Private Members' Business. - Minor Employment and Bog Development Schemes. – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Tuesday, 29 Oct 1968

Private Members' Business. - Minor Employment and Bog Development Schemes.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That in view of the widespread unemployment and consequent hardship caused by the merger of minor employment and bog development schemes with rural improvement schemes, the reduction of the total vote in respect thereof by approximately one-half, and the absence of any or any adequate plan or scheme to absorb those who have lost employment, Dáil Éireann calls upon the Government to restore the said schemes in their original form and the amount of money needed to implement them.

—(Deputy Lindsay).

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I feel very strongly about the subject matter of this motion which stands in the name of the Fine Gael Party. For many years we had these schemes— the minor employment schemes, the bog development schemes and the rural improvement schemes. They were operated by the Department of Finance through the agency of the Office of Public Works until 1st April, 1967, I think.

While money appeared to be very scarce in 1965 and 1966, it was very difficult to get many of these schemes proceeded with by the Office of Public Works but, nevertheless, the schemes were there and, when properly operated, they performed a very useful function. The minor employment scheme was used to provide roads and drainage, without any local contribution, when the amount of unemployment in the area warranted it. The bog development scheme was used to provide roads into bogs. The rural improvement scheme was also very important because it enabled residents on lanes to bring those lanes up to a reasonable standard. Admittedly, a local contribution was necessary but people who could afford it gladly paid it in order to have proper access to their homes.

Now, on 1st April, 1967, as far as I know, the Department of Finance washed its hands of these three schemes and handed them over to the Department of Local Government. From that date, I think the minor employment scheme and the bog development scheme were abolished and the rural improvement scheme was operated, or was supposed to be operated, by the Department of Local Government.

In the past couple of years, during which these schemes were operated by the Department of Finance, to my personal knowledge it was very difficult to get any schemes under way and hope was held out that, when the Department of Local Government took over—when a Minister took over who was supposed to be in close contact with local authorities and local conditions—something more might be expected. However, instead of improvement, there was deterioration. When one made representations about a scheme one was told that the amount of money allocated for this particular year was used up. Then, at the beginning of this year, we had the introduction of the Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Act which scrapped the three schemes mentioned in this motion and conferred authority on local authorities to do substantially the sort of work that heretofore had been done through these schemes within the limits of finance provided by the Department of Local Government.

Things were bad enough on 1st April of this year when the Department of Local Government, following the example of the Department of Finance, washed its hands of these schemes, save in so far as it would continue to exercise control in the form of sanction over them, and handed the schemes over to the local authorities. As I say, things were bad enough then because a backlog had accumulated in each county in Ireland. One county that I can speak of with first-hand information had a backlog of something like 100 schemes which had been submitted to the Department of Local Government, or to its predecessor the Department of Finance, and had not been dealt with.

What has happened since? Things have got far worse. In the year 1968-69, as far as I can find out, throughout the country not one scheme has commenced. In fact, in reply to a question today which I had down to the Minister for Local Government—and which I hope to be dealing with in more detail on the Adjournment tonight—I was informed, and I can take this as an example, that, for the current year, that is, for the year 1st April, 1968, to 1st April, 1969, a sum of £30,000 had been allocated to Cavan; that on 14th April, 1968, the list of cases unattended to, which amounted to approximately 100 at the beginning of this year, had increased to 363.

When I asked the Minister to tell me the number of schemes which have actually been commenced by the county councils since the Act came into operation, I was informed that none has commenced. Here we have these three schemes being passed on by the Department of Finance to the Department of Local Government on 1st April, 1967, and being passed on to the county councils by the Department of Local Government on 1st April, 1968, and we see that since 1st April, 1968, no schemes have been put into operation, no schemes have commenced, because the Department of Local Government, as I will establish later, have refused to co-operate with the county councils in providing or sanctioning the provision of machinery to put this work into operation.

Let us consider for a moment or two the type of work that is covered by this scheme, the type of work that is carried out. There are in rural Ireland, particularly in the poorer counties, miles and miles of lanes in each county in which two, three, four or, perhaps, up to ten families reside. It is utterly impossible for any one family or any one person living in such a lane to have it repaired because the cost would be beyond them. Heretofore, the practice was that, with a small local contribution, usually about ten per cent or 15 per cent of the cost, the work on these lanes was carried out under the rural improvement scheme by, as I have said, the Department of Finance in the first instance and later by the Department of Local Government.

