Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 May 1956

Vol. 156 No. 11

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

I just wish to corroborate previous speakers in regard to the heavy burden that must be carried by local county councils and local authorities in regard to roads, and to point out that, in addition to all the roads now being carried in the county programme, there are many counties, such as my own and along the western seaboard generally, with a very large mileage of roads which the county council do not maintain or repair and for which they have not got any funds to do anything about them. We find that, in times gone by, the only possible hope for these roads was through this fund before us here to-day.

I want to make it clear that, in looking at the financial provisions for the coming year under this Vote, we find that the overall financial position for the coming financial year shows a net increase of £6,000 odd. When you consider that net increase of £6,000 on the total sum of £700,000, it can be seen that that increase is not going to make any impression because of the higher cost of doing the work in the coming year as against last year. When we look further, we realise that this little increase of £6,000 is really not an actual increase as far as getting work done is concerned, but, in fact, is an increase in salaries, wages, incidental expenses, telephone charges and telegram charges. We then see that, in fact, during the coming financial year we will have exactly the same amount of money with which to do all the work we want to do throughout the country and that that money in the year to come will actually get less work done, due to increased costs, than the same amount did last year.

We can see for ourselves that our position in regard to these roads done under rural improvement, minor employment and bog development schemes, is that the money available for the coming 12 months will, in fact, do much less work than the amount of work we got done under this heading last year. I feel that that is a retrograde step and that it is neglecting something which is a vital link for the people of rural Ireland who have not got the services of county roads and who do not get any money from the county council to look after these roads serving their homes in the more remote districts of the country.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he has allowed himself to be pushed into in this case and to consider that he has the backing of the members on this side of the House, and quite a number on his own side of the House if, even at this late stage, he looks for further money for this office in order to do the rural improvement and minor employment schemes about which we are concerned. He has the backing of the vast majority of the members of this House in getting money for that very desirable job of work which is being carried on over the years and which we want to see carried on at a greater pace in the year to come rather than at last year's pace.

I should also like to follow up what Deputy Beegan has said in regard to rural improvement schemes. Surely something further could be done in regard to these schemes? We have at the moment many roads which serve large numbers of people. These roads are not a charge on the county council, but the council may, because of their nature, improve them; and in many cases, whether they have the money or not, they must take over the roads, do them and maintain them. If we try to get a rural improvement grant for such roads, we are up against a certain difficulty. There may possibly be 40 people living on a road and, in addition, the road may be used by the public generally for other purposes. In that case, we find it almost impossible to get the local contribution that is asked for. In some cases, even if the grant is available, we find it impossible to get an unknown number of people, perhaps, to contribute their share to the local contribution in order to qualify for the grant.

Deputy Beegan said that he felt, as I do and as many others do, that, in such cases as that, where the local authority believes that the doing of such a road would be of benefit to the public generally, and where it is difficult to get the local contribution, then, if the council so thinks fit, they should be empowered either to pay part of the local contribution, or all of it, if they think it is of outstanding importance that the road should be done. I know quite a few such jobs which fell through because of certain difficulties.

I think it is a pity that should happen, but, human nature being what it is, it is really impossible in a large number of cases to get each person concerned to put down the money in equal amounts for a job which may benefit one slightly more than another. The usual comment by one or two of the people concerned will be: "It will not do me much good. I did without it up to this and I can do without it now." Very often, one will find that the real reason for this lack of co-operation is that the person who does not want to co-operate has that idea and feels that somebody else who lives further down, and whom he does not particularly like, will benefit more than he will.

That situation should not be allowed to continue and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary as has been suggested to him before, that the regulation should be changed, so that the local authority may, if they think fit, contribute the local contribution for any of these necessary works, such as the improvement of cul-de-sac roads serving quite a few of the public. In addition to that, I suggest that these roads, having been contributed to in part by the local authority, should then be handed over to the local authority, from the point of view of their repair and maintenance in the future.

In answer to Deputy Palmer, who put up the case that in his county— and this happens in other counties, too—they have more roads than they can look after from a financial point of view, I suggest that not only should the council be empowered to take them over after they have been done under a rural improvement scheme, but there should, at the same time, be a commensurate increase in their maintenance road grants from the appropriate Department, namely, Local Government, to cover the maintenance of any such roads they may take over in any particular year.

That is not a new departure. It is not a new suggestion. It is an accepted article of policy, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and it was published as such by us during the last local government elections. We make a present of that item of our policy to the present Minister, the present Parliamentary Secretary and his Government. We would suggest that, despite the fact that it is a Fianna Fáil sponsored suggestion and a Fianna Fáil item of policy, that will not make it any the less useful to the people generally, should the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary think it worth their while to incorporate it in their policy. As far as we are concerned, we will give him all the support he requires to get these provisions through, in order to give the people in the more remote rural areas a service they do not now enjoy and cannot enjoy under our present system of road maintenance and repair.

In relation to minor employment and bog schemes, again all I can say is that the amount shown in the Book of Estimates is exactly similar to the amount provided last year. That being so, we shall have a lesser mileage of bog road schemes and fewer minor improvement schemes in the current 12 months since the amount of money will not go as far, because of increased costs. I know, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows, since he, too, comes from the West, that apart from there not being enough money last year, there will be much too little this year. We should get much more money now for these jobs than we have been getting in the past. We want more bog roads done and we want more minor employment schemes throughout the whole western region, right down from Donegal to Kerry. We will not have that extra work in the present financial year, since the provision is identical with that of last year.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has a very strong case now to go back to his colleagues—I am sure many of them hold the same views as I am expressing here—and tell them that the money is not sufficient in the current financial year. Any addition that is made will not only be advantageous in the making and repairing of bog roads and carrying out minor schemes of drainage, but will, at the same time, provide in the poorer districts and in the congested areas that much-needed employment during the coming 12 months.

I come from a county in which we have a good deal of unemployment. The other afternoon I happened to be where the unemployed were signing on for unemployment assistance. In a small parish in the North of Donegal, I found no less than 300 able-bodied young men signing for unemployment assistance in the month of May, 1956. There are no schemes in operation in that parish at the moment, despite the fact that many of the people who were signing on for unemployment assistance live in the most backward and out of the way places, with no proper access to their homes.

