Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 59—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £31,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1943, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges (including Contributions to the Unemployment Fund), Unemployment Assistance, the Special Register of Agricultural and Turf Workers, and Insurance against Intermittent Unemployment, and for certain Services in connection with Food Allowances (9 Edw. 7, c. 7; 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 30; 11 Geo. 5, c. 1; 11 & 12 Geo. 5, c. 15; 12 Geo. 5, c. 7; No. 17 of 1923; Nos. 26 and 59 of 1924; No. 21 of 1926; No. 33 of 1930; Nos. 44 and 46 of 1933; No. 38 of 1935; No. 2 of 1938; No. 28 of 1939; No. 4 of 1940; No. 3 of 1941; and No. 7 of 1942).

The principal item in this Estimate, as Deputies will have noted, is the sum of £48,000 required during the remainder of this financial year to finance the project of the special register of agricultural and turf workers to which reference has already appeared in the Press. As Deputies know, there has been a movement of population from many rural districts out of the country to an extent which has created a danger that the full requirements of agriculture and turf production in respect of labour during the seasons of maximum activity will not be available. Because of that danger of a scarcity of skilled workers for these important occupations at certain seasons of the year, the Government decided to restrict their emigration. The regulations in force prohibit absolutely the emigration of workers with experience in agriculture or turf production from all parts of the country, outside what are known as the congested districts.

It was felt, however, that the imposition of a ban upon the emigration of such workers, who, by the very nature of the case, were likely to be unemployed during the slack seasons, imposed upon the Government an obligation in present circumstances to make some adequate provision for them during these periods of unemployment. It was decided, therefore, in the first instance, to increase the rates of unemployment assistance payable in respect of dependents of unemployed workers in rural areas, and, secondly, to establish a special register of agricultural and turf workers. Those whose names are inscribed on such register will become entitled on certain conditions to enjoy privileges of a specified character.

In the first place, they will become entitled to receive, over and above the unemployment assistance which they might otherwise obtain—and that includes unemployment assistance at the increased rates now payable—a sum of 5/- a week as a sort of retainer on their services. The privileges include also exemption from any Employment Period Orders that may be made, and, in addition, a preference for work financed out of State funds. By means of this register, it is thought that we can secure the retention in the areas concerned of a sufficient number of skilled workers to meet the requirements of agriculture and turf production in next year.

It is intended, of course, that those who participate in the scheme will accept obligations. Each person who applies for enrolment on the special register must, in the first instance, be suitable for employment in agriculture or in the turf industry, and must also undertake that while he is enrolled on the special register he will accept any offer of suitable employment, anywhere in the State, in agriculture or the turf industry, which may be made to him at any time. He will be expected to apply for such employment if so directed by a local officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and not to leave such employment voluntarily, without just cause, or to lose it through misconduct, and he must also undertake, when so directed by an officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce, to leave other employment, unless he can show just cause for failure to do so, in order to undertake any employment in agriculture or the turf industry which may be offered to him. The intention, of course, is that every effort will be made to secure employment, for those whose names are inscribed on the register, within the vicinity of their residences, but the obligation that is accepted by those who apply for enrolment is to accept work of this character in any part of the country in which it may be offered to them. It will, of course, be an entirely voluntary business. There will be no obligation upon anybody to apply for enrolment, and those who do apply will be informed of the nature of the obligation which they are undertaking.

The period of enrolment will normally be for 12 months. It is anticipated that the first date upon which men may be enrolled upon the special register will be the 6th January of next year, from which date payments to members will also be made. The amount which should be paid to persons who become enrolled on this special register, when unemployed, was, naturally, very fully considered. It had to be kept in relation to the agricultural wage. Under this scheme, a person who enrols on the special register and who is, in consequence of the number of his dependents, entitled to the maximum rate of unemployment assistance, will, in fact, receive 28/- weekly when unemployed. It is obvious that there must be a difference between the maximum rate so payable and the amount which the individual could earn when employed, as otherwise difficulties might arise.

While I think that the introduction of this scheme will help to solve a problem of the agricultural industry and help to meet certain difficulties that have been experienced in connection with turf production, it will also result in an amelioration of the position of agricultural workers, but I should not like any agricultural worker to participate in it without realising fully that certain penalties will follow from any subsequent refusal on his part to accept work of the kind for which he is being retained. These penalties will include disqualification from receipt of unemployment assistance for a period of 12 months. It is clear that there must be a substantial penalty. Failure to accept work in agriculture or in turf production by a person who had voluntarily enrolled in the scheme and accepted payment of the retaining fee during periods of unemployment would be a breach of contract which the person would commit deliberately, and consequently a deterrent in the form of a substantial penalty is a necessary part of the project.

In the case of the congested districts the position will be somewhat different. There is not the same absolute ban upon the emigration of workers from these districts as applies now throughout the rural parts of the rest of the country. It will, however, be open to workers in the congested districts to apply for enrolment on this register. If they do enrol, then they will voluntarily abandon any right they might otherwise have to an exit permit, to permit them to emigrate, for a period of 12 months following the making of the contract by them. The position, therefore, is that while in the country generally there will be a ban upon the emigration of skilled agricultural or turf workers, together with the opportunity of enrolling on the special register and getting the benefits that follow therefrom, in the congested districts there will not be the same ban upon the emigration of such workers. There will be, at the same time, the opportunity afforded to enrol upon the register and to secure the resulting benefits.

