Vol. 116 No. 7
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £850,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1950, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
Before referring to the programme of works proposed for the current financial year I shall give a brief review of the work done in the year ended 31st March last.
The amount provided by the Dáil for employment and emergency schemes in the financial year 1948-49 was £1,252,450, of which £1,229,916 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added contributions, principally from local authorities, amounting to £407,404, making a gross expenditure of £1,637,320. Subject to possible amendments in detail, the expenditure on the various sub-heads was as follows:—
|
£ |
||
|
A. to E.—Salaries, Travelling Expenses, etc. |
52,497 |
|
|
F. |
Sanitary Service Works in Urban Areas |
165,016 |
|
Housing Sites Development F. Schemes |
20,000 |
|
|
Road Works in Urban Areas |
162,399 |
|
|
Amenity Schemes in Urban Areas |
39,562 |
|
|
G. |
Sanitary Service Works in Rural Areas |
241,829 |
|
Road Works mainly in non-urbanised Towns |
36,141 |
|
|
Special Scheme for ex-County Council Turf Workers |
178,000 |
|
|
Amenity Schemes in Rural Areas |
1,801 |
|
|
H. |
Minor Employment Schemes |
97,500 |
|
I. |
Bog Development Schemes |
|
|
(Landholders' and other private producers' bogs) |
59,500 |
|
|
J. |
Reconditioning or repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport |
13,385 |
|
K. |
Farm Improvements Scheme |
350,739 |
|
L. |
Seed Distribution Scheme |
69,330 |
|
M. |
Lime Distribution Scheme |
5,970 |
|
N. |
Rural Improvements Scheme |
129,176 |
|
O. |
Miscellaneous Works |
14,475 |
Of the expenditure of £1,637,320, approximately £836,000 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £801,320 during the winter months.
Normally, the works carried out early in the year are the continuation of schemes sanctioned before the previous 31st March, but in 1948-49 special provision was made for an extensive programme of works to provide employment for former county council turf workers during the summer months.
The average number employed each week on all schemes, excluding the farm improvements scheme, during the period up to September was 4,419 and from October to March, 3,622. The corresponding numbers for the farm improvements scheme were 3,717 and 3,840.
A large number of applications was received for minor employment schemes during the year and about 5,000 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out.
During the spring and summer, approximately 300 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of about £20,000, principally for the development of bogs used by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.
The rural improvements scheme is complementary to the farm improvements scheme and enables groups of farmers to carry out various kinds of works for their joint benefit, principally small drainage works and the construction and repair of accommodation roads to houses, lands, and turbary. The usual rate of contribution by the landholders is 25 per cent., but this may be reduced in special cases where the work, in addition to being of benefit to the landholders immediately concerned, also serves members of the outside public.
The number of effective applications received under the rural improvements scheme from its inception in 1943 up to 31st March, 1949, was 7,592, of which 6,467 had at that date been investigated on the ground by inspectors and reported on. Of these, 818 were for various reasons found to be unsuitable, and offers of grants were issued in 6,022 cases. The number of such offers accepted in the course of the year under review was 672, for which grants totalling £91,053 were sanctioned towards a total estimated expenditure of £118,210, the balance of £27,157 being contributed by the applicants.
The total expenditure incurred on the rural improvements scheme (including the farmers' contributions) during the financial year was approximately £129,176. By the end of the year, the number of individual works completed since the inception of the scheme in 1943-44 had reached 3,270, while a further 390 schemes were in progress.
The total expenditure of £350,739 for the farm improvements scheme includes a sum of approximately £38,750 in respect of the special farm drainage scheme operated in the areas of Counties Galway and Mayo, where unemployment had resulted from the discontinuance of the production of hand-won turf by the local authorities and Bord na Móna. Under the terms of the scheme, the farmers concerned contributed to the cost of the works at the rate of £4 per statute acre of the land drained.
It will be observed that there was a net under-expenditure of approximately £22,500 on the Vote in the last financial year. Having regard to the diversity of the types of schemes and to the large number of separate works —about 2,500—comprised in the annual programme, this is a relatively insignificant sum.
Turning now to the programme for the financial year 1949-50, it will be observed that the provision in the Vote is £1,250,000. In this regard I should mention that the allocation of those sub-heads of the Vote provided specifically for employment schemes amongst the various urban and rural units of area is broadly in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area, and the programme for the financial year is based on a special enumeration of unemployment assistance recipients made in the beginning of each year, usually in January, when unemployment is at the maximum. The total number (including former unemployment assistance recipients engaged at the time on employment schemes) of men returned in this census in January, 1949, was approximately 56,300, as compared with 54,600 in January, 1948. The corresponding figure for 1940, before there was any significant movement of workmen to Great Britain, was about 111,500, compared with which this year's figure shows a reduction of roughly 49.5 per cent. In the meantime, the cost of the works has more than doubled, owing to increased rates of wages and the higher cost of materials.
Of the sum of £1,250,000 proposed in the Estimate for the current year, £600,300 will be spent on the continuation of schemes sanctioned before the 31st March, 1949, leaving a balance of £649,700 available for expenditure on new schemes. To the amount of the Vote must be added contributions from local authorities, and from beneficiaries under the rural improvements scheme, together estimated at £304,000. This gives an aggregate of £1,554,000 available for expenditure within the financial year 1949/50. To enable this expenditure to be achieved as far as possible within the time limit, it is proposed, in accordance with the usual practice, to authorise schemes to the extent of £599,300 (State grant) in excess of the amount of the Vote. This sum, equivalent to the unexpended balances on works in progress before the 31st March, 1949, together with a proportionate amount for local contributions, will be carried forward to form part of the ensuing year's programme.
In this regard it is desirable to remind the Dáil that a large proportion of each year's Vote is allocated for expenditure by local authorities. The expenditure of the full amount of the provision depends largely on the acceptance by these authorities of the grants on the terms offered, and on the prompt submission of schemes.