Surely cognisance should be taken of as many as 300 able-bodied young men signing on for unemployment assistance in a small parish in rural Ireland. That position could be a good deal, if more money was provided under this Estimate. Apparently nothing is taken into consideration, so far as these people are concerned. What I saw happening represents the 300 that have remained. At least another 600 born in the same parish are to-day over in England and Scotland and Wales. Some of them may come back. Most of them will not come back, and the danger is that most of the 300 left behind signing on for unemployment assistance will go, too, if they see no hope held out to them at home.

Much could be done under this Vote and the Parliamentary Secretary could do a good deal for these people. I have only instanced that parish. The same story can be told of every other parish down the western coastline from Donegal to Kerry. The same, or relative, figures could be quoted. Yet, instead of extra provision being made to cater for that situation, we find exactly the same provision being made as was made last year.

I have already pointed out that that money will not go so far. It will not provide as much work. Indeed, it will give less work to a lesser number of people for a shorter space of time. Surely such a retrograde step is bound to have repercussions. I understand that, in order to induce people to avail of rural improvement schemes, towards which a contribution ranging from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the cost is usually asked from the beneficiaries, the people contributing get preference so far as work on such schemes is concerned. I think that is a very good idea for two reasons: one is that it induces the people to put up the local contribution and co-operate with other members of the community in the district; secondly, the biggest inducement of all is that the beneficiaries and the contributors are assured of work on the job, and, apart from the amount they may earn, they are assured, when they are actually engaged on the job, that the job will be done properly.

I wonder whether or not that is the case at the moment, and whether we can take it that, in future, when we are asking people to come together and trying to encourage them to contribute to their own rural improvement scheme, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that they will be given work on that scheme and be able to work on the scheme, so that they can see that the work is done properly and that full value is being got for the money expended.

To many people, that might not seem very important, but, to my mind, it is an important matter. I have encouraged people to go in for rural employment applications rather than minor employment schemes. I find that it is an encouragement to them to know that they can get work, if they contribute to these schemes. That fact would be the greatest asset in getting their co-operation and would have a much greater effect in that way than anything else I know of. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question and deal with the matter in that way.

I do not think that there is much more that I have to add on this matter, except to say that we on this side of the House are very anxious about the people of rural Ireland and to see that more money is allocated to ensure that necessary work can be done to lighten the hardships and make easier the lives of the people of rural Ireland, so that they will be encouraged to stay there and not emigrate, as so many of their families have done before. We will give the Parliamentary Secretary every co-operation and support in any efforts he may make to secure more money for this necessary work of rural improvement, minor development, and bog development.

I regard this Vote as important so far as many areas of this country are concerned, and particularly the more remote and isolated districts. I have indeed been very disappointed by the amount which is being made available. I think it should be much greater. A sum of £700,000 for the work which has to be carried out under this Vote is far too inadequate, having regard to the general value that accrues to the beneficiaries of the schemes and the different developments. Undoubtedly, it is hard to over-estimate the importance of this work, so far as these rural districts are concerned. Roads that were previously impassable have, as a result of the grants given from this Vote, been made quite passable, and people living along these roadways have now the advantage that they can bring lorries and farming machinery and equipment right up to their out-offices. Previously, they had not these facilities.

I must say I am not too satisfied with the manner in which some of these schemes are carried out. I support wholeheartedly the case made by Deputy Blaney with regard to the contributors getting a preference for work on the rural improvement schemes. I definitely understood that the beneficiaries would get preferential treatment in the matter of employment and Deputy Blaney has, I think, expressed fully the advantages which would come from such an arrangement. If the people contributing to the cost of the work were given employment on the schemes, it would not only give them an opportunity of recovering their contribution, but it would be an assurance that the work done would be of the very highest standard. We have great difficulties in my constituency, so far as that is concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary has informed me that contributors are entitled to preferential treatment in the matter of employment, but his officers in West Cork are not implementing that. Over the past year, and even in recent months, contributors to these works have been refused work on the schemes, and I am surprised to find that the Parliamentary Secretary has one point of view in that regard and that his officers have another. It is about time we had that position clarified. Indeed, because contributors did not get work on particular schemes, those schemes had been abandoned in the West Cork area, and I blame the Parliamentary Secretary's office for that position. When people make contributions, the least they are entitled to is that they themselves will get work on these roads, so that they can recoup themselves for the money they have put up by way of contribution. That is one matter about which I am not satisfied and it is one which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in West Cork. If the Parliamentary Secretary makes inquiries, he will quickly become aware of the number of schemes which have been abandoned because the contributors were not given work on them.

We were told by the office of the Parliamentary Secretary that work was made available to those on the employment exchange register and that the man in receipt of the highest amount of unemployment assistance should get first preference, when work is available. That seemed a very reasonable attitude, but when I went into West Cork, I found on an island scheme which was a minor employment scheme that the man with the lesser amount of unemployment benefit was working there, while two men in receipt of higher benefits were getting no employment whatever. I called to the exchange to make sure that my facts were correct, and, when I found they were, I asked why that man should get work in preference to the other two. I was told that the matter would be investigated and later I was informed that the reason this man was taken on was that he has some special knowledge of the work.

I know all these people concerned and I know that the man who got the job had no special knowledge whatever, and the only special thing he had was "pull". That "pull" obtains in West Cork in the matter of getting employment from this office. We cannot have it both ways. This is State employment given by State moneys and we should see to it that the money is expended on the people who need it. The Parliamentary Secretary should see to it that the money provided under this Vote is used impartially and fairly. I have had reason to complain on this Vote in past years. Some of the allegations which I made were found to be proved and well-founded when they were specially investigated.

The Parliamentary Secretary should take cognisance of the position. Despite all this, I have a reasonably high regard for the Parliamentary Secretary. I think he is not taking sufficient notice of what some people under his command——

The Parliamentary Secretary is the person responsible to this House and all blame, if there be blame, should be directed towards the Parliamentary Secretary.

I am putting that blame on the Parliamentary Secretary, but I have in mind persons——

The Parliamentary Secretary is the person responsible to this House and all these charges should be directed towards him.

Let me have them now.