Now, the whole thing has been scrapped. That is what it means. It is not a question of replacing the schemes mentioned in the motion—the minor employment scheme, the bog development scheme and the rural improvement scheme—by a scheme under the Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Act, 1968. That is not the position. These three schemes have been scrapped and the other scheme, which exists on paper, has not been implemented. I know of many families living in intolerable conditions. I know that the man who drew milk to the creamery, the contractor, refused to drive in these lanes to collect milk and the people consequently have to wheel out the milk on wheelbarrows. I know of a number of lanes in which there are positively dangerous bridges liable to collapse at any time.

When the scheme was being operated by the Board of Works under the Department of Finance, I had a case in my constituency in which a grant was refused for a lane in which there was a bridge. Within months of the refusal, a young lad was driving out from his home on a tractor across the bridge when it collapsed. The tractor was thrown into the river. Fortunately, the young lad was thrown clear and did not receive serious injuries. A photograph of the collapsed bridge, and the tractor in the river, appeared in the local newspaper and I cut that out and sent it to the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons. I must say in fairness to him that the decision to refuse to sanction a grant for that lane and bridge was reversed and the work was done, but I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that, perhaps, within the next 12 months further bridges will collapse in lanes in my constituency and, perhaps, on these occasions we may not be as fortunate as we were on the last and there may be fatalities or serious injuries.

I am reminding the Parliamentary Secretary now, as I will the Minister for Local Government later, that I am putting this on the records of the House, and if anything like that happens I will hold responsible the people who scrapped these schemes and who refused to implement the scheme for which there is provision under the Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Act. So will the public hold them responsible.

Unemployment is mentioned in this motion. Of course, there is considerable, genuine unemployment in rural Ireland. The fact that the Minister for Social Welfare has seen fit to regard farmers under a certain valuation as unemployed and to provide these small farmers with a small amount of unemployment assistance is ample evidence to me, I am sure to the House and the country, that there exists wholesale unemployment in rural Ireland. It exists side by side with poor roads, bad bridges and rivers that need draining, yet the minor employment scheme, which provided employment for small farmers and unemployed labourers, has been scrapped. It is hard to understand it, it is difficult to see the reasoning in it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain it to us when he is replying to the debate—indeed, it is difficult to know who will be replying to it or what the position is: I assume the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting in because these schemes were operated originally by the Board of Works. If he is not replying personally to the debate, I am sure he will pass on the remarks that have been made and that will be made about it to his successor on the Front Bench and that we shall hear from him.

Mr. L'Estrange

It might even be Deputy Blaney. They might swap. They might demote Deputy Blaney.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The matter is too serious to let it be sidetracked or to draw the red herring of Ministerial and Parliamentary Secretary changes across the trail. I would like to know, first of all, why the schemes were scrapped when there was plenty of unemployment in the localities concerned. People would much prefer to get work and be paid for it and, at the same time, they would be rendering useful service to themselves and to their neighbours. The people who would qualify for employment on these schemes would be living on the very lanes that need attention. I want also to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to the House why the scheme which is supposed to have superseded these schemes has not been brought into operation—because it has not been brought into operation—and why the Government have not seen to it that the scheme which I say is supposed to have superseded these schemes is simply there on paper only and why not one penny has been spent under it in County Cavan in the current year. Presumably what applies to Cavan applies to every other county in Ireland where the schemes should operate.

We hear much talk about flight from the land and keeping the people in the west of Ireland. I have said here repeatedly that I do not know of anything more calculated to drive the younger generation out of rural Ireland than to be compelled to travel a mile or two of an impassable lane to get to their homes. I remember canvassing in a by-election in the west of Ireland and going into a house at the very end of a fairly long lane where there were a number of teenagers. They were not interested in high politics or in the activities of the Minister for External Affairs or any other Minister. What they immediately said was: "Will you get the lane done?" One could not blame them. These lanes are driving the young people out of rural Ireland. Lanes like that are responsible for the low or no marriage rate in large parts of the country and the consequent drop in population in these places. There is much emotion about this and, if all the concern we heard for the west of Ireland in recent months or throughout this year meant anything, I fail to understand why the Ministers responsible have so disgracefully neglected this elementary duty of assisting these people in rural Ireland to provide for themselves a proper access to their homes.

