Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Tuesday, 27 Oct 1953

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Mr. Gallagher

I was about to conclude when the House adjourned on Friday. I just had a few points to make regarding the development of the City of Dublin in the interest of the tourist industry. We in Dublin Corporation have submitted plans with that end in view. That is the reason why I strongly suggest to the Government that there should be no hold up whatsoever in the question of money for the plans that we submitted. I have not got the exact figures, but it is well-known that thousands of tourists come here year after year, and I am sure it will be agreed that they do not come alone for the good food they get or to look at NelsonPillar. They want something more than that. Our plans to beautify our parks and do everything possible to clear those derelict sites are very important. In addition to that they give an opportunity for a good deal of employment. We hear from all sides of the House that we should do something to take the men off the streets. As I said on Friday, in recent months Dublin Corporation have taken close on 400 men off the streets of Dublin for these special works, and I think that is what everybody wants, including the Government. There, again, somebody has to pay for it, and we in Dublin Corporation would like that we should get all the money that is possible.

One of the schemes we have submitted deals with the question of the development of the Bull Island or what is better known as the Blue Lagoon. People may be inclined to laugh at that, but I think it is about time that we went ahead with that work. No. 1, it will do a good deal to brighten up the city, and that end of the city especially, which is nothing at the moment only slightly better than a slobland. As well as that, we feel that it will give continuous employment to quite a number of men. It is proposed in this scheme for the Bull Island that it will give two very fine dual carriage roads. It will also give two good cycle roads, and if our plans go ahead we will have artificial lakes which, I hope sincerely, will be much better than the monstrosity on O'Connell Bridge. It is also planned to have swimming pools and possibly a site for attractive amusements of a high standard. We in the corporation think that is a good plan and should be given serious consideration by the Government. In the plans we have submitted we estimate that Schedule 3 of these special works will cost £430,000. Of that £430,000, my figures show that the labour content will be £226,500, and the material and plant £203,500. Therefore, you will see that the labour content of £226,500 would give a great deal of employment and I think we should proceed on these lines. I respectfully suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Dublin Corporation got80 per cent. of that amount of money we could proceed with the work. It is a claim that should get serious consideration so as to enable us to get on with the work.

I have already mentioned derelict sites. That problem in Dublin City has certainly gone beyond the talking stage. We should clear those sites and either build houses on them or use them for cycle parks or car parks. Although the survey of the city which is being made by the Dublin Corporation may not yet be fully complete, I have reason to believe that it will be completed very shortly and when it is submitted to the Government I think that the Government should help us out. There are parts of my constituency such as Denmark St., Grenville Street, Hardwicke Place, Temple Street and so forth, and it is a shame and a disgrace to the city as a whole that nothing is being done about them. With regard to Hardwicke Street and Hardwicke Place, I understand that plans have been drawn up by the city architect and that work will commence in the near future; the sooner the better. The traders of that district have lost thousands of pounds every year by reason of large families leaving the district. It means that trade is going from the district. The traders must still pay their rates and taxes. They cannot say to the Dublin Corporation: "I am sorry that I am down £1,000 or £2,000 this year. Let me off." The corporation will not do that. When large families in Grenville Street, Hardwicke Street, Temple Street, and so forth, move out to Ballyfermot, Finglas and other areas, money goes with them. That is a problem for the traders in the area which they have left and it is a problem which we should endeavour to solve.

I again appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government to treat with all convenient speed and consideration the plans of the Dublin Corporation. We started off by taking close on 400 men off the streets and giving employment to them. We have started the good work but we cannot continue it without money.

Mr. MacBride

I should like to endorse Deputy Gallagher's appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the provision of moneys to enable the Dublin Corporation to carry on with the implementation of the plans which they have made for the relief of unemployment in the city. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to induce the Minister for Finance to give his sanction so that at least 80 per cent. of the estimates prepared for these works will be defrayed by the Government. I hope that meanwhile the Dublin Corporation will continue to work in the expectation that this money will be made available.

While in no way wishing to criticise some of the proposals put forward for the relief of unemployment in the city, I should like to urge that, as far as possible, there should be a little more advance planning than there seems to have been in many cases. I know that the unemployment situation was such that immediate steps had to be taken. Had there been a little more planning, a little more advance thought, it might have been possible to start on work which would be of greater benefit than some of the works which are being undertaken merely in order to provide employment on them. The digging up of footpaths and the relaying of new footpaths may be very necessary in some cases but one would think that there are more urgent amenities that could be provided if there had been a little more planning. I do not blame the officials concerned because I am aware that they were probably grossly overworked and that they were faced with a sudden emergency in the course of which they had to be in a position to provide some kind of relief work at once.

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary could advise the Government to allow these funds to be used—the funds made available by the Government—to defray the cost—in part, at least—of the building of new dispensaries and new schools in Dublin City. Work of that nature would relieve unemployment and would provide an amenity which is very badlyneeded at the moment in certain areas of the city. It has occurred to me that work of that nature might be of greater value than the digging up of footpaths and the relaying of footpaths. There are certain other amenities of a similar nature which are also required in Dublin City—amenities such as provision of a proper concert hall, swimming pools and so forth. If money is being made available for the relief of unemployment, it might be possible to plan the work sufficiently far ahead to enable constructive works of that nature to be undertaken, rather than scratch relief works.

I do not know whether it is relevant to bring this up on this Estimate but I should like to mention that for a great many years past there has been considerable talk about the necessity of providing a new bridge across the Liffey. There has also been a controversy as to whether a bridge should be erected over the Liffey or a tunnel made under the Liffey.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is going outside the scope of this Estimate which deals with employment and emergency schemes.

Mr. MacBride

I was about to suggest that possibly the Parliamentary Secretary might be in a position to make funds available in the future for the purpose of assisting the Dublin Corporation and the county council to provide a tunnel under the Liffey. That would have the treble purpose (1) of providing a considerable amount of work for the relief of unemployment; (2) of relieving the traffic congestion in the city, and (3) of providing shelters in the event of a future emergency.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has any administrative power in that respect.

Mr. MacBride

He may not have it.

Mr. Davin

In his opening statement the Parliamentary Secretary referred to sums of money provided in Votes for other Departments and dealt with that matter himself. May I take it that we would be correct in doing like-wise?

An Ceann Comhairle

Obviously, we cannot discuss in this Vote moneys provided for other Departments in other Votes. We can only discuss now what is provided for in this Vote. Surely the Deputy does not suggest that matters relevant to the Department of Local Government, the Department of Lands, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and so forth, should be discussed on this Vote?

Mr. Davin

Surely we can deal with the general problem of unemployment? It is supposed to be provided for here and in other Votes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not objected at all. I have tried to direct Deputy MacBride's attention to the fact that he is travelling outside the scope of the debate on employment and emergency schemes.

Mr. MacBride

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I was hoping that I might be able to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, as part of the scheme for the relief of unemployment, he might be able to make money available for constructive schemes of a long-term nature rather than what I might term emergency famine relief schemes. I quite appreciate that these scratch schemes are essential at the moment, when there is an unemployment epidemic of the kind which we have experienced, but if there had been a little more advance planning it might have been possible to have schemes of a more constructive nature undertaken—schemes that would be of benefit to the city and the country generally. He might consider a policy of asking local authorities to prepare schemes of that kind as part of the unemployment relief schemes rather than purely scratch relief schemes.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about artificial lakes, playgrounds, beauty spots, fancy kerbs and footpaths and so on. I think the main item which we, as Deputies, should be impressing as hard as we can on the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government is the seriousness of the unemployment position rather than the provision of artificial lakes. I doubt if the ParliamentarySecretary or his office has a true and accurate picture of the deplorable unemployment position that exists in the country. The purpose of emergency employment schemes is the provision of emergency relief for unemployment and is it not true that there is an emergency in every town and village of the country in that regard to-day? There are people in long queues outside country post offices and Garda barracks registering as unemployed, signing on for work in the various labour exchanges and walking from shop to shop, from business to business and factory to factory seeking work. Is it not true that quite a number of industrial concerns have had to put notices on their gates saying: "No vacancies here" in order to save the time of their personnel in regard to interviewing applicants for work?

Never in the history of this country was there such real hardship and poverty amongst unemployed working-class people. In various parts of rural Ireland to-day the housewife can provide only one meal a day and I have known cases in which, because of unemployment, children are asked to remain at home from school because there is no breakfast to be provided for them. Surely cases of this nature constitute an emergency, and I submit that the office of the Parliamentary Secretary is not catering at all for the real emergency which exists.

Deputy Davin will agree with me that in parts of our constituency, in Birr, Tullamore, Edenderry, Shinrone, Portarlington, Mountmellick and Rathdowney, there is a great and serious unemployment problem. Despite the fact that the schemes are there and that the unemployed are there, the schemes are not put into operation. There is no use talking about fancy paths and artificial lakes in these circumstances. The men are not being put to work because the funds are not coming down from the Parliamentary Secretary's office to the local authority to put these schemes into operation. An emergency is something which, in my view, requires to be dealt with without either delay or hesitation.There is an emergency in every town in Ireland to-day. What assistance is being given by the Emergency Employment Schemes Office? No help whatever is being given in rural Ireland by that office to-day. An odd bog road or an odd lane is repaired, a bog drain is made in a particular electoral division, but neither a bog lane nor a bog drain is going to bring an immediate solution of the serious emergency which exists.