I am sick and tired of giving them to the Parliamentary Secretary. The one I have instanced just now is where he told me that this fellow, who was not entitled to the employment but got preference over the many who are entitled to it, had some special knowledge. It is a very handy excuse. He is not living too far away from me and I do not know of any special knowledge he has over the others and neither do his neighbours. I inquired particularly as to his qualifications.

What sort of knowledge?

In dealing with rural improvements schemes we find a tendency on the part of the Department's officer who reports on these schemes to reject a number of schemes put up to the Special Employment Schemes Office. A number of these applications have been rejected, usually on the ground that the work benefits only one family and that its utility would not be commensurate with the cost of carrying it out. That excuse has been given regarding so many of these schemes that I have taken steps to investigate a number of them myself where the reply came from the Parliamentary Secretary's office that only one family would benefit and, in cases where more than one family would benefit, that the general utility of the work would not be commensurate with the cost.

I think these reports are false, are not based on facts, and are not carrying out the terms of the Act. According to the leaflet which is sent out with the application form, any scheme which benefits two or more farmers is entitled to consideration. If the cost is within reason, there is an obligation on the State under existing legislation to carry out the scheme. Now, we have schemes benefiting three, four or more, down in West Cork that have been rejected. I have a bag full of them now, but it is very hard to get anything done about it. However, it is a matter for consideration. Where a number of schemes are rejected and where complaints are made by public representatives and by the people themselves, there should surely be some obligation on the Special Employment Schemes Office to send down some investigator to ascertain whether or not the reasons for disallowing these schemes are justified. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do that. It is a reasonable request.

Where schemes are rejected on one ground or another and where it is contended there are no good grounds for the objections, I should be glad if some superior officer were sent down to see the position for himself and to decide whether the junior officer's report is in accordance with the facts.

For some years past, a large number of people have been unemployed in the Berehaven Peninsula in West Cork. A number of schemes which were submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary's office for consideration as minor employment schemes are not being dealt with under that heading. They have, however, been dealt with on a contributory basis under the heading of rural improvement schemes. I thought the position was that where in an electoral division there was a sufficient number of unemployed men to warrant the implementation of the scheme by the Special Employment Schemes Office the cost would be borne by the State and no contributions would be asked from the local people. That is not the case here. The vast majority of the schemes from these areas—schemes which I thought would come under the heading of minor employment schemes —are transferred over as rural improvements schemes. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify that point for me when he is replying because I do not quite follow the reasons for such action and neither do the people who make the applications understand how it is that they cannot qualify for full cost grants.

There is a good deal of agitation on the part of beneficiaries when they contribute towards a scheme, and when the work is carried out reasonably well, to have it maintained. Of course, that is not part of the business of the Parliamentary Secretary's office but there are many public representatives on county councils and other bodies who believe that a greater measure of co-operation might exist between the Special Employment Schemes Office and the local authorities throughout the country so that, when these schemes are carried out and a good deal of money has been expended on them, there would be some understanding between the Special Employment Schemes Office and the county council concerned with a view to the maintenance of the particular scheme. Unfortunately, particularly in so far as drainage works in nine or ten years' time are concerned, the position will be just as if the work had never been carried out by reason of the fact that no money for maintenance was available.

I have raised on other occasions the matter of objections to particular schemes. I do not know the reasons for objections in other counties but I have a fair knowledge of the reasons in my constituency of West Cork. I regret very much to state that objections to the implementation of schemes by particular parties are in the main due to spite motives. A scheme may perhaps benefit six or seven people. Unfortunately, maybe one of the six or seven persons is not too kindly disposed towards his neighbours. If he has a small piece of land adjoining the stream or the roadway, as the case may be, he would be in a position to hold up the scheme indefinitely.

I think—and it was envisaged under the Local Authorities (Works) Act— there is something in the present legislation governing these schemes to the effect that when a person objects to a scheme the onus and the obligation should be put on him or her to give his or her reasons for the objection. There are people whose fences adjoin the roadway and who would not be interfered with at all but, just because their land adjoins the roadway, they can hold up progress. Some special legislation should be brought in to overcome these objectors. If a man has a reasonable objection, well and good, but if the objection is not reasonable, and is made from spiteful motives, the work should be carried out, whether he likes it or not. I am not advocating interfering with private property, but there is a substantial number of people throughout the country suffering from these objectors. A Deputy from Donegal has stated the position as far as his own county is concerned and the same applies to my constituency in West Cork.

I do not intend to delay the House much longer, but I cannot speak too highly of these schemes. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the people in my area will get reasonable consideration and that schemes which were disallowed, and which it was claimed were disallowed wrongly, will be re-examined, not by the local officer but by an officer superior to him. I would also suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should revert to the practice of giving contributors preference for work. I think that is a definite step in the right direction.

As far as employment on the ordinary schemes is concerned, and particularly the employment of gangers, the Parliamentary Secretary should take more care and be more cautious about who is employed and who is not employed. My case is that they should be dealt with impartially. They are all workers. It is difficult for a Deputy, when a man comes along and brings it home to you that he has been discriminated against. We have to take cognisance of such complaints and it is our duty and obligation to pass them on to the proper authority. I have no doubt that the present Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to rectify these matters.

In conclusion, I would appeal to him to try to get a little more money, if not this year, at least next year. The money allocated from 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, would not cover the number of schemes already submitted to the office. I also think it is out of place that such a delay should take place between the date of application for a scheme and the date of implementation. Usually, it is now about 20 months from the date of application to the date of implementation, but when these schemes started first, the delay was only about six months. It is gradually growing longer. If a man applies for a rural improvement scheme in this month of May, he will be very lucky if the scheme is implemented by December, 1957. I do not see any reason for such delays. If sufficient money is not made available this year, I do not see why it could not be got for such useful work in future years. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to increase the allocation under this heading in the forthcoming year.

I should like to start off by saying that I agree with Deputy Murphy as regards rural improvement schemes. We have the same situation in the West of Ireland, where a man who is ill disposed enough can block a whole scheme. I think it is about time that some legislation was introduced to deal with that point. Where a majority of the people living on a road are agreeable to have the road done, I do not think it fair that any one man should be allowed to hold it up. I have had different experiences of that. I have experience of a case in which everybody agreed and the money was collected, and this particular man was not even asked to contribute. Yet, after the money was sent up to the office, he came along and blocked the road, and the money had to be sent back to the poor people who had to remain in the muck and dirt, because he took up this attitude.