The bulk of the proposals for works on which the new sanctions in the year's programme of employment are based, are not lodged until after the beginning of the financial year, and for that reason, and because the incidence of unemployment both in regard to time and place is liable to fluctuations, it is not feasible to make a close estimate beforehand of the sum required for each sub-head of the Vote. It has always been the practice, therefore, to allow a considerable degree of flexibility and interdependence between these sub-heads, the eventual savings in some being set against the excesses on others. In addition, a certain proportion of the Vote is kept in reserve, in sub-head O—Miscellaneous Schemes —to meet contingencies, or to provide for classes of works which are not proper to the other sub-heads.
Subject to the foregoing remarks, the programme of employment schemes for the present financial year will be broadly in accordance with the general practice in previous years.
I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
The chief criticism I have to offer is in regard to sub-heads I and J. Sub-head I deals with development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers—grants for read, drainage and other works to facilitate the production of turf by landholders, voluntary organisations, business firms and others. That grant is being reduced from £90,000 last year to £60,000 this year. I think that is a serious mistake in policy on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government. Having regard to the present price at which coal of an inferior quality is offered to the consuming public here, and also having regard to the fact that the price is 25/- a ton in excess of the commercial price in Great Britain, it behoves us here to provide an alternative form of fuel. Everything that could possibly be done by everybody having responsibility in this matter should be done, and I regard it as a serious mistake in policy to reduce the sum of money provided for this very necessary and essential work.
I could understand a movement of that kind on the part of the Government if it could be contended that this home fuel, which is calculated to give so much employment where it is so badly needed, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, throughout rural Ireland, could not be produced at an economic price, but, having regard to the existing price of coal, I hold that, purely as a commercial transaction, it would pay to produce turf of good quality and sell it at a price which would be fair to the consumer and, at the same time, give a reasonable reward to the producer, and yet compare favourably with the present price of coal. I wonder if it is too late for the Parliamentary Secretary to mend his hand and to reconsider the whole scheme with a view to making available a much larger sum which would help to provide much-needed employment all over the country, and particularly in the remote parts, where no other scheme could scarcely be thought of which would give employment of the same remunerative nature to the people concerned.
Sub-head J deals with grants for the strengthening of public roads to enable them to bear the strain of heavy turf traffic or for the repair of public roads damaged by such traffic. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, a great many roads all over the country in areas where there was heavy turf traffic during the emergency period have been seriously damaged, due to the large number of lorries which careered over them. These roads were never built to accommodate such traffic and in many cases these roads have not been brought back to a proper state of repair, and it is as yet too soon to economise in the provision of money so necessary to bring these roads into good condition. Just as the production of turf would provide very much-needed employment, so money expended on these roads would provide necessary employment and give a good return for the capital expended.
I notice that the amount provided under sub-head K—farm improvements scheme—is similar to the amount provided last year. It will be agreed on all sides of the House that that is one of the best schemes we have had, and, in passing, I should like to pay a tribute to the staff connected with the working of that scheme. Rarely has any public Department given such satisfaction as has been given under that scheme. I wonder how it will fit in with the new scheme introduced by the Minister for Agriculture. Will this farm improvements scheme, for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, fade out now and be merged in the larger scheme? If it is, I hope that the staff who have given such satisfaction to the community will be continued. I hope also that if that scheme is absorbed into the larger scheme, it will be by way of an extension and increase of the very essential works which have been carried out with such satisfaction throughout the country.
The provision in regard to sub-head N—rural improvements scheme— is similar to that made available last year, but, in each of these sub-heads K and N, I notice reference to drains and drainage, so that the Parliamentary Secretary was scarcely correct in saying that his only function with regard to drainage was arterial drainage. He has a few other drains to consider, apart altogether from arterial drainage, because, under these sub-heads, he is responsible for field drainage and for drains for the benefit of groups of farmers. There are so many Departments now having a share of the responsibility in regard to drainage that I am afraid there will be considerable confusion through the country and Deputies will find it hard to know to which of the many Departments now handling drainage they should refer applications which they receive from their constituents. Something ought to be done to clear the air and, if possible, to co-ordinate all these various drainage schemes.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a sum of £37,000 expended last year in Galway and Mayo on a type of trial scheme, which. I take it, was the forerunner of the scheme introduced by the Minister for Agriculture. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, did not give us any idea of the average cost per acre, beyond stating that the farmers concerned had paid a contribution of £4 per acre. I should like to know what was the average cost per acre of this reclamation work.
I want to raise a point in connection with the inspection of works submitted to the Department, particularly in relation to accommodation roads. In many cases I know it has happened that, when applications have been sent in, three, four and six months have elapsed before the works were inspected. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that it was largely due to lack of engineers, but whatever the cause it is not right. Deputy McQuillan urged that works of national importance—and these works I refer to are works of national importance—should not be held up by reason of a scarcity of engineers in the Department. If the Department is to work properly, the first step to be taken is the provision of personnel, and whether it is because sufficient remuneration is not offered or the engineers are not available, the fact remains that works submitted to the Department have been held up for a very long time. In the country when application is made for a grant for accommodation roads, it is made at a time when the grant would be forthcoming at the most suitable time for the people themselves. There are periods of the year when the work could be carried out at a lesser rate than in other periods—when there is more unemployment and when the farmers are not busy with the crops and so forth—but, due to the fact of the works not being inspected, the grants are not being given at the proper time. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that aspect of the problem, so that when a grant is applied for there will not be any delay in having the works inspected.
On the question of link roads I would like to say that we have a great many of these roads which do not qualify to be taken over by the county council because of their width, even though they are open at both ends and do not qualify in that case for the grants under the accommodation scheme. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take these roads into consideration and make the grants available. If a grant is made available for widening these roads there is a possibility that the councils might take them over and maintain them.
