Private Deputies' Business. - Local Authorities (Works) Act— Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Wednesday, 25 Mar 1953

Private Deputies' Business. - Local Authorities (Works) Act— Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That, with a view to putting a greater area of land into productive condition and as a means of stimulating rural employment, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act for the year 1953-54 should be raised to the 1950-51 level. —(Deputies John Finan and John Beirne.)

Mr. Blowick

When the debate on this motion was adjourned the last evening it was before the House, I was debating the cutting down of the total grant by the Minister for Local Government for the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In the first year of its operation that grant was fortified by no less a figure than £1,900,000. That figure has been cut this year to £400,000, that is to say, it has been reduced by approximately four-fifths of what was given for it in one year. In other words, the present Government means to do only in five years at this rate under the Act what was done in one year under the inter-Party Government régime.

I want to remind the Minister of the reason the Act was brought into being. It was to facilitate the land rehabilitation project, first of all; secondly, it was to increase production on the land; and, thirdly, it was a genuine effort and a very successful one to restore to the farmers approximately 4,000,000 acres which at the present time is lying useless for the most part, either because it is subject to periodic flooding or subject to permanent flooding. We hear a lot from time to time from the Government Benches, from Ministers and others, urging that the only salvation is increased agricultural production. I am in full and wholehearted agreement with that. We want to see increased agricultural production. This is our main industry, the one industry that we can properly manage, with a certain amount of assistance from certain quarters. It is possible to expand and increase thisindustry to a considerable extent. I hold that at present it is on the upward grade. The present generation, particularly all young farmers, are very anxious to knock the most out of their land. As a matter of fact, they are taking a much keener interest than heretofore, they are desirous of using the most advanced methods and they are taking full advantage of the increased information which is available to every farmer who wishes to increase the production of his farm. These are great advances, and I find it very hard to reconcile the attitude of the members of the present Government and those supporting them when they ask farmers for increased production and at the same time cut down on such a scheme as this. Farmers, left to themselves, will utilise their land to the best advantage. They will fertilise it, till it, increase the production of grass on the portion of the farm under grass, and they will do that themselves, and are doing it very well themselves at the present time.

There is one particular aspect of life on the land that is completely out of the control of most farmers and that is drainage. The whole drainage system, in practically every country under the sun, affects not one farmer, but a number of farmers. If one farmer could drain his land and could not be held up in his drainage work or be impeded or stopped by the negligence of other farmers, everything would be grand; but it so happens that practically any main drain we know of, practically any small river, brook or watercourse, runs by perhaps 100 holdings or farms, and it takes the combined cooperation of all these farmers, if they are to do it themselves, before the job can be a success; hence the necessity for State intervention. The job is of such a magnitude that only liberal grants from the State can put our whole drainage network into the first-class condition in which we would like to see it.

Most Deputies and most farmers are painfully aware that, particularly since the coming into operation of the Land Acts, the drainage system has been falling very much into disrepair,with the result that watercourses which were once in good condition have been closed up for years, with the consequent ruin and flooding of lots of perfectly good land. For that reason, Deputies Finan and Beirne have tabled this motion, to bring that home to the Government and to give this House a chance to discuss the urgent necessity for the full implementation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That Act was brought before this House and was passed into law because the inter-Party Government realised that something had to be done if the land rehabilitation scheme was to be a success and also if we were to give back to the farmers the 4,000,000 acres which are attached— sometimes in small pieces, sometimes in big portions—to holdings and farms throughout the length and breadth of the country, over the 300,000 holdings we have in the country. If we can succeed in this generation in restoring that 4,000,000 acres to full production, we are doing an excellent job of work, and whatever other shortcomings we may have we can feel proud of it.

The Minister should not lose sight of the fact that attached to every holding and farm is some area—sometimes small, sometimes large—which is perfectly useless to the farmer. In some cases it is more a source of loss and danger to live stock than of benefit. The farmer must pay annuities and also rates to the local authorities, but he gets no advantage from it. That is the personal or individual side of the case. If we take the broad national view, we find that all these bits and pieces added together come to the astonishing total of 4,000,000 or 4,500,000 acres. It is to try to restore that land to production that this motion is put down.

This particular motion is one which should be accepted by the House without any political bias or rancour arising from the discussion on it. It is a motion which aims at doing something really worthwhile, something really solid. We should not forget that in order to preserve the balance of trade in a healthy condition the export of agricultural produce must be increased; but we cannot say we are very sincereabout increasing agricultural production when we calmy reduce such a useful Estimate as the Local Authorities (Works) Act Estimate from £1,900,000 to £400,000. It is one of the most useful Acts—and I say that as a farmer who realises the immense amount of damage that flooding is causing all over the country—yet apparently that Act is to be treated with contempt, as there is no other word but "contempt" to describe what the cutting down of this Estimate means. The Act was hailed by the farmers, regardless of politics, as one of the most useful measures they have seen for a long time. By the average farmer it was hailed as a much more useful measure even than the Arterial Drainage Act, which everyone must admit was very good and a very necessary Act and a very definite step forward, a step in the right direction.

In asking the Minister and the House to accept this motion and to devote for the coming year a greater sum of money than has been allocated already in the Book of Estimates, we think it is a very fair demand to make, particularly when we take into account that the original intention of the Act was to restore that vast acreage of land into production. According to the way in which the Minister treats this motion, so also will the average farmer treat the appeals made, particularly from the Government Benches, to increase agricultural production.

