Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 3

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 69—Relief Schemes (Resumed).

Mr. Brennan

When progress was reported, I was endeavouring to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that the suggested schemes for the relief of unemployment were not really schemes which would encourage production, that they were mostly non-productive schemes. After all, when we come to consider the question of unemployment we ought seriously to consider what is the cause of it; whether the unemployment which we have to-day is the result of something abnormal, something that is likely to pass away, something which is due possibly to some Providential visitation or some other passing event or another. If not, when do we expect to see the end of it, or even an amelioration of the conditions which exist? Are the steps which we are taking tending towards that end? These are very serious considerations.

Personally, I feel that it is futile to expect that any steps will tend towards ending unemployment and distress in this country until the main industry of the country is put on some decent footing. When we have the main industry living upon doles and subsidies, you are bound to have unemployment and distress. We have all over the country farmers who were once well off, whose sons were enjoying a decent living—an easy living, if you like—on the farms. They are on the labour market at the present time. Even their fathers are on the labour market. Why? Take, for instance, a cattle fair down in Roscommon, where there are anything between 3,000 and 4,000 cattle on sale. These cattle have suffered a deterioration in price, artificially produced, of, say, £5 per head at the very lowest. That means that the money which heretofore came into that locality every few months has been reduced by some £20,000 or £30,000. That is bound to have its reaction on unemployment and on the comfort of the people. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government thinks that the future of this country is going to be made up on profits reaped from beet and wheat, that we are going either to be wallowing in wealth or living in frugal comfort from either one or the other, they are making the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives.

We are really a live-stock country, and we must get back to the rearing of live stock. If we are going to have tillage in this country that will give employment and relieve unemployment, we must have tillage that will in some shape or form absorb the workers. After all, there is very little labour in the growing of wheat. There are very few people employed in it. There are many more people employed in the production of oats, turnips or mangolds, if you feed these crops to live stock. The Parliamentary Secretary must set his mind to that before he succeeds in inventing any kind of cure for the unemployment evil that is rampant to-day in this country. We must put agriculture in its proper place, that is, it must be able to show a profit of itself. After all, beet and wheat, being subsidised at the present time, are a drain upon the nation. We cannot subsidise the main industry. You may subsidise some items of it, but no matter what department of the industry you take to-day, it has got to be subsidised. While you have got that condition of affairs you arc bound to have unemployment. Consequently, I would say that while the Parliamentary Secretary may be racking his brains at the present time to find some way to provide employment for the thousands of people who are at present out of work, and for the thousands of people who are in distress, he should insist on the Government endeavouring to do something for agriculture, so that agriculture will be able to pay its own way. The present condition of affairs cannot continue. It is a drain on the resources of the nation. It is unfortunate that we should be driven to the necessity of putting up schemes, spring, summer, autumn and winter, for the relief of unemployment, and the Government that has to find the money has my sympathy. If they wish to end that, they will have to tackle the bigger question. They will have to get back to the main industry. They will have to see that the main industry is able to support the people and that it shall show a profit. Until they do that they are only tinkering with the question, and they are going to have this recurring liability, in season and out of season. We are going to have this unemployment question as a permanent problem, and tinkering of this kind will not solve it.

Mr. Kennedy

I do not want to intervene at any great length in this debate but I should like to ask members of the Opposition why there is so much demand for the division of land at present and why the Order Paper before the Recess was full of questions as to how much land was being divided in each county and how much was about to be divided? Why is there such a great scramble amongst their followers for a share and more than a share of the land that is being divided if agriculture is not paying? Why is there this great anxiety about land division in various parts of the country?

Mr. O'Leary

In answer to Deputy Kennedy, I should like to say that on several occasions in this House I put it to the Government to set up a Commission to inquire into the position of the agricultural industry in this country. I now issue that challenge to them and I would ask Deputy Kennedy to use his influence with the Government so that they may accept my proposal. They can summon the small farmers of this country before that Commission and hear their evidence there on oath. Then the people of the country would be in a better position to judge the condition of these unfortunate people. I come from a constituency in which there are small farmers who are amongst the most industrious people in this country. Some of them have to live on 25 or 26 acres of mountainy land. Before this Government came into office these people were able to put money into the bank. I do not make statements here over which I am not prepared to stand. I am prepared to put up witnesses whose valuation would probably not be more than £5 who, by their own industry and the industry of their families, were in a position to save money during that time.

As Deputy Brennan has said, we hear a lot of talk in this country about growing wheat and beet and all that kind of thing. What is happening to these unfortunate people to-day? They have to pay an increased price for their flour, for their sugar, and for every article going into their houses. I have mentioned these small farmers, but this applies to everybody in the towns and cities of this country. The Government told the people before they came into office that if returned they would reduce taxation by £2,000,000 without interfering with any public service. I say you are the greatest lot of hypocrites that ever adorned any Government Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary may sneer. He can afford to sneer because he knows very little about the sufferings of the people as he has never lived among them. I have lived among them and I have worked with them and I know their wants.