It is anticipated that the scheme will cost £48,000 in the first quarter of next year, that is, from 6th January, when it comes into operation, until the end of March. It is difficult at this stage to give an estimate of its cost during a full year. It is hoped that it will be possible to ensure that all those whose names are enrolled upon the register will, in fact, be employed in agriculture or turf production for the greater part of the year. This Supplementary Estimate also provides for the increase in the rates of unemployment assistance payable in rural districts under Emergency Powers (No. 236) Order. I have already explained to the Dáil, in connection with another Vote last week, the reasons why it was decided to grant increased unemployment assistance in rural areas by expanding the cash benefits payable in respect of dependents, rather than by an extension of the food voucher scheme now operating in urban districts. It is true that on the basis of the present value of the food that is supplied free on the voucher scheme, reckoning that value at urban rates, the value of the voucher is greater than the additional cash benefit being provided in rural areas, but it is probable that, taking the country as a whole, and reckoning the value of these foodstuffs on the basis of the prices in rural areas as distinct from urban areas, there is not such a substantial difference. The increase being granted to unemployment assistance recipients is at the rate of 1/6 for each dependent of theirs within the limits of dependency prescribed in the Unemployment Assistance Act.

The additional expenditure which it is anticipated will arise in the remainder of this financial year in consequence of the increase in the rates of unemployment assistance payable in rural areas is £80,000. Under this Supplementary Estimate we are also making provision for salaries and expenses in connection with the scheme for insuring building trade workers against loss of employment due to inclement weather, which was embodied in the Insurance (Intermittent Employment) Act passed this year. There has been some delay in bringing that Act into operation. That delay is attributable to the time required to perfect the administrative machinery necessary for the purpose, and to print the stamps and the cards that are required in connection with the scheme. I think it will be possible to get all the necessary administrative arrangements completed, and the necessary forms, cards and stamps provided in sufficient quantity to enable the scheme to commence about 1st April. Deputies will remember that the scheme must be in operation for a period of 12 weeks before benefits become payable under it. In other words, contributions will be collected from workers in the building industry for a period of 12 weeks before the second part of the scheme, which provides for the payment of benefits, can be brought into operation. That is part of the original scheme, and is provided for in the Act, the idea being to ensure that a fund will be collected from which any benefits accruing may be provided.

I think I have now covered the main items to which this Supplementary Estimate relates. They are: the introduction of the special register of agriculture and turf workers to which I have referred, the expansion of the rates of unemployment assistance payable in rural areas, and the inauguration of the scheme for insuring building trade workers against loss of employment through inclement weather. The total additional amount required is £31,000. The actual amounts involved are larger, but savings upon other sub-heads have made it unnecessary to provide the full amount that might otherwise be required.

Mr. Brennan

In regard to the new register which the Minister proposes to set up, consisting of agriculture and turf workers, due to the extraordinary exodus of labour from the country, some effort was called for to deal with the situation. The question now arises whether the Government has dealt with the matter in the way in which it ought to be dealt with. It is an experiment of sorts, and to my mind it is a dangerous experiment. It is resorting to an expedient with which I at least—and I think most people— do not agree. It is, in fact, an extension of the dole to induce those people to stay at home. I am giving the Minister and the Government credit for sincerity in the matter, but this is certainly a very feeble attempt to implement the promises which the Government made when they came into office. It would not serve any useful purpose to resurrect all the things that the present Minister said at that time with regard to employment and the way in which it could be provided, the way in which emigration could be stopped, and the remissness of his predecessors in office in not attempting to do those things. Having resort to an expedient of this sort appears to me at least to be an indication that the Government is really bankrupt of any scheme of employment to keep the people in the country.

Instead of this retaining fee which the Minister proposes to pay to those people who sign the register, I would be much better pleased to see the Minister offering to pay a full week's wages to those men for a full week's work. I do not think that the provision of work for those two types of workers—they are really one class— presents at all the same difficulties to any Minister or to any Government as the provision of work for the unemployed in general. The unemployed in general comprise all classes of workers, from clerks down to road-makers and turf-cutters. Here we have just one class, manual labourers, and we have in this country the necessity for workers of that nature. We have an amount of drainage to do. We have an amount of reclamation of land to attend to. We have reafforestation to tackle. All those things are shouting to be taken in hand, and yet we say to those people: "If you sign this register we will pay you, while you are out of work, a retaining fee of 5/- a week, with certain other privileges." I intensely dislike giving anybody money for doing nothing.

