Vol. 167 No. 7
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £548,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
Soláthraíonn an Vóta seo airgead i gcomhair na, scéimeanna éagsúla oibre don lucht díomhaoineach. Is iad sin (a) na mion-scéimeanna agus na scéimeanna (b) uirbeacha agus (c) tuaithe fostaíochta.
Soláthraíonn sé airgead freisin do scéimeanna eile nár ceapadh d'aon turas le saothrú a thabhairt ach le leas an phobail a dhéanamh ar bhealaigh eile. Is iad seo scéimeanna (a) forbairt na bportach (b) feabhsúcháin tuaithe agus (c) ilgnéitheacha.
Dáileadh thart ar na Teachtaí taibhlí de shuimeanna airgid a caitheadh ar na scéimeahna éagsúla seo nó atá beartaithe i leith na gceithre bliana go dtí an bhliain reatha airgeadais.
Is ar an Stát atá costas ar fad i leith na mion-scéimeanna fostaíochta agus baineann siad mórán ar fad leis na ceanntair chúnga. Caithfidh an oiread seo de lucht chúnamh diomhaointis a bheith cláraithe sul a bhfuighfidh toghroinn mion-scéim. Oibreacha ar bhóithre go tithe, go táilte nó go portaigh na bhfeilméara a bhionns ins na scéimeanna seo agus sa ngeimhreadh a cuirtear ar aghaidh iad.
Sé an Stát, freisin, a íocanns as scéimeanna chun forbairt na bportach. Ní bhaineann siad seo le clár na ndífhostuach cé go mbionn tús oibre acu seo ar na scéimeanna sin. Glanadh díogaí agus déanamh is deasú bóthar a bhios ionntu agus is do scológa agus táirgeoirí móna a ceaptar iad, agus bionn siad ar fáil i ngach ceanntar móinteach a mbíonn annach nó portach gan oibriú ceal siltín uaidh nó bealach isteach ann.
Sórt eile atá ar fáil ar fud na tíre, sea an scéim feabhsúcháin tuaithe; ach tá difir sonntasach idir é agus an dá shórt eile atá Iuaite agam faoi rá is go mbionn ar Iucht iarrta an tsóirt seo cuid den chostas a ioc mar airgead sios sul má ceadófar aon chaiteachas de chuid na h-oifige. Braitheann an rannioc ar lucháil ionrátaithe na n-iarrathóir. Caithfidh beirt fheilméar ar a laghad a bheith ghá n-iarraidh agus ceadaítear futha scéimeanna siltín droichid agus déanamh agus deasú bóthar go portaigh, go táilte nó go tithe. Ach an oiread leis an sórt deireannach a luaidh mé, ní bhaineann an scéim seo le líon na ndífhostuach in áit ar bith, cé go mbionn tús glaoite chun oibre ag an dream cláiraithe; ach bíonn cead fostaithe ina ndiaidh siúid ag na ranniocadórí. Ar nós na gcineál eile, sí Oifig na Scéimeanna Fostaíochta Speisialta a cheapanns mátistir ar mheitheall oibre faoin gcineál seo scéime. Ceapadh iad seo ar dtús i 1943 ar mhaithe le talmhaíocht. Do réir mar bhi na h-inill ag éirí fairsing ar an bhfeilm bhí spéis sa scéim seo ghá múscailt ins na feilméaraí. Is ioma sin róidín agus bóithrín amuigh faoin tír a bhfuil ath-chaoí curtha ortha fuithi seo lena chur in oiriúint do thrucall nó tarraiceóir.
Le linn na hÉigeandála chuidigh na scéimeanna tuaithe go mór le soláthar as an talamh, agus dhá bhárr sin tá siad le moladh. Sin é an fáith agus sin i an t-am a fuair an Vóta seo an teideal atá air.
The Vote for employment and emergency schemes makes provision for the annual programme of employment schemes to give work to men in receipt of unemployment assistance; and for other services such as bog development schemes, rural improvement schemes, and miscellaneous schemes such as minor marine works and archaeological excavations. Provision is also made for salaries, travelling, and other incidental expenses of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office, who are responsible for the administration of the Vote.
It is usual in dealing with the Estimate to give a brief resume of the work done under the Vote in the pre- ceding financial year, and I propose to follow that practice. Last year, when introducing the Estimate on 2nd May, 1957, the late Deputy Beegan gave a very detailed account of the various services by sub-heads, which will be found at columns 729-746 of Volume 161, No. 6, of the Dáil Debates of that date.
Last year's original net Estimate, totalling £658,450, was prepared by the previous administration. In concluding his opening statement (column 746), Deputy Beegan announced that a sum of £250,000 would be made available in 1957-58 in addition to the amount published in the Book of Estimates. A Supplementary Estimate for £224,000 was submitted to the Dáil on 19th and 20th February, 1958, to secure formal parliamentary approval for the expenditure in that financial year arising from this additional allocation. To give a comparative picture of the operations of the Special Employment Schemes Office, I have made available to Deputies a tabular statement giving particulars of the expenditure under the various sub-heads of the Vote in 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, as well as the estimated provision for 1958-59.
In addition to the £853,400 now being asked for, a sum of £48,000, being the total of unexpended balances of the previous years' allocations from the National Development Fund, will be available for expenditure, bringing the gross total to £901,400 and the urban employment schemes total to £275,000 instead of £227,000. Adding the £250,000 special allocation to the original gross Vote provision of £678,450 for 1957-58 gives a gross figure of £928,450; and, as the estimated expenditure for that year is £871,130, it will be seen that, with the exception of the urban employment schemes, the Special Employment Schemes Office has during the year under review spent almost the full amount aimed at.
The distribution of the grants for urban employment schemes, rural employment schemes, and minor employment schemes is related to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area. A census is taken annually, in the third week of January, by the Special Employment Schemes Office of the number of these men as well as of the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in each of the 60 urban areas, 357 non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over, and 2,875 rural electoral divisions in the whole country. This census includes, in addition to the men drawing unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefit, the men who were formerly in receipt of such assistance, but who were working on the Special Employment Schemes Office schemes during that particular week.
The 1958 census figure gives a total of 36,063 men in receipt of unemployment assistance, compared with 35,153 in 1957-an increase of almost 3 per cent. Including persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, the figures were 77,104 in 1958, compared with 84,294 in 1957—a reduction of more than 7,000, or 8½ per cent. on the 1957 figure. The increase in the unemployment assistance recipients was mainly in the urban areas, 12,067 in 1958, compared with 10,819 men in 1957-an increase of 11 per cent.—while in the rural areas there has been a drop of 2 per cent., the figures being 23,130 for 1957 and 22,666 for January, 1958.