Some time ago when this question of relief schemes was before the House I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that something should be done to help the unfortunate people who have to pay 7/6 more per sack for Indian meal as the result of the Government policy. The Parliamentary Secretary then promised that he would put it up to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture's reply was that he could not find the money. These people are put in the position of having to pay 7/6 more per sack for Indian meal in order to subsidise farmers in County Kildare and other parts of the country who were formerly described by the Parliamentary Secretary and others like him as ranchers. We are told about growing wheat and beet, but the Minister for Agriculture on one occasion here told us that the more of these crops we grew the more cattle we would want. What is the policy of the Government to-day? They are destroying our calves and our cattle.

That is the policy which we are told is going to make this country prosperous. It is all humbug. The Government at last I believe in their hearts realise where their policy is leading the country. Some time ago we were challenged by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to resign our seats and I accepted the challenge on that occasion. I am prepared to accept that challenge again and to go before my constituency where the Government have two seats to our one. Let them resign these seats and test the feelings of the people in that constituency and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that when the election is over he will not be in the position to sneer.

Mr. Haslett

I do not think that any Deputy can very well oppose such a Vote as this for relief schemes, because we are all agreed as to the necessity for providing some work and a means of livelihood for the great proportion of our population. I do not rise to speak about the conditions of agriculture or anything like that. There will be a time and place for that. I would perhaps take a different view from the last speaker. I would welcome the spending of money and the opportunity for the unemployed to earn money on useful relief schemes, but I would say that the time has come when those schemes might be more elastic. There was a rule that such schemes as we embarked upon would not be schemes that county councils, for instance, would be obliged to undertake; that such schemes that would be embarked upon would be outside the province of county councils.

If I am not out of order, I should like to say that our unemployment assistance and relief schemes will have to be examined in the light of the experience of these past years. There is a growing feeling in the country that there is a tremendous amount of useful work which could be done and is being done through the medium of relief schemes, and that much further work could be done if the money that is given without getting any return in work was put into the relief scheme pool to swell it. It is not very long ago since the person whom we might call the father of unemployment assistance, or, as it was called in the early days, the dole, said in a public speech that we cannot go on forever just giving out money for nothing. If this House on some appropriate occasion directed its attention to devoting the money that is being simply handed out without the State getting any return for it to giving employment, cither through the development of these relief schemes, or some other scheme, we could get a lot of useful work done.

At the present time the county councils do not know where to turn for money. There is no use in turning a blind eye to the facts. It is very hard at present to collect rates and the county councils are at their wits' end to keep the necessary works going. The result is that at the annual meetings the county councils are pressing county surveyors to cut down expenditure so that the upkeep of the roads is not being properly attended to. There is a lot of very useful work that could be done on the roads. It is being done up to a certain point by removing dangerous bends, renewing bridges, etc. I have the feeling that if, on an appropriate occasion, this whole matter was discussed in the House and more money was somehow provided for the doing of this work, we would be doing something useful.

Mr. Flinn

I submit that the Deputy would be perfectly in order in developing that point of view on this Vote.

Mr. Haslett

I do not want to enlarge on it. I am merely throwing out the suggestion. I am sorry that there is a necessity for these relief schemes. I am sure we are all sorry that there is not more employment to be had and that we have so many unemployed. But, coming from an agricultural constituency, where unemployment ought to be at its lowest point, I can say that one hears continually of money being paid out in the form of unemployment assistance benefit while people are saying that they cannot get men to work for them. I am not here to make any charge against the workingmen, but I believe that in a matter of this kind we are not managing our affairs economically. There is quite a lot of useful work could be done if only we had the money to do it. I am suggesting that, instead of giving money for nothing, we should have some scheme whereby that money would be turned into useful channels, so that our people will have real employment and not be getting into the state of wanting to dodge work and being chronically unemployed.

Mr. Davin

The complaint I have to make, and it is a genuine complaint, concerning the Estimate before the House, is that, so far as proposals that have been put before the different Departments from my area are concerned, the amount now about to be allocated, I understand, will not go any distance to meet proposals which would relieve unemployment and, at the same time, carry out useful schemes in that area. I am glad to notice that the Parliamentary Secretary has been touring the country. I think it is a very useful thing to do from many points of view. I am not going to go into the details or to give any detailed reasons in support of that, but I am glad to notice that he has been going around the country, and I should be glad to hear from him, when he is replying, whether he is genuinely convinced that the situation this year in regard to unemployment has improved as compared with the situation which presented itself to his Department this time last year. I do not believe that the position in my constituency has improved. I believe, as I have said before, that there are plenty of proposals in the Parliamentary Secretary's own Department which would justify the allocation of a far greater sum of money for the carrying out of useful works, and I would prefer, and all the members of this Party would prefer, that money should be provided for work rather than for unemployment assistance. I do not believe there is any appreciable number of workless people in this country at the moment who would prefer to receive, or to continue to receive, unemployment assistance if work was available for these able-bodied people under reasonably fair conditions.

