I move the following motion standing in the names of Deputies Norton, Davin and myself:—
Being of opinion that workers employed on minor relief schemes should be paid at a rate of wages not less than the rate payable in the district by the county council, and that they should be guaranteed six days continuous employment in each week during which they are so employed, the Dáil requests the responsible Minister to make regulations for the purpose of carrying these intentions into effect.
I consider that this motion is one of very outstanding importance, even much greater importance than it would suggest, because, in asking the House to agree that people engaged upon minor relief schemes should be paid at the same rate as that applying to county council workers, I believe there is a principle involved which, in itself, answers the question as to whether or not the Government has a real appreciation of the seriousness of the unemployment problem or whether it is intended to treat a certain section of our people as going to be chronically unemployed, and, as such, segregating them into a separate class distinct from their fellows. The question arises as to whether, when the Government, through its various Departments, and the Board of Works or the Local Government authorities, embark upon minor relief schemes, do they not consider or does this House not consider that those people are engaged in work of national and productive importance or are they simply to be treated as being taken away from the door of the labour exchange to engage in some kind of work that is definitely marked down in advance to be of no use to the nation? I suggest that the intention of minor relief schemes is to do very useful and necessary work to improve the social amenities of the rural districts, to improve the boreens and drains and other things incidental to making the life of the farming and general community of the country more tolerable and, incidentally, to provide work.
So far, those grants have been of a very niggardly character, having regard to the magnitude of the unemployment problem in the rural areas, but I consider, whatever about the amounts that have been granted, the principle of treating them as a separate class and giving them a specially low rate of wages, with certain short times of work in a week, related directly to the amount they draw at the labour exchange, is utterly and absolutely indefensible and seems to indicate, as I stated at the opening, that the Government envisages the continuance of this class of people perpetually on the dole. If the work that they are doing is analogous in every way to the work being performed by regular employees of the county council—that at least ought to be the intention—why should there be a distinction drawn to mark these people down for lower rates of pay and lesser terms of employment than is given for the county council work? The obvious answer is that the Government seems to be sorry for having ever introduced the Unemployment Assistance Act and they are taking all kinds of steps, by means of red tape and all kinds of objectionable machinery, to take away with the left hand what they have conceded with the right.
A very fine principle was conceded in that Act—that every citizen of this country who was willing to work and able to work but for whom work could not be provided, was entitled to an honourable maintenance from the Central Fund of the State without any taint of pauperism or having to attend at the dispensaries of the poor law system as old, worn and decrepit old men, and that certain funds should be contributed from the local authorities and that, incidentally, the cost would be covered to an extent by the measure that has been discussed up to 9 o'clock, to draw from the nominal valuation of the poorest of this country a rate of 1/6 in the £—it is not the effective valuation that is called into question, but the nominal valuation. There is a considerable sum being contributed to the Government to help them to maintain this Unemployment Assistance Act and to provide maintenance allowances to the unemployed people until work would have been provided for them by the planned schemes of the Government.
The minor relief scheme is the principal medium for carrying this into effect, but we find it working from three days a week and four days a week at 4/- a day. We find they are working at a disadvantage when they come to work on the scheme, side by side with the county council workers who are entitled to six days a week, paid for out of the pockets of the ratepayers and the local authorities. The standards of the county councils throughout the country cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, and having regard to the cost of living, be alleged to be inordinate returns for the work that is being done. We find these employees of the Government on minor relief schemes are condemned to work three or four days at the rate of 4/- a day. The benefit of the short day on Saturday, which has been earned by workers for giving long hours, and which is prescribed by legislation under the Conditions of Employment Act and every other Act, is denied to these men. They work eight three-quarter days. If they happen to be working on a scheme which comes under the Minor Relief Schemes Vote, they do get, in that case, the county council rate of 5/- on that scheme; that is, the county council rate under the Local Government Department; but even there they have to work the same conditions and hours as county council men for two or three or four days. They do not get Saturday work at all, and the county council man works his his half-day on Saturday and gets a full day's pay for it. On the minor relief schemes under the Board of Works, they only get four days' work, and they work an eight-hour day. There is constant friction arising with the deputy surveyors and county surveyors with the inter-lapping of these schemes. Is there any reason why the men should not be knocked off after working eight hours, and get the Saturday? The whole thing is muddlesome and troublesome and irksome, and there does not seem to be any need or justification for it, except that it is more or less a subterfuge to try to save the funds of the labour exchange.
