I have looked forward to this discussion with a considerable amount of interest for a considerable time because, as the House is aware, a very large and very significant experiment has been in process of operation in the country, in relation to the method of employing men and the method of using money which the State provides for the temporary and artificial employment of people who are in a state of distress for one reason or another. I was very anxious to get authoritatively from the House, from the 152 Deputies who have had experience of what is occurring in the country, their reactions to that system. I wanted to know from their knowledge, as distinct from the knowledge which we had through Departmental sources, exactly what was happening. What had happened was obviously something which was capable of being treated controversially. During the summer of the past year an experiment was made covering, I think, about £20,000 or £30,000, in five or six counties for the purpose of trying this thing out, to see whether or not the difficulties which we envisaged as possible in relation to it would occur, and whether or not there were some other incalculable snags of which we had not knowledge. These experiments were carried on throughout the summer. They were brought very fully to the knowledge of the Dáil and the public and every means was taken for the purpose of eliciting unfavourable comment. No such unfavourable comment was produced. The actual troubles which were envisaged did not occur and no troubles, other than those which were envisaged, turned up.
We had, as a result of the tests which were made in all these countries, very careful inquiries made from all those who carried out the schemes and all those who were in contact with them. It had been suggested that it was impossible administratively to employ men on a system of this kind without complications; that surveyors, local authorities, gangers and men would not understand the method and that it would break down. There was no truth in that. We left, as far as possible, the organisation of these things to those who were carrying out the experiments in the hope that some of them would break down and that in the process of breaking down, the difficulties we had to guard against would be revealed. They were uniformly and unquestionably successful from an administrative point of view. We investigated the question of the degree in which efficiency could be attained under this method during the experimental period. We have reports from all the responsible authorities who carried out those schemes. Those reports, with one single exception, are absolutely satisfactory and the reasons why that other was unsatisfactory have been investigated, ascertained and dealt with.
Having failed to meet any trouble by trying those things in the country districts, we then decided to experiment in what we regarded as the most difficult area of all, the Borough of Dublin. I may say perfectly frankly that we were looking for trouble. We wanted to find out, during the experimental, the laboratory period, the worst that could happen. When we decided to experiment on the register of a capital city like Dublin—on to which register, as you know, men of the very best and some not of the very best tend to gravitate—we thought and we hoped that we would find it. I am glad to say we were successful. From the time that scheme started, from the very first day, everything possible was done to impede and to break up the scheme. We had public meetings at lunch-time and at 5 o'clock. We had all sorts of outsiders doing everything humanly possible to aggravate and bedevil the position. That was the first time that anything of that kind had occured. We also—and we were glad to hear it—had the information that this was the first of all the schemes which had been put forward in which the men were not delivering the goods. We calculated that under those circumstances everything that it was humanly possible to find out to the detriment of such a system would be found out. We had regular returns showing the proportion of men who were doing a full day's work, who were doing a half day's work, and who were not doing work of any particular value. Those figures were kept. In the meantime, we investigated every possible objection or grievance that could be drawn up under those methods, and dealt with it, until we were satisfied that everything which was humanly possible to meet the difficulties had been done.
We then gave the instruction—which is the fundamental instruction in relation to rotation work—that every man on that job should deliver the goods or go. All I can tell you is that those men reacted to discipline and to organisation in a manner which was entirely creditable. The end of that particular experiment was that that gang was working as well as any gang I know working on relief schemes under any conditions. When it was notified that the work would be shut down, I think somewhere about 94 per cent. of the men sent in a petition for its continuance under those conditions. When that additional grant was exhausted a further petition to continue that scheme came from those men. At the same time, investigations through an outside authority were made into the social reactions in relation to those men who were employed, as a result of having been employed on part-time work of that character over a considerable period, as distinct from living on the dole. The report was in every degree and in every particular satisfactory. The whole home life and the individual life of those men had reacted in a manner which was entirely favourable. With that background behind us this year we decided to adopt, in relation to the large scheme of employment works throughout the country, a modified system of rotation. The system of rotation under which we worked during the summer was a strict mathematical rotation—that is to say, as far as we could work it out every man got in wages an amount of money which was equal to or slightly greater than his unemployment assistance, plus beef vouchers, plus 40 per cent., and during the winter we decided to adopt a modified system. As a result of that, some 20 counties which had no experience of this system, some thousands of gangs, some 50,000 men at one particular moment, with probably a total of 75,000 to 80,000 men altogether, have had experience of working under this system.