As we all know, it has had a bad effect on workers all over the world, and it has had a very bad effect in this country. If the Minister set his mind down to it, I am sure he could do better than this scheme. He could provide work for those people. If those people are obliged to give an undertaking that they will take up work of the nature which suits them—that is either agricultural or turf work—in any part of the country, that removes certain difficulties which might handicap the Minister in another way. Perhaps when the Minister has got his register ready he may put something like that into operation; he may formulate big schemes, but I doubt if he will, because I think if he had the capacity to do it he would do it at the present time. The emigration of workers from this country was certainly alarming, and something had to be done about it. The Minister has experimented with this matter but I do not see much hope of turning it to productive account. I think that the system of retaining people by paying them money for doing nothing is a bad system. Perhaps it is the thin end of the wedge. Perhaps it is a beginning. If it is, I wish it luck. At least, I am not at all enamoured of it. We should be able to do much better. With all the plans we have had for the relief of unemployment, with all the experience we have had, with all the millions of money we have spent for the last few years in this direction, we do not seem to have got anywhere. We do not seem yet to be in a position to grapple with the unemployment question. People are drifting out of the country as fast as they can and the only way we can induce them to remain in the country is to offer them a retaining fee. I think it is bad business. I am afraid we are bankrupt of plan to relieve the unemployed if this is the best we can do.

Mr. Murphy

I regard this as a very belated and also a very poor contribution to a frightfully big and dangerous problem that is confronting the country at the present time. In so far as it carries any recognition of the rights of the turf-workers—and it is a poor enough recognition of their rights—I am glad to see that recognition given. But, if I might make a suggestion to the Minister—and it is made without the desire of being unduly critical or of indulging in any recriminations—I think a much better earnest of appreciation of the value of turf-workers in this country might have been given some time ago by his colleague or by the Government in an increased wage to the turf-workers.

Turf-workers entered into this scheme for the production of turf with great enthusiasm. I have seen ample evidence of it in the county from which I come. Men were quite willing to travel very long distances to undertake that work, proving completely that Deputy Brennan's arguments were entirely unfounded when he suggested that there was any general demoralisation amongst the workers of this country. They travelled eight and ten miles to work and tried to outdo each other in their eagerness to partake in that work. After 12 months' experience of that and in face of unanimous demands made by the local authorities consisting of representatives of all Parties, the official attitude here was that they could not get any increase in their wages. I would prefer to see a fair recognition of the rights of turf-workers to a living wage than the rather poor, stingy and niggardly kind of recognition that is given to them in a scheme of this kind. I am glad to see that the Minister has recognised what a wrong and futile proceeding the imposition of an Employment Period Order was. It has made for untold hardship amongst many people who were genuinely anxious to work if they could get it, but who found themselves at the beginning of an Employment Period Order with no other remedy than to go to the relieving officer and local poor law officials to tide them over the period from March to October.

Unfortunately, we have here again evidence of the fact that the children of our poor people and of our unemployed people seem to be marked out for special treatment. A person who pays income-tax is given a generous allowance of £50 a year in respect of a child. The unemployed man, up to recently, got recognition to the extent of 1/- a week for his dependent child. That is now increased to 1/6.

Mr. Lemass

2/6.

Mr. Murphy

Even 2/6.

Mr. Lemass

An increase of 150 per cent.

Mr. Murphy

This shows in any case some attempt at repentance, but it is a very late attempt considering that within the last 12 months 50,000 people were given permits to leave the country, and in the preceding year about 27,000 people left. Many of our best workers are gone, and it is a very hard person who would try to blame them. There was very little opportunity for them to do anything in this country. Speaking for a very large number of them, speaking with intimate knowledge of the circumstances, the character and the integrity of a very large number of workers in this country, I think it was a libel on them to suggest that they have been in any way demoralised. I think it is great credit to them that they have borne the difficulties of the last two or three years and preserved their manhood to the extent that they have, above all, that they have preserved their faith in many things where they had very little encouragement.

This is a poor beginning, but I give the Minister credit for honesty in facing up, to some small extent, to the problem that exists. His action in that matter is in very favourable contrast to the action of his colleagues in the Cabinet who have lamentably failed, in my opinion, to give any recognition to this problem. One of his colleagues here to-day spoke about the privilege— the privilege of giving men condemned to four days' employment a week, two extra days' employment in the week. He described that as a privilege. That statement was made in an Irish Parliament by a responsible person, and that person has the power of condemning workers in this country to that unhappy condition of things. He described as a privilege the natural right to bare justice, the right of people in this country to get a week's employment.

Speaking for every other member of the Party, I want to reiterate our view that the remedy for all this is to give the people work, and that any attempts of this kind are merely temporary patches in a very big and gaping rent in our national economy. The Minister has made some small beginning. In so far as he has made a gesture in the right direction, his action is to be commended. Very much more requires to be done, and I hope the Minister, having taken his courage in his hand in this matter, will go further along the road of securing better conditions and wages for turf workers, and of securing the retention of many people in this country, by a relaxation of another type of legislation that he has been associated with—the tying down of wages in this country, with all the evil consequences that have flowed from it to the extent that it has been carried out. I put these suggestions to the Minister in the hope that he will give consideration to them; and I put them, fully conscious of the fact that I think he is quite honest in his statement to this Parliament this evening, and in the attempt he has made to deal with that problem.

Mr. Linehan

There is one point I would like to make to the Minister, when he did mention the turf workers at all. I think it must be perfectly obvious to Deputy Murphy, and every other southern Deputy, that as far as turf production is concerned this year, and as far as Counties Cork and Kerry are concerned, there was certainly no shortage of workers in the bogs. If anything, the problem there was not shortage of workers, but of handling the number of workers available. The Minister has seen questions included with the others on the Order Paper of this House, asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance what he intends to do with the turf that was cut in Cork and Kerry, and which has been in the bogs since last year, and which is likely to be unsold.

