Vol. 142 No. 3
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £228,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st dayof March, 1954, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress.
Under this Vote, funds are provided for the annual programme of employment schemes to give work to men in receipt of unemployment assistance in urban and rural areas, and for other services such as bog development schemes, rural improvements schemes and miscellaneous schemes, which, while not authorised for the specific purpose of giving employment, represent, nevertheless, a useful contribution to the problem. The Vote also makes provision for the salaries, travelling expenses, etc., of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office responsible for the administration of the Vote.
At first sight, the sum provided this year appears to be a very substantial reduction from the sum of £1,008,000 provided in last year's Estimate, but, if Deputies will refer to page 54 of the Estimates Volume, they will see that £222,800 of the apparent reduction refers to items which have simply been transferred to other Government Departments to which they appear to be more appropriate, viz.: Development works in bogs acquired by local authorities, which have been transferred to the Department of Local Government, Vote 38, £40,000; grants for major harbour works which were formerly included under the miscellaneous provisionof our Vote (sub-head K), and which will, in future, be provided for under Vote 51—Transport and Marine, £182,800; making a total of £222,800.
The transfer of these services to their appropriate Departments completes a process which has been in operation in recent years. As Deputies will recall, the farm improvements scheme and seed and lime distribution schemes were formerly included in the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote and were transferred to the Department of Agriculture Vote with effect as from the 1st April, 1950. Sanitary services, such as sewerage schemes and water works, were similarly transferred to the Department of Local Government, with effect as from the 1st April, 1951. The Special Employment Schemes Office exercised only a limited function in respect of these schemes, which were always administered by the Departments to which they have since been transferred. There now remains in the Vote only the services which are directly controlled by the Special Employment Schemes Office.
Before dealing with the items in the Estimates for the current year I should, perhaps, briefly refer to the operations in 1952-53. The total expenditure amounted to, approximately, £839,000 against the Estimate of £1,008,000, representing a net saving of, approximately, £169,000. The principal variations are indicated in the following statement:—
|
Provision |
Estimated Expenditure |
Savings |
Excess |
|
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
F. Urban Employment Schemes |
174,000 |
147,000 |
27,000 |
— |
|
G. Rural Employment Schemes |
106,000 |
103,250 |
2,750 |
— |
|
H. Minor Employment Schemes |
120,000 |
123,000 |
— |
3,000 |
|
I. Development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers |
120,000 |
144,000 |
— |
24,000 |
|
J. Development works in bogs acquired by local authorities |
40,000 |
17,300 |
22,700 |
— |
|
K. Rural Improvements Scheme |
175,000 |
191,000 |
— |
16,000 |
|
L. Miscellaneous Schemes |
201,860 |
41,000 |
160,860 |
— |
The main savings, as will be seen, arose under the miscellaneous schemes, which included the provision for grants for major harbour works. It is very difficult to estimate in advance the progress which can be made in major works of this kind. As already indicated, this service will, in future, be financed from Vote 51.
I indicated last year that the Government had decided, after the Estimates for 1952-53 had been printed, to make an additional sum of £30,000 available for bog development works, making a total sum of £150,000 instead of £120,000 in the printed Estimates, anticipating that the additional sum of £30,000 could be made available from savings on other schemes. This anticipation has, as will be seen from the foregoing table, been fulfilled. An expenditure of £144,000 was, in fact, incurred on sub-head I, and the £3,000 extra on the Minor Employment Schemes sub-head represents also additional bog development works undertaken in areas with large numbers of unemployment assistance recipients, and which are, therefore, financed from sub-head H (Minor Employment Schemes) rather than sub-head I (Bog Development Schemes). The only other item which calls for comment is the excess expenditure on rural improvement schemes, where some £191,000 was expended, against the Estimate provision of £175,000 State grant.
With these comments, I propose now to turn to the provision of £685,200 in the current financial year. The provisions in sub-heads A to E of the Vote are to cover the administrative expenses of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office. They call for no special comment.
