Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10.—Office of Public Works (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I wish to add my voice in protest against the policy in operation in the Office of Public Works for the past few years, especially in connection with the general standard of wages and conditions under minor relief schemes. The general standard of wages set up under these schemes of 24/- a week, as the basic rate, has been rightly condemned not only from these benches but from benches in other parts of the House. It is true that from the Fianna Fáil Benches we have heard apologies with regard to these rates, but I think it is safe to say that even on the Fianna Fáil Benches there is no great enthusiasm with regard to this standard of 24/- a week for relief schemes. We have been told that that standard is based on the rate for agricultural labourers laid down by the Wages Board, which has now been changed to 27/-.

The Minister for Finance this evening referred to the poor pittance of 27/- a week paid to agricultural labourers, but at the same time we have this standard of 24/- a week, which is a much poorer pittance, on relief schemes. I do not see in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary any indication that there is to be any rise in the low standard fixed for minor relief schemes to bring it up even to the poor pittance of 27/- a week; there is no indication that he thinks the time has arrived when this 24/- a week should in some way appertain to the standard now in operation for agricultural workers. We are told that the general low standard of wages on those minor relief schemes is based on the agricultural wages paid in this country. We had a wage of 32/- a week paid on the Rhynana scheme. It can hardly be contended that the work on that scheme is in any way akin to agricultural labour. The whole conduct of that scheme, with the spontaneous up-rising against the bad conditions and bad wages associated with it, will, I think, be sufficient to brand the work of the Parliamentary Secretary as being akin to that of the people who at one time in this country attempted to set standards of low wage rates for workers. Not only were the ordinary relations between employers and employees disregarded by the Parliamentary Secretary in the case of the Rhynana workers, but every canon of Christianity and Christian principles was also disregarded. I suppose in the ordinary affairs between employers and employees when a strike is threatened or when it has taken place, it is usual for the employer to discuss the claims made with the employees. In this case, not alone were the relations which usually exist between employers and employees disregarded, but even the Government Departments, which usually set themselves the task of bringing the workers and employers together, sat idly by while the unfortunate workers at Rhynana were being starved into submission. That, in itself, furnishes sufficient reason for support of this motion to refer back the Estimate. It cannot be too frequently stressed that it was the wages and the general position of the workers on that scheme which caused this spontaneous uprising. The Parliamentary Secretary may pride himself on the fact that he has got a victory, but the victory is not solely to the Parliamentary Secretary. Bad conditions and bad wages for workers in this Christian State have had a victory also.

I pass from that to the general principle underlying these minor relief schemes. We have this device of minor relief schemes, with a rotational system of employment, as the principal means of relieving unemployment. We heard a good deal during the debate on the Budget with regard to the promises made in 1931 and 1932. I can clearly recollect some of the promises made in 1932. We heard then from Fianna Fáil platforms that not alone should unemployment be relieved in this country but that unemployment should be abolished. I have read in some of the records of this House statements by members of the then Opposition—the Fianna Fáil Party— that there was no difficulty about the abolition of unemployment, and ways and means were shown of doing it. It seems now that the Fianna Fáil Party have fallen back on this device of minor relief schemes, with the rotational system of employment. In these schemes there is no conception of Christian standards. It is simply an exploitation of the want and misery of the unfortunate people who have to man these schemes.

The wage laid down to provide a standard of living on this scheme in this Christian State is 24/- per week. Figures have been given by other speakers to show that it is very far below even the starvation standards that obtain in other countries. Even the ordinary necessaries of life cannot be purchased for the average family on 24/- per week. Yet, this is the Government's principal means of relieving unemployment. We hear no talk about abolishing unemployment. In these schemes, first preference is given to married men—rightly so. We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that many men on those schemes are not able, owing to deterioration of their powers, to obtain ordinary employment. While preference is given to married men, I know that in many cases single men have been completely ignored. In certain districts no provision was made for the employment of single men.

That is not correct.

I have known single men who have not got work in any form on some of these relief schemes. This seems to be the only method we have to solve the unemployment problem. We are told that the wage of 24/- per week is based on the agricultural wage standard, and that it cannot be increased because we have not the money. Lack of money is supposed to be the stumbling block. We have included in the Budget £425,000 to pay interest and sinking fund in respect of the new loan for the first year. That money will be obtained quite easily. We have had a great deal of talk about social justice during the last three or four hours, but, when it comes to doing social justice to one of the weaker classes of the community the necessary money cannot be found. We have no difficulty in finding the £425,000 to pay the charges on this loan which we are raising to pay England what we owe her, but we cannot afford to pay more than 24/- to the workers on this scheme.

