Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Employment Schemes.

Mr. Derrig

I move:—

Go nedontar suim ná raghaidh thar £750,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun Scéimeanna chun Fostaíocht do chur ar fáil agus chun Fóirithin ar Ghátar, maraon le costas riaracháin.

That a sum not exceeding £750,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Schemes for the Provision of Employment and the Relief of Distress, including cost of administration.

Mr. Flinn

The Estimate for 1936-7 was £1,565,000 and for 1937-8 £1,500,000. In addition, a sum of £110,000 was provided as a temporary measure under Vote 69 of 1936-7. The sum of £1,500,000 is for provisions for employment schemes, and relief of distress for the year 1937-8. It is made up as follows:—Completion of schemes sanctioned prior to 31st March, 1937— that is the re-Vote—£672,250; miscellaneous employment schemes; new schemes, £827,750; that is the State contribution. The re-Vote figure of £672,250 is based on the Estimates of the Departments, and is composed of:

	£
Public Health Works	148,955
Roads (urban)	113,132
Roads (rural)	144,705
Housing sites development	71,000
Land reclamation	20,000
Peat development works	20,000
Minor relief schemes	50,000
Miscellaneous schemes	104,458
Total:	£672,250

Local contributions, amounting to approximately £507,000 will be forthcoming in respect of the above re-Vote provision; making a total of the re-Vote plus the local contribution: £1,179,250. The balance of the Vote, namely £827,750, will be available for new employment schemes during the current financial year, an additional sum, estimated at £255,200 being expected by way of contribution from the local authorities, making a total— in addition to the £1,179,250 available from the re-Vote and the local contributions attached thereto—of £1,082,950. The following is the provisional allocation of the moneys, both State and local contributions:

	State Grants	Local Contributions
Department of Local Government and Public Health:	£	£
Public health works	130,000	156,000
Road works	375,000	79,000
Housing sites development	10,000	10,000
Department of Agriculture:
Land reclamation, supply of seed, oats, etc.	40,000	—
Office of Public Works:
Minor relief schemes including Minor Marine Works, etc.) and Peat Development Schemes (about £35,000)	230,750	—
Miscellaneous	42,000	10,200
	£827,750	£255,200

The total amount available for the new schemes will, therefore, be £1,082,950.

The distribution of the Employment Fund for the financial year just closed may be most conveniently reviewed by examining the total allocation under each sub-head of expenditure as follows:—Public Health Works: The total allocation under this head is £807,000, of which £322,221 represents a State grant. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £434,545. Roads and footpaths in urban areas: The total allocation is £300,800, and the State grant £187,900. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £96,894. Road schemes by county councils in rural areas: Total allocation, £461,120, including a State contribution of £311,620. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £223,071. The allocation includes £50,000 for tourist roads in the Gaeltacht, given without a local contribution. Minor relief schemes: Total allocation, £309,080; no local contribution. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £253,500. Development of housing sites: Total allocation, £167,000; State grant, £83,500. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £22,000. I am giving these figures in detail so that Deputies may be able to estimate the efficiency of different headings from the point of view of getting expenditure away in a hurry.

Land reclamation and distribution of manures and seed oats: Total allocation, £115,620 by way of a State grant. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £95,620. Peat development schemes: Total allocation, £49,700, all State grant, of which the estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £29,700. Miscellaneous: Total allocation, £189,840; State grant, £105,109. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1937, is £22,183. That particular item will always be relatively low in its expenditure to the total.

The employment fund for 1936-37 was made up of £1,565,000 State grant, and £942,160 contributions by local authorities—total £2,507,160. The sum expended to the 31st March was approximately £1,177,513, of which £782,247 was State grant. Works representing the great bulk of the balance—that is, the amount which the Dáil is now asked to provide by way of revote—are for the most part actually in hands or in a position to be begun at once, and it is estimated that the greater portion of the expenditure will be completed by the end of the summer.

In this connection it should be stated that an employment programme, costing £2,500,000, cannot be put into operation rapidly. If the money is not to be squandered, there must be careful organisation and planning. The Budget speech announcing the employment fund of 1936-37 was made on the 12th May last year, and the moneys were voted by the Dáil on the 1st July. At that time the second Employment Periods Order was in force, so that expenditure in the rural areas and the great majority of the towns (which represents two-thirds of the total expenditure) was possible only in a limited degree during the summer and until the middle of November, when the unemployment assistance register had again filled up. The most that was possible in the circumstances was to carry out summer drainage schemes in such areas as unemployed workers were to be found in sufficient numbers and for which suitable schemes were available, and this was done. Other schemes in rural and urban areas necessitated negotiations with local authorities re local contributions—the preparation of plans and estimates— the examination of same by headquarters; and other details of collaboration as between different Departments, and between Departments and local authorities. It was not, therefore, until the middle of November that the employment programme was fully under way.

For the coming year the case will be somewhat different, as the revote from 1936/37 will provide work for the early part of the financial year, and, if the rate of progress achieved this winter is repeated, the great bulk of the new money should be expended by 31st March, 1938. Instead of having to revote approximately half the total sum next year we do not expect to have to revote more than about 5 per cent.

