole.

In regard to rural improvement schemes and minor employment schemes—it is a bit bewildering, as there are so many schemes, but we must try to segregate them—it has been suggested to increase the grant to 80 per cent. I do not think there is much use in niggling or hobbling over 5 per cent. You might as well go the whole hog and give the full 100 per cent., as the man who is not prepared to do any work under the 25 per cent. system will not do any work under the 20 per cent. system. It depends on the individual and, unless the Government goes the whole way and gives 100 per cent., there is not much use in making an increase from 75 to 80 per cent. It has been suggested here that the contributors, for whose benefit the scheme is put into operation, should pay the difference of from 15 to 20 per cent.

In regard to minor schemes, I suppose the purpose for which they were initiated is to give work. That work is governed by the number of men registered in the area as unemployed and that has been a crux ever since the scheme was started. I suppose there had to be some conditions, some rules and regulations governing the initiation of these minor schemes, but I respectfully suggest that they do not always work out as well as the Parliamentary Secretary would like. I know of cases in my county where, if that rule were adhered to rigidly, no work would have been carried out. In tribute to the people of the county, I must say I get very little annoyance in regard to rural improvement schemes or minor employment schemes. I do not think I have been concerned with two in my 20 years there.

Mr. Smith

They are very well off.

Mr. Coburn

Whether it is that they are very well off or that they work hard and do the job themselves without talking about it, I must admit that my sojourns to the Board of Works have been very rare. That is why I should like to bring this case and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give it all the sympathetic consideration he can give it, within the rules. I know it is a case which is not entitled to come under the heading of minor relief schemes unless this little balance the Minister shows could be devoted to schemes such as this. Deputy Walsh knows the position and, perhaps, the two of us will make a raid on the Board of Works. He can bear me out in regard to the facts. There is a place outside Drogheda, on the road between Drogheda and Baltray, called Banktown. It is a little place, at the end of which there are six or seven nice little cottages, built on rising ground, with a very steep incline to the houses. They come down to a little basin, where there is a grassy patch which gets soft and flooded when there are high tides in the River Boyne at certain times of the year. These people are not in danger of being flooded, but have to get from their houses to the main road and when they come from the very high place to the little place they cannot get on the road except by means of a boat.

Deputy Walsh knows more than I do about this place and will bear me out. I say that this is a case which requires special consideration. I happened to be there one day and examined it and, only for the action of a certain lady, who took sympathy on the people and erected a little foot bridge three or four feet wide, the plight of those people would be deplorable. Knowing a bit about the job, I almost wished I had half-a-dozen hardy men there who would get into the job and throw a raft of concrete across the place, with a parapet wall to continue the level of the road to the steep gradient and allow the people to have a clear road instead of having to go through the soft, mucky, marshy spot where the stream runs. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to treat that matter sympathetically, if and when Deputy Walsh and myself bring it before him.

As regards the whole question of rotational work on these schemes, giving men three or four days' work in the week, I expressed my opinion at the start that that was not the right way to do it. I quite appreciate the idea which the then Parliamentary Secretary had in view, that is, that "half a loaf is better than no bread"; but if I had to choose between giving 50 men constant employment for a full week, or giving 100 men part-employment, I would prefer to satisfy the 50 than have 100 dissatisfied. Besides, there is not the same incentive to men to give of their best if they are getting only a few days' work in the week. It would be better to give them the full week's work and have some men kept on the same job. I would be prepared to put that position even to a meeting of workingmen, as I have had the experience myself and have gone through the mill. The Parliamentary Secretary would get better results and feel more satisfied and the people in general would feel more satisfied.

In regard to the part of the scheme which goes towards developing urban districts and boroughs, I again respectfully suggest that the best return has not been got for the money expended in the past. In so far as is possible with the materials available at the moment, most if not all of the grants allocated to urban councils should be expended on developing housing sites. The prevailing high cost of building houses for the working class—somewhere in the region of £800 a house—even working it out at the very satisfactory rates of interest outlined by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, that is, 2½ per cent., or an inclusive rate of 3½ per cent., shows that it would take something like £24 or £25 a year to pay the loan charges, making allowance for the first £300. Part of that big increase is occasioned by the cost of development. Prior to the last two years, most of the building schemes included development and the development was carried out before the actual building of the houses took place. If a grant is given by the Board of Works for the development of the site, naturally that must reduce the capital cost of the house, if and when materials are available to erect them.