It was for the purpose of knowing what had been the reaction in that matter that I was anxious to meet the House and hear what was to be said. I wanted to hear the worst possible and the strongest case that could possibly be stated against rotation. I wanted that to be founded on experience. We have tried to make such a case. Quite frankly, we have failed to make a case such as would of itself be convincing. My own desire and my own wish would have been to open a discussion of this kind by a statement from inside, the very worst that could possibly be said, founded upon a sound experience of this system. Personally, I have not been able to formulate a case which seemed to me to be reasonably and sufficiently convincing. For that reason, I have had to wait in the hope that someone else would do it.
While there has been a good deal of denunciation of the rotation system from four or five people, there has been no attack upon it. I want to make that quite clear; there has been no attack upon the rotation system. We have been told that it is abominable; we have been told that it is horrible. We have been told various things of that kind, but no one has come down to brass tacks—except one man—in attacking it as a system. Deputy Davin, with a courage which was far greater than his discretion, stated that the part-time employment of men was demoralising to those men. He was the only person who came down to the attack, and his courage, as I said, was greater than his wisdom. He was followed by two Deputies of his own Party, Deputy Corish and Deputy Everett, and both of them immediately got out from under that story. They wanted to make it perfectly clear that neither of them stood for the doctrine that it was demoralising. Neither of them stood for the idea that the dole was preferable to part-time employment. Apart from that, there has been no attack on rotation by saying that, intrinsically, there was anything wrong with it.
What has developed here is two schools of thought. The first demands full time employment for all men at full trade union rates, all the year around, on works of full economic value, placed near their homes. In addition, there has been a demand for employment on those terms for all men prepared to register, whether unemployment assistance men or not, as well as for widely distributed schemes of public works on the basis of their usefulness, independent of the poverty condition of the area. Now, that is not an attack on rotation. That is simply a demand for an unlimited amount of money to be used on unemployment schemes. Against that, we have put as our standard economic expenditure, as far as possible, on the most useful works available with the limited sum of money provided by the Oireachtas, in such a manner as to relieve the maximum amount of distress, by a wide distribution, in proportion to the individual needs of the poor. Now, these are the two schools that have been in conflict, and not the rotational system. Unless the Dáil is prepared to vote a sum of money for several years in succession to the order of about £15,000,000 a year, the needs of even the unemployment assistance registrants cannot be met under the standard of the first school, and the needs of the others could not be met in money or works at all.
Some form of rationing of money and works is inevitable. Unless, therefore, someone in this House is prepared to contend for an unlimited amount of money over a considerable period of time the principle of rationing, or whatever you call it, of the amount which is available must be and is universally accepted. Rotation, whether with or without unemployment assistance in intervals, daily or weekly, must be universally accepted as a solution. Our purpose is to convert the largest possible proportion of the present unemployment assistance payments, plus any further provision for the relief of distress, into wages for useful work at standard rates of wages.
The unemployment assistance and unemployment schemes together form the employment fund. The total is calculated on the actual estimated transfer of funds from unemployment assistance to the Employment Vote. We have previously been providing sporadic sums for unemployment relief, and, in addition to that, we were providing a sum of about £1,500,000 for unemployment assistance. What is happening now is that these two funds are being put together, and they are regarded as the State's provision for the purpose of dealing with unemployment and distress. What happens is not, that when a man on the unemployment assistance register is employed, there is any saving to the Exchequer, but that the money expended in the dole is transferred to the other fund, and our ideal is to see that the Unemployment Assistance Fund itself is reduced to the smallest limits; that the largest possible amount of that money is transferred to the other funds.
In doing that I am certainly no friend of the Minister for Finance, whoever else I may be a friend of. The cheapest of all ways to deal with the unemployment problem in this country is to ignore it. The cheapest of all ways to ignore it is by paying unemployment assistance. You can double and treble unemployment assistance to everybody who is now receiving it, and give it to a lot of people who are not receiving it, at a much less charge to the Exchequer than by any method of employing people. It is purely from the point of view of its social reactions that we prefer, and feel that we are bound, to attack the other line.