Every acre of arable land is at present in my opinion, with very rare exceptions, producing as much as it is possible for the owners to produce on it. If we want to increase agricultural production, the principal method by which we can do that is to remove the water from that huge area of land which I believe would be as good as the best arable land if the water were taken off it and the owners were given a chance to put it into production by the various methods of husbandry in the different localities. I ask the Minister to accept this motion and the implication in it that a larger grant should be made available than the £400,000 provided for this year. I will not take the increase of £350,000 in the Vote of the Minister for Agriculturefor land rehabilitation as an answer to this motion. It is not an answer to it. When that is added to the £400,000 in the Book of Estimates we get a figure of £750,000, which is £1,150,000 less than the inter-Party Government provided in one single year for the implementation of this Act. I ask the Minister to increase this grant and show the people of the country that he and every member of the Government mean what they say when they ask the farmers to increase production.

Mr. O'Higgins

This is one of the most important motions which the House has discussed for some time. It has been introduced by the Clan na Talmhan Party in order to call attention to the importance of this kind of work in the country. Deputies will recollect that when the Local Authorities (Works) Act was passed in 1949 it was designed to meet a particular situation in which land could not achieve the optimum production because of perennial flooding problems. There was at that time in operation and there still is a smaller drainage scheme operated by the Special Employment Schemes Office. There was also in operation and there still is a larger drainage scheme operated by the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945. But the in-between flooding problem which was too big to be the subject of a relief scheme and too small to be the subject of an arterial drainage scheme was not catered for at all.

It was that flooding problem which for many years back had caused a vast quantity of otherwise arable land to be water-logged and incapable of being put into production and which had caused a yearly loss in agricultural output. It was for the purpose of solving that kind of drainage problem that the inter-Party Government wisely decided to have this Act passed and to make money available.

The House will recollect that when that Bill was discussed some four years ago certain doubts were expressed as to the wisdom of this kind of drainage. One of the greatest doubters was the present Minister for Local Government,Deputy Smith as he was then. He felt at that time that drainage schemes under it would not be successful and would cause damage if they were done. His opposition was supported by other members of his Party. They were entitled to their views, but the Bill was passed and the Act went into operation.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that within recent years there has not been any single piece of legislation which has brought so much benefit to rural Ireland as the Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949. When put into operation in the summer of 1949 and throughout 1950 immense work was done. For the first time small farmers saw an opportunity of dealing with the flooding that for years had caused a large part of their holdings to be completely unproductive. In 1950 particularly immense work was done under this Act. It is regrettable that in the first year of office of the present Government the amount made available for work under the Act was drastically reduced. It becomes more regrettable when we find for the current year a further reduction in the amount being made available.

The matter dealt with in this motion emphasises the difference in approach between the present Government and the inter-Party Government to problems of this kind. The inter-Party Government believed sincerely in a policy of capital investment. The present Government see no sense in that policy. The Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949 was designed to enable the Government to invest a large capital sum in the land of Ireland, to enable the farmers to derive a benefit from the land, to enable them to produce more and add to the national income and to enable employment to be made available in every part of the country. Generally, it was designed to help people to maintain a better standard of living. The present Government does not hold that view and this is one instance in which we find their contrary policy coming into operation.

The present Government have decided that the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes must come to anend. They are killing them gradually by reducing each year the amount of money made available. I think we are faced with a real problem here. I would like to hear from the Minister the reasons why the present Government believe that drainage work is not required here, because it is only if the Government hold that view that they can refuse to implement an Act of this House which gives power to make provision for the curing of our drainage problems. The Government must hold the view that drainage work is no longer necessary. If they do not hold that view, they must hold the view that it is not a good thing to drain water-logged land and generally to put agricultural land back into proper productive condition.

The effect of the reduction in these schemes in the last two years has been very serious. Deputy Blowick mentioned that work under this Act was intended to be part and parcel of the land project itself. Deputies will appreciate that land reclamation cannot be undertaken in many places and cannot be accomplished successfully unless there is a good system of main drainage available. The Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949 gave the necessary money to local authorities to enable them to provide main drainage for entire townlands and the Department of Agriculture, coming along later, was faced with no obstacle in the way of reclamation work. In my constituency, and this is probably true of other areas too, because of the reduction in the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act a considerable hold-up has taken place in land reclamation. In Offaly, particularly in North Offaly, hundreds of land project applications have been postponed because the Department of Agriculture finds that no adequate system of main drainage is available.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This motion deals with the Local Authorities (Works) Act and the Minister is not responsible for the grants just mentioned.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am advancing as one of my reasons for supporting thismotion the effect of the reduction in the grants, a reduction which incidentally is tending to hold up land project applications. I think that is in order. If it is in order, I intend to develop that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may mention it in passing but I cannot see how we can have a discussion on the moneys available under the land project scheme on this motion. I cannot see how the Deputy can speak to this motion while at the same time discussing another scheme for which the Minister has no responsibility.

Mr. O'Higgins

Surely it cannot be said that the reason I am advancing by way of protest against this reduction is in any way out of order. I am pointing out that one effect of the reduction of the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been to reduce work under the land project. I think that is in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not want to limit the Deputy in any way. It is the Chair's duty to keep the Deputy to the motion before the House and that motion deals with the Local Authorities (Works) Act, an Act under which the Minister has responsibility.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is what I am dealing with but, in dealing with it, I want to advance as one of the effects of the reduction in these grants the fact that work under land reclamation is being retarded. The Offaly County Council has applied to the Department of Local Government for sanction for schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The grants have been reduced and the necessary money is not being made available. That means that main drainage cannot be carried out in North Offaly and because of that work is being held up under the land rehabilitation scheme. That is one serious result.