I do not place all the blame on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance for this state of affairs. I blame every member of the Government and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party who stands behind this treatment of the workers. The Parliamentary Secretary should not be saddled with all the blame. He is simply the spokesman or the tool of the Government Party. That is where we materially differ with the Government Party. We regard the human being as possessing a body and soul. In these minor relief schemes the workers are regarded as mere cogs in the wheel, to be used for the purpose of impressing the people with the numbers in employment. There is no regard for the economic needs of these people, and no regard for their family needs. There is no regard for their position as citizens, and still we are told we are living in a Christian State under a Christian Constitution. The guilt for this state of affairs must be shared by every member of the Government Party. They are responsible for the low standard of wages and the bad conditions on the minor relief schemes. There is no talk now about abolishing unemployment. This, we are told, is the way to relieve unemployment. It is a mere palliative—to make the unemployed a class apart, to brand them with the brand of this degrading rotational system by which they go round in a circle. In my constituency we had, in Sallybrook Mills, a number of people in constant employment. Owing to the rapacity of the owners of the mill, these people were thrown out of employment and the mill was closed down. The Government, with all the powers it could assume, was not able to keep that mill going. Some of the workers filled up the quota on these minor relief schemes, but a great many of them are now across in England. That is the effort made by the Government to relieve unemployment.

May I ask the Deputy a question? Is the Deputy not employing a maid at less than 10/- a week?

What did the Deputy say?

The question was irrelevant. The Deputy might ignore it.

I think we cannot emphasise too much, or too often, the standard of wages and conditions on these relief schemes under the rotational system. We had quite recently at the Cork Harbour Board a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary that the work on a scheme carried out under these conditions was as good and the output as valuable as if it were done under any other system. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary would not say anything else? Anybody who takes the trouble to think over the position and to examine it, however, will agree that the work could not be as good. After all, men working on this three days or four days a week system have not, and could not have, the same interest in their work as men who are constantly employed at a decent wage. They do their best. I have seen them working and I give them credit for it, but I say that the work turned out could not be as satisfactory as work done by men working constantly under trade union conditions of labour.

I want to refer also to another item in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement with regard to school buildings. I say very definitely that there is undue delay in the erection and renovation of school buildings and I want to know what is the cause of that delay. Children are now compelled by law to go to school and parents are prosecuted if they do not send them to school, but look at some of the schools they have to go to. I have known cases of school buildings into which it is criminal to compel children to go. They are huddled in insanitary, unhygienic buildings, which, if they ever served the purpose of a school building, have long since lost the right to that title. While a good deal has been done, we have from the Parliamentary Secretary the very startling fact that the work on school buildings appears to be slowing down. I shall quote the figures.

He says that the object of the Office of Public Works has been to expend as much of the money allocated for schools as possible. In 1932-33, the provision was £88,000, and expenditure £65,774. Roughly, £14,000 were left over. In 1933-34 the provision was £90,000, and expenditure £100,000. Actually £10,000 more was spent than was allotted. In 1934-35, the provision was £122,000, and expenditure £128,538. Again, more was spent than was provided. In 1935-36, the provision was £200,000, and expenditure £127,000. Actually £73,000 were left over, although in the previous year £6,000 more were spent, and in the previous year £10,000 more were spent. Yet we have these schools that I complain of. In 1936-37, the provision was £200,000, and the expenditure £133,000. In that year £68,000 were left over. In 1937-38 the provision was the same, and expenditure went up.

Would the Deputy say what it went up to?

Certainly. I shall give you credit for everything you have done. It went up from £132,000 to £150,000.

£159,000, I think.

Yes, £159,000. The point I want to make is that for those years there were large sums of money lying unexpended, while the country was crying out for the renovation of existing buildings and the erection of new buildings. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can bring forward a very good reason for this state of affairs, I must come to the conclusion that he puts a very low value on child life in this country. I have known cases where diphtheria and other diseases have been rife amongst children, owing principally to bad sanitation and bad hygienic conditions in the schools.

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, 20th May.
Barr
Roinn