Provision for employment schemes in the urban and rural areas is made under sub-heads F, G and H, and there are reductions, compared with last year, of £34,000 and £46,000 respectively in the first two sub-heads-£174,000 in the urban sub-head being reduced to £140,000, and £106,000, rural, reduced to £60,000. Before dealing in detail with these figures, I should, perhaps, remind some of the older Deputies and make clear to whatI may call the more fortunate younger people, the limited functions of this Vote. I think it was my predecessor who said last year that the Special Employment Schemes Office was a very important office, but, however important it may be, there is one thing that it is not and never purported to be, and that is a solution of the unemployment problem. In the early years of the life of this office, the Vote, as Deputies will recall, was a global figure not divided into sub-heads and was described as "for schemes for the provision of employment and the relief of distress, including cost of administration." As was repeatedly pointed out during those years, the sum made available for employment schemes was complementary to the provision made for unemployment assistance payments, etc., and the two sums taken together represented a contribution by the Government of the day towards relieving the poorer sections of the community. It is in that background that the provision for employment schemes must necessarily be examined. The objects in providing employment instead of "dole," as far as available funds would permit were (a) the rehabilitation of men who have suffered long periods of unemployment, (b) the testing of the individual's willingness to work, and in the administration of the Vote, the intention was to make the best possible distribution of the available money over the largest number of necessitous unemployed persons capable of doing heavy manual work, and to distribute the available money in proportion to the amount of unemployed in each area.
Sub-head F (Urban Employment Schemes) is intended to finance employment schemes in the four county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford; the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, and such of the 55 other urban districts in which there are sufficient numbers of unemployment assistance recipients to form gangs of economic size. The schemes are administered by the respective local authorities through the Department of Local Government, which acts as agent of the Special Employment Schemes Office; and grants are subjectto the local authority submitting suitable work schemes for approval by the Special Employment Schemes Office and making a contribution towards the cost. The principal types of works approved are:—Road works: Widening, strengthening and otherwise improving roads and footpaths under the charge of the local authorities; amenity schemes: Development and laying out of parks and playing fields, the clearance of derelict sites, etc.
The rates of contribution ordinarily payable by local authorities are 30 per cent. in the case of Dublin, and 25 per cent. in Dún Laoghaire: they vary in other urban areas, and the average for all areas is about 23 per cent.
The paramount consideration in respect of these schemes in so far as the Special Employment Schemes Office is concerned is the giving of employment to unemployment assistance recipients; and, for that reason, the extent of the unskilled labour in the proposed work is a matter of first importance. The works must also be such as would not normally be undertaken at the time as part of the ordinary responsibilities or functions of the local authorities concerned. Deputies will appreciate that no extra employment would be provided if the Vote simply financed works which the local authorities themselves would otherwise necessarily have to undertake immediately. The question of finance is, therefore, by no means the only problem which creates difficulties in respect of these schemes; and, if I take the City of Dublin as an example, it is perhaps because the difficulties there are tending to become more acute. It has been the practice for a long number of years to allocate £70,000 for employment schemes in Dublin City, which, with the £30,000 provided by the corporation, made an annual sum of £100,000 available for expenditure. Deputies who have given any thought to the problem will readily realise, bearing in mind: (a) the development in technical plant and the increased use of machinery and other equipment in recent years; (b) that works must not be undertaken which wouldordinarily be done at the time by the corporation themselves; and (c) that these schemes are now in operation for a period of more than 15 years, involving a total expenditure of £1,500,000: that a considerable proportion of the works with a high unskilled labour content has been exhausted.
I have set out these difficulties regarding the provision of suitable employment schemes, particularly in the Dublin area, so that Deputies may fully realise it is by no means a simple problem. Up to the end of June, 1953, there was a considerable reduction in the number of male unemployment assistance recipients in the Dublin County Borough area as compared with 1952, the figures for week ended the 20th June, 1953 being 4,154 compared with 5,817 on the corresponding date in 1952. During July, following the exhaustion of unemployment benefit payments which materialised under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the number of unemployment assistance recipients on the Dublin Register increased from 4,154 in June to 5,406 and on the 18th July and 5,803 on the 22nd August, the corresponding figures for 1952 being 5,891 and 6,172 respectively. The Government, accordingly, decided that the programme of employment schemes, which would not ordinarily be due to commence until the winter period, should be put in hands as soon as possible in the county borough areas and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, and instructions accordingly were issued to the local authorities concerned to submit suitable schemes. In the result, Dublin Corporation were authorised at the end of July to proceed with schemes costing approximately £60,000 and the other borough councils were also authorised to start a number of works. To the extent to which these borough areas have availed themselves of the authority to advance their normal programme, the Government propose to allocate additional money towards the cost of suitable work schemes with a high labour content that may be approved, so as to bring the winter programme in these borough areas up to normal.