The Office of Public Works has failed completely and utterly to provide even a temporary solution of the serious emergency in rural Ireland to-day, and in view of the magnitude of that emergency it is obvious that we would require four times the amount of money being asked for before that emergency could be tackled properly. It was never as bad and the strain occasioned by this position has fallen so seriously on every St. Vincent de Paul conference that in many cases their funds are completely run out. At the annual general meeting of one of the oldest charitable societies in Dublin recently it was stated that there was never such a demand on charitable funds as there is at present in the city. Have we not had this emergency for the past 12 or 18 months and surely such an emergency cannot be allowed to continue for years? The Office of Public Works is not dealing competently with that deplorable situation.

Hundreds of the unemployed are leaving the country day after day. We have 52,000 registered unemployed to-day and there are between 30,000 and 35,000 unemployed who are not registered. The present position is— I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to note this for very serious attention— that unless there is a certain number of registered unemployed in a particular electoral division, no grant will be allocated for that area. That is wrong. If there are six, seven or eight men in a particular area unemployed, it should be the duty of the Department to provide a scheme, under the heading of emergency employment schemes, to give these men employment.

It is also wrong that if an electoral area would benefit by a bog drainagescheme, a bog development scheme or a road-making scheme, that electoral area should not qualify for a grant because there are not sufficient registered unemployed there. Is it not all the same whether a man is unemployed and has his name down or is unemployed without having his name down? This provision with regard to registered unemployed is all not and codology and should be removed completely from the regulations. If a man is unemployed he is unemployed and that is that. There is a certain amount of pride in Irish workers and many of them would prefer to die of hunger rather than allow their names to go down on an unemployment record sheet.

I have known workers who preferred to go to work in English coalmines, in English munition factories and English malthouses rather than permit their names to go down on the list of registered unemployed. They are too proud to do so and it is a grand thing that we have some of that pride left in this country, but is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that there should be a regulation which debars them from work if they have that little pride? If they prefer to be regarded as hard, industrious workers who do not want their names on the list no steps will be taken to provide them with work to save them the embarrassment of having to sign such a record in order to get work at home.

The office of the Parliamentary Secretary has not faced up to the serious responsibility involved in the magnitude of the unemployment position which is not recorded in official figures and the Parliamentary Secretary must have been made aware of this by the volume of correspondence which he has received from various local authorities concerning these relief schemes. Tullamore Urban Council have time and again made application for grants to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department for a local employment scheme and the council were always told that there were not sufficient registered unemployed in the district electoral division to qualify for a grant. Yet, let the Parliamentary Secretary go downto Tullamore any night and I will guarantee that he will get from 200 to 300 unemployed men from the town of Tullamore and the surrounding districts who are anxious to work on such schemes.

I think that this question of finding a solution for the unemployment problem is not alone getting the blind eye but also the deaf ear of the Government and they are certainly not facing up to their responsibilities. The Emergency Employment Schemes Office is doing very little, if anything, towards finding a solution of this problem. Is it not a fact that there are quite a number of counties which during the years of the emergency were engaged in the production of turf—counties such as Laois, Roscommon, Kerry, Mayo and more particularly Offaly and Kildare—and that during those years the county council staffs were taken away from road maintenance, improvement and drainage schemes which were the responsibility of the local authority and were compelled to direct their attention to turf production during those years? Then when the emergency passed, no additional moneys were made available for the purpose of giving additional grants to county councils to put their roads back into that state of repair in which the roads of counties, where the staffs were not so diverted, were always maintained.

Time and again the Office of Public Works and the Emergency Schemes Office have been asked by those counties whose roads were allowed to deteriorate during the emergency, to provide extra grants for the purpose of putting the roads of these counties back into a proper state of repair. I believe these counties have a special claim on moneys provided for emergency schemes. Yet when applications at the rate of about six per week are sent in from my constituency for grants under these emergency employment schemes, we get back the reply that these schemes do not qualify for the 100 per cent. grant and that they should come under the rural improvement schemes under which some contribution must be made locally. I want to say in fairness to the inspectors employed in the ParliamentarySecretary's Department, either in connection with bog drainage work or rural improvement schemes, that they deserve the thanks and appreciation of everybody concerned because they are giving good and valuable service. Certainly it cannot be said that when an application is sent into the Office of Public Works it is put on the long finger. I do not know any other section where so much speed and efficiency are shown as in inspecting and reporting to the Employment Schemes Office, but inspecting and reporting do not mean that the job will be done because there are no funds at the office to do the work.

There is no use in having an efficient inspector carrying out an investigation of a scheme with all possible speed if we find that there are no funds available to carry out the schemes which he recommends. Despite the fact that 96 out of every 100 schemes put up are recommended by the inspectors, a very small percentage of the schemes can be carried out because the Parliamentary Secretary's office has failed to provide the cash for the carrying out of these schemes. That is where the neglect lies. There is little use in saying: "We will carry out that scheme this year or next year," if no money is provided for such a scheme. The Department will have to provide for employment schemes as if they were facing a real emergency and the House should be asked to provide three times the amount of the present Estimate for these works because if the money were available you could in the morning put 25,000 to 30,000 men in employment. While these schemes were in course of completion, we could, as Deputy MacBride suggested, be planning additional schemes to follow them so that we may be in a position to ensure that the serious emergency created by unemployment will be at least in some degree relieved.

I should like particularly to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the necessity of providing extra grants for works in the turf-producing areas. His own constituency is one of these areas. I could safelysay that such a step would be appreciated by the local authorities concerned and their engineering staffs because we believe that as we were engaged on turf production during the war we are entitled to a better crack of the whip than counties which, because their staffs were not diverted to turn production, were able to keep their roads and drainage schemes in first-class order even during the emergency. I think also that this arrangement of men having to sign for an emergency scheme grant is ridiculous. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to formulate some new system whereby deserving areas would not be deprived of the benefits of these schemes which, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, can be very great indeed.

There is one other matter to which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give personal attention. I do not know how it works—it did not often work under the inter-Party Government—but it frequently happens that a local Fianna Fáil T.D. gets information in regard to the operation of a scheme far in advance of any other Deputy. Surely there must be some looseness in the Parliamentary Secretary's office or the information must come from some other source.

Suspicion haunts the guilty mind.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There is no suspicion without grounds for it. There is never smoke without fire. Knowing the unemployed as I do, I feel disappointed and very much disheartened that such a poor and feeble attempt is being made by the Office of Public Works to provide for the emergency that exists. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Employment Schemes Office are only wasting their time and energy until this House votes sufficient money to put these important schemes which are of great local benefit into effect and thereby render some useful service to this country by relieving the unemployment position which at present is deplorable and desperate and never was worse in the history of the country.

Mr. Hickey

What do you think is wrong?

Mr. O. Flanagan

I think that the whole financial set up is wrong. If I were to go into what is really wrong the Chair would tell me it cannot be discussed here. The financial system under which this is working is wrong. However, the Parliamentary Secretary could do his part in that respect if he would bring the seriousness of the matter before his colleague the Minister for Finance and tell him that he cannot carry on or cannot usefully administer his Department unless the funds are placed at his disposal for the carrying out of these emergency schemes.

Mr. Davin

I intend to vote for the reference back of this Estimate or, if compelled to do so, to vote against the Estimate for one principal reason at any rate, that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government cannot in existing circumstances in rural Ireland justify the reduction of £100,000 in this Estimate. I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary arrived at the round figure of £100,000. I hope when he is replying that he will give us some more information in justification of this reduction than he gave when introducing the Estimate.

What will it cost the Government and the taxpayers to give an additional 1 per cent. on the £25,000,000 National Loan over and above what they got National Loans for on many previous occasions? This cut of £100,000 in the Estimate looks like a sum that would pay 1 per cent. for six months or a year on the new National Loan. However, if the money is to go to the moneylenders instead of to those looking for work, that is an issue which I would challenge by vote at the end of this discussion. There is a fundamental difference between the present policy of the Government, as I understand it, and that of some of those who sit on this side of the House. The Government believe that the first charge on production is whatever is reasonably required by the moneylenders or what the moneylenders may be able to force the Government and the Minister for Finance and his Parliamentary Secretary to give. We believe that the first charge on production is a livelihood for those who produce and a decent wage and standard of living for the producers.

I have no hesitation in challenging the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to defend this reduction of £100,000. I want to say—perhaps I might be able to say it, but I do not pretend to be able to say it, on behalf of my colleagues—that I share the view of a good many Deputies on this side of the House that the Parliamentary Secretary is a decent, common-sense man, but he has no power or authority to decide policy. He is inthe House to carry out the instructions of the Government and the Minister for Finance without having any say, I presume, as to whether the sum now asked for is sufficient to meet the situation as he knows it and as we all know it in the rural parts of the country. If the Parliamentary Secretary really knows the position in rural Ireland to-day, how does he come before the House to justify the reduction of £100,000 in this Estimate, knowing perfectly well that there are thousands of schemes in the pigeon-holes of his Department which are absolutely essential and urgently necessary and which cannot be carried out because the Minister for Finance will not give him the money to do so?

I do not put all the blame on the Parliamentary Secretary, but he will have to bear some of it. I certainly do not blame any of his officials. They have to do their duty and to examine every proposal which comes before us under whatever sub-head you may select in this Vote. They have to put these proposals before their inspectors who have to go into rural Ireland to examine the proposals and to report on them. If they have only a limited amount of money to carry out certain essential and urgently required works under any sub-head of this Estimate, they have to use their own judgment, if allowed to do so freely, and perhaps select one out of five or six schemes, although they know well that all the schemes are urgently necessary in the areas concerned. Therefore, I never have blamed the permanent officials of this Department because they have to use their own judgment in selecting one out of so many schemes.

