Vol. 122 No. 8
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £636,500 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, 1951, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
I am very glad to note that increased grants are being provided in this Estimate under the sub-head "Rural Employment Schemes", which shows an increase of £110,000, and under the sub-head "Rural Improvement Schemes", which shows an increase of £25,000, making a total increase for these very useful and essential services of £135,000.
I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in my opinion, based on experience, it is necessary for his Department to convey to the county engineers the purposes for which these sums are provided under these two sub-heads. I can indicate a certain kind of application that was submitted to the county engineer in one county in my constituency for the repair of a road concerning which 29 farmers were interested. This is a case where a road was provided by the Land Commission out of a Land Commission Estimate nearly 20 years ago. It is used by 29 small farmers and cottage tenants. The condition of this road for a number of years past has been so bad that it cannot be used in winter by the children of the district going to the local school, and it certainly cannot be used by the farmers for their domestic purposes. An application for the repair of this road was made, in the first instance, to the Land Commission and turned down. Since the coming into operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1948, that application was repeated: it was turned down by the county surveyor for the County of Offaly on the grounds that the application was of such a nature that it was not covered by the Act. I understand —in fact, I know—that an application was recently submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary or to his Department to have this essential, urgent and necessary work carried out by way of a grant provided under the rural improvements scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary has replied to that application by stating that this is a job that should be carried out with moneys provided under the farm improvements scheme. The application went first to the Land Commission; then to the county engineer, and then to the Parliamentary Secretary for the provision of a grant under the rural improvements scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary has now decided—in his wisdom or otherwise—that this is a job that should be carried out with funds out of the farm improvements scheme. It may be correct to say that two or three or four or five of the farmers who use this road—who got holdings from the Land Commission almost 20 years ago—could, out of their own resources, make a contribution to the carrying out of this work. I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary, however, that the overwhelming majority of the 29 families concerned are not in a position to make a contribution. It is absolutely essential and urgently necessary that this work be carried out without further delay. With all the funds at the disposal of the Parliamentary Secretary, I think it should be easy for him to decide now that this work should be done out of the moneys which are presently placed at his disposal.
There should be no further quibbling about getting a job of this kind done. The application—it is only one of a kind—refers to the Ballylinn Road, near Ferbane, County Offaly. I am raising this matter because it is a case where the work is essential, and there should be an indication given to the county surveyor to go ahead with it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will provide the funds necessary for this purpose.
I want to raise another matter, which I mentioned in passing on a previous Estimate, and that is the necessity for repairing the road from Shannonbridge to Clonmacnoise during the present year. With all my colleagues for the constituency, and with the support and encouragement of Deputies of all Parties from the adjoining constituencies, this application was submitted, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, to his Department some time ago, after it had been considered for a considerable time by the Department of Local Government. The Parliamentary Secretary knows all about this case and he is definitely sympathetic. I hope, in co-operation with the Minister for Local Government, he will see that this essential work, which is in a sense of national importance, will be carried out this year.
I am sure it is the wish of all Deputies that the historic cemetery at Clonmacnoise should be kept in a proper state of repair and that the roads leading to what is regarded as an outstanding national monument should be in a condition to enable motor cars to be used without any difficulty by visitors who come from all parts of the world to see this famous place. From my knowledge of this road, it would be difficult for even two small motor cars to pass each other. There is only a short road leading to Clonmacnoise and it would not entail much expenditure to put it in a proper condition. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make his contribution a generous one. Further, he should take it as a personal responsibility to see that the work is properly carried out. The bishop of the diocese and the energetic parish priest of Shannonbridge, who has been pressing this claim for a number of years, are extremely anxious to have the work done. Only a small grant would be necessary.
The Parliamentary Secretary may have some doubt on one point, and I want to remove that doubt. Apparently it has been the practice for years to allocate money from some Votes at the Parliamentary Secretary's disposal for the carrying out of essential work only in areas where there is a minimum number of unemployed. It may be correct to state that in the employment exchange area covering Clonmacnoise and Shannonbridge there is not a sufficient number of registered unemployed, but I have an assurance from the parish priest, and so have my colleagues, that if the necessary funds are made available the necessary number of persons, sons of small farmers who are not registered, together with the small number who are registered as unemployed, will be ready to carry out this work.
I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary did not give some explanation in relation to this Estimate. He did not make a statement explaining the different items to the House, and what they are for. In the absence of such a statement we have very little to go upon.
I did not get an opportunity, and if the Deputy wants that statement now I will give it to him.
Very well. I will make way for the Parliamentary Secretary. It was no one from this side who prevented him from making a statement.
Vote 10 provides the necessary funds for the annual programme of employment schemes in urban and rural areas, and for other related services which subserve the purpose of giving employment, including sanitary service works and the rural improvements scheme. It also includes provision for the salaries, travelling expenses, etc., of the staff of the special employment schemes office responsible for the administration of the Vote (subheads A to E inclusive).
The amount of the Estimate as compared with 1949-50 is less than in the first instance by £350,000, being the sum provided in the former year for the farm improvements scheme, now merged in the farm buildings scheme and the land rehabilitation project administered by the Department of Agriculture. A further reduction of £80,000 has been made in respect of the seed distribution and lime distribution schemes. The provision for the three services in question has been transferred to Vote 27. An addition of £110,000 is provided in sub-head G for increased expenditure on sanitary service works largely due to the accumulation of arrears of these schemes during the war and the early post-war period.