It has been suggested that the county councils should be allowed to contribute 25 per cent. I have an open mind on that matter, but I think it is a very good idea to allow the people to do the work themselves. In the old days, it was understood that one of the men who would benefit by the work should be allowed to be the ganger. When a man is working for himself, he will do a better job of it.

Surely you do not want me to interfere. That is a job for the engineer.

I think the rule was changed. I remember that, in the old days, one of the people connected with the road and who subscribed to the work was allowed to be the ganger. I think that was a good system. I think such a man had more interest in seeing that the work was done properly.

Whether he had experience or not.

There is not a whole lot of experience needed in making a bit of a road. We all had to start, and I have seen men who had little experience taken and put in over the heads of men who were old road makers. They had to put up with it. I think that a man who is using a road will have much more interest in that road than any outsider. The making of a road does not take very long and there is always the engineer to come along and tell them what to do. I would not say that a great deal of education is required. I know that I never learned it at school, and I had to do it.

The point I really want to make is with regard to the amount of money voted to this work. Everybody knows that the cost of labour and materials has gone up considerably and still the amount of money voted for the work is reduced. I have the utmost sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. I know he is not accountable or responsible for this. If we have a Minister for Finance who wants to economise— and this applies to every Government —this is not the job to economise on. A sum of £100 to-day will not do as much work as £20 did five or six years ago, and, instead of giving more, you are giving less. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to insist on the Minister for Finance giving a fair amount for these works. They are works that are very useful. At the present time, the price of coal is £10 a ton, but bog roads are in a deplorable condition, and the Parliamentary Secretary can make a good case to the Minister for Finance, because the people desire those roads. The day is gone when a man will go with a bag on his back into a bog to delve there and bring out turf. If the money were spent on these roads, it would be money well spent and money usefully spent. We hear a lot of talk about the flight from the land and about giving amenities to our people. One way of doing something for the people is to improve the condition of the bog roads and the byroads, and, in employing money on such schemes, we are putting the money to the best possible use. If we make the roads for the people, they will be enabled to cut their turf and have the turf, not only for their own use but for sale in the towns.

The reason I rose to speak on the Estimate is that I believe the amount voted is too small. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary. He has my sympathy. I am sure he would be happier if he were handing out £1,000,000 more than he is handing out, but he wants the support of the people who are behind him to make the money available. I believe he would have that support, especially from rural Deputies and those Deputies who go into bogs themselves. It is up to them to see that, no matter what reductions are effected, they will not take place in this connection. It is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to make a fight for a bigger sum of money. I conclude by wishing the Parliamentary Secretary luck in the work he is carrying out, for, as well as being useful to the people, it will give employment.

The general complaint heard from all sides of the House seems to be that we have not got enough money to put roads of the type this Vote covers in proper order. It is my view that we have not got enough money. Any Government we had up to date failed to make sufficient money available to solve this problem, even in a small way. Deputies from the rural areas seem to always be in the position of begging for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table. If Dublin City, Cork City or some other city in Ireland wants millions of pounds for some project or other, they have no difficulty in getting it, because the vast majority of the Deputies of this House come from the cities. Then we hear of commissions being set up to inquire why people are leaving the land. We hear of new Government Departments being set up. It is all nonsense to treat the people living in the rural areas in this way. In expressing that view, I seem to be repeating a lot of what has been said already.

It is a deplorable state of affairs that the people who really count, the farming community, the producers of food and wealth, and the working people are treated in such a way. Compare their lot with the people who work from 9 a.m. in the morning until 5 o'clock, with snacks and lunches in between. They have television, water and so on. They can get any amenities they want at any time. Whenever the poor man wants anything, he is told that the money is not available, or that it cannot be got. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a member of my own Party, to get a little bit tougher in his office, to start throwing his weight about. He should remind the Minister for Finance that it is his responsibility to make money available for important and urgent works of the kind I mention. He should consider, in particular, the trials and difficulties of the farming community in endeavouring to get farm produce off their land, without having any facilities for doing so.

Turf is used extensively in rural areas, and, to a certain degree, in the cities. It proved to be an important national fuel during the period of the emergency. That being so, the development of roads to bogs should be very favourably considered. It is a much better proposition from the national point of view to make our fuel available to our own people than to send millions of pounds across the water for coal. The position now seems to be that there is great difficulty about getting sufficient supplies of coal from Great Britain. Be that as it may, while we have our own fuel, we should at least provide £500 or £1,000 in connection with bog roads. That would be a far healthier investment from the national point of view.

There are people in the rural areas drawing the dole. These people would much prefer to work for three or four days a week for proper wages than to draw the dole and do no work of any kind. We in Mayo have a very great mileage of roads of the kind I mentioned. We have also a lot of very fine scenery around Achill, Ballycroy, and in my own native district of Foxford. The scenery in those areas is rugged, with lakes and rivers which appeal to all types of holiday makers. Unfortunately, tourists are discouraged from going to these areas on account of the neglect of the roads over a long number of years. Again, that is very bad from the national point of view.

Any time now we will hear a great sing-song about An Tóstal. Flags will be waved and bands will be brought out and a great song and dance will be made about the importance of An Tóstal from the national point of view. The things tourists like to have when they come to a country are good roads. The roads are not good in our county. Evidently, from the speeches of the other Deputies, there is a similar plight in other counties. We should have a more sensible approach to these problems and we should not try to deceive ourselves by endeavouring to deceive the people outside. I think the sum of money provided is in the neighbourhood of £700,000, but, having regard to the increases in wages and other things, roads done under minor relief schemes will suffer.