Drainage is also concerned in this because these schemes were availed of to drain agricultural land. We hear from the Parliamentary Secretary from time to time that the major schemes cannot be proceeded with because there are very grave difficulties and much money involved. Why scrap this scheme which enables the farmers and others to do local drainage? I want to charge the Government with showing complete disregard for the people of rural Ireland. I want to charge the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government because between them they are responsible for the state of affairs that exists at the moment. I want to charge them with having deprived the people of rural Ireland of these worthwhile schemes. I want to charge the Minister for Local Government with putting a confidence trick across on the people of Ireland this year by introducing the Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Act and allocating sums varying. I suppose, from £14,000 or £15,000 to perhaps £70,000 or £80,000 to various counties when at the same time, he knew that it would not be possible for the local authorities to spend any of that money in the current year because he was going to see to it that they would not have the machinery to do it and that he would not, therefore, have to provide the money. I wonder will this money, which was provided for 1968/9 and which has not been spent because the Minister for Local Government would not permit of its spending, be carried forward to the year 1969/70, or will it simply not be paid at all because it was not utilised in the year for which it was voted?

These are all questions that need answering. One question is unemployment in rural Ireland. The Government admit it is there, because they have provided for it under the Social Welfare code by acknowledging that small farmers are not gainfully occupied. They have them on their hands and they can do this work. Another question is that of drainage, of the hardship imposed on these people in rural Ireland by having bad drainage and having deplorable roads or lanes to their houses. These are the questions I want the Parliamentary Secretary to attend to. It is no answer for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the scheme has been handed over to the county councils, that they have a better local knowledge and are in a better position to operate them. They are not, because they have not got the technical advisers nor the administrative machinery to put them into operation and the Minister for Local Government will not sanction them.

In conclusion, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what are the engineers in his Department doing who in previous years carried out the necessary inspections on schemes submitted to them. If they are there at the moment they should be made available to County Councils to enable them to do the work. I simply do not know where they are. Maybe they have retired. I know the County Councils cannot get engineers and, if the Department of Finance have engineers available, they should send them down to check these schemes as an interim measure if they have the interest of the rural population of Ireland at heart. I can only come to the conclusion that the Government and the Ministers for Finance and Local Government simply want to wash their hands of these schemes and that they simply want to get rid of them because they cannot be bothered. They passed them on to the county councils and, at the same time, refused to co-operate with the county councils in implementing them.

I hope that after the shock the Government recently received they will now realise that they are out of touch with the people and that the people of Connaught and of the three remaining counties of Ulster are more interested in practical finance like this and in practical assistance and organisation. They are more interested in practical organisation and finance than in the offer of more Fianna Fáil TDs. With the present number of TDs in these areas about which I am speaking and with an absolute Government majority in this House, this thing has happened to these people.

I am appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary, when the post mortem is resumed, to bring home to the Government that these schemes are very important and that the people regard them as being very important. It is such absolute neglect as this which has led to frustration in rural Ireland and has helped to deliver to the Government in the recent referendum a massive vote of no confidence. However, if that wakes up the present Government to their responsibilities to the people of rural Ireland it will have been worth while.

Mr. Lyons

The events leading up to the change from the Department of Finance to the Department of Local Government and then to the county councils have been well explained by Deputy Fitzpatrick and I shall not follow along that line. However, I said at the time—I said it in the county council and I think I said it in this House—that it was the most ill-advised change that could possibly have taken place.

The three types of grants for the schemes mentioned that came under the Board of Works were so important to the west and to the county I come from that I thought it was a pity that any change whatever should be made, or that any change should be made in the method of allocation, in the method of staffing and all the other things that go into the investigation of a scheme before the final allocation of a grant. I knew the engineers who were involved. I knew that during the years they had acquired wide experience in the various matters connected with it that could not be matched by any new staff recruited by the county council. I knew a lot about the type of work that had to go into it once an application was made.

I knew, too, the length of time it would take to deal with an application and in many cases the lack of co-operation of some of the people involved with regard to getting them to agree that a particular road or laneway, or drain, might be brought through their land and the right given to people to go in on the land to do the work. It was often very frustrating work. In many cases grants had to be held up for a long time due to the fact that, perhaps, one awkward individual would not agree to the scheme going through. There were also cases of individuals who would not agree to pay a contribution. I must say that during the time that the Department of Finance handled this and that the Parliamentary Secretary himself was in charge more progress was made and more money allocated and wisely spent than at any time since.

While in Local Government we got nowhere and finally the Department or the Government were attempting to pass on to local authorities a burden, which they themselves found too heavy, with complete disregard for the burden carried by local authorities, like County Mayo where the rate is 91s 6d in the £. They forgot how it might affect the local authorities and shed their responsibilities ill-advisedly. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say why this should have been done.