I quite appreciate what happened. Orders went out to the people in charge to cut turf and every available man was put into the production of turf without, in many cases, any real organisation as to the proper winning of the turf or the handling of it afterwards. As far as turf was concerned, the problem of shortage of labour did not arise in those areas. I was glad to hear Deputy Murphy pay a tribute to the people who engaged in that work. He was perfectly right when he said that it showed that it could not be said of those people that they were not willing to work. They travelled long distances in lorries and on bicycles and worked under most miserable conditions and in very bad weather, particularly this year. Anyone would have been proud to see those people go into that work in the spirit in which they did.

There are one or two matters in connection with the scheme on which I would like to have some information from the Minister. A person who enrols under it must go wherever he is told, either to engage in the fuel campaign or to do farm work. In the case of a farmer who requires extra men to cope with the increased tillage work during next year's spring, summer and harvest seasons, will he be in a position to go to the labour exchange officer and have the two or three men that he requires sent to him? There is no danger, I think, of a shortage of men for the bogs, but there may be for farm work. I am sure Deputy Murphy will agree with me in this, that no matter how much hardship may be associated with work on the bogs young men, and particularly the sons of small farmers, prefer it to work on the land. The weekly income seems to appeal to them, and the tendency amongst them appears to be to take work under the county council or on the bogs.

They will avoid work on a farm if they possibly can. Naturally, the Minister would like to avoid compulsion as far as possible. Even though a person enrols under the scheme it would not be good for it if severe compulsion had to be applied. In my opinion, if a farmer requires men and is prepared to pay the proper rate of wages, he should be able to get them. A movement of labour from one part of the country to another may lead to a certain amount of criticism. I think the Minister ought to make it clear— he did, as a matter of fact, in part of his opening speech—that such a movement will be confined to as small a degree as possible. If, however, there has to be a movement of men from one area to another it should be confined to the younger men and the single men. Even from the wages point of view, it would be a considerable hardship on a married man to be moved. It would cause more hardship in his case than in that of single men.

As regards the payment of unemployment assistance to those men until they are required either on the land or in the bogs, Deputy Brennan mentioned a number of works on which they might be employed, such as drainage and clearance schemes, and in that way be provided with regular employment by the State. Deputy Murphy, who is a member of the Cork County Council, and has a wide experience of the county in general, knows that there is one type of work that might be undertaken at present. It is apparent to anybody travelling through the country, and that is road work. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that in recent years there has been some curtailment in the execution of that class of work, not so much on the tourist and main roads as on the secondary and by-roads. The result is that they have been deteriorating rapidly. That is a problem that could get very dangerous and become expensive if something be not done about it. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter between now and the introduction of the main Estimate next year.

My suggestion is that his Department, in conjunction with the local bodies, when they get those rural workers on the register, should give them regular employment on road work. That would be much better than keeping them idle on employment assistance and the 5/- a week. In conclusion, I want to protest again against the practice of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates. The number that we have considered represent a total of about £1,000,000. In making my protest on this occasion, I am rather embarrassed, since two of the Supplementary Estimates are entirely new, the one that we discussed earlier this evening from the Department of Agriculture, and this one. But I do want again to reiterate my protest against the practice of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Hickey

With regard to the employment of people on the land, I read in the Irish Press a couple of weeks ago a statement to the effect that at a hiring fair in Donegal, farmers from the Six Counties offered a wage of £70 for six months' work to farm labourers from that area. I do not think you will have people remaining here if you can offer them nothing better than to wait for work on a retaining fee of 5/-, with a small increase for their children. There are plenty of works that need to be done, and those men should be employed on them and paid reasonable wages. Yesterday and to-day I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that the reason why men were being employed four days a week instead of six was that they wanted to have an equal distribution of work. That suggests to me that the competition is not for goods but for work.

Mr. Flinn

I agree.

Mr. Hickey

If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees, he surely must admit that there is plenty of work in the country to provide employment for idle men.

Mr. Flinn

Those particular works do not produce goods.

Mr. Hickey

What about the wages that the farmers in the Six Counties are prepared to pay to agricultural labourers in the County Donegal?

Mr. Cooney

The explanation is obvious. There is a bonus being paid by a belligerent power for the crops grown in the Six Counties.

Mr. Hickey

I think the explanation is that they see the necessity of putting men to work to produce goods. We want to produce food here, and why not put men to do it? We are short of milk, butter and oatmeal, and is there any reason why we in this State could not put men to do useful work?

Mr. Cooney

It is one of the prices that we have to pay for our neutrality.

Mr. Hickey

I think we must all admit that the time has come when the old order must go if we are to deal in a proper way with the problems that confront the country. How does the Minister think that he is going to keep men here on a retaining fee of 5/- a week when they can get high wages elsewhere, especially across the Border? I would much prefer to see him putting those men to do useful work. The Parliamentary Secretary says that those works will not produce goods. I say they would produce assets for the nation, and it would be much better to have men doing that than living idle on what they are being offered.