In connection with bog development, we should appreciate that to-day we have an entirely different type of traffic on the roads from what they carried 15, 25 or 30 years ago. You see, even in the most remote parts of rural Ireland, four-ton and six-ton lorries every year hauling turf from the bogs. A lot of turf was hauled out from the bogs and carried on these bog roads during the emergency. These heavy lorries did a tremendous amount of damage during that period. These roads were never intended for such heavy traffic and the Special Employment Schemes Office should now realise that they have to deal with an entirely different type of traffic to-day. Heavy lorries and tractors traverse these roads and the roads will have to be very well reinforced in order to carry this traffic. Everybody who knows what a bog road is like, fully appreciates that the foundations are not always easy to make. It should be the aim of the Employment Schemes Office to put in as good foundations as they possibly can.

There is another point connected with the whole question of roads—the question of maintenance. In my own native district of Foxford, I know some roads which have been repaired that should have been taken over by the Employment Schemes Office. Deputies who represented that constituency beforce me submitted those proposals to the Department and I myself have submitted them. For some strange reason, nothing has been done about them. I know of one village where people were expecting American visitors who left the country 40 years ago. The poor bog road that was there 40 years ago is just as bad, if not worse, to-day. There is no rural electrification there, although it may come in a year or two. It is humiliating for these people to think that with a son or daughter returning home, that road is in a worse state of repair than when he or she left it 40 years ago.

The method of selection in connection with minor relief works under full cost grant often struck me as rather strange. I inquired how they were selected and I was told that there was a number of considerations, but that, in the main, selection was on the basis of the number of registered unemployed in the area. Having regard to present-day conditions and to the fact that many of our young people who have emigrated to England are earning a lot of money, they will not return and I do not blame them. The position in many areas is that there are not a large number of registered unemployed for the reason that they have gone from such areas. Therefore, because the Special Employment Schemes Office takes cognisance of the number of registered unemployed in an area, these people get nothing at all, although they are really poor people with low valuations.

In rural areas, perhaps even old age pensioners have not a road on which to go to Mass, or if a priest or a doctor goes on a sick call, there is no way to get into a house, except across the fields and through floods. If these things were happening in Dublin, there would be a great hullabaloo, but when somebody speaks here about the rural areas, it does not appear in any newspaper. Not that I am worried about publicity, but it is one thing about which newspapers should cry out. The Commission on Emigration, and so on, is so much humbug and nonsense, if attention is not given to the roads that urgently need repair throughout the country.

Some Deputies have stated that, under rural improvement contributory schemes, the people who contribute should get preference. I have some experience of that work and I agree with that point of view, that people who do contribute are, in the first instance, the patriotic type who are prepared to co-operate. They are people who usually live on good terms with their neighbours and who are prepared to help out in anything that is good for the neighbourhood, or for the country generally. In regard to people who are prepared to contribute to rural improvement contributory schemes, it is not asking a lot to give them work on such proposals. This matter has been dealt with by other Deputies and I do not wish to repeat it, except to say that I agree with that point of view and I feel it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister to change forthwith the regulations in regard to these arrangements.

The point has been made that the people who contribute are usually interested and they are the type of people who will see that the work is done properly. They are entitled to some special consideration. I realise it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and that quite a lot of good work has been done by the Special Employment Schemes Office. The regrettable thing is that so much remains to be done, and I hope that greater advances will be made which will have the effect of encouraging our people to stay at home, to get married and build their houses in rural Ireland. For that purpose, I believe an additional £1,000,000 over and above what is provided will have to be made available. People may laugh and ask themselves: "Is this fellow daft? Where are we going to get the money?" As I have said already, it can be got for every purpose but for the people that count.

Another solution I have to offer is that such roads should be done at a contract price. An advertisement could be inserted in the newspaper in relation, say, to the road to "Pat Murphy's" house, certain specifications being submitted and the lowest tender being accepted, provided the person who tenders is competent to do the work. I believe useful work could be done in that way, if we are prepared to take a bold stand in connection with these matters. You might have a local man, a farmer with a couple of sons who has a tractor and a trailer, and who would be prepared to undertake the work, which would normally cost £400 or £500, for £250. He might have a sand quarry or be able to get sand, gravel or stones in his own neighbourhood. If it is stones that are in question, as far as my own area is concerned, he is not likely to run short. If anybody is interested, we will give them free, gratis and for nothing.

A great deal could be done if the Civil Service mind could be changed a little, so that we would not be copying the British system or any other system. We should run our own country in our own way, in accordance with the way the members of our Parliament feel it should be run. In saying that, I do not think I am preaching any extreme or extraordinary views. There is nobody likely to suggest that it is Communism or anything like that. If that type of contract work could be done, it would expedite matters in a big way.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the points I have made. I should like indeed to be in a position in which I could compliment him on all the work done, the great mileage of roads improved, and so forth. To the extent that I can compliment him, I have done so. I admit that a certain amount of useful work has been done. All that remains to be done presents a problem that other Deputies and I have referred to here. If it is necessary to come into the House with a Supplementary Estimate for improvement works the Parliamentary Secretary should not be afraid to do it. It is quite plain to me that people on the opposite benches who have spoken on behalf of Fianna Fáil and many Deputies on this side of the House are most anxious that more and more money should be made available.

We should not allow any Minister for Finance, no matter who he is, to neglect the people who have always counted and the people who always will count in this country—the producers of food and fuel for the nation, the people on whom, according to the newspapers, the whole country depends when an emergency is at our doors but who are very soon forgotten when the emergency is over.

The small amount devoted to the particular purposes set out in this Estimate affords me ample evidence of the truth of the statement I have often heard, that the economy of Ireland is the economy of the good land. When one thinks of areas on the western seaboard from Donegal to West Cork and of the amount of work that remains to be done under the headings in this Vote, after so long a time, one cannot help wondering why the amount of money provided in this case—£705,700—is so small.

As I am on the question of money, while at a later stage in my argument I will be stating something that may appear to be the contrary, I want to make the point that the administration of this figure, in both indoor and outdoor staff, costs between 10 and 11 per cent. of the total. If we turn to the office of the Revenue Commissioners, we see that they collect about £88,000,000 at an administrative cost of about 3 per cent. Perhaps there is some feasible explanation; perhaps there is a good explanation. I should like to hear it.