In my constituency at Derrylackey bog in 1943-1944, a sum of £1,000 was granted by the Board of Works for the purpose of making an accommodation road into the bog. That work was never completed, and last year a further application was made for a grant and was turned down. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that in that particular area there is a great amount of turf being used by the local people and the fact that they have no roadway is causing a great amount of hardship. Even though Kilkenny may be a poor county, and we have plenty of coal in one end of it, yet there is another portion where turf is being used to a very great extent. That grant was applied for, and I think £1,000 would complete the job, but it is being withheld.
There is one other matter, and that is the question of the River Nore. We have had this matter up time and again in this House regarding the drainage of the River Nore, and if not drainage at least the cleaning of it. Apparently under the Local Works Bill we will not have any authority to go into that river.
Are you sure?
I am told we will not. If we cannot go into the River Nore under that Bill what is going to happen to all the water coming down from the hills? The lands are going to be flooded out. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether we have authority to go into that river under the Local Works Bill. If we have not, then how are we going to get it drained?
The Local Works Bill is not before the House. It may be later.
I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what the position is.
Perhaps the person in charge of the Bill will have something to say on it.
I understand that the Board of Works has charge of arterial drainage and I was also told that the River Nore is also included in arterial drainage. When is the river going to be drained?
Is arterial drainage in this Vote? It was in No. 10 which was passed to-day.
I have nothing else to add. What I have said in connection with the River Nore I would like to develop. We cannot do anything under the Local Works Bill if we cannot drain the Nore.
I have raised this matter before and I am going to repeat that the solution of this problem in connection with the administration of local relief schemes and rural improvement schemes is one of urgency. The position in my constituency is that a large number of men do not register as unemployed for various reasons. I mentioned the fact last year here, that a number of men do not register as unemployed for the simple reason that they do not like going to the labour exchange. They believe that there was some tinge about it. Whether they are right or wrong in that I do not know, but that is the belief and it amounts to the fact that very useful work cannot be done in a number of areas because of the fact that there are not enough registered unemployed. In other areas where people have got into the habit of registering as unemployed they get the full grant to carry out schemes in those localities. I think it is absolutely wrong. I think the solution of the whole thing lies in doing away with this business of registered unemployed in the matter of full grant schemes.
I do not think that is a very difficult matter. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary himself thinks about it but the general feeling which I think exists in most rural areas is that this method of giving full grant schemes only in areas where there are a prescribed number of unemployed is wrong; that the extent of the money involved does not mean that the best work is being done.
I think the sooner this system is ended the better. In my constituency numerous applications for local relief schemes, repairs of roads and the clearing of drains have been made and we get back an acknowledgement from the Department of the application, to be informed afterwards that the special employment schemes have been considered and they regretted very much that they could not give the full grants for these particular schemes because there was not the prescribed number of registered unemployed in the area. I could nearly see the satisfaction on the faces of the officials of that Department when they were in a position to give a reply like that. I know it is not right to blame officials. They have to carry out the regulations but surely the Parliamentary Secretary is there long enough now to know that type of answer is not in the interests of the public.
That is not true.
Deputy O'Grady sent out a few in his time.
It is not true to say that officials show joy in their faces because they cannot provide employment. That is not fair.
I am not blaming the officials. It is an easy way out for them to be able to send out that type of answer.
It is the regulations that Dáil Éireann has made that compel them to do it.
They are not made by Dáil Éireann.
There is plenty of support for the Parliamentary Secretary to change these regulations. He will get assistance from both sides of the House if he has the initiative to ask for permission to do so. I can assure him that he will get it from these benches, at any rate.
Same here.
I raised a question on the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government with regard to the repair of accommodation roads and cul-de-sac roads. Last year, in my constituency, over 120 miles of cul-de-sac roads were knocked off the repair list because the county council had no authority to repair them. For a number of years past the county council had repaired these roads but they had no authority to do so and, consequently, the county council were surcharged for that last year. There is one way of getting over that difficulty, and I suggest it can be done under this particular Vote. These cul-de-sac and accommodation roads can be repaired under minor relief schemes. The only way in which they could be done up to the present was under rural improvement schemes. If a by-road leading into a village was repaired every three years for the last 20 years free of cost to the people of the locality, these people are entitled to have them repaired in future without there being an extra levy in respect of them. The position at the moment is that the county council are no longer in a position to repair the roads, with the result that the people, if they want to repair the roads, must subscribe to a rural improvement scheme to have the work carried out.
Did the county council ever repair them?
The county council definitely repaired a large number of them, but this year 120 miles that had been repaired previously were knocked off.
Due to the auditor.
Due to the auditor who surcharged for this work. As far as I am concerned, there is no politics in the world in this. It is a disgrace that roads should be knocked off the list that had been repaired every three years since 1929, and that suddenly the heavy hand of the auditor should come down on the county council. I am suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a way out of that difficulty in this particular Estimate, that these roads could be repaired under minor relief schemes. In other words, there could be full-grant schemes for these particular roads. A list of these roads can be obtained from the county council.
Will we get a sufficient number of registered unemployed in the areas?
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to forget all about registered unemployed in the areas. Deputy O'Grady mentioned the question of grants for bog development schemes, for the repair and making of roads into bogs. That is something that should be pursued with energy by the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he is very keen on this particular matter and I hope that there will be no financial saving in that particular part of the Estimate.
There is £30,000 already.
Deputy O'Grady mentioned that a bad type of coal was coming into the country and being sold at 25/- more than it was fetching on the British market. Deputy O'Grady must have a very short memory if he forgets that he and the previous Government were responsible for letting in that type of coal.
The previous Government had nothing to do with the coal that is coming in now.
Deputy O'Grady is leaving himself wide open when he talks about coal. I am in full agreement with him on this question of using turf instead of coal. Every effort should be made to promote the use of turf, especially in rural areas and small towns. People should be induced to burn turf. I do not know how far this would go but I would suggest that the public institutions in each county should set a lead in this matter of burning turf.
That is not a matter for this Vote.
