I move "That the Bill be read a Second Time." The question of a grant for the relief of unemployment and distress is one that gave some anxiety to the Executive Council. It was felt that there was a need for such a grant this year. Deputies are aware of the general economic trend of the moment and they are aware of the fact that there has been, for all practical purposes, a stoppage of emigration; that there has been a price fall which has had reactions necessarily on employment, and that, taking everything into account there was at least as great a need for some measure of relief during this period of the year, when employment is normally slack, as there was last year. The figures indicating the numbers of unemployed on the live register show a certain increase. The increase is not very serious. It is rather in the nature of the seasonal rise in the number coming earlier than it should normally come. As a matter of fact the figures as compared with the corresponding date last year are about 5,000 up. They are a couple of thousand higher than in January last. So far as the live register indicates the condition of affairs, there is some increase in the seriousness of the problem of unemployment. In parts of the country there has been a partial or complete failure of the potato crop, and there are parts where, generally speaking, oats also have been very short. Taking all these facts into account, the Government felt that it was necessary, if the means could be found of doing it, to ask the House for some provision for the relief of unemployment and distress. At first the problem seemed one that was very difficult if not incapable of solution, because it was clear to us that we could not well borrow for the relief of unemployment and distress, unless the situation was much more serious than it is, unless there was an absolutely compelling necessity for the raising of large sums of money, and unless there was a situation that was in a measure unprecedented, and that the expenditure was expenditure that could not be in any way regarded as recurrent. The situation is not so bad as that. The sum required could not be held to be larger than the sum of money previously voted in the Dáil.
On the other hand, with a few exceptions, we have had every year since the establishment of the Free State to provide some grant for the inauguration of schemes of employment and provision of relief in other ways. We felt that it was not a matter on which we could vote a certain sum of money and find it by borrowing. This grant clearly must be regarded as a grant of a recurring character which cannot be met by borrowing. Having regard to the prospective Budget deficit, necessitating an increase in taxation, it did not seem that it would be practicable to vote £250,000 or such sum and impose further taxation to find that money. To find that money within the current year would require something considerable in the way of taxation. Then we adverted to the position of the Road Fund. As Deputies are aware from discussions that have taken place in the House, we have a claim to a share of the United Kingdom Road Fund as it existed at the date of the Treaty. Practically since the establishment of the Saorstát negotiations have been going on with the British Government with regard to the apportionment of the fund. For a long time it was impossible to make any progress in regard to that apportionment. However, in the year 1927, some progress was made and the British Government paid over to the Saorstát a sum of £200,000 on account. A further attempt was made to dispose of the matter finally by negotiation, but the attempt was abortive. Finally, in April, 1929, the British Government and the Government of the Saorstát agreed to refer the differences between them to arbitration by Sir Henry Strakosch. The difficulties were not overcome even then, because it was necessary that an agreed statement of the facts should be prepared and laid before the arbitrator. Very great difficulty was experienced in the preparation of that agreed statement of facts, but, in June last, the two Governments agreed on a statement of facts to be laid before the arbitrator. Since that time, both Governments have been preparing their own statements of claim. These documents are practically ready and will be submitted within a few days to the arbitrator. When the arbitrator has read these documents, he will, if necessary, hear oral evidence or receive any further representations that either side wishes to make. He will then be in a position to come to a conclusion. The difficult part of the work has been accomplished, and we are satisfied that it will be possible, at a very early date, to have the matter brought to a conclusion. It is difficult to fix the exact period that the further work will require, but we think that it is very likely that the arbitrator will be able to deliver his award within the current financial year. Even if it is not done quite so soon as that, we are satisfied that it will be done within the twelve months.