We must not forget that we are discussing this motion against a certain background, a background of depression, of rural unemployment and rural emigration. Not so very long ago this House voted a sum of £250,000 for thepurchase of a horse. Here we are discussing the failure of the Government to provide the necessary funds to make employment available in rural Ireland. It is notable that this year the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act have been reduced by £150,000 at a time when there are thousands and thousands of people unemployed in every rural constituency. In part of my constituency in Laois, in the spring of last year 350 men were laid off by the Laois County Council because that body had not available from central funds money to continue schemes under this Act, or other allied schemes.

With a background of unemployment no Deputy can view a reduction in a capital investment scheme of this kind with any degree of equanimity. When the Vote on Account was being discussed last week certain Deputies made quite a point of the unemployment situation and they asked the Government for some indication of a policy that would help to cure the existing problem. Those Deputies who pointed to the serious consequences of unemployment did not all vote against the Government. Some of them supported the Government.

Here, in this motion, one particular path is pointed to the Government to clear up. I think it is fair to say, in respect of a sum of £400,000, that if the Government increased that sum to £1,900,000—as the inter-Party Government made available for schemes of this kind— there would be no rural unemployment in this country. By working the Local Authorities (Works) Act properly, by believing in it, and by having the enthusiasm which the inter-Party Government had, we could cure every unemployment problem in rural Ireland. We are not doing that. Instead, this Government are making money available for the purchase of Tulyar and for other such schemes. They are making money available for such mad schemes at a time when their own slackness and hesitancy is causing serious unemployment to continue in the country.

This motion must be approached by Deputies from the two points of viewthat have already been urged. In the first place, there is a great need for drainage work—work which will enable land reclamation to proceed, work which will enable land throughout the country to be turned into profitable production. From time to time we have had to listen to Ministers of the present Government chide the farmers of this country. In particular, the Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, takes time off on every possible occasion to blame the Irish farmer for not producing more. Other Ministers, particularly the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, join in that kind of condemnation of the Irish farmer. Here is an opportunity for these two Ministers to help the farmer to produce more. There is very little use in talking to the farmers of Daingean and of various other parts of County Offaly, where there is a serious flooding problem about increased production.

It is arrant nonsense to suggest to those farmers that they should produce more when the Government that makes that suggestion denies them the drainage facilities which would enable them to produce more. There is, and there will be for years to come, a need for a long-term drainage policy in this country. We were making progress in that respect when the inter-Party Government were in office. Drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949 was only part of the drainage machinery: it was part and parcel of a broad programme. Once one part, even if it is only a small part, of that machinery is interfered with, the entire machinery begins to slow up. It is serious that that should be so. I can only hope that, even at this stage, the Government will appreciate the importance of making more money available for drainage in view of the results in the way of production and improvement of the land.

The other case that can be made for the motion is in relation to the present unemployment situation throughout the country. It is absolutely jocose to think that any Deputy representing a rural constituency can be complacent when he hears that the present Governmentproposes to reduce the money to be made available for this worthwhile work. The Minister, or perhaps some Deputies supporting the Government, may suggest that more money is being made available for land reclamation. I think that an extra sum of £300,000 is being made available this year for land reclamation. I can tell the Government that that money will not be spent unless main drainage is carried out. There are vast areas throughout the country where work under the land project cannot be undertaken so long as main drainage is neglected.

I think a case can be made for this motion. I have no doubt that other Deputies sitting behind the Minister are only too anxious to get to their feet to support this motion. I have no doubt that Deputy Corry. Deputy Cogan and other Deputies who, ordinarily, on other matters, support the Government, will not be silent now but will join their voices with ours in urging on the Minister that there is a case to be made for a greater expenditure on worthwhile work. I do not wish to prevent these Deputies from joining in this appeal to the Minister. I am quite certain that what they will say will have a very speedy effect in getting ministerial support for this motion which, I am sure, will be accepted by the Government so that we can expect that the Estimate will be amended and that more money will be made available for this worthwhile work.

Major de Valera

The intervention of a Deputy for Dublin City in a debate of this kind is perhaps unusual. I could not help thinking, when I heard previous speakers, that there is some necessity in debates of this nature that tend to become localised for an occasional look at problems from the over-all viewpoint. The first thing that strikes one is the attitude of the Opposition. I suppose it is fair enough and that all Oppositions do it. It is their function. They do not have to find the money. At the same time, though it may be fair parliamentary tactics, it is hardly realism, if, on specific occasions, people will come inand ask that increased sums of money be voted for particular projects and then object when it comes to finding the money they want to spend. A small amount is involved in this particular instance but you get it pretty commonly all over on occasions such as this that a Minister or a Government—no matter what Government may be in office—is assailed because they will not spend money. Then another day, they will be assailed for spending money and for collecting it— because they will not have the money to spend if they do not collect it. To forget that point shows the lack of realism in debates of this nature.

I would leave it to the Minister, to Deputy Corry and others to join issue on the immediate point in this motion as to whether the money that the Opposition want for this particular purpose would be better applied in another direction, and so forth. The rural Deputies will have more immediate knowledge in this connection than I have. However, either there must be such an adjustment, that is, you have to save somewhere else——

Mr. Cafferky

What about Tulyar?