Thanks are due to all the Government Departments which have collaborated with the Office of Public Works for their cordial co-operation and assistance in the carrying out of the year's employment programme. The Department of Local Government and Public Health have had the lion's share of the funds for works administered by them, and they have done everything in their power to facilitate the smooth working of the scheme.

Reference is made later to the special collaboration between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Office of Public Works in respect of (a) finding the data for the rational distribution of relief moneys and (b) recruitment of labour, and the opportunity must be taken to express the highest appreciation of the services rendered by the officials of the employment branch, both at headquarters and in the local offices.

They have been subjected in the local offices to a very considerable, new and unusual strain this year, and from the highest down to the last member of that staff we are under an obligation for the enthusiastic work which the labour exchanges have put into the schemes this year.

The severest task of all has probably fallen on the local surveyors and engineers and their assistants, who have had charge of the actual execution of the works. The volume of work entrusted to them was very much increased compared with that done in previous years, and it was rendered particularly difficult by the introduction, for the first time on a general scale, of the difficult principle of rotational employment.

During the spring and summer of 1936, an average number of 3,000 workmen were employed on various employment schemes. At the expiry of the Employment Period Order at the beginning of November, the unemployment assistance register filled up rapidly and employment schemes on a general scale began simultaneously. The actual numbers employed at different periods during the winter are as follows. Taking land reclamation and relief works as a whole, the figure for the week ended 25th November is 10,141; week ended 19th December, 36,259; week ended 16th January, 45,132, and week ended 13th February, 50,456.

That was the peak period and corresponded within three days with the anticipated peak period of necessity for employment. It is very remarkable to say, with something like 3,000 schemes going together, carried on in all the different counties under the different surveyors, that co-ordination and co-operation were so excellent that it was possible to make the figure of artificial employment at 50,456 correspond practically to a day with the period with which it was required. Of these 50,456 men, approximately 10,000 were workmen who had been in receipt of unemployment assistance before employment, and about four-fifths of the total were employed on the rotational system with an average employment of 3½ days per week for each workman.

This is a suitable occasion to review the developments that have taken place in the administration of relief moneys since the task was taken over by the Office of Public Works in 1932. Before that time no special study had been made of the problem of effecting an equitable distribution of the available funds according to the relative needs of areas and individuals, with the result that the expenditure on relief works did not always take place where it was most needed nor did the wages always find their way into the pockets of the most necessitous individuals. It is, of course, true that in previous years the great bulk of relief moneys had been spent in the congested districts counties, and it might appear at first sight that all that is required to effect a proper distribution of relief funds is to devote to each county an allocation proportionate to its relative poverty. But that is not so, for the different parts of a county generally vary very much amongst themselves in their degree of poverty or comparative wealth. This is made clear by examining the position of, say, Counties Galway, Cork and Donegal, where almost all the poverty and distress is to be found in the western portion of the county, and without a precise knowledge of the internal distribution of unemployment and distress very great inequalities of distribution might take place.

The problem of distribution amongst urban areas is a simple one, as each of these areas is a self-contained unit so far as the provision of employment schemes is concerned; but in the rural areas the problem is conditioned by the distance that workmen can reasonably be expected to walk to work. If the nature of this limitation is understood it will be clear that in a district covering 20 or 30 miles a single large scheme providing work for, say, 400 or 500 men cannot take the place of ten smaller works each requiring 40 to 50 men. In practice this means that if workmen in rural areas are not to have too far to walk to their work suitable schemes must be provided in some 1,200 or 1,500 separate centres, and this, in fact, is what is being done at present. It is unfortunate that the most suitable schemes of work are not always to be found in these areas where the greatest need for providing employment exists, and this is one of the reasons why complaints are made that the most suitable schemes are not always those which are selected for the employment programme.

The first effort in 1932, therefore, was to fix on a recognised unit of area which from the point of view of distance from workers to their work would not be too large, and from the point of view of obtaining sufficient workmen for a gang, would not be too small; the intention being to provide a separate work for each such area provided its poverty or unemployment position warranted it, and provided that a reasonably suitable scheme could be found. The unit of rural area known as the "District Electoral Division" was selected for this purpose, and when this was done it became necessary to find a method of measuring the relative need of each of these areas with respect to the others. There are some 3,000 of these electoral areas in the Free State. This, of course, was before the introduction of the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1933, and the method employed was to fix what was called a "poverty factor" for each electoral division, based on the rateable valuation of agricultural land per head of the population. A grant in proportion to the poverty factor was then made for every eligible electoral division. This system proved surprisingly reliable in the light of later checks and was in use until the Unemployment Assistance Acts came actively into operation.

Meanwhile the recruitment of labour for employment schemes proceeded on the basis of preference being given to the most necessitous workmen who applied. The duty of selecting the workmen was entrusted for some time to the officials in charge of the works; but, though everything that was possible in the circumstances was done to choose the right workmen, the system led to a large number of complaints of unfair discrimination, as was indeed bound to be the case, for the reason that the officials in charge of matters had no precise method of ascertaining the relative measure of necessitousness of an applicant for work.