I admit that the few factories which have been started in my area have given employment to a certain number of people, but I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if he makes a careful examination of the position in that area, he will find that employment is being given, to the extent of about 90 per cent. of the amount of employment given, to boys and girls, and to girls to a greater extent than to boys or men. The seriousness of the situation in the part of the country for which I have the privilege of speaking is that the able-bodied men, or the able-bodied married men with dependents, are not getting a proper share of the work in the factories that have been established. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to survey the position all along the Barrow Valley where for, perhaps, two or three or even four years, a very large number of men were given useful work. The work on the Barrow scheme has been completed and the work well done, and these able-bodied men who had been employed on it—I am sure that there were nearly 1,000 men employed on that scheme— are going around to-day looking for work in the towns and countryside through which the Barrow River flows.

That is one example. Now, has the situation improved from the point of wiew either of the farmer or worker? I say no. I am aware, and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny it, that the wages and the conditions of agricultural workers, throughout the midland counties at any rate, have been worsened. The proof of that is that the Parliamentary Secretary's own Department and the Ministry of Lands and Forestry have actually attempted to justify reductions in wages of the workers employed on forestry and arterial drainage schemes by pointing to the reduction in the rates of wages paid to agricultural labourers. I have cases in hand with the Parliamentary Secretary's Department on that matter at the moment; cases where they have even gone to the extent—I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is personally responsible—of reducing the wages on an arterial drainage scheme by 11d. The rate of wages paid on a scheme, which has been just completed in an area in my constituency, was 28/- a week. Another scheme has just been started where the rate is 27/1, and the Parliamentary Secretary has some responsibility for attempting to reduce the rate previously paid in that area. He gives as his grounds for doing so the reduced rate paid to agricultural workers. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not challenge that. In another part, the workers engaged in forestry work were paid at the rate of 22/- per week. I raised the question here with the Minister for Lands and Forestry and, while he did not attempt to justify the reasonableness or fairness of the rate, he stated that the new rate—the new low rate, as it was—was based on the reduced rate that was being paid to agricultural labourers by representative farmers. That is, at any rate, some proof, which must be accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the conditions of the agricultural labourers have been worsened, and worsened at a time when, through other activities of the Government, the cost of living is being put up on the very same people. The prices of flour, and bread and butter and other necessities of life have been going up at a time when the rates of wages of agricultural workers and other workers in towns and rural areas are being brought down.

Now, I have studied the situation from the point of view of the farmers, and I find that the rates are increasing from year to year, compared to the rates two years ago. Throughout the whole Free State there is an increased rate demand this year for £1,000,000 over what it was two years ago. That is being demanded at a time when some farmers are getting uneconomic prices for what they have to sell. At a recent fair, in a town in my constituency, the price offered for pigs—and, mind you, pigs are reared by men in labourers' cottages as well as by small farmers and big farmers—was as low as 26/- per cwt., live weight. No such price was ever heard of by any person living in the area. Of course, the price charged in the same town for bacon to the consumers is at the same level as it was when the price for pigs, live weight, was 45/- per cwt. These are things which make me feel that the situation is not so rosy as Deputy Kennedy and some others of his colleagues would endeavour to make it.

Mr. Brennan

There is something wrong.

Mr. Davin

That is what I say. If I am not presenting the facts properly, I should be glad to be corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary. Then, a considerable number of farmers, who increased the acreage of their tillage and grew grain, have the grain lying in their barns at the present time without any offer from anybody to buy it. That is a very serious thing at this time of the year. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the average farmer has not a proper place to keep his grain, and a very high figure is being charged for keeping it. I understand that the Minister for Agriculture has endeavoured recently to make an arrangement with the barley buyers to purchase their surplus grain at a certain price; but I also know, and I have definite information and personal knowledge, that some of these grain buyers do not intend to carry out the Minister's scheme or to purchase the grain lying on the hands of the farmers. I am in thorough sympathy with the policy of the Government in trying to guarantee a price. Before this Government became a Government, and before the Party that is now a Government came into this House, I, with my colleagues of the Labour Party, advocated the guaranteeing of prices to the farmers. I regret to say, however, that, although we have guaranteed prices for some of the commodities the farmers, large and small, are producing—particularly the tillage farmers— those prices are not being fixed at an economic figure. I would object as much to asking the farmer to sell his produce below the cost of production as I would object to a county council expecting a road worker to go out and work for nothing. I think that is a fair comparison. I do not want to exaggerate, but I think all this is helping to create a situation which would put the people in the rural areas at any rate into a worse position than that in which they were 12 months ago. It justifies me in making the case for an increased allocation of money for the carrying out of relief works in my area.