This sum, as everybody will realise, represents employment for only a relatively small number of the total unemployment assistance men on the Register and if Deputies ask me what has been done for the other unemployment assistance recipients in Dublin City and other urban areas, my answer is to point to the increased provision made available under the Social Welfare Act. For example, prior to the bringing into operation of the Social Welfare Act, an unemployment assistance recipient in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford, with a wife and dependent child got 25/- per week. If he lived in Athlone, Bray, Carlow, etc., he got 19/6 per week. Under the Social Welfare Act he now gets 33/- per week. If he is one of the persons who, as a result of the operation of the Social Welfare Act, became eligible for unemployment benefit instead of unemployment assistance, he now draws 24/- benefit for himself, 12/- for his wife and 7/- in respect of his dependent child, or a total of 43/-instead of 25/- or 19/6.
Employment schemes in rural areas under sub-head G and H form a joint programme of works. They are carried out only in areas where the numbers of unemployment assistance recipients are sufficient to form gangs of economic size. The moneys available are divided in the various areas in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each, based on a census taken in January of each year, which includes, as in the case of the urban areas, persons employed on our schemes who would otherwise have been in receipt of unemployment assistance. The census figures are less in the rural areas in 1953 compared with previous years. The total for rural areas, including towns with a population of 200 and over, in 1953 was 28,711 compared with 32,716 in 1952, and 32,688 in 1951. Excluding areas in which there were not sufficient numbers of unemployment assistance recipients to form gangs of economic size, and considering only those areas where normally it would be proposed to sanction employment schemes, the figures are 24,262 in 1953, 27,322 in 1952 and 27,390 in 1951.
The Minor Employment Schemes provision(sub-head H) is the same as last year, but there is a reduction of £46,000 —from £106,000 to £60,000—in the case of Rural Employment Schemes (sub-head G). These latter schemes are also administered by the Department of Local Government as agents of the Special Employment Schemes Office and are utilised to finance employment schemes undertaken by the county councils. Each council contributes towards the cost of the work: the usual rate being 25 per cent. The work consists mainly of improvement works on public roads maintained by county councils. Ordinary maintenance, which is the responsibility of the county councils themselves, would not be undertaken under our schemes. Minor employment schemes are administered directly by the Special Employment Schemes Office, and consist mainly of the construction and repair of bog roads and accommodation roads to agricultural holdings. No local contribution is required in respect of minor employment schemes, but the beneficiaries are expected, where possible, to give road materials free of cost. It will, therefore, be appreciated that minor employment schemes, where free materials are almost invariably available, suit the purpose of giving employment to unemployment assistance recipients in rural areas to a much greater degree than the rural employment schemes on county roads where the materials have to be paid for and where, very often, a considerable proportion of the grant is absorbed by the use of major plant and equipment. Works on county roads were, in fact, introduced as employment schemes originally, because in some areas of the country, such as Gorumna and Crumpaun in County Galway; Rosguill, Fanad, Cross Roads, Magheraclogher, Meenaclady and Gortahork in Donegal; Knocknalower, Rathill and other such areas in Belmullet; and Kerry Head and Kilgarrylander in Kerry, works on accommodation roads were being rapidly exhausted. The works on county roads were also necessary to provide employment for unemployment assistance recipients in the larger non-urbanised towns, such as Kilkee, Bantry, Killybegs, Dingle, Newcastle, Granard, etc.,and in rural areas in the eastern counties with only small pockets of unemployment assistance recipients.