Perhaps I am going away from the Vote but, at any rate, to deal with Deputy O'Grady's point, the solution of the problem is not to let this coal into the rural areas for domestic use at all. There is plenty of turf available there. With regard to the registered unemployed list, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that, in a particular area where there is very urgent necessity to carry out work on a drain or small river or to repair a very important road, this work cannot be done under a full-grant scheme because there are not enough registered unemployed in the area. It amounts to this, that full-grant schemes are only given for the purpose of absorbing the unemployed and that the question of the importance of the work does not seem to be taken into consideration. I want to bring that forcibly to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention and I hope and trust that I shall not have to repeat my representations in the near future.
I am very happy to be in a position to support my colleague, Deputy McQuillan, in regard to a number of points he has raised. As chairman of the county council, I can state that what he has said is true, that a large number of minor roads which had been maintained by county council funds for a considerable time were, because of the auditor's action, knocked off the list. Nothing has been done about them since. In most cases —probably in all cases—applications have been made for minor relief grants. The result is as Deputy McQuillan has stated that they are turned down because there is not a sufficient number of men on the unemployed register. That is no satisfaction to the poor people concerned. We are all very sympathetic with these people living in backward districts. We say that they are the cream of the earth, that they are the real old Gael, the real stock, but when it comes to doing something practical for them we send them off to someone else. The Local Government Department put them out. We turn to the Board of Works and these poor people are put out again. It is an extraordinary and intolerable state of affairs for these poor people who live in backward districts, particularly in the west of Ireland.
When one considers the estimates for these items, is it any wonder that this work is not carried out? Is not it quite obvious that the grants are entirely inadequate? What can be done with £100,000? For rural improvement schemes there is a provision of £180,000 for the whole country. Rural improvement schemes—£180,000 for the whole country. Minor employment schemes—£95,000. What could a sum of £95,000 do for minor employment schemes for the whole country? What could that money do —even with the rate of wages as low as it is, comparatively, to-day? The same applies to the other branches. Farm improvement schemes—£350,000. I suppose that must be the drainage business. I should like to know through what agency this seed distribution scheme is operated.
Through the Department of Agriculture.
If that is so, it is very strange that the Vote is under the Board of Works. I do not know about the rural improvement scheme. Perhaps that is regulated by the number of applications and the number of people prepared to contribute the 25 per cent. However, the grants in this Estimate for minor employment schemes and for bog development schemes are absolutely inadequate. I am sorry to say that I am terribly disappointed. It may not be the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary. I suppose he is bound by financial considerations, but I am terribly disappointed with the work being done under the present Parliamentary Secretary. I was looking for great things from Deputy Donnellan when he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. As I say, I am terribly disappointed. I thought that we would have an enlargement of these schemes—especially at a time when most of them are required. This is not politics, either. In my county there was a terrible displacement of labour and a terrible lot of emigration. Even those who remained at home or had to stay at home have been placed in a bad position. Last year, I, with others, went on a deputation to the late Minister for Local Government. He told us that he would have this matter of getting money for those byroads that were knocked off looked into but nothing was done about it, and nothing is being done about it, and nothing will be done about it under this Vote because there is not enough money there. You cannot make £100,000 go round the whole country and get any reasonable work done. I have no use at all for these Estimates as far as these jobs are concerned. They are an absolute disgrace. We swagger and talk about spending a lot of money on main roads—and a lot of money is being spent on main roads, and a good deal on county roads, too. But there is no consideration for the people living on the by-roads. It is not their fault that they are living on these by-roads. In spite of adversity, poverty and so forth, they have lived along these roads for generations and now, when everything else is progressing, they are still being left in the lurch. My feeling is one of disgust with this Vote. If the Parliamentary Secretary does his duty, as I think he will, he will go to the Minister for Finance and get an adequate grant for these things.
I thoroughly agree with Deputy McQuillan that, in connection with the doing of these by-roads or connecting links, the question of the number of unemployed on the register of the local labour exchange should not apply. A lot of people forget that these poor people have bought little patches of bog—maybe of 30/-, £2 5s. 0d. or £2 10s. 0d. valuation. How can these people contribute to the making of a road which may cost a considerable sum of money? They simply are not able to do it. There is not one particle of politics in anything I am saying—I do not care who the Parliamentary Secretary may be. I appeal to him to get an increased grant, especially for these minor employment jobs—improvement of by-roads and, particularly, development schemes. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary's Department may have done in other districts but, as far as I know, nothing has been done in my area.
While Deputy O'Grady was in charge of the Office of Public Works a good deal was done, but nothing could be more useful than the making of those bog roads, the drainage of turf banks, and so forth. It not merely makes possible the sale of turf but it gives to the poor people who want to provide their own fuel a reasonable chance of cutting their own turf and of getting it out of the bog. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to try and get an increased grant for these things. There is no use in talking about making improvements when you have not the cash to carry them out.
I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary on this Estimate, in the second year of his office, to indicate the Government policy behind this Vote and to state quite emphatically and explicitly to the House the primary consideration in connection with this Vote—whether it is to give a few weeks' work per year to a few thousand people or whether this Vote is intended to carry out and complete, wherever they commence, works of a nationally useful nature. Locally, they are very valuable. I confess that I do not understand the policy behind this Vote. It is a hardy annual which serves no useful purpose. It does not fit in, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, with the policy of the Government to provide full employment for all our people.