I have a fear that the schemes will not be successful. The new Local Government scheme cannot be successful for many reasons. First and foremost, we now have a situation where no scheme can be embarked upon without a contribution. I know a lot about this and I know, too, that the Parliamentary Secretary knows about it. I feel that where there is a situation in which a contribution has to be made in all cases there cannot be progress— progress, for instance, like that which we had when minor relief schemes and big development schemes were carried out without any contribution from the people concerned.

Everybody knows that people go into bogs from varied and wide areas. The distance between their houses and holdings may be miles and miles and to attempt to get these people to come together and provide the necessary contribution is an impossible task. I feel that this will put paid to any good work being done on bog roads and bog drains in the future. In the west of Ireland there never was a greater need for good solid bog roads than there is at present because turf cutting machines are being brought in now where heretofore the slane was used and, instead of the horse and cart or the ass and cart, tractors are now being used on the bogs. Roads of better construction are needed for those vehicles. I am afraid that under the new scheme, because of the difficulty of collecting contributions over a wide area, bog roads will be completely neglected.

Regarding bog drains and other drainage, we have a tremendous problem in my county in that we have almost 1,000 miles of lanes not yet vested in the county council. Bearing in mind the fact that we have 1,400 miles of green roads not yet black topped, you can imagine what a shocking problem it is to attempt to solve. The £57,000 allocated to Mayo, taking into consideration the amazing mileage of lanes we have, not counting the bog roads, and the mileage of drainage we have in the county — and notwithstanding the fact that the Moy drainage scheme and the Corrib scheme came partially through the county — is only a drop in the ocean compared with what our needs are.

As I said, the feeling is there that the scheme will not be successful due to the fact that it is so hard to get the contributions. The contributions are much less now than they used to be. That is a step in the right direction, but I feel that some other scheme will have to be devised so that the bog roads and bog drains can be dealt with.

As was pointed out earlier, it appears that in no county has any work been done under the local improvement schemes up to now. I had the feeling that this would happen. All along the line I asked the county engineers if it were possible to get the staff transferred from the Board of Works, from the rural improvements schemes and the others, to the county council to enable them to carry on the work that was necessary because, as I said earlier, this staff knew what they were about. The job had become to them everyday routine. If a difficulty arose they knew how to deal with it. They were able to estimate costs better than any new people who might be brought in. For that reason, I felt that without them we would be held up, as we have been, and I do not know when we will break out of it. We know there is a shortage of engineers throughout the country. It is difficult for county councils to get engineers for the many and varied types of work they have. I felt that, if the Government were serious about this, they would have turned over the staff, lock, stock and barrel, to the county councils; but they did not do that. In fact, every other Department raided the Board of Works and the Land Commission took the engineers. The Department of Local Government held on to some of them and the county councils were faced with the fact that they could not get an engineer at all. If they did get one, or if one were assigned from their own staff, he had not the experience necessary to deal with the questions speedily. Thus we find that at this date in the year no work has been done.

The county councils have been accused of being slow in dealing with this. We have taken our own officials to task in Mayo but they have pointed out to us that to start up a service, to employ staff and to provide the necessary office accommodation and all that went with it took such a long time that they have not been able to get the scheme off the ground up to the present. The new staff are not familiar with the work and, consequently, you will have great delays, even if they start on the field work, because they have not the knowledge of dealing with people which the engineers and supervisors who were there for years had. Therefore, when the new people go out to attempt to break down the view of some awkward individual who does not want to let the lane or drain go through, they have not the necessary tact because they have not had the experience. That means that we will have slow movement forward or perhaps no movement at all in many cases.

Some people may ask why the county councils do not take over the lanes. A circular was sent out by the Minister for Local Government a year and a half ago telling the county councils that they should be very slow to take over roads not yet vested in them, that there would be plenty of money available from other schemes through the Board of Works to do the lanes. Of course, everybody took the Minister at his word. But now the roads are there, the lanes are there and the drains are there and I see no hope on earth of any advance in Mayo in the coming year.