Minor employment schemes have, for a long number of years, been confined to the 12 counties of Cavan, Clare, Cork West, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo, or what has been generally described as the congested districts. The major portion of the provisions for rural employment schemes is also allocated to these areas. In 1951-52, £96,000 of the £106,000 available under sub-head G was allocated to these counties leaving only £10,000 available for the scattered pockets of unemployment assistance recipients in the other areas. Similarly, in 1952-53 a sum of £96,500 was allocated to the congested areas, leaving only a sum of £9,500 for what I may call the eastern areas. In the current year 95 per cent. of the available money is being allocated to the congested areas. This year, as Deputies are aware, the Government have made a sum of £400,000 available for tourist roads in the Gaeltacht and congested areas. This is more than four times the sum which was available in recent years from our Vote for works on county roads in these areas. It is in these circumstances that the provision for sub-head G has been reduced from £106,000 to £60,000.
There remain the bog development schemes, rural improvements schemes and miscellaneous schemes about which I think it necessary to make only a brief comment.
The provision under sub-head I (Bog Development Schemes) is for the repair or construction of roads and drains serving bogs used by landholders and other persons who produce handwon turf for their domestic requirements, or for sale in neighbouring towns. The Estimates Volume shows a reduction of £20,000 in this sub-head —from £120,000 to £100,000. I referred earlier, however, to the fact that we were able last year to spend almost £150,000 on these schemes, which together with the sum of £135,000 spent in 1951-52, has meant that the most important of these schemes submitted in recent years have now been dealtwith. I must not be taken as saying that there is not a considerable volume of useful and necessary work of this type still remaining to be done; but, I have had to accept—with some reluctance—the reduction in the provision for this service for the current year. I hope, however, that I shall be able to convince the Minister, when preparing next year's Estimates, that there are good grounds for making increased provision for this service in 1954-55.
The provision under sub-head J (Rural Improvements Schemes) shows an increase of £22,000 in the printed Estimate—£197,000 being provided in 1953-1954 instead of £175,000 in 1952-1953. It is, however, really only the same provision as last year's, as the difference, £22,000, represents the amount which it is anticipated will be collected as contributions from the benefiting farmers. These contributions did not previously appear in the Vote at all. They were heretofore lodged to what is known in accounting language as "suspense" and were paid out again as part of the cost of the works without being shown in the account of the Vote. This year, these receipts and other similar receipts are shown as "Appropriations-in-Aid" (sub-head L) and £22,000 of the £25,500 in the latter sub-head represents the anticipated amount which will be received from the beneficiaries under the Rural Improvements Scheme. The Rural Improvements Scheme makes provision for grants towards the cost of carrying out works to benefit the lands of two or more farmers, and includes small drainage schemes and bridges, and the construction and repair of accommodation roads to houses, lands and bogs. State grants varying from 75 per cent. in the case of farmers with an average valuation of £18 and over, to 95 per cent. in the case of farmers with an average valuation below £6, of the cost of approved works are available, subject to the contribution of the balance of the cost by the benefiting landholders. The contributions are graduated in relation to the average poor law valuations of the farmers served; and, in cases where the work is of substantial benefit to the general "outside" public, in addition to theimmediate beneficiaries, the percentage of State grant is increased. In a few very exceptional cases 100 per cent. grants have been authorised.
This scheme has proved to be one of the most popular administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office, and the provision for the service has had to be substantially increased in recent years. In the early years from 1944-45 onwards the provision was £90,000: it was increased to £100,000 in 1947-48, £125,000 in 1950-51, £150,000 in 1951-52 and £175,000 in 1952-53. The expenditure last year was, as already stated, £191,000 State grant to which local contributions of about £23,000 should be added, making a gross expenditure of £214,000 for those rural amenities. The figure of State grant this year had, as already stated, been fixed at £175,000 (i.e. £197,000 minus £22,000 local contribution) but the demand for grants has been such that the full amount available for expenditure in 1953-54 has already been allocated. I am glad to be able to announce that the Minister for Finance has agreed to make an additional sum of £57,500 gross available in the current year for this service, i.e., £50,000 State grant with an anticipated contribution of £7,500 from the beneficiaries, and it is proposed to introduce a Supplementary Estimate accordingly. Deputies will be glad to know that the considerable arrears of inspections which were formerly outstanding are being steadily overtaken. The number of cases awaiting inspection on 1st April, 1951, was 1,141; on 1st April, 1953, it had been reduced to 819 and is now about 650.