The number of unemployment assistance recipients who were employed on the schemes during the week was 1,963 and persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit 603, giving a total of 2,566 for the third week in January, 1958. The persons employed on the various schemes under this Vote vary considerably during the year, the peak period being immediately before Christmas. For the week ended the 21st December, 1957, 5,649 men were employed, of whom 1,231 were in urban areas, 490 in non-urbanised towns and 3,928 in rural electoral divisions.
Sub-heads A, B, C and D provide for salaries, travelling, and office expenses of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The provision for sub-head A, salaries, shows an increase of £3,970. The principal reason for the increase is that it is anticipated it will be necessary to fill some of the vacancies which were not filled last year. In former years, a separate sub-head was included for repayments in respect of services rendered to the Special Employment Schemes Office by other Government Departments; £5,400 was included in last year's Estimate in respect of these services. Following discussions at the Public Accounts Committee, and with a view to having the procedure brought into line with the general practice, this sub-head is omitted in the current year. The value of the services is shown at the bottom of page 51 of the Estimates Volume, and will be charged to the Votes of the Departments concerned.
Urban employment schemes are intended to finance works in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, and in the 55 other urban districts. Grants, which are administered through the Department of Local Government, are conditional on the local authorities submitting suitable works schemes for approval by the Special Employment Schemes Office, and making a contribution towards their cost. The local contribution was the same as in previous years, viz., 20 per cent. in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, 17 per cent. in Cork and Limerick, 14 per cent. in Waterford, and varied between 5 per cent. and 17 per cent. in other areas. With the exception of Dublin, where works are proceeding the whole year round, the schemes are carried out in the winter period only, and in the smaller urban areas for only a few weeks before Christmas. They last somewhat longer in the other county borough areas.
Dealing with this sub-head last year, my predecessor dealt, as reported in columns 734-737 of the Volume of 2nd May, 1957, with (a) the social effect of these schemes in the Dublin area by giving a spell of 12 weeks' employment to unemployment assistance recipients; (b) the very high cost per U.A. man of the schemes— £25 per week, of which the Dublin Corporation pays one-fifth and the Special Employment Schemes Office the other four-fifths; and (c) the difficulties the Dublin Corporation were up against in finding suitable schemes with a high labour content. The unemployment assistance recipients census figure for Dublin was 6,617 in January, 1958, as compared with 5,889 in January, 1957 and 3,937 in January, 1956. Almost 55 per cent. of the urban unemployment assistance recipients are, therefore, concentrated in the Dublin area.
The figure for urban employment schemes in the original printed Estimates for 1957-58 was £140,000. A further £140,000 was earmarked for those urban schemes out of the supplemental Budget allocation, making a gross sum of £280,000. A sum of £155,000 was allocated to Dublin, and the corporation were invited on the 25th July, 1957, to submit new works, representing an expenditure of £193,750, being the State grant of £155,000 plus the corporation contribution of 20 per cent. —£38,750. Schemes approved up to 31st March, 1958 amounted to £125,500 State grant, leaving an unabsorbed balance of £29,500.
The State expenditure on works in Dublin last year amounted to £128,800, and there were outstanding grants already approved as on 1st April, 1958, amounting to £138,000 approximately mainly in respect of works still in progress. The average number of men employed on the Dublin schemes during the year was 177, of whom 125 were unemployment assistance recipients. The numbers varied during the year from a peak total of 270 down to 120, of whom 202 and 75, respectively, were unemployment assistance recipients.
Deputies may at first be surprised at the difficulties the Dublin Corporation have in finding suitable employment schemes. For many years prior to 1953-54, the allocation to the Dublin borough area was £70,000, and the corporation then contributed 30 per cent. —£30,000—making a total of £100,000 available annually. It must be remembered that the works financed from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote must not include normal works which are the responsibility of the Dublin ratepayers. Employment schemes must be works which the Dublin Corporation cannot otherwise afford to do. In the last five years, 1953-54 to 1957-58, works representing an expenditure of £850,000 State grant, or including the local contribution of 20 per cent., costing over £1,000,000. have been authorised for execution. Most of the works with a high labour content have, therefore, been exhausted.
The amount which will be allocated to the Dublin County Borough area in 1958-59 has not yet been determined; but, as there is a provision of £227,000 in the printed Estimates and an unexpended balance of £48,000 from the National Development Fund making a total of £275,000 available for expenditure on urban schemes, against an estimated expenditure of £250,000 in 1957-58, the corporation can reasonably assume that a sum approximating to the same figure as last year will be available.
The Cork Corporation were notified of the allocation of £23,250 on 27th July last year, subject to a contribution of £4,650—one-sixth of the total £27,900. The Cork Corporation evidently also had difficulty in finding suitable schemes. Of the list of works originally submitted to absorb this allocation, the Special Employment Schemes Office had to refuse sanction to schemes totalling £10,400 owing to the very low unskilled labour content —i.e., the extent to which the schemes fulfilled the purpose of providing work for unemployment assistance recipients. Some of the schemes originally submitted had unskilled labour contents of only 17 per cent., 21 per cent., 22 per cent. and 24 per cent.
The detailed control of these urban schemes, as already indicated, is exercised through the Department of Local Government, and, up to 31st March, 1958, the Department were authorised by the Special Employment Schemes Office to approve grants for Cork of £21,760. This left an unallocated balance of almost £1,500, which cannot now be made available. Approval for grants amounting to almost £5,000 was, in fact, given only in the last days of the financial year.
The primary purpose of these employment schemes is to give employment to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance; and I have had to ask the Department of Local Government to inform the Cork Corporation that, if schemes with a better unskilled labour content are not found, their proposals for grants out of this Vote will have to be rejected.
Limerick got an allocation of £16,750, which, with the local contribution of £3,350, one-sixth of the total, made a sum of £20,100 available for expenditure. The full amount in this case has been approved; but I should, perhaps, say that the first list of schemes submitted by the Limerick Corporation included items with an unskilled labour content of less than 20 per cent. —and, as I have already said, schemes with such a low labour content cannot be accepted. An alternative scheme was subsequently submitted by the corporation and approved. Waterford this year submitted suitable schemes to absorb their full allocation of £8,500, as did the remaining 56 urban districts. With that comment, I propose to pass from the urban employment schemes sub-head.
The provision for the rural employment schemes sub-head is £35,000—the same as last year. It is intended that, as in 1956-57 and 1957-58, these schemes will be confined to towns with a population of 200 and over which have not urban councils. The pattern of distribution of unemployment over these 357 non-urbanised towns has changed little in 1958 compared with 1957; but the distribution of the allocation has not yet been determined. The county councils will, as heretofore, be required to contribute a quarter of the cost, and the schemes will be carried out in the weeks immediately preceding Christmas.