Major de Valera

——to spend it here or else, if there is not such an adjustment, you must find the additional money. If you are going to find the additional money, what will you do? We had it out on the Vote on Account and we shall have it out again. However, it is quite apparent that this finding of additional moneys is not easy. We all know the burden that taxation is at the moment. We hear a great deal about it from Opposition Deputies. We know of the problems that are there.

There is a thought that follows on that. With regard to the difficulties we have had and the burden which various sections of the community have to carry, I am afraid the heaviest burden to be borne is that on our urban and city dwellers.

A Deputy

Now it is coming out.

Major de Valera

If my friends across there think this is a matter for joking and laughing I do not. It isa matter for careful weighing because there are serious problems in it. On the one hand, if there is any justice or truth in the point made by Deputy O'Higgins that this would be a move in the direction of capital development, there is a serious argument there for considering the merits of doing things on the rural side. On the other hand, there is the situation I have mentioned where it is in certain of the poorer areas in our cities that it is hurting most at the moment. We have got to the stage when we must consider the load that is there and if it is a question of putting a further load there to do something in the other areas, we must pause and think.

To return to the point I started to make, the Government cannot get money. You ask to-day for the Government to spend money. You should be logical and consider where the Government is to find that money and whether the finding of that money will involve an additional load—and this goes for the sum total rather than for individual demands which very frequently are small enough—on the people who have to pay that money. I am afraid we have got to the stage where many people seem to regard the central fund as an inexhaustible thing to be drawn from without thinking that the camel is eating its hump and that that cannot go on indefinitely.

I would like to sum up two points in this connection. One is the logical point that if you are going to spend money you must get money and even though it is fair on the part of the Opposition in parliamentary tradition to avail themselves of their opportunity and cry "give" one day and when the giving is done complain about paying for it. That may be fair in Parliamentary tactics but it is not realistic. We have to ask where the money is to come from and where it is to be found.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is available in these Estimates.

Major de Valera

That is a matter of internal adjustment. As I said already that is another matter and I leave that to the country Deputies to argue whether it is more use one way or another way.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is available from butter.

Major de Valera

I believe that will probably be dealt with.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is an overestimation.

Major de Valera

The cost of cold storage may be over-estimated, but the fact that it is in the Estimate does not necessarily mean it is to be so spent because every sum of money that is in the Estimate should be spent prudently, especially in present circumstances. As I have said already, if you are going to expend money you have to find the money. How are you going to find it? Who in the last analysis, is going to pay for it? The people are paying very heavily for all the services that this small State gives. Whether we are for them or against them—and we seem to be unanimous in relation to many of them—let us not forget when it comes to Budget day we are all paying for them, and let us weigh it as to whether in the long run it might not be better if we had not such a load. However, that is another day's work.

In regard to the second point which refers to the farming community, I believe there is a great need for developing our agriculture. It is our basic industry and very important for the community as a whole. Nevertheless, I think it is true to say that they are relatively better off than a certain stratum in our urban areas, particularly our city areas. That is a factor that should be taken into account. If we could have that balance as regards asking for money and where it is to come from and a balance in these debates as between Deputies who represent the various interests concerned and the placing of that into the over-all picture, we might get much further than heretofore.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

At the outset I would like to offer my congratulation to Deputies Finan and Beirne for bringing this important matter before the House. I always felt that this Local Authorities (Works) Act was oneof the most beneficial measures ever passed by this Parliament, and I am rather surprised that the occasion should arise to-night when we have to discuss such a motion as Deputy Finan's. It is very hard to understand the mentality of any Minister, particularly a Minister who was for a time Minister for Agriculture in this country who adopts the attitude he has adopted towards this motion.

Coming from a constituency which did benefit considerably since this Act was enacted by this Parliament by the implementation of many of these schemes, it is only natural that I should voice my total dissatisfaction with the attitude of the present Government in reducing the grants made available by this Act during the coming year. In the first place, they were of immense benefit to the farming community because they gave farmers an opportunity of making a good deal of their land economic and so helped in a general way to increase agricultural production. As Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, they also had a very favourable effect so far as the land rehabilitation project was concerned, because until the main rivers are cleared it is of little use to farmers to avail of the scheme to improve or to clear the minor streams that are flowing into these rivers.

Apart altogether from the many benefits which they conferred on the farming community, it undoubtedly gave to the rural workers in this country productive employment in their own land. At least 95 per cent. of that money made available under this Act goes directly into the workers' pockets. Surely that is a very important item. The fact that no Deputy from the Government Benches has so far taken part in this debate, with the exception of a city representative, goes to show that no rural Deputy on the Government Benches could stand up here and make a case against the motion tabled by Deputies Finan and Beirne.

Deputy Corry smiles at that assertion, but he was present at the last meeting of the Cork County Councilwhen I moved a motion similar to the one we are discussing now. He knows that the council, which is composed of a sensible body of men, unanimously supported my motion. I am sure the same could be said of other local bodies if a similar motion came before them—that they would unanimously approve of it. We must assume that the Minister will, with his Party, oppose the motion. I am certain that if it were left to a free vote of the House it would, with the exception of a few city Deputies, receive unanimous support.

Deputy Vivion de Valera mentioned that the money must come from some-where—we all know that—and said that if the motion were accepted we would have to get money from the people to implement it. During this coming year it is proposed to take over £100,000,000 in taxation from the people. I suggest there could be no better way of spending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of that sum than on schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It is a very peculiar thing that this motion should be opposed in view of the fact that two weeks ago the House voted £250,000 for the improvement of the bloodstock industry, and six or seven weeks ago passed a Supplementary Estimate of £457,000 to subsidise the air services. There we get a total of £707,000. Neither Deputy de Valera nor any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party told us where the £707,000 is to come from to subsidise the air services and the bloodstock industry. We all know that those who travel by air belong to the wealthy section of the community, and should be well able to pay the air travel charges without asking the Irish people to subsidise them to the extent of £457,000.