There is another thing. The change has meant that many small farmers are unemployed who would be able during the summer months working on drains and during the winter months on roads to earn some extra money to help them to eke out a bare living on their holdings. This was extremely important to them. In many cases the amount of money that would be earned meant their not having to emigrate to England for six or more months of the year. They were enabled to stay at home with their families and have a happier and better life. During part of the year up to now many of them had to emigrate because the employment they used to get was not there and they could not earn the money. Some people may say that all this is sentimentality. It is a fact that this has happened. In the final analysis the Government must take the blame for that whether they like it or not.

The Local Government (Roads and Drainage) Act also meant that in future everything connected with investigation had to be carried out by local engineers of the county council. The staff in the county council have no knowledge of the many and varied angles of this and it will take a long time before they can build up the type of expertise that existed when the scheme was controlled by the Board of Works.

Beyond any doubt there is a danger that drainage and bog roads will be left without any money and that the emphasis in my county at least will be on the lanes. The lanes are very necessary. The fact that the lanes are bad means fertilisers cannot be brought into many farms because lorries will not travel in. If a man wants to build a house the fellow who comes with the blocks must leave them at the end of the lane to be carted up and this causes a lot of difficulty which Departmental officials do not know about. However, the worst feature of it is the social aspect. A man living at the end of a lane, where he is up to his knees in water, is a third class citizen. Yet the people living under these conditions pay rates and taxes. Surely something should be done to enable them to have better living conditions? A county council like the council of Mayo, who have put such a shocking burden of 91/6d. in the £ on the people, can do nothing to help where you have 1,000 miles of laneway. I feel that it is the Minister's and the Government's duty to ensure that in some manner more money will be channelled into this worthy work.

Mr. Geoghegan

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate but when I hear a western Deputy like Deputy Lyons who, with others, has signed a motion asking that these schemes be restored to the Board of Works and looked after by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, I cannot understand it. I will give the reasons why.

If there is one person who should be responsible for the roads of this country, be they by-roads, county roads or anything else, it is the county engineer in each county council. Every shovel of sand that is spread on a road should be looked after by the engineer-incharge in that county. Each council has assistant engineers all over the place. Surely, if anybody knows the state of the roads and where money should be spent, it is these men who are dealing with these roads every other day. In our local authority in Galway we accepted these schemes and we are carrying them out at the moment. Our county engineer appointed some supervisors to check on the roads. They report back and he carries out the improvements. I do not think any Deputy from the west of Ireland will say that I am talking out of the way when I say that the haphazard manner in which this was done by the Board of Works was a disgrace. You had men with pickaxes to dig sand. A man was sent out to dig a lock of sand to put on a road. That day is gone. Each council has its own machinery. They have diggers and graders and all the rest of it. They have machinery to do the work. Is it not a grand thing to see each county council doing its own roads so that they can have a permanent staff working the whole time? I am sure Deputy Lyons or any other western Deputy and even the Donegal Deputies will agree that, where you had a certain amount of money allocated to roads, the work was carried out for approximately nine months of the year. There were nearly three months of the year when the workers had no work. Now, with the acceptance of these schemes, at least in my county and in my constituency there will be continuous work for those workers and they will be able to qualify for the contributory pension when they reach the age.

You had a few engineers looking after this work down the years. They went out sometimes, maybe in the Spring, and examined the roads which people had applied for. They selected one here and one there. To my mind, it was not the right way of attacking the job. In our local authority we will take over these roads and maintain them, and rightly so. Every road leading into a townland should be maintained by the local authority. I am sure nobody will say I am wrong in saying this. I hope I live long enough to see every road leading into a townland or village in the country districts tarred to the doors of the people, the same as our main roads. I will never be satisfied until I see that done.

That is why I think that this motion signed by a number of Fine Gael Deputies is wrong. I feel it is something that should not have come here at all. Some of them should sit down and say to themselves: "Did we do something wrong?" They must admit they have done something wrong. Surely it is a grand thing for Deputy Lyons, Deputy O'Donnell or myself to be able to walk into our local engineer and say: "There is a road leading into a townland. Will you have a look at it?" Our county engineer has put notices in the paper and asked the people to apply for roads to be done so that he can have them investigated. He has a supervisor out on the job at the moment. Some of them are being done and the others are being investigated. I feel it will be a better job and the townlands will be better off than they were in the past. I certainly think that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government, who handled the transfer to the local authorities, did a good day's work and we should thank them for doing it.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The wording of this motion bears repetition:

Let us look at the description of the scheme first of all—a minor relief scheme. It is for the relief of unemployment. It is a minor scheme for the relief of unemployment in an area where there is a very big percentage of unemployment and these schemes apply mostly to the west of Ireland. Has the unemployment position in the west, north-west and south-west of Ireland improved so much that the Government can afford to abolish these minor relief schemes which were generally carried out in winter in rural Ireland? Let us look at the figures. In October, 1966, we had 45,817 unemployed; in October, 1967, this rose to 49,474 and in October this year we have 51,728, an increase of 5,911, unemployed. Can anybody question that most of those unemployed are in the west, in what were originally congested areas but which are becoming rapidly depopulated?