It is obvious, also, that this small figure is governed in some way by financial, budgetary limitations but why these should apply in particular to areas which are singled out for special attention from time to time by Governments, whose peoples are praised highly as expediency would seem to warrant, I cannot understand. I cannot see why the provision is so small having regard to all the things we hear from time to time under all Administrations. Perhaps it is that it is governed by financial limitations but there should be somewhere else where it is possible to economise rather than economise at the expense of people whose families have been living in areas for hundreds of years and who have been maintaining their families under the most adverse conditions.

I have just said that the administrative cost of this small sum appears to be too high. Perhaps it is because the amount is too small or so small that no smaller administrative cost is possible or feasible and that, if the amount voted were greater, the administrative cost would not be any higher—that it is a static cost that would remain the same even if the Vote were increased manifold.

From my own observation and experience of the Office of Special Employment and Rural Improvement, my personal view is that it is an efficient office. Complaints are made here by Deputies on all sides of the House about delay. When I consider the volume of applications through various political organisations, through interested people, such as the local priest, the local teachers and through me and, in all probability, through other Deputies from my constituency alone and when I consider, in relation to that volume of applications, the amount of work that is done in the period allowed for the implementation of these works, I do not, for the life of me, see how people can make complaints about delay, particularly in relation to rural improvement and minor employment schemes.

Of course, it is open to anyone to argue, when a particular road or scheme is not done in the year of application, that the office is probably the cause of the delay. I can see the merit in the delay from a very irritating phrase which almost invariably occurs in letters addressed to me from the Office of Minor Employment and Rural Improvement—"The work will be considered in competition with other applications from the area". I have had one experience in my own constituency where I submitted six particular works in respect of one parish, last year, and four of them were carried out.

A good average.

The people there agreed that it was a reasonable average and expressed the hope that —they did not say next year—but in time, the other two would be done.

I think this Vote should be bigger and that, if possible, there should be more outdoor staff. I think I am right in saying that only one man covers the greater portion of North Mayo in the inspection of proposed works and in the making of estimates for them. I have never seen anybody else except when the actual works are in progress when you have a number of gangers and inspectors.

I would like to see more stress on the rural improvement schemes rather than on minor employment schemes. I think the rural improvement schemes create greater interest and I would say that there are areas where there will be no difficulty in getting the local contribution because of the standard of the people who require to have the work done. There are other areas, however, where the local contribution should be nominal by reason of the fact that they are poorer areas. I think some attention might be given to that in the assessment of the local contributions under the rural improvement schemes.

With regard to local objections, I think a lot of them could be got over by reasonableness and tact. I myself have succeeded in getting over many of them and I think the proper approach would solve most of them. I cannot agree with Deputy M.P. Murphy when he says that many of these objections are due to spite, to neighbours fighting one with the other. Very few instances of that have come to my notice in my constituency. Deputy Murphy was probably speaking of his own constituency.

It is fashionable in all assemblies, both national and local, to criticise officials and to find fault with them or with the appointment of gangers or to make complaints about victimisation. When all of these things are investigated—I am again speaking from personal knowledge—I find that the percentage of victimisation and the percentage of wrong judgment are very negligible indeed. I do not know why you will always have that kind of cry but I think if people would give more assistance to their officials, not alone in this office but in every other office, much more would be achieved.

The timing of the work in these matters is also of importance. I think it is only natural to conclude that work done during bad or indifferent weather must yield less return than that done in weather during which a proper day's work can be done. The Parliamentary Secretary is at a great disadvantage, having regard to the small amount of money available to him and his officials. They are responsible for estimating the cost of each individual work and for the distribution of that work all over the country. They are at a great disadvantage in trying to give fair play to every area and to every parish. All sides of the House, irrespective of Party, have urged upon him the necessity to raise with the Minister for Finance, and with the Government if necessary, the question of having more money made available for these schemes. It is something which, in the national interest, should be kept in mind.

The amount of this Vote is very small and not at all the gesture which should be made to the people who live, work and have their social engagements under conditions that are truly appalling and in conditions which it is very difficult to blame them for leaving. You cannot play two tunes in this or any other country. You cannot bemoan emigration and migration if you are not prepared to play your part in helping the people to avoid leaving the conditions under which they live at the moment. We must get to the core of things and getting to the core of things is nothing more or less than having a realistic approach. If the problem is approached with the care it deserves, £750,000 is not sufficient for a Vote of this kind.

It seems that we are in agreement that an insufficient amount of money is being allocated for these very important works. Accordingly, it will not be necessary for me to reiterate what Deputies O'Mara and Lindsay have said. I want to begin by complimenting the staff of the Minor Employment Schemes Office for the efforts they are making to get the works out in time. However, I think they are not being given a reasonable chance of keeping up with the work they are being asked to do, not merely because the money voted is insufficient but because the staff of inspectors is grossly insufficient.

I will admit that from 1954 to 1955 we had exceptionally bad weather. Immediately prior to last summer we had a bad winter, a bad summer and a bad winter immediately succeeding one another and I believe the number of applications that came in as a result of the problems created by the excessive rain was unprecedented. I appreciate, therefore, that there would have been an extra strain placed on the Department staff over a considerable period because of this huge influx of applications, but I think no reasonable effort was made to catch up with the demand.

The Department always had a perfectly true explanation—that the number of inspectors on the job was quite inadequate and therefore that they could not catch up on the back-log of applications. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should make an effort now to catch up on the arrears and try to get this work up to date. In South Mayo applications have been in for three, four, and five years which have not yet been tackled. I repeat that is not the fault of anybody. It is the fault of the administration which apparently regard these schemes as being not of sufficient importance to handle properly. One minor grievance I have against the Parliamentary Secretary is that last year, for the first time, the list of approved schemes was not made available to all Deputies representing the areas concerned.

They were made available to any Deputy who asked for them.

I understand that in other years they were sent out.

If a Deputy writes for them he will get them.

Deputy Beegan is here. I do not want to get into an argument about it but I understood that when he was in charge he sent them out to everybody.

I am sure Deputy Beegan will bear me out. Any Deputy who writes for them gets them, and every Deputy who wrote in for them last year got them, with the exception of Deputy Beegan to whom I sent a complimentary copy.

Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to send a copy to all Deputies in rural areas whether they ask for them or not?

Whether they ask for them or not?