Mr. Cooney

I did not intend to intervene in the debate were it not for the statement made by Deputy Hickey, a Deputy whose sincerity, I think, every member of the House appreciates. He referred to what occurred at a hiring fair in Donegal. He said that farmers came in there from the Six Counties and offered agricultural labourers a wage as high as £70 for the half year to work and produce crops there. I would like to remind him that the production of crops in that area is being subsidised by a powerful big belligerent empire. Now, that is the obvious answer. There is a subsidy as high as £10 an acre for potatoes alone, and every other crop is subsidised. That is the obvious explanation.

Mr. Hickey

Is there any reason why we should not do something similar?

Mr. Cooney

That is the point. That is one of the prices we are paying for neutrality. Is it worth it? I think it is.

Mr. B. Brady

I have a different grievance from that expressed by Deputy Linehan and Deputy Hickey. For the first time for a number of years we have useful schemes allocated by the Department of Public Works, to be carried out in the congested districts in Donegal, held up for want of men. The reason for the shortage of labour is that young men, who previously drew unemployment assistance and who had to sign during the unemployment period, were offered work in Kildare and they refused to accept it. They were then cut off from unemployment assistance until the 31st December. These men cannot get work on the schemes unless they are recipients of unemployment assistance and, consequently, there is a shortage of labour for the schemes that have been proposed for Donegal.

I understand that the total additional labour required for the bogs in Kildare would be 2,000 or 3,000 men. I venture to say that in Donegal we have at least twice that number and they have been deprived of unemployment assistance because they would not go to Kildare. The position is that if the persons deprived of assistance in Donegal volunteered to go to Kildare, there would not be accommodation for them and there would not be work or materials for them. It is hardly fair to penalise all the single, unemployed men in the county. If they volunteered, in that county alone, to go to Kildare, the facilities to give employment to them would not be there.

I suggest that some remedy should be found to get over this impasse with regard to the recipients of unemployment assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance should devise some scheme, such as fixing a quota to be taken from each of the counties associated with turf production, and they should endeavour to get that quota filled by offering certain inducements and allow the persons who remain behind to participate in the essential public schemes that have been approved for the various counties.

I quite admit that to devise a scheme of that kind is very difficult, but it should be possible to arrive at some conclusion as to what number of men you could take from a particular county and bring to Kildare and arrange that those who are allowed to remain could participate in carrying out essential schemes. I suggest that in a family where there are three or four young men, and where one would volunteer to go to Kildare, the others, if they are not allowed unemployment assistance, should at least be allowed to participate in schemes in the vicinity of their homes. You could get over the difficulty in that way. There are certain counties associated with turf production, counties like Donegal. Mayo, Galway and Kerry, and I suggest that a quota of 500 men from each of these counties would supply all the labour required in Kildare.

When the Kildare scheme started almost 12 months ago, a number of men came to the camps and, for one reason or another, a large number returned home. They gave the impression, in areas where an effort might be made to recruit labour, that the conditions in these camps, and in Kildare generally, were anything but favourable. I think the time is opportune for a statement to be made on the conditions prevailing, the rates of wages paid, and other matters. I understand some improvement has taken place in the camps since the initiation of the scheme and it would be well that that improvement in conditions was made known. We should endeavour to counter the propaganda that has been spread abroad concerning the conditions in the camps in Kildare.

It seems surprising, in view of the figures Deputy Hickey has quoted with regard to wages for farm workers, that we have such a large number of unemployed men in Donegal. If they are offered £70 for the half year, it is surprising that a larger number do not take advantage of that. The fact is that we have young men in Donegal clamouring for work. Schemes have been sanctioned for the county, but large numbers of the schemes, I am informed by the county surveyor and the assistant surveyors, are held up because there are not sufficient numbers of married men in receipt of unemployment assistance to carry them out. In order to carry them out they would require many single men, but they are not available, for the reason that I indicated earlier in my remarks. Some steps should be taken to remedy that position so that turf production schemes and useful road and drainage schemes can be undertaken. All these useful works could be proceeded with if proper arrangements were made.

Mr. Flinn

Money is not in any way a difficulty, so long as any scheme of work will produce goods in the process. If, at the present moment, we were to spend £10,000,000 on road work, it would bring nothing into the country and would only consume things which are in the country. The sole effect of that would be to dilute the existing money in circulation and to raise the price of goods. In other words, any work which was done would not produce any return which would replace the goods absorbed during the process.

The only effect of a scheme of that kind at the moment is equivalent to taxation, equivalent to redistribution of existing goods. That is all I want to say for the moment in relation to that. In relation to the question raised by Deputy Brady, the difficulty is that the country has to have turf produced for it, and the only places from which it can get competent turf workers economically and properly are from the areas in which production of turf is possible but has been shut down. In other words, it is not possible, while it would be very desirable, as Deputy Brady has said, to fix a quota all over the country. That quota, if it is taken from any area which is at present capable of producing transportable turf, does not add in any way to the total production of turf, and it is consumable goods in the form of food and fuel that we have to produce. It is for that reason, I understand, that this particular regulation was introduced. It will be in relation to its effect upon the total production of fuel for the very critical winter which is coming after this that any action which is taken would, in my opinion, have to be taken.