In the west we depend quite a lot on migration and, unfortunately, still do, but during the winter months people were encouraged to come back to the country and seek employment, admittedly temporary, on minor relief schemes for the repair of accommodation roads, bog roads and for drainage work also. A considerable amount of money was spent and good done as a result because in many western counties, in practically every county in the west, we have minor roads which are not county roads and for which there is no fund on which we can draw for their repair and upkeep. This scheme whereby we could procure funds from the Office of Public Works was a good one. The official in charge is merely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and the scheme was not administered by the Office of Public Works; it was the Department of Finance that made the moneys available. In my county the work was carried out under the supervision of the county and district engineers. The Board of Works had no engineers there other than those selecting the jobs to be done. Now these roads are left with grass growing on them, with potholes and rocks, and there are no funds available for repairs.

We did receive in Donegal approximately £66,000 for minor relief and rural improvement schemes and most of it was spent on the western seaboard in poor, congested areas, Gaeltacht areas. That money has been cut by half this year to £33,000 and extended to the entire county and if farmers with high valuation apply for what are now known as local improvements schemes grants and are willing to pay up to 25 per cent of the cost of the work I have no doubt they will get preference over unfortunate residents of congested areas and that very little of the money will trickle through to those for whom it was originally intended to fill lacunae in employment in the winter.

Last night I attended a Fine Gael meeting in the Gaeltacht village of Annagry and the sole complaint there was lack of funds to repair non-county roads. I went and saw some of the roads which were impassable for cars or other vehicles. Where will these people get money for such repairs? I was amazed to hear Deputy Geoghegan say they had already received an allocation for the local improvements schemes and were already spending the money. Donegal County Council have not received a penny and all applications received as a result of the scheme which was inaugurated last March or April are postponed pending completion of some schemes taken over from the Board of Works when the rural improvements schemes were transferred to the local authorities.

When will we get even this meagre £33,000? I know on my own coast of islands such as Arranmore and Inishfree which depend on minor relief grants for the upkeep of non-county roads. Some of these islands are not in the Gaeltacht and will not qualify for grants. It is a shame, in view of the flight from the Gaeltacht, that we are now leaving them short of money for the maintenance of roads that we made for them through minor relief schemes. I know the Parliamentary Secretary may later say they will provide funds for petty grants in the Gaeltacht area but, unfortunately, the Gaeltacht is dwindling in area and numerical strength and only small areas will benefit from Gaeltacht grants.

There is no winter employment in these congested areas. Most small crofters in the west win their own turf and depended on minor relief grants to get it from the bog when saved. They now depend on transport being provided other than the ass and cart or pony and cart. They have depended on tractors but the roads have become so impassable that it is impossible for tractors to use them. I know some people have to use a creel to bring turf to the county roads before a tractor can transport it home. That is very bad.

Most of the migrants can now afford a motor car and when they come home they bring it with them. It is purchased out of money earned in Britain. Many of them must park their cars from a half to one mile from their homes because they cannot drive cars on the roads formerly repaired by minor relief schemes. Some migrants refuse to come—can one blame them? —until such time as road relief grants are expended on these roads. Deputy Geoghegan said the people of Galway were taking advantage of the local improvements schemes grants to improve accommodation roads and that, when approved, local authorities would take over and maintain these roads. Is he serious? We have so many minor or county roads in our county still untarred, still not dust-free that we could not possibly take over many of these accommodation roads for the next 15 or 20 years and it will be longer unless the grant is restored to the original amount of £66,000 instead of £33,000.

Why should we cut back on a grant which relieved unemployment in the congested areas of the west? Is it not false economy? Is it not driving people from the country and from the Gaeltacht? Is it encouraging people to marry? Donegal County Council have a scheme of specific instance houses. The local authority will build houses for individuals in specific cases but the local authority will not build a house unless the site is beside a road which is passable. They have refused on many occasions to accept sites that were offered because the road nearest the site is impassable from the point of view of traffic. Their reason for that is that they know that, if the minor relief schemes are not restored, some day, a house built on such a site would become a monument in a field because nobody would live in it.