Sub-heads F and G include sums of £56,000 and £184,000 respectively, being contributions towards the cost of sanitary service works undertaken by local authorities. These items are regarded as capital services, and therefore, proper to be met from borrowing, as is the practice in the case of the portion of the cost provided by the local authorities.
The provision in sub-head K (rural improvements scheme) is to enable landholders to carry out various kinds of works for the benefit of their lands, principally small drainage schemes, and the construction and repair of accommodation roads to houses, lands and turbary. Until recently the benefiting landholders were required to contribute one-quarter of the cost of the works, but to meet cases, mainly in the congested districts, where the farmers are unable to pay so much, a graduated scale has now been approved, with State grants ranging from 93 per cent. where the average poor law valuation of the holdings affected by a proposed work is less than £6 to 75 per cent. where the average poor law valuation is £18 or over. Where the number of beneficiaries is less than seven, and at the same time the average poor law valuation is less than £18, the State grant is increased by 2 per cent. To meet increased expenditure which may be expected to follow these more liberal terms, an increase of £25,000 has been made in the sub-head as compared with 1949-50.
The provision under sub-head I is for the development of bogs used principally by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.
Provision for employment schemes in the various urban and rural units of area is made under sub-heads F, G and H. The moneys are distributed broadly in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area.
Sub-head J provides a relatively small sum to meet any remaining cases of repairs to public roads which were subjected to heavy turf transport during the emergency.
Sub-head L—Miscellaneous Schemes. The provision in this sub-head is partly for contributions towards the cost of major harbour works. The amount of the contributions in each case is governed by the labour content of the works in question. The remainder of the sub-head is required to meet any special cases of unemployment which may be brought to attention during the course of the financial year.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has made that statement.
Does the Deputy wish to move that the Estimate be referred back?
Yes, I do. I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I presume if I did not do so we would probably be hamstrung in the debate.
On a point of order, can the Deputy now move a motion to refer back, when way was given for an outside speaker to initiate this debate?
Yes.
There is no precedent for it and no provision for it in Standing Orders.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
I can raise the matter again later.
I gave way to the Parliamentary Secretary as I thought it was essential for the information of Deputies on all sides of the House that the Parliamentary Secretary should make a statement in connection with this Vote.
Would Deputy O'Grady accept an explanation from me? I stood up to speak, because the Vote was being put without discussion. I can assure him that I had no intention of trying to get in before him.
I accept that. I think there was some slight misunderstanding on all sides of the House. On my part, I was expecting that the Parliamentary Secretary would follow the usual procedure and make a statement, and Deputy Davin got in before me.
I did, because the Vote was being put. I had no deliberate intention to precede the Deputy.
I was anxious only about the technical side, to know whether one could move the motion in those circumstances.
With all due respect, we are all wasting time, of which there is a limited amount for all speakers. I waste very little time and if I had been allowed to continue I would have finished by now. I made way for the Parliamentary Secretary because otherwise he would be at sixes and sevens discussing the Estimate for which he is responsible. That is shown by the fact that his statement has disclosed that he has altered the scale of contribution under the rural improvement schemes, in which a grant up to the maximum of 93 per cent. can be given where the valuation does not exceed £6. That is what I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary.
That is correct.
That is a move in the right direction. While we are not giving the 100 per cent. grant, it is a very substantial contribution and the people benefiting will be making a token contribution, which is of great importance. For instance, when a person going to hospital is under the impression that he is paying for the cost of maintenance—though in a great many cases 90 per cent. of the cost is borne by the local authority—by paying some little contribution, he leaves the hospital with his head in the air, feeling he has not been a burden on the community. In the same way, this contribution towards the making of these roads and other minor works will mean a better return for the money expended by the State and there will be better work done. Where employment is given to the beneficiaries, they will see to it that, when they are working in their own interests and paying something towards the cost, the works will give more satisfaction than under any possible system of supervision. As I have often said before, this is one of the best schemes introduced to benefit the rural community.
There is very little change under the various sub-heads of the Estimate in the past year. I had not time to make a comparison with previous years, but I am under the impression that in certain sub-heads the Parliamentary Secretary is not making as much provision as was made in the past. Sub-head I—Development Work in bogs used by landholders and other private producers, £60,000, is the same as last year. I do not know if that is up to the standard that was being provided in years gone by. In face of the existing situation, the Parliamentary Secretary would have been wise if he had increased the contribution this year, so as to boost the production of our own fuel supply. It would have been money well expended in the interest of the nation.
Sub-head J is a very important one, although the provision for it is very small. Those who have experience of the county roads subject to very heavy traffic during the emergency know very well that they are not yet back even to the pre-war standard. It will take a good deal of money to do that. All Parties agree that such roads in backward areas are very important to the people living there under exacting conditions of life; in fact, they are more important than main roads are to those fortunate enough to live on the main roads. It would be wise if larger sums were provided for the benefit of those people who, in days gone by, made their contributions as ratepayers to the upkeep and maintenance of these roads. As a result of the national emergency, heavy lorries with huge loads of turf were driven over them at high speed, for which the roads were never designed, and for that reason, if the Parliamentary Secretary had made an extra contribution, it would have been money well spent.