I strongly support the suggestion put forward by Deputy McQuillan, and supported by Deputy O'Rourke, that this whole business should not be looked at from the point of view of the available number of registered unemployed in a particular area whenever an essential work has got to be carried out. Every one of us knows—and the majority of the Deputies who are listening to me know better than I do because I am not a member of a local authority—that year after year under the three Governments we have had since this State was established, county councillors come before their local authorities and put forward what they call councillors' proposals for the carrying out of local works of an essential nature. These proposals are turned down because the rates cannot provide the money. The county councils concerned say that the Government should carry out these works at the expense of the Central Fund. I received a couple of threatening communications from portions of my constituency some time ago. One gentleman—I sympathise with him; he is out of work and he is the leader of a local body of unemployed people— said that he was going to organise a hunger march. Apparently his destination would be the Board of Works in St. Stephen's Green or the Minister for Finance in Government Buildings, for the purpose of finding out why the Department of Finance or the Board of Works or the Government as a whole cannot carry out useful and necessary schemes in the localities concerned where these works have been submitted year after year for a number of years. This situation appears to me to be a sort of national tragedy. Young men are lining up day after day at the local labour exchanges and registering for permits to go to Great Britain while, all the time, essential works are waiting to be carried out in the areas in which they live.
The Deputy is aware that the problem of unemployment generally comes under the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
I know that, in many areas from which these proposals are coming, there is actually a greater number of unemployed people living in these areas than is represented by the registration at the local labour exchange. I have often asked young men why they were not registered. Sons of small farmers regard it as degrading to go into the local labour exchange and come before somebody later on and justify their claim for unemployment assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary should take his courage in his hands—and I know that he is a courageous man, mentally and physically— and indicate that he has progressive ideas in regard to this whole business. He should take the House into his confidence and say that it is necessary to provide, not alone hundreds of pounds, but a couple of millions, and if he comes to the House and says that he has a carefully prepared plan for the carrying out of all these works over a period of years or over the best portion of the year when there is unemployment in the rural areas, he will certainly have the support of the Deputies sitting on this side of the House, and I venture to say that he will have the support of Deputy Burke and of his colleagues on the other side of the House. Therefore, it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to bring forward proposals of the kind that will enable these works to be carried out within a reasonable time. I speak from personal knowledge over a long period of years. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would take the House into his confidence and say how many thousand schemes are in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Works—schemes that cannot be carried out but which are in themselves useful and essential—which cannot be carried out simply because the necessary number of registered unemployed are not registered at the local exchange. I think the answer would be illuminating.
I know farmers living on cul-de-sac roads in my constituency who cannot carry out in a satisfactory or efficient way their ordinary agricultural activities. In some cases they cannot get a threshing machine into their holding and lorries cannot enter to take out the beet. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a first-class working farmer, that if we are to increase agricultural production we must give farmers who are willing to help to increase production the machinery to enable them to do so. They must have access to their own holdings. Not very long ago, in my constituency, a member of a family living on one of these roads died and the remains had to be carried across a field, the road leading to the house was so bad. That is a terrible state of affairs in a Christian country. Of course, it may be an exceptional case. There are unemployed in that area and repeated applications were made for the carrying out of minor relief works affecting farmers residing on that road.
That kind of job will not be done at the expense of the local rates. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary regards these as essential works of a minor or national nature and there are unemployed people in the area, whether registered or otherwise, who are willing to carry out the work, the money should be provided and the work done as soon as possible.
I am probably pushing an open door. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, may have been knocking at the door of the Department of Finance. If he tells us that he has been knocking in vain on more than one occasion, speaking for the group on this side of the House, I can assure him that we shall give him all the support necessary to get the money out of the Central Funds to carry out these essential works and provide employment for people who are looking for work in another country.
I want, first of all, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has received my complaints about small rivers which have been silted up owing to bog development schemes which took place during the emergency. I have in mind one particular river in County Westmeath, the lower Wood River. That river became completely silted up through an outflow from adjacent bogs. I want to ask whether there is any special scheme for removing obstructions from such rivers. So far as I know, work of that kind does not come under the public works scheme and it might not be necessarily scheduled for main drainage. Nevertheless, work of that kind has to be done. According to my information, there are still a great many arrears to be carried out in connection with such schemes.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider everything which has been said in the debate in regard to accommodation roads. I can speak with a fairly clear conscience, because about two years ago there was a debate during Private Members' time in which the Government was asked to take over responsibility by means of grants and through a rates levy for the maintenance of cul-de-sac and accommodation roads. The then Opposition made it perfectly clear that they thought the system which still obtains of repairing accommodation roads of that character was inadequate; that it was stimulating emigration; that it resulted in lower values for farming properties not on main or county roads; that it was out of date and that something should be done about it. If Deputies bother to look up what I said in the Official Reports they will find that, although I indicated that the Government could do nothing about it, I did not say that we were never going to do anything about it. I said that so long as the main problem facing county councils and the Department of Local Government was that of restoring the main and county roads to their pre-war condition, it was quite impossible to envisage the provision of either technical staff or money to deal with the 20,000 miles of cul-de-sac roads which are in this country.
Apparently, the present Government do not particularly favour the improvement of main roads. They are starting on a scheme for improving county roads at a rate which will take about 40 years. They have continued the grants which we gave for the first time for the maintenance and restoration of county roads. Therefore, on their own admission, they should be, shall we say, cul-de-sac road-minded. It seems to me that there is a very good case for the Parliamentary Secretary, in conjunction with the Department of Local Government, to examine that whole question. Is it the Parliamentary Secretary's belief that, for the next 50 years, the best method of repairing these 20,000 miles of road is either by special employment schemes or else through the rural improvements scheme or, in the case of link roads, by the county council taking over such link roads when they can be taken over, if rates can be raised and the Minister for Local Government will sanction such acquisition?
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the time has not arrived for a review of that problem. During the war crops had to be produced, turf had to be won and there was every excuse for any Government in office to postpone a decision on the problem. After the war, for the first few years there was the excuse that roads had to be put into proper shape. Above all, the bituminous skin on the main roads, valued at about £25,000,000, had to be prevented from breaking causing enormous financial loss to the country. These factors no longer hold good. The Parliamentary Secretary might consult with the Department of Local Government in respect of one county or even part of one county, estimate what the cost would be for the proper maintenance of cul-de-sac roads, where there were more than a certain number of houses on a road, and what type of administration would be required. He might even undertake a small experiment in carrying out that work, if it amounted only to work on some 100 miles of cul-de-sac roads so that he could estimate the expense.