I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to turn his back on the west even though the west, the north-west and south-west, may have turned their backs on him in the referendum. I would appeal to him that these traditional strongholds of Fianna Fáil should not now be deserted because the people are deserting Fianna Fáil. The grants which were payable in the past and to which these people are entitled should be restored. If that is done, it will encourage people to come home and spend the winter months working in Ireland. Would it not be much better to give that employment on minor relief schemes than to pay unemployment assistance? The men would appreciate it much more and would be satisfied that they were giving a good return for the money they were receiving, not only to the State but to themselves and their neighbours. That is one of the reasons why the minor relief grants should be restored.

Remember, when a person is in receipt of unemployment assistance he is not working. When he is working on a minor relief scheme he is doing national and local work which will benefit the community. These factors should be considered. The Parliamentary Secretary should consult with his colleague the Minister for Social Welfare to discover the amount of money that is now being paid by way of unemployment assistance during the period of the year when, under minor relief schemes and other such schemes, men were employed in the west of Ireland.

Under minor relief schemes, culverts were covered, bridges were repaired, small jetties were built, slips were constructed to facilitate fishermen. Such work can no longer be done under local improvement schemes. That, again, is a tragedy. Now that so many tourists come for a short period to the western seaboard, facilities should be made available to them to use small pleasure boats such as are in use in Europe, Great Britain and parts of Ireland. If necessary, money should be made available for the provision of landing strips at seaside resorts, beauty spots or strands.

The only method known to me of procuring such money is by way of minor relief grants. As that source has now dried up, I do not know where we are to get the money for the repair of the little works already carried out such as small marine works, bog drainage and the drainage carried out under special employment schemes. I do not know where we are to get the money necessary to keep in repair and in fit condition the projects that have already been carried out.

It is for all these reasons that I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the scheme which was originally introduced here is implemented and that provision such as was originally made available by us for local improvement schemes will now be made available. Why should the provision be cut in half? Why should the unfortunate unemployed of the west be victimised vis-á-vis the industrialist or the hotelier or others in other areas? The amount of money spent on that famous monument, Potez, would have financed all the minor relief schemes in the west of Ireland for at least one year and possibly more.

These are things that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider. The minor relief schemes are schemes that concern Irishmen, that concern the cradle of the Irish language, namely, the Gaeltacht. Therefore, I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the decision on this matter.

Mr. James Tully

This motion gives an opportunity to those of us who disagree with the action of the Government in transferring the schemes in question to local authorities to air our views. I do not know whether or not it is correct but it did appear that the Special Employment Schemes Office were, in fact, running down schemes in cases where they were not being done, at least in a number of constituencies that adjoin mine and in the constituency that I represent. It appeared that, in an effort to get out of an awkward situation, some bright boy got the idea that the schemes should be transferred to local authorities who would then be responsible for carrying out the work.

I am not against decentralisation; as a matter of fact I am very much in favour of it and I will have something to say on the Estimate the debate on which is to be resumed with regard to some of the things being done.

Schemes which have been on the stocks over a number of years and which have not been processed, just left on a list, are to be transferred to the local authority and the local authority are expected to implement them (a) without the necessary finance and (b) without their being satisfied that the order in which they are asked to do them is the proper order. When the transfer of the schemes was first suggested some of us wanted to know whether or not we would be allowed to select the schemes that should be carried out or if it would be necessary to carry them out as listed. We were told that the Department would send down a list which was to be followed. I do not think that is a good idea because, apparently, the Department made no attempt to find out whether or not the schemes were placed in the proper order of priority.

Another matter with which we completely disagreed was as to the amount of money allocated for the schemes and the amount which the local authority were allowed to retain for administering the schemes. I do not know whether or not the Department consider that the county council administration is far more efficient than their own but they did seem to suggest that it would be cheaper to administer the schemes at local level than directly by the Department.

I do not know if Deputies are aware of the position up to this. Usually a man who was employed on one of these schemes would tell you, on inquiry, that he was employed by the county council. There were many cases where people were working with the county council and were transferred to a special employment scheme or a bog scheme and then returned to the county council who were not aware that they had been in two different employments. In theory, the people employed on these schemes were supposed to come from the local labour exchange. In practice, that very seldom happened except where there were very big pockets of unemployment.