The only other criticism I have to offer is that, of the total amount of £954,000 provided, the Government propose to borrow £240,000, as is well known. Deputies on this side of the House agree that it would be a wiser policy, in the interest of the nation and of the people as a whole, to let each year pay for itself and not be passing the burden on to posterity. On the other hand, those who are now responsible for the government of the country seem to say to themselves: "What do we owe to posterity?" I think that is a very narrow point of view to take. We should shoulder our own share of responsibility and not pass it down along the line. A similar argument was put forward in the days gone by when it came to doing works of a public nature. Then it was said: "We will wait until prices fall; we will wait until such-and-such a thing happens; we will postpone the effort and let our children and our children's children bear the burden." If each generation adopts a line of policy of that kind, in time to come this country will be a nice place in which to live. If we all shed our responsibility by not paying for the provisions which are necessary each year, we are going to hand over a legacy of debt to future generations. In doing that, I hold that we will be lacking in our duty. However, the Government of the day are responsible for that line of activity and I want to place on record that we on this side of the House do not believe in it; that we are opposed to it, as it is a bad principle for the people and for the nation.
There is just one matter I want to bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention. As he is aware, in my constituency Bord na Móna turf production seems to have ceased. I want to give the areas where there is a big register of unemployed persons who will have to be provided with employment this year by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department in order to replace the work which they were doing under the Bord na Móna turf scheme. In the Pontson, Crimlin, Belderrig, Keenagh, Doobeg, Clydagh electoral divisions there was a big production of turf by Bord na Móna. These are six areas where there is a big register of young unemployed men who had full-time employment while the Bord na Móna turf production was in operation. This year there will be no Bord na Móna operations in those districts, and for that reason I want those areas specially catered for so that those people will get alternative employment.
In the Belderrig area there was great disappointment last year in connection with a rural improvement scheme. There are 50 unemployed young men registered in that district. The road scheme was approved by the Department, but was not put into operation until two weeks before Christmas, with the result that these 50 registered unemployed were left idle without any hope of being able to earn anything for the Christmas season. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the schemes in those areas will be put into operation as early as possible so as to give these people an opportunity of earning something to provide for the Christmas period. In addition, there is the question of repairs to a road leading to Belderrig National School.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the change he has made with regard to work on the repair of by-roads. I appeal to him to be generous to those areas from which there are applications for the repair of by-roads. Such a by-road may lead to a village and there may be fairly large farmers living on it who are big ratepayers. They are as much entitled to be provided with a proper road to a village as the man living along the main road. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to be generous in regard to the local contribution which will be demanded from these people who have to contribute to the cost of repairing the roads leading to their houses.
In connection with the Estimate, I should like to recall to the Parliamentary Secretary's memory that there was an inter-departmental committee established about 1944 which dealt with the question of rotational work in connection with minor relief schemes. Officials representing different Departments of State did very useful work in reorganising the whole minor relief administration by providing for spells of work varying from five to 12 weeks according to whether it was a rural, an urban or a corporation area, altering the manner in which the unemployed were selected for work, thus enabling men who are really fit for work to be chosen for the purpose, making certain very important changes, particularly in the Dublin Corporation area, where for a long time there had been great dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which these relief schemes were administered.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to set up a similar committee to investigate the whole question of the repair of non-public roads. I mentioned this last year on the Estimate, but I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has had many other matters to attend to as his Department covers a wide range of activity. I would ask him, however, whether he would not be willing to set up such a committee of a purely advisory kind. On the previous occasion the officials did excellent work. It was most complicated; it required most elaborate research into the administration and costings of the minor relief schemes of every kind throughout the country. It required investigation into the character of the unemployed chosen for the work in areas throughout the length and breadth of the country. I mention this because there are 20,000 miles of non-public roads. It is an enormous mileage of road, having regard to the fact that repairs at the moment are carried out, not on a functional basis, not in relation to the condition of the road or to the number of people who live on it, but according to whether unemployment grants are available, according to whether the Land Commission consider it wise to improve a road under the improvement of estates Vote or whether enough people can be found to pay the contribution under a rural improvements scheme.
The Minister knows the problem as well as I do. Probably it exists in his own constituency. If you take, first of all, the minor relief grants, you have various types of areas benefiting from these grants. You have certain areas in the extreme west of the country where roads have been repaired over and over again and are in almost perfect condition because of the high incidence of unemployment and where the Minister might consider in some cases actually making use of the money for a special form of land reclamation in the areas and not for roads at all. Then you have another type of area where there is a moderate number of unemployed men, where there is a large number of applications for road repairs, and where people wait their turn year after year in the hope that they will get a free grant as they do not wish to take part in a rural improvement scheme, because there are just enough unemployed and they can see the schemes being carried out every year and they hope that their particular road will be repaired under one of these schemes. Then you have the areas where the number of unemployed is so low that very few schemes can be carried out, but the people, rather than go into a rural improvement scheme, wait for an indefinite number of years to have the roads repaired.