The provision under the miscellaneous sub-head this year is mainly to meet expenditure on minor marine works. It will also finance schemes of archaeological excavations at Lough Gara, Tara and other centres, as well as, to a limited degree, some amenity schemes in rural areas, such as playing fields and handball alleys, the work in connection with which has already been authorised. With the limited funds available. I can hold out no hope in 1953-54 of any further grants for works such as ball alleys, playing fields, etc.,however desirable these amenities may be, and my office has had to refuse all such requests that came to hand since the start of the new year.
In conclusion, I should like to give a word of explanation in respect of sub-head L (Appropriations-in-Aid), which appears in this Vote for the first time this year. It is really a simplification of the accounting procedure. Formerly, receipts by way of contribution from outside sources were lodged to suspense accounts in the office, and each suspense account had to be subsequently cleared by payments in respect of the works for which the contributions were received. In future, such contributions will be regarded as Appropriations-in-Aid, and the full costs of the works will be met from the relevant works sub-head, which, in effect, is the nett State grant plus the contribution. Apart from the Rural Improvements Scheme (sub-head J), contributions are required under sub-heads H and I from private owners of large areas of turbary who make substantial lettings to tenants annually, and from which relatively substantial incomes are sometimes received. It would ordinarily be regarded as the function of such private owners to provide adequate facilities for their tenants (to whom they let banks annually) by way of roads and drainage works; but the State has, and does, come to the assistance of tenants in such cases to improve the facilities, subject to a contribution by the turbary owners towards the cost of the works. The figure of £24,500 in sub-head L also includes contributions from local authorities towards the cost of minor marine works. As Deputies with interests on the western seaboard are aware, local authorities are required to contribute one-quarter of the cost of such schemes and to maintain the works on completion. The miscellaneous receipts cover such items as the sale of surplus materials, bank interest, etc.
I move to refer this Vote back for reconsideration. One of the most surprising things we see in this particular Estimate is the little figure down at the bottom of the table heavily underlined: Net decrease,£100,000. That strikes me very forcibly as being the work of the little man who sat beside the Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago, the Minister for Finance. It looks very much as if he gave orders to the Parliamentary Secretary that in preparing the Estimates last year there would have to be a saving of £100,000; and the Minister for Finance did not give two hoots where that saving came from. That amount had to be deducted out of Vote 10, Employment and Emergency Schemes.
Out of a pretty poor picture looms one bright spot and that is the sub-head dealing with rural improvements schemes. That is certainly a boon in almost every rural area where the people take advantage of it. Before proceeding further I would impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the need to make certain demands on the Minister for Finance for sufficient money to administer the various schemes that come under the sub-heads in this particular Vote and not to allow the Minister for Finance to push him about and use the hatchet on every Vote in any way he likes. It is really ingenuous of the Parliamentary Secretary to put in that saving, just a neat £100,000, not a shilling less or a shilling more. It would take a lot to convince me that that was not a demand from the Minister for Finance prior to the preparation of the Estimates.
Let us take sub-head I, which is described here as development works in bogs used by land holders and other private producers. The Parliamentary Secretary offers us a bare £100,000 for that sub-head in this particular year. If we split that up amongst the Twenty-Six Counties we get less than £4,000 per county. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that bog development schemes will not be carried out in every county but even in County Dublin I imagine that some development works will be carried out on bogs. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what use is £4,000 for bog roads, for drains in bogs and for the general development of bogs. Any single parish or half a parish inmy constituency could use £4,000 in one year and there would be a lot of room left for improvement after that.
It is a pity you were not so generous during the three years you were in office.
At any rate, I succeeded in getting that little squawk out of the Parliamentary Secretary. If he turns back the sheet in the Book of Estimates, he will find that instead of asking £600,000 as he is this year, Deputy Donnellan asked, in the first Budget we prepared, for £1,240,000. The next year, certain projects which were carried out under this Vote were changed to other Votes and necessitated a saving on paper. But even the next year, after slashing away half the work of the employment and emergency schemes—and remember during that time wages were not as high as they are to-day; shortly before we left office, in our last year, the cost of living and various other things induced us in the interest of ordinary humanity and justice, to increase wages steeply and considerably—even then, in the year 1950-51 the Vote No. 10 was £765,000. Now what has the Parliamentary Secretary to say about our liberality when in office?