I am very anxious to hear the Minister elaborate statements which he has already made regarding the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If my memory serves me correctly, he asserted last year, when replying on the debate to the Local Government Estimate, that the money spent under that Act was wantonly wasted. As well as making that assertion he commented adversely on the engineers whoseresponsibility it is to see that Act properly administered, and that value is got for every pound spent on these schemes. He then told the House that he had personal knowledge of the fact that a number of the engineers never inspected many of the schemes carried out under the Act and never got any nearer to the streams which were being cleared than to see them when passing along the roadway in their motor cars. He indicated they did not travel along the streams to make an inspection of the work to see whether it had been satisfactorily carried out or not.

In view of the fact that he made that statement in the House, I think it is very peculiar to have him as Minister for Local Government to-day. He was a former member of the Government then, and asserted that he saw public funds being wantonly abused and never made a report to the responsible authorities about those engineers. He will probably refer to that to-night. I charged him then, as I charge him now with this, that if his statements were correct he was definitely guilty of complete negligence in so far as any member of this House can be guilty of the same by reason of the fact that he had not reported these engineers to the responsible authorities with a view to seeing that punishment was meted out to them—if his assertions were correct.

Appeals are being made to the farming community to increase production as much as possible. We know that is essential if we are to survive at all. I have said that many farmers cannot give full production by reason of the fact that much of their land is waterlogged. It may be said that those farmers should themselves clear the streams and drains on their own land. There would be no use in their doing so until the main rivers which are completely waterlogged had been cleared. Those people have not the capital to undertake such work, especially in West Cork area, and I feel the same is true along the Western seaboard.

This Parliament has voted money for many grandiose schemes, some of which I have already mentioned. Is it out of place then for Deputy Finan and Deputy Beirne to put down this motion asking the Government to pass anEstimate that would help not only the farmers but the rural workers? I am of opinion that there is no Deputy, not even Deputy Seán MacCarthy from the City of Cork—with the exception possibly of Dublin City Deputies—who would oppose this motion because they know very well that they would not be justified in doing so. I challenge my friend Deputy Corry to speak and say that this motion is not a justifiable one. He is a farmer and a farmer representative, or at least is supposed to be one.

I do not want to detain the House. The main advantage that I see in this motion is that, if accepted, it would help many farmers living on uneconomic holdings to make them more economic if not entirely economic. It would help rural workers to get productive employment and would save them going to the civic guard barracks where, due to the policy of the Minister for Local Government and Deputy Martin Corry, they have to sign on weekly. Take the case of County Cork. When schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act were initiated in 1949, it was proposed that £150,000 would be expended yearly in that county, or until such time as the schemes had been implemented. The councillors were of opinion as I am sure others were too, that such expenditure would not only help to improve the land but also the roads since money was being made available under the Act to relieve flooding on many county roads. Deputy Corry is well aware of that. Due to the policy of this Government that sum of money has been reduced by £100,000 which, if made available, would give 1,000 workers in the County Cork £100 each for a year. That is nothing to laugh at. If the money were spent in that way it would be giving much better results than if spent on the dole or some other system.

However, I have some faith that the Minister, when speaking on this motion, will retract his previous statement, and will see the justice of the claim made by the many speakers who have supported Deputy Finan's motion. I join with them in making the strongest possible appeal to the Minister to review his decision in this matter andto grant at least the amount of money which was granted for local authorities' works in 1951-52.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

Because of the number of Deputies who are offering themselves to speak on this motion, I am hesitant about intervening at all. I am aware that the time for the debate is short— a matter of three hours—and that this is a subject on which one could speak for quite a while. I am encouraged to get to my feet because of the expression of confidence that has come from the most unexpected quarter and I hope that in as short a space of time as possible I will justify completely in what I have to say the confidence that has been so generously expressed by Deputy Murphy.

I am at a loss to know what exactly the Deputies who have spoken in favour of this motion are aiming at. The mover of the motion relied mainly upon the benefits that the moneys expended under the Act would confer on land owners. Other Deputies made only slight reference to such benefits and talked about the employment that would result from works carried out by local bodies under the Act. Deputies referred to the moneys expended in this way as being a capital investment.

I have been reminded of my attitude when the Local Authorities (Works) Bill was going through the House, as expressed in a speech I made at the time. I have not the speech before me but I have a fair recollection of the line I adopted on the Bill and I have a fair recollection of some of the doubts I expressed at the time, yet I would not mind having that speech read at every cross-roads in the Twenty-Six Counties.

Let us examine some of the charges that have been made and some of the claims that have been but forward. It has been stated, for example, that I was the first to reduce the amount of money provided under that Act for local authorities. I was not. The first reduction that was effected in the Estimate for grants for schemes under the Act was a reduction of £530,000 decided upon by my predecessor.

Mr. Rooney

There was nobody available for work; there was no unemployment.

Mr. Smith

I would not like to stop Deputy Rooney because one can always expect something intelligent in what he has to say.

Mr. Rooney

We could not get men.