I support Deputy Flanagan and the county councils of Laois and Offaly in pressing on the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government the urgent necessity for providing more money under the sub-heads of this Vote or whatever other Vote they like for putting the byroads or county roads in Laois and Offaly in a decent state of repair. These byroads, as they are called, are in a disgraceful condition since the end of the emergency. It is now nearlythree months since the county council of Laois unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to meet a deputation of all sections of that council for the purpose of impressing on them the necessity for providing more money than they have at their disposal now, for putting these dangerous and disgraceful county roads or byroads into decent condition.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows well, because he represents a neighbouring constituency where they may have the same kind of complaint to make, but not to the same extent, that during the period of the last emergency road workers were taken off their ordinary, normal work in both counties and in some neighbouring counties and put on to turf production work so that turn might be supplied to the citizens of Dublin and other cities and provincial towns. They were taken away from their normal work and the Road Fund and other grants that would have been normally made available for the carrying out of the usual road construction, reconstruction and maintenance work were apparently set aside for other non-turf-cutting counties. Is it not a fair and reasonable proposition for the county councils of these counties to say, on behalf of the ratepayers, that they should now get some additional grants to put the roads into a passable condition?

I understand from a colleague of mine that this matter came before a meeting of the Laois County Council yesterday and that no reply of any kind was received from the Minister for Local Government, after repeated applications, for the reception of a deputation during the past two or three months. I think it is a disgraceful state of affairs that there was no reply to a request to receive a deputation for this very necessary purpose. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is not mainly responsible, but he should impress upon his colleague and friend, the Minister for Local Government, the necessity for granting the reasonable request of the county councilsconcerned to receive a deputation for the purpose of hearing their case.

This time three years ago there were 400 more men working for the Laois and Offaly County Councils than are employed by these two county councils to-day. Why? Because you had grants made available fairly freely at that particular time for two or three years under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Of course, it is well known in the counties concerned and in other counties that the Government are giving that Act a slow death by reducing, if not altogether wiping out, the substantial and generous grants made available from the time it came into operation in 1949 until the end of 1951. Continuous employment was given to 400 more men by the two county councils of Laois and Offaly and valuable, essential, drainage, road and repair work was done which is not being done to-day.

There are schemes in the pigeon-holes of the Department of Local Government, according to the latest figure to which I have access, amounting to £42,000 awaiting the allocation of the money that was given in order to enable these works to be commenced and have the available labour locally employed on carrying out these useful schemes.

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary knows it or not but it is an unfortunate fact that, according to the latest statistical returns regarding emigration, Edenderry and Mountmellick are practically at the head of the list of the towns in provincial Ireland so far as emigration is concerned. Is it not desirable in areas where you have this huge amount of emigration going on that any schemes of a useful and reproductive nature which are put forward and sanctioned as good, sound, economic schemes should be financed for the purpose of carrying out these jobs? When it suits the purpose the Taoiseach comes in and says, as he will propose on his own Vote when it is under discussion, there is no question of a shortage of money. Then he will proceed to bore holes through some of the schemes that he has been advised are uneconomic or useless.

Somebody handed him the particulars of a scheme when he was speaking on the last occasion. The scheme was submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. It cost the small sum of £70. He said that was a ridiculous, uneconomic type of scheme. If the Parliamentary Secretary supplied the Taoiseach with that kind of information, I wonder would he indicate, when replying, whether it was a road improvements scheme, an ordinary relief scheme, a bog drainage scheme, a road repair scheme or what kind of a scheme it was that the Taoiseach referred to on that particular occasion? I personally believe the Taoiseach was misled and that he was probably supplied with information that was not thoroughly reliable. That is not the way, at any rate, to answer the case for the provision of more money for the purpose of solving the general unemployment problem in the country. Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit or deny—he is a straightforward man and I am putting him a straightforward question—that he could make use of more money if more money was made available under the various sub-heads included in the Vote now under discussion? Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it is right that the Local Authorities (Works) Act should be scrapped?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Davin

I submit, Sir, with the greatest respect, that he has some. If the Chair listened to the speech which the Parliamentary Secretary delivered, when introducing this Estimate, he would have to admit that the Parliamentary Secretary did not deny responsibility to some extent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no sub-head in this Estimate dealing with the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Davin

I accept the Chair's ruling without any question or challenge but if the Chair read the speechhe would find that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated there were other sums available under other sub-heads of other Departments for the administration of which he had personal responsibility. Is not that so? If the Parliamentary Secretary was entitled to make reference to sums of money made available under the sub-heads for other Government Departments, surely Deputies who follow him in this discussion are entitled to comment on what he said and ask him for further information in regard to the allocation of these moneys.

Is it not a fact that some of the schemes submitted by local authorities under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949, and passed by the officials of the Department of Local Government to the officials of the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides, are actually carried out under the Board of Works administration? Is there no sub-committee——

Mr. Beegan

I am surprised at Deputy Davin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary states he has no responsibility for that Vote, I cannot see how there can be any discussion on it.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary will not deny because he can-not—and he must, therefore, admit— that at this particular period there is no justification whatsoever for asking the members on any side of this House to agree to a reduction of a round figure of £100,000 in a Vote where money is supposed to be made available for all the useful types of rural improvement schemes that are put forward by local authorities, individuals and organisations. Is it a fact that you could have carried out schemes covering twice the amount provided for in this Estimate? If so and if the Taoiseach stated the full facts before the House when speaking about this matter on the last occasion, what is the difficulty about the Parliamentary Secretary getting the money that he knows is required if he accepts the word of the Taoiseach that any money necessary for the carryingout of schemes to relieve unemployment, whether relief schemes or permanent schemes, can be made available? If the Taoiseach is right, what is the justification for the reduction of £100,000 in this particular Estimate at this particular period?

I do not want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to shoulder all the blame and responsibility for the reduction of £100,000 because I know that he has been told by his master, the Minister for Finance, who is the master mind of the Government the same as every Minister for Finance is in every Government in every democratic country, that that is all he will get and that he had better do the best he can with it. I ask him to defend the reduction of £100,000 if he is in a position to do so. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me the number of schemes sanctioned by his Department and still awaiting an allocation of money, and the total number of schemes sanctioned in his Department that cannot be carried out because money for them has not been made available for them before the end of the present financial year. I want him to answer those questions in a straightforward way.

Mr. A. Byrne

I attended a finance meeting of the Dublin Corporation yesterday which was called for the special purpose of budgeting for £77,500 for the relief of unemployment. Up to the moment, the corporation has spent £42,000 on emergency relief schemes. It was stated at yesterday's meeting that no definite financial contribution has yet been received from the Government. We do not know what grants the Government are going to give, or when. I disagree entirely with Deputy Gallagher when he says that we are going ahead, and that we should be satisfied with the 70 per cent. contribution for these emergency relief schemes. We were led to believe by Government spokesmen that we would get an 80 per cent. contribution and that the corporation would guarantee to put up the other 20 per cent.

The point I want to make is that we took the word of the Governmentspokesman, and the officials of the corporation, in order to ease the unemployment position in the City of Dublin, went ahead as fast as they could in putting men to work, with the approval of the Government, with the money they had in hands for ordinary relief schemes which commence about this time of the year. The corporation have spent all that money now—money which they had for ordinary relief schemes. Every other day promises were made by the Government that to-day or to-morrow we would get the grants. But on last Friday week we were told that the corporation was coming to the end as regards the money it had to pay wages. Yesterday, then, in order to overcome these difficulties, and to keep men at work, we were called together to budget for £77,500. That includes the sum of £42,000 which the corporation has already spent and which will have to be restored to the fund. The balance is to keep us going until we know what the Government is going to do.

Will it be believed by any of my colleagues that we have not, up to the moment, got a grant from the Government towards the payment of the wages of the men whom we had to take on and who, very properly, were clamouring for work? Our officials prepared schemes. We were hopeful that we would be able to put on another 400 men within the next two months in order to ease the situation for the Government. We wanted to ease that situation and to ease it for the unemployed themselves. We had a certain guarantee from the Government that we would get substantial grants but up to the present we have got no grant other than the tail-end of the grant that remained over from the early part of the year—I think a sum of about £29,000. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, in May of this year, Deputy Tom Byrne, of North-West Dublin, raised the question of the unemployed in the City of Dublin. We pressed that immediate employment should be given to these men. When we said that we could not get money, the Minister at the time said, very properly, that the corporation had £29,000 still unexpended, and thatwe should spend it. We went and we spent the money. It is now all gone.

Some of my colleagues will remember that at that time one or two members on the Government side of the House made an effort to pour ridicule on myself personally because of my advocacy, as they said then, of the unemployed. I remember that at the time, in the columns of the Irish Press,I was subjected to ridicule by members on the Government Bench because I was drawing their attention to the then serious problem of the unemployed. That was a month or two before the men themselves took the matter in their own hands and paraded in O'Connell Street.

The officials of the corporation have prepared what is described as a No. 3 schedule of works. They have submitted a plan for the expenditure of £430,000. That is awaiting sanction by the Government, but up to yesterday no sanction was received for a plan which involves an expenditure of £430,000. We are pressing for an 80 per cent. contribution by the Government. The corporation will put up the balance.

Deputy Davin has made a reference to the questions of unemployment and emigration. So far as Dublin is concerned, the two would appear to go hand in hand. When I was coming into the House to-day I got a letter from a woman, dated the 26th October. She says:—

"Dear Mr. Byrne,

Pardon my writing to you regarding my husband, who is unemployed this past eight or nine months. I ask you, Mr. Byrne, what is going to be done with regard to the building trade. There seems to be plenty of work to be done. When are they going to start? While the Government and the corporation are talking the people are starving. Is the Government aware that every day a batch are leaving here for England? Soon there will be very few left to carry on work as the best of our skilled men are going. Soon the city will be composed of only old men and women. The flower of the flockare leaving and emigrating. It makes one wish that we were never born, struggling on from day to day trying to exist. At the moment my husband has to stand on the line of relief to draw 18/-. What would that do for anyone, and the rent 14/-? Don't think, Mr. Byrne, that I am looking for help or charity, as is the case in certain other areas. No, thank God, I am able to carry on, but if it lasts much longer I think we will all be up in the union. Trusting you will interest yourself in the matter and see that they start work at once."