As a matter of fact, unless my memory is playing ducks and drakes with me, one of the big charges against the inter-Party Government was, to use an expression of Deputy Aiken, the Minister for External Affairs, that we scattered with the shovel what Fianna Fáil spent the previous 16 years gathering with spoons. I think that was the big charge against us. Now it seems to be the other way round. It reminds me of a completely irrelevant interjection by the Minister for Finance to-night. He charged me with wanting to get £600,000 more for the civil servants than the Government was giving them.
That does not seem to arise.
It would not have arisen but for the ignorant interruption by the Minister for Finance, onsomething which was not before the House at all. In actual fact, it was the other way about. The Parliamentary Secretary himself, in reply to the last Vote, made a wild charge to the effect that we were cutting down on Garda barracks that came under the last Vote. When asked to quote his authority, he remained as dumb as a bag of feathers stuck in the seat.
That is not provided for in the Estimate.
There were a few remarks from Deputy Killilea and a noise or two from the direction of Deputy McGrath, that no one can understand but himself.
You reduced the strength of the Guards by over 500.
We are not discussing the Garda Síochána now.
Unfortunately, I cannot reply to Deputy McGrath's interruption. I am sure he means it as an interruption, but I cannot understand his language.
Which language?
Oh, you have come in.
Yes, to hear you.
I hope, when Deputy Briscoe gets up to speak, he will give us the benefit of his brilliance in dealing with the making of bog roads and drains and how they should be done.
The great entertainer is completely oblivious of the capital city. No emergency schemes for Dublin, I suppose?
Mind you, Deputy Briscoe has very bad news in one of the particular sub-heads in this Vote. If he were here he would have heard it. The urban employment schemes are cut by £34,000—from £174,000 to £140,000.
We have spent that already in the last few months.
We will hear Deputy Briscoe now. I suppose he will start with the usual Fianna Fáil sing-song, by complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary on the excellent year's work he has done. I am sure that whatever he does he will not mention that little figure so heavily underlined—£100,000 decrease.
Do you know the good work done in South Galway?
I would like to hear Deputy Briscoe on that £100,000 decrease, and I would like to hear some of the supporters of the benevolent Fianna Fáil Government which, after raising the cost of living to its present pitch, is going to reduce the Employment Schemes Vote by £100,000. It will be no trouble to Deputy Briscoe to tell that to the people of his constituency.
Nothing for "Bobo" Olson.
He is cutting down the expenditure on bog roads down the country. That will interest Deputy Killilea, whose constituents would expect him at least to take some serious interest in this Vote instead of trying to make a joke of the whole thing. I know some of his neighbours who have to wade up to their knees to get into their houses. A few pounds grant for rural improvement or minor employment schemes would give them what every citizen is entitled to at least, a clean way into his house. I am sure they would not thank Deputy Killilea to be making a joke out of their misery and misfortune.
I thought, from the great statements that appeared when you were in office, that every road into every house was steamrolled.
We never made any such extravagant statement.
Did you not? You should have heard Deputy Donnellan.
It seems very hard luck on the big ratepayer and big tax-payer who unfortunately has to live perhaps one mile on the inside, overa dirty boreen. He must pay his rates and yet he must wade through dirt a quarter or half a mile when he wants to go in or out. Leaving sparring and politics aside, I think that if both sides of the House could get down to it some kind of scheme could be put together which would give a little justice to these people and it would be doing a much better job of work——
It suits yourself.
——than the ignorant interruptions from that side of the House. I fatten on interruptions and the more I get of them the better I find them.
We now have three Deputies who are interrupting. We have Deputy McGrath and Deputy Fanning from Tipperary, I think—he has been so long in the House but I have never heard his voice; he asked a parliamentary question once—and we have Deputy Killilea. They are very good at interrupting. It seems they have a special commission from the Fianna Fáil Party to become a kind of "Merry Andrews" for the Party, to come in here and interrupt those who are trying to make constructive criticism, to give the Parliamentary Secretary a little bit of help on as well.
Did the Deputy say he "battened" or he "fattened" on interruptions?
I would remind Deputies that Deputy Blowick is entitled to make his speech without interruption. If Deputies do not want to listen, they can leave the House.
Did he say "batten" or "fatten". I did not catch it.