From what I remember of the examination of the problem, I am perfectly certain that the ultimate expense will be double whatever is estimated either by the Employment Schemes Office or the Department of Local Government, because my own belief is that the people on these roads will demand a standard which will be higher than anyone can envisage at the time. The Parliamentary Secretary now has the labour available. There are people ready and willing to work. They are no longer cutting hand-won turf on a great scale. They are not engaged in compulsory tillage. He even has the benefit of more technical assistance, because the assistant engineers are no longer engaged on county council hand-won turf schemes. I should like to ask his view. It is the custom for the members of the Government to give their personal views as well as the views of the Government. I did not approve of the Minister for Agriculture telling the American people how to run their business in America. I must say that if members of the Government or Parliamentary Secretaries are going to follow that precedent, a good way of doing it would be for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us privately and personally what he thinks of the problem of the 20,000 miles of accommodation roads. I do not believe that any member of the Opposition will say that he is showing a lack of responsibility for so doing. I am quite sure that Deputy Davin would also like to hear his views on that matter. Minutes will be found written in my name in the Custom House in which I made it clear to the officials there that the problem should not be postponed for ever. In Great Britain, even with five times the national income per head of this country, there is hardly a single road left that is not tarred even up to the tops of the mountains. If they can do that, we must adopt a lower standard if you like, but there must be some national scheme for universal road maintenance.
Having said that, I should like again to avoid for a moment merely political controversy over this question of special employment schemes. I could join with my colleagues if I wanted to and make a purely political speech and I would be justified in so doing. In order to try and persuade the Parliamentary Secretary that the present yardstick used to estimate the need of winter work is inadequate, I should like to put it to him this way:—When we started these employment schemes the economic war was at its height, cattle were worth about £5 apiece and the people who registered in the month of January really desperately needed the work in a great many cases, in spite of all the other grants made available by the Government, the guaranteed price for wheat and all the other steps taken to offset as far as possible the serious effect of the economic war. These people needed the work. The yardstick was, in any event, far more adequate than it is to-day.
The yardstick as a method of estimating the need for winter work began to break down during the emergency when a very large number of small farmers' sons and workers were able to get good work during the summer cutting turf or in tillage. If the Minister studies the figures of the number of unemployed he will find that they decreased during the emergency. Some of the people, quite frankly, went to Great Britain. Others found they did not need to register in the winter months. What has happened since the war, since the hand-won turf scheme ended? I think unemployment was greater in rural districts last winter by about 5,000. As the Minister knows, emigration very greatly increased but I am not going to make that particular point to-day. I am going simply to talk about it as being a question which we would have had to settle, if there had been no war, about 1939 or 1940 and which the present Government will have to settle now that the hand-won turf scheme has ended and that compulsory tillage no longer operates.
It is quite evident to me in County Longford that, as Deputy Davin said, people who need the work do not register, for personal reasons. A great many of them are emigrating. Whether the provision of this work without their registering would prevent their emigrating I do not know. That is a matter we cannot go into to-day. I am quite certain that there are intermediate areas, areas not like certain parts of Galway where there is a great tradition in registration which is not related to any of the normal factors but is simply a matter of people registering who live on very small plots on rocks and who need the work. There are intermediate areas such as North-West Longford, part of Westmeath and part of Roscommon where the people are not registering. Again, is it not possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this whole matter with the other Departments and see if he could not schedule certain areas where sums would be spent, irrespective of the number of unemployed registered, where persons who come from farms of a certain valuation and who comply with certain conditions can put their names down in the labour exchange for work or who can write in for work and get work? Should he not, if the statements made by some of the Parties supporting the Government can be taken sincerely, provide an increase in the Vote, anyway? Should he not make the yardstick easier to be complied with? If any of the statements in regard to the giving of employment are to be regarded as sincere he ought to do that. I claim it is a problem we would have had to face. We avoided having to face the problem because the war took place and with it the hand-won turf scheme came into operation. At the end of the economic war considerably more people were registering and if we had complaints from the Opposition on exactly the same lines of Deputy Davin's speech that it was not a proper yardstick, surely the same conditions hold good now. The fact that the war has brought higher agricultural prices and with it a greater measure of prosperity to rural areas does not mean that the people have not in turn demanded an increase in their own standards and the people in those poorer areas, even though they are making more out of cattle and so forth, feel that in proportion they need some help in the winter. Their standard has gone up in common with workers all over Europe.
The Parliamentary Secretary will at least give me the credit that I am not trying to make things difficult for him. I am simply saying this problem has to be faced. When you read the pronouncements of some of the smaller Parties you would think the unemployment problem in this country is one which has the same features all the year around, whereas the principal problem is in the winter. The number of unemployed will go up from 60,000 or thereabouts to 84,000 this year. In fact, in 1947 the number of unemployed, I think, was 40,000 because of the operation of the Employment Period Order. It went up to something like 70,000. There are certainly 24,000 or 25,000 more people unemployed in the winter months in the rural areas. A great number of the schemes giving employment do not operate so well in the winter as in the summer. There is no need to repeat all that, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows that even in afforestation for every 30 people employed in the summer you have ten in the winter. Even reclamation work can only be done in reasonable weather in the months of October and November. Housing activity diminishes in very remote rural areas when the weather becomes extremely inclement. The Employment Schemes Vote is one which provides employment on the roads and can be operated even in pretty bad weather. It is one of the very few schemes that gives employment in the winter. It seems to me that it is time there was a change.
Finally, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he considers the amount of £60,000 allowed for development work in bogs, under subhead I, is really sufficient having regard to the circumstances that obtain in a great many areas. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do there are areas where there appears to be an excessive amount of bog and where, in fact, farmers have to go miles to find their banks. The distribution under the various Land Acts has been such that a man may be completely surrounded by bogs and may have to go six statute miles to his own bank. The cutting of hand-won turf on a big scale during the war created further difficulties in that regard. Those difficulties were mitigated by the emergency powers provision under which county councils could acquire bog temporarily for tenants requiring it. That emergency power has lapsed and the bogs have gone back to their original owners.