That is a type of letter which I am sure every other Deputy has in his bag. I just give it as a sample of others. Another woman writes to me and says that her husband and son are unemployed. The son is unemployed because the wholesale firm in which he worked has closed down. She refers to the prominent wholesale grocery firm of McMaster Hodgson where her son was employed. That firm was in business for over 100 years. It is now closed down and there are 90 men left standing idle to add to the list of the unemployed.

I quite agree but I was rather puzzled when I saw two and a half columns of the Dáil Debates of 22nd October last devoted to Dublin by the present Parliamentary Secretary. At column 475 he says:—

"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."

My colleagues in the Dublin Corporation who are also members of the House will agree that it is becoming very acute. He goes on then to say at column 476:—

"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 inhands 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 counties were also authorised to start a number of works."

I do not wish to contravene the ruling of the Chair but I am merely trying to answer what the Parliamentary Secretary said. He devoted two and a half columns to Dublin City and I think the Minister for Local Government should have dealt with the matter because we could have questioned certain things that have been done and certain delays and I could have asked why it is that in some section of the Local Government Department schemes involving £430,000 are awaiting sanction. We want extra staff to go out to prepare and survey these schemes. I still believe there is a hold-up in the Department of Local Government. They have not yet sanctioned the extra staff required for the extra office accommodation, and so on, which will give employment. We had hoped to employ another 500 men within the next six months and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go into that matter.

I am sure Deputy Gallagher, Deputy Briscoe, Deputy McCann, Deputy Breathnach, the Lord Mayor, Deputy Doyle and my other colleagues in the corporation will accept my word that we are most anxious to assist the Government in any effort they make to solve the unemployment problem in the City of Dublin. The difficulties which unemployment is bringing to many families are deplorable. I do not know exactly how many decrees for rent arrears are being granted in the courts at the present time but I know they are considerable; thank goodness the cases are usually settled in a friendly way by considerate officials. I believe there have been at least 100 decrees a week for rent arrears granted in the City of Dublin within the last12 months due to unemployment. The unfortunate thing is that when the rent arrears mount up the young men and perhaps the fathers of families who get nervous take the boat across to England so that they can work in Coventry, Manchester and elsewhere. The whole family happiness is destroyed when the father or perhaps one or two sons and a daughter emigrate to work in another country.

All the Dublin Deputies know I am not exaggerating when I say that at the moment you will find hundreds of fine young men going along to the North Wall, to building schemes and other places, seeking employment. Every Dublin Deputy has received letters asking for employment similar to those I have had. The corporation is most anxious to help the Government but, as I said, we are waiting for more men. We can give good value for the money expended. Work needs to be done on the clearance of derelict sites, knocking down all the old tenement houses, improving the position so far as playgrounds are concerned, playing fields and swimming pools. There is good reproductive work to be done. My difficulty in regard to all this matter is that I have too many notes to which I could refer on this special subject.

Mr. Everett

Give a few to Deputy Burke.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am sure he will say something, because I know he is as much interested in Dublin City and Dublin County as the rest of us are. He will not be any less responsible than we are for putting pressure on the Government to give us more money. A member of the Finance Committee of Dublin Corporation stated yesterday:—

"The Minister has not yet informed the corporation officially as to how the cost of special works relief would be defrayed. No indication has been given by the Government as to what grants are to come."

We have 380 men out working for the past nine weeks; we have spent over £40,000, and more money requires tobe made available at once. We have promises and I believe those promises will be fulfilled. I told my colleagues not to be alarmed about grants not being in their hands at the moment. We had the Taoiseach's guarantee in regard to this work and we know that his guarantee is as good and solid as if we had a cheque in our hands. That was my personal view, but what we want to know is will the Government give us an order and say: "We will give you 80 per cent. for the works you have in hands and we will sanction that £430,000 under Schedule 3 which was not yet sanctioned."

The Blue Lagoon is a very live matter at the moment. The improvement of the whole Clontarf area is being undertaken. So far as this money has been spent good value has been given. Our head engineer in charge of the relief schemes and emergency works said publicly yesterday at our finance committee meeting that they were getting good value from the workers, which shows there was a genuine desire on the part of the men to get work.

I would like finally to press the point that has been made by other members that the Government should foster a little more co-operation between the heads of the Department of Local Government and the Dublin Corporation. We had reason to complain here a couple of weeks ago, and I hope the little differences of opinion have been settled. We need a few extra technical men to get ready that £500,000 relief scheme. As one of my colleagues put it to-day, we have plenty of work to do in Dublin if we had the money, but the Government must give us a fair share.

Mr. J. Flynn

I have just a few queries to put. Mention was made about the employment of men in areas where it is difficult to obtain the required number according to the schedule. It was suggested they might be brought from outside or that the clause should be amended and a lesser number taken as the standard figure. We have had cases down in South Kerry where very necessary works were required and simply because there were not sufficient U.A.men in the district the work had to be cancelled. If the employment office would agree to bring men from outside it would be a very costly affair and it would not work either. I think the only way out is to amend the number required under the regulations, which at present provide that if that number is not in the electoral district the work cannot go on.

In regard to rural improvement schemes, on behalf of the people I represent I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's decision to increase the grant. I would ask that the people whose schemes have been held up, and who have paid their contribution for the carrying through of those schemes, should be enabled to put the work in hands as early as possible. I am aware of a good few cases where the money was paid over some months ago and the people have received a note back from the Employment Schemes Office that until money was available the schemes could not be undertaken. That may go on until January or February of next year. I am glad to know that the Parliamentary Secretary is increasing the amount so that these schemes can be attended to. I hope they will be attended to right away, as they are very urgent and the people have requested us to have the money sanctioned as early as possible.

In Book No. 4 of last week's Dáil Debates on this Vote, I saw that Deputy Palmer referred to the employment of gangers and said they should be drawn in from outside. It was through his action in South Kerry that that had to be done. Immediately this Government took over the affairs of this country, Deputy Palmer's supporters down there organised against the employment of what they called Fianna Fáil gangers. They went as far as to object to any of these gangers who they claimed were Fianna Fáil supporters. It went to the extent that in the Sneem district, Deputy Palmer's own parish, these men caused a strike and an inspector of the employment works in Kerry had to bring a man named Moriarity all the way from Ballinskelligs. Deputy Palmer asked Moriarity to meet him in his ownhouse, but Moriarity refused. I want that to go on record.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not usual to mention the names of individuals in the House.

Mr. J. Flynn

I would not raise it but Deputy Palmer raised it last week about the employment of these gangers. The Board of Works officials in Kerry stood up to them and I will give them full credit for doing so. The man in charge in Kerry is second to none, Mr. Kenny. I do not like to mention names but he and the men associated with him have done good work in South Kerry though they were up against it on this occasion. I appreciate that every effort was made by these people to employ the best men. They did employ them. We said nothing about it. I remember myself when the inter-Party Government was in power there was none of this work carried on; every man was regarded as being capable and trustworthy. I think that the employment of these gangers is an important factor and where the official has been doing the work over a period of years that experience should be appreciated.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could recast this whole scheme in regard to drainage and bog development. I am speaking outside this sub-head now, I know. Our idea down there is that some of these works are commenced too late in the season, even the road works. These rural improvement schemes have been held up for the past three or four months and almost into the winter. I hope that in future, long before the winter period arrives, the small farmers concerned will be informed in time and obtain sanction in time so that the work will have reached an advanced stage while the good weather is available. That is particularly important to us down in South Kerry, where it is difficult to get the proper conditions. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying I would like him to indicate an improvement in regard to schemes of works in certain areas in South Kerry.

I had a parliamentary question downsome time ago about Valentia Island and I made a case that I had received a number of letters from people in regard to accommodation roads which were damaged during the recent floods. I believe that, even though it might not be on the regular schedule, if the matter is specially investigated by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and we can show that these roads are practically impassable, an additional or supplementary allowance might be made available for these flooded roads. That is a point I would like to make because it was sudden damage, if you like. It is a thing that could be justified at all times. The point I am making is that even if the Parliamentary Secretary had a schedule made out, say, for the past month or perhaps longer, that the case of sudden damage, even though it did not arise until after the scheme was made out, should still be considered because the occurrence was unexpected and it would be serious for the people concerned during the winter months. Even if there was only a supplementary grant given to enable them to repair the roads temporarily until some later date when the job could be completed it would be of great value.

That is all I have to say in regard to this Vote. Again I would like to mention how much I appreciate what has been done but, like many other Deputies, I believe that in order to cope with the whole problem, a greater sum should be made available to meet all the demands. Nevertheless, I appreciate that it is a great advance in so far as rural improvement schemes are concerned that the Parliamentary Secretary has seen his way to increase them.

