When the debate was adjourned last night I was discussing the necessity for the secrecy in which minor relief schemes were being shrouded by the Office of Public Works, and whether such secrecy was desirable. I was indicating that we had been invited by the Parliamentary Secretary to submit schemes which we considered of a useful character to enable his Department to give all possible relief under this Vote. I was wondering, and am still wondering, why it should be found necessary for the Department to shroud the schemes in secrecy even when these schemes had been definitely determined upon and sent out to the different county surveyors.
Why should they not be available to Deputies? I am not so guileless as to believe that all Deputies are kept in ignorance of these schemes. In fact, I have reason to believe that certain Deputies have been made aware of the schemes which have been adopted. I want to hear if that is so, because I contend that all Deputies should be treated similarly in having made available to them what schemes have been adopted for a particular programme, what schemes have been deferred for further consideration, and what schemes have been rejected. I think that would be only reasonable and fair to Deputies, no matter what Party they belong to, who are trying to get works done in various areas and it would avoid a good deal of correspondence between Deputies and the Department. If we were made aware of the programme which had been adopted for a particular season we could then bend our energies to having the rejected ones considered for the following season.
I have expressed my views and, perhaps, my speech has been more or less in the nature of a general complaint. I want again to reiterate that the Vote is supposed to serve two purposes: relief of unemployment and the carrying out of useful schemes of work for the improvement of local amenities. I am not unmindful of the good work that has been done under the Vote, but I am suggesting that it has not succeeded to anything like the extent which is possible with the same amount of money if the rotational scheme had not been introduced. I put the first item first and that is the relief of unemployment. As to that I say that the schemes are a ghastly failure as far as they go because the money paid to the recipients has not given any reasonable relief in the homes of the workers participating. They were not provided with the necessary means for maintaining their homes in any kind of decency or frugal comfort.
The fact of spreading a certain amount of money over an unnecessarily large number is not a sufficient justification; it is, I suggest, an abuse of the main and real purpose of the relief schemes. They ought to be relief schemes in the true sense of the word. I have stated already that that is done for the purpose of saving the Unemployment Assistance Fund. I repeat that and I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he has only a certain amount of money to disburse upon relief schemes it would be much better to give reasonable earnings to a reasonable number of people over the period which can be covered rather than to spread it over a much larger number than it is capable of supporting in reasonable or frugal comfort.
I gave an instance last night of a man who was alleged to be getting relief under these schemes and whose earnings approximated to 6/- a week ever a stated period, out of which he has to maintain his wife and seven children. I do not think I could stress that too much. Perhaps that is not a typical case, but it is by no means an unique case. If that is so, I think it calls for close consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary to see if such hardships are being inflicted, because as long as that man was called to that work he must go there.
The Parliamentary Secretary maintains that it was marvellous that the thing had worked out so successfully and that the maximum results had been achieved. I contend that a much better result in the actual achievement of work could have been got without the rotational scheme. I am not complaining of the type of work done, but I am contending that more of that kind of work could be done with the same outlay by having men working for longer periods than two or three or four days per week. In addition, I suggest that it is unreasonable to ask us to believe that men of all types, who are forced into these schemes without any question as to suitability for the work, can give a proper return to the people in charge. I have in mind the case of coach painters, who are not used to handling anything heavier than a lining brush, being forced into these schemes. I know of one such man, highly skilled in his craft, who was forced to make concrete footpaths, and if he did not accept the work he would lose his benefit at the exchange. I met a shoemaker last night who was disallowed benefit for refusing to work in a quarry. That man never worked with anything heavier that a wax-end and he was supposed to work in a quarry with a crowbar. Yet we are asked to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is getting results from the flotsam and jetsam of suitable and unsuitable types of people, over broken periods, which can compare favourably with that of men fitted for the work, working over a normal period from end to end of a job. I do not think that squares with common sense.
I further suggest that a distance limit should be fixed over which men should not be asked to travel to work. It is unreasonable to expect that a man can travel six, seven, or eight miles to and from his work. I do not know personally of any case in which a man was asked to travel further than that to this work, but I am told that there are cases in other counties where men have to travel longer distances. But I can speak from personal knowledge of men being asked to go seven miles.
I heard of a case a fortnight ago of nine men being struck off benefit because they refused to travel six miles each way to their work, or 12 in all. How these men could be expected to perform an average day's work after travelling that distance passes my comprehension. I say it is manifestly unfair. If schemes were put into operation within a reasonable distance outside which men should not be supposed to travel, there would be some reason for pointing to them as evidence of the success of the schemes and of the willingness of the workers. If those objectionable features were done away with, the schemes would work out more satisfactorily and be of some assistance in the homes they are supposed to relieve, as well as giving a much better return to the taxpayer, whose money is being expended on these works throughout the country.