When the Unemployment Assistance Act came into active operation in 1934 it suggested a means of overcoming the chief difficulties which had hitherto lain in the way of the effective administration of relief moneys. The Act provided a definite criterion or test of unemployment, and, by its graduated scale of unemployment assistance payments, disclosed the relative degree of necessitousness of recipients: it indicated the number of unemployed workmen in each area, and it made possible a precise system of recruitment. Before these advantages could be made use of for employment schemes, however, it was necessary to arrange for the sub-division of the unemployment register records in the employment exchanges and local offices in such a way as to correspond with the system of distribution of moneys used by the Office of Public Works. This important work was accomplished in due course by the setting up of a geographical register in the employment offices from which information can readily be supplied of the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each town and rural electoral division, and by means of which recruitment of labour for employment schemes can be carried out with certainty and despatch. The Department of Industry and Commerce have already made several special enumerations of the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each town and rural electoral division in the Saorstát, and these statistics constitute the basis on which relief moneys are now divided. The latest return we have is a special census made on the 4th of February of this year, and by ascertaining for every electoral area in the Free State the number of unemployment assistance people registered in the exchanges and at the same time the number of people from each of these electoral areas actually engaged on relief works at the time, we have now an accurate and up-to-date picture of the position, and that figure, subject to such corrections as may be necessary from time to time, will be used as the basis probably of distribution. The respective systems of the Office of Public Works and the Department of Industry and Commerce so far as the administration of employment schemes is concerned may be said to be complementary to each other, with the result that the areas in which employment schemes are required can be definitely ascertained and the most necessitous workmen can be recruited at the shortest possible notice.

The fruit of this close collaboration between the Employment Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Special Division, Office of Public Works, has been to make possible during the past winter the employment of as many as 50,000 workmen at one and the same time on special employment schemes, of whom more than 90 per cent. had been in receipt of unemployment assistance before their recruitment, the remainder being nearly all skilled tradesmen and carters.

Having disposed of the preliminary problems of (a) the proper distribution of the relief vote as between units of area and (b) the recruitment of workmen, attention was next directed to the question of the degree to which it would be possible to effect a distribution of the money available for wages in proportion to the relative needs of the individual workmen. This clearly can only be done by a system of rotational or part-time employment by which men receive varying numbers of days employment per week.

In order to understand the question it is necessary to point out that the sums provided in the Budget for (a) unemployment assistance and (b) special employment schemes for the relief of unemployment, are complementary to each other; and that together they must be regarded as a joint fund which represents the direct provision which the State makes for the relief of unemployment and distress. The joint amount required for these two services is fixed before the Budget; an estimate is made in advance of the savings in unemployment assistance which will be effected by reason of the operation of the employment schemes, and the amount represented by this saving is then hypothecated to the employment fund for the provision of employment schemes. It is wrong, therefore, to suggest, as has been done, that the principle of rotational or part-time employment is merely a device to save unemployment assistance payments. For the current year it is proposed to provide a sum of £1,121,000 for unemployment assistance payments and a sum of £827,750 (State Grant only), not including the re-Vote, for the provision of employment schemes for the relief of unemployment, and from what has already been said, it is clear that these two funds are inter-dependent, and that the amount made available for the provision of employment schemes already includes the estimated saving in respect of unemployment assistance payments.

It is well known that the Unemployment Assistance Acts are based on the principle that the weekly payment made to each eligible unemployed person shall be proportionate to the degree of his need as measured by reference to the number of his dependents, and adjusted in respect of any means of which he may be possessed. This being so, it is difficult to resist the inference that the distribution of the employment fund as between individual workmen should be governed by the same general principle of graduated benefits. This, in effect, is the principal justification for rotational or part-time employment on employment schemes provided by the State for the relief of unemployment. For example, the Unemployment Assistance Acts provide that an eligible unemployed workman with dependent wife and five or more other dependents shall, other things being equal, receive a weekly payment more than double that given to a single man with no dependents; and considering the inter-dependence of the two separate funds for the relief of unemployment, and their common purpose, there seems to be no reason why, to the extent to which it is possible in practice, a similar differentiation should not be made with respect to the wages earned on employment schemes. It is only by doing so that the benefits of the funds provided for employment schemes can be distributed over the largest possible number of necessitous workmen in proportion to their individual necessities.

It was for these reasons, therefore, that an effort was made during the past winter to carry out as many employment schemes as possible, on the principle of rotational employment for unskilled labourers. The type of rotation employed is of a modified kind, and does not purport to follow all the gradations of unemployment assistance scales. The various categories of workmen are given three, four or five days' work per week, according to the scale of unemployment assistance payable, with a limited number of cases of two days' employment per week.

Rotation of labour had been previously practised to a limited extent, and, curiously enough, Dublin City was one of the places in which a system of "three day on and three day off" rotation had been in use on relief schemes for some years, but it was, of course, inevitable that there should be a number of complaints and objections to the inauguration of the system on a widespread scale. As compared with the very large number of works that were carried out, however, the number of complaints was almost negligible; and it is not too much to claim for the new system tried during the winter that it has been entirely satisfactory as demonstrating the following points:—(1) The administrative feasibility of a complex system of rotational employment; (2) the reasonable adequacy of the return of work given by the workmen employed on intermittent spells of work; (3) the general willingness of the workmen themselves to work under the conditions laid down; (4) the intrinsic usefulness and desirability of the work that can be done; (5) the distribution of the benefits of the employment scheme fund over a large number of workmen.