The relief schemes are justified in themselves on two grounds. The first is on the public work done, and, secondly, the social benefits to labour rather than payment for idleness. They cannot be justified on budgetary grounds. Now, I think at least six statements in relation to rotation have been put up during this discussion. Rather than seem to ignore them, I had better set them out. Deputy Davin said that it was an attempt to smash the trade unions. He also stated that it was demoralising for the individual. That disappeared on the testimony of Deputy Everett. Neither Deputy Corish nor Deputy Everett was prepared to allow the Labour Party to lie under the onus of having said, or suggested, that part-time employment was less desirable than the dole. There was a suggestion that our intention was to save the money of the Minister for Finance by robbing the Unemployment Assistance Fund. Deputy Norton made the extraordinary statement that it was intended to intimidate the Agricultural Wages Board, and Deputy Keyes said that men were forced unwillingly to work. I have dealt with the question of demoralisation and with the question of saving from the Unemployment Assistance Fund. It was also stated that in the opinion of competent engineers it was inefficient.
Now, let us take the question of trade unionism. When this scheme was first adopted there were rumblings in the shades, and we were told that the trade union authorities had their eyes on us. I said I would be very glad indeed if they would have their eyes on me at a little closer quarters. Their representatives came to see me. I gave them every fact and figure that was in my possession in relation to the whole scheme. I asked for comment, favourable or unfavourable. I asked for suggestions of any sort or kind for its amendment. I asked for any information which would show that this was an attack on trade unionism. They went away and made no comment and, as far as I know, they have made no comment since, except the statement that we have received here from Deputy Davin. We are paying the standard local rates in all places. Minor relief wages were fixed independent of rotation. I have had the closest possible contact with all sorts of people during the progress of the scheme, and up to the present no suggestion has been made to me that there was any attack, except by one Deputy. I told him I was extremely glad to hear that such a question had arisen; that I would be very glad indeed if the complaint, to the extent to which there was a complaint, could be formulated, and that it would be dealt with. I have heard nothing since. In other words, so far as I know, there is nothing whatever in that charge.
Now I come to efficiency. Deputy Keyes, Deputy Anthony and Deputy Pattison, all three, have told me that eminent engineers, none of whom have been named, have condemned this system. They have appealed to me, as an engineer who believes in and understands efficiency, to say that efficiency under such a system is impossible. Foreign cows have long horns; unnamed engineers may be very eminent, but no engineer, with the exception of one, has given a report unfavourable to this. With that exception, the whole of them have been favourable in their opinion. But I do not need to go to engineers; I do not need to go to my own experience, which is now very considerable. I have seen hundreds of these schemes; I have seen, literally, tens of thousands of men working on these schemes, and I know the result which is being delivered from them.
But I will turn to Deputy Corish and Deputy Everett as witnesses. What Deputy Corish says rather sums up pretty well what my own opinion would be in the matter. As reported in column 903 of the Official Reports, Deputy Corish said: "I am talking now of the efficiency with which the work is being carried out in spite of the handicap with which the schemes were confronted when the local authorities and the Board of Works tried at first to put them into operation." He was amazed at the efficiency obtained. As reported in column 904, he said: "I should like to say that the amount of efficiency that we have seen in connection with these schemes is extraordinary." Deputy Everett, as reported in column 914, said: "Notwithstanding all the drawbacks, notwithstanding all the difficulties, notwithstanding the fact that the men have got no alternative but to accept, I say there is good value given in the circumstances. I say that in urban areas you are getting 100 per cent. return at the present time. In the rural areas you may not be getting it on the minor relief schemes." Speaking as one who has seen, as I have told you, literally thousands of men engaged on minor relief schemes in the areas in the West, I say that the efficiency in the minor relief schemes is higher than in the urban areas. I have actually had Deputies who have condemned the system coming to me and asking that schemes should be done under this system that the Local Government Department wanted to do on full time and contract work; and I have had such schemes carried out on rotation at their request. The truth of the matter is that efficiency in this, as in all matters, is a question of the ability of the men carrying out the schemes. It depends on the organisation. With good gangers, with good engineers, with a proper lay-out of the work, you can get, under this system, as high an efficiency as it is possible to get on this class of work with the same personnel under any condition whatever.