I put forward schemes which came to me from the local authorities and different agencies in my constituency. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has been responsible for the carrying out of very useful relief works, such as the drainage of bogs and the making of bog roads throughout the country. This work has made it possible for some people to engage in turf-cutting and thus win at least part of their livelihood in the past few years. I have discovered cases in my constituency where proposals were apparently put up to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department for the carrying out of bog-road work. This is what has happened and I hope to find the reason for it. The money allocated in a particular area was not sufficient to complete the job in a satisfactory way. I know of two or three cases where the work of making and repairing a bog-road has been going on for three years. In each of the three years a small amount, £60 or £70, was spent on the work. The files in the Minister's Department will bear this out. There had not been enough voted any year to complete the job, which is done bit by bit from year to year. Now I think that is an uneconomic way of carrying out work of that kind. I know that in one of these cases the estimate for the work was £250. A sum of £70 was granted the first year. I understand that most of the money was set aside the first year for raising the material for the road. Two other attempts had to be made before the road was completed. That is an unsatisfactory way of doing the job, so far, at least, as my area is concerned. I do not go round looking after these things but in two or three cases that is what has happened. I hope that in future any proposals that are put forward for my area for a particular work of that kind will be carried through in one year, that sufficient money will be allocated to complete the work, and that the work will be done within a limited period. I think that is the more economic method of spending the limited amount available on these relief votes.

I have heard the Minister for Local Government and Public Health speaking here and he is a very generous-minded man when he talks in the House. He is generous both inside and outside the House. I dare say it is the iron hand of the Minister for Finance that prevents him from being as generous in certain matters as he would like to be. There are many proposals from the local authorities in my area for the carrying out of sewerage and waterworks schemes. Since I came here I have made it my business, since the introduction of the first Estimate in 1923, to advocate the carrying out of public health works in the towns and villages of the country, and particularly in the area I represent. There is a certain amount of opposition from the farmers to the carrying out of these schemes. They can never see the value of waterworks and sewerage schemes in the towns, not even the need for providing pure water in the schools which their own children are attending. I always try to argue that the townspeople who get the particular benefit from the carrying out of these sewerage and waterworks schemes are called upon in return to provide a big section of the money that is needed for arterial drainage schemes in the rural areas. I think, and I have always said so, that the people in the rural areas should give a quid pro quo to the townspeople for their share in the carrying out of arterial drainage schemes. That is one reason why the farmer should be more ready to help towards the carrying out of the public health services in the towns and villages. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is absolutely impossible for the ratepayers to find the whole of the money that must be found for the carrying out of these public health works. He would not stand for that in his own area, I am sure. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who has perhaps more influence with the Minister for Finance than has the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to use that influence in the coming year in seeing that those schemes that are partly done and those other schemes that for years have been pigeon-holed in his Department are carried through. Some of these schemes have been lying there for two or three years. With the exception of the few cases in which I know that sufficient money was not provided inside a particular year for the completion of these works, I have nothing but admiration for the work that has been done. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to continue going around the country and keep an eye on the works that are being carried out. This will tend to make the officials more careful in the supervision of the works and it will also encourage the workers to give more value for the money that is being spent.

The small amount that is to be allocated to my area, and I am sure to the other areas, this year will give about four weeks' work to a very limited number of able-bodied unemployed. It does not cope sufficiently with the unemployment problem that exists in the country. I hope before the end of the financial year the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to persuade the Minister for Finance to provide money for schemes long pigeon-holed in the Departments of Local Government and Public Health and in the Board of Works. I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House that he has ten times the number of schemes which would absorb ten times the amount of money that is available. What the Parliamentary Secretary probably is thinking of is that he would keep some of the work for the following years. That is a bad policy. I do not see why these schemes should be pigeon-holed for a number of years. If the money is to be made available at all it should be spent as soon as possible in the carrying out of these schemes.

There is one word that I want to say in conclusion. There is an impression here that the carrying out of housing schemes by the boards of health in the rural areas has taken a good many people off the employment exchanges. I have made a careful survey of the situation so far as work carried out by the boards of health in my area is concerned. I find, unfortunately, that the boards of health in my area and in some of the adjoining areas are too much disposed to give out these housing contracts to contractors who build only one or two houses. Now these people build houses in their spare time with the assistance of members of their own family. I think if the Parliamentary Secretary would make a careful examination of the amount of employment given by that class of contractor in the building of houses, he will find that a very little portion of the labour has been taken from the employment exchanges. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will urge the boards of health, when giving contracts to give them to men who will be prepared to take a greater number off the employment exchanges, and thus give considerably more employment than those at present engaged in that work. If he will see that the building of houses is given to experienced building contractors, he will find that many more men will be taken off the labour exchanges. In that way more employment will be provided for the able-bodied who at present need unemployment assistance.

I would like also to press the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to take up this question with the boards of health. I am satisfied that these contractors who have been building one or two houses are (1) not giving good value for the money, and (2) are not making any inroad on unemployment in the area, or any attempt to provide employment for the people at the present time most in need of it. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give an increased grant towards the type of works which I know are pigeon-holed in his Department, and which would give employment to many who prefer work as against receiving unemployment assistance.