County council employees were transferred to these schemes and the person who administered the schemes at local level was the county engineer, for which he received a certain amount of money. In addition, where the work was supervised by the overseer for the area, he usually was paid a sum by the county engineer for doing that work. Under the new arrangement this has been cut out and the system now is that the local authority get a set percentage for the job. They must supply all the supervision and pay for it themselves, and the amount of money being made available, according to the officials of my county council anyway, is not sufficient to pay for the administration of the scheme. This is something which, I suppose, experience alone will prove to be right or wrong but our local authority said that the amount being made available was not sufficient to administer the scheme.

We were then left in the position that we either had to say we were prepared to take over the schemes and do them or, alternatively, we did not do any of them at all because there was no central office from which they would be done. The result was that the county council had no option, if they wanted any of these schemes done, but to do them under whatever terms were offered.

Again this brings me to the position referred to last week on the Estimate for the Department of Lands, where the people at the top like to play God. They say: "This is what you get and you can take it or leave it". I was referring there to the question of wages. In this case it is in regard to the amount of money being allocated to do the job. The money has been allocated and you take it or leave it. There is no question of trying to negotiate. If it proves that the amount was wrong that is just too bad. You do not get anything else.

Another question that caused a great deal of unrest is in relation to people who were employed by the Special Employment Schemes Office to do certain jobs. There were a lot of these schemes done and where there were supervisory grades, gangers, mainly employed doing these jobs, these people suddenly found themselves, because of the change, out of a job. The local authority should make provision for their employment but they could not do it. The county council who were taking over the administration could not do it because they have their own supervisory grades and their own employees. They have a superannuation scheme in operation over the years. There is a certain set of men to do certain jobs and these people, being superannuated, were entitled to such employment. It was nonsense to suggest that the other people should just simply be fitted in there and used on the job as they had been previously when the employment was directed from a central office in Dublin.

When decisions like this are being taken Departments of State are too prone to make decisions without worrying about what the little fellow at the bottom is going to do when the decision is finally put into operation. It is unfair when a sizeable number of people, having been in employment for seven or eight months of the year, suddenly find there is no employment for them. Over the years we have had considerable trouble in regard to people employed on these schemes. This is one of the things that should be simplified now because they are being administered by local authorities.

On the question of hours of work and wages, I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary, as an ordinary Deputy, has ever had to take up matters of this kind, but it was very difficult to try to find out what particular system was in operation in regard to hours of work or how the wages were related. We had the ridiculous situation in at least one county where the ganger in charge was paid three hours overtime on a Saturday but the other men employed on the job were paid only their ordinary rate; in other words the ganger was working for 45 hours and three hours' overtime and the labourers for 48 hours. It does not make sense and it is the sort of thing which is very difficult to explain to a group of men when talking about their conditions of employment.

Some years ago a Bill was passed through the House and was referred to as the McQuillan Bill—it has been called other things. The former Deputy Jack McQuillan proposed it as a Private Members' Bill. It was subsequently taken over by the Government and passed here. It allowed local authorities to take over public roads and certain laneways which had a certain amount of public amenity. But for this the Special Employment Schemes Office would have been very much busier over the years, and I do not think it would have been possible for them to do what they have done in this case. There is one thing on which we found it difficult to get a ruling and I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary can give a ruling on it: if such lanes are repaired under this scheme by the local authority, will the local authority be entitled to do this themselves? Up until now the situation was that, if a group of farmers got together and repaired such a lane, the county council could not take it over; but since the situation now is that the local authorities themselves are carrying out the work, will there be an order to use such moneys for the purpose of doing a job like this and subsequently taking over the lane and making it a public road? If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me a ruling on that before the debate concludes I should be very glad to hear it.

There is also the problem in a number of counties that, because it was notified at one stage that the list of schemes in the Department was so great that there was a 12 months time lag, lots of people did not submit schemes who would otherwise have done so. The result was that when the money was being allocated the allocation was made on the basis of the amount of money which had been used in the previous year. This was an unfair basis because it resulted in a number of counties who would normally have been carrying out schemes if they were allowed to do so suddenly finding they had 40 or 50 jobs on hand but had only £3,000 or £4,000 allocated to them. My own constituency got about £3,500 and that amount of money is absolutely useless for the work they are anxious to do.

There may be a system by which this could be revised. I should like to know whether or not the idea is that when the next allocation is being made it will be on some other basis because it cannot be based on the previous year. If it is, then it will be at such a figure for years to come; there will be no change in it.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 29 Oct 1968