Captain Cowan

Listening to the debate, not only this year but in previous years, in regard to this particular Vote, I have been struck by the variety of work that comes under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary. I find on examining this whole matter of employment—which is of vital importance—that there is to some extent a considerable overlapping of functions of the ParliamentarySecretary and other Departments, particularly that of Local Government. I think that we have now reached a stage when there should be a complete reorganisation of the administrative machinery that deals with this question of employment. To some extent, a number of these relief schemes and rural improvement schemes and schemes of that kind have been developed as temporary measures for a particular purpose. I feel that we have now reached the stage when we must consider that there will have to be Government machinery to deal with the problem of unemployment and with schemes of productive work on a longterm basis. Some of the temporary schemes or relief schemes, as they have been called—perhaps improperly called—will have to be merged into the bigger machinery that I visualise. I think the work carried out by the Parliamentary Secretary is so important that instead of being controlled by a Parliamentary Secretary it should be done by another Minister. It should, in my view, be absolutely under the control of a special Minister whose functions would be entirely the provision of employment and the carrying out of schemes of work that will benefit the country as a whole.

There is one thing which I think is very important. Other countries—and particularly France—provide a certain proportion of the Budget every year for public works, and public works are the means by which employment is provided for the French people. Public works are considered so important there that no political Party or politician would make the suggestion that there should be one halfpenny reduction in the provision for public works in the annual Budget. We too will have to get into the frame of mind here that public works are absolutely essential if decent employment is to be provided for the people.

Viewing the matter in that light I regret very much the tendency that is creeping into this debate—and it has crept into the political field in recent months—towards the condemnation of certain schemes of public works that are vitally necessary. I refer particularly to schemes that have been mentionedin conjunction with the provision of employment for skilled workers in the City of Dublin. I think it is a national disservice to condemn those public works. I think every Deputy in this House should study the necessity for such public works if there is to be continuity of decent employment. I was particularly pleased when I heard that in Dublin City steps were to be taken to knock down and rebuild portion of Dublin Castle. Undoubtedly that will cost a considerable sum of money but it will give very valuable employment for a long time. We have other huge schemes that need to be carried out. We have a scheme of municipal offices that are necessary, and have been necessary for a long time. Those of us who are in Leinster House will know the inconveniences of Leinster House—the fact that there is no room where you can bring in a visitor to talk to him; no room in which you can discuss a pressing problem with a con-stituent—and we must realise that something must be done to build a new Dáil, in which there will be adequate and ample facilities for the transaction of public business.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would these suggestions not arise more appropriately on the Vote for Public Works?

Captain Cowan

Perhaps they would, but I was just trying to make my contribution in connection with all aspects of the matter and I am only going to touch on them very briefly. Unfortunately, many public works are necessary not only in the urban areas but throughout the country. We should combine here to ensure that these essential public works will be carried out under conditions that will provide a decent standard of living for the workers engaged in them. We should be unanimous on that. None of us should endeavour to obtain some narrow-minded political support by pushing this matter of town against country or country against town at a time when we should all be doing our utmost in the interests of the country as a whole.

Some waste occurs because of overlapping as between the Parliamentary Secretary's Office and the Departmentof Local Government. The Department of Local Government has enough to do in dealing with administration without entering into the question of relief schemes, employment schemes or matters of that kind. I would like to see all these things under the sole control of the Parliamentary Secretary and he should be the head of a special Department with ministerial responsibility for the purpose of dealing with these matters.

We have been faced in the corporation with the problem of providing employment for a large number of workers. We have set up a special works committee, having on it members of the council, the city manager, the deputy city engineer, and the clerk to the council. We have received every encouragement on that committee from the Government and from the Department of Local Government but, unfortunately, the machinery we want to establish in relation to these schemes does not apparently commend itself to the Department of Local Government. That is a pity because the members of that special committee are vitally concerned with schemes for the improvement of their own particular areas and they are perhaps more competent to decide the right thing to do and the right way to do it than are officials who have not had the benefit of the wider experience that elected representatives have.

I would like to see established by every local authority a works committee of the kind that has been established in Dublin for the purpose of carrying out a survey of local requirements, local amenities that should be provided and local works that should be implemented. These committees should have the assistance of competent staffs and they should work directly under the control of the Office of Public Works.

Many years of work lie ahead but that work will have to be carried out in a somewhat different manner from that in which it has been carried out hitherto. Relief schemes were originally introduced as a palliative to surmount some particular unemployment difficulties. We have had thespectacle and the experience of tired local officials, engineers and others, rushing around trying to provide an employment scheme for a certain number of people at a certain period of the year. That is not satisfactory. The best work is never done in that way to justify the money expended. The best employment conditions are not provided on such schemes.

I press very strongly for a wider approach to this problem because I am satisfied that for many years to come there will be no improvement in the standard of employment or the actual employment content except through the medium of the measures I have advocated. I have given considerable attention to this matter. I am convinced that it is only in the way I suggest we will improve our present level of employment, provide better conditions for our workers and, in the long run, benefit and enrich the country as a whole.

The Parliamentary Secretary is certainly doing an excellent job. I am anxious that his responsibility should be increased in relation to this matter of employment of a permanent nature. All that should be under his control. In Dublin councillors and members of all Parties are anxious to co-operate in having valuable constructive works carried out. The citizens of Dublin appreciate the work that is being done by the special committee to which I have referred. I will support any steps taken to enlarge the scope of the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility in order to put all these essential works on a sounder basis than that on which they have been operated for a number of years past.

Mr. Burke

I agree with what Deputy Cowan has said in relation to the administration of the Office of Public Works by the Parliamentary Secretary. He has carried out his functions in a very fair and impartial manner. I would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary having more money at his disposal and more power to deal with these very vital problems. The Government is endeavouring to meet the present unemployment positionby the introduction of more public works. The Government has given the maximum protection to agriculture and industry but, despite that, neither agriculture nor industry has proved capable of assimilating all the labour available. It is regrettable that, in relation to certain public schemes, the Opposition should sing one tune down the country and another when they come to Dublin on the theme of unemployment.

Mr. Davin

Ministers are doing the same.

Mr. Burke

It is very regrettable that that attitude should be adopted. We all realise the importance of providing work for the unemployed. Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and the various county councils are doing their best to continue housing schemes and other projects. The E.S.B. are engaged on rural electrification. Bord na Móna are carrying out turf projects. Nevertheless, all these schemes are not employing all the available labour. The Government realise the importance of providing employment and are doing their best to create it.

Out of Votes provided for the Parliamentary Secretary's office. I understand that some schemes have been submitted. I am sorry that there is no member of Dublin Corporation in the House. There is one scheme in which I was very interested for Ballyfermot. The Minister for Local Government was also very anxious that the scheme should be carried out but I understand that he has not got the co-operation that he would expect to get from the corporation; they are rather slow. I do not know whether that is the position or not but I believe it is. I seriously urge the provision of money for this purpose.

In Swords and Balbriggan it would be very desirable that schemes should be carried out in wintertime when there is not much work available on the land or in building. At that period there is usually a very large number of people unemployed. The rules governing grants should be more flexible. At present there is a lot of red tape and the grant is made on the basis of the number of unemployed the previous year. The Parliamentary Secretary should have more power and more money at his disposal so that he could say that, on the advice of the commissioners, a problem in a particulararea would be relieved by A, B or C method. Unemployment is a national problem. Everything possible should be done to relieve it.

There is a number of works which it is essential to carry out but which cannot be carried out in a piecemeal fashion. Relief works in certain areas have been well carried out. In other areas they have been very poor. There should be constructive planning. More constructive work should be done through relief grants. Sometimes these grants are used for work on roads, for instance, that could be carried out in the normal way. Relief grants should be employed for more essential work, such as the removal of dangerous corners.

I take this opportunity of publicly thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the intelligent and conscientious way in which he has conducted his office since his appointment. I appreciate that he is aware of the needs of the nation as a whole and is anxious to do all the things that we ask him to do.

Mr. Davin

Give him more money then.

Mr. Burke

We are only too anxious to give him more money. We on this side of the House are facing up to our responsibilities. We hope that in the near future the Parliamentary Secretary will have the power that we all desire that he should have to deal with the various problems that he must deal with.

Mr. Hickey

There is a good deal of unreality about all that has been said for the past hour or so about the question of unemployment and employment schemes. We all know that the Parliamentary Secretary would do what any of us are anxious to do, that is, to give all the employment that it is possible to give. Deputies have said that they would like to see him getting more money and more power. Deputy Cowan wants local committees set up and more staff engaged. I am satisfied that there is sufficient staff in the various Departments of State and in local government offices. The only handicap is the lack of money tocarry out the schemes. There is no good in trying to shirk any issue no matter how long we will be here. It is a tragic thing to see thousands of young men and girls demanding work and anxious for work while food and clothing, furniture and all the things needed in life are there to be produced, and what is keeping us from producing them? Is it not because we are devoid of the necessary powers to put men to work? There is one thing we want to realise in this House, and I am not speaking in any Party fashion now, and it is this, that the only thing that gives value to money is when human labour is applied to material. Deputies Cowan, Burke and myself could go down to-morrow morning and give a hatful of gold to the people on the plains of Kildare, but until you come to employ labour that gold will have no value.

We are listening here to talk about schemes that need to be done in this country. Housing needs to be done and we want ships. We badly want ships, and why are we not in a position to build the ships? I have heard from time to time that for every man employed in shipbuilding we would employ ten other men on different activities, and why are we tied up there, then? I could see myself in the labour exchanges in my own area when I go down there—and it is a tragic thing to see—able-bodied men willing to work. I have seen those unemployed men cycling out eight and ten miles from the city on borrowed bicycles looking for work on the new scheme. I say we should cut out all this cant and humbug about the question. We want something to be done. What is wanted to be done is that we want a Government in power and elected by the people to be in a position to see that money and credit are available for the work that is there and to produce the things that are demanded to be done. I have listened to accusations here—not accusations but comments—from the Parliamentary Secretary that he is tied up by the Minister for Finance. Why, again, is the Minister for Finance tied up? Is it not because weare not in power? Let us not be trying to deceive ourselves. The reason is that we are not in power, and I think it is very appropriate that we should mention here what the Minister for Finance said on the 28th September, 1931, when he was then in opposition, I take it, and he was dealing with the bank rate and the banking system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that cannot be discussed here on emergency relief schemes.