Mr. Smith

I was not, therefore, the first to reduce the provision that was made. It was reduced by my predecessor to the extent of £530,000 for the year 1951-52. Let us come to the capital side. Is it seriously contended that the works or the improvements effected by the £5,000,000, roughly, that has been provided for local bodies since the Act came into operation can be regarded as a capital investment? Where is the maintenance? Where is the provision for maintenance? Is there any member of a local body here who can truthfully and genuinely say that if money is expended in the way that we know that money to have been expended on some of the works carried out by the various local bodies, without any provision whatever for future maintenance, the work will last for any considerable length of time?

Mr. McQuillan

What is wrong with carrying out maintenance work?

Mr. Smith

I am not talking about what is wrong with this or that. I am talking about things as I find them.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not disputing your argument.

Mr. Smith

I am talking as a farmer. I am talking as one who has a knowledge of drainage problems equal to that of any layman in the country, because I was associated with the preparation of the 1945 Drainage Act and piloted it through the House, and I should have a good grasp of what the problem involved. There is no use in trying to convince me that all the money expended under the Act can be regarded as expenditure of a capital nature. There is no engineer, county engineer or otherwise, who will dispute the statement that I have made now.

Let us take, then, the amount of money that was, in fact, expended on relieving agricultural land from flooding. In the course of discussion here, Deputies would seem to suggest that all the moneys provided were expended on work to relieve agricultural land from flooding. As a matter of fact, as much as 80 per cent. of the money was in many counties used, not for the relief of agricultural land from flooding, but to relieve roads and county council property from flooding. Deputy Beirne shakes his head as if I do not know what the percentages were in the various counties.

Mr. Beirne

Roscommon.

Mr. Smith

He shakes his head and talks about Roscommon. Even if we take the exceptional case of Roscommon, we find that in Roscommon something in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent. was expended on relieving agricultural land and the other 40 per cent. was expended on roads and other council property.

Mr. Cafferky

What about Mayo?

Mr. Smith

Those who want to make the case that the money should be provided for relieving land from flooding will, of course, make a case along those lines.

Again, the money was provided freely. There was no check. There was no contribution from the local body. I do not mind what members of this House may say in this regard for political reasons. I have no objection to their saying certain things in order to make political capital out of them or in an effort to represent me and members of the Government as making the wrong approach to this problem. As Deputy Major de Valera has pointed out, that is to be expected. I know the attitude of county councils and the hostility, when moneys are made available for a purpose like this, to any suggestion that they should make any contribution from local rates.

I always regarded it as a weakness that this money was provided completely out of State funds, that there was no provision in the Act under which the local bodies receiving thismoney would be asked even to maintain the works created by the funds thus supplied to them. I always regarded these two factors as a particular weakness. Members of county councils are human beings and naturally will clamour for more and more of that which is costing the ratepayers nothing. Is it seriously contended that the usual care and thoroughness will be devoted by county councils to the examination and execution of proposals, where the local bodies concerned make no contribution to the execution of the works or their maintenance afterwards? If Deputies want to contend that, for political reasons, in order to put me on the wrong foot, or to put the Government or Party of which I am a member on the wrong foot, let them do so; but that is a case that will not hold water with those of our people who think— and those of our people who think are, thanks be to God, in the majority.

In regard to the amount of money that has been spent, some of it undoubtedly has given results. How can you expend, say £5,000,000 over five years and not get some good results somewhere? What I am contending is that when you give money in this way freely to local bodies you will undoubtedly have a clamour for it and there will be a tendency not to give close care and attention to the inspection of the schemes and to the supervision of the works afterwards. I do not make that contention for the purpose of defending myself or the Government, or to defend the provision now being made, but I do so because it is my own personal experience. have made these statements here before and make them here again. I know myself that members of local bodies here will agree with me, unless they are bent on diverting this whole discussion into political channels.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

They did not want to express themselves.

Mr. Smith

Of course they will not express themselves. Deputy Murphy makes the remark that members of county councils in any Party are not going to express themselves in any kind of critical sense regarding theexpenditure of money that is provided from State sources. Of course they are not, because they know all the implications and therefore they keep their minds to themselves, even though they may have considerable doubt as to the wisdom of the work that is being done and as to the results accruing from this.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cafferky

Was the scheme good or bad?

Mr. Smith

I seem to have got under the skin of a lot of people here, who are prone to prevent me from continuing my speech. It is not wise to indulge too liberally in interrupting me. Deputy Murphy says he is concerned about the employment side. I am anxious, as Minister, to provide employment, to give county councils an opportunity of affording fairly steady employment to the workers. It is not so long since I gave a very practical demonstration of the serious way in which I, as Minister, took that matter. The amount being provided by me, as Minister for Local Government, under this Act, from the Road Fund and from other grants, is greater this year than at any time in the period of years referred to.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Due to the fact that more has been gathered in.

Mr. Hickey

They must be met pound by pound from the local rates.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You gathered in a million.

Mr. Smith

I gathered a million, but not with the assistance of the Deputies, both of whom, in the interests of Labour, should have supported me; but the Labour Party has always tried to have it both ways.

Mr. Cafferky

The Minister has a bad case.

Mr. Hickey

I am afraid we are always pointing in the wrong direction.

Mr. Smith

Whether the moneys are provided out of the Road Fund or through this Local Authorities (Works)Act or for turf development schemes, there is a natural anxiety not to give excessive employment at a period of the year when agriculture is most in need of help. In the last 12 months or so, we had to circularise local bodies asking them to remember this important factor. It is all right for Deputies to talk about increased production and to refer to the drainage of the land as a means by which farmers can increase production; but there are seasons of the year when farmers must be able to get employees. The strange thing about agriculture is that, in spite of what we are hearing these days about unemployment in rural Ireland, any farmer will tell you that it is mighty hard to get workers for the land.