It may be thought that it is confined to works of an elementary character. During the summer I was very anxious to know what were the limits to which a scheme of this kind could be applied, having regard to the fact that there was a large capital State expenditure, on lines which were not of an elementary character. I asked a certain engineer to what work he could apply it. That man had had experience of it. He said he could do any work which was done in the ordinary way by a local authority. Greatly daring, I said: "Can you do a public health work?" He said he could. I said: "How much more will it cost to do a public health work under this system?" He said: "I will do it at the contract price." As a result of that, the particular public health work —a rather difficult sewerage scheme, containing a good deal of technical difficulty—which had had to be put aside last year on account of shortage of funds—was brought forward as an experiment. The men on that scheme were employed on a strict mathematical rotation over the whole period of work. The unemployment register of that town, and for three miles around it, over 5/-, was abolished for a period of about ten months. Men were employed for anything from six to 16 days in four weeks. There were only two men on the whole job who were not on rotation and off the register— the foreman and the pipe layer. That job has been completed. It has been completed in a thoroughly successful technical manner, and has been completed under the estimate. I speak now not merely as an engineer anxious to see efficient work done; I speak as an administrator who has felt that the responsibility of his work required that he should be able to speak with full personal knowledge in relation to what is going on; and I am satisfied that, given good organisation, good engineers and good gangers, you can get out of this system, with ordinary labour, on every class of work to which it is possible to apply it, thoroughly efficient results.
The next statement is that this was intended to intimidate the Agricultural Wages Board. Imagination of that kind is a disaster. The relief wages in every case were above the average agricultural wages of the district. My personal desire is to see agricultural wages rise. I have never understood how anyone could, upon any ethical grounds, defend the idea that the skilled agricultural labourer should be paid less than any other skilled labourer. I calculate that I could learn to do bricklaying very comfortably in a month, good enough to do the job. There are lots of trades of that kind that I could do. There are a good many of them that I could do at one time or another, but I do not pretend to think that I could be turned into a trained agricultural labourer, or that I would employ any amateur agricultural labourer to do some of the work the skilled agricultural labourers do. I am speaking now as one who thoroughly and deeply respects the profession of the agricultural labourer, and regards him as a skilled man. I would like to see the level of his labour raised. I have no intention of doing anything—and there is nothing in this scheme to do it— which will not help in that respect as quickly as possible. Agricultural labourers supply certain economic conditions over which I have no control. The suggestion that I or anyone else invented these schemes for the purpose of intimidating the Agricultural Wages Board is a diseased idea. These are some of the pictures that were drawn by Deputies: "Nothing has happened in my lifetime that has created such a feeling of indignation, and rightful indignation, as this rotational scheme." That is Deputy Keyes. Deputy Morrissey was a bit more gentle, describing it as "the most fundamentally unsound scheme of that shape ever started." Deputy Pattison's words were: "An abominable and a reactionary policy." If strong language and weak arguments were enough, the thing would disappear. Deputy Norton's words were: "It was fiendish."
I have made inquiries to see what has been the effect on the lives of the men and the universal testimony is that it has been entirely favourable. Here is a report which was sent to me, signed by the parish priest and spiritual director, the president, the honorary treasurer, the vice-president and the whole of the committee of a Conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in relation to one of these schemes:
"We, the members of the local Conference, beg leave to convey to you some impressions on the expenditure of the grant of £250 recently conceded by you in your bounty, for the relief of distress here.
"Demands on our funds (which are petty) have become much fewer; there are practically no unemployed in or about the town; we can notice an air of contentment where there was distress, and of comfortable clothing where often there were rags. We are happy to discover an added air of happiness and frugal comfort in the homes we visit. This is also the experience of another organisation. The relief to our own funds enables us also to spread our attention to poor country folk, and to procure for these seed potatoes. So your generous donation has brought a blessing on the community.
"The economic aspects of the grant are beyond our province but, in common with all the people of this area, we rejoice to see a splendid town park rapidly coming into shape, thus fulfilling a long-felt need in the athletic and cultural life of the community."