Mr. Lemass

The Government is in complete agreement with the view expressed by Deputy Brennan and Deputy Murphy that it is much better to give people work for wages than payment during periods of idleness. I do not think anybody will seriously contest that view. Not merely does payment of wages for work mean that the community is getting some return for the amount expended for the maintenance of the individuals concerned, but it is better for the individuals also. It is, however, undesirable that it should be suggested that it is possible for us in present circumstances to devise such a programme of work that every person who is unemployed could be given full-time occupation in the carrying out of that programme. That is not possible. There were practical administrative difficulties in doing that, even in normal times. These difficulties are immensely increased in present circumstances, when, in addition to the administrative problems which are always there, there are problems created by shortages of material, transport and even tools, in some cases.

The intention is, however, that these persons who are enrolled on the special register of agricultural and turf workers will, so far as it is possible to do so, be kept in employment. It was for that reason that I stressed, when describing the scheme, that one of the privileges which follows on enrolment in the register will be a preference for employment on State-financed schemes of work. Clearly, there will be every reason to follow that programme, but it is necessary to make provision, and, in the circumstances of this particular case, adequate provision, to ensure that no undue hardship will be suffered by the individuals concerned during the intervals during which it will not be possible to give them work upon the State schemes to which I have referred, in agriculture or turf production.

Deputy Brennan described it as an extension of the system of doles to induce people not to emigrate. That is a wrong description of it. We have in fact prohibited these people from emigrating. We are not offering them this retaining fee or increased unemployment assistance for the purpose of inducing them to stay at home. In the national interest, we are compelling them to stay at home, but the fact that we have decided upon that prohibition on their emigration places on the community an obligation to see that their compulsory retention at home will not involve exceptional hardship for them. It is only these workers who are being subjected to this absolute ban on emigration. they are being subjected this year to that ban for the first time. The policy of the Government in relation to emigration is, I think, well known in the House. We prohibit the emigration of any person who is in employment, or any person for whom employment is immediately available, but those who are unemployed and for whom there was no employment available were not prevented from going, except persons under a certain age limit.

Now we have decided to go further in the matter of restricting emigration by placing an absolute ban on the outward movement of certain skilled agricultural workers and skilled turf workers, and we are doing that because in next year there is a danger that in the seasons of maximum employment in agriculture and turf production, there will not be enough skilled workers to meet the requirements of these industries.

Coinciding with the introduction of that restriction upon their emigration, we have decided to make special provision for the workers concerned. The workers are not being compelled to enrol in the special register. That is a matter which is left to their individual discretion. If they do enrol, however, in addition to becoming entitled to these privileges of extra payments, exemption from Employment Period Orders and preference on State schemes, they will also accept certain obligations, and amongst these obligations is that of accepting work in agriculture and turf production, when they are required for it and wherever they are required for it.

Deputy Brady raised the most pertinent point in the whole discussion, and I think it is necessary to deal fairly fully with that point. I am certain that every member of the House will agree with this contention: the obligation of the State to provide assistance to unemployed persons arises only when the State is unable to provide employment for them. We are all agreed that it is better that we should provide employment for those who are unemployed than that we should give them unemployment assistance, cash allowances. The corollary to that is that when employment can be provided under reasonable conditions, and on reasonable terms, which are determined not by the State, but by an impartial court of referees set up for the purpose, refusal to accept that employment must involve disqualification for receipt of unemployment assistance. The individual who refuses the work is no longer involuntarily unemployed; he is unemployed by his own choice.

That is the situation which arose in connection with employment in the turf camps last year. By reason of a great deal of dishonest propaganda concerning these camps, a false impression relating to them was created in many parts of the country, and many workers became reluctant to go to these camps It was necessary that an effort should be made to recruit a sufficient number of workers to fill the camps, and to get the maximum production of turf from these turf schemes. By every method of publicity and inducement, workers were sought for the camps without any element of compulsion whatever, but a sufficient number of workers prepared to remain in the camps was not secured by that method.

At a later stage, therefore, to single unemployed men without dependents in the western districts of Connaught, in Donegal, and in other parts of the country, an offer of employment at these turf camps was made, and those who refused to accept that employment were debarred from receiving unemployment assistance until the end of the year.

I think that that situation is easily defensible. Yet, I must confess that I was somewhat perturbed by it because a substantial number of workers were for a period disallowed their unemployment assistance—in fact, a larger number of workers than could have been accommodated in the turf camps if they had all accepted the offer of work. It is partly because of the rather unsatisfactory nature of the method operating in this year that this new scheme is being introduced. If a similar situation should arise in next year, in which there will not be available, through voluntary enlistment, a sufficient number of workers for the turf camps, then clearly those persons who have enrolled upon this special register will be called upon to make good the deficiency. No doubt, in the selection of the number of persons required there will be some quota system, such as Deputy Brady suggests, operating. The situation, therefore, will be that we will have a list of persons who are prepared to go for work where that work is available to them and, naturally, work on the turf camps in Kildare, or any other class of agricultural or turf production work, for which local labour is insufficient, will be offered to those persons. It is not anticipated that the number upon the special register will be insufficient to meet all requirements of that kind, but if it should prove to be insufficient, then the same situation will arise, in respect of other persons receiving unemployment assistance as arose in this year, because, as I have intimated, the State's obligation to its unemployed citizens is to offer them unemployment assistance or work— work, preferably—and when it does offer work the obligation to give unemployment assistance no longer exists.