I would respectfully suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials would do well to see that, so far as urban areas are concerned, most, if not all, of the money should be spent on the development of sites that would eventually be utilised for the building of houses. It was suggested here yesterday by some Deputies that that could apply to housing sites in rural areas, but I think it could not apply there quite so effectively. The Parliamentary Secretary would not get such a good return for the expenditure, because while houses in urban areas are built in groups of 60,100 or 150, in the rural areas you might have to hop every couple of yards and, of course, the more changes you make in that way the less return you will get in the way of development of sites. There are occasions, of course, in the rural areas where it is also possible to develop sites for a group of cottages close together.

In regard to the farm improvement schemes in general, on which it is stated that some 10,000 or 8,000 people were employed, I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to indicate what percentage of the number of employed was represented by the farmers themselves and their families. I believe that the labour content must be specified in applications for such schemes and before a grant is made available. It might be difficult to segregate those employed on the schemes in order to ascertain the percentage of the total number employed represented by farmers themselves, but if it is possible to do so I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would supply us with those particulars. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have not much experience as regards drainage in my constituency and, therefore, I feel that I cannot follow the charges made by certain Deputies that political influences have been allowed to operate in the giving of grants or in regard to the allocation of work. Personally, I have never heard any complaint of that kind and I am always willing and prepared to leave these questions to people who are placed in charge of the work. No serious complaint has come my way in regard to the question of who was or who was not to be employed.

I should like to correct a very wrong impression that seems to have been created in the minds of certain Deputies that men in receipt of unemployment assistance have to go to jobs irrespective of their age and condition when requested to do so. I do not think that is so. I think there is a provision which enables people to be excused from going to such work on account of physical disability, age or lack of suitable transport, and they do not lose the unemployment benefit that they had been enjoying before being summoned to take up such work. Of course, it is only right and proper that where people are offered suitable work they should avail of it and, in order to operate that scheme, the labour exchanges have to notify these people to attend the labour exchanges for the purpose of signing on for such work. There may be cases of hardship but I do not think that the complaint is general. I should like to correct the wrong impression that, irrespective of age or other conditions, these men have to go to work. I do not think that is so.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I desire to endorse the statement of Deputy Coburn that, so far as our experience in Louth is concerned, no question of political bias arises either in regard to applications for grants or in the selection of those employed to carry out the work entailed. I should like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to one anomaly which exists in regard to rural improvement schemes. I have a few of these schemes in mind at the moment. One is a road about one-quarter of a mile long, or, rather, a cul-de-sac. Originally it was a county road, but it fell into disuse and, of course, the lordly bullock roamed over this road as well as over the sites of the homes the people once occupied. In this particular case there are six land holders living along that road. Four of them are quite prepared to avail of the conditions offered under the rural improvements scheme to have necessary improvements carried out, but, unfortunately, there are two dogs in the manger. There are two parties who stand aloof. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that some compulsory powers should be taken to compel these people in the interests of the general good to carry out such improvements, both as regards roads and drainage.

I have another case in mind where a grant was applied for by a number of holders to carry out repairs to a laneway. The grant was given and they carried out the work. I happen to be acquainted with the methods employed there, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he would do well to call the attention of the county engineers to the methods employed to execute such works. I know it is difficult enough to carry out such works economically, but when you find four horses and carts drawing stones for two men who spread the stones it leads to a great deal of expense. It is not an economic way of doing the job. There should be some better method of carrying out these improvement schemes, and it should not be left to just a few people to decide in their own way how they are going to do the job. In that particular case, when the job was supposed to be completed, it was even more difficult than ever to get a load of turnips across that passage, due to the fact that the large stones which had been put on it had sunken into it.

I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendation of Deputy Coburn regarding the work at Baltray. There are nine families living in the district known as Banktown but the provision of suitable accommodation for these people is not the responsibility of the county council. Unfortunately, or perhaps thanks largely to the Fianna Fáil policy, there is no unemployment in the district so that there is great difficulty about getting work done under a minor relief scheme. I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary inquire into that particular case? The area is affected by the tide and when stormy weather with heavy rains occurs, it is simply impossible to get out from these houses. Old ladies are compelled to get into horses and carts to cross the stream in order to attend Mass on Sundays. Surely, having regard to the large amount provided under this Vote, there should be some means of relieving that situation? It has been suggested that a certain portion of this money should be utilised for the development of housing sites. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.

Committee to sit again.