Minor employment schemes are works on accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs, and the provision in this year's Estimate is £130,000—the same as last year. The works are confined to what are commonly known as the congested districts, and are carried out in the period November to March, 886 schemes serving almost 16,000 families and representing an expenditure of £130,000 were approved last year. There has been little change in the number of unemployment assistance recipients in rural areas in recent years. Grants are given in only about 400 of the 2,875 electoral divisions, and the 1958 pattern of distribution of unemployment assistance recipients over the country as a whole is very much the same as in preceding years. My predecessor gave details of the distribution of these schemes in his opening statement in the Dáil (columns 740-742 of the Volume for 2nd May).
The next sub-head is bog development schemes—development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers. The provision in the printed Estimate last year was £115,000, but an additional sum of £45,000 was made available from the supplemental Budget allocation, bringing the total for the sub-head to £160,000. About one-third of the expenditure is for drainage works and the other two-thirds is for road works. Last year, 483 drainage schemes, costing £51,500 approximately, were approved and 682 road schemes costing £108,500. These schemes facilitated almost 35,000 families in the production of their turf.
The rural improvements scheme makes provision for grants towards the cost of carrying out works to benefit the lands of two or more farmers, such as small drainage schemes, bridges, and the construction or repair of accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs. It is a contributory scheme and applies to all parts of the country, irrespective of the unemployment position. The scheme is referred to in Deputy Beegan's introductory statement in the Dáil last year (columns 744-745 of the Volume for 2nd May).
It will be seen that the 1956-57 year started with a commitment of £134,400 in respect of schemes for which the contributions had been lodged by the benefiting farmers. The issue of new offers of grants was stopped in August, 1956, and remained suspended until February, 1957, when offers representing an expenditure of £158,000 were issued. The offers had then again to be suspended, as the provision for expenditure on the rural improvements schemes in the original 1957-58 Estimate was only £150,000. The receipt of new applications was suspended in September, 1956, and remained suspended until July, 1957.
Many Deputies will recall that this scheme was introduced in 1943 to assist farmers in areas outside the congested districts to repair accommodation roads to their houses, lands and bogs. Up to that year, no assistance was available for non-county roads in these areas. The original scheme provided for grants of 75 per cent. of the cost, and the farmers had to find the remaining quarter. In the case of accommodation roads, such as link roads, which served families other than those whose lands adjoined the road, more favourable terms were available. This arrangement continued until June, 1950, when the sliding scale terms were introduced, a 95 per cent. grant being made available for farmers whose average land valuation was below £6, and the 75 per cent. grant being made to apply to farmers with a valuation of £18 and over.
When the new administration took over in March, 1957, the provision in the printed Estimates for this service was limited to £150,000. It was apparent, having regard to the commitments already entered into, and the demand for further grants that this sum was insufficient. Despite the difficult financial circumstances, it was decided to make a substantial additional allocation from State funds, and at the same time it was considered that there should also be some increase in the contribution from the benefiting landholders. In deciding to increase the scale of contributions, it was considered that the benefits accruing to the landholders from those works were sufficiently good to admit an increase in the rates without causing hardship. The minimum contribution is now 10 per cent. instead of 5 per cent.
The 25 per cent. contribution now applies to farmers with an average land valuation of between £15 and £18 instead of to those with an average land valuation of £18 and over, as was formerly the case. Farmers with an average valuation of over £100 are required to pay half the cost. The additional allocation was £65,000, bringing the total provision to £215,000. Sufficient schemes have been sanctioned to exhaust the full provision of £215,000 in 1957-58 and we had, in fact, further lodgments of farmers' contributions as on 31st March, 1958, representing an additional expenditure of £32,000, which could not be sanctioned until the new financial year. The revised terms were announced on 20th July, 1957, when one-third of the year had almost gone, and expenditure was not, therefore, anticipated to exceed £200,000. It has, in fact, not quite reached that figure.
The provision for miscellaneous schemes in the original printed Estimates for 1957-58 was £15,000 and a similar provision is made for 1958-59. It is not anticipated that the expenditure last year under this sub-head will exceed £12,500. The sub-head is required to meet expenditure on minor marine works. County councils are required to contribute one-quarter of the cost of these schemes and to maintain them on completion. The sub-head also finances archaeological excavations at Tara, Lough Gur, Dalkey Island and various other centres. Last year, the expenditure under the latter sub-head was down to £900, as proposed excavations at Tara had to be postponed.
The Appropriation-in-Aid sub-head is £30,000 for 1958-59. This sub-head is made up almost entirely of the farmers' contributions in respect of the rural improvements scheme. It also includes receipts in respect of works on privately owned bogs, the county councils' contributions towards the cost of minor marine works and receipts from the sales of surplus stores.
I am in some difficulty in understanding where the £48,000 at the end of the schedule, described as a "balance available from National Development Fund" comes from seeing that the National Development Fund no longer exists and has no basis in the law of this country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to rid one of the very natural fear that the £48,000 added on at the end is merely a piece of arithmetical juggling to make the amount to be spent in the year 1958-59 greater than that spent in 1957-58.
I have already said on the previous Vote that this office no less than the offices which we were discussing on that Vote, is non-political and its work is community work and should be discussed as such. When I was paying my short and inadequate tribute to the late Deputy Beegan the other day, I inadvertently failed to include what should have been said in his favour as probably the greatest thing of all. When an effort was made, certainly in my constituency, to get him to change the personnel of gangers and supervisors in all these offices, he nobly resisted and said that until men were found unsuitable, he would not have them removed merely on political grounds. For that, I can certainly pay him a wholehearted tribute.
This was probably closer to me and to Deputies from the Counties Mayo and Galway, and I feel I should place on record my knowledge of the painstaking and capable work of two members of the Civil Service who were engaged in the work of these offices, including the one under discussion at the moment. I refer to two men who could truly be said to have lost their lives in the execution of their duty as they were returning from an island off the western coast, namely Messrs. Twohig and O'Beirne. I had the pleasure of knowing them and their work and the pleasure of knowing and experiencing the impartiality with which they distributed public funds and directed them towards the benefit of the community as a whole.
I regret that the Government saw fit, in the course of the past year, to alter the percentage contribution payable under rural improvement schemes. There has been an almost constant doubling of that percentage in relation to the amounts sought and in relation to the valuations concerned. Certainly in the poorer areas of lower valuations, the number of people who will now be able to take advantage of rural employment rather than minor employment will be considerably less, because every Deputy from the area I represent— North Mayo-and every Deputy from similar areas, knows very well the difficulty there was in getting the contribution, even when it was a minimum 5 per cent. and the difficulty will be greater now that it has been increased to a minimum of 10 per cent. I think it can fairly be read from the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that the contributions have not increased, and if they have, they have increased from areas where the people can afford them better than in the areas where they are actually needed most. I must say, on that score, that I have always had-and I am sure it is the experience of every Deputy—the fullest possible co-operation from this office and when the local contribution was as low as 5 per cent., as it has been, I can recall instances in passing of how the office was always willing to make some sort of effective compromise that was still legal and yet did the job for the people.