Mr. Hickey

I suggest that it is in order because we are dealing with the unemployed, employment schemes and the reason why we cannot get more money. We are only giving here £658,000 under the Estimate of the Parliamentary Secretary for employment schemes. That works out at about £26,000 per county in the relief of the unemployed and to do the things which Deputy Burke is anxious to see done and which I am anxious to see done. Something has to be done which will help people who are without food, people who are without clothing or without houses.

I read a statement in the paper the week before last, in the Irish Times,reporting a meeting at which the Lord Mayor of Dublin was present and Deputy Gallagher, who spoke here this evening and was talking about building all the fancy things. I would prefer Deputy Gallagher to be more practical and to come down to the things that Deputy Burke has in mind. At that meeting it was stated by a responsible person, having got it from the medical officer of health, that there were 400 families in Dublin with six persons per family living in one room; and another gentleman said that there was never so much poverty in Dublin as at the present time. Then we talk around in circles here, we pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, as if the Parliamentary Secretary was responsible for not having more money. After all, the Parliamentary Secretary is just as keen as I am about having the power that is necessary to do the things that we want done. When are we going to take it? Here is what the present Minister for Finance said in 1931:—

"The first thing that strikes me is that the Oireachtas should be convened immediately and asked to pass an Act setting up a credit tribunal composed of representatives of employers and employees in the agricultural and manufacturing industries and requiring representatives of the Standing Committee of the Irish banks to attend before it and prove, before the present increase in the bank rate becomes effective, that it is inevitable and in the general economic interests of the country. It would be a rather ironical thing if the bankers who have placed the whole savings of the community in jeopardy by their policy of the last few years were to claim that they were seeking to induce the people to entrust them again with their savings."

He has never heard this before.

Mr. Gilbride

Why did they not worry about unemployment during their three and a half years? We did not hear much about it.

Mr. Hickey

It is sufficiently serious now to see thousands of our people hungry, who want clothing and all the things of life, and where will we get the money? I am not challenging your ruling in any way but I am only dealing with the interests of the people and what the actual position is. We could go on talking here for the next three days of these schemes but we know in our hearts and souls that what is preventing us from carrying them out is that the Minister and we have no authority or power to deal with the question and the moneys that are necesessary to put the unemployed to work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should raise that on some more appropriate occasion.

Mr. Hickey

It is appropriate in all the activities of this Department and the Departments of State. I will save the time of the House if I am not allowed to proceed on that line, because I know well that the Parliamentary Secretary is as keen as I am to see the thing done, but let us not be trying to deceive ourselves by saying we can do it while we are trying to operate the present system.

Mr. Everett

I have nothing to say against the Department of Works. I appeal to them in connection with the improvement of harbours. I know that speeches were made by the Minister that there was no money available. Iam well aware that in connection with the Wicklow Harbour the Department engineers put up schemes to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The No. 2 scheme was unanimously approved by the harbour board, representative of all Parties. One of the schemes submitted for sanction by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was, in the opinion of the harbour board, not suitable for Wicklow. They have appealed for the last three or four months to accept scheme No. 2 that was submitted by the Department of Works and their engineers. If that scheme is approved, we believe it will be an improvement to the docks as the harbour is developing, big factories are there and a number of boats come in, often at the one time. We have submitted the evidence to Industry and Commerce that it is necessary to have a scheme. The scheme submitted by the Department of Industry and Commerce for the approval of the harbour board would leave us in a worse position than we are at present, where there is only one berth, and if another boat comes in she has to remain outside while the first is being discharged. Over three months we have sent up a recommendation to the Department of Industry and Commerce, and up to the present, other than asking for further particulars, we have not had any definite reply. I believe that if sanction were given to that scheme it would prove a very good thing, because it would improve and develop the harbour and it would provide more work for dockers. It would encourage other people also to make greater use of the harbour, because it would be possible to obtain a quick discharge there.

I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to use his influence on behalf of the Wicklow Harbour Board so that the scheme in question will be sanctioned and undertaken without delay. It is a scheme which is long overdue and, at the same time, it will provide much-needed employment.

Mr. Keyes

I must say that I was intrigued by the statements of Deputy Burke and I hope that I shall keepstrictly to procedure in referring to some of the points he made.

I endorse his statement about more power for the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary really represents the Minister. It is his policy that the Parliamentary Secretary has to operate and that is what either restricts or enables him to carry out the work. I think that, in recent years, the tendency of the Board of Works has been somewhat to divest themselves of authority. Minor employment schemes have practically disappeared and these have been replaced mainly, if at all, by rural improvement schemes. It has been made more and more difficult for a local authority to get works done under minor employment schemes. The system is that they are related to the unemployment content in the area in question, as disclosed by the labour exchange. There must be a certain percentage of unemployed in the area which is covered by the employment exchange. Sometimes it may be difficult to find a sufficient number of unemployed in a specific area, covered by an employment exchange, to work on a boreen or a byroad while, in an area immediately adjoining it, you would find a sufficiency of unemployed to come and do that work. That is why it is usual for the Parliamentary Secretary who is responsible to say: "You have not got a sufficient unemployment content in the area covered by the employment exchange and hence you cannot have a minor employment scheme, but it may be possible to have a rural improvement scheme." Under a rural improvement scheme for, say, the improvement of a byroad, the procedure is that the people living along the byroad subscribe a certain percentage of the total cost—I think 25 per cent.— and then the work will be carried out.

Even if a rural improvement scheme is sanctioned, what is the position? We have a scheme for a place where the volume of unemployment has been shown to be not sufficient to justify a minor relief scheme and, hence, the people who contribute towards that scheme will have the first call on the road. The point is that, in an adjoining area—which may be only a very short distance away but which is notcovered by the same employment exchange—there are sure to be unemployed people who would be glad of any work they could get. I suggest, therefore, the restoration of minor employment schemes which will be carried out free, as they used to be, by grants, to help to relieve those men in rural areas who are unemployed and who are anxious to obtain employment. Rural improvement schemes are not a proper substitute for minor employment schemes.

With the reduction of the work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act to a fifth of what it was, and with the wiping out of minor employment schemes, grave hardship is felt by certain sections of our people. As I have said, rural improvement schemes are not an adequate substitute and the position is most unsatisfactory, because the unfortunate workers have no jobs. The trouble is that, all the time, there is plenty of work crying out to be done —work on boreens, on roads and work on roads into estates. The Board of Works say that work on estates is a matter for the Land Commission and the Land Commission say that they will do it if the land is vested, but, between Herod and Pilate, the work still remains to be done and the people continue to be unemployed.

Like Deputy Burke, I suggest that the powers available to the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be exploited. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the dictation of policy and, undoubtedly, works cannot be carried out without money being available. I believe that, with a loosening by the Minister for Finance of the purse strings and with a loosening of the tightening-up in the regulations which was made recently, a great deal of work could be accomplished. I know that that is something which would give pleasure and satisfaction to the Parliamentary Secretary himself, as well as to the rest of us, and certainly it would greatly reduce the unemployment content in the rural areas.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Beegan)

A great deal has been mentioned aboutthe scarcity of money and the reduction in this Vote by £100,000. I think that I explained at the outset why this reduction was made, and the sub-heads to which it applied. These sub-heads are not administered, if you like, by my office or by the Special Employments Schemes Office; they are administered by other Departments, particularly by the Department of Local Government, and by local authorities.

Everybody has called for more money, for further schemes, and so on. They say that they want much greater amenities and that the work is most desirable. I agree that the work is very desirable, but unfortunately the question of payment comes into it. It is grand to have amenities, facilities and comforts, but it is far grander to get the other fellow to pay for them.

With regard to the £100,000 for urban employment schemes and rural employment schemes, a good deal of money has been made available by other Departments to carry out the schemes that, ordinarily, would be carried out in this way.

A considerable amount of money has been made available from the Road Fund for the improvement of our roads and no mention has been made of that fact during this debate. We have not heard about all the money that has been made available to the various county councils: they are handed over the whole Road Fund now. Furthermore, the Road Fund has been increased as a result of the increase in motor taxation. The people who were criticising the Government this evening — people such as Deputy Oliver Flanagan and other Deputies— were the very people who came into this House and objected to and voted against any increase in motor taxation. If all the roads in Offaly, Laoighis, Westmeath, Galway and everywhere else are to be brought up to the standard of trunk roads— such as was implied in the speeches which have been made—then, undoubtedly, the money must come from somewhere. We cannot have it both ways. We have to agree to the increase in taxation for that purpose or else we cannot have the work done.

Unemployment in Dublin was one of the matters which was mentioned most by Dublin Deputies, among other Deputies, in their speeches. In fact, in some cases the position was somewhat misrepresented. Deputy A. Byrne stated that no grant has yet been paid to the Dublin Corporation. That is true but, on the other hand, the corporation have been notified of the schemes which they were prepared to go on with and for which money would be made available. In the latter part of his speech Deputy A. Byrne said that he knew that the Taoiseach's word was his bond and that the money would be made available.

Deputy Gallagher and other Deputies mentioned schemes submitted to the Department of Local Government and amounting to £430,000. Before anything can be done, and before the Special Employment Schemes Office knows where it is, the schemes must be vetted and approved by the Department of Local Government. If they are approved I expect that, on the ratio mentioned, the Government will do their best to meet them, but it must be understood that the schemes must be approved.