Yes, because the Parliamentary Secretary is personally aware that every Deputy or Senator has dozens of these schemes in which he is interested from year to year and some Deputies are very quick to go around with the lists. That, as a matter of fact, is the basis of the grievance. I discovered last year that I was beaten to the punch by somebody who went around the country with these lists——

I never made use of them in that way.

——and approached people who had never written to him and with whom he had no contact and —what is of some minor importance— who did not belong to his particular Party. He claimed credit for the fact that certain bog road schemes or minor improvements schemes or whatever they were, were being carried out.

That is a good argument for not sending them out at all.

I agree with you.

Let it be one way or the other. Deputy Beegan suggests that they should not be sent out at all, even on application, and I, personally, am willing to fall in with either suggestion provided we are all given an equal chance at the starting line and can run off together. It will then be our own fault if we lose the race and do not win the prize. This is of some importance because, apart from everything else, there is hardly a townland in North or South Mayo, nor in Galway for that matter, in which there are not two or three road or drainage schemes or some such projects that have been applied for under the rural improvement scheme and in which the local people have a very deep interest. A man with land under water who hopes to have it drained has portion of his income denied to him, and is naturally interested in reclaiming the land so that he may make some money out of it. Therefore, it is a matter of some importance to county councillors and T.D.s and it should not be made a political plaything.

I do not want to accuse the Parliamentary Secretary in any way of being unfavourable to County Mayo but I have the impression that Galway is doing even better than it did in Deputy Beegan's time and that Mayo is doing less well. I think fewer schemes have been passed and less money spent on County Mayo in the past 12 months than in the previous 12 months, notwithstanding the fact that an unprecedented number of applications were in hands.

Even the Cork people said the same thing.

There are one or two matters of an individual nature to which I wish to refer. One of these concerns the problem of the people of Milford estate near Kilmaine who have been using a way through Lady Ormsby's estate for some 40 or 50 years. The way which they have been using was not a right of way. It has been used at the will of the Ormsby family who have been very decent to the local people in that matter, but for reasons I need not go into here and which are no reflection on the Ormsby family, it is not now possible for them to allow the local people to use that pathway. For that reason application has been made to the Special Employment Schemes Office to have a road cut so as to enable people to go to Mass and children to go to school and to obviate the necessity of going a very considerable distance round about which would be a hardship on old people and on the children.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give special attention, if he can, to that application, of the merits of which I am convinced. I do not think it is necessary at this stage to go into any further detail about it, but I shall be glad to give any further particulars at any time if requested.

I understand that one of the schemes sent up by the county council this year was turned down. It was, I think, sponsored by Councillor Durcan and it was of very considerable interest to people in the vicinity of Charlestown who had prevailed on the councillor in question to submit this scheme in preference to a number of other schemes which were all of considerable importance. Both the councillor and the people concerned are very disappointed that this scheme was rejected by the Department concerned, the Department of Local Government. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact, in his statement to the House, that the Minister for Local Government and himself jointly operated this section of the Vote. I hope that it will be possible to review the refusal in this case. I am familiar with the scheme itself and I cannot see any adequate reason why it should be rejected.

Another thing that vitally affects the people of East Mayo in particular is the matter of arterial drainage——

The question of arterial drainage does not arise on this Vote.

I know that is so, but the effect of arterial drainage on this land is of vital importance. As the Corrib-Clare-Dalgan drainage scheme progresses, land which was formally rejected under minor employment schemes year after year because of the fact that arterial drainage work had not been done will become eligible. I should imagine that in the next few years, when the Corrib-Clare-Dalgan drainage scheme is completed, an enormous number of schemes which had to be formerly rejected because they were not capable of being done then will be re-submitted and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that, if necessary, a Supplementary Vote will be introduced to enable these schemes to be carried out as quickly as possible. The problem of places like Kilmovee and other places drained by the Boyle River is really frightening. Time after time the unfortunate farmers are told that they cannot have their land drained under minor employment schemes or under rural improvement schemes because the arterial drainage of the Lung River has not been completed. That is understandable, but it is very unfortunate from the point of view of the local people.

May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in an area like that, where not merely has arterial drainage not been carried out but where there seems to be no reasonable chance of its being completed inside the next 20 years, a special effort should be made to have road works done in substitution for drainage work so that the amount of employment in the area will be the same as would be given if the Board of Works, which is responsible for arterial drainage, had caught up with their job. I think it is not wrong or unfair to say that areas like the one to which I have referred have suffered unduly from the employment point of view because of the fact that drainage schemes could not be operated. The Parliamentary Secretary should devote more money or a corresponding amount of money for road development, which is equally behindhand and which could be done certainly for the next 20 years, while waiting for arterial drainage to be effected.

Of course, it all boils down to the question again of how much money the Parliamentary Secretary has at his disposal. There is no use in my making Deputy O'Hara's speech or Deputy Lindsay's speech. All I need say is that I fully agree that the amount available is niggardly and that the Government ought to be ashamed to ask the people from the West of Ireland—along the west coast—who are principally concerned, as far as these rural improvements, minor employment and bog development schemes are concerned, to spread out this ridiculously small amount of money over a period of 12 months.

I noticed that, at the end of his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that over £248,000 of money is available, unexpended from the National Development Fund, but said that he does not know whether this sum, or any part of it, will be available in the coming year for the purposes of this Vote. I do not think that any more worthy application of these funds——

I think the Deputy is mistaken. I said that amount was available, but that I did not know what further was to come.

I am sorry; I misread it. The Parliamentary Secretary does not know how much comes after that? As I understand it, every year for some time past, a certain amount of money has been available from the National Development Fund, in addition to the voted money——

That is right.

But that is going to fade out at the end of the current financial year?

I hope not.

There is only £248,000 unexpended at the moment and will that be sufficient in one year?

We hope so.

Then we will have to look for a new fund, or otherwise we will be in a worse position next year——

That is right.

——by £250,000 than we are to-day, and as I say, we are bad enough now.