Quite frankly, the Local Authorities (Works) Act operations having ceased, the National Development Fund having been brought to a close and similar reductions elsewhere in capital expenditure having been made, I find it difficult to understand why these percentages were increased, thereby making greater difficulty for those who sought to better their conditions or themselves generally by taking advantage of the rural improvement schemes. Far from increasing that percentage, I should have been inclined to favour—and certainly would advise—an even greater amount of money being made available under rural improvement schemes, rather than under special employment schemes, because we all know in every walk of life that when one has an investment, however small, in any project, one has an interest which is greater in consequence, the work done is better and the amount of money made available for a single job is higher than it would be in any other case.
Of all these schemes, I would say it is the very best that could be offered to people seeking such schemes in suitable areas. I see the point in making special employment available in areas where there is a very large number of unemployment assistance recipients and it has been my experience that, where there is such a large number of unemployment assistance recipients, the office is slow to give them anything under rural improvement schemes. That might well be said to be meritorious, if the people in receipt of unemployment assistance in such areas were genuinely unemployed, such as the urban unemployed or people who have absolutely nothing else; but these, as we all know, are people with small holdings under certain valuations and they are people who can draw what is wrongly called unemployment assistance. It should never have been called unemployment assistance; it is a sort of subsidy to small landowners under a certain valuation.
There is need in all these cases for greater co-ordination, and, having regard to the amount of expenditure on administration, I would take away this sort of complementary activity as between this office and the local authorities and the only relationship I would have between them is the relationship that when this office has put certain roads, be they minor county roads or secondary roads into fit and proper condition, the office should then be in a position to say to the local authority: "Here is this road for you now. Take it over and make it your responsibility from now on." In the long run, such co-ordination and giving responsibility to one office only, be it national or local, must make for the most effective carrying-out of our work and must make also for more beneficial results and effects for our people.
The administrative costs are too high. I am not prepared at the moment to offer any suggestion as to their decrease because it would mean that some people might become redundant who would have to be employed elsewhere. As I said upon the Estimate just passed, I can understand it is a pity that there is not more money available in offices such as this by way of expenditure to justify what must be the very necessary high cost of administration.
I know that certain schemes can take place only during the winter and that certain schemes can be executed all the year round. I do not know what the basis is—whether it is related to crop seasons, harvest seasons, employment periods or whether the whole thing is a question of juggling State finances to try to keep expenditure down, on the one hand, and trying to relieve the heavy unemployment on the other. That whole aspect of this matter could well be remedied by the co-ordination to which I refer, that is, the co-ordinating of offices and certain centralising of responsibility for total expenditure, whether from the central office for a while and afterwards from the local authority completely.
From 1955-56 up to the present, there has been a steady decrease in the expenditure under the Vote for this office. The expenditure in regard to urban employment schemes has gone steadily down. Everybody knows that the labour content of the building trade has decreased. Everybody knows that, in spite of all the figures in relation to a reduction in employment, unemployment figures have been reduced to a very considerable extent as a result of the very serious emigration which still afflicts us, emigration which I hasten to say is not entirely attributable to either this or the previous Government, but which is a phase of our national life, as it is a phase of the life of many other countries.
Nevertheless, with all these facets of employment and lack of employment, it is difficult to understand why, in the urban areas in view of that decrease in those spheres to which I have referred, there has been that steady decrease in this Estimate from 1955-56 down to the present financial year. Rural improvement schemes show a drop from £60,000 in 1955-56 to £35,000 in the present financial year. There is no increase on last year when it was £35,000 also and the £35,000 in respect of the year 1957-58 was some £6,500 higher than that for 1956-57 when, as is admitted now by all and sundry, a financial blizzard hit this country. There is a certain stagnation about those figures—something which shows that the minds of those responsible for the framing of policy have not been directed to the need for increasing employment, particularly in our rural areas which are being denuded of population at an alarming rate.
The same remark can be made of minor employment schemes; and bog development schemes are more or less static, with the exception of a rather substantial drop in 1956-57. Rural improvement schemes are down and the miscellaneous schemes more or less remain static. I do not think it can be argued that every possible road has been done; that every possible drain has been cleaned and that every possible piece of marine work has been put into effective order to afford the facilities necessary for fishermen's craft of the smaller type. The need in my experience seems to be growing and the roads which are the subject matter of grants of this type, be they minor employment schemes or rural improvement schemes, seem to be the kind of roads which demand annual repair. When these roads are being put into substantial repair, some effort should be made to see that the local authority take them over or that they become an annual charge for maintenance on this office.
When one peruses the list of minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvement schemes, one finds that the grant for a road, say, in the year 1958-59, is often supplementary to something granted in 1942-43 and one cannot help wondering what has happened to that road in the meantime. When one goes on foot, or by car or bicycle over many of these roads which are the subject matter of these Estimates which are supplementary to something which happened almost 20 years before, one can understand why the people, particularly younger people, leave their remote villages where these facilities are denied them. A little more could be done in this respect.
In regard to the Gaeltacht Department, the Estimate for which will be shortly before the House, I was very keen upon the idea of not having the local contribution of 25 per cent. from the local authorities an obligatory matter in relation to marine works. If a local authority say they will not give it, the Department says: "If you do not give it, our 75 per cent. is not available." The 75 per cent. would not do the job, but, assuming it is all given, the local authority has to be responsible for maintenance.
I hope that my successor in areas under the jurisdiction of the Gaeltacht Department, such jurisdiction as it has, will be successful in bringing about co-ordination and that a 100 per cent. grant can be given to do a job of work that will be beneficial to the community, without any strings attached.
Let me conclude by saying again that this, in my experience, is an office of great usefulness, an office to which it must be regretted more money is not allocated. However, I trust that if and when it does get greater sums to carry out the very necessary works in those parts of our country that have been somewhat neglected, they will continue to administer the funds at their disposal with the same impartiality and community-mindedness that they have displayed up to now.
Great interest is always taken in country districts in the minor relief schemes and when the lists come out in the winter months people generally want to know if their road will be done. These schemes have done wonders for country roads and without them, both the minor relief and the rural improvement schemes, the roads would be in a very bad way, that is roads not kept in repair by county councils.