Mr. Cafferky

And why?

Mr. Smith

Let Deputy Hickey answer that question.

Mr. Cafferky

Because they are not paid sufficient, that is all.

Mr. Smith

The agricultural rate is higher in most places now than the county council rate. The rate of wages paid by farmers, the rate fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board, is higher in some cases than the county council rate and yet Deputies must admit that complaints are very numerous as to the difficulty of securing agricultural workers. Therefore, we in the Department of Local Government have had to notify local bodies of the desirability of designing their works programme so as not to interfere unduly with the efforts of farmers to increase production—which everybody seems to be anxious to encourage. Deputies will admit that if the moneys provided under this Act are to be employed so as to give the best possible result, that work should be carried out, in that main, in the summer months. Therefore, you have a conflict there.

When this Act came into operation, Deputies now on the other side of the House were able to finance the activities of the councils from the Counterpart Fund; but whereas the moneys provided by them were obtained in that way, the moneys provided now arebeing obtained from taxation. The money is being obtained from taxation, and I contend that it is only right that we as the people who are responsible should ask ourselves, how can we secure that the best value is obtained for the money, how can we safeguard ourselves against having the money or any portion of it unwisely expended?

I think that in making a fairly conservative provision over a fairly long period we are more likely to have the proposals submitted by the different county councils critically examined by the councils and the engineers before they are submitted to us and that we, in turn, would have a better opportunity of examining them to see if they are of the description we suggest the county councils should submit under this Act. It is all very well to make the charges that have been made here, that we are affecting in some way the activities of the farmers in getting increased production, that we are affecting employment which has been given in the rural districts, and that these works could all be regarded as works of a capital nature. In the first place, I say that the larger percentage of the money was spent, not on relieving land from flooding, but in relieving the roads and the councils' property from flooding as in the case of the County Cork.

Mr. Finan

Do you really believe that?

Mr. Smith

I have the figures to show it. The figures for Roscommon are 60 per cent. for relieving flooding on land and 40 per cent. for relieving flooding on roads. It does not follow that that has been the practice in every county.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Minister quote cases where drainage was done that did not benefit a large area of land?

Mr. Smith

I say that the larger percentage of the money expended was devoted to relieving roads and other council property from flooding rather than making additional land available. As to the charge which has been made that the reduction of this Vote has resulted in farmers being prevented from having land relieved from flooding,I say that most of the money was not devoted to such a purpose. To the charge that our action has affected rural employment, my answer is that the total money provided by my Department is greater than was provided during the period of office of the previous Government. I do not accept the claim made by members of the Opposition that most of the work done under the Act could be regarded as work of a capital nature, because the silt or the bushes or the trees taken out of the rivers were dumped on the banks of these rivers and in my own county and in other places when floods come they wash back into the bed of the rivers the material which has been taken out of them at great expense. If we are to spend public money, we should spend it carefully and wisely and try to get the best value for the expenditure.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is a slight on the engineers.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I think that if the Minister pretends to speak on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party as a whole he is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. His speech to-night is typical of the attitude which has been displayed by the front bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party. When this Bill was going through the House it was welcomed by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, with the one exception I think of Deputy MacEntee, as he then was. Later, however, he mended his hand when he saw how the Bill had been welcomed by the majority of his colleagues.

Let us take it for granted that there was a sincere attempt made by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party on the Committee and Report Stages of that Bill to make it a better Bill and to provide all the safeguards that were mentioned at the time. On that occasion I think the Government were pretty liberal in the acceptance of certain amendments from both sides of the House. So much so that on the Fifth Stage of the Bill there was general agreement with regard to it and even a statement from Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, who wanted to take credit to himself for the finalform of the Bill. There was acceptance of the fact that there were ample safeguards in it, that it was a good Bill and that good work could be done under it.

There have been allegations from this side of the House against the Fianna Fáil Party that they voted against the Bill. There has been a misunderstanding or, if you like to call it, a misrepresentation in regard to that. According to my recollection, the Fianna Fáil Party did not vote against the Bill. There may have been a suggestion that owing to the number of amendments they put down there was an effort on their part to obstruct or delay the passage of the Bill. But the fact is that Fianna Fáil accepted this Bill for what it was because they did not oppose any of the stages of the Bill.

Some of the Minister's statements to-night, in my opinion, amounted to an indictment of public representatives and public officials. He made one statement, however, which is correct, namely, that there was a cutting down of the money provided for the Local Authorities (Works) Act by his predecessor, Deputy Keyes. The amount at that time was cut down by £530,000, but there was a reason for it. The reason was that in the previous year some county councils found difficulty in spending the money that was allocated to them. Cork may be an exception, but I am sure the records in the Department will show that some county councils found difficulty in spending the money allocated to them.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Donegal was one.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

There was, however, a more important factor still. At the time of the framing of the Estimates for 1951-1952 there were strong indications that there would be a coal shortage here because the British Government thought they would not be able to fulfil their contract to this country with regard to the supply of coal. A turf drive was, therefore, initiated in those counties where turf is ordinarily produced. In those counties where turf is not produced,the county councils were notified and, to my knowledge, received similar amounts to those which had been allocated in the previous year. As far as I am aware, there was an understanding between the Department of Local Government and the Department of Finance that if money was required for the operation of schemes that money would be forthcoming and a Supplementary Estimate would be introduced here for that purpose if necessary.