In the year 1938-39 there were some 4,057 minor relief schemes sanctioned, indicating the high level of activity in that year and showing what can be done in the way of repairing roads when the unemployment position permits it. At the present time very, very large numbers of persons have emigrated from these areas. There is a position obtaining in many areas— North-West Longford, for instance, is one of them—where the farms are so small that the people do not want to go in for rural improvement schemes and where there are not enough unemployed from the Parliamentary Secretary's standpoint to warrant a minor relief scheme being granted. In these areas the roads are continually deteriorating. If one takes the question of bog development schemes, there are a great many border-line cases where, according to the present Administration, a grant cannot be given; at the same time there are cases where grants are given. Some people consequently wait a long time to have their bog roads repaired.
I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his decision to try the experiment of altering the contribution to the improvements scheme and varying it with the valuation. I hope that he will succeed in his purpose, but I think he should publicise the scheme a bit more. I have been around Longford telling people about this. One cannot always rely on the local newspapers reporting the Parliamentary Secretary, and there should be some publicity in regard to that new plan. I might add that the rural improvements scheme started with the previous Government and has been in operation for some years, but it has never been a highly popular scheme.
As I understand, in the financial year, 1949-50, there were some 591 sanctions issued, but that at that moment there were 700 applications outstanding from previous years. To be quite fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe the delay in inspections was not his responsibility; it was shared between him and the previous Parliamentary Secretary. When the scheme started there were not sufficient inspectors, and there was a backlog of applications awaiting attention. The figure certainly indicates that the scheme is not as popular as it might be, and something more needs to be done to publicise it and make it acceptable to the people.
With regard to non-public roads, so far as I can gather from answers to parliamentary questions in the year 1949-50, about £204,000 was made available for the repair of roads under the three heads—minor relief schemes, rural improvement schemes and bog development schemes. That was based on an estimate made in the Parliamentary Secretary's office to distinguish between expenditure on roads and other works. The corresponding amount in 1938-39 was £301,000. As we have been told already, £225 now will do the work that £100 did in 1938-39 on roads because of the increase in the cost of wages and the materials used in connection with this type of work. That reduces the figure for the last financial year to about £90,000. Whatever figure one divides into the 20,000 miles of public roads, whether one takes the actual figure of £204,000, and even adding to it the amount spent by the Land Commission on the improvement of roads, if that is divided into the total mileage of public roads to find out how much is provided per mile the answer is infinitesimal. The answer is that there remains this great group of roads upon which expenditure is negligible.
I am convinced that that is one of the main contributory causes to emigration. I had occasion to speak to a prominent auctioneer who sells small farms in a certain part of the country and he gave me figures showing the very great decrease that has taken place in the price of residential farms according to whether they are situated on public or non-public roads and the tendency for non-residential farms, far back along a non-public road, to become derelict. As a consequence of that, the residence becomes perhaps the home of an agricultural worker and the farm becomes an out-farm. Everybody knows that that is happening throughout the country. It was happening during our period in office. We had the excuse that the damage done to the roads was due mainly to turf development and the consequential effects of the world war in general made it impossible for us to consider a new technical method of repairing and maintaining the non-public roads of the country. I think we can well be excused for having postponed that matter. If the Parliamentary Secretary will read my observations on it in the course of a discussion on a private member's motion he will find that I was quite frank and admitted that the matter could not be postponed indefinitly and that, no matter what the cost may be to county councils and no matter what problems and difficulties arise, sooner or later the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Local Government should appoint an advisory committee to go into the question and see what can be done for the repair of non-public roads on a technical basis.
I would like to conclude by adverting to the value of these works in connection with unemployment. There are parts of Longford where neither the Local Authorities (Works) Act nor the land rehabilitation scheme by themselves can provide enough employment in the winter months to satisfy the people living on boggy, moory land, particularly in the north-west of the county. Whatever effort is made by the Government to give employment in these areas, there is a definite gap and a gap which is very discouraging to men living on small farms who hitherto looked forward to that work in the winter months. There seems to be a reluctance among them to register for unemployment. The fact of being able to do turf work in the summer months during the war period brought money to the household and a great many families ceased to register during the winter months. Some of them have a certain amount of pride about going back on to the exchange. As a result of that, it is possible that some of them may consider emigrating, though they might not otherwise have considered it in the past. The whole matter boils down to the question of trying to reorganise the repair of the non-public roads on the basis of a modified administration, bearing in mind technical and employment considerations. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say he would at least attempt the job of appointing a committee. This would do no harm and it might do inestimable good.
Deputy Childers has covered most of the ground perhaps better than I can do it. I am frankly disappointed with the position at the end of two years of administration by the present Parliamentary Secretary. Coming from the West of Ireland, I had anticipated better results than have been obtained in relation to the minor relief and bog development schemes. As I pointed out last year, if one has not got the money one cannot do the work. Last year the money was insufficient. It is altogether insufficient again this year. I think that is a great mistake. The people in the plains may not be interested in this matter. In the poor districts in the West of Ireland and, possibly, in the north the question of providing money for the repair of by-roads, bog roads and bog development generally is all important. The people in these areas cannot make a living on the little farms they have. In the county that I represent, in the very first year this Government took office, on the instructions of the auditor the amount of money spent was surcharged—I think to the tune of something like £4,000. Now the manager applied for a remission and got that remission together with a warning that these by-roads were not to be repaired in future. The result was that, not merely those by-roads but all others that might be of doubtful legality, were cut off the list.