There is one matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary in this connection because it is quite often mentioned. A road may have been put in for a minor relief scheme, perhaps seven or eight years ago. Every year people living along that road are anxious to have the road done but still it is not done. Then the day comes when it is one of the roads chosen to be done and those people living along the road who are drawing unemployment assistance feel they are entitled to get work on this road to which they have been looking forward for so long. It frequently happens, however, that they do not get the work at all because some other men, from a district perhaps three or four miles away, may be drawing higher unemployment assistance and therefore are entitled to work on the road, whereas the men living along the road may not be drawing such a high rate of assistance. There is quite often bad feeling about this. It can also happen that those men perhaps will not get work on the roads at all that year. There may be two or three other roads done in the district and it is still the men who are drawing the higher rate of assistance who will get the work. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter and see that, when a road is being done, as many as possible of the men living along that road will get employment.
In Kerry, near Cahirciveen, a new generating station for which a great deal of turf will be needed, has been erected by the E.S.B. It is all to be hand-won turf and it will be a great boon to the district. However, a great many of the local farmers will not be able to cut their turf unless the roads are put into a good state of repair so that lorries or ordinary carts can travel over them. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to pay particular attention to any of the roads in that district where the turf will be required for the generating station.
The rural improvements schemes are very good schemes and without them many of the roads could not be repaired because they are in areas that do not qualify for minor relief schemes. Some years ago there was a specially high grant given for link roads and so far as I can understand this special grant is not given now for link roads. That is a matter which should be examined for this reason. I do not know whether it is the practice in other counties but the Kerry County Council would be quite willing to take over as council roads, some of these roads, which are not council roads, but which connect two council roads if they were first put into repair. The Kerry County Council have asked the people on these roads to get their roads done under a rural improvements scheme. If they do, those roads will be taken over by the county council.
Sometimes there are only very few people living on such a road. They may be poor people who cannot afford the big contribution asked by the Department, but a link road between two council roads always means that there is a great deal of traffic on those roads. It would be very beneficial to the people living along such roads as well as to the rest of the community who travel those roads frequently, if they could be put into a good state of repair and taken over by the county councils. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if, for instance, a county council writes up and says: "We are willing to take this road over subsequent to its being repaired," he should consider giving a fairly substantial grant to the people living in that area to get their roads done.
This Vote could be, and should be, a great help in connection with the unemployment position both in the rural and in the urban areas. In the present position of unemployment it is natural that those of us who are interested in that subject should look to this Vote as a pointer as to what is to happen in the year to come. If we leave aside the £48,000 which is stated as the balance of the National Development Fund and which is to be added to this Vote, we would find a very curious position. We would find that instead of an increase there is actually a gradual decrease as from the years 1955-56 to the present date.
The 1955-56 figure was £165,900 more than the present year if we leave aside the £48,000, and the 1956-57 figure was £25,000 more than this year. Even if we take credit for the £48,000 this year there is only £13,000 more provided than in 1956-57 and there is £117,900 less than 1955-56. That is not a healthy position from the point of view of the unemployed. Irrespective of politics and irrespective of which side of the House we sit, most of us are prepared to accept the words of a high Church dignitary. Only yesterday, Dr. Lucey, Bishop of Cork, speaking at a Confirmation ceremony, stated that unemployment and emigration have been worse during the past two or three years than at any time previously.
How does it happen that the Vote which is mainly intended to help the unemployed is steadily decreasing instead of increasing? I am interested chiefly in urban employment schemes. I come from an urban area. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary's opening speech in relation to the position in both Cork and Dublin, I was struck with the idea that, where local authorities are not able to put up schemes with a sufficient labour content to qualify for the full amount of money available, it would be a welcome and a useful step, not only in these two areas, but in all urban areas, if the money for urban employment schemes could be used by local authorities on the development of housing sites. That is not work normally carried out on the rates. It is work with a high labour content. It is work that would prove of advantage because the economic rents to be charged for such houses subsequently would be proportionately lower in relation to the amount of money spent under this Vote.
I understand that at some period during 1948-51, when the inter-Party Government were in office, the Minister for Local Government at the time, the late Deputy T.J. Murphy, had under consideration or had obtained Government authority for the implementation of proposals along the lines I have suggested. Whether or not that has continued, I am not in a position to say. I do know that in the constituency I represent urban unemployment schemes are not utilised for the development of housing sites under the Labourers Act. That is, indeed, a pity and an instruction should be given to the various local authorities to submit such schemes in future.
I want to refer now to the condition attaching to these schemes in relation to the period of the year in which the work must be carried out. I can understand the reason why the winter period is selected in the rural areas for the implementation of these schemes. It is the slack time in these areas and, if such schemes were carried out in the summer, essential labour might be diverted from agriculture. In urban areas, however, it is absurd to carry out unemployment schemes in winter. These schemes are generally schemes in relation to coast erosion, the extension of an embankment, or the extension of a bulwark to some local authority bathing place. It is absurd to carry out such schemes during a period of heavy rain and with high seas running. In those circumstances, half the labour value of the work carried out is lost.
The picture so far as urban unemployment is concerned is completely different from that of rural unemployment. In winter, the unemployment position in an urban area is better than the position in the summer period. From January to March, shipping is improving in the various ports. Shipments of coal, fertilisers and so forth are arriving regularly and employment is provided for those who might otherwise be unemployed. Unfortunately, that is the very period in which this money must be spent. I suggest to the Minister that more value would be got for the money spent, if urban authorities were permitted to embark on these schemes during the summer months or even during the autumn.
Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an t-am tagtha gur cheart don Rialtas rud éigin a dhéanamh chun saol na ndaoine amuigh fén dtuath a dhéanamh níos fearr ná mar atá sé. Tá solus acu anois, an solus leictreachais, chun a saol do ghealadh ach tá na bóithre chomh h-ole agus a bhíodar riamh. Bíonn na daoine óga ag gearáin mar gheall air sin. Má dheinimíd rudaí áirithe chun a saol do ghealadh, ba cheart an obair sin a dhéanamh chomh luath agus is féidir.
Rud eile, nuair a bhíonn sceimeanna den tsaghas sin ullamh agus nuair cuirtear go dtí an Oifig iad, cailltear a lán ama ag dhéanamh scrúdú ortha toisc nach bhfuil oifigí go leor ins an Oifig chun an obair sin a dhéanamh. Bíonn sé mar sin ar feadh na mblianta gan aon ní a dhéanamh. Ba ceart dúinn rudaí níos fearr a dhéanamh ar son na ndaoine fén dtuath fé láthair.
This is one of the most important matters to come before the House from the point of view of improving the conditions of local populations. There was public agitation some years ago about the extension of the rural electrification scheme to brighten the lives of rural people. We find that the light is in the homes, but the little roads and passages to the homes are in a muddy and neglected condition. The local people do not get proper cooperation in their improvement, and in many instances they are unable to provide the money themselves. We are doing one thing which is helpful, but we are leaving conditions which are a cause of serious complaint, particularly on the part of the rising generation. They become dissatisfied with the position of the rural homestead, mainly because of bad roads and approaches.