From the point of view of the workman himself, the chief advantages of the special employment schemes as compared with the payment of unemployment assistance are that (1) he is able to earn a larger weekly income while preserving his complete independence; (2) he does not lose touch completely with the habit of physical labour and the discipline which it entails. The advantage of the rotational method of employment as compared with full-time employment is that it distributes these benefits over the largest possible number of workmen, and preserves the principle embodied in the Unemployment Assistance Acts of adjusting the amount of State relief to the degree of necessitousness of the individual workman. Full-time employment means the same provision for a married man having six dependents and for a single man without dependents at all; rotational employment permits of the necessary differentiation being made.

On the limited system of rotation at present in use, a workman earns in many cases from two to three times as much by way of wages as he would receive by way of unemployment assistance payments, and for this reason it is clear that even when working on a system of rotational labour, workmen are placed in a privileged position as compared with less fortunate unemployed persons who continue to draw unemployment assistance. The fact that we are employing 50,000 does not get over the fact that we have still 70,000 men on the register. Full-time employment on employment schemes would carry the process of discrimination still further and emphasise still more the disparity of treatment by concentrating in the hands of a strictly limited number of workers all the benefits of the employment scheme fund. It would be possible with a given fund—and you have always to start from the fact that you will have a limited fund—to increase the period of employment of every man of the 50,000 employed by a day, to give three-day men four days, to give four-day men five days, and the five-day men six days, or to increase them in every other proportion——

Mr. Keyes

Then you have five-day men?

Mr. Flinn

Yes; and there are some full time. There are three, four and five-day men.

Mr. Keyes

You cannot have full time in a rotational scheme.

Mr. Flinn

You can to the extent that some men are getting full time. That might be a perfectly legitimate discrimination to make. If, with a limited sum, we were to increase the period of employment of all of the 50,000 now employed, it could only be done by increasing the number of the 70,000 men who were getting no more than unemployment assistance. It could only be done by reducing the 50,000 now getting certain benefit to a smaller number. Three alternatives to rotational employment have frequently been proposed: (1) Full-time employment all the year round for all the unemployed on the register. I believe that proposal was put forward by a part of the Deputy's constituency last year.

This would be admirable if it were possible, but the drawback is that a scheme of the kind would cost approximately £15,000,000 per annum; and it will probably be agreed on all sides that this would be a burden altogether beyond the resources of the country. It should also be pointed out that even if the money were available, it would not be possible to find suitable schemes over any considerable period of time, with any reasonable labour content. Taking the first year of the £15,000,000, we would skim the cream of all the high content labour works in every sphere of public activity; and to employ the same number of men full time for the following year would cost more, and in every succeeding year, more, because the labour content of the whole would fall.

The second proposal is full-time employment in respect of whatever sum is made available for employment schemes. This would reduce the number of workmen benefiting by the schemes to one-half as compared with the present system of modified rotation, and would increase the disparity of treatment between those employed and their less fortunate fellows who remain on the register. Under the system of rotation during the past winter, as many as 50,000 workmen were employed at one time, but if full-time employment had been given it would have altogether excluded some 20,000 to 25,000 of these workmen from participation and would have concentrated in the hands of the remainder all the benefits of the entire employment fund so far as the money is devoted to the payment of wages.

The third suggestion is a species of rotation by which workmen would be employed full time for alternate fortnights and would be entitled to unemployment assistance payment in the fortnights during which they were not working. This has the disadvantages referred to in the previous case, but in a lesser degree. It would mean the employment of a somewhat smaller number of workmen, for the reason that it would entail increased payment of unemployment assistance, the amount of which would have to be deducted from the sum available for employment schemes.

Furthermore it should be stated that there has always been a strong objection to providing full-time employment on relief schemes at current rates of wages, for the reason that agricultural and other workers would certainly be attracted and thus withdrawn from their normal employment. That does to a considerable extent already happen.

With regard to local contributions, the grants for road works in 1936-37 were offered in two instalments; for the first instalment in rural areas, a local contribution of 40 per cent. was asked, and for the second, 25 per cent., representing a 36 per cent. local contribution on the joint offers. In addition, free grants amounting to £50,000 were made to Gaeltacht areas. In the urban areas the local contributions sought were 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively, or 37½ per cent. on the joint offer.

Notwithstanding protests and delays, the rural offers were well taken up, the first by all councils and the second by all but two councils. In the urban areas, however, some councils refused or demurred to the offers, and exceptional treatment in regard to local contributions were claimed in several cases. In some cases the offer of a State grant subject to a local contribution was regarded as suspect from the point of view that it would not be financially advantageous to the council, and the view was expressed that it was merely an effort to save money in the form of unemployment assistance for the Exchequer. I can assure the House that there is no possible means by which men can be employed which will save the Exchequer net on the unemployment assistance contribution.