It is unfortunate that desirable works cannot now be proceeded with in County Donegal because of the fact that there are not the requisite number of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance, in accordance with the usual regulations, due to the disqualification of a number of single men in consequence of their refusal to accept the work in County Kildare, but these single men knew the consequences of their refusal when the offer of work was made to them. The disqualification ceases to operate at the end of this month, and a new situation will arise.

Mr. Hickey

Were any representations made to the Minister as to the reasons for the refusal to work in the case of the men to whom he is referring now? Was any inquiry made through the labour exchange?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. In that connection I may explain, in order to show that there is no possibility of injustice —and I think it is necessary to emphasise this—that there is machinery in existence which ensures that the decision in such cases will be based upon the facts of each individual case. It must not be assumed that there was a general decision to disqualify all persons of a certain class in these districts. Each person had a right to have his individual case examined by the local court of referees. The local court was obliged, no doubt, to make its decision within the ambit of the regulations laid down, but if there was in the case of any individual a circumstance which made it unreasonable to expect him to travel so far away from his home in order to take employment, his disqualification ended and his right to unemployment assistance was restored.

Mr. Hickey

Well, that happened in the case of a number of the labour exchanges, where men went to Kildare on the understanding that they would get 33/- a week, but when they got there they were put on piece-work and only earned 16/- a week and would not remain there for that reason. I had correspondence with regard to that from all over Cork County.

Mr. Lemass

Of course, I cannot deal with individual cases now. So far as I know, the average earnings of persons employed at the Kildare turf camps exceeded what they would earn in corresponding work either in Kildare or in the localities from which they came. There may have been exceptional cases, but I am talking about the general conditions prevailing there. At any rate, there were in November, in County Donegal, 6,000 applicants for unemployment assistance, as against 1,300 who were disqualified in consequence of their refusal to work in Kildare. However, I merely want to bring that situation, existing in County Donegal and, to a certain extent, in County Mayo and County Galway, into the general picture. I repeat that the State's obligation to pay unemployment assistance ceases when the individual refuses to accept a reasonable offer of work—an offer held to be reasonable, not merely by the unemployment assistance officer, but by the court of referees to which the individual concerned has a right to appeal. Because, however, of the unsatisfactory manner in which that principle was applied, we are now adopting a new scheme, and this new scheme will avoid some of the causes of individual hardship which arose in this year. In the future there will exist a register of persons who will have contracted to accept this type of work wherever it may be available, and, in consideration of entering into that contract, will have obtained certain payments and privileges not available to other unemployed persons.

Mr. Hickey

Does that apply now to the young men in the cities and towns as well as to those in the rural areas?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, if they are competent agricultural or turf workers. Clearly, there is no point in putting on this register people who are not capable of doing such work, but it applies to persons in towns and cities who have had experience of agricultural or turf work in the course of the past two years. It is, of course, as I began by saying, perfectly true that if possible we should try to meet the problem of unemployment by creating work. Deputy Brennan, however, mentioned only three classes of work. It is remarkable that whenever we come to discuss the question of agricultural work or schemes of employment, all minds seem to work in the same way, and only a very limited programme can be advanced. Deputy Brennan says that we should provide work in drainage, land reclamation, and afforestation. Now, if there is any body in the world which should know the folly of rushing into large-scale drainage operations, it should be this House. The experience of the last 20 years has taught this House and the servants of this House that drainage can do more harm than good unless it is carefully planned on a very large scale. Because of the general recognition of that fact, a commission was set up to consider what was the best type of machinery to plan drainage on a scale which would ensure that drainage schemes would do good instead of doing damage. That commission sat for a long time and made its report, and legislation is in course of preparation on the basis of that report. The Government decided, quite rightly, that action in connection with large-scale drainage must await the creation of the authority for which that legislation will provide.

Land reclamation is a general term which covers a multitude of activities. I think everybody in the House will agree that the farm improvements scheme now being administered by the Department of Agriculture is one of the best schemes ever devised in this country. It is a method of providing employment for agricultural workers during slack seasons. The scheme can be extended, and I think it is intended to extend its operations. It has been limited by certain administrative difficulties-the inadequacy of the staff at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture to examine the various projects that are put up under it. It is, however, precisely the type of scheme that we should endeavour to maintain always in operation in this country to provide employment on the land for agricultural workers during the seasons in which agricultural employment is at its lowest. Afforestation is something that we all talk about, but there is not much point in talking about it now, because, from what I have been informed about it, any substantial expansion in forestry activities is not possible during the war. There is no use in planting trees unless you put a wire fence around them, and you cannot put a wire fence around them now, which means that the only result of new forestry activities would be to feed the rabbits more effectively than they are being fed at the moment.

Deputy Murphy referred to what he called the bad system of Employment Period Orders. I do not think that Deputy Murphy and some of his colleagues have ever fully appreciated the necessity for having some such scheme in connection with unemployment assistance. Mind you, the Government could have inaugurated an unemployment assistance scheme which would have cut out of its ambit completely the average type of person living in western counties, the small farmers and the sons of small farmers, persons who are occasionally occupied upon their own holdings but who are at other times available for work for wages, and in fact require work for wages to supplement what they can get from their holdings in order to obtain a livelihood.