In my opinion, a number of the schemes that have been mentioned are not schemes to be undertaken by the Special Employment Schemes Office but are, rather, schemes which come within the province of the Corporation of Dublin. I have in mind the clearing of derelict sites, the Blue Lagoon and so on. I think that there is legislation which enables the Dublin Corporation —if they provide the money—to carry on with the work of the provision of cycle parks, car parks and so forth. That is not, nor should it be, a responsibility of the Special Employment Schemes Office.

A good deal has been mentioned about the increase in unemployment, but, as Deputies know, this Employment and Emergency Schemes Office was set up for the purpose of dealing with people who were unemployed and in receipt of unemployment assistance, in the main. It was set up to help them in a critical period of the yearand also, as I mentioned in my opening statement, to rehabilitate any of those who had had a long period of unemployment and to test their willingness to work. The system has not been changed and consequently we have to deal with the situation in relation to the number on the unemployment assistance register in January of each year when the census is taken. This year, though it may be a surprise to many people, the unemployment assistance figures are not nearly as great as in previous years, and it was on that basis that the estimate for Dublin City and other urban centres was prepared. Since then, a certain situation arose in the city and, as I explained in my opening statement, the Government gave authority to bring forward relief schemes which ordinarily would be carried out from mid-November to 1st March or mid-March, and also gave the corporation to understand that a sum that would bring it up to the normal expenditure in that period would be provided at a later stage. We have not got the approved list of schemes and consequently I cannot say what that sum may be.

To go back to the beginning of the Vote, Deputy Blowick and a number of other Deputies spoke on it and talked of this big reduction made in it by Fianna Fáil this year. They mentioned the figure of some years ago, but altogether left out of consideration the fact that large sums of money which were provided in this Vote in other years had been transferred to other appropriate Departments. If we take the money provided on the various schemes for the years from 1948 onwards, it will be found that the amount of money being provided this year will compare very favourably with the amount expended during the years 1948 to 1951.

Mr. Davin

Would the Parliamentary Secretary quote the figures to support that statement?

Mr. Beegan

Would the Deputy like me to go into it in fair detail and break it down item by item under the different heads?

Mr. Davin

Can the ParliamentarySecretary justify a reduction of £100,000?

Mr. Beegan

I am talking about the expenditure, which counts a good deal more than the provision made during the year. If the Deputy had been nearly as emphatic in his protests against reduction of expenditure when the previous Government was in office, it is possible that a good deal more would have been done as regards bog development schemes, rural improvement schemes and minor employment schemes all over the country when there was definitely a cutting down on these bog development schemes. The Estimate prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1947 for 1948-49, so far as bog development schemes are concerned, was £90,000. That was almost expended that year, but in the next year the provision made was reduced to £60,000 and it was again £60,000 in 1950-51. Only when a fuel crisis threatened in respect of 1951-52 was it brought back to the figure of £90,000. I wish to inform the Deputy that the expenditure actually incurred on urban employment schemes, rural employment schemes, minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and miscellaneous schemes in 1948-49 was £611,700, and I might mention that in that year the Estimates were prepared by the Fianna Fáil Administration and operated by the inter-Party Government. For the year 1949-50, the expenditure on all the schemes I have mentioned was £484,800 and for the year 1950-51, £486,200. In the first year of the Fianna Fáil Administration in 1951-52, the expenditure was increased to £634,500 and in 1952-53 the expenditure was £724,600.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

There was more unemployment.

Mr. Davin

He suggested also, and it has been mentioned by several other speakers, that we should "soften off" with minor employment schemes. In other words, he mentioned that under the present regulations there must be a certain number in each gang, and he and other Deputies suggested that we should regulate the matter in such a way that we would take in men from other electoral divisions or else go ahead with a small gang. Of course, a small gang would mean the same amount of supervision as a fairly large sized gang, and consequently a larger portion of the expenditure would go into the pockets of the gangers and engineers and would not reach the people for whom it was intended. If we took it on the basis of taking people from adjoining electoral divisions in order to form a gang, adjoining electoral divisions could be north, south, east or west of that in which the work was being carried out. From which of them would we take these men? That is the difficulty.

Deputy O. Flanagan and a number of other Deputies suggested that there should be no such thing as an unemployment register at all. Deputy Flanagan said that there are many of our people who are too proud, because of their traditions, to go to a labour exchange to register. I do not believe that at all. I do not believe that there is 1 per cent. or even ½ per cent. of the unemployed people of this country who keep away from an employment exchange for that or any other reason. If there were no registration, I wonder what Deputy Flanagan's criticisms in this House would be like? He would tell you that people were being selected for work from the Fianna Fáil clubs. He would say that people were being selected on a political basis andbecause of their political affiliations. There would be no criterion at all in existence, if people were not obliged to register as genuine unemployed. Everyone who pleased could come forward for work and then where would we find money to provide for all of this? It would be a very difficult thing to do and furthermore it would not be at all a fair system. I think the introduction of this system of registration for employment on public works schemes of all kinds, marked a great step forward, because it removed the administration of these schemes from the atmosphere which had existed hitherto—an atmosphere of political suspicion and doubt that those who were getting employment, whether they deserved it or not, were getting it because of the influence they could exercise with a Deputy, a county councillor or somebody else who was a member of the Party responsible for the Government at the time.

I would like to be as sympathetic as possible with the ideas expressed by Deputy Blowick, but some of them were indeed very far-fetched. He talked about roads into bogs and said that even if the bogs were cut away in a few years' time nevertheless the money should be expended as it would be very useful for the Forestry Department to have good roads there when they would take over these cutaway bogs for reafforestation. I wonder if, when he was responsible for the Land Commission and the Forestry Department, he insisted that in the areas which were in their hands they should spend large sums of money in developing bogs which are not even yet vested in the tenants? He had to take the same thing into consideration just as well as I have in regard to all these matters.

Deputy Browne suggested that county councils should be permitted to pay local contributions towards the cost of rural improvement schemes. The county councils have, under recent legislation, adequate powers where they consider a road to be of sufficient public utility to take it over, repair it and maintain it. Rural improvement schemes are confined to roads which serve two or more people and whichperhaps would not be taken over by a local authority at any time. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better that they should be restricted to roads to which rural improvement schemes were intended to apply rather than to have a contribution from county councils. I do not believe there is a county council which would be so generous in regard to that. There would be a lot of selection and examination if a county council were to go into the matter. The county council, of course, would want to have the roads brought up to county council standards. They might want to have a 25-feet carriage-way. If we were to have anything like that introduced it would delay many of the very worth-while schemes that could be proceeded with if that kind of thing were not introduced. In my opinion, it cannot be introduced because it will only hold up the work.

The Deputy also mentioned cases where persons living along roads have to contribute towards the cost although other people have to travel on these roads to get to their turbary plots. In all cases of that kind the Special Employment Schemes Office take into consideration the number of other people who use a road that leads to a bog and they scale down the contribution very considerably for the people who are directly concerned. I think that everybody has experience of that, particularly in the counties where rural improvement schemes are being carried out to any great extent.

Deputy Palmer spoke about a continuation of uncompleted works. It has been the general practice in making allocations to take cognisance of uncompleted works, based, of course, on the report of the local inspector. If he reports that a work has been uncompleted and that it is necessary to get a further grant for the carrying out of that work, I would say that in nearly 99 cases out of a 100 his recommendation is accepted in the office.

The Deputy also referred to the efficiency of workmen employed on minor employment schemes. In fact, he stated that some of them were very inefficient. I do not know what he had in mind when he made that statement,but I do know that the Special Employment Schemes Office have no evidence to suggest that the standard or output of the men employed on minor employment schemes in Kerry is below that which would be required on other work of a similar type. It is the aim of the officials in charge of these schemes that the standard of efficiency should not be less than on other work of the same kind. If the Deputy is aware of specific instances in which the output of workmen appears to have been insufficient, the office would be glad to be furnished with the particulars and I guarantee that they will be examined and investigated.

Mention was also made of hardship due to the exclusion of works such as bridges that serve one family. Rural improvement schemes are intended for two or more families and not for one family, and I think there is ample provision made by another Department for carrying out work where only one family is concerned as far as the erection of a bridge or the making or repairing of a road or avenue is concerned. Certainly it does not appear to me that there should be any change made whereby the Special Employment Schemes Office could carry out rural improvement schemes where only one person is concerned.

Deputy Palmer on the one side and Deputy Flynn on the other side, speaking for the County Kerry, referred to the appointment of gangers. I am not going to be embroiled in any local Party politics in County Kerry.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The whole House will support you in that.

Mr. Beegan

But for the benefit of Deputies I should like to mention that in a number of counties the Special Employment Schemes Office took over in recent years the administration of rural improvement schemes, minor employment schemes and bog development schemes. As is well known to Deputies, these schemes were administered previously by the various county councils and their staffs. When they were being taken over—my own countywas one of the first—the director of the Special Employment Schemes Office notified his staff that they were to get in touch with the county engineer and find out if he could recommend a number of gangers who had experience of that particular type of work. That was done in County Galway and also in County Kerry, County Clare, County Roscommon, County Mayo and, I think, the North Riding of Tipperary. On the recommendation, in the main, of the county engineers or their assistants who had experience of supervising the work the gangers were recruited. I do not think there has been any change since then or that there have been any dismissals except in cases of glaring inefficiency, and I think they are very few and far between.