Mr. Bennett

I am afraid the Minister for Finance will not pay much attention to the plea Deputy Davin has so eloquently put to the Parliamentary Secretary to increase this grant to the amount necessary to make a serious inroad on the relief of unemployment. Deputy Davin has admitted that the unemployment problem has got worse. I think he said the position was definitely worse in his own county.

Mr. Davin

I do say that, and I make no apology for saying it.

Mr. Bennett

I think that is the experience also of Deputies in other counties. The leader of the Labour Party on one occasion said that if the unemployment position was not cured, he would have the Ministry out in 24 hours. The position has lasted much longer than 24 hours; the problem is still there, and so are the Ministry. I would like to pay the Parliamentary Secretary this tribute, that I believe with the money he had at his disposal he made an honest attempt to do good work, as honourable an attempt as anybody in the circumstances could make. So far as I know, the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to do all he has done without seeking any political advantage whatever. I think he has made a serious attempt to cope with the situation in the country. He travelled around the country to see for himself how the money could be expended to the best advantage. Unfortunately, the amount placed at his disposal was not adequate to cope with the unemployment position.

So far as I can see, the men who will get work on these relief schemes will be the men who are now on the dole. There are many other needy people in the country who might be made eligible for this work. There are, for instance, many small farmers who are now hard hit. Deputy Davin has referred to the conditions of distress of many small farmers who might be made eligible for relief work. I want to refer to the case of a man who got a holding of land, and I think it will illustrate how difficult it is for men placed in such a position to get work at the present time. A man in my county was given ten acres when land was being distributed. That was about five or six years ago. About three weeks ago he came to me to know how he could get permission to sell that land.

Mr. Kennedy

A common occurrence for the last 40 years.

Mr. Bennett

This man told me that before he got the ten acres he had been in America and he had saved up £280. That money was now gone. He had paid his annuities and rates to date. Unfortunately, he was an honest man.

Mr. Norton

Is honesty an unfortunate qualification now?

Mr. Brennan

Apparently. You cannot get on if you are honest.

Mr. Bennett

It was unfortunate for this man anyhow, because he found himself in the position that he was neither a farmer nor a labourer. He could not live on his ten acres, and he said he would be glad to get rid of it. He cannot get any work now on local schemes. Before he got the land he usually got work in a quarry or on the roads, but now because he has ten acres he is regarded as a farmer, and he can get no work outside. I would like to see men like him made eligible for this relief work.

I quite agree with Deputy Haslett that this matter requires very serious consideration and I quite agree with Deputy Davin that the system of issuing relief money without getting some return in the way of work for it is not a wise system. It would be much better if we could provide work and expend the relief money on it, and I am sure the labourers themselves would he more satisfied. We have the anomalous position existing that many public bodies have useful works to be done but they cannot provide the money to have them carried out and yet large sums go by way of relief without any return being obtained. The farming community are in the position that they have lots of useful work to do, but because of the depressed conditions at the moment they cannot employ men to do it. Many fields require to be drained and hundreds of fences could be erected, but this work cannot be tackled because the farmers have not the means to employ labourers to do that work.

It is not easy to provide a solution for this huge problem. All this time we have large numbers of men receiving money and doing nothing in return. I do not intend to convey that I grudge those men the money they receive. I should like to see some national scheme devised under which a local authority might be able to employ numbers of those men who are now on the dole on useful works, providing portion of their wages, relief money making up the balance. It might be possible to promote a scheme in which some of those men might be made available for farming work. Of course the farmers at the moment could not provide the ordinary wage because they have not got the money, but the scheme might be so arranged that portion of the wages could be met by the farmers. There is plenty of work to be done, and unfortunately there is plenty of money now being spent without any definite return being given for it.

If we could employ the relief money on useful works throughout the country instead of giving it to men as it is now being given, it would be a step forward in the right direction. I am sure it would be possible to devise some scheme of that kind, and, if necessary, a commission might be set up to give the matter serious consideration. Land improvement would lead to better conditions when the prosperous times come, as I hope they will some day.

Mr. Flinn

I am glad to hear the Deputy say that.

Mr. Bennett

I admit that it is not easy to arrive at a solution of this problem. A solution will not be reached in an hour or a day. I believe that something on the lines suggested by Deputy Haslett could eventually be worked out for the general benefit. I do not know if provision is now being made for drainage, but I would like to see as much money as possible expended on small drainage works. Practically all the money put into a drainage scheme represents labour.

Mr. Flinn

In any big drainage scheme the proportion of labour is certainly not high.

Mr. Bennett

I do not mean the big schemes.

Mr. Flinn

You mean the tributary drainage.