It does not arise.
If Deputy Briscoe spent more time in the House and less in another compartment, his hearing would not be so impaired.
What other part of the House? I would like to know what he means. Does he mean the restaurant or the bar?
We will let you puzzle that out.
It is ridiculous to have talk like this.
Would you think an ex-Minister would make a reference like that?
When Deputy Cowan rises to speak, he will probably tell us of the kind of bog roads and drains and rural employment schemes they have in Germany. He seems to be taking great interest in it of late.
These questions do not arise. The Deputy should address himself to the Estimate.
To get back to the Vote, if I may be allowed to do so, does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously consider that £100,000 for bog development is a reasonable figure to spread over Twenty Six Counties?
Bog development?
Does he think £100,000 a sufficient or a fair figure? Does he know that there are many areas of bog that could be used and that are left derelict for want of a few pounds to drain them and a few pounds to provide fairly reasonable access into them by way of roads? He might point out as an argument that once a bog becomes cut away the money spent on the bog road is a waste. That is not so.
It is not because I can envisage a good deal of cut-away bog being planted by the forestry people and a time will come when these roads will be a certain amount of use to the forestry people if they take over cut-away bog which I feel will be taken over in time. If the Parliamentary Secretary intends to spread only £100,000 over 26 counties, that gives a figure of over £4,000 per county. I think it is a very shabby contributiontowards a very important work in this country.
Deputy Beegan, the Parliamentary Secretary, must be aware of the intense slavery that many people in rural Ireland have to undergo to cut turf where the bogs are badly drained and especially when a wet season comes—I would not even say a bad season. He must be aware of the slavery that many of his neighbours and my neighbours must endure in order to provide a fire for themselves.
Could the Deputy suggest how much money has been spent on bog development in the last thirty years?
Deputy Cowan does not know the first thing about the subject on which I am speaking.
I was reared on a bog and I know all about bogs.
I am not speaking now of bog development in the sense that Bord na Móna is developing bogs.
I am not talking about Bord na Móna either.
This Vote is set out very clearly: It says: ‘Development works in bogs used by land holders and other private producers". That is obviously a Vote for the small farmers down the country.
How much was spent under that sub-head in the past 30 years?
How much have we done in 30 years! That question is asked on every side of the House and yet why is it that our country is not more fully developed and that we are not taking our place among nations as we ought to? We may say what we like, but there is no use in white-washing. We are not as developed as we should be and the strides have not been made that should have been made in the last 30 years. The proof is with us in every train and boat that isbringing our youth away from the country. If we are to make any attempt to encourage our youngsters to stay at home and to ensure that every train leaving the West and every boat leaving Dún Laoghaire would not be taking our flesh and blood away from this country, we must do better. I think it was Deputy Seán Flanagan who admitted that many of those who emigrate do not come back. There is no use in saying we are doing great things. We are doing a little bit, of course, but it is not the limit of our effort.
We do not talk about it.
Nobody is going to stop me talking about it. If there are some Deputies complacent enough to sit back and let things go to the devil at least that will not stop me from talking about it, in the hope of shaming people into action in time.
Would the Deputy give us some examples of what should be done?
The Deputy must be allowed to make his own speech.
The examples I could give are tabulated in the Special Employment Schemes Office time and time again. There is not a drain or a boreen in the whole of South Mayo that I have not tried to have improved time and time again. I must admit in fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his predecessor and his predecessor again that the Special Employment Schemes Office has succeeded in getting quite a good deal done.
I thought you said there was nothing done.
That does not say that there is not much more to be done.
Could it be done in three years?
I would say "No". I would not expect the Office of Public Works to drop every other scheme in order to get Mayo schemes completedbut if these schemes were done over five or six years or even over ten years it would be good going.