By whom?
They were cut off because the auditor had made surcharges in respect of a number that had been done for years. I know it is not the Parliamentary Secretary's Department that is responsible. Those by-roads were cut off as regards repairs, and the county council can do nothing about them. The sad fact is that nobody is doing anything about them. A deputation was sent by the county council to the then Minister for Local Government, the late Mr. Murphy—Go ndéanfaidh Dia trocaire ar a anam—and we asked him to try and have these roads put in a legal position so to speak, or to get the auditor to allow them to go through for repairs. The net result of the interview was that he said he could not do anything about them. He did promise that he would bring those roads and others to the attention of the Board of Works, and try to get them done under that Department. I have no evidence so far that anything has been done. I have very strong evidence pointing to the fact that those roads are now more neglected than ever. I do not know where the matter is going to finish up.
I go about a good deal, and there is hardly anywhere I go that I have not complaints about the desperate condition of those by-roads. It is hard to blame people if they think that it is not fair that they should have to contribute specially to rural improvement schemes when, in fact, they are contributing in the rates to the general upkeep of all other roads in the county. That did not start under this Government. It went on in the past so that these by-roads are being treated as if they were something like an outcast. There is nothing done about them. I have been in the Parliamentary Secretary's county and I have found there, too, a very large number of families, living on by-roads, who are in the same plight as those I speak of.
Deputy Childers, I think, dealt very ably with this question. I quite agree with him that something should be done about it. We should either have new legislation permitting the county councils to repair these roads, or the Board of Works should be given authority to do them. Even when they were being done, they were never done sufficiently. I have in mind a number of bog development schemes, bog roads and bog drains for which I personally applied for a grant. I have been patiently hoping to get a grant some day, but, so far, my hopes have been in vain. I imagine that many people who do not live in the boggy districts do not fully understand the importance of these bog development schemes. The people in those areas can hardly be said to have holdings of land at all. Their valuations range from about £2 to £5. They have merely patches of reclaimed bog in most cases. For generations they have been depending on the production of hand-won turf to supplement whatever little income they have to enable them to keep their families. When the roads become unusable, and when the bog drains get choked up so that they cannot get the turf out, well, that spells disaster for them. I know that a good deal was done in years gone by, but a bog drain does not remain open long. It closes up again. When the drains do close up they have to be reopened and cleaned up.
The same thing applies to bog roads. If you have 30, 40 or 100 families using carts on them, they will get cut up in a few weeks. In many cases, too, there should be a continuation of the existing roads by connecting them with others. I think that should be one of the objects of a rural improvement scheme to try and connect existing roads with new roads. If that were done, it would be possible for the county councils to take over those roads and keep them in repair.
Deputy Childers welcomed the improvement in the conditions as regards rural improvement schemes. I agree, too, that it is a good thing. The 90 per cent. grant is the highest that has ever been given. It would be desirable if the Department could give the full 100 per cent., because in many of those areas the people who would benefit are very poor indeed. There is a point on that which I want to make, and it is that I am afraid the new regulations have not got sufficient publicity. I am afraid that very few, in fact, of those who live in the poorer districts are aware of the change that has been made. They are still of the opinion that they would have to put up 25 per cent. which, of course, in their case would be prohibitive. Even when the 25 per cent. had to be put up, some very good schemes indeed were done. Nowadays, there is the possibility of getting minor drainage work done under the Works Act. Even before that Act was passed, some very useful work was done under the old rural improvement schemes. There should be more work done now, especially in regard to roads and drains. I think that would be the case if steps were taken to bring to the notice of the people the change that has been made.
The employment side of this is very important. Deputy Childers also referred to it. In the constituency which I represent we have, even to a much greater extent, those poor areas such as he has referred to, people with little patches of land which are not sufficient to support even two or three people. If they cannot find something to supplement their small incomes, well then there is nothing for them but to emigrate. That has been the case over a very large area in the County Roscommon, especially in the extreme southern end, the west and the north-west. There, again, minor relief jobs and bog development jobs are of the greatest importance. I want to emphasise, as he did, that the winter time is the slack period. With the road work that is in hands and with the drainage work under the new schemes, there will be employment for the big majority of the people, but from October to March next will be the slack period. I appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary last year to try and get a supplementary grant. The amount of this Vote is not at all sufficient. It is almost useless for the purpose that he should have in mind. I would again appeal to him to try and get a supplementary grant to help out those poor people who live in the boggy areas, both from the point of view of providing them with road accommodation to their homes and to the bogs, as well as providing them with employment during the winter months when work is slack.
With regard to these minor relief schemes the position unfortunately is that they are only carried out in an area where a certain number of people are unemployed. I think that very good national work could be done if a proper selection was made as regards the schemes to be done, and if sufficient money were allocated for the purpose by the Government to those areas which are really most in need of such schemes. I am afraid that under the present system we are not getting a proper return from the minor relief schemes —that is when we confine them to areas where a certain number of people are unemployed. I feel strongly on this because I know a lot of work that could be done, but which is not covered either by the county councils or by any of these schemes. The result is that the people in such areas are suffering considerably. Deputy Childers and Deputy O'Rourke have dealt with the cul-de-sac roads which seem to be nobody's baby.