It is not practicable to devise any system of unemployment assistance that covers those people unless you have in that system something corresponding to our Employment Period Orders. During the times that they should be occupied upon their holdings, either in the spring or during the harvest, those persons should be compelled, by reason of the withdrawal of State assistance, to do the work that is available for them on their own holdings. I agree that the operation of Employment Period Orders has covered more persons than those to whom I am now referring. It has covered ordinary agricultural workers who are employed for wages, and have no means of subsistence except what they get in the form of wages in return for their labour. It is one of the defects of any scheme of this kind that rules and regulations which are quite justifiable and sound when applied to general classes will, in individual cases or in some classes, involve hardship. It is true that we could restrict and have, on occasions, restricted the operation of Employment Period Orders, but the system itself is quite sound. I do not agree with Deputy Murphy that it is a bad system. We may have operated it on occasions in a manner which Deputies could criticise, but I would not agree that the system should be abandoned under any consideration.

Mr. Hickey

Why not offer them work, and then, if they refuse it, cut them off from unemployment assistance?

Mr. Lemass

I will deal with that. I fully agree with Deputy Murphy—I have myself often made the same assertion in the past—that a great deal of nonsense is spoken about the demoralisation amongst workers arising from the payment of assistance in cash from the State. It may be true that, in individual cases, there is some demoralisation—demoralisation due to protracted periods without employment—but in my experience there is no greater degree of demoralisation amongst workers in consequence of their receiving from the State cash assistance for which they have not worked than there is amongst wealthier classes who get dividends from investments.

Mr. Hickey

I should think so, and they are the very people who talk about demoralisation amongst the workers.

Mr. Lemass

The system of having a final line of defence again destitution is thoroughly sound. We must, by every means within the limit of our resources, try to deal with the problem of unemployment by providing work, but, in order to make sure that nobody who is omitted from any work schemes is on that account brought to destitution, we must have some system of prviding cash benefits. That is what the unemployment assistance scheme of this and, so far as I know, of every other country is designed to ensure. If it is possible to get such a high degree of efficiency in human organisation that you can give to every individual, when he wants it, work where he wants it and to the extent that he wants it, then we can abolish the unemployment assistance scheme, but I do not think we are likely to see that in our day, unless, of course, we adopt a system of conscription involving the establishment of labour camps and the compulsory transfer of workers to jobs where the State is interested in certain operations.

Mr. Hickey

Would the Minister agree, in regard to men who go from Donegal to Kildare or from Bantry to Kildare to work for 33/- a week, that there is amongst those men a desire to work?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly, and I think even more highly of the hundreds of workers who never saw a bog in their lives but who went down from Dublin to Kildare; I do not say that very many of them stuck it there, but at any rate their desire for work was demonstrated by the fact that they went from Dublin to those places. It is true, as Deputy Linehan said, that there was no shortage of turf workers in the South of Ireland this year. I think it is also true, generally, that there was no shortage of workers in agriculture in any area. There were reports of local shortages in County Kildare and elsewhere. Despite what some Deputies say about turf camps, agricultural workers in Kildare and some neighbouring counties were attracted to go to the turf camps rather than remain in agricultural employment in those areas. But we visualise the possibility of a shortage next year. That is why this scheme is now being introduced. I have explained that the scheme is in consequence of a ban upon the emigration of those workers. The ban is designed to ensure that any diminution in the number of persons available for agricultural or turf work will not proceed further, and following upon measures to that end the obligation to adopt this scheme arises.

The intention is that farmers who require workers for harvesting operations or sowing operations or agricultural activities of any kind, and who cannot get them locally in the ordinary way, will get them through the employment exchange from this special register. It is also true—I should like to emphasise this, because it is not desirable to discourage agricultural workers from enrolling on the register —that the efforts of the authorities administering the scheme will be to provide, for those who enrol, work within the vicinity of their own homes if possible. It is quite true, however, that workers in Donegal, Mayo and the congested districts, who voluntarily agree to enrol on this register, must agree to take work offered to them elsewhere. It is unlikely that, in those districts, there will be any special problem in providing adequate workers for the conduct of agricultural activities.

Deputy Linehan referred to his objection to Supplementary Estimates. I think in present circumstances his objection is largely theoretical. It is quite clear that in the world in which we now find ourselves, with circumstances changing from week to week and from month to month, we cannot sit down at the beginning of the year and budget completely against every possible contingency that may arise during the year. These matters which are covered by the two Supplementary Estimates I am introducing now are large matters. In normal times they would be the subject of major debates in this House. They all arose out of the changing circumstances of the year and are accepted more or less as matters of routine in the conditions in which we now find ourselves.

There was a number of interesting statements made by some Deputies that I would like to argue, but I think it would be extending the scope of this debate to do so. Deputy Hickey assures us again that the old order will have to go. I think the old order has very nearly gone, but I would like to make one prophecy, in conclusion: that, when the old order is finally disappearing, the last bulwark of its defence will be the trade union movement.

Mr. Hickey

In its defence?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Votes Nos. 30, 56, and 59 reported and agreed to.