When the House adjourned last night, I was discussing certain aspects of the administration of the employment schemes. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he anticipates an improvement in the rate of inspection of rural improvement schemes. In my constituency, some of the schemes sponsored by people seeking grants for roads and drains have not been inspected for a period of some eight months and that position dates from before the present Government took office. I understand that there have been administrative difficulties in securing the services of the necessary number of engineers, but my experience is that, if the inspection of a rural improvement scheme is too long delayed, some of the interested parties lose interest, and, when the scheme is finally inspected and sanctioned and the contribution indicated to the Departments concerned, the persons who previously had agreed to contribute frequently say that they will not contribute, thus leading to the abandoning of the scheme. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will do all in his power to advance and expedite these inspections in order that that most valuable work can be carried out.
There are a number of areas where the Employment Schemes Vote operates in respect of special employment schemes, owing to there being a fairly small number but nevertheless the minimum required for such employment schemes. In these areas, the people concerned who urgently need road works and bog drainage works to be carried out frequently wait year after year in the hope that they may get an absolutely free grant for their work. No matter what effort Deputies make to inform them that the mathematical chances of any particular scheme obtaining a grant are extremely small, because of the continued small number of unemployment assistance recipients registering in January, they still hope for the best. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary considers that it would be advisable to do something more to advertise the rural improvements scheme in such areas, and to point out that very few works are likely to be undertaken, and that therefore the vast majority of these seeking road repairs would be well advised, if they possibly can afford it, to take part in a rural improvements scheme.
I fully realise that for any Government, and least of all the present Government, to advertise the expenditure of money is a most unusual procedure. Generally, the Minister for Finance is only too content if the amount of money spent on a particular service remains at the minimum, but in actual fact, if we are to improve the amenities of country life and to encourage the young people to stay here one of the first duties is to improve communications. There are 20,000 miles of road, of non-public roads, as I understand, in comparison with some 50,000 miles of public roads. The figure of 20,000 miles is highly approximate— it might be 15,000 and it might be 25,000—but it presents a serious problem for the House in connection with this Vote.
As the House well knows, it would require legislation for county councils to repair cul-de-sac roads, save in most exceptional circumstances. There are circumstances, such as where a cul-de-sac road leads to a river or the coast, and certain other circumstances, in which such roads can be taken over by the local authority, but these circumstances are rare. There is a method by which the local authority can decide to construct an entirely new road, and, even if that road is a cul-de-sac road, I believe they can be financially responsible for it. By that means, they could construct a new road over the remains of a cul-de-sac road, but even that is legally doubtful. It was tried on one or two occasions in western counties and in certain cases there was no surcharge on the local authority concerned. Apparently the matter escaped the attention of the auditors.
The fact remains, however, that there are from 15,000 to 20,000 miles of non-public roads, many of them in a very poor condition, and in a great many areas these roads are not likely to be repaired, save under a rural improvements scheme, but, owing to the existence of free full grant employment schemes in the neighbourhood, in the adjoining electoral division or in the electoral division itself, the people do not take a realistic attitude towards the repair of these roads.
Another thing I have frequently found is ignorance to a considerable degree on the part of persons living on small farms of the fact that, if they live over six miles from an employment exchange, they do not need to go to the employment exchange in order to qualify for unemployment assistance in January, which is the key month, and upon which is based the grant for the ensuing year under the Special Employment Schemes Vote. There are areas which must be well known to the Parliamentary Secretary where either the local Deputies have not advertised this fact sufficiently well or where it is not sufficiently generally known that either January or February are the key months, and, the higher the figure during these months, the more money will be made available.
With regard to the farm improvements scheme grants, I was very glad to learn from the Minister for Agriculture that new applications are now being received. It is rather hard for me to judge as between the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the administration of that scheme. I asked a question recently as to the number of applications under the scheme in the various counties and it is quite evident from the figures received that the percentage of applications in the areas where there is paid labour as a percentage of all farms in the area is very much lower than the percentage in the areas where the farmer and his family do the work and receive the cash for the scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary will find the answer to the question in a recent report of the Dáil and he will very quickly observe, without having to make any calculations, through making use of the handbook of statisties, that in counties like Carlow, Wexford, Wicklow and Louth, the number of applications is very small. From an inspection of these areas, I feel sure, Deputies will agree with me that there is just as much need for land improvement in the areas where farmers normally would employ labour as in the other areas. There is need for reclamation. There is also need for the improvement of the farmer's road, frequently, and there is certainly need for farmyard improvements. I do not think it would require an alteration in any legislation to make an experiment in a particular area of increasing the amount of the grant for those who employ paid labour as distinct from those who do the work themselves. So far as I can gather, that would not require legislation.
I am fully aware that there are administrative difficulties, which were found hard to overcome by the previous Government. I am also aware that the matter was under constant examination by the previous Government. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will be willing to carry on that investigation. I am afraid it would need some more of these inspectors that are found so objectionable by the Minister for Agriculture but, of course, the Minister for Agriculture, with his usual sweeping phrases, seemed to include all types of inspectors. So far as I know, the inspectors under the farm improvement schemes are tremendously popular with the people concerned. They do their work splendidly and there is no objection to them entering within the gates of the farm and, if it required some extra inspection in order to make grants available on a more expensive basis for paid labour, I think the experiment would be at least worth while and, so far as I know, there would be no objection to operating on an experimental basis in a particular area to see what the result would be.