I know that in County Longford a great deal of bog development work is required. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the present yardstick that obtains is the same as that during the war. In order to qualify for a grant it had to be possible to repair a road so that I think the standard was that the expenditure of 6/- per ton of turf removed on the road would do a good job. If not more than 6/- per ton of turf raised in the year was spent, the grant was worth while. Is that still the yardstick? Now that the emergency is over, what is the yardstick that is applied to bog development schemes. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it is too severe, or does he think that it should be improved?
Would the Deputy tell me who regulated that yardstick?
It was a regulation made by the previous Government. There is nothing to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary changing it, because in those days the grant was given, among a number of other grants, for bog development, for people who were cutting turf on a big scale. Wages have gone up since, the cost of raw material has gone up, the cost of everything in connection with roads has gone up since the time that yardstick was first applied. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has changed it, and whether he thinks it ought not to be changed again in favour of the people concerned?
Previous speakers have referred to the difficulty of carrying out minor relief schemes in electoral areas where there is not a sufficient number of registered unemployed. That is a real difficulty. I suggest that where there is a very necessary work to be done in a particular electoral area, such, for instance, as the repair of an accommodation or bog road, the regulations might be altered to allow surrounding electoral areas to be grouped since in that way there would be a sufficient number of registered unemployed to enable the work to be done. We often find that a road at the end of an electoral area requires to be repaired. The work cannot be done because there may be only five or six registered unemployed in the electoral area concerned, while in the adjoining electoral area there may be 24 or 30 registered unemployed even though there may not be any minor relief scheme to be carried out there. I think it would be a good thing if the regulations would allow a work to be done within, say, three or four miles of the particular area concerned. I think these minor relief schemes should be operated under those conditions.
In connection with rural improvement schemes we often find that a road leading into a townland or a village is required. Some of the inhabitants there may be very poor and may not be able to make the contribution required for the work. I suggest that those people should get employment to carry out the scheme, and that the amount of the grant they were supposed to get might be deducted from their wages. For example, the amount of money that would be demanded from three or four inhabitants in a townland where a road had to be repaired would be too high. Hence, I hope the suggestion that I have made will be considered.
The same thing applies to the erection of bridges over rivers. It might cost £100 to erect a bridge but it might serve only five or six inhabitants. In cases of that sort there is great difficulty in supplying the local contribution. In such extreme cases, I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have discretion, if at all possible, to reduce the amount of the local contribution in order that such very necessary work could be carried out. Matters such as I have mentioned arise frequently in my constituency where you have remote townlands in among the mountains with large stretches of by-roads that need repair. There is also a great need for the erection of bridges. I fail to see why these bridges were not erected years and years ago. It is hard to think that people should be prevented from being able to get out from their homes to attend Mass, the markets and fairs because of the flooding of rivers in their areas where there are no bridges. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, cannot be blamed for all these matters. I hope, however, that the schemes which are being put up to his Department will receive careful attention. I must say that any time that I have visited the Office of Public Works I have received the greatest courtesy not only from the Parliamentary Secretary but from the various officials there.
I agree with previous speakers that the amount of money made available for the Parliamentary Secretary is not sufficient. Instead of being £95,000 it should, in my opinion, be £195,000. Last year, in parts of South Kerry, we had one area in Valentia Island where the total amount allocated for five schemes was only £300 odd. Sums of £40 and £60 were allocated for some of them. The position at any rate was that there was not sufficient money to complete the work in the case of three of the five schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to have enough money made available to his Department to cover the cost of the schemes submitted to it, or to carry out the schemes recommended by his engineers and by Deputies.
I think that, if necessary, he should approach the Minister for Finance with a view to getting sufficient money for carrying through these schemes. In connection with the latter, it is stated in a circular that "the expenditure is so high that the public utility of the work would not warrant the expenditure." In other words, it is not merely a question of turning down schemes but of turning them down because there is not a sufficient number of people in an area who are in a position to meet the high cost of the work proposed. Therefore, such works are taken off the list. We have a large number of these cases which are excluded on the grounds that the expenditure, for the limited nature of the work, is so high that the Department cannot see their way to sanction the carrying out of the work. The net result is that, even though the carrying out of a work is urgent in some remote district but because the contribution required from the three, four or five local farmers would be too high for them, the Board of Works cannot see their way to sanction any expenditure for the work, but if there were ten farmers in the area the Board of Works would do the work. That is my reading of the circular. In my opinion that is not justice, and it is not a fair way of dealing with that type of case.
I agree entirely with Deputy Palmer with regard to the grouping of these areas. There are remote areas in South Kerry where the people do not register. They are ten or 15 miles away from the nearest Garda station or local exchange office. Under the existing system they are deprived of getting relief work in their districts. In those areas the number of men is limited—there might be four or five in an entire valley. Under the existing system there must be at least 16 or 20 or 25 men available. Our suggestion is that you group one small area with one or two other areas so as to make the total required for your scheme and that will enable you to give the required grant to these people. What I do not like about this system is that you increased the number of men required to qualify.
That is not so. There is no change in the number.
I understood it was increased from 16 to 25, but I withdraw that statement if I am wrong. I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials have done. They have treated all my proposals and representations with the greatest consideration. I know it is not the will that is holding them back; it is the system they are working—this kind of restricted idea of so many dole men and so much work. We shall have to change the whole thing. We have reached the stage when we shall have to do something big. Why not embark on a scheme something like the one the Minister for Agriculture has adopted? Take your courage in your hands and come along to the Dáil and say: "I want one or two million pounds to finish all these schemes. I want to finish with them once and for all." The Minister for Agriculture is applauded all over the country for having the courage to ask for so many millions to develop one of the greatest schemes in the history of this country. Why should not the Parliamentary Secretary take the same line and finish with all this work?