We contend that, if these minor relief schemes are to be of any definite benefit to the unemployed men and the country as a whole, they should be employed for a full week and as many weeks in that particular job as the number of men in the area would allow to give a rotation. We are not objecting to rotation if there is a full week's work given, so that, when they would complete that week's work, they would be able to go back to the labour exchange to take advantage of the full benefits of the Act that was provided to give them a maintenance allowance from the funds of this State when work was not available for them. At the present time they are as well off the week they are drawing from the labour exchange, or almost as well off, as they are the week they are working, for, with wet weather and broken time they do not know whether it is an advantage to them or not to be working on the minor relief schemes. There is no attraction in the schemes. They are asked to go long distances to them. If they do not go the long distance, after having their names sent out from the labour exchange, they are automatically struck off benefit. They may subsequently come along and make their case before a court of referees that the distance was abnormal, and the court of referees will use their discretion and say whether or not the man was entitled not to go to this work. The lines are not definitely set down, and week after week and month after month this sort of thing is still happening. The men are sent to a job five, six and seven miles away, without any means of locomotion to get there, and they are asked to go for a few days' work. They have been drawing unemployment assistance until now. If they do not go they are struck off at the labour exchange. They may eventually prove that they were not entitled to go there, and then they will be restored to benefit, but all the time the family is suffering. Our people are being taught not to do useful work, not to do an honest to God week's work, but they are studying the practices of the labour exchange and trying to exploit its mysteries. They are accused of not looking for work. The labourers are accused of not being anxious for work. It is said that this dole system has corrupted them and has smashed their morale, but the fact is that the younger men are going long distances with bicycles to the disadvantage of the older men who have not bicycles.
That is another disadvantage. We suggest that that should be wiped out and obviated. If there was a full week's work given to the men who were engaged on that work and at a rate equal to that being paid by the local authority in that particular county, surely nobody could suggest that that is an unreasonable request to make. Why should the State come along, setting a headline for undercutting in wages? If the local authority, representative of the various interests in that county, ratepayers of all kinds, fix and set down a certain standard which they consider reasonable payment for the type of work that is being done by workers in their district, why on earth should the Government, above all, a progressive Government of the type of Fianna Fáil, come along and set down its headline for undercutting that wage, and not even for a full wage, but for the few miserable days they are getting? If they are going to be employed for only two or three days, one would think that there would be an enhanced rate paid for a short time. But no; there is a definite cutting down, and that headline is naturally being followed by private employers who, perhaps rightly say: "Why should we be expected to pay a rate in excess of that being paid by the national Government, and if the county council does pay a higher rate, we are inclined to take our stand with the Government of the country? We are paying heavy rates and taxes." It is causing constant friction with those in the Labour movement who are trying to maintain standards for workers and trying to keep them somewhat level with the increased cost of living.
This menace of the minor relief schemes is sure to be utilised by the private employers, and we say that the Government has never attempted to justify the action they are taking in this parsimonious dealing with the unemployed. We say that they are treating them as a separate class, and segregating them from their fellows. The Government seem to have adopted a policy of despair; they seem to have abandoned all hope of ever solving the unemployment problem in a big, broad way.
I suggest that if the millions which we are going to spend now upon armaments, on anti-aircraft guns, artillery and war planes, had been diverted before now to the solution of the unemployment problem so as to bring our people into these useful schemes of work which are lying to the hand of the Government, if they would only open their eyes and see them—and there are plenty schemes throughout the country that would call for six days' employment—there would be less need for all these precautions and less disaffection in the ranks of the educated and uneducated young men of the country. The Government are creating forces of unrest and disaffection by ignoring the constant menace of this growing body of young men, and by treating them with contempt in giving them a few days' work on minor relief schemes.
For that reason, I say that my opening statement is warranted, that this is a much more important question than the actual phrasing of the motion would seem to indicate, because I believe it goes to the root of the major problem facing the country to-day. It is not the enemy from without but the enemy from within that must be faced. The principal enemy is with us—the unemployment menace. That has got to be faced up to, and I suggest seriously to the Government that they ought, even now, before it is too late, recognise and grapple in a big way with the unemployment problem before the country, starting on the minor relief schemes, and recognise these people as citizens of the State and not a hall-marked, ear-marked class who must stand out for all time, according to the despairing gesture of the Government, as separated from their fellows and must be thankful to God to get a few days' work at any rate the Government likes to throw to them.
A few of those millions would be wisely spent in the direction of giving hope to these unemployed and semi-employed people and of saying: "We are going to put you on relief schemes of national importance which are going to be reproductive even at the moment, and more so in the future, and we are going to treat you as citizens of the State," and that for the time there is not work for them, they will be automatically entitled to go back to the labour exchange until the planning machine of the Fianna Fáil Government can provide other schemes for them.
That economic thinking-box we have often talked of seems to have rusted very considerably since the fine promises that were made to us of how short a time it would be until all our people would be in employment, and about sending ships to America to bring our people back. We have not asked them to come back, but we are speaking for those of them that are here, who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, with families dependent on them, who are undergoing a miserable existence from one end of a year to another, and who are denied the benefits of legislation passed in this House—the young men completely struck off the benefits of the Unemployment Assistance Act from June to October, the £4 valuation mark from March to October—and those of them who are left confined to a three-day or four-day week on a standard of 4/- a day.
That, I suggest, is not in accordance with the wishes or views of any Deputy, and I believe that if this matter could be dealt with by an open vote, irrespective of Party, there is not a man in the House but would agree with me that the motion is modest and wise in its suggestion that the least that is due to the unemployed and the semi-employed is that they get the same standard of employment and the same number of days a week as is given by local authorities.