Now, on the question of urban employment—I have not much experience in the cities—but in the towns with which I have contact there are many unemployed and while the Parliamentary Secretary was careful to hoist a little red flag to the effect that the Special Employment Schemes Office was not an office for providing employment when he introduced the Vote, I should say: perhaps it should be, and perhaps it should have an eye on places where there are specially bad cases of unemployment. I do say that the Parliamentary Secretary should not have cut down that particular sub-head to the tune of £34,000. Its twin brother, the Rural Improvements Scheme, has been cut from £106,000 to £60,000 a slicing of £46,000. He has not told the House that that is off-set by spending on any other work except it be on tourist roads, an amount of £400,000. I do not know that that off-sets it, because the Parliamentary Secretary knows that £400,000 divided over 12 counties gives the small sum of £20,000 or £30,000 for each county. That is a sum that would generally be spent on two or three isolated stretches of road in the whole county and would not relieve unemployment to any appreciable extent.
I would like to say a word on sub-head H, Minor Employment Schemes. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why has that scheme been virtually killed? If the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the popularity of rural improvement schemes has increased so much that it has elbowed minor employment schemes out, I will take that answer, but I do not think that is so. I have tried to get many rural improvement schemes going in my constituency and outside it, and although the present Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor introduced a sliding scale which is a vast benefit, small as the contributions are, for some of the small land-owners they are too big. I think the minor employment scheme system should not be dropped so completely and soabsolutely as it has been dropped by the present Parliamentary Secretary. Furthermore, the minor employment scheme should be softened a little. I believe there is some regulation that makes a minor employment scheme virtually unobtainable in an electoral division where there are not 16—I think—or more registered as unemployed. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to soften that and bring it down to ten, because despite the belief to the contrary, in many areas we come up against the fact that lots of people self-employed for only two, three or four months of the year will not register as unemployed in the local labour exchange. That is evidence of the old native pride which is so quickly dying out in this country and which it is so pleasant to meet with when one does meet with it. That factor prevents people from qualifying for minor employment schemes, and even though the contribution under the Rural Improvements Scheme is small they find it too big a pill to swallow.
In connection with rural improvements schemes, I must pay a compliment to the officials administering that work. These schemes are magnificently carried out. Anywhere I have seen work done under these schemes I have been impressed with its finish, but I think it is a pity the work is not carried one step further. We are now insisting on a tar finish on second- and third-class roads in every county and I think it is a pity that in the case of these schemes that is not insisted upon and the necessary moneys provided. The work is so excellent it seems a pity to leave it to the ravages of the weather. If a tarred surface is not insisted upon these improvements schemes will deteriorate rapidly and the work will have to be done all over again.
This work is important because the more amenities we can provide for the people in the rural areas the more likely they will be to stay on the land. One thing people want is a good road. We have provided most of our people with clean, comfortable homesteads. The principal factors contributing to the flight from the land are the uneconomicholdings, the lack of employment and the poor means of access to homesteads.
And no dancing after midnight.
I am trying to be helpful. The Parliamentary Secretary can examine these ideas for what they are worth. They may not be practicable. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that a surface protected with a light coat of tar—and the extra cost will not amount to very much—will give a life of fifty years to these roads because no heavy traffic passes over them.
Again, I think the regulations governing the minor employments schemes should be softened a little bit. In the arable areas where the holdings are small there are not sufficient unemployed in most electoral divisions, and they are, therefore, debarred from these schemes. These people pay pretty stiff rates. and I hear endless grumbling from them because they cannot take advantage of these schemes. People who do not pay anything like the same sum in rates can get minor employment schemes in connection with roads and drainage and can, therefore, find employment during the winter months. There is a certain amount of injustice in the way in which these schemes are administered, and I brought that to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor. His predecessor softened the regulations with regard to the Rural Improvements Scheme to the advantage of many people all over the country. But both that and the minor employmentsschemes regulations should be softened a bit more. That would not add any serious burden to the Exchequer's liability. It would only be a question of a few thousand pounds, and the extra money spent would be of immense benefit to many people. The least we can do is provide people with a decent means of access to their homesteads.
I want to know if it is correct that grants under the minor employments schemes for ball alleys are cut out?
Not fully, but for this year I would say they are.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to cut those grants. The amount of money involved cannot be very much. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that hurling does not take in the West. Gaelic football does, but a number of young boys do not appear to take to football either. They are crazy about handball. Very often their only alley is the gable end of a dwellinghouse or an out-office of some kind. I know of one tragic incident where a young lad was killed playing handball against the gable of a school near a dangerous cross-roads. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give some grant to encourage this sport. A good healthy game like that is better than having these young people sitting over a fire or lazing around.