The Minister was one of those who criticised the Bill right from the start. He was one of the opponents of the Bill, and it is true to say that many of the things he said to-night he also said when the Bill was passing through this House. He was one of the two lone voices in the Fianna Fáil Party who opposed the Bill. The present Minister for Finance held at that time that it was a good Bill.

No instructions were given to the departmental officials that the Act should operate in one direction more than in another. The local officials were given the Act for what it was, and they were asked to submit schemes within the terms of that Act. They did that. The officials examined the schemes sent up and they were given no directions with regard to any particular scheme. They were not told whether they should approve or disapprove of it, and it was left to the local officials and to the departmental officials to determine whether or not the schemes that were sent up were in accordance with the terms of the Act. If the Minister wants to check that he can do so. There was no influence used of any kind one way or the other, and no influence was brought to bear on the departmental officials with regard to any particular scheme or schemes.

I do not think it is fair to place local public representatives in the light that the Minister would have them placed to-night. I know it is popular for local public men within their own local authorities to clamour for more and more money from Central Funds or, as in this case, from the Department of Local Government. As far as my own colleagues in County Wexfordare concerned, some of them are not a bit backward in saying unpopular things when those things need to be said. I have evidence that no public representative of any of the political Parties raised any objection or any furore about the way in which these moneys were being spent.

The Minister said to-night that his Department was giving more employment on roads and drainage and, I take it, on other public works within the jurisdiction of his Department than was ever given before. I have not got the figures. I am not aware of the numbers employed under the three headings all over the country but it seems to me, travelling around my own constituency, so far as employment with local authorities is concerned the numbers employed are the lowest in the last five or six years. It is ridiculous to say that farmers cannot get sufficient workers for their farms. As far as I know there are men who are in receipt of such small amounts from the labour exchanges and from other sources that they are prepared to go to any farmer no matter what the distance may be.

There is no doubt that the grants given for carrying out schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act were of immense value to the community as a whole. The Minister challenges the statement that they were a capital investment. It is probably true to say that there was a higher percentage of these works under the heading of A schemes—that is for the protection of roads, houses, public buildings or places or highways under the jurisdiction of the county council— and money spent on those schemes can properly be regarded as a capital investment. A road in Cork was protected and made good out of moneys granted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

It is also true to say that there was a very definite link-up between the Department of Agriculture in relation to the land rehabilitation scheme and the Department of Local Government in relation to the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes. Many farmers in different districts were refusedgrants or were refused work by the Department of Agriculture because a particular river had not been drained or was not in a fit condition to take the water that would be drained off the land. That, in itself, was very important.

These moneys were granted to protect roads for the county council, to protect houses and to protect bridges. It was an important expenditure from the point of view of the agricultural industry inasmuch as it made it possible to carry out the land rehabilitation project on a bigger and better scale. Equally important in my view, and in the view of the Labour Party, was the fact that it gave employment.

I am not one of those who want to have money voted here with the sole objective of giving employment but I humbly submit that if these moneys were a good investment for agriculture and the local authorities they were a good investment, too, for the ordinary worker who was provided with a wage and who was given the wherewithal to provide for his wife and his family. From that point of view it certainly was a good investment. It kept people at home as compared with the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. From that point of view it was a good investment. If it saved money for the Department of Social Welfare by helping to reduce the amount paid in unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance, it was a good investment and at the present moment the need for such a scheme is very evident throughout the country.

The Minister made a statement here, I think in reply to a remark of Deputy Murphy's, that he did not get any help from the Labour Party in connection with his road tax proposals. I do not think that is absolutely correct. The Minister made that statement carrying the inference that the Labour Party did not give him any help in trying to provide more employment for the workers in the rural areas. Whilst it may not be relevant to this particular motion, I want to point out that we did not object to the Minister raising money for the purpose of building, reconstructing or maintaining ourroads. Our objection to the proposals was not because we did not want him to raise the money, but because we thought the method used in certain instances was unfair. It was unfair to the extent that the tax on the biggest car with the highest horse power did not exceed £2. I do not think, however, that he found us in opposition to him when it came to what we regarded as reasonable proposals. I think we advocated in certain circumstances that his tax proposals were actually too modest.

I urge the Minister and, in turn, I want him to urge the Government, to increase the amount now provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There is a pressing need for the operation of the Act not alone from the point of view of land rehabilitation but from the point of view of endeavouring to keep in employment and, more important still, to keep at home, the hundreds of rural workers that are now unemployed.

Deputies Cogan, McQuillan, Cafferky Rooney and O'Hara rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The mover of the motion is entitled to some time to reply. I will call on an Independent, but he must give time to the mover of the motion to reply.

Mr. Cafferky

With all due respect, I think that on a motion of this kind which is so important, and taking into consideration the fact that——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must not waste the time of the House.

Mr. Cafferky

No, Sir. I want to point out, however, that I have sat here for a very long time and I have seen two members from the Government Benches and two members of the Labour Party called one after the other. There is discrimination against the Clann na Talmhan Party.

An Ceann Comhairle

Nine Deputies have spoken—two from the Clann na Talmhan Party, two from the Labour Party, two Government Deputies and three from the Fine Gael Party. Asno Independent Deputy has yet spoken, I will now call on an Independent Deputy and give him ten minutes. I call on Deputy McQuillan.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 25 Mar 1953