Deputy Palmer also suggested that the beneficiaries should be allowed to appoint the gangers on rural improvement schemes. The office has never accepted that the beneficiaries should be allowed to have anything to do with the appointment of gangers or have the appointment of their own gangers and I hold with the view of the office in regard to that. I believe it is better, if it is possible to find an experienced man, to bring in a man from a distance rather than to have any of the beneficiaries given the supervision of a rural improvement scheme. In fact, I am always in favour, if it is possible— in some cases it is not—of bringing a man from a distance of five miles, because I have long experience of gangs of men and of work being carried out by the Congested Districts Board, the Estates Commissioners, the Land Commission and other Departments. It is a case of familiarity breeding contempt in many instances. The local man might be the very best man for the job and carry it out with great skill, but, at the same time, very often there is a certain amount of resentment and, perhaps, a good deal of abuse if he asserts his authority to see there is discipline and that the work is being carried out properly. For that reason, I am all in favour of bringing the ganger over a certain distance. I do not believe in having a gangeremployed within one, two or three miles of where he resides. It is a good rule, where it can be applied, to bring them from outside the five mile limit, the limit prescribed so far as it is possible to be observed by the Special Employment Schemes Office.

I explained how the gangers were recruited in the first instance. I have stated that in my opinion 99 per cent. of them have given satisfactory service and, perhaps, even a higher percentage than that. Any other gangers that are required are being recruited. The instructions to the local inspectors in all cases are that preference should be given to persons who have previously been employed on similar schemes and who have given proof of their competence and trustworthiness. Where a suitable ganger with previous experience is not available, preference is given to any suitable person submitted by the employment exchange, and if no suitable person is available from that source, the inspector is free to appoint the most suitable and competent person available from any other source provided that (1) if there are two or more equally competent and suitable persons, preference will be given to the person who appears to be in the most necessitous circumstances; (2) other things being equal, Irish-speaking gangers are given preference, particularly in the Gaeltacht; and (3) favourable consideration is given to demobilised members of the Defence Forces.

That is the system by which the gangers are recruited, and I think it is a very fair system with which nobody can find fault. If any cases are brought to my notice of a ganger showing favour or trying to show favour or discriminating as between one person and another, I can tell you that I will have that investigated by the director and his staff. It will get a very thorough investigation, too.

Deputy Murphy of West Cork said that we were sending out notices more frequently now than in the past informing people that the work applied for was not suitable and did not justify an expenditure of public funds. We are not doing any such thing. There is no truth in the suggestion.It is an exaggeration. The office judge a scheme on its own merits and, where a letter is issued, it may be taken that the office consider the scheme to be uneconomic in itself and that they would not be prepared to carry it out in any circumstances.

In regard to the rural improvement schemes, it was mentioned, I think, by Deputy Murphy, that contributions in kind should be accepted. He suggested materials and free labour. That would be impracticable because you could not compel beneficiaries to provide free labour. If eight people turned up one morning for that particular day's work it might happen that there would be only five of them the next morning. You could have no proper system of carrying on the work if you were to have it on that basis.

So far as materials are concerned, it has often been suggested to me in my own constituency that there was suitable material quite close to a particular road and that it was waste of money to transport material over a long distance. The inspector takes all that into consideration. In the first instance, he takes into consideration the type of material he requires for the particular road. He wants to have a particular kind of gravel for that road which is not, perhaps, the type of gravel that is convenient. In the second place, he often finds it is much more economic to get contractors to bring that gravel over a distance and dump it on the road than employ the men who would ordinarily be on the job working under a ganger, to employ them in a pit even if it was only 300 yards away from where the scheme was located because, when material is brought by a contractor, he has to supply his own men and lorry. He brings the material and dumps it on the road. In that instance, the ganger has constant supervision over all his gang on the road, while, if he had them in two different places, he could not supervise them all at the one time. There would be divided supervision in that case. That is another reason why sometimes, even although it would not be free and even were it free, it would be cheaper in the long run to bring the gravel from adistance and get a contractor to take it there by lorry.

Deputy Murphy also mentioned that it would be most desirable, where minor relief schemes are carried out, to have it on a rotational basis. The rotational basis was in operation here for a number of years and there were very strong criticisms of that scheme. It was altered and I think that the alteration has proved much more satisfactory than the rotational system. The giving of three days to one set of men and knocking them off and then giving three days to another is, in my opinion, not satisfactory. It is better, anyhow, to give them one week.

That was the viewpoint of my predecessors when they changed it and I do not propose to go back to the rotational system. I should like Deputy Murphy to bear in mind that if a scheme is likely to continue for a relatively long period it is provided that the gangs should be changed at the end of each period of six weeks. That is about the best we can do. I think that would be more satisfactory than having the old system that was so much criticised in this House.

It was mentioned in many instances useful schemes had been held up because of the fact that you meet an individual who is not willing to sign the consent form. It has been suggested that compulsory powers should be taken in that case. We find so many areas where there are no difficulties of that kind whatsoever and no objection that it is much better to go on with the limited amount of money we have at our disposal and carry out the schemes for which we can get the consent voluntarily and without objection than to recommend to the Government —I doubt if this or any other Government would do it—to have compulsory powers brought into existence in order to compel people to surrender what to them, perhaps, may appear a right.

In connection with works of this kind, you may find that a landholder, whose land has to be encroached on for the widening of a road or something of that kind, will object, and, perhaps, would have a right to do so.We find that, in nearly all these cases, if some of the local people interested approach the person who is objecting—his objection may be due to some petty local jealousy—and talk to him in a reasonable way very often he will prove amenable and will agree to sign the consent form. But, whether the consent form is signed or not, if the widening of a road means that an objector's land has not to be encroached upon, that does not mean that the work is held up. Our people go on with the work whether the person signs the consent form or not.

Deputy Flynn of Kerry wants me to proceed with the rural improvement schemes. We are proceeding with them as rapidly as we can all over the country. We have a huge number of applications. In some instances the local contribution has been forwarded. At any rate, when we get the amount of money provided for in the Estimate to cover these and other approved schemes, even those for which the local contribution has not yet come to hand, there will be no delay whatever in proceeding with them. I may say that there has not been any delay.

There were a great number of matters mentioned by other Deputies. Many of them were not relevant to this Vote but were concerned with other Departments. Deputy O. Flanagan, as usual, painted a very doleful picture of the country, particularly of his own constituency and of the country in general. He talked about the amount of poverty that existed and said that nothing was being done. He also talked about the huge amount of unemployment in Laois-Offaly. I can hardly understand how there can be unemployment there. There may be some unemployment in the towns. In Offaly, there are not very big towns, except Tullamore. It is a fairly large sized town, but I should point out that a big number of works are being carried out in that area. I do not think that the Brosna drainage scheme has been fully completed. I also know that Bord na Móna are carrying out some very big schemes there. I cannot understand, therefore, how, in these circumstances, local people can be unemployed in view of the fact thatpeople are coming up from other counties to Offaly, Laois and Kildare to work with Bord na Móna. It may be that you have a type of people there for whom employment cannot be found under the Special Employment Schemes Office. I am referring to craftsmen and people of that kind who, as a result of the machine age, are now unable to procure suitable employment. I do not know of any other type of men, willing to work, who would not be able to find employment with Bord na Móna. I am almost certain that Bord na Móna would be inclined to give preference to local people rather than to outsiders from Galway, Mayo, Clare and elsewhere who are going up there. I have already dealt with the question the Deputy raised about the condition of the roads in the turfproducing counties. I think that a good deal has been done about that.

Deputy Davin said that I could not justify the reduction of £100,000 in the Estimate. I think I indicated in my opening statement the reasons for the reduction, and pointed out that there was really no reduction in expenditure nor is there likely to be. Deputy Cowan spoke about a considerable amount of overlapping by Departments in the carrying out of schemes. Perhaps that is so, but it is something that I have no control over. I am responsible only for the work done by the Special Employment Schemes Office. Deputy Hickey spoke about more money being required and said it was the financial system that was responsible for the present position. Well, I am not competent to go into that question. I am not a financial expert or wizard.

Mr. Hickey

Neither am I.

Mr. Beegan

I believe that people who have examined that question through glasses as rose-coloured as either Deputy Hickey or I would wish, have found it difficult, if not impossible, to change the financial system.

Mr. Hickey

They have never tried.

Mr. Beegan

I cannot understand Deputy Keyes making the statement that the minor employment schemeshave almost disappeared. I do not think they have, and the figures which I gave to the House show that we spent as much money on them last year as in any previous year. There has been no cutting down in the provision for minor employment schemes this year. The figure is the same in this year's Estimate as it was in last year's, namely £120,000. The Deputy also mentioned something about old cranks not agreeing to make a contribution to rural improvement schemes. I know you will find such people, but I do not think there are very many of them. The fact, at any rate, is that we have enough schemes to absorb all the money that we have and even more money than we are getting, schemes in respect of which there is no objection by anybody. In fact, the people are only too delighted to help. As an instance of how anxious people are to help, I know of cases of this kind occurring. You have perhaps three, four or five individuals in poor areas living a big distance in from a road to be improved willing to make a contribution, while the people living nearer to the road were reluctant to do so. I have known individuals, not well off by any means and living a greater distance in from the road, putting up as much as £43 and £45, while the others, nearer to the road, just put up £15 or £20 between them. You have that spirit as well as the old crank spirit. It is an indication of what people are prepared to do in connection with these schemes.

I think that, as far as this Vote is concerned, the Special Employment Schemes Office was well worthy of the compliments that were paid to it by many of the Deputies who spoke in this debate. I have explained the position as best I could. I explained it fully and did not conceal anything, and I ask the House to give me this Vote.

Motion to refer back the Estimate put and negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 27 Oct 1953