This question was raised, I remember, in relation to the City of Cork. A financial analysis of the position as affecting the city disclosed the interesting fact that on the assumption that no employment schemes were initiated, the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act resulted in a net profit of £68,000 to the city, being the difference between (a) the cost to the city of payments of home assistance plus the contribution made by the council to the unemployment fund; and (b) the benefit derived by the city from the unemployment assistance paid by the State and home assistance payments made by the local authority.

If, on the other hand, employment schemes as sanctioned in 1936-37 were in operation, the profit to the city would be increased to £100,500, being the difference between (a) the cost to the council of home assistance plus the contributions made by the council to the unemployment assistance fund and to the employment schemes, and (b) the reduced unemployment assistance payments made by the Government, the cost of the employment schemes and the home assistance spent in the city. The city received in additional benefit £100,500, plus the value of the work that was done.

The Donegal County Council, or some members of it, appear to have had similar scruples about accepting the allocation recently offered. A like analysis shows that the enactment of the Unemployment Assistance Act involved a profit of £130,000 to the county, while the operation of employment schemes, requiring a local contribution of only £4,000, would increase the profit to £189,000, quite independently of the value of the work done.

Although the general level of local contributions attained last year was highly satisfactory, it had to be recognised that this was the outcome of an almost universal recourse to borrowing, and when it was made clear that employment schemes were to be regarded as a recurring feature of the annual Estimates, it became evident that the encouragement of the continuance of borrowing for the purpose of local contributions in respect of road works and schemes of the kind would be unsound and that local contributions should be made from current revenue. This consideration prompted the fixation of a lower proportionate aggregate of contribution by local authorities for the coming year.

Furthermore, last year's experience went to show that the adoption of a uniform rate of contribution involved the anomaly that the poorest areas with the largest unemployment problem, and, therefore, requiring the largest sums for relief of unemployment, were automatically, and, as it seems, wrongly called upon to find the largest gross contributions. To remove this anomaly in the coming year it is proposed to depart from the uniform basis of local contributions and to relate to some extent the contribution in each case to the capacity of the local authority to bear the burden. The capacity of any local authority to make a contribution is regulated by (a) its immediate financial position and (b) its ultimate capacity, as generally represented by the rateable valuation of the area administered by the local authority. What we are doing now is distributing money to the counties, and districts in the counties, in proportion to their necessity, to their poverty, and asking contributions from the counties in proportion to their wealth.

It has been frequently urged that the Exchequer should assume entire responsibility for the cost of employment schemes. There is much to be said in favour of this proposal. It would have the unquestionable benefit of obviating the necessity of delicate and often difficult negotiations with local authorities, which not only delay the initiation of these schemes, but make it difficult to plan an employment programme in advance with any degree of certainty. Freedom from these causes of embarrassment would be a very great aid in the administration of employment schemes.

There are, however, many sound reasons against abandoning the principle of local contributions, not the least of which is the fact that the making of a contribution secures the definite interest of the local authority, and of each ratepayer, in the work, and ensures not only that works of the highest public utility will be put forward, but that their satisfactory execution will be carefully watched. It is to be feared that if the total cost of the schemes were borne by the Exchequer and the local authority deprived of a serious stake in the business, the works, which must, of necessity, and for the most part, be carried out through local organisations, would tend to be given second place in the matter of supervision, control and public interest. It is very desirable that a contribution should be made by the local authority in order that they will be actively conscious that they are paying a share of the cost of the works, and for that reason, will ensure the supervision which will enable them to be carried out.

Last year, we found that the organisation which was set up was flexible and receptive, and more capable than we had anticipated to take the new load that was put on it. I am satisfied that the new organisation, trained as it has been during the campaign of this year, will enter upon a new year capable of doing even better work. The only anxiety I have in that regard is in relation to the supply of schemes of a suitable quality both in the urban and rural districts. It is not easy to find in any urban district at the present moment new works of the kind which ought not to be done as part of the ordinary expenditure of that local authority and which are themselves useful and possess a high labour content. I am having put up to me proposals—very discouraging proposals—from local authorities for schemes with a labour content as low as 30 per cent. It is quite obvious that if the majority of schemes by the local authorities were to reach any figure of that kind, the actual money that would go to the employed persons—that is the thing with which we in this Vote are primarily concerned—would be very small. Every effort must be made by local authorities, Government Departments, and ourselves as the co-ordinating authority, to see that the standard of labour content is kept as high as possible.