If minor relief schemes could be carried out on roads adjacent to an area in which there were people unemployed, it would provide work for these people and at the same time enable a considerable amount of useful schemes to be carried out. In my constituency it often happens that you have a big labour content in one end of the county and work is carried out that could easily be carried out by the county council instead of being carried out under minor relief schemes. If there was a proper survey, steps could be taken beforehand to see that certain roads which fell into a bad condition were repaired the following year. In the same way, minor relief schemes to prevent coast erosion might be carried out, though I believe coast erosion is not recognised by the Department as a work upon which this money could be spent. Nevertheless, these are works of national importance and I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that some change should be made in the method of dealing with them. I welcome the alteration in the contribution. Of course it will not affect my constituency very much because the valuations are higher than, say, in the West of Ireland, from which I came originally. The alteration will not afford very much relief to County Dublin, but nevertheless it will be a help to some people, and if the Parliamentary Secretary could give further relief in that direction it would be welcomed.
First of all, I want to object to the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary tried to slip this Estimate across this morning without any word of introduction or without even an apology for the feeble effort that is being made to meet the numerous requests from all over the country for minor employment schemes.
I did make an introductory statement.
There was no speech made in introducing it.
There was.
Later, perhaps.
I did not hear it.
Why did you not remain in the House?
It was not sufficiently attractive.
This vote was introduced immediately after the division and it was moved by the Minister for Lands. The Parliamentary Secretary made a bit of a fumble and then Deputy Davin got up. That was the first speech.
And you ran out of the House.
I did not run out of the House at all.
The position has been explained. There is no neccessity to waste time over it.
I stood up because the Vote was being put without discussion. I had no intention of cutting across Deputy Seán O'Grady.
I thought Deputy Davin was the Parliamentary Secretary.
We discussed this matter already.
The Estimate was introduced but there was no explanation.
There was, afterwards.
There is no use in trying to put this across on the House. Were it not for the fact that Deputy Davin and Deputy O'Grady stood up, it would have gone without any explanation. The statement I have made as to the manner of the introduction of this Vote is perfectly right.
Why did you not get up then?
I would have got up but, like every other Deputy, I was expecting an introductory statement.
The Deputy will proceed.
If Deputy Davin would only hold his tongue I might be able to proceed. I think the Deputy got plenty of time to say all he had to say on the Estimate. From time to time we have been pressing on the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department the necessity for carrying out a number of minor relief schemes all over the country. He hides behind the fact that schemes can only be provided where the number of unemployed reach a certain figure in a particular electoral division. So far as I understand, local employment schemes are coupled with peat schemes. There are local employment schemes and peat development schemes and when we ask the Parliamentary Secretary questions in regard to these matters, we find that there is an entirely new departure in the type of reply we get. If I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is his intention to carry out certain work in certain areas during the coming winter, if the individual who made the application recently happens to be one of the Parliamentary Secretary's key men, his name will be mentioned as the only person who has applied recently, but if he is some other individual, who has not been tied up with the Parliamentary Secretary's organisation, there is no question of any name being mentioned. The whole idea is in keeping with the policy that is being put into operation in my constituency since the schemes were taken over from the county council and run directly by the Board of Works.
Before proceeding further, I want to make it quite clear that I am quite satisfied that there are in the Board of Works officials who are as good, as honest and as sincere as are to be found in any other Department and it is because we have these particular types of officials in that Department that things are being run on reasonably straight lines. As I was about to say, the only man who need apply in my constituency at the moment for a position as a ganger is a key man of a certain organisation and the only individual who can apply successfully for a relief scheme is a key man in that organisation. Moneys of this nature are provided by the State to do two things—to provide employment for people who are in urgent need of employment and, secondly, to do an essential type of work required in certain localities. Any questions I have put down on this matter have been put down with the object of being helpful to the Parliamentary Secretary in getting as much money spent in my constituency as possible. I always understood that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have a certain difficulty in their own Department because there are people in these Departments who are not prepared to make money available for these works. Quite recently, I had quite a number of questions regarding minor employment schemes, but on the 28th June I put down a general question to which I received the most evasive type of reply that was ever given to any question in this House. I asked the Minister whether:—
"In view of the number of displaced bog workers still unemployed in each electoral division in the rural districts of Tuam, Glenamaddy and Mountbellew, he will consider making an extra sum available from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote for the repair and reconstruction of the numerous village and bog roads in those areas which are now in a deplorable condition."
The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was that on the 24th June only 126 people were registered as unemployed or, in other words, an average of two people in each electoral division. The Parliamentary Secretary knew of course that that was an evasive reply. While there may be one or two areas where there would be no unemployed there would certainly be areas—and he knew it as well as I do—where a large number of people would be unemployed. We have them at the moment in Dunmore, Tuam and Glenamaddy, and in a whole number of other places. While the number of registered unemployed may have dropped, it has dropped because a very large number of people have been disqualified from unemployment benefit because they have not been able to avail of the offers of work which would mean travelling to Kildare or elsewhere. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary must know as well as I do that there are a large number of people in my constituency who because of certain circumstances cannot travel to Kildare, while if work were made available to them at home everybody knows that they would jump to it. I will challenge anyone here to say that if the county council started a scheme on any road throughout the whole county—probably the same thing applies to Mayo—if the Board of Works started a road or drainage scheme, or if anybody else comes in to-morrow morning to start any type of scheme, that they will not be flooded out with people applying for employment immediately.