I think other speakers mentioned the importance of bog development at a time when coal is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. I suppose, in 15 or 20 years' time, there will not be any coal used industrially or otherwise in this country, because its price will be prohibitive, if it is available at all; and, in the interval between now and the harnessing of the atomic bomb for the purpose of fuel and other production, we will have to depend more and more on turbary supplies in our own country. That being so, every effort should be made to facilitate the cutting and producing of turf. I think that even to-day there are parts of the country where an ass and creel have to be employed. I worked with them myself when I was a boy, and I cannot imagine nor conceive any harder work for either the donkey or the person involved than taking turf out with an ass and creel. It is an extraordinary thing to have to say that that should be necessary in any part of this country at the present time. I suppose it is a reflection on us that it is true.

That is all I have to say on this Vote, except to say, in conclusion, that people who have contributed to rural improvement schemes have been rejected when they applied for employment afterwards. Of course, I can understand that this is on the basis that all these schemes are described as employment and emergency schemes, and that the primary object of them is to give temporary work to people who would otherwise be on the dole. Even so, there is one factor which is of great importance, that is, that the people who are directly concerned with the work, be it a drain or a road, will naturally be more interested in seeing that the work will be done economically and done well than a person who has no connection, other than the fact that he is on the dole. For that reason, it is essential that at least a fair proportion of the people who are working on every scheme should be the people who contribute to the scheme and who are directly involved in it, and who would thus have an interest in seeing it done efficiently and the money spread out as well as possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the recruitment of the labour.

I appreciate that, Sir, and I am glad you allowed me the latitude of saying that, but it is something that the Parliamentary Secretary should keep in mind.

Being a member of a local authority for a long number of years—over 20 years now—I have been dealing with what are called the Christmas grants and relief works, the majority of which were under the Fianna Fáil Government. The local authorities all over the country to-day are very dissatisfied with the procedure we have to go through in a local authority. First of all, you put up a scheme from your engineer in advance and you probably get sanction for that in Christmas week. My grouse is this: the ratepayers are not getting a good return for what they contribute, not through any fault of the workers concerned, but because of the time of year these schemes are carried out, in bad weather, wet, frost and, sometimes, snow. The men are knocked off and put in hardship. I always call these relief schemes hardship schemes, and I say it here again to-day, because they are started in the winter time. The local authorities, through the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, are sending a deputation to the Minister to try to have this work carried out at a more suitable time of the year than the dead of winter, and the ratepayers will thus get better satisfaction for the amount of the contribution they put up and it will also be more satisfactory to the men employed.

It is all very well for some Deputies to say that the money is not enough, but if we are to get more money for roads and construction work, we will have to put up the rates. What I find in my local authority is that the very people advocating that in the local authority are the very people who, when it comes to getting the money for roads, strongly object, and the first argument raised is: "We cannot allow the rates to go up"; but, at the same time, we are losing money because we did not raise enough at the time of the year that we should. If the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department will meet the deputation from the Twenty-Six Counties, representing the municipal authorities of Ireland, and hear the case they have to put up, he will agree that an earlier start would give better results.

I had occasion at the last annual conference in Athlone to make the same appeal as I am making now, namely, that we get an earlier start to the work and thereby avoid inflicting unnecessary hardships on the workers concerned, with better results all round for the public generally. The present situation represents a real grievance. A certain amount of the money goes waste because of bad weather. Then there is another grievance inasmuch as some people will not get a day's work on these schemes. I am referring now to single men.

The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the recruitment of labour.

He has not, but that is the position.

The Deputy can raise the matter on another Vote.

I will do that. We have the same problem in relation to rural improvement schemes. Lack of co-operation means that certain rural improvements schemes cannot be carried out. Even in cases where they can be carried out, one is sometimes told that there are not the requisite 10 men unemployed and there can, therefore, be no scheme at all. I would prefer to see all these schemes done in fine weather. We would have a better return from them, for one thing. This grievance of mine and my council is also a grievance of the municipal authorities of which I am a member.

As a Deputy representing a rural area where minor and rural improvements schemes play a very important part in the life and in the livelihood of the people, I am glad to have had an opportunity of studying this Vote in some detail. I notice that the total provision represents a sum of £1,022,800, as against £1,018,300 in the previous year. On the face of it, it may appear as if there has been an increase in the amount of money provided for rural improvements and minor employment schemes this year. That is not the case. That increase is absorbed in the salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses, which have gone up by almost £4,000. I do not begrudge officials getting increases. That is the natural consequence of the arbitration that was held. At the same time, while officials are getting bigger salaries as a result of arbitration, less money is being provided for less work in those areas where minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvement schemes play such an important part in providing the people in those areas with certain amenities. These areas with sometimes looked upon as the slumdom of agriculture.

I do not want the officials of the Office of Public Works to think that I object to their getting an increase of salary. In my long association with that office since 1948, I have met with nothing but courtesy and co-operation from the officials. I have had a good deal of contract with that office, because there have been many applications for minor relief schemes and rural improvement schemes from the area I represent. In fairness to the officials of the Special Employment Schemes Branch, I must say that I have met with nothing but courtesy. There was a time when Deputy Beegan, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, was accused of being influenced by political considerations in the appointment of gangers. I never believed that; I knew that the officials in that office would not have stood for that. I think it is equally unfair to impute such motives to the present Parliamentary Secretary, though I heard him challenged 12 months ago in relation to an appointment which, it was alleged, was made on political grounds. I do not believe that happens. I have tremendous confidence in the men at the helm.

In the compilation of these figures for submission to the Minister for Finance, I do not think due regard was had to the volume of work to be executed in the current financial year. Leaving out the millions, there is only a difference as between £22,800 and £18,300 in the previous year. That increase is offset by the increased salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses. Within the last month, wages have increased in County Limerick by 22.6 per cent. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if he were standing on guard in his office, he should at least ensure that provision would be made for the same volume of work this year as was done last year. Instead of that, in presenting this Estimate, he has depreciated the volume of work to be done to the tune of 22.6 per cent.

I do not know whether my figure will be acceptable. I am quoting the increase in wages in County Limerick. The wage content is an important factor in every scheme. I do not think we are getting a fair break. I have here in my pocket a little card. It is one of those little cards that every Deputy receives so expeditiously and so courteously from the Office of Public Works. I could not tell how many such cards I have received stating that certain matters are awaiting inspection, consideration or approval.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 8th May, 1956.
Top
Share