The second point giving me anxiety in this regard is in relation to the supply of minor relief schemes. We carried out last year 2,000 to 3,000 of these schemes. If Deputies look at the map downstairs, they will see these little brown dots all over the place. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that has been going on for years. We have done thousands of these schemes in the last few years, and while about 10,000 schemes altogether have been sent in to us, the best of these schemes have been done. To envisage a system by which a continuous supply of minor relief schemes which will fit into every individual area in proportion to the need of that area can be kept up over a period of years is very difficult. My supply of these schemes is running down. On four or five occasions I have appealed to members on all sides of the House to give us these schemes. There has been prepared a special form which makes it extremely easy for Deputies to give the information in the page in which it is desired. I have made personal appeals to my own friends to fill these gaps. I am now making that appeal again to the House. I shall require a whole lot of new schemes of the minor relief order to be distributed over the country. It will be no use giving them to me in September, October or November. We start making our relief schemes for each year on the 1st January of that year. These schemes are now in preparation. I am asking Deputies in all corners of the House to use their local knowledge to see that these schemes are provided and in the possession of the Department of Public Works on the special forms which are available and which will be supplied to any member of the House. I want to have a sufficient supply of properly-distributed minor relief schemes. If that is done, I think the other portions of the work—the public health portion and the rural roads portion-will easily be met.

There is, undoubtedly, cause for anxiety in relation to works in urban areas. If Deputies know of desirable works in urban areas, I shall be glad if they will tell me. In the ordinary way, people feel that they should thank you for the acceptance of a relief work. Our attitude of mind is entirely different. We are more anxious to receive from Deputies suggestions for good works—works which have a high labour content and a high economic value-than they can possibly be to put them forward. I am glad and proud to say that I have had during the last couple of years the co-operation of Deputies from all parts of the House in putting forward these schemes. I am looking for that co-operation in future. I have had behind me in this work the very excellent staff of the special division of the Board of Works. I take this opportunity of thanking that staff for the continuous, unceasing and unmeasured work which they have put into the success of these schemes.

Mr. Keyes

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his closing invitation to Deputies to send in for his consideration as many minor relief schemes as they can suggest from their various localities. I trust that frank expression by Deputies of what they think about the methods of administration of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department will not militate against the favourable reception of these schemes. I express that hope because the Parliamentary Secretary intimated a couple of years ago that people who felt like castigating him and criticising the rates of wages paid upon relief schemes had no right to be coming along looking for schemes for their districts. I propose to avail myself to the full of the invitation extended by the Parliamentary Secretary by submitting as many schemes as I can lay hands on. I trust that what I have to say in connection with the Estimate under consideration will not militate against the favourable consideration of these schemes. Listening to the carefully-prepared and eloquent peroration of the Parliamentary Secretary to-night, one wondered if it was to the actual rotational schemes in operation in the country that he was referring. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out the advantages of the schemes to such an extent that one wondered how this country managed to get along before these rotational schemes were introduced. He furnished us with cause for serious thought. The fact that the people who are concerned with the rotational schemes have not realised the beneficence of those schemes must be due to their crass ignorance. He pointed out that if anything happened to affect the rotational schemes, 50,000 persons who are enjoying the advantages of these schemes would fall back into the category of their less fortunate fellows who are in receipt of less money. I am going to suggest that it is not an advantage to get work on a rotational scheme. At all events, it should not be an advantage if the laws of the State are made operative. If the Unemployment Assistance Act is to be allowed to operate, then it should be an advantage to married men with dependents not to get a job on the rotational schemes.