Mr. Bennett

I am well aware that big drainage schemes would be well outside the limit of the money you have to expend. What I submit is that in the small drainage schemes the bulk of the money would go on labour. Where possible, I should like to see Deputies bringing these things to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am sure he will seriously consider them. I would prefer that such work as would be done would employ nearly all labour, and in that way such schemes would have an advantage over housing schemes, because the money would go almost entirely to labourers employed on the work. I wind up by saying that the only thing one can criticise in this Relief Vote is that it is inadequate. We all regret the necessity for such Votes, and while we point out that this Vote is inadequate we do not envy the Government in having to find money for everything. I do not believe that any money that the Government could find would make any serious inroads on the unemployment numbers until there is a better economic position in the country. I do not want to develop that now. Until such time as there is a better economic position we, unfortunately, will have unemployment with us. The House cannot finance it, and I am not sure that other sources of relief can be found. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is open to receive from any Deputy, in an impartial spirit, any suggestions for the expenditure of this money. Let us hope that the necessity for these grants will soon have passed away, and on that note I should like to end.

Mr. Corish

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if any of the money he is asking for to-day will be made available through the Local Government Department. He mentioned different schemes, when introducing this Estimate, but I do not remember him saying that any money will be available for sewerage schemes, waterworks schemes and others of a similar kind.

Mr. Flinn

£100,000 will he available.

Mr. Corish

I know that schemes that have been initiated by local authorities have been held up because of the inability of the Local Government Department to subsidise them. It has been accepted as part of the policy of the Local Government Department that they would give at least one-third of the amount necessary to carry out sewerage schemes and waterworks. I know that the Wexford County Board of Health have sent up a scheme involving the expenditure of nearly £50,000. They have put on a penny rate in order to enable them to provide this money for sewerage and waterworks in the county. When that rate was put on it was stated by people advocating the expenditure that a grant of at least one-third would be available from Government sources. If that grant is not forthcoming now, those who initiated a scheme of that kind, and did immense work for the purpose of starting schemes of local sewerage and waterworks, would be in for a very hard time of it next year.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the people who would be employed on these works will be people in receipt of unemployment insurance. I can quite understand the convenience of that from the Ministry's point of view. They will take for granted that the man who was in receipt of unemployment assistance has had his case established. I understand, therefore, the position adopted by the Ministry, and the logic of that position. But in many cases there are married men and single men who have made claims upon the Unemployment Assistance Fund 12 months ago, and have not got any decision yet. These people are infinitely worse off than those whose cases are established. The position was admitted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce some time ago when he said that the machinery under the old Act was not sufficient to have all cases heard. These people are certainly cases of great hardship and some method should be adopted whereby they could get their cases dealt with more expeditiously, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary would be unsympathetic in that direction. I understand his point of view in getting men drawn from the unemployment assistance. It is quite logical; their cases have been established; but there are other people who have no grade at all yet. There are cases where a man was only granted 1/- per week and where the assessment was based on something that never existed. In many cases, after nine or 12 months, the allowance to a man for 1/- a week is raised to the maximum that he is entitled to, but in such cases there is the hardship of the long wait.

Mr. Flinn

But he gets what he is entitled to.

Mr. Corish

Yes, but it takes a very long time for a man who has only got 1/- a week to establish his case. Then again, there are busybodies who, through jealousy, report people as being at work of some kind or another. Immediately an anonymous letter goes in the man's benefit is stopped. There is an investigation ordered, and it may take two or three months before a man gets back his benefit. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, although this is not in his province, to ask the Department of Industry and Commerce to speed up cases of that kind. I know in some cases the thing is done for spite. I think when a letter of that kind is sent in anonymously it should be taken with a certain amount of suspicion and a man should not be allowed to suffer. I do not think that the Minister can dismiss this matter by saying it is only those that are in receipt of unemployment assistance that will get work under relief schemes. Like Deputy Davin I am of opinion that the money which the Parliamentary Secretary is asking for is not half sufficient to deal with the problem. There are plenty works requiring to be done in rural and urban Ireland, and I think it would be money well spent if you give local authorities, and especially those prepared to spend money on schemes of sewerage and waterworks, such subsidies as will enable the necessary work to be done and thereby help to solve the dual problem of sanitation and unemployment.

Micheál Og Mac Pháidin

Badh mhaith liom focal a rádh ar an meastacán so. Mar tá fios ag an Rialtas, tá na mílte fear diomhain i nGaedhealtacht Thír Chonaill fá láthair agus níl obair ar bith le fághail aca.

Tháinig dileann mór i nGleann Cuilm Cille san t-samhradh agus gidh gur caitheadh cuid maith airgid san Ghleann so, tá mórán de na bealaigh gan cóiriúghadh go fóill.

Badh mhaith liom go gcaithfidhe tuilleadh airgid annso agus thart ar aiteacha eile i nGaedhealtacht Thír Chonaill.