I do not want at present to indicate any view as to the amount that we anticipate we shall receive. We are satisfied that there is a further sum due to the Saorstát Exchequer. It is not contested that there is a further sum due to the Saorstát Exchequer, and we propose now to take a sum of £250,000 out of the Road Fund in anticipation of the receipt by the Road Fund of this exceptional income. It might be argued that, as the sum which we will receive—whatever the apportionment may be—was contributed by the motoring public it should be devoted to the Road Fund. But the people who actually contributed this money are dead long ago and their motors are off the road. At any rate, the amount that we will now receive was contributed prior to the year 1921, and we feel that to take a sum such as we propose to take does not involve any undue hardship on those who contribute by way of motor taxation to the work which is done by means of the Road Fund. This vote, although it proposes to take a sum out of the Road Fund, will not prevent the Road Fund carrying on any of the activities that it would normally carry on. It will not prevent the Road Fund carrying on the work which it carried on last year or the year before, or that it would carry on if we had no reason to anticipate a conclusion to the work in connection with the apportionment and no reason, therefore, to anticipate any receipt out of the old United Kingdom Fund.
It is proposed that the £250,000 which will be found in this way shall be spent much as previous grants for the relief of unemployment and distress have been spent—for the carrying out, for the most part, of necessary and useful works in districts where it is possible to carry out such works and in which there is unemployment or distress. Some portion of the money will be devoted, as has previously been the case, to grants for seeds where they may appear to be necessary or by way of grants in other ways which the Department of Agriculture consider the best means of giving relief where distress actually exists. Deputies are aware of the work done by previous relief grants. It is impossible, in connection with work of this kind, to get in every case absolutely the best value for the money spent. But we have, on the whole, I think, got rather good value in the last few years out of the relief funds. One of the precautions that have to be taken in order to get good value is not to limit ourselves to a specified short period for the expenditure of the money voted. In the case of one or two of the earlier relief grants, an attempt was made to spend the whole of the money before the 31st March and not allow the work to go into the following financial year. Where that was done, it was found that the results were not as good as they ought to be. Proper investigation was not possible and sometimes decisions as to the doing or non-doing of a work had to be hurried. Last year we took another point of view and, while we tried to get work started during the winter period when need was greatest, we did not make an attempt to finish the work during that period. We were satisfied, in many cases, if the work was merely begun within the financial year, and we did not insist on undue haste in connection with it. In connection with the present relief grant, while we intend to get the work commenced as quickly as possible, and thus give the greatest measure of employment during the bad period of the year, nevertheless all the precautions that can be taken will be taken to secure that the expenditure not merely gives employment but creates some asset for the public or a convenience for the public that will be in the nature of an asset.
There are many cases where bog roads have been constructed and in which I have heard people say that if the inhabitants of the neighbourhood had combined they could have done the work without a relief grant. I admit that in many cases that would have been possible, but the fact is that there are a great many practical difficulties in the way of co-operation of that sort. In many cases those roads were not constructed. The need of them was there, but they were not constructed. When constructed they were of great convenience and great value to the people of the district in which they were situated, so that whatever may be said in criticism of that, we can hold that relief had been given to the people who worked on them at a period when it was necessary. We can also hold that as a result of their labours at the time there is something that is a definite convenience and a definite economic asset to the people, something that enables them to do their work more cheaply and more effectively now than heretofore.
A great deal of work has also been done in the towns as a result of the relief grant. We have generally insisted there that the greater part of the cost would be borne out of local funds, but we have induced or assisted towns to undertake very necessary works of improvement, sanitary works of various sorts, which are of real value and which perhaps would not be carried out but for these relief grants. While I could not say, in the nature of this thing, that we can be absolutely sure that the full value is got for every penny I do think that in recent years we have got on the whole very good value. I am satisfied that the money which it is now proposed to spend will give as good value to the country and to the community as a whole as would be given if we allowed the money to remain in the Road Fund and allowed any sum which may be coming from the old United Kingdom Fund to go into it and be spent entirely on the roads. There is a certain limitation in regard to the areas and in regard to the employment that can be given out of the Road Fund. There are many areas where it would be impossible, I think, to carry out any useful work out of the Road Fund and if we tried to meet the situation, for instance, by anticipating this extra receipt and increase employment on work financed out of the Road Fund, we would not be able to do anything for many areas where the need is greatest. As I have already indicated there are areas where the appropriate means of giving relief would not be by work on the roads. Representations have been made that there are areas for instance where the potato crop and the oat crop were so bad that one of the best things that could be done would be to supply seed. Where there are areas such as that, it may be that to make the relief really useful for the people there it may be necessary to give grants of that sort.