The Parliamentary Secretary says that a definite privilege is given to the men working on those schemes as compared with the more unfortunate fellows who are unable to get on. But if you concentrate on that type of scheme 70,000 or 50,000 employed and unemployed would have to change places because of the rotational system, and somebody will have to suffer. I have here the case of a man living in the parish of Doon, in the County Limerick. He is a married man with seven children. He worked on this rotational scheme for three weeks before Christmas and three weeks after Christmas. The average earnings of this man in those six weeks was 5/9 per week. That was because of the bad weather, plus the limitations imposed by the regulations in the working of the rotational scheme. I can produce that man in evidence. Now, if that man had not the privilege of working on the rotational scheme he would be drawing 12/6 a week at the labour exchange. If that man cannot see the benefit and advantage of the Hugo Flinn rotational scheme it is because he is an obstinate and evil-minded fellow! This rotational business is the progeny of Deputy Hugo Flinn's 24/- a week. We really thought he had plumbed the depths in this 24/- a week wages to labourers. But he has now gone much further. We have the figure of 24/- a week, minus deductions for insurance, etc. Here is a case of a man earning 5/9 a week during six weeks around Christmas. He is one of the 50,000 people who had been put into employment. I do not think that in the big, spacious case put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary there was anything that would justify this scheme of rotational employment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that was not introduced for the purpose of saving the Unemployment Fund. No one, he said, would make such a suggestion but one who was most stupid or obstinate. I suggest, however, that that is the fundamental object of the rotational scheme.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the distances that men had to travel to their work. He complained that in certain areas they were unable to get enough persons within the regular area to do a particular job. He was, however, careful not to mention what his Department considers the maximum distance or the reasonable distance that an unemployed man should travel to one of these relief schemes. I might mention that quite recently I fought the labour exchange in Limerick in the case of five men who were disqualified from benefit because they refused to travel morning and evening a distance of seven miles to and from the place where they were offered work. Because of that they were struck off from unemployment benefit. It took two or three months before these cases could be brought to final fruition. Then four of the men were admitted to benefit and the fifth man was disallowed his appeal because he had a bicycle. Because he had a bicycle he was supposed to be able to travel. This man has actually travelled the distance until his bicycle broke down. He borrowed a bicycle from another man but this other man wanted his bicycle back; this fifth man was unable to walk the journey and he was accordingly struck off benefit. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he considers it a fair test that a man should walk seven miles in the morning to his work and seven miles back in the evening? The older men have no bicycles and, if they had, some of them could not ride them. Men with families are supposed to be given a privilege, but here we find the men are being put out of benefit if they are unable to travel these long distances. Perhaps the younger men would not so much mind, but it is impossible in the case of the older men. A couple of months ago I referred to this question here. When Deputy Murphy, of West Cork, said that the men in this district were expected to travel five miles I interjected that in Limerick it was often found to be eight miles. Shortly afterwards when leaving the House I was told by a Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party that in his case he would make it ten miles each way, for he had such cases in his area. Does the Parliamentary Secretary maintain that there is really no limit to the distances our people are to travel to their work in these relief schemes so as to qualify them to share in the benefits of this 4/- a day scheme minus deductions for insurance, etc.? I am prepared to admit that I have learned to-night for the first time of the five-day schemes. I suggest these schemes must be confined to the City of Dublin for the four-day week is the maximum down in our side of the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke also of the fact that 90 per cent. of the people who come on to these schemes come off the unemployment assistance. But he did not stress the point. He mentioned that they had only finished the Employment Order period at the end of October. These men were not long on unemployment assistance. They had gone through their purgatory from July until October, when they were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go back to the abundant agricultural work that was there for the asking. When doing that the Minister was not too particular as to whether these men had previous training in agriculture. All kinds of people—pork butchers, railwaymen, toilers, carpenters, and so on—were caught up in that and were made compete with the agricultural workers for work in the hay-fields. In competition with agricultural workers, of course, they were not employed. No attempt has been made to find out whether employment was given to the men who were robbed by the operations of the Employment Period Orders. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that they came off the unemployed lists. Very often we find, because of bad weather, that the four-day week works out at only three days, two days or one day. When there is a three-day week, very often the man only gets one day's work, and still the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that that is privileged employment. Those men thereafter dare not go near a labour exchange. They have been, we are told, transferred from the unemployed ranks to the employed ranks. That is the statistical side of the operation. We are told then at the end of a period that 50,000 unemployed men have been put into employment. All these men, we are told, are working; but the fact is that very often none of them is working. And then we must remember the case of the man with the wife and seven children who is earning 5/9 a week at this rotational work. I am sure such a man must have a very big banking account as the result of his savings on those wages.

The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken about retaining the good consciousness of the local authorities. I agree that there ought to be a connection between the local authorities and the executive authority in the spending of these moneys. But is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the most active consciousness of the local authorities is their helplessness to get one man employed on schemes where they are contributing on a fifty-fifty basis? To secure work the men must go to the labour exchange. We have had countless cases of men who were refused employment and who got into difficulties because of this very system which the Parliamentary Secretary says is managed so very successfully. In this matter of ascertaining whether the man made an effort to secure work, there is a revision court. The man is held guilty until he has proved himself innocent.

During the intervening period he cannot get any benefit from the labour exchange. Neither can he get work on schemes under which the local authority pay 50 per cent. of the cost. That is the matter that has not been sufficiently looked into. We have had repeated representations made as to the cases of men who were entitled to get employment on schemes where we put up £ for £ against the money put up by the central authority. In these cases we found ourselves unable to secure the needed employment for the men.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy is mistaken in that matter. The men were eligible for employment.

Mr. Keyes

Recently?

Mr. Flinn

Yes.

Mr. Keyes

I am glad of that. The Parliamentary Secretary has taken solace to himself over those schemes of his. Does he believe what he has been telling us? Does he believe that the schemes are really the huge success he claims they are? He takes as evidence bearing out his claim that they are a success the willingness of the workers to participate, the willingness of the workers to avail of the schemes. What are the facts? The facts are that if the workers do not accept, they have no alternative but starvation. They have to take what is offered to them—four days, three days or two days' work in the week. As a matter of fact, you have done nothing but degrade the workers. I know of nothing that has happened in this country during my lifetime that has created such a feeling of indignation, and rightful indignation, as those schemes which the Parliamentary Secretary tells us are such a huge success. He emphasises the willingness of the workers to take part in the schemes. What is their alternative? If they do not take the work, they are denied recognition at the labour exchange; they have either to take what is offered or starve.

The Parliamentary Secretary then tells us blandly that the willingness of the workers is one of the evidences he has of the success of his schemes. He talks of the co-operation of the officials in the labour exchange. I take off my hat to the efforts of the officials in connection with the administration of this additional and almost impossible burden. It was never their job. They have been asked to undertake a most difficult task and I endorse every word the Parliamentary Secretary said when he was paying tribute to them. I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary, however, when he suggests there was a willingness on the part of a single worker to participate in a rotational scheme.

Mr. Smith

I submit there was.