I have a complaint to make that in some of these schemes which have been submitted to the Office of Public Works, very often half a year or even longer passes before there is inspection of them, by reason of the fact that the staff is not adequate. I am not blaming the parties concerned. You might have such a scheme in the Kinsale district, for example, and you find the inspector has to come from Bantry or some far away place. He has to wait until there are two or three schemes in the area before it is considered prudent to embark upon them. Not only is that a discouragement to people who want to improve the local position, but it is also a discouragement to those who might have similar work on hand. A story gets round that a scheme was submitted in such and such an area months ago and that it has not yet been inspected.
I instanced a case down in Kilgobbin near Kinsale which was submitted last summer. I must have called at the office three or four times at least, until I got tired of it. I could not get the scheme inspected or any progress made, even though many promises were made. That is not as it should be. Work of that kind is absolutely essential in rural areas. If we have not adequate staff or if there are not adequate funds, we should see to the matter at once. One of the very best things that could be done to keep people in these districts is the carrying out of improvements of this kind.
All the money expended and all the work done on the main roads is of very little advantage to these people. They want to keep ahead of the times and make some progress. They want to be able to move agricultural machinery and so on for the improvement of their holdings. But the roads are in such a condition that this cannot be done, except at a cost which they cannot bear. It now requires machinery to bring these roads up to standard. This cannot be provided, except through the co-operation of the county councils and local authorities.
We had the experience in recent years that for the past four or five months of the financial year the county council workers are laid off in big numbers and county council machinery is put back in the yards while work of this kind is to be done in the rural area. The sooner we forget some of the big things and turn to these, the better it will be for the country, for employment in the rural areas and for the brightening of the homes of those people, about whom everybody is concerned. The rising generation will not put up any longer with the existing position. Their fathers and grandfathers struggled to keep a firm grasp on their homesteads. They will not keep a firm grasp on their homesteads, unless the surroundings are made sufficiently attractive for them. Surely the first place to do that is the homes themselves and the approaches to them.
We should think along these lines and see how we can use to the best advantage the machinery now available to local authorities, who could co-operate with the Board of Works and coordinate their administration in a way that would be of advantage to all concerned. It is a department that could do great service for the people. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware from his own experience of the work that can be done. It would require a decision at Government level to give the funds for the carrying out of these works more extensively, more effectively, and more rapidly. That is not being done at present.
The question of piers and landing places for those along the seaboard should also be considered. They have a difficult life to face, sometimes on the shore and sometimes on the sea. These piers should be put into repair. It is money well spent. If we spend a few pounds extra on outlying districts along the seaboard in that way, we will get more advantage from it ultimately. We will preserve our population where their ancestors grew up, lived and flourished under hard conditions. They were content to struggle on through those years to hold on to their heritage. These are the things we should be thinking of now.
Many of our main roads have been completed now and there is an opportunity of improving further the county roads. We should then go on with the rural improvement schemes and the minor relief schemes and use them to the best advantage. The creation of activity in the countryside by expenditure on road improvements and other works will give the people some hope and courage because it will show that those in authority are thinking of them and of their needs.
Previous speakers have covered anything that I would want to say but there are just a few points to which I may refer. It is too bad that in all sections of this Vote there is a rather serious reduction in the amounts provided. As Deputy Kyne has stated, there is a reduction in the total Estimate of almost £118,000. If we deduct the £48,000 from the National Development Fund, the total reduction is £166,000. I cannot see why that £48,000 should be inserted in connection with the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote because I have always understood that money from that fund can be devoted to main or county roads as well as to other schemes.
These schemes, as Deputies have said, can be very useful in improving roads leading to houses and townlands and in carrying out small drainage works. There are various difficulties that arise when money is voted for minor employment schemes or rural improvement schemes. Where schemes have not been carried out, in most cases, as Deputies well know, it is the fault of the people themselves. When money is voted for a scheme that would benefit five or six houses in a townland or that would improve land, one or two people will object because they have some grievance against a neighbour. An old crank, an old bachelor or an old maid or somebody else may cause a lot of trouble in connection with the scheme. Regulations should be made—I suppose it would require legislation—by which such people could not prevent the execution of a scheme. There is a clause in the Local Authorities (Works) Act whereby an objection cannot be upheld. The same should apply in the case of the schemes carried out under this Vote. The officials of the Special Employment Schemes Office know all the difficulties that arise and all the trouble that is created when objections are raised to the carrying out of a scheme.
In connection with rural improvement schemes, people who contribute towards the scheme, sometimes large sums of money, expect to get work that will compensate them to some extent for the money they have laid out. According to the present regulations, persons who are in receipt of unemployment assistance must get preference and persons with the highest unemployment assistance get first preference. Rural improvement schemes are carried out principally for the improvement of roads or the clearing of drains and in that case those who contribute should get work, if at all possible, while at the same time provision should be made for local people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance.
I am not greatly enamoured of minor employment schemes because the work that is done under these schemes is never of a very suitable nature. The work is usually carried out in winter when it is not easy to do proper road work. The people employed have the idea that the money is given to them, not for work done, but to help to tide them over Christmas. If the engineers and gangers did their work properly, better work could be done under those schemes.
There is a grievance that some gangers employ only a few men and it is said that the reason for that is that the work will be prolonged and that the gangers will get extra employment. In very many cases people living near the work who are in receipt of unemployment assistance get no work at all. In all fairness, having regard to the amount available for minor relief schemes, the engineer and the ganger should arrange that everyone would get a week's work or a couple of weeks' work, if at all possible. It would be only fair and would avoid grievances.
Some Deputies suggested that when a road is put into a good state of repair under a rural improvement scheme, it should be taken over by the local authority. That would be ideal, I suppose, but the local authorities feel that they have too many roads to maintain at the present time. It has been my experience that at every county council meeting people from various districts come in on deputations asking that roads be repaired. These roads are already under the care of the county council. If more roads are added, there will be more trouble.
It would seem to be a matter for Local Government.
Not exactly. It was suggested by previous speakers that when these roads are repaired under rural improvement schemes the local authorities should take them over.
The decision would not lie with the Parliamentary Secretary.
I am saying that it would be better if they did not take them over because, in two or three years' time, people could get a further grant to improve and repair such roads. The ideal solution would be a system of co-operation by the people for whom the road is repaired. The same would apply to the clearing of drains. The people concerned could do voluntary work for two or three days during the year to ensure that water was taken off the road and potholes filled. That would be the ideal solution, if people would do their business properly. People are inclined to look to the State and the local authority and want to do nothing themselves. When there were no such grants available, rural improvement scheme grants or minor relief scheme grants, people would repair their own roads and very many of them had long roads leading into their houses. A farmer's house might have a road leading into it that was half a mile or a mile long and he would repair that road. Let us hope that Macra na Feirme and the other youth organisations will come together and that people will realise that they must help themselves and not look to the State or the local authority for everything. There is entirely too much of that. They would not lift a stone or a bush out of the road, if it were impeding traffic, unless somebody came along to pay for it.