Personally I do not recognise anything fiendish in an effort of that character. I am perfectly satisfied that the universal testimony and experience of those who have lived with the job will be in its favour. It was also stated: "The men are forced unwillingly to work." I have a return of those employed in the different counties. On the 13th February, 46,146, were employed, viz.: Carlow, 385; Cavan, 1,626; Clare, 1,390; Cork, 2,567; Donegal, 6,749; Dublin, 1,122; Galway East, 378; Galway West, 2,295; Kerry, North, 5,685; Kerry, South, 2,654; Kildare, 1,414; Kilkenny, 768; Laoighis, 367; Leitrim, 1,459; Limerick, 1,139; Longford, 1,002; Louth, 596, Mayo, 6,824; Meath, 829; Monaghan, 443; Offaly, 526; Roscommon, 797; Sligo, 1,737; Tipperary, North Riding, 444; Tipperary, South Riding, 831; Waterford, 673; Westmeath, 751; Wexford, 430; Wicklow, 465. The maximum numbers were in Kerry, 8,339; Galway, 2,673; Donegal, 6,749; Mayo, 6,824. There you have four open quotas of men who were working on the schemes at the same time. Let any man who thinks that I have forced these men unwillingly to work go and gather in one of these quotas, and he will go home without his deposit. I have seen the men working. I have seen them working willingly and gladly, men who were proud to feel that every penny they got was earned. This House is not in a position to apologise to any one of these men, nor am I in the position of being in any way embarrassed in meeting any of them. I spoke to hundreds of them, and I know that they did not want the dole if they could get the money in the form of wages. I am perfectly satisfied that they were not merely willing, but anxious to continue to earn their money instead of receiving it in the form in which they were receiving it.
Certain detailed objections have been put up which have nothing whatever to do with rotation, but all of which have a certain amount of significance. There is distance, there is the question of unsuitable people being sent, and provision for wet weather. There was a suggestion that schemes are left in the pigeon holes of the Department undone, and that schemes which might have been completed one year take several years. There was complaint that there have been delays in payment and that there has been a burden on the boards of assistance. There were complaints that high scale unemployment assistance men have been employed; that men on a low scale and single men have not been reached; that non-unemployment assistance men have not been included in some small areas. There were also complaints of the non-expenditure of money voted and about individual earnings being too low. There was a demand that useful works in non-poverty areas should be done, that summer drainage should be done, and that drainage generally should be tackled from this Vote. Another complaint was that local authorities were contributing when they should not have to do so. There was an amazing complaint about deductions for stamps. Two other amazing complaints were that men had been ill-treated by the exchange officers, and that there was political preference and corruption shown. These are two charges with which, on our record, we do not need to deal.
I am taking these up seriatim because I want to feel that when we are finished with this debate we have met in the gate all the objections which can be urged. Firstly, as to the distance men have to travel, the map which is hung up outside ought to be the best answer to that. There have been about 3,000 schemes done in order to get the degree of localisation which we have. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go. The total number of men who have been sent out by the labour exchanges to walk excessive distances is not, in my opinion, one quarter of one per cent. of the whole lot. A case of that kind will loom up very large. I have made a great deal of effort to get hold of a series of these cases, but all I have ever been able to get at a time is one. We do recognise that it is humanly impossible for the labour exchanges to avoid occasionally sending men distances which are much longer than they ought to travel. These things will happen, but we are making administrative arrangements to see that so far as possible they do not suffer by that. I think that, between now and next year, the arrangements which are being made will be watertight to the extent that no man will be harmed in that way.
The same story is told of watchmakers and cobblers being sent out on minor relief schemes. Such things will occur, and nothing we can do will prevent them. The number of cases is negligible and arrangements are being made to deal with the matter. With regard to short time, due to wet weather, arrangements are provided whereby the men, if they cannot work on a particular day because of wet weather, get another day, but sometimes that is not easy to do, partly due to the fact that surveyors and those running these schemes have cooperated with us to the extent that they have put on the maximum number of men. You can imagine that if in a scheme on which, say, 100 men are engaged, due to a wet day, it was necessary to put the whole of the other gang on, the scheme would be absolutely tied up and hampered. There are certain cases in which you could not work 200 men. To the extent to which we can deal with that, we will, and, while this year has been an extremely bad year from the point of view of an experiment of this character, I think we are over our difficulties now.
Deputy Davin complained that some schemes were not completed in the year, but were carried over three or four years. We have discussed that here before. The question arises as between two schemes, one of which is a very good scheme which may require a larger amount than is available for the district for the year, and, in the interest of doing the best scheme, we sometimes divide it up over two or three years. As a matter of fact, I have had a great deal more pressure in the direction of doing schemes by compartments than I have to the contrary. We can only use the best discretion we can in the matter.
We come now to what I regard as the real difficulty of the whole thing— delays in payment. There is no question that that has been the real snag of the position. The local authorities are accustomed to paying their men after an interval of two weeks.