Whether the Parliamentary Secretary would have to confine the grants to farmers who took a given type of worker who was unemployed at the labour exchange at the time I do not know. That might present considerable difficulties. The farmers who were satisfied with the increase in the grant and were prepared to take up schemes and so increase the amount of money spent on land improvement, so urgently required to-day in the large farm areas, might be quite unwilling to take the labour if it was proffered to them from the labour exchange. They might wish to choose their own labour. That, again, seems to me a matter for examination.
In the course of the Departmental examination of the methods employed in recruiting labour for employment schemes, an examination was made of the degree to which the labour available was suitable and the Parliamentary Secretary will find a most interesting report resulting from an inspection in a large number of areas of the men concerned. He will find that a very considerable number of the men were regarded as only suitable for light manual labour. He will find, no matter what he does, no matter what change there is in the policy of the State, that is likely to continue. One of the difficulties, of course, never foreseen by the Clann na Poblachta Party, in employing all the unemployed, is the fact that there are a very considerable number of persons who are not skilled labourers or highly skilled craftsmen, for whom, on the whole, work has been made freely available in the last 15 years. Indeed there has been an increase of some 80,000 in the number of such persons employed. The difficulty arose that there are a large number of persons on the employment exchange who would like to be lorry helpers, who would like to do anything but heavy manual labour, and many of whom are not naturally suited for such labour. There is a tremendous difficulty in finding employment schemes for such persons.
I was wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary would consider the inclusion of employment schemes moneys for amenity schemes on a more extensive basis than hitherto made available, whether he would consider, for example, making grants to civic associations or associations for the improvement of towns, associations who would like to make river walks, clean the weeds and the rubbish around rivers in the neighbourhood of towns, clean the weeds in the town itself and the outlying roads, remove derelict sites and create parks, whether he would consider that that form of grant to civic associations or town improvement associations would be a good thing and would be desirable, if the association, through its own resources, raised a certain proportion of the funds. I am aware there are already amenity grants and that in the employment schemes there is a considerable number of miscellaneous schemes of that character but it might be possible to devise a system whereby a contribution could be given by people in the towns towards such schemes.
The Parliamentary Secretary will also be aware that there is still a great number of derelict sites throughout the country and in the towns a difficulty arose until recently whereby it was not possible to remove derelict sites through an employment scheme Vote because, in the case of the towns, the houses were rather large and would require the services of a contractor. That applies to some of the old houses in Waterford and certain other cities. When the change took place in the rotational method of employment, it was also agreed by the last Government that contract labour could be utilised for employment schemes and that, in turn, makes it possible to remove larger and ugly buildings which are an eyesore in some of the larger towns and which require the services of a contractor because of the danger to human life. I do hope the Parliamentary Secretary will advertise that fact and that local authorities in these towns will learn that dangerous buildings can be removed under employment schemes.
I should like also to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give some account to the House as to who is going to suffer as a result of the Employment Schemes Vote covering the special provision for turf workers unemployed —one of the examples of what we would call false economy. As far as I can understand, there has been no actual increase in the total estimate for unemployed persons as a result of the abandonment of the hand-won turf scheme. Who is going to suffer? Who will not get employment schemes as a result of certain moneys being diverted to this special purpose? Surely that is going very far from the fantastic policy advocated by the Clann na Poblachta Party whereby there would be a guarantee to all unemployed persons all the year round.
I would like also to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that everything is being done to provide employment in Dublin City, particularly during the winter months. There have been serious bottlenecks in regard to the provision of road schemes in Dublin, due to the absence of machinery and due to the difficulty of carrying out road works without co-ordination of the electricity, the gas and the other authorities. Many of the roads of Dublin very urgently require rehabilitation, particularly roads along disused tramways. Explanations were offered for the delays in preparing such schemes by the Dublin Corporation. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary finds them satisfactory. I hope he will investigate the position.
One of the difficulties that has arisen has been in the provision of work for ex-soldiers in Dublin. So far as I recall, at some recent time there were some 400 unemployed soldiers who were willing to do manual work and the difficulty was to provide them with work under the general regulations governing employment schemes. Dublin Corporation made several propositions. I think these were examined by the Departments concerned. One of the propositions was the preparation of the foundation of housing schemes. It was agreed that the contractors might alter the contracts and divide them into two—the laying of the foundation and the rest of the work—and that unemployed soldiers should receive special consideration for employment on the foundation works. I do not know how far it has progressed, but I hope it will have the serious attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Another suggestion for employing the unemployed labour in Dublin on a large scale basis, which I think was postponed for the time being, was the erection of an athletic open-air stadium in the Phoenix Park. It is a scheme which involves a great deal of planning, but it is not a kind of scheme I would imagine would appeal to a Minister for Finance who had recently cancelled a miserable Vote of £25,000 for athletics, so it is not much use speaking of that here to-day.
I fail to understand how Clann na Poblachta can even consider voting for this Estimate, in view of the fatuous statements they made about giving employment on a basis which, at a minimum calculation, would cost the State some £12,000,000 a year. It is all very well to fly one's kite very high and promise whatever one believes is even remotely possible in the way of amenities and services to the community. The last Government was able to give employment to some 14,000, 16,000 or 20,000 people—varying from year to year—on bog development schemes and employment schemes. It represented to us a reasonable contribution, which we would like to have improved upon, towards solving the unemployment problem; but, of course, the difficulty of cyclic employment due to the climate of the country, the difficulty of ensuring mobility of employment and the difficulty of employing persons when there were actual bottlenecks in certain types of labour, would always arise and provide a problem for any Government now or in the future. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will make clear to the House what the employment policy of the present inter-Party Government is, so that they may fully appreciate the utter hypocrisy of Clann na Poblachta in even attempting to vote for this Estimate.