There are just a few remarks I should like to make in regard to this Estimate, especially in connection with the minor employment schemes section. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not come in with an increased Estimate for this most essential work. While it has not been reduced, at the same time, it has not been increased, for this year, at any rate. Most useful works are carried out under it in remote areas of the country where there are numbers of people in receipt of unemployment assistance. I hope that during the coming year the Parliamentary Secretary will have a survey made of all the roads which are submitted to him for consideration and which affect his Department. Applications were submitted in respect of a number of roads and, though a survey has been carried out on them, nothing else has been done with them.
Where a road has been repaired, either last year or this year, the Department should in the course of a few years go back over it again. It would not cost much to maintain a road in proper repair, if that were done. My objection is that, under the present system, after a lapse of seven or eight years, it costs a lot to repair such a road again. I am sure the House would agree to such a scheme if the Parliamentary Secretary introduced it.
Applications have been made from the Parliamentary Secretary's own constituency as well as mine, in respect of roads into certain villages where at the present time there are probably nothing but paths. It is high time these applications were examined in all sincerity and money should be made available during the coming year to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to put this type of road into a proper state of repair. I know very well the true worth of the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with these matters. Of all the Parliamentary Secretaries who have held this post, he is one who has a thorough knowledge of this type of road, and I hope that in the coming year he will have a general survey carried out of all roads of this type. As I have said, once repair work has been carried out, it should be kept up to proper standards by further work in the course of a few years.
With regard to rural improvement schemes, I believe there has been too much delay in arriving at decisions on schemes submitted under this heading, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire into this and to speed up the process, if possible. There is only one time in the year, the summer time, when that work can be carried out.
Deputy Palmer suggested that when roads were done, they should be taken over by the local authority. As regards our county council in Galway, we would be favourable to any proposal of that nature, provided that the Office of Public Works handed over a road that would meet the standard which would satisfy the county engineer, whether it be a road under a minor employment scheme or rural improvement scheme.
I want to make one brief observation on this Vote, and it is by way of a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Would he say when he is concluding, what he proposes to do with regard to the type of works that might not be done under the urban employment schemes? He has instanced in his opening remarks the example of Dublin Corporation who, he says, have difficulty in finding suitable employment schemes because "it must be remembered that the works financed from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote must not include normal works which are the responsibility of the Dublin ratepayers. Employment schemes must be works which the Dublin Corporation cannot otherwise afford to do." I do not think that regulation has been strictly adhered to in so far as urban areas are concerned. It is a fact that the urban councils and corporations have difficulty within the regulations finding suitable schemes to use up the moneys they get from this Vote. It means delay to such an extent that in some years the total sum of money which is supposed to relieve unemployment is unexpended on 31st of March. What happens to it after that I do not know. If my suspicions are correct it is regarded as unexpended money and is repaid, or else it is not paid out by the Department.
Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the suggestion made by Deputy Palmer, and another made by Deputy Kyne, that the moneys available under the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote be used for the clearance of housing sites and, if necessary, for the initial development of housing sites. After all, the main idea in spending these moneys is to relieve unemployment. That is the primary objective of this Vote and, therefore, it does not really make much difference what sort of work is engaged in, so long as men are put into employment. As the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned difficulties in finding ways and means of spending this money, I think he should say, in his concluding remarks, whether or not he has in mind any new uses to which this money could be put, or at least, that he will consider having moneys provided under this Vote used for purposes other than those for which they were used in the past.
I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the undue and unnecessary delay in dealing with applications in connection with special improvement schemes, rural improvement schemes and bog development schemes. The delay from the time the proposal is submitted to the office till inspection of the proposed scheme is considerable: in some cases it is as great as from six to 12 months.
I can give the House an example of such delay. An application was made from a number of farmers in my area in May, 1955, in relation to a proposed scheme under minor employment schemes. That proposed scheme was inspected about six months afterwards. Nothing further was heard about it until I made inquiries in July, 1956. I was then told that the proposal would be considered on its merits in competition with other similar proposals from the area for a scheme. Nothing further was heard of this proposal until I made a further inquiry in connection with the matter in January of this year. I was then informed that the scheme did not qualify under a minor relief scheme but under a rural improvement scheme. It is absurd to think that it took the officials two and a half years to make up their minds on whether or not this scheme qualified under a rural improvement scheme or a bog development scheme. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that all applications either for bog developments schemes or rural improvement schemes be dealt with more expeditiously.
When the engineer inspects a proposed rural improvement scheme I feel he should see to it that the money he estimates as necessary for this scheme will be sufficient to ensure that the accommodation road will be wide enough to be taken over and maintained by the local authority. I understand that such a road must be at least 13 to 14 feet in width. In most cases for which a grant for a rural improvement scheme is provided, the money is sufficient only for the making of a road of from 10 to 11 feet wide. Then, afterwards, when we ask the local authorities to take over the road they inform us that as the road is not sufficiently wide they cannot take it over and maintain it. Therefore, I would ask that, in future, sufficient money be provided so that roads can be made from 13 to 14 feet wide.
I appreciate the difficulties of Deputies in speaking on this Vote. They are difficulties such as I would have experienced myself. However, if they will not mind my making an observation in relation to it, I would say it is because this particular service has achieved a degree of efficiency in operation that most of us are left somewhat inarticulate although we should like to see more done. That would be my reaction to it and it has been my reaction in recent years as a Deputy—that the actual administration of the various kinds of work provided for in this Vote is efficient but perhaps not ample enough because of the insufficiency in the supply of money.
With regard to the criticism made by two Opposition Deputies that there has been a progressive decrease in the provision of money for the various schemes, I think they should advert to the fact that the last Estimate which they, as a Government, provided was considerably less than the figure which they see in the column under 1957-58 in this circular which was handed around. They will notice there that the total is £871,130. I should like to remind those who are criticising the provision this year that that figure includes the provision of £250,000 which was made by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dr. Ryan, in his Budget last year to supplement expenditure by this office and that what they themselves provided was, in fact, by that sum of £250,000 less than the figure they see now in the information I have supplied. Their provision for 1956-57 was £658,450. We supplemented that by £250,000 and a number of subheads benefited by it.