I would like to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary if the arrears that accumulated during the period of interruption, when the county council engineering staff in County Galway was withdrawn from the supervision of rural improvement works, have been wiped out, and has he a sufficient staff to deal with that work now in Galway County? So far as the rural improvements scheme was concerned, it was a good scheme. I think there are few counties in the State that availed of it to the same extent as Galway County. A considerable amount of arrears accumulated. Every Party in the House has approved the rural improvements scheme and certainly it is a very good one.
We could have even a better scheme; we could have an improved scheme. Contributions should be cut out altogether and the full grant should be given on condition that the people concerned were prepared to pay an annual sum to be put into a fund to keep the roads that were brought up to a high standard of repair in a proper condition. Perhaps I will be told that that would mean extra machinery and a very big extra staff, but if it is possible to formulate a scheme of that kind in respect of the land reclamation scheme I do not see that there will be any great difficulty to be overcome if we adopt the same methods as were adopted with reference to the rural improvements scheme. Fine work was carried out under that scheme. I think it is apparent to everybody that many of the schemes undertaken in the first the schemes undertaken in the first and second year of operation now require a fresh grant in order to have the roads put into a proper state of repair.
There is an important point as regards minor drainage schemes. Minor drainage schemes that come within an existing drainage district are precluded from getting grants under the rural improvements scheme or even under minor relief schemes. I was told that applications were made for the drainage of small rivers that were tributaries of a larger river in a drainage district and that no grant could be given. When the Works Bill was introduced county engineers were given instructions to make out a list of schemes, including rivers. Our county engineer submitted a list to us and I find that he has not included in any of his proposed schemes rivers that are tributaries of an existing drainage district. If that is the case I think it should be altered also.
The second point I wish to make is in connection with the reduction in the amount estimated for bog development. I think that reduction is a very great mistake and that it is altogether a retrograde step. Plenty of money was made available in the years of the emergency for drainage of bogs and the repair of roads—almost as much as, I think, could be utilised. That was because of the fact that people had to depend on native fuel. A number of bogs that were owned by tenants were taken over and operated by the county councils. Development work was carried out there by the county councils and now all that has been dropped. Apparently in the Board of Works there is a rule whereby any bogs not used for the production of commercial turf will not get the bog development grant. Application has been made in a number of instances, that I know of very well, and after some time a reply has come back from the Office of Public Works enclosing a rural improvements scheme form and stating that a bog development grant cannot be given. It is often worded in a distorted way because mention is made that the number of unemployed in the area is not sufficient to warrant a grant. The number on the unemployment list did not enter into the matter in the emergency years, so far as bog development was concerned. Where the bog was a useful bog and where a number of people were producing turf, if they applied for the grant, they got it to do part of the work but, in many instances, portion of the work only was carried out. The people hoped that as time went on they would get supplementary grants to complete the work.
It is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary and to other Deputies that large tracts of bogs were taken over by the Irish Land Commission, the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board from the passing of the 1903 Act and that little or no development work of any useful kind was carried out by any of the bodies mentioned. As a result, the bogs are left there in a very bad state. They are undrained and the roads into them are merely tracks. Some improvement was carried out during the emergency years. I think where a number of people are dependent on a particular bog for their domestic supply of fuel, they should be taken into consideration for bog development grants equally with those who produce turf for sale. I think that is most important and it would confer a very great benefit on the people. If this has to be done by a rural improvements grant, it is very doubtful if it will be availed of in many instances. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take that into consideration and to see that bog development grants are made available in the same manner and on the same system as during the emergency years.
It is on that very standard they are made available and will be made available in the coming year.
Of course I am sure that is the information the Parliamentary Secretary has at his disposal but I know a number of bogs where grants were given for partially carried out work. The owners have applied for subsequent grants to finish the work under the bog development scheme and they have got back, as I have already stated, a rural improvements scheme form. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary specific instances if he wishes. I am almost sure it has been brought to his notice already. It would be a very grave mistake on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government if at this stage they did not continue the very fine work of bog development, that was started by their predecessors, and matters such as I have mentioned should not come into it at all.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, to give me some information on the point regarding drainage, which I have already mentioned. The question of the number of unemployed on the unemployment register should not apply. The rule that is at present in force is not an excellent idea, especially where works of public utility have to be carried out. Unemployment can be relieved by carrying out works of public utility and I believe that works carried out in the past for the relief of unemployment were to a large extent works of public utility. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider again what I have suggested in regard to the rural improvements scheme and the alterations in it. I think that alteration would serve a very useful purpose and that it would help to expedite the repair of these roads. I also believe that people would find it much easier to pay 5/- or 10/- a year for a number of years and have a fund there to keep the road in repair than to put down anything from £3 to £15 or £20 each, as they have done in many instances.
The title of the Vote is "Employment and Emergency Schemes". I have difficulty in fitting in some of the headings here in the Estimate under that general appellation. For instance, I do not think rural improvement schemes were ever designed as an emergency measure, and it is very difficult to fit in the seed distribution scheme, the lime distribution scheme as unemployment schemes——
The seed distribution scheme is for what are called distressed areas.
Yes, but was it designed primarily for the purpose of relieving unemployment in the distressed areas? You have various sorts of distress. The incidence of unemployment falls very heavily in certain areas. You have other areas where you have distress that is not arising primarily from unemployment and it seems to me unsatisfactory, for the public generally and for Deputies particularly, that these schemes should be dealt with annually on a Vote that comes from the Office of Public Works showing that they are administered by other Departments, mainly by the Department of Agriculture. I think it would convenience everybody if they were allocated to their proper places.
I definitely say this is the proper place. The Vote is for Employment and Emergency Schemes, including the relief of distress.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that that remark would apply also to the seed distribution scheme and the lime scheme?
Certainly.
I move to report progress.