Are you serious?
I am quite serious.
You are not.
If I am not serious, will the Parliamentary Secretary name one scheme—the county council have at the moment a large number of drainage schemes on hand—that fell through for the want of people.
We were working on a bridge in your parish and we had to close it down because we could not get men, and you know it.
I do not know it.
That is a good one. He does not know.
He does not.
The parliamentary Secretary made a claim that no work could be done in our constituency unless people were prepared to go down on bended knees to a certain individual. The work on the bridge——
Is closed down.
——is not held up. Dams were put down and ructions were made locally because the dams were flooding the land. Was that because there was no work? A new gang were brought in on Monday. So why tell a deliberate untruth? If any work is started to-morrow morning the workers are available and willing. This thing of hiding behind the number of registered unemployed in any particular area is only driving the fool further.
We have a number of very important peat schemes and the people cannot possibly get their turf out. I think that more money should be made available for bog roads and a case could have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, if he tried, to have much more money made available because he knows the position. I am not mentioning those things because they do not exist; I am mentioning them because every day when I go back my own people complain to me and in every part of my constituency that I visit people complain to me about the bog roads, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is the truth. Due to the rain that fell during the last fortnight the turf is left in the bogs and people must wait for the fine weather until they get a chance of taking it out. Prior to taking this office the Parliamentary Secretary himself made a case for more money to be allocated to this type of work, and he should now have made an effort to get the Minister for Finance to put up more money. It would not merely do very useful work which is badly required, but it gives employment to people who cannot get employment anywhere in the county.
In any of the places where I have seen the new system of allocating money on rural improvement schemes the offers have not been satisfactory, nor have they been availed of, and I am afraid that a still further system will have to be provided. During the past fortnight I had a number of questions, and when I go back to these people I find that they still cannot do the work on the basis of the new offer and I find that in general there is not much change. There may be a reduction from £75 to £65, but that is not very helpful, as a lot of those people are very small farmers. Not alone that, but a number of people travel over these roads into land or for some other purpose, who will never contribute anything at all and although 20, 30 or 40 people may use those roads, at least to some small extent, when it comes to putting up the money under a rural improvements scheme, it always falls on four or five people. The others are not prepared to contribute at all, because they do not use the road every day. I do not think that the present scheme meets in any way the motion which was tabled in this House some time ago. It may have gone some very small distance, but it has not materially altered the position at all. The Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will find after a very short time that this new system is no improvement on the old one and that some other system must be provided.
It was my intention to make the usual introductory statement, but I took it that the Vote was agreed to and that Deputy Davin was merely raising a point. Deputy Killilea raised a point about the statement not being made, but he was missing from the House. Knowing that Estimate No. 10 was coming up for discussion—the Board of Works Vote, as he calls it; it is the Special Employment Schemes Vote—he took a little run out to read his oration of last year, because he started off as he started last year, talking about gangers and so on. To make it worse, he said that it is only works in which people in a certain organisation are interested that are being done. As I explained last year, I have not got the selection of the works and neither have I the appointment of gangers. It is the Special Employment Schemes Office which appoints them.
Deputy Killilea started another here about the unemployed. I could quite understand a Deputy from Galway, and from North Galway in particular, talking that kind of stuff if he were talking to a Parliamentary Secretary who lived in Cavan, Kildare or Louth, but he must realise that I live in the very centre of the area he every Friday night and return on Monday or Tuesday morning. I live amongst these people and I know them well. One would imagine from Deputy Killilea's statement that, whenever he goes into Dunmore, Glenamaddy, Williamstown, Creggs, Kilkerrin or Mountbellew he is immediately surrounded by registered unemployed people looking for work as an alternative to emigrating, as he says. That, of course, is not the case at all. There are no unemployed people whatever in that area. The fact is that, in all that area, two small grants in Dunmore North, in the Clooneyquin area, where Deputy Killilea said the two jobs were not going to be done, of £60 or £70 each, represent all the money we could spend last year amongst the North Galway registered unemployed. Still Deputy Killilea talks in this fashion, when the position is that men cannot be got at any price. As a matter of fact, some bog development works which we had in progress there had to be closed down. Deputy Killilea knows well that a certain county council job of £1,000 on the Island River in the Ballymore-Williamstown area had to be closed down for six months because the necessary men could not be got. What, then, is the use of coming to the House and indulging in all this fudge?
Every Deputy was inclined to congratulate me on the rural improvements scheme except Deputy Killilea. I was happy to accept the congratulations of Deputy Childers, because I think he was one of those who went into the Lobby and voted against it, as, of course, did Deputy Kitt and Deputy Killilea.
Against what?
The new rural improvements scheme.
A vote was never taken on it.