Deputy Lindsay asked me to explain my reference to the sum of £48,000 National Development Fund moneys unexpended. I think the explanation is found in my references in the introductory statement to the urban schemes. It is obvious to Deputies, from what I said there, that the moneys were available but that the county borough authorities were unable to spend what was placed at their disposal. After all, it is proper to include the £48,000 in the total for the provision now estimated for 1958-59 because it is there to be spent, anyway, and if it had been spent last year it would not now appear in the total for this year. With regard to the £227,000, therefore, which is now being compared by the critics of the Vote with the figure of £250,000 for 1957-58, they should add the £48,000 to the £227,000 in order to get a more accurate comparison. In any event, not alone was the provision for the last year increased by the amount provided in the Budget last year, viz. £250,000, but that was done notwithstanding the fact that the total of unemployed had shown last year a reduction as compared with the previous year.
When it comes to making any political capital out of these expenditures, I would point out that our predecessors found it necessary to suspend the operation of rural improvements schemes in September, 1956, and that offers were not resumed until February, 1957, which is a very significant date because it was the month in which the Dáil was dissolved and a general election was upon us. I do not want to dwell on the significance of that but I offer it to Deputies for consideration in connection with their own suggestions that there is any political significance in our administration of this particular Vote. I would say that we do not, in the Special Employments Schemes Office, undertake the enormous task of finding employment for all those who are registered as unemployed. I think that while the method by which the office has proceeded about its work has made some impression on that problem it has also done what seems to me to be nearest the Deputies' hearts in this matter: it has provided good useful works in both town and country.
On the question of utility, let me refer particularly to the criticism that housing sites do not seem to be acceptable to the Special Employments Schemes Office. I understand there is a special difficulty there; that clearance as such is acceptable. House site development, I understand, is not just quite the same type of problem. It is necessary that the Department of Local Government would have a final say when it comes to dealing with the question of development and, in fact, I take it, with house clearance as well.
I agree with all the Deputies who spoke in favour of rural improvement schemes. They are not geographically limited. The need for that type of accommodation road is to be met with in every part of the country but if Deputies examine the making of roads for the purpose of their subsequent handing over to the local authority, I think they will come to the conclusion that such an arrangement is hardly possible because there is not a road in the country for which a demand would not be made almost immediately in the hope, of course, that the county council would take it over and maintain it as an ordinary public road.
In that connection I would point out also to the Deputies who feel that once a grant has been made for the construction or repair of a road, either as a rural improvements scheme road or a minor employment schemes road, that thereafter there should be automatic inspection by the office and maintenance, that, again, is not feasible. After all, the sanctioning of a grant as a minor employment scheme or as a rural improvements scheme must be done as a separate proposition and certain matters have to be taken into account such as, in relation to minor employment schemes, the numbers of registered unemployed for the electoral division concerned and, with regard to rural improvements schemes, relevant matters such as the use and utility of the road itself.
I do not wish to offer any excuse to the Dáil for my own shortcomings in relation to this office because of the short period I have been in the office but I have been speaking up to the present very largely out of my own personal general knowledge of this particular service. In regard to rural areas, the experiences of Deputies are very much the same in relation to the demand for these works of accommodation roads and small drainage. With regard to the time at which works are carried out, some Deputy suggested that summer rather than winter should be chosen for employment schemes.
I think Deputies will appreciate the fact that there is a greater need to tackle the unemployment question in the winter time and that the need for having schemes ready to give employment and earning to the unemployed is more apparent in the winter time than summer. There are various avenues and opportunities for employment in the summer time that are not available in winter. Generally speaking, it has been found that these schemes, as far as possible, should be carried out in winter. There is no such limitation of time in regard to rural improvement schemes which may be carried out at any time of the year. They, too, in their own way are employment schemes for the reason which has been objected to by at least one Deputy that those eligible for employment on them must be registered in the local employment exchange.
I am afraid that I could not bring about any mitigation of that regulation because, after all, there is a considerable amount of public money spent on these rural improvement schemes. While the making of a good road or good drainage is carried on under the scheme, there is a corresponding obligation to ensure that those who would otherwise be a burden on the public purse, unemployment assistance recipients, should be given the preference. I think that is a very reasonable regulation in relation to them.
There is a desire on the part of all of us to see that those who contribute to the scheme should get opportunities of employment. Every effort is made to ensure that they do get some personal benefit from the carrying out of the scheme if that is possible under the general regulation I have referred to.
With regard to the size of grants for link roads to be taken over by the county council—I think it was Deputy Mrs. Crowley who referred to this matter—increased grants can be given for roads which have a high general public utility and it is the practice of the Special Employment Schemes Office to give that special treatment to proposals which come within that category. With regard to the bog roads which are so located as to be able to contribute to the output of turf on the four west coast generating stations, I should remind Deputies that £80,000 is provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce for this purpose. I understand that so far only £20,000 of that allocation has been expended so that, therefore, there is still a balance of about £60,000 available for roads for which a case can be made under this particular provision. If Deputies in those areas have any bog roads which they think can add to the total output of turf for those stations, they should send them along to myself and I will have them vetted by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
With regard to the increase in the contributions for rural improvements schemes, the average contribution worked out, before the change, at about 12.6 per cent. The increase produces the result that the average contribution since last July, when it came into effect, is 16.9 per cent. I know that objection has been raised to that increase but I would point out that the total allocation for rural improvement schemes has been increased by the State. The percentages of the total costs which I have mentioned are so very favourable that it is hardly true to say that the increase constitutes a hardship on the applicant. In any event, this contribution is a guarantee that only works of merit and of utility will come into the office.
In regard to that matter, might I advert to some of the criticisms made from both sides of the House regarding administration? I am not satisfied that the administrative costs are unduly high—they seem to be considerably less than 10 per cent.—but here again we had a conflict between Deputies' points of view. I think it was Deputy Lindsay who objected to the size of the administrative costs. On the other hand, we had Deputies complaining that there is undue delay in carrying out inspections. I think it was Deputy Seán MacCarthy who said he thought that inspectors should not have to wait until three or four proposals accumulated before they made a visit. I do not know sufficient about this aspect of the question to give a categorical reply to it now. Generally, however, if there is criticism of the percentage of the total amount eaten up by administration, that in itself is a reason why the administrators should see to it that inspections are so arranged that there will be no unnecessary covering of the same district and that the work will be so organised that a considerable bulk of applicants can be dealt with in the one journey. That would seem to me to be common sense.
If there are special features of any particular scheme and the director is satisfied that a special journey should be made, I have no hesitation in saying he would order such a special inspection to be carried out. If Deputy MacCarthy gives us particulars of the scheme which he seemed to have in mind, I shall have a special examination carried out if the merits of the scheme so warrant.
A very large number of matters have been mentioned in this debate and I could not guarantee to cover them all. I have accumulated a very large amount of notes, but I would invite Deputies to communicate with me personally, if they so choose, in regard to any aspect of this Vote and I assure them that my services will be at their disposal to ensure that the best possible value is got for the money which they are now being asked to vote for this service.