Mr. Norton

Whether officially or otherwise, I cannot say, but there is a general impression amongst the members of the House that the Parliamentary Secretary is the person in the Ministry who has been charged with producing Government schemes for the relief of unemployment. I thought that he would have taken this opportunity of telling the House what the Government's plans were to relieve unemployment. In reply to a question which I put to him a few days ago, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that plans were at present under consideration for the expenditure of money in certain directions which it was thought would take a considerable number of unemployed persons off the employment exchanges. I suggest that he ought now to tell the Dáil what are the Government's specific proposals in this direction. Instead, however, of indicating to the House what the Government's plans are, the Parliamentary Secretary has come here and asked for approval of this Estimate as if it were a casual, routine matter, and as if we had not the serious unemployment problem which there is in this country to-day. According to the latest figures of unemployed registered at employment exchanges, there are 103,000 people seeking unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefit, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that that figure will probably be increased to 130,000 in the course of the next few weeks. It is only being kept down to 103,000 because of the fact that we have only just come out of an Employment Period Order, and that the rise in unemployment consequent on the cancellation of the Order has not yet had time to show itself at employment exchanges. We may take it, therefore, that even subjecting unemployment to the test—and it is a pretty severe test—imposed under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and under the Unemployment Assistance Acts, we have 130,000 unemployed men and women—men and women available for work; men and women anxious to obtain work, but men and women who, under the existing system of society, are unable to secure work. Since society, as at present organised, cannot utilise their services, they are condemned to endeavour to exist at the miserable rates of benefit provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the Government's specific proposals for dealing with that serious unemployment problem. One hundred and thirty thousand people will be registered at the employment exchanges within the next couple of weeks. When their wives and children are taken into consideration that figure will become enormously swollen. If we survey the problem after having made allowance for their wives and dependents, it will be found that we have got in this country an army of unemployed people —an unemployed State within a State. That is the serious problem which is confronting the Ministry to-day. I know it is quite true that because of the existence of the Unemployment Assistance Act a considerable number of people are now registering for employment and are now claiming unemployment assistance benefit who formerly did not come to the employment exchanges, in order to seek for benefit or in order to seek for work. In the first instance, there was no benefit available for them. In the second instance, their pilgrimage to the employment exchanges was, from their point of view, an extremely unprofitable and disappointing one, but the fact remains that we still have an unemployment problem indicated by 130,000 unemployed people, who satisfy the rigid and rigorous tests imposed by the Unemployment Assistance Act. We may take it that those people are unemployed, that they are available for work, and are unable to obtain work. Now the Parliamentary Secretary comes to the Dáil and asks for approval for an Estimate of £150,000 — £150,000 to be divided amongst 130,000 unemployed persons, sufficient only to give each a little more than £1 for one week only. That is the extent of the provision which has been made for the relief of unemployment by this Estimate. I think we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what are the Government's proposals for dealing seriously with this problem. The present Estimate is an indication of the hotch-potch method of dealing with unemployment which has been an all too common feature of administrations in this country.

In asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what are the Government's proposals, we are not being needlessly curious. It is not so long ago since the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that the Government had plans which would put every idle man to work. The Minister then thought there was a danger that we would not get enough idle men in this country, and the Minister for Defence, speaking afterwards, said that we ought to be glad to have idle men in this country so that we could utilise them for the vast schemes of reconstruction which the Government had in mind. Even if we are not satisfied with those two important announcements from two Ministers, we have the statement of the President that in his opinion unemployment ought not to exist in this country, and that there was no need for it. I think the President was right. I think the other two statements were optimistic ones, especially in the light of the subsequent activities on the part of the Government, but there really is no reason why we should have an unemployment problem here, if we only had the courage to organise the nation and organise the unemployed in such a way that their services could be utilised to develop the resources of our country, the industrial and agricultural possibilities of which have so far been only barely scratched. Instead of telling us in what way the optimistic prophecies of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Industry and Commerce were going to be realised, instead of telling us in what way they were taking steps to bring into actuality the dream of the President that unemployment need not exist here, the Parliamentary Secretary comes to the House and asks for a vote of £150,000, which, as I said before, is going to mean only a little more than £1 each in one week for the vast army of persons, numbering about 130,000, who are at present registered at employment exchanges.

One would imagine that almost every conceivable kind of public work in the country had already been done, and that the difficulty now was to find new schemes of public works on which unemployed persons could be put to work. On the contrary, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is a vast untapped field of public works which is available for utilisation as a means of absorbing the unemployed persons into productive employment. Public Health works afford a very wide field for the activities of the State. Local authorities throughout the country could be compelled to proceed with sewerage and water schemes, in some cases where they are doing nothing, in other cases where they are not proceeding with sufficient alacrity, and in other cases where they do not seem to have any real appreciation of what modern life ought to be. There are vast possibilities and an urgent need for road reconstruction throughout the country, because, although much has been done in the matter of improving the surface of our roads, much still remains to be done in the matter of widening them. Much needs to be done to make our roads capable of standing up to modern traffic conditions. Much needs to be done in the way of taking off dangerous bends and corners. There is need also for considerable acceleration in house building activities. As the Parliamentary Secretary must know, a number of local authorities seem to be oblivious of their responsibility to house the people properly. Many of them seem to be unaware of the benefits which are made available to them under the Housing Act of 1932.