Mr. Keyes

They were compelled, they were forced in by circumstances and nothing else. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a scheme was put forward by Deputy Keyes and others. There was only one scheme put forward by Deputy Keyes, in conjunction with responsible Deputies from the Parliamentary Secretary's own Party. That scheme advocated a rotation of three weeks instead of three days. The idea was to give a man three weeks' work instead of three days' work in each week. I submit on examination that scheme will be found to be economically sound. There is only one thing to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary from working it, and that is the fact that at the end of three weeks the men will be entitled to go back to the labour exchange. I do not think that is a thing that will appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary.

If a band of men were taken on work for a three weeks' stretch, to be replaced by another band of men for a further three weeks, and if that system were maintained, the men who would be disbanded temporarily would become entitled to go back to the labour exchange and sign for their unemployment benefit. But that is not an aspect that appeals to the Parliamentary Secretary. His idea is to give them three days each week and so keep them away from the labour exchange. That is the only scheme that Deputy Keyes and others with him have put forward. I do not want to be misrepresented and I do not want it suggested that I fathered any other scheme.

I had a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary quite recently asking me about something that appeared in the provincial Press, something that I stated in this House on this very matter. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary should have to refer to a provincial paper when he has the Official Debates at his disposal, in which is recorded perfectly correctly all that takes place here. I refrained from replying to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I suggest to him now that if he looks up the Official Debates he will find what I said reported there, and he will find what his Minister for Finance said in the same debate, and he may derive some enlightenment from the discussion on that occasion.

I repeat what I said that night, that I am definitely of opinion, and I am reinforced in that opinion by consultation with engineers in this country whose names I am not now going to disclose, that the money spent on rotational schemes is, and must necessarily be, wasted. It is not necessary for anyone to be an engineer to realise that, but I am reinforced by the opinions of engineers in my viewpoint on that matter. If a job is to be done and a man makes an estimate, he bases it on the normal working of the employees on the scheme. Men going to a job prepared to work to the finish will naturally have a short period of apprenticeship, so to speak, getting into the running of the scheme. In the case of the rotational schemes a man is hardly settled on the job when he has to go. He could not have the same interest in the work as if he were kept continually on it. In the second place he could not have acclimatised himself to the conditions of the work by the time he is replaced. The constant interchange, putting different relays of men on to the job, must be very disturbing to those in control. The engineer could not expect the same percentage of a return as he would get if the same men were employed continuously on the scheme.

I feel that argument ought to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has some engineering knowledge and knows more about these things than I do. But I think he does not wish to admit that, because he has another object in view; he is trying to save the funds. I am sure he will not deny the reasonableness of my contention that you cannot get the same return of work from 12 men working in relays as you can get from a lesser number of men working continuously on the one job. If so, the rules and the laws that I knew something about must be completely upset since the rotational schemes were started.

Apparently this boon and blessing, as the Parliamentary Secretary describes it, has so appealed to the workers that they are putting more into their efforts than they ever gave before. I do not want to ramble too far from the subject; I want to concentrate on the rotational schemes, and on my objection to them. I have travelled a good deal through the country, and I have not found anybody of any shade or colour in favour of these schemes. It is really a pity that Fianna Fáil Deputies would not have an opportunity of expressing themselves as freely and frankly as I am doing. I have never met one of them yet who would honestly endorse the system of rotational schemes.

Mr. Smith

Dozens of them would.

Mr. Keyes

I would like one of them honestly to justify rotational schemes.

Mr. Smith

I, for one, am quite prepared to justify them.

Mr. Keyes

I am glad to meet one Deputy who is. There are plenty who would not, but they keep their mouths shut about it. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has given any justification in his long address to-night for the continuance of these schemes. If they want to cover a greater number, my suggestion is that they ought to give this work only to the most deserving persons in the area for which the money will be made available. If that is not considered satisfactory, and if a rotational scheme must be there, it ought to be on the basis of a period of two or three weeks.

I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has no right to attempt to employ our people on these schemes at a lesser rate than the local authorities have determined as a fair rate for the county. He has been making attempts since he became Parliamentary Secretary to reduce the standard of wages. Where the county council have decided to pay 35/- or 30/-, the Parliamentary Secretary favours 24/-. His efforts have been such that he has reduced men now to a total earning capacity of 14/- a week. Let us consider that a man is entitled to receive 12/6 a week to maintain himself and his wife and family when he is idle, and, on the other hand, we have the position that under the Parliamentary Secretary's schemes this man is put working and all he receives is an additional 1/6 to what he would get if he were idle. That is the only advantage the workers have under this blessing, this boon and this great privilege the Parliamentary Secretary talks of. I am charging him that this is a definite attempt to lower the standard of remuneration of Irish workers. It is a headline to public authorities and private employers. I maintain that the Parliamentary Secretary has put forward no grounds to justify that attitude.

There is another point which I would like to mention. Minor relief schemes are determined upon at a certain period in the year and, for some Departmental reasons, everything connected with them is kept secret; it is not considered wise to divulge when and where those schemes are likely to operate. In due course they are submitted to the county surveyors in the various counties. Deputies have been invited by the Parliamentary Secretary to submit schemes for consideration, but they are not told when or where these schemes are likely to operate. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 9th April.