The Deputy was absent again. Deputy Beegan challenged a vote on it, and the Deputy probably walked into the Lobby without knowing what the vote was about. A change was made in the old rural improvements scheme, because three-quarters of the time of the staff was wasted in going down to see people who made application and estimating the cost and so on. When they came back and the people were told that their contribution of 25 per cent. was so much, we found they were not able to contribute and the scheme fell through. That happened in at least 90 per cent. of the cases, especially in the poorer areas represented by Deputy Killilea and myself. In cases where two farmers with valuations of perhaps £100 or £200 applied and qualified under the scheme, they were well able to contribute their 25 per cent. of the cost, but where you had nine or ten small farmers with valuations of £2, £3 or £4, they were not able to contribute, and the result was that the people whom the scheme was mainly intended to benefit were unable to avail of it.
As a result of a motion sponsored by Deputy Commons and Deputy Beirne asking for a 90 per cent. contribution, I went back to the Government and got them to consent—willingly, I should say—to a scheme under which, where the valuations are under £5 or £6, we give a grant of 95 per cent. The grants go up on a sliding tion goes over £18, that is, the average valuation of the land accommodated by the particular road, they are asked to contribute the 25 per cent. as was the case under the old scheme. Deputy Childers said honestly enough that the scheme did not get enough publicity, but all we could do was to give it publicity in all the local newspapers and the daily papers. I ask Deputies now to co-operate with us and to make its advantages known where they are not at present known; but so far as I can see the scheme is very well known, and people are taking every opportunity to avail of it.
What I have to say to the people of the Twenty-Six Countries, and of Galway in particular, who may have been poisoned by certain statements, is that where they are not able to contribute and where they can make the case, we can give them a full cost grant. If their valuations are low, we can bring the amount up on a sliding scale until we give 95 per cent. of the cost, their contribution being 5 per cent. For every £100 of the cost, we give £95, and they contribute £5, in respect of a road into their own houses or into their own villages. If that does not suit them, I am not going to butter their bread on both sides. I think it is a very good change, and I ask Deputies to let it be known to any of these people in the backward areas who do not know about it. I am sure that all Deputies have an interest in these neglected people, and I can assure them that, coming from that area myself, I have a very keen interest in them.
Deputy Davin referred to the Ballylinn Road. That is a matter I will look into. I can assure him that, if the people cannot afford to pay, we will do the best we can.
The majority of them cannot.
But let them not try to wipe our eye, because we will not let them do that. With regard to the Clonmacnoise road, I am very interested in it and we will not stand in the way of the necessary work being done, as I am sure the Deputy appreciates. Deputy O'Grady referred to the rural improvements scheme as a move in the right direction. I agree that it is. Deputies appear to be confused about certain schemes. Deputy O'Rourke raised the point that £60,000 is not enough for bog-road development. Heavy turf traffic has ceased. The coal famine is over. There is not now as much turf being carried over these roads as there was when the county councils were using the bogs. Last year we discovered that, while £60,000 did not do all that was necessary, it certainly satisfied the people in several areas. Deputy Killilea, I think, said that none of this money was spent in Galway.
I did not say none of it.
I think the Deputy said very little of it was spent in Galway. I hope I am not giving myself away when I say that there was more money spent on the development of bog roads under that scheme in Galway last year than ever was spent before. Probably it was not spent around Deputy Killilea's home, but some of it was spent in Galway, I want to assure him.
As regards the minor employment schemes, of course, we can only give full cost grants where there is a number of registered unemployed. The money under that sub-head is not voted in this House for making roads or drains anywhere. That money is voted for doing those works in areas where there is a sufficient number of registered unemployed. Deputy Burke, on one occasion, put down a question to me as regards the number of registered unemployed in a certain area in North County Dublin. I told him there was none. He would not believe me. He came to me afterwards and I gave him the exact list and it surprised him. Many people will tell you they are registered unemployed but on inquiry you will find that they are not registered.
As regards the suggestion put forward by Deputy Childers as to the setting up of a commission of inquiry in connection with these roads, I believe I will do that. I think it is necessary that it should be done. We are advancing to a certain extent, but we do not know exactly in what direction we are advancing. Probably this year we will set up such a commission of inquiry and I am sure the Deputy will be of assistance to me in that.
Deputy O'Rourke raised a point as regards certain roads that the council were doing in Roscommon. The county manager has sent in a list of these by-roads under the new rural improvement scheme. We will look into that matter and, if it is possible, we will give a grant to the extreme limit.
I am very grateful to all the Deputies for their contributions to the debate and for their suggestions. I will consider them and anything I can do during the coming year will be done. I believe that the Special Employment Schemes Office is the one office that deals, so to speak, with the needy in the matter of roads, by-roads, drains, and I will assist them in any way I can. Deputy Killilea took great exception to the fact that I made reference to the people who made application——
In certain cases.
A certain man is appointed.
In certain cases only.
In every case. In certain cases a man is appointed as a spokesman on behalf of the people. His name is on the application form. He is the man who communicates with the office. He is the man with whom we communicate. I think it is not doing any harm in the world to say that "John Murphy" from some place wrote to us about a road on behalf of a group of tenants. He is the man who collects the money for us. We are in close communication with him. When a Deputy raises a question, we say "yes, we have made the offer to John Murphy", no matter what John Murphy's political views may be.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why that is not done in every case? It is only done occasionally.
It is done in every case that I know.
It is not.
I am very grateful to Deputies for all their suggestions and I hope they will co-operate in the coming year, as they have done in the past, and we will try to help the people as best we can.