Similarly the Parliamentary Secretary must know that in the matter of land distribution and the improvement and division of estates, there is a vast field of potentially useful work, not merely in the breaking up of randies and putting people to work but also as a means of taking off the labour market many persons who would be taken off if they could be set on economic holdings. There is need for cleaning up towns and for the provision of town parks; there is need for the construction of footpaths; there is need for improvement of graveyards; and there is need for the widening of streets in towns and cities and creating arteries for traffic which are very necessary under modern traffic conditions. In respect of the planting of our timber-denuded lands, there are again enormous possibilities which, if fully availed of, promise to give in time a substantial return to the nation at a period when, according to the experts, there is likely to be a world shortage of timber. In the sphere of drainage, we have a country which lends itself to the expenditure of vast sums of money in respect of the drainage of swampy land and the consequent improvement of lands for tillage and pastoral purposes which would be advantageous to the community.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government have any concrete proposals for dealing with these vast schemes of public works which demand attention to-day and what precisely the Government intend to do in order to absorb into productive employment the large army of unemployed. In my opinion, the utilisation of the unemployed on large scale schemes of public works will do much to improve the amenities of life, particularly in towns and rural areas, and, at the same time, create valuable national assets which will be of benefit to the whole community. I have got a suspicion, however, and I think the reluctance of the Parliamentary Secretary to disclose the Government's plans for the relief of unemployment gives colour to my suspicion, that the Government have now got into a state of mind in which they think it is cheaper to allow the unemployed to draw unemployment assistance than to put them into productive employment on large scale schemes of public works. The Government seem to me to have become obsessed with the idea that the relief of unemployment through the expenditure of £1,000,000 per annum under the Unemployment Assistance Act is a cheaper way of dealing with unemployment than by utilising the energies, the brains, the brawn and the ability of the unemployed to create the valuable national asset which would be created if these people were put to work on large scale schemes of public works.

If I am wrong in that suspicion, I am willing to be converted by a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that the Government have some definite plans for taking people off the employment exchanges and putting them to work at reasonable rates of wages instead of the miserable pittance which many of them are compelled to accept to-day in the form of unemployment assistance benefit. The expenditure of £150,000 will probably do something in many areas temporarily to relieve the scourge of unemployment. It will do something to alleviate the hardships on men, women and children who do not know what it is to get a decent week's wages for many weeks in the year, and, to that extent, anything that brings even a very ephemeral ray of hope into homes such as those must, I suppose, have the benediction and good will of all parties in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, should not be under the impression that the expenditure of £150,000 on a scheme of that kind is making an adequate contribution to the relief of the unemployment problem. It is not making any such contribution and it is time that these schemes which the Government had in mind when in opposition were now put into practice, and we ought to know definitely in what direction the Government is working in its efforts to relieve the problem.

Deputy Davin stated that in his constituency there was a serious unemployment problem. I think the same can be said by every Deputy who represents a rural constituency. One has only to go through the towns and villages, and through the countryside, to see the enormous congregation of men who are craving an opportunity to work and hoping that, in some way or another, some relief scheme will come to the area which may enable them to secure a few weeks' work, to be followed by a long period of unemployment, and the same cycle of hoping that a relief scheme will eventually find its way into the area. That, as I said before, is a hotch-potch method of dealing with unemployment. It is an inadequate method of dealing with it, and the Government ought to take their courage in their hands and say definitely what their proposals are for dealing with that serious problem. I give the Parliamentary Secretary credit for having good intentions in this respect. I give him credit for having applied himself with zeal to the task before him, but I am sorry I cannot give either him or the Government credit for having dealt with the unemployment problem in the courageous way we were entitled to expect them to deal with it in view of previous declarations by members of the present Ministry.

Here we are asked to vote on an Estimate of £150,000 for the relief of unemployment, and there has been a singular reticence on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to telling us the Government's precise proposals for dealing with that problem. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what the Government's proposals are; I hope he will be able to tell us that the Government have at last made up their mind to finance a scheme of large scale public works, which, in my opinion, is one of the best ways of alleviating the present problem. Not merely will it alleviate the problem, but it will create national assets in addition, and will give many unemployed people a decent income which few of those now registered for employment have had for a very long time.

In any proposals submitted to this House for dealing with unemployment in a courageous way, the Government can be assured of the support of every Party and of every Deputy in the House who wants to see that problem dealt with vigorously and courageously, but my great fear in all this matter, is that the Government here are merely adopting methods which have been adopted without success by Governments in other countries. This Government, however, used to talk at one time of being a radical Government, and, in their wilder moments, some members of the Party used to talk of its being a revolutionary Party. Let us have some evidence of radicalism and some evidence of revolution in their proposals for dealing with unemployment. There will be abundant support in this House for any proposals which will make war on the poverty, misery and destitution which many unemployed people are compelled to tolerate to-day, and, paradoxical though it is, compelled to tolerate in a country which, if it were properly organised, is capable of giving a decent standard of living to every man and woman in the country.

Mr. McMenamin

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow