Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1943

Vol. 91 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 67—Employment and Emergency Schemes.

Mr. Little

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £550,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 3ladh lá de Mhárta, 1944, chun Scéimeanna Fostaíochta agus Scéimeanna Práinne (ar a n-áirmhítear Fóirithin ar Ghátar).

That a sum not exceeding £550,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Smith)

I propose to give the House a brief review of the past year's work. The amount made available by the Oireachtas for the provision of employment in the last financial year was £750,000, of which a sum of £714,911 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added the contributions by local authorities, amounting to £191,689, making a gross expenditure of £906,600. The details of the estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1943, under the Vote, are as follows:— Public health works, State grant, £28,494; local contribution, £40,400, total, £68,894; housing site development works, State grant, £30,762, local contribution, £30,762, total, £61,524: urban employment schemes, amenity, State grant, £32,269, local contribution, £12,550, total, £44,819; urban employment schemes, roads, State grant, £193,572, local contribution, £44,200, total, £237,772; rural employment schemes, amenity, State grant, £225, local contribution, £45, total, £270; rural employment schemes, roads, State grant, £299,295, local contribution, £62,600, total, £361,895; minor employment schemes, State grant, £122,950, no local contribution; miscellaneous works, including marine works and mineral development, State contribution, £7,344, local contribution, £1,132, total, £8,476. The total State grants came to £714,911; the total local contributions to £191,689, making a full total of £906,600.

In addition to the £750,000 made available under the Employment Schemes Vote, 1942-43, a total sum of £487,160 was provided in the Special Emergency Schemes Vote, 1942-43, for certain works of the types which come within the scope of the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, 1943-44. The estimated expenditure to the 31st March, 1943, on each class of work concerned, is as follows:—Development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers, State grant, £42,386; Farm Improvements Scheme, £222,558; Seed Distribution Scheme, £38,887; Lime Distribution Scheme, £9,735, making a total of £313,566. There has to be added to that: State grant expenditure under Employment Schemes Vote in 1942-43, £714,911, and the total will be £1,028,477. Add to that; local contribution on Employment Schemes Vote expenditure, which is £191,689, leaving the gross expenditure on employment and emergency schemes £1,220,166. The other services provided for in the Special Emergency Schemes Vote, 1942-43, such as the production of "Government" turf for use in non-turf areas, and the development of bogs taken over by local authorities for emergency turf production, do not come within the scope of this review as they have been transfered this year to other Votes. I will later refer more particularly to this matter.

Of the estimated expenditure of £906,600 from the Employment Schemes Vote (including contributions by local authorities) during the financial year 1942-43, approximately £310,000 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £596,600 during the winter months.

The maximum number of workmen employed at any one time during the year was 19,216. The average number employed during the period up to September was 3,364, and from October to March, 11,837. Of these approximately 78 per cent. were workmen who would otherwise have been entitled to unemployment assistance. The average period of employment given to individual workmen varies with the class of work, and in the different areas, but the total amount of employment afforded in 1942-43 is equivalent to 33,000 men receiving part-time employment for four or five days per week, for an average of 12 weeks.

The figures in the preceeding paragraphs are exclusive of the farm improvements scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture and schemes for the development of bogs used by landholders and other private producers which in 1942-43 were charged against the Special Emergency Schemes Vote, and on which a total estimated expenditure of £264,944 was incurred during the financial year. The average number of persons employed on these schemes in the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1942, was (1) farm improvements scheme, 5,940; (2) bog development schemes, 293, total, 6,233; and in the period from 1st October, 1942 to 31st March, 1943, was (1) farm improvements scheme, 8,727; (2) bog development schemes, 787, total, 9,514.

The total number of applications received for minor employment schemes during the year was 3,225, and about 4,700 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out. During the spring and summer approximately 110 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of £7,600, principally for the development of bogs used by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.

I now come to the provision for 1943-44, which is £1,250,000. Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1944, for employment and emergency schemes: the sum of £1,250,000 is made up as follows: Continuation of schemes sanctioned prior to 31st March, 1943 (re-vote), £625,000; miscellaneous new schemes, £625,000. To the amount of the Vote must be added contributions expected from local authorities, estimated at £180,000. This gives a total sum of £1,430,000, available for expenditure within the financial year 1943-44, and to enable this expenditure to be achieved within the time limit, it is proposed to authorise the initiation of schemes £646,000 (State grant) in excess of the amount of the Vote. This sum, together with a proportionate amount for local contributions, will be carried forward at the 31st March, 1944, to form part of the ensuing year's programme.

In this regard it is necessary again to remind the Dáil that a large portion of each year's Vote is allocated to local authorities, and the fulfilment of the estimate of expenditure depends largely on the acceptance of the grants on the terms offered and on the prompt submission of schemes by the local authorities.

Subject to the foregoing remarks, the following sets forth for each class of work the proposed expenditure in the year 1943-44: Department of Local Government and Public Health—public health works—State grant, £45,000, local contribution, £67,500, total, £112,500. Housing site development schemes, State grant, £15,000, local contribution, £15,000, total, £30,000. Urban schemes—amenity and roads— State grant, £190,000, local contribution, £47,600, total, £237,600. Rural schemes—amenity and roads—State grant, £200,000, local contribution, £46,550, total, £246,550. Department of Agriculture—Farm Improvement Scheme, State grant, £350,000, no local contribution. Seed Distribution Scheme, State grant, £55,000; no local contribution. Lime Distribution Scheme, State grant, £20,000; no local contribution. Special Employment Schemes Office—minor employment schemes: State grant, £150,000 to which there is no local contribution; Bog Development Schemes, State grant, £50,000, to which there is also no local contribution. Miscellaneous Schemes—amount required for Miscellaneous Schemes of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment or distress, State grant, £146,200; local contribution, £3,350, total, £149,550.

In 1942-43 the administration of the Employment Schemes Vote and Emergency Schemes Vote was co-ordinated in the Special Employment Schemes Office. In the current year, 1943-44, the provision for grants-in-aid of the Turf Development Board, Ltd., and for the special schemes for the production of turf for use in non-turf areas and for miscellaneous fuel schemes has been transferred to Vote 69 (Department of Supplies); and provision for schemes for the development of bogs taken over by local authorities, for emergency turf production, and for schemes for reconditioning or repair of public roads subjected to heavy turf traffic, has been transferred to Vote 41 (Local Government and Public Health). The Special Employment Schemes Office are not now responsible for the administration of such schemes.

Provision for other services covered by the Emergency Schemes Vote, 1942-43, i.e., development of bogs in private production, farm improvements schemes, lime subsidy and seed distribution schemes, is now included in the Vote administered by my office under the title of "Employment, and Emergency Schemes Vote," and there is no longer a separate Vote for emergency schemes.

Although no longer responsible for emergency turf production schemes, the Special Employment Schemes Office collaborates in this matter as closely as possible with the Departments directly concerned; and in the allocation of grants for rural employment schemes due regard is given to the necessity for securing the maximum production of turf.

Between January, 1942, and January, 1943, the total number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance fell by about 16 per cent.; the reduction occurred in the rural areas and, to a lesser extent, in the urban districts. The allocations for the various services under sub-heads F, G and H have been prepared in accordance generally with the distribution of unemployment throughout the country. Under sub-head M an amount of £146,200 is included to provide for the execution of miscellaneous schemes and for new proposals as they are put forward during the course of the year.

As Deputies are, I am sure, acquainted with the various schemes hitherto financed from the employment and other schemes, I do not intend to refer to them specifically.

As the Minister indicated in his Budget speech, a sum of £100,000 has been earmarked from the provision under sub-head M to meet expenditure on a type of scheme not hitherto dealt with under this Vote, viz., works for the joint benefit of groups of farmers in areas in which the unemployment position does not warrant the sanction of grants under minor employment schemes. These works will comprise (a) accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs; (b) small drainage works (excluding field drains), and (c) roads which connect two public roads.

This scheme is supplementary to the Farm Improvements Scheme provided for under sub-head J, and is designed to increase to the fullest extent the productive capacity of farms, and the provision of turf for farmsteads. Although the Farm Improvements Scheme, which has been successful in all parts of the country, allows of grants for the execution of works for the benefit of adjoining farms, in practice it is not extensively availed of for this purpose. The new scheme provides for State grants of 75 per cent. of the cost of works for the joint benefit of groups of farmers, and of an even larger percentage in the case of connecting roads and other roads which are mainly used by members of the public other than the farmers whose lands adjoin them. The works will in general be carried out by the Special Employment Schemes Office.

Mr. Roddy

The Parliamentary Secretary, in giving particulars of employment given by the Department, mentioned that 3,825 people were employed on farm improvement, schemes. I wonder if the Department can legitimately claim that these people are employed by it, because I assume that the work is carried out by farmers in their spare time. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can take credit for whatever employment is given by the expenditure of money there. I know that farmers in my constituency avail of the scheme to work at periods that are most convenient to them. If the Parliamentary Secretary bases particulars of the employment given by the Department in that way I wonder if he has taken credit for employment on other schemes carried out under much the same conditions. It seems to me that the Department cannot legitimately claim credit for employment given on schemes in which the work is carried out in the way the Farm Improvement Scheme is carried out. Actually Deputies cannot criticise this Vote under many headings, because the money is advanced by the Board of Works to other Government Departments, which are responsible for carrying out the work. I assume that it is these Departments will stand whatever criticism will be levelled at them for the manner in which the work is performed.

Some six or seven years ago I raised with the Minister's predecessor the conditions imposed by him in the administration of the Employment Schemes Vote. Work is confined to areas where there is a certain number of unemployed registered, with the result that other areas, of which there are many in each county, are denied the advantages of whatever money has been sanctioned. I always considered that to be unfair discrimination, because people in other areas than those that benefit by the expenditure, contribute to the general taxation. It seems wrong in principle that they should be deprived of any of the advantages derived from the expenditure of Government money. The Minister's predecessor assured me in 1937 that he was not satisfied with these conditions and stated that if, after investigation, he thought they should be waived he would do so. I imagine that he has forgotten all about it, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into it to see if he could not waive what I consider to be very unfair conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that in the course of the year it was proposed to expend a certain sum on drainage. Some time ago it was mentioned that money would be spent on minor drainage schemes. About 12 months ago we heard a great deal about drainage just about the time that the Drainage Commission report was issued, and we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary's Party that it was proposed to introduce a Drainage Bill.

Mr. Smith

I think that could be more appropriately raised on the next Vote.

Mr. Roddy

I am not criticising the Parliamentary Secretary, but mentioning that the impression I got from the newspaper reports at the time was that it was the intention of the Minister to introduce a Drainage Bill. I wonder what has happened to the Drainage Report. Have the commissioners decided to scrap it because of the cost involved in giving effect to the recommendations, or is it intended to give the recommendations legislative effect on perhaps more favourable conditions? Some time ago we were assured by the Government that it was the intention to embark on a rural electrification scheme when the war ends. In my opinion a general drainage scheme is much more pressing now than rural electrification.

Mr. Smith

The difficulty about the Deputy's question is that it is not on this Vote matters affecting national drainage should be raised, as, perhaps, I would not be in a position to reply. I would prefer if they were raised on Votes Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

Mr. Roddy

On the Board of Works Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

Votes Nos. 9, 10 and 11 go together and on them that matter would then be relevant. Vote 67 is being taken alone.

Mr. Roddy

Minor drainage schemes come under this Vote?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Roddy

I wonder if this would not be an appropriate occasion to revive some of the minor drainage schemes which were rejected by county councils or scrapped for various reasons a few years ago. Drainage has become a very serious problem. Since the days of the old landlords drainage has not been carried out on any widespread scale. When tenants became owners of land many of them neglected to maintain drainage work that was hitherto done by the landlords, and the consequent flooding is a very grave problem. Many schemes formulated two or three years ago would help to deal with the position in many parts, if carried out. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to get some of these schemes revived, because there is still an opportunity of carrying them out notwithstanding the food production campaign. County council work has lessened and Land Commission work has, to a large extent, ceased, so that the men hitherto engaged by these bodies would be available for drainage work. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should consider the advisability of revising some of these minor relief schemes provided he can secure agreement with the county councils. Now that the county managers are performing the functions of the county councils, there will, probably, be less difficulty in securing agreement than if the councils were still functioning.

Mr. Smith

They still strike the rate, though.

Mr. Roddy

We were told by the Minister for Local Government, when he was introducing the County Management Bill, that one of the fruits we might look forward to was a considerable reduction in the rates, and I am sure that the ratepayers as a body will have no hesitation in spending a little of that saving on useful drainage schemes in various parts of the country. I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Turf Production Scheme would be discussed on the Board of Works Estimate.

Mr. Smith

Certain types of turf production schemes.

Mr. Roddy

That puts me in rather a quandary. What particular type of scheme may I discuss?

Mr. Smith

Types of turf production schemes for farmers and private persons. All other types of turf production, that is, State turf being produced by local authorities are, as I tried to explain, being transferred to other Votes, but in so far as the Deputy is interested in schemes to enable farmers to produce larger quantities of turf on bogs owned by them individually or in groups, he is entitled to refer to them.

Mr. Roddy

The general question of turf production does not come under this Vote?

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Roddy

It will come under the Board of Works Vote?

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Roddy

Then, under what Vote does it come?

Mr. Smith

The Votes for Supplies and Local Government.

Mr. Roddy

I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is referring only to minor schemes of bog drainage for a farmer's private use?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Corish

The Minister for Local Government told Deputy Davin that he was out of order in referring to it on his Vote.

Mr. Roddy

The only thing I commend the Minister for is the farm improvements scheme, which is one of the most reproductive and most profitable schemes from the national point of view undertaken by the Board of Works, and I was sorry to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it has not been availed of to the extent he anticipated. That may probably be due to lack of propaganda on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I suggest that he should make it more widely known that money is available now on a more generous scale than hitherto for useful improvement works on lands in the West which require them so very much.

Mr. Norton

Like Deputy Roddy, I agree that the farm improvement grants are a very considerable boon. Very valuable work has been done under these schemes, but, like Deputy Roddy, too, I wish they were publicised more extensively, because one meets from time to time people who are unaware of the facilities which they might enjoy under these schemes. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will suggest to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when that Minister cools down to-morrow, that this is one of the matters which might usefully be broadcast. I am sure it would be an uncontroversial issue, and, if it is not made a Fianna Fáil gift from heaven, everybody will be glad that much more information is given with regard to it.

One aspect of our drainage schemes at present seems to me to need revision. The intention used to be to employ persons on drainage schemes, because during the winter period the peak of unemployment tended to rise; but in these days men had equipment for going into rivers, streams and bogs, and could work there fortified, so far as it was possible to fortify them, against bad weather by rubber boots. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is almost impossible to get rubber boots to-day, and I have seen large numbers of men working in bogs, rivers, and streams under conditions which are far from satisfactory. If we propose to concentrate on the winter period for our drainage work, when men are not properly equipped to undertake that work, I think it is inevitable that we shall inflict very considerable hardship on these men, and cause a high percentage of sickness among them, and not get work done as economically as it would be done if the men were properly equipped for it. I suggest, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might have that aspect examined, with a view to ensuring that, so far as possible, drainage work for which men need protection is undertaken at a time of the year when the necessity for that protection against the elements can be reduced to a minimum. If we have to undertake drainage work as a means of keeping our people in employment, we ought to do it under the most favourable possible circumstances, and those most favourable circumstances are not those which compel men to go into streams and rivers without adequate protection against conditions they meet there.

There is another aspect of the policy of the Board of Works to which I think attention should be directed. At one time, persons employed on these minor relief schemes were employed for three, four or five days. There may recently have been a tendency to push employment slightly up, but the fact remains that a large number of persons employed on these schemes are employed for only four or five days, which means that they cannot earn even the low wages offered for a full week's work. I think it most unfair that, in present circumstances, a man's employment should be restricted to four or five days. His natural right is to work for a week and to get a full week's wages, but to give a man four or five days' work and then to deduct the cost of at least one and, possibly two, insurance stamps, is most unfair and takes no cognisance of the conditions under which a man must try to live on the low wage he receives.

Whatever case might have been made for the continuation of that rotational scheme of employment, and I doubt if any case, moral or in equity, could have been made for its inauguration, there is no case, having regard to the high cost of living to-day, for perpetuating such a scheme, which is forcing men to take less than a week's wages for the work they give on these schemes. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might well consider abandoning the rotational scheme of employment and, instead, decide to keep our people in employment for a full week. It seems to me to be very much better to offer employment to our people in rural areas for a full week than to see them drifting to the emigrant ship and going to Britain to take up employment, because the conditions offered there are much better than the intolerable conditions we offer on minor relief schemes. I can scarcely imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary, personally, has any sympathy with a scheme of this kind, and I hope he will indicate his decision to review the matter, with a view to abolishing the rotational system and giving those employed on minor relief schemes a full week's work so that they may get a full week's wages in return for their labour.

Mr. Beegan

The matter in which I am chiefly interested is the new scheme in connection with drainage and roads which has been initiated. I am glad to see that the Government has put such a scheme in operation. It is very much needed all over the country and I go so far as to say that it was a long time overdue. The only fault I have to find with the scheme is that the amount provided is, I fear, too small. It is at the moment, of course, of an experimental character, and, as time goes on, I hope the amount will be greatly increased. Though the intentions and principle of the scheme are very good, the conditions imposed will, I fear, render it likely that it will not be availed of. I know very well that it is an excellent scheme in so far as small drainage works are concerned. But, as regards roads leading on to county roads and roads into bogs, I believe that the condition laid down, making it obligatory on the people concerned to contribute, in certain instances anyhow, one-fourth of the money, will not meet with a very great response. There are many difficulties which the Parliamentary Secretary understands as well as anybody here. In making this one-fourth stipulation, the difficulty will be to get the people concerned to decide between themselves as to what amount of that one-fourth contribution they will pay. Take a road which goes in for a mile or one and a half miles, as roads do in some cases. The people living near the main thoroughfare are not likely to be agreeable to put up an equal share of that one-fourth contribution with the people further in. That is one of the snags that I see in it. In a contribution of that kind, I believe that the apportionment should be made out by the Board of Works supervisor who makes the estimate. Otherwise, I believe that in 99 per cent. of cases there will be no agreement amongst the people.

Perhaps, because we have become so accustomed to getting what is termed free grants for everything, this scheme will not be appreciated as well as it might be. Anyhow I believe that what applies in the case of the minor relief schemes, namely, a contribution from the local authority, would meet this case better than asking the people concerned to contribute one-fourth. I do not think that the local authority in any county would grudge putting up that amount of money. If the Board of Works made a certain grant available on the condition that the local authority contributed a certain amount, I think that it would make the scheme very acceptable to the people generally. For instance, the Galway County Council for a number of years, until last year, raised a rate equivalent to 6d. in the £, which brought in £12,000 annually, and that was expended on the very same type of work, with the exception of the stop-end road, as is set out in the new scheme. That applied in particular to roads leading from one road to another. I am sure that the Galway County Council and other county councils would be quite prepared, if that condition were made, to strike a rate equivalent to one-fourth of the money that the Board of Works would grant to any county for carrying out schemes of this kind. I know that in the case of stop-end roads, where the county council is precluded from doing this by an Act of 1925, a difficulty would arise. I also realise that this question is a very complicated one because of the fact that it varies over a number of different works. In the case of bog roads, I also believe that the same thing should apply, that they should be taken into consideration with the other works.

One of the things I should like to bring very forcibly to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary is the question of the maintenance of such works. There is very little use, except in so far as it gives temporary relief, in spending large sums of money year in and year out on works of that kind unless there is some fund created to carry out maintenance work. I also think that power should be given to the county council to strike a rate for that purpose. I know it is not easy to expect ratepayers who do not benefit or taxpayers to contribute in this way. So far as bogs are concerned, a number of bogs have been allocated over a number of years by the Land Commission. Unfortunately, the Land Commission did not carry out the required improvement works. In recent years, however, they are doing much better. Number of bogs are almost derelict. The people have left their turf banks there and have sought banks elsewhere. Having gone elsewhere, they have to pay from £1 to 30/- per Irish perch for their turbary. The banks they were allocated by the Land Commission had a face of three perches in most instances, or an area of about two statute acres of turbary. For them the people were called upon to pay 8/- or 9/- per year—a very small amount indeed. When the annuities were halved, the annuity on the bog was also halved. The valuation of the bog was only about 1/- per acre. Turf is one of the most essential things so far as the people in the West are concerned and anything that is done to improve a bog is of as great a benefit as the improvement of a house. If a grant is given to improve a house, after some time the valuation revisor comes along and increases the valuation. I think that the county council, or whoever is concerned with this, should be given authority, when roads are made into bogs, to increase the valuation of the bogs from 1/- to £1 per acre—I believe that would be a reasonable valuation—and to raise a rate on that so as to help the county council to make up the required amount for carrying out this work periodically. Every two or three years would suffice to carry out the necessary repair work on roads going into bogs.

So far as roads leading from one road to another are concerned, I think that the county council should also be empowered to strike a rate for the maintenance of such roads. So far as stop-end roads are concerned, I suppose there is a difficulty there. But I believe that something should be done anyhow to create a fund to enable such roads to be maintained. I believe that spending £200 or £300 this year on the repair of a road and in seven or eight years another £200 or £300 is not very economical. It would be better if something could be done to have maintenance carried out. I believe it is within the bounds of possibility to devise some means of creating a fund. One of the things I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary in particular is to waive this condition of making it obligatory on the people to contribute one-fourth of the money. As I said, I believe that local authorities all over the country would be prepared to make a contribution, just as in the case of the minor relief schemes. If that is done, I believe that it will render this scheme a very acceptable one and one for which everybody will be thankful to the Government.

Mr. Heskin

I agree that this improvement scheme will meet the requirements of many people who are in very remote areas, and will facilitate them in carrying on their business, especially in view of the new tillage Order. I would suggest that under this Rural Improvement Scheme, in dealing with link roads, the county council should be asked to carry out the repairs of such roads, provided, of course, that in their case also the Government would put up three-fourths of the money. I think in that way the work would be carried out much better under the supervision of the county or local surveyor. Where such work was being carried out by the county council, I am sure voluntary help would be forthcoming from people on the particular connecting road or link road by supplying horses, stones, etc. In the case of roads, in order to facilitate the rural community, I would suggest that the contribution demanded from the people who are interested be reduced to one-eighth instead of one-fourth of the total amount involved. I think that would make the position much easier for those people, and would help to alleviate the trying conditions under which people in rural areas labour. There is no doubt that in very remote areas farmers have no road. In many cases they have to travel through fields. I have no doubt that this scheme will help them considerably. We all appreciate it fully and realise that it is very necessary.

In connection with the minor relief schemes for a few years past there has been general discontent in connection with such schemes, especially from the workers' point of view. Unfortunate men who are called on such relief schemes get only three or four days a week employment. I think that is very unfair and that when such schemes are introduced the men should be kept in constant employment until the work is finished. Furthermore, I would suggest to the Minister that the wages should be paid to the workers every week. In all such schemes there is a system of fortnightly payments, which involves great hardship to those employed. Men employed on such schemes are not known as permanent county council workers, and cannot get the credit from shopkeepers that permanent county council workers would get. I suggest that the Minister should instruct county councils and local authorities to make weekly payments to such men. I think it is unfair to them and to their families to expect them to work for a period of two weeks before being paid. Very often, before these men were called to that particular employment, they were half starved, depending, in many cases, on a few shillings relief or dole. I think the Department should make weekly payments available under such schemes in future.

As regards the turf roads, certain cases have been brought to my notice where grants would be required. I am sure under this improvement scheme moneys will be available, but I doubt whether people in isolated turf areas, where relief schemes are not in operation, will be able to avail of this scheme because there is so much money involved. Where there is a number of bog owners in a certain area I would suggest that the county council should be asked to put up the money required and to carry out the work of making roads to such turf bogs. Many people make their living out of the turf and in some areas they find it very difficult to cart it to suitable places where the lorries can take it. In part of County Waterford this year I know thousands of tons of turf were left on the mountain-side and could not be carted to where the lorries could take it. The people have not the facilities to cart it to a suitable road. I suggest that where application is made by a number of people engaged in turf production, such roads should be made available so that they could carry their turf to a place from which they can dispose of it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I am sorry I was not here for the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement. I should like to get some information as to what constitutes an emergency scheme. I do not know if he has defined an emergency scheme.

Mr. Smith

I suppose the term itself defines it.

Mr. O'Donovan

What exactly would it be? It is not, for instance, a sudden breach in a sea wall, or anything like that, I take it?

Mr. Smith

For example, take an area where it was not, perhaps, in the past, the practice to win turf at all, and where, by the expenditure, say, of £300 or £400, you could make turbary available to a number of persons, might not you regard that as an emergency scheme?

Mr. O'Donovan

Yes. Thanks. That is one of the matters to which I should like to refer. We have had relief schemes for a good many years under this Government and under the previous Government. Some of the works undertaken under these schemes are still uncompleted. I put down a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, to which he replied that those works which were not completed last year will have to stand on their merits this year in competition with any new schemes that may be put up. I wish to put in a plea for works that were undertaken by the previous Government and works that have been undertaken year after year by this Government which have not been completed. If there was a good reason for starting these works—and I take it there was—it was unfair to undertake any other work without completing these. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that works undertaken by the last Government, and works undertaken under the schemes of the present Government, will be completed. It seems —though I hate saying it—that the present Government did not want to touch any of the schemes that were undertaken by the previous Government, that they left them there as untouchables with which they did not want to interfere. I think they have changed their minds now. Of course, they have also undertaken works since they came into office that have not been finished. These works were considered on their merits and were found worthy of undertaking and I should like to see them finished.

With regard to the drainage of bogs under the emergency schemes, I think that is absolutely essential. Most of the bogs that were easily approached —I am speaking particularly in regard to my constituency of West Cork—are practically cut out. The increased demand for turf for the past three or four years has exhausted them completely. There is a limitless supply of turf in certain areas which could be produced if drainage were carried out. Schemes have been put up. I have put up schemes, and I know other Deputies from West Cork have submitted schemes, but they have not so far been touched. We are tapping a new area under schemes we are putting up at the moment. The bogs could not be approached. There is no road within a mile or a mile and a half of them. New roads will have to be built, rivers will have to be cleaned, and drains made. I think the production of turf is the most essential work that the Board of Works could undertake at the moment, because if we have not turf we will have nothing. We will not be able to boil a kettle. I want to stress that point. I want to urge that all schemes undertaken will be completed.

Another point is that schemes that we have put up in recent years were turned down because there was no unemployment in the district. In a bog area there is not much unemployment. There is a sparse population. I have seen works being undertaken by the Office of Public Works that I did not consider necessary, and which nobody in the district considered necessary, while works of grave importance were turned down simply because you would have to transport labour five to six or eight miles distant. I think under present conditions, that condition should be set aside and that where there is valuable turbary or where a useful road could be built or a drainage scheme carried out that would serve to open up turbary or dry a large portion of land, it should not depend on the number on the unemployment register in the area. I should like to stress that point, because it seems to me that works of real importance are turned down because of that— works that would mean the opening up of valuable land for turbary or other purposes.

I am satisfied that the rural improvements schemes and the special employment schemes have resulted in very useful work being done, but I suggest that, by adopting such proposals as we are putting up, very much more useful services could be rendered in the future. For instance, in connection with this matter of connecting-roads, or even in the matter of the construction of new roads, useful work would be done by connecting these roads with lanes or boreens into bogs. I know that, in the case of a number of these lanes or boreens, a good deal of money has been spent, but the point is that since these improvements were carried out—five, six, or seven years ago—the work of maintenance has been abandoned. These roads are nobody's children. They are just left there, without any effort being made towards maintaining them. I think that, in connection with the matter of these connecting-roads, or even the roads into bogs, it should be a matter for the Board of Works to make it obligatory on the county councils concerned to strike a rate for the proper maintenance of such roads because, if these roads are allowed to fall into disrepair, it would take almost as much money now to put them into repair as it cost, originally, to construct them and, as things are at the moment, most of these roads are impassable. I do not think it would cost very much money to have these roads put into proper repair and to keep them maintained in a proper condition. In any case, these roads would serve a very useful purpose in supplying us with our fuel and food requirements, and I think that the county councils should be made to take over the responsibility for these roads, as soon as they are completed. That would be a help in connection with the after-maintenance of these roads, and I think that the county councils should be the responsible authority over them so far as maintenance is concerned.

Now, with regard to drainage schemes, such schemes are very necessary in certain districts, but I should like to stress, particularly, the importance of the drainage of bog areas at the present time. I want to stress this matter because, particularly at the present time, it is more essential than ever before to provide proper drainage for our bogs, in order that our people should be provided with fuel. In that connection, I think that these schemes should be proceeded with at the proper time, and that if there is no unemployment in the area concerned at that particular time, labour should be brought to the place where those works are capable of being achieved, and where turbary, which is very important to the nation at the moment, may be opened up and give valuable service to the State.

Mr. Hogan

Perhaps, the worst feature of this Vote is that it is a recurrent Vote. The fact that it appears every year on the Book of Estimates is, perhaps, its worst feature, because that indicates its necessity, and also indicates the fact that the Government probably have abandoned any scheme for the complete cure of unemployment. Anyhow, I suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for Government policy, and so, I suppose, the best thing we can do is to indicate what improvements can be made in the present position, as we see them. First of all, it seems to me that the rate of wages will tend to fall in the future. It is quite clear to everybody who is conversant with the facts that the rate of wages paid to workers employed in schemes under the Board of Works is anything but what it should be. It is useless for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if those engaged on schemes under the Board of Works, whether on minor relief schemes or otherwise, are paid more, that will tend to run up the rate of wages of agricultural workers in the areas concerned. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary takes a very keen interest in this matter. Long before he became a Parliamentary Secretary, he took a very great interest in this matter, and I know, therefore, that he is sympathetic; but he must know that two kinds of stamps have to be put on the workers' cards in respect of these works: one, which indicates that the workers concerned are not engaged in agricultural work, and the other which has to do with industrial work. If a worker puts on a stamp, the effect of which is that he has been engaged on industrial work, that clearly indicates that whatever wages he has been receiving were not in respect of agricultural work. In view of the very valuable work that these people are doing in the development of our national wealth, such as the production of food, and of turf for fuel, I suggest that that indicates that there should be a revision of the scale of wages for workers who are engaged by the Board of Works in these schemes.

I was glad to hear one of the Deputies from Clann na Talmhan to-night point out what happens as a result of some of these workers being paid fortnightly. I drew attention to this matter when we were discussing the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. The point I made then was that, in the case of these men who are paid fortnightly, it means that a man who has been unemployed for three, four, five or six months, and who now gets a job on one of these minor relief schemes, or any other type of scheme, under the Board of Works, will not get paid his wages in the first or the second week. He is automatically knocked off the Unemployment Assistance Fund or, in the case of his dependents, the Home Assistance Fund. He has to go and work for three weeks before he can get any money in the way of wages. In other words, although he has been drawing 10/-, 15/-, or, in some cases, £1 a week from unemployment assistance—and there might be a certain amount of home assistance, also, according to the number of his family—once he gets this job he is expected to be able to maintain himself, his wife, and his family, of perhaps four or five children, for three weeks, before he can get any money from any source whatever, by reason of the fact that the moment he goes to work, the unemployment assistance or the home assistance relief stops. If his wife, or a member of his family, goes to the home assistance officer, the answer they will get is that there is no money there for them. Now, just imagine the position of that man. He is going to work, but how is he to maintain himself and his family during the three weeks until he gets his wages? At the present time, even in the case of people who have credit with shopkeepers, it is hard to get tea, sugar, and flour from week to week, but imagine the case of such a man as I have referred to, with a wife and five or six children, going to the local shopkeeper and asking him to extend credit for three weeks, when he will only be earning 36/- a week, has been out of work for some months beforehand, and has to wait three weeks before he will be paid. I suggest that the position there is very serious, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine that position very carefully with a view to seeing what could be done to remedy the situation.

Deputy O'Donovan referred to the fact that some works were turned down in certain areas because it was stated that there was no unemployment in the area where these projected works were situated.

I want to ask the Minister to consider these employment areas from a different angle altogether. So far as I understand the employment areas are stereotyped. They correspond to the electoral areas or some other such areas but just outside the electoral area you will find, perhaps, a small village in which 20 or 30 men are unemployed. Because they are not in the electoral area they are not included in the calculation when an estimate is made as to the extent to which unemployment exists in that area. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated by shaking his head that they can be employed. I agree, but if the scheme is projected in respect of area A——

Mr. Smith

We can group areas.

Mr. Hogan

I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary will find that that is not done.

Mr. Smith

It is done.

Mr. Hogan

It may be done but it is not done as extensively as it might. I am very anxious that unemployment in areas adjacent or within a reasonable distance of an area in which projected schemes are put forward to the board, should be considered in order to sustain the necessity for the scheme. Further, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that in rural areas in which a great many of these schemes are projected men do not get unemployment assistance. There are Unemployment Period Orders operating and men do not register because they are not getting unemployment assistance. When you go into employment exchanges, to ascertain how many registered unemployed live in an area where a particular scheme is projected, you will find that there are practically none registered for the simple reason that the unemployed in these areas will not get unemployment assistance and, therefore, they will not register. That results in a great many schemes being turned down. These two matters should be examined by the Parliamentary Secretary to see if he cannot bring about an improvement.

The Parliamentary Secretary told us about the huge expenditure which it is proposed to undertake in respect of unemployment schemes. He told us that it was intended to expend £1,500,000. I have a fairly long Parliamentary experience and I know just what that means. Whenever I hear the Parliamentary Secretary talk about an expenditure of £1,500,000, I invariably go down to the Library and pick out the Appropriation Accounts. From them I am able to ascertain how much was actually expended in previous years in which astronomical figures were mentioned when the Estimate was introduced. I should like to know how much of the £1,500,000 will be expended during this financial year and how much will be returned to the Treasury at the end of the year? In the financial year 1941-42 we were told that there was £1,000,000 voted for employment schemes. How much of it was expended? —£650,000. In other words, pretty nearly £400,000 was returned to the Minister unexpended. With the unemployment problem so acute as it is, with the necessity for development so pressing as it is, is there any reason why we should solemnly vote £1,000,000 for unemployment schemes and then, at the end of the year, return £400,000 as unexpended?

I think that is a matter that should be looked into not only from the administrative point of view but also from the human point of view, considering the necessity for relieving unemployment and the necessity of getting more land into production. We should not, as some Government Departments are doing, cut turf in a virgin bog without putting down any drains. I ask the Minister to consider the position of men who are deprived of any income for three weeks before taking on a new job. I would also ask him to consider the advisability of co-ordinating districts so that the extent of unemployment will be fairly estimated, not according to stereotyped areas that do not indicate the amount of unemployment in these districts. I also want him to see to it, whoever is responsible for the expenditure of this money, that very little of it will be returned to the Minister for Finance at the end of the year.

Mr. Carter

I should like to add my voice to that of other Deputies in paying tribute to the work which the Board of Works has already done, but I am one of those who are beginning to see that in the very near future we shall have to change our methods. I would suggest seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that the wisest course to adopt would be to hand over certain sums out of this Vote to the various county councils, and ask them to go forward with work on all classes of roads, link roads, stop-end roads, and cul-de-sac roads. I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have three cases in my area similar to that mentioned by Deputy Hogan, in which there are no registered unemployed. I have filled forms for the people there. The majority of these people would be small farmers' sons. They would not be eligible for unemployment assistance, and, therefore, they would not register. It is a great hardship on people living in such areas, although they have to pay their rates regularly, that they cannot get roads or by-roads leading into bogs repaired, because it is held that no unemployment exists in the area.

I have been on public boards for the last 20 years and I never have much sympathy for people who do not pay their rates but I think it is a great mistake that these people should not get greater accommodation in the way of roads, particularly now that there is so much extra tillage and so much additional work on the bogs. To my mind there is only one way to carry out these works satisfactorily and that is by handing them over to the county councils who have the equipment, the machinery and the engineers. If you do that I am sure that the county council will not stop at raising a rate to meet whatever moneys you ask them to provide. As has been already pointed out by some Deputies, sometimes in these rural schemes you will get five or six farmers living along a projected by-road. The man living nearest to the main road will say: "I should not be expected to pay as much as the fellow living farthest away." Again you will get a person in the middle of the scheme who will object to it entirely and will refuse to sign the necessary papers to have it carried out. I have in mind a road in my own constituency —my colleague Deputy Childers is also aware of the circumstances—which serves a district in which the people have a large quantity of beet—tons of it—turf and potatoes. It is beyond Athlone, in the Roscommon part of my constituency, and they cannot get the crops or the turf out. The lorries of the people who used to take it out by contract have been taken over and the railway company will not go in on these roads. I would seriously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this very fully, and try to give this contribution to the county councils and ask them to share the responsibility. The responsibility will be well shared because they maintain these roads and, as Deputy Beegan said, these roads have to be maintained. If not, they are of no use at all.

With regard to minor drainage, I think it has served a useful purpose but, as Deputy Norton has pointed out already, you will not get men to go into drains at the moment without being very well protected. To my mind, the young lads are all pretty busy at present on the land and would rather work on the land, where the farmers are taking them in more than they used to, on account of the extra tillage. It is difficult to get the number of men equired to do these minor schemes, but the county council is always there and has a staff of men with machinery. I would certainly advocate at least an experiment of that kind.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There are few Votes coming before the House which are agreed to more willingly than the Vote for the particular sums embraced in this Estimate. Indeed, in my view, the sums which the House is asked to vote this year are neither large nor adequate enough for the work which ought to be done. Deputy Hogan has pointed out what has been pointed out year after year in this House— that we vote large sums and think that a great deal is to be done, yet when the year is over we discover that a great deal of it was window-dressing and that the sums voted for relief works were not expended at all. I am taking it for granted, now that we have a new Parliamentary Secretary in the Board of Works, that we will have a new leaf turned over and that every 1d. which this House votes for relief schemes will be expended during the coming year. The Parliamentary Secretary—beginning, as most people begin a new year, with good resolutions—is taking up his work in the Board of Works for the first time, and I am sure he is brimful of good resolutions. I hope that he will not only form them but will carry them out and see that every single 1d. voted will be expended during this year.

I do not think that the Vote this year is really adequate for work of this nature. One naturally becomes a little parochially-minded on such Votes as this and looks mainly at one's own constituency, to see what is happening there and what needs doing there. Speaking for my constituency, I think this is a year in which a very considerable amount of employment ought to be given, more than in other years. The cost of living now is extremely high. A number of persons has been able to leave the country and get employment elsewhere, to send home very large sums of money which not only make their families affluent for the time being, but have laid a solid foundation of affluence for many years to come. On the other hand, there is a number of persons who have been refused permits to go to England. They have been kept working on bog schemes or tillage schemes during the year. If the State says to those people that their services are required here, and that they must not emigrate, it is only fair and just that the State should give every one of them employment during the winter. It is hard to tell them they are not to leave the country, but are to remain here unemployed during the winter. If they were made do the work on the bogs and on the farms, the State is under an obligation to provide them with work during the winter. My attention has been drawn to that by the very large number of young men in my constituency coming up every day and asking if I can get them a permit to go to England as, they say, they have got no work here now at all. They will not get their permits, and the Board of Works should give them employment here, out of a sense of natural justice.

Deputy Beegan made a point which, I think, is perfectly sound—that is, there will always be a difficulty in levying the contribution for the making of a road. It is obvious that some persons gain very much more than others, and the one who gains very little and is only likely to use 100 yards of the road objects to being mulcted in the same amount as the man who will use a whole mile. That is a difficulty which in administration, the Parliamentary Secretary will find it very hard to get over. I do not agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Carter that sums of money should be handed over to the county council, or that roads should be constructed by the county council.

As the law is being administered at present, it is only where there are unemployed in a particular area that these relief schemes are carried out. They must be registered unemployed, but there are areas just as much in need of having the work done and where the people are just as poor and living on small holdings. The principle that the work be done only in proportion to the number of unemployed has got some very curious results, and I can give one example for the Parliamentary Secretary's information. In my vicinity there was a road which certainly required to be done. The Board of Works said so, and it was passed; and then it was turned down because there was not sufficient unemployed in the neighbourhood. There may have been a great number who were eligible for unemployment relief and who had not registered: they did not want to have any sum of money, but they could register. In consequence, on my advice, they did register and, next year, they were on the register of unemployed and everything was perfectly above-board. Those people were entitled to register and they did so, and then the work could be carried out.

Mr. Smith

They would have to get a qualification certificate, of course, notwithstanding their registering for work.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

They all were eligible for work, but they did not go to the trouble of registering.

Mr. Smith

But they would have to get a qualification certificate.

Mr. D. Morrissey

So long as they were available for work, it would do.

Mr. Smith

No, a minor employment grant would not be made available on the number registered, but on the number holding qualification certificates and actually in receipt of unemployment assistance.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

But they could get them, they were entitled to them. What was to prevent their getting them? I am talking of people who were entitled to unemployment relief but did not apply for it. The same thing happened in different places: they did not want it. It may be quite different in County Cavan, where the people may have a greater sense of running after every halfpenny available, but there are parts of the country where the people are not at all keen on that.

Mr. Smith

We have got that reputation but, having met a number of people from other counties, I doubt if it is true.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not know. All I can say is that such a condition did exist and that such a thing did take place. The work was duly carried out, very efficiently and well carried out.

I do not think that the handing over of the work to the county councils—so far as County Mayo is concerned, at any rate—is satisfactory, because there is too great a tendency on the part of the county council only to do work which can be seen. Everybody can see that such and such a thing is done; it is in the public eye—that is the county council tendency. There is no going to the remote parts of the mountains, or to a place miles away from the main road, and doing work there. It may be work of a more useful nature perhaps, but it will not be seen and cannot be readily pointed out. They cannot say: "Look at the great work we have been doing."

I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary, in making up his mind what work is to be done, should consider two things, not merely the number of unemployed but also the utility of the particular work. He should look at the matter, not solely from the aspect of employment but also from the point of view of its national utility. The work should be regarded from the angle of whether it is going to be really of benefit to the people who live in the vicinity or not. I suggest that any schemes that have been passed should be put in hands at once and every penny voted should be expended. As many pennies as can be afforded should be allocated in particular to South Mayo.

Mr. Davin

I am certain that every Deputy is extremely anxious to assist the Government in helping to increase the production of food and fuel during the remainder of the emergency period. That being so, I think it is the duty of the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to provide whatever money is reasonably required —if possible in the current year—to help the farmers in that very necessary work. There is very little use, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, in farmers who live on by-roads, accommodation roads or bog roads, producing beet, wheat or whatever crop is most suitable in the circumstances, if they find at the end of the harvest that, because of some person's failure to maintain the roads leading to the main roads, they are unable to bring in the harvest and so preserve the crops.

I am aware that, in my own constituency, repeated requests have been made, through the local authority and directly to the Board of Works, for money for the repair of accommodation and bog roads. Where a case is investigated, the usual red tape reply is given that, although the scheme may be a praiseworthy one, there is not a sufficient number of unemployed in the area to justify, under existing regulations, an allocation of money for the purpose. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, as the political head of the Department responsible for this silly system, to smash that rule and make it possible for his Department to go ahead as qurckly as they can with the carrying out of works that are urgently needed.

I am aware, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is also aware, though I am not certain if it applies to his constituency, that farmers' sons, and even small farmers, refuse to go to the labour exchange to register because of the degrading conditions imposed on those who register either for work or for the miserable pittance provided by way of unemployment assistance. Many of those people do not want to register because they do not think it right that they should be put to the trouble of seeking a qualification certificate and, at the end of a lengthy investigation, get from one to five shillings a week. The majority of farmers' sons would like to register if they were certain of getting work at a reasonable rate of wages and under Christian conditions. As it is, if they register at the local exchange they are told, as they were told in the past, to go on rotational relief schemes at the miserable and degrading wage of 24/- or 26/- a week.

I could instance cases, and they are on the files in the Parliamentary Secretary's office, where useful schemes for the repair of bog roads and accommodation roads were investigated and where the work could have been done if those responsible only looked for the young men who were available for that work. The fact is that farmers' sons and other unemployed persons are not prepared to register in a turf-cutting area because, when their names go on the register, they are ordered here, there and everywhere else, where rotational schemes are operating. It is far better for any young man out of work—small farmers' sons in particular—to cut turf as a private producer for profit-making purposes rather than register at the local exchange for the purpose of getting work, whenever it is available, at 24/- or 26/- a week.

I know of cases where schemes have been sanctioned in the Parliamentary Secretary's office and then turned down. There were men available for carrying out these bog road repair schemes. If the Department will make inquiries it will find that it is possible to get the necessary number of people to do these jobs. Farmers' sons and other people who use the bogs will do this work in order to enable them to get out the turf that was cut during the past couple of years and that has had to lie on the bogs because the roads were not properly repaired and put in a passable condition. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to get rid of the red tape regulations which make it impossible to carry out useful and very necessary schemes. These schemes will not be carried out until the regulations are either abolished or amended. I am making no complaint against those responsible for administration, but I am complaining of the regulation which prevents many useful schemes being carried out. I am quite certain that the production of fuel in many parts of the two turf-cutting counties in my constituency could be increased by private producers if more attention were paid to bog road repair schemes and bog drainage schemes.

Deputy Hogan was quite right when he said that the best results could not be got by county councils engaged in cutting turf on certain bogs during the last couple of years, because of the fact that no drainage schemes were carried out beforehand. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow the good example which was set by his predecessor, and take the opportunity of visiting and inspecting some of the bogs in the turf-cutting areas. I hope also that he will select the right men to show him around these places. I suggest that it is necessary for him to do that if he wants to increase turf production by private producers, and that there is an urgent necessity for him to provide more money immediately for the carrying out of bog road repairs and drainage schemes.

I am sorry that I missed the opening statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of which, I assume, he gave an explanation for the sum of money that he is seeking in this Vote. If he has not already done so, I would be glad to hear him explain the reason why, in this emergency period, the amount provided under sub-head H—Minor Employment Schemes—for the carrying out of minor and drainage work and the construction and repair of accommodation roads, shows a decrease this year of from £160,000 to £150,000. I make that inquiry because, in my opinion, more money is needed this year than ever before if we are to get turf produced in the turf-cutting counties, particularly by private producers. There is also a reduction under sub-head I of £31,000. This is the sub-head which makes provision for the carrying out of development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers. Why should there be a reduction under that sub-head this year when it is more necessary than it was in the last couple of years to encourage increased production of fuel by private producers? There is a reduction of £21,000 in the sum asked for under sub-head G for minor relief schemes. That is the sub-head that makes provision for the allocation of moneys for such necessary works as road and amenity schemes in rural areas. In present circumstances, it surely ought to be possible to encourage the county councils to carry out more repair works on the by-roads. In my part of the country the execution of many schemes which were passed at the last statutory meeting of the county council for the repair and improvement of trunk and main roads has had to be deferred because the material required is not now available. Is it not desirable, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary should make an increased allocation from this sub-head to enable the county councils and their county surveyors to do more work on what are known as the county roads?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Mr. Davin

But the money is being provided under this sub-head.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that the Deputy will find any money in this Estimate for that pur pose.

Mr. Davin

If the Parliamentary Secretary is to get the results which we all hope for from the expenditure of the money provided in this Vote, and if that money is to be spent inside the present financial year, then I think he ought to follow the excellent example set by his predecessor and have a series of talks with the various county surveyors. I suggest to him that he should bring them and their assistants to his office and have a straight talk with them as to what he has in mind in regard to the expenditure of this money. He should give them general directions as to the type of schemes they should send to his office for approval. If the money that is being made available is to be allocated to the different counties in a fair and a just way, I think he should adopt my suggestion. If he does not do that, then I fear that we are going to have a lot of paper being used in correspondence over a long period, and that at a time when there is a great shortage of paper. I want to see a lot of the red tape cut out, and I think that could be done with advantage if the Parliamentary Secretary would bring to his office the county managers, if he wishes, but particularly the county surveyors and their assistants, and indicate to them what his intentions are as to how this money should be made use of in the shortest possible time.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy is perhaps aware that while this office was formerly responsible in the manner in which he thinks it is still responsible, the question of the production of national turf and the development of bogs has been transferred from this Vote to the Department of Local Government and Public Health. In future, we will not have any responsibility in that matter at all. So far as turf is concerned, the only responsibility we have is in assisting private producers to increase turf production and in making grants available for the making of bog roads and passes, as well as the drainage of bogs, in cases where it is established that the schemes put forward are worth-while schemes. I think that the Deputy, in the criticisms and suggestions that he has been offering, overlooks the fact that that transfer has been made.

Mr. Davin

I am fully conscious of the fact that the transfer has been made, but at the same time I think I have a fairly good idea of the meaning of the English language as set forth in these sub-heads. The sentences under each are short, but I assume from the wording of them that the work set out cannot be done without the co-operation of the county surveyors and their assistants. Is that not so?

Mr. Smith

They are the agents through which it is carried out.

Mr. Davin

I am well aware of that, and that is why I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will regard the suggestion that I have made as being a sensible one, and that he will follow the good example set by his predecessor. I know that in his time he called up the county surveyors to conferences here and gave them a general idea of his intentions in regard to the expenditure of money for the purposes referred to here.

Mr. Smith

Those conferences were held for an entirely different purpose from that which we have in mind now. As far as these schemes are concerned, we inspect them and give an estimate of the expenditure that will be undertaken. We merely send down to the county surveyor a list of these schemes, and he is the agency through which they are carried out. Why should there be any consultation with him about that?

Mr. Davin

If the county surveyor is the agent for the Office of Public Works in the spending of this money, is it not desirable that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Office should have the co-operation of the county surveyors and their assistants?

Mr. Smith

The county surveyor is not the agent in the expenditure of the money.

Mr. Davin

I suggest it is desirable that those people should clearly understand the intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary and of those who are providing the money.

Mr. Smith

He is not our agent in that sense. In the sense of expending this money, we send down a list of approved schemes to the county surveyor. We state the amounts that are being made available for each scheme, and the time in which to execute them. There is no consultation with him.

Mr. D. Morrissey

He is not an agent, he is an instrument.

Mr. Smith

It is a matter of indifference whether you call him an agent or an instrument.

Mr. Davin

I suggest that better value would be got for the taxpayers' money which we are being asked to provide under this Vote if there was a little more co-operation forthcoming from the county surveyor. Who knows better than the county surveyor and his assistants the requirements of the areas in the different counties over which the assistants travel every week and, sometimes, two or three times a week? I am quite certain that they know better than inspectors newly-appointed by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary the requirements of the counties in which they live, and in which they have been working for many years. If the Parliamentary Secretary would reconsider the suggestion of inviting county surveyors and their assistants to a conference, and giving them some idea of what they were brought to Dublin for, he would probably get a good deal of valuable information, as well as the framework for useful schemes. That would also save the expense of sending inspectors down to inquire about matters that they will never understand as well as the local officials. If the suggestion is considered to be a silly one I will not press for its adoption. It will be found in due course that co-operation with the work of county surveyors and their assistants would prove valuable if this kind of work is to be done efficiently and value secured for the expenditure.

Another matter which may have escaped the attention of Deputies concerns the provision made for the employment of a temporary mapping draftsman. The matter has not been mentioned to me by any applicant for the job, but if a mapping draftsman has any qualifications surely he is worth more than 60/- a week.

Mr. Smith

Does not that matter come under Votes 9, 10 and 11?

Mr. Davin

No, under this Vote. I want to know whether the Department is ashamed to include in the Estimate provision for the employment of a temporary mapping draftsman at 60/- a week, inclusive. If a road ganger knew his job he would get more than that. I think it is a damn scandal, if the Chair will forgive my use of that expression, to make such an offer. An applicant for that position would require to have certain technical qualifications, but the remuneration offered is only 60/- a week.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

The land reclamation scheme has given satisfaction in every county. In Meath it gave satisfaction owing to the fact that it is a scheme in which individuals can take part. Notwithstanding the fact that they had to put up 50 per cent. of the cost, it was more successful than its offspring, the present scheme, is going to be. I am afraid that this scheme will present considerable difficulties, despite the fact that only 25 per cent. of the money has to be put up. Naturally, Meath was not very fortunate under the unemployment relief schemes, because there is not a very big population there, and there are not unemployed men to avail of the grant. We have in that county a number of dreary lanes that were never touched. As far as I know, people living near public roads are generally best off, and unfortunate individuals living, possibly, a mile and a half from the main road are generally poor. When it comes to putting up 25 per cent. of the expenditure required, it will be found that some of these lanes will cost a good deal more than £100 to improve them. People living at the edge of these lanes very often kept them in repair and have not much concern with other portions, and, as a result, those living at the end will not be able to benefit by this scheme. That is a question of finance. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Beegan there. The Parliamentary Secretary should take some steps to reconsider the financial proposals, because it would be a serious loss, especially in present conditions, and in view of our efforts to relieve unemployment, if he cannot make schemes like this successful. Everybody agrees that they are a great incentive to further production. If we cannot increase production, there is no hope of relieving unemployment. As we have many dreary lanes in parts of Meath and Westmeath, it would be a great help if co-operation could be secured to carry out these schemes.

It is difficult to get co-operation in these matters, but perhaps the offer of 75 per cent. of the cost will be an attraction. As I have serious doubts I consider reconsideration of the present proposals essential. It is obvious that county surveyors, who are on the spot, could help in this work. I am afraid that many useful schemes will be spoiled by the difficulties I mentioned. In the farm improvement scheme most of us were not very successful in getting two or three individuals to come together to carry out certain work. It was not successful mainly because of the difficulty of getting two or three people to join in. The land reclamation scheme was eminently successful and for that reason the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to consider the case put forward by Deputy Beegan, and to substitute some other method of financing this scheme.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Parliamentary Secretary is rather fortunate in presenting this Vote, in the sense that there is unanimity on all sides in the effort to be helpful. I am quite prepared to admit that a great deal of valuable work has been done under the various schemes, but the trouble about most of them is that when, say, a road is repaired or put into good condition, everybody concerned then departs and after three or four years that road is considerably worse than it was before money was expended on it. Speaking of one road about three miles long of which I have experience, a considerable amount of money was spent on it some years ago and a very fine job done. The Board of Works and the county council had then no further responsibility. Having business to transact, I visited this road recently. The surface was so bad that the owner of the hackney car would not attempt to drive over it. That is a typical case. I am sure there are roads in a similar condition in other constituencies. To that extent, I say that the money spent was wasted. Every road, whether it is a main road, a by-road, a lane or a boreen, that is essential for the convenience of the citizens should be kept in good condition, seeing that those living in main roads or boreens are liable for rates and, in my opinion, are entitled to the same public services and amenities. I do not want to develop that any further, and I doubt if the Ceann Comhairle would allow me to do so.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his outlook and the outlook of his Department are the same as what we were told by his predecessor was his outlook, that is, whether he and his Department believe, as was announced in this House on more than one occasion in connection with this particular group of Estimates, that there is no difficulty whatever in getting all the money required and that the difficulty is to find suitable schemes upon which to spend that money. I doubt if any person with a knowledge of this country could travel five miles of any road without seeing suitable schemes upon which money could be spent to advantage.

Let me mention one. The greatest and most urgent need of the country at the moment is manure. We are told that the Government are using all their powers to secure manure for the land to enable us to continue growing food and, if possible, to increase the yield of food from the land. We are told that every effort is being made to secure shipping space to bring manure here, no matter what it may cost. Here in this country we have, first, thousands of unemployed and, secondly, in the rivers, drains and pools, hundreds of thousands of tons of the finest manure that can be put on land. I doubt if there is any other country in the world, in the same urgent need of food for the land, with hundreds of thousands of tons— when I confine it to hundreds of thousands, most Deputies will agree that I am not exaggerating—of the finest manure at hand, and with the means available for getting it out of the rivers and drains and putting it on the land, in which it is said that the trouble is not to find the money but to find useful schemes upon which the money can be spent.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and others referred to what has become a grave injustice to unemployed and partially employed workers in the rural areas. Unemployed workers, and indeed, for that matter, workers who are in employment which is not all that might be desired, have a way of getting out of this country to a country in which they can earn more money and have more steady employment. Travel permits will not be issued to workers living in rural areas and we can all see the necessity for that. We can all see the sense of it, but what we cannot see the sense of is that because a man is required to work for a particular farmer for a fortnight, a month or three months in the year, he has to suffer all the disadvantages of unemployment for the remainder of the year. That is happening.

Let me give the Parliamentary Secretary an example. In a tillage district last week I was approached by a middle-aged able man, an excellent agricultural worker who worked part of the year for farmers and at other times at cutting turf. He is now unemployed. He has a wife and eight young children. He has no work to get and he will get no permit to leave for a country where he could earn in a week more than he could earn at home, if he were lucky enough to secure work, in a month. I suggest that so long as there is one man of that type in this country, a man who is employed for part of the year at producing food and fuel for the people and who is then unemployed, while available and anxious for work, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Department has no right to allow £1, much less £300,000 or £400,000, to revert at the end of the year to the Department of Finance. To the extent that money voted by the House for the relief of unemployment is unexpended, to that extent, I say, has the Department charged with its administration failed in its duty.

Is it still necessary to continue this very obnoxious scheme known as rotation? How do you square what you call the necessity for the continuance of that scheme with the statement that it is not the question of the money but of the finding of schemes? The rate of wages sanctioned by the Board of Works for any of the works carried out under their authority is not very high, and surely the least an unemployed man ought to expect is that when he does get work, he will get at least one full week's work and not be sent out for three, four or five days and then laid off, while his next-door neighbour is sent out to carry on for a few more days. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware—I am sure other Deputies are—that there is unquestionably a great feeling of unrest amongst workers in the rural parts. They are labouring under what they believe to be, and what I believe from some of the cases I have knowledge of, to be an injustice. They are prevented by Government Order from going where they can get full-time employment at very high wages. In my opinion, the Government which issues that Order becomes immediately responsible for securing that these men shall get full-time employment in their own country, and the Government does not discharge its duty to these men or their dependents by securing work for them during the heavy period of the year on a farm, or for three or four months on a bog, and then throwing them out, so to speak, on the scrap heap.

There are many other points one could raise on this Vote, but I do not want to delay the House, nor do I want to say anything which would be in any way unfair to the Parliamentary Secretary. He is taking on this job for the first time and I should like to say that, from my knowledge of him, I am sure he will do his best to see that these schemes are carried out to the best possible advantage. I ask him, however, to turn over in his mind, or to discuss with the heads of his Department, the improvements which can and ought to be made in these schemes. I would again urge the undertaking of the work to which I have referred, which in my opinion would give a great deal of employment of a type on which practically all the expenditure would go in wages and which would make available for this country what is very urgently and badly needed, and that is first-class manure for the land.

Michéal O Cinnéide

Dubhras an tseachtain seo caithte gurbh í an chúis is mó gur chuireas isteach ar lucht gan obair ná na feirmeoirí do dhiúltú a n-aontú a thabhairt do na mionscéimeanna fosaíochta a bhaineas le na gceanntaraibh féin. Agus seo iad na feirmeoirí ag a mbeadh toradh is maitheas na n-oibreacha san. Molaimse don Rúnaí Párlaiminte go ndéantar Ordú Comhachta Práinne chun stad a chur leis an rud seo. Tá sé in intinn agam scéim speisialta atá ag lucht ceanntair in aice Cluain Maoláin i gCondae na hIar-Mhidhe. Tá anghá léi ach tá fear amháin a chur stad leis. Do cuireadh an scéim sin isteach chuig oifig na nOibreacha Poiblidhe deich mbliana ó shoin agus tá sí dá cur isteach gach bliain ó shoin agus tá an fear céanna ag cur stad lél gach bliain. Cuir i geás slí baile do bhaile fiche feirmeoirí is féidir le haon fheirmeoir amháin stad a chur leis nuair a dhiúltuíonn sé a ainm a shighniú ar fhuirm aontuithe. Dá bhrí sin molaim go ndéantar an tQrdú Comhachta Práinne ar chuireas síos air cheana.

Rud eile a bhaineas le hOifig na nOibreacha Poiblidhe, sin é gur minic a chaitheadh céad no leath-chéad punt agus ní bhíonn ach leath na hoibre déanta agus bíonn an ród no an abhann no an sruth fágta mar sin. Molaim-se go scrúdófaí na scéimeanna ar fad atá déanta ar fuaid na tíre chun eolas d'fháil ar an méad atá ann le críochnú. Tá áit darb ainm Droichead Caisleáin Loiste im' chondae féin. Tá an talamh íseal, mín. Ritheann sruth tríd an miteoíg agus bíonn an talamh fá uisge i rith an chuid is mó den bhliain, go mór mhór san nGeimhreadh agus san Earrach. Dá nglantaí agus dá n-íslightí an sruth do déanfaí a lán maitheasa don talamh, agus tá na daoine ullamh ar an uisge a chur fá smacht chun soluis aibhléise d'fháil. Pé scéal é, tá an sgéim ag teastáil go géar agus tá sí dá cur isteach le fada. Tá áthas orm a cloisteál go mbeidh airgead le fáil i gcóir portach príobháideach agus tá súil agam nach gcuirfidh aon rud stad le cúrsaí airgid i gcóir na scéimeanna so i rith an ama trioblóide seo.

Mr. Cogan

I am rather disappointed with one item in this Estimate in which there is a substantial reduction, that is, the item for the development of bogs used by landholders and other private producers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should give some explanation of the reduction of £31,000 in this Estimate, because it would appear to any Deputy that in this particular branch of the unemployment emergency schemes there is need for wider development. In most bogs we find that as progress is made in the cutting of turf the tendency is for the bogs to deteriorate. The portions of the bogs which are accessible or easily worked are being cut away and the work is proceeding further into the bogs where drainage has not been carried out. One would imagine, therefore, that an increased expenditure on the drainage and improvement of these bogs is urgently necessary as each year passes, and becomes more necessary every year. I quite agree that there may be substantial difficulties in the matter of getting development work carried out in some areas. Development work, such as drainage in bogs, cannot be carried on to a great extent in the winter months, and for that reason must be confined to the summer months when labour might be difficult to obtain. I think the work, however, is urgently necessary. In regard to farm improvement works, while I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has the administration of this——

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Cogan

——his Department certainly is responsible for the provision of the money. I should like, therefore, that he should ensure, so far as possible, that the money is made available so that the work can be carried on during the summer months as well as in the winter because, in many of these schemes, there is a type of work which cannot be carried on effectively in the winter months and for that reason it is necessary for it to be carried over into the summer months. There is one other matter which I raised by way of Parliamentary Question to the Parliamentary Secretary to-day and to which I should like him to give some attention, that is the matter of compensation for lands acquired for turbary development. I raised this matter on the Local Government Estimate, but I think I was out of order. I hope it comes under this particular Estimate.

Mr. Smith

It does not. In fact, I was answering to-day for the Minister for Finance. I do not know whether An Ceann Comhairle will allow me or not, but if the Deputy wants to mention it, I will try to remember the information I would have given in reply to a supplementary question if he had asked it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy be brief?

Mr. Cogan

I will be very brief. It is a matter which affects quite a number of people. The type of land in which I am interested is land which, while it is acquired for turbary, has considerable agricultural value, as it is useful for grazing or meadowing. By reason of its acquisition for turbary, it is much depreciated in value; in fact, practically, it is ruined for grazing or meadowing purposes. As far as ordinary turbary which is not of any grazing or agricultural value is concerned, I quite agree that there are not very many complaints in regard to the compensation awarded, but as far as this type of bog is concerned, there are very grave complaints. In addition to that, I know it has led to disputes between bog owners and the people to whom the bogs were sub-let in a number of districts when they found the extent of the damage which was being done.

As far as minor relief works are concerned, I think it is urgently necessary that, where accommodation roads lead to a considerable number of holdings, and where the people in those holdings are engaged extensively in tillage operations, the regulation which provides for a certain number of unemployed in the area should be waived. I understand that that regulation does not apply in connection with accommodation roads leading to turbary and required extensively for the purpose of conveying turf. I think the same rule should apply to lands which are being used extensively for tillage, because there is no doubt, particularly in regard to beet, that it is quite impossible to get the produce conveyed to the public road unless the accommodation roads are put into proper order. In my constituency a very large number of works of this kind has been turned down owing to the fact that the number of unemployed in the area—even working two or three electoral divisions—is not sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the regulation.

The regulation has been waived in regard to turf, and I think it is equally important that it should be waived in regard to laneways that are required extensively for the conveyance of agricultural produce. I think due discretion should be given to the officials of the Department to decide whether or not a laneway was being used extensively for that purpose, and, if it was, to allow the work to be carried through even though there might not be the required number of unemployed registered in the area. I have no doubt that if the grant were given, the workers would be forthcoming.

Mr. Childers

In connection with this Vote for emergency schemes, I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the announcement of a rural improvement scheme. When we first started to give sums of money each year for the repair of accommodation roads, we used as our yardstick the amount of unemployment and, as many Deputies have remarked, it is becoming quite obvious that, with the exception of certain congested areas, the number of people registered as unemployed in a given electoral division is no longer an accurate method of calculating the money to be spent in that area either for relieving unemployed persons, of whom there may be small numbers, or for providing the necessary amenities for the public.

The whole question of repairing and maintaining accommodation roads, link roads, bog roads, has now become a question of providing a national amenity and there can no longer be the same distinction between roads under the control of the county council, roads which receive State grants in the ordinary way, and roads which, because of their local character, cannot receive those grants. With the need for intensive tillage and production and with the general flight from the land and the difficulty of keeping people on the land, unless there is some planned method of providing for continual repair and maintenance of all roads in the country, people simply will not be willing to go on living in rural districts. It will not be an easy thing for the Parliamentary Secretary to ascertain finally what is the best method of providing regular machinery for the continual repair and maintenance of all roads in the country, and I am well aware that in inaugurating the new rural improvement scheme, by which one-quarter of the cost has to be met by the people benefited by the road, he is carrying out a very useful and valuable experiment.

The chief facts to be noticed in connection with this rural improvement scheme are obviously, first of all, that the work should be done efficiently. The moment we start to do work for the sake of increased production and the greater enjoyment of the people concerned, the work must be done efficiently. It cannot be done by people who stand around and do a little work for a few hours each day with the object of getting relief, but not with the object of getting the work done as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Secondly, I think one matter that has been mentioned by Deputy Morrissey with great advantage is the question of the maintenance of these roads. In an area where there is a large number of unemployed and it is essential to give them work in the winter, the question of what happens afterwards to the work they do is not of as great importance, but now that the Parliamentary Secretary has inaugurated this new scheme where grants are provided for the repair of roads in all areas, I do think the question of maintaining those roads and maintaining the repairs in good condition is a very important element in the whole problem.

At present in the case of some of these accommodation roads they form part of a land division that took place many years ago in which the tenants agreed to maintain the roads in good condition. They actually signed deeds whereby these roads were to be maintained. Owing to various conditions which are very well known, these obligations were not carried out and the roads gradually got into disrepair. At the present time it is an absolute fact that roads are being repaired all over the country to which nothing was done for ten years and, eventually, the amount of money that has to be spent on repairing is 100 times greater than it would have been if there had been some regular method of keeping them in repair. Now that we have started this new scheme, the question of maintenance as well as the question of repair, will have to be considered.

Thirdly, there is the question: On whose shoulders should the payment for the repairs fall? The Parliamentary Secretary has had several suggestions. There is his own proposal for the moment. He thinks the people benefiting should pay 25 per cent. of the cost. He has had the proposal that the county councils should be given certain sums to be earmarked for roads of that classification. There have been other proposals made, that the county council should levy some kind of supplementary rate on the people who benefit by the repair to an accommodation road, for a limited period, covering the repairs to the road. There has been even the suggestion made that the county council should take over the repair and maintenance of all roads regardless of their type or character.

I think that all of us in this House will agree that it is going to be very difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary to make a final decision as to what is the best method of financing permanent machinery for the repair of roads and it would be just as well to allow the present experiment to start and to continue, to see how popular it is, and how far availed of, before he makes any further changes.

The question of the difficulty of obtaining co-operation in carrying out these rural improvement schemes has also been adverted to by Deputies here and I should like to add my own particular experience in that regard. You have an accommodation road perhaps one and a half miles long serving the interests of ten families. Some of these families have very high valuations. Others have very low valuations. Some of them will hardly benefit at all by the work carried out. Others will receive immense benefit. There is the further complication in an area where there are no unemployed registered at all. The people on the road in the ordinary way will receive employment in repairing it. In some cases the contribution in the way of wages, which in itself will finance the 25 per cent. contribution, will benefit one family far more than another.

It is quite obvious, therefore, that it is going to be extremely difficult to arrive at some measure by which one could judge what each should pay, and decide which of them would eventually provide 25 per cent. of the total payment. Unless we are accustomed to working co-operatively, and making an estimate as to how much each road should contribute, in my belief, it would be limited to a very small number, but I think that this Government, once more, has shown its vigour, in inaugurating new legislation with a view to providing certain amenities in the country where these amenities were very badly needed, and I think that this scheme will go very far towards making possible the repairing of many of these roads which, owing to negligence, have been rendered almost impassable, even for people going to or coming from Mass, apart altogether from the utter impossibility of carrying heavy agricultural machinery across them.

I have particularly in mind areas where there is no unemployment, in the sense that, during certain months of the year, the people in these areas can get employment elsewhere, but during other months of the year, such as the months of January and February, there are numbers of these people at home, who are willing and able to work, but for whom no work, it seems, can be provided. From that point of view, I think that such employment schemes are eminently desirable, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the matter of providing permanent and durable machinery, as cheaply as possible, which will be capable, not alone of the construction of these roads, but of their repair and maintenance afterwards, once the construction of the main roads has been effected.

Mr. Allen

This debate seems to have hinged largely around the provisions under the rural improvements schemes, but I do not think Deputies should criticise this Vote on that ground, because I doubt whether many works have yet been undertaken under this scheme. In my opinion, it is a very good scheme, but there is no doubt that there are some snags in connection with it. The biggest one that I see is the difficulty of allocating the 25 per cent. between the different people concerned, and I am afraid that many good schemes will fall down because of that.

Many Deputies have had experience, I am sure, of the difficulty of getting farmers to agree with regard to the farm improvements scheme. I think that I could say, quite openly, that everyone of us has failed to get farmers to agree with regard to that scheme, although we all agree it is a very good scheme, and I admit that there will be the same difficulty here in trying to get every owner of a particular part of land, in a lane or boreen, to agree as to the proper allocation of this 25 per cent. I would suggest, however, that there is an easy way of going about this. All of these people are ratepayers, and my suggestion is that this should be allocated according to the amount of rates that they pay. In that way, you would be able to deal with the people who do not want to face their responsibilities.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy must have a number of bad neighbours in County Wexford.

Mr. Allen

They are not so bad, and I am sure that the same thing would apply in County Cavan, the county from which the Parliamentary Secretary comes. However, I am glad to see that some further recognition is being given to those unfortunate people who have to live on these holdings, into which there are almost impassable boreens or lanes, because the day is coming when these holdings, whether they be large or small, will be abandoned, because the people of the present generation will no longer endure the hardships that their fathers had to endure, and I hope that the day is not far distant when facilities will be provided for these people to reach their homes: whether that will be done at the expense of the local authorities or of the State. The local authorities have set an example, by making county-at-large charges in respect of the supply of water, sewerage, and so on, and there is no reason why these people, who are living in cottages on farms, whether large or small, and who are paying as much per acre as is paid by their neighbours who are situated in better conditions, should not get the same service from the local authority or the State as the farmer who happens to live within a perch or two from the main road.

I am glad, accordingly, to know that the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Department is going in the proper direction, and I only hope that they will take quicker steps for the provision of these roads, and for their maintenance and repair later on. This question of maintenance and repair is very important because, if there is no effort at maintenance and repair what will happen in the course of five or six years' time is that it will cost as much or more to provide these roads again. We had the same experience in regard to many of the minor relief schemes, and I think that some provision should be made for the upkeep and maintenance of these. The only hope of having them properly maintained and repaired, and thus avoiding the wasting of money, is by making the local authorities responsible for their maintenance. There is a first-class engineering staff available in every district. The machine is already there, and it only needs one step further to make this a first-class scheme.

There is one other question to which I would like to refer, and that is the scheme known as the rotational employment scheme, or of giving three days' or four days' employment in a week to unemployed men. It has been pointed out that the scheme has not been successful from the point of view of giving full employment to unemployed people over the winter months. I think that the money available should be sufficient to provide a full week's work or even a full month's work, and in my opinion, this idea of giving three days' or four days' work in a week should be abandoned. I think it should be possible to give full-time employment to these people for whatever period is possible. I believe that whatever money is there should be made available for a full week's work or a full month's work, as the case may be, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to alter the scheme in that direction, and so give full-time employment to those unfortunate enough to be unemployed at this period of the year. It needs only the good will of the Parliamentary Secretary, who understands the position in the country as well as any member of the House. He understands the hardships involved in the present method and, to my mind, the waste also. You may have foremen or gangers employed on one of those works and you have to pay them for the full week. There must be a big wastage of the money allocated for the relief of unemployment in that direction. You may have plant and horses lying idle so that the waste would be considerable. Now that we have not such a big number of unemployed to deal with, whatever money is being expended should be devoted to providing full time employment for whatever period it is possible to give it out of the funds available.

Mr. Cafferky

I rise to take part in this debate because I feel that this Vote is of paramount importance not only to the country at large but to the county which I have the honour to represent. There are two important parts of the Vote to be considered— minor employment schemes and farm improvement schemes. I understand that people who derive benefit from a rural improvement scheme have to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost of the work. A very serious question arises there, especially in connection with congested areas, because you cannot always get the people to agree. It may not be so bad where congestion is not so marked and the farmers are better-off, but a difficulty arises where you have a farmer with 30 acres of land, in moderate circumstances, and a farmer with five or six acres of arable land, in very poor circumstances. It may be a question of a drain or a road which is very much needed. I am afraid that the absence of co-operation between the people concerned is a great stumbling block there and, unless some way out can be found, I do not think these schemes will be a success in the congested areas, particularly in counties such as Sligo, Mayo and parts of Galway where the congestion is very great. Since the inception of these rural improvement schemes, I have had experience of certain areas in which improvements could not be carried out because some of the farmers refused to be associated with the scheme owing to the fact that, as they said, they were not getting the same benefits as others. That meant that the scheme, either the making of a drain or a road, had to fall through owing to the absence of co-operation. There is the stumbling block. I do not know how it can be overcome, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to devise some way to get over it.

As regards the farm improvement scheme there is no doubt, irrespective of whatever Government is responsible for initiating it, it is one of the best schemes that has been started in this country since we achieved our independence. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the farm improvement scheme in my area. It is something which the people needed very much for years. Every day one can see on little farms, including my own, a certain amount of brightening up of the place, such as cleaning of drains, the erection of manure pits, water tanks and various other things. The Government responsible for the scheme deserves to be complimented. There I do not think that the percentage which has to be contributed is a stumbling block. Before this scheme came into being I know that my own father reclaimed ten acres of land without getting anything. Now, of course, he is in his old age, but there are many men like him who would be only too glad to go out and reclaim land seeing that they will get a contribution of 75 per cent. It is a scheme which is well worth the expenditure involved and, if it is not a permanent scheme, it is one that should be made permanent, especially for the congested areas.

As regards the development works on bogs used by landholders and other private producers, very often you have the position that even though you may spend £50 or £60 on a drain leading into a bog, you do not gain any benefit from that expenditure because there may be another drain leading in a different direction which would also need cleaning, if full benefit is to be derived from work on the first drain. If you write to the Board of Works about such drains it may be that the work on one is carried out but the other work is not sanctioned. There is a waste of money in that sense because, if there is not a sufficient fall for the water coming from the first drain, there is no use in making it or spending money on it and the officials who receive these applications should always consider that. We may not be able to put our applications in the best English but that is a point which is well worth considering, that where a second drain is necessary in order to take off the flow of water from another drain, a grant should be given for the making of both drains. I have in mind an instance where at the present moment a drain is being made to serve a bog allocated amongst a number of small farmers. I have written to the Land Commission pointing out that it would not add very much from the point of view of taking away the water, because of the fact that there is another important stream in the vicinity which needs cleaning. I got a reply to the effect that the matter would be looked into. That is quite a while ago and the drain will soon be completed. The benefit derived from the making of that drain is certainly not commensurate with the amount expended on the scheme.

In my particular county, the roads used for the conveyance of agricultural produce and turf are in a very poor state. They have been neglected for the past ten or fifteen years, under both Governments. It would be well now, seeing that the public trunk roads are in good repair and that the amount of traffic has been reduced by a very large percentage, that a larger amount of money be allocated for the repair of agricultural and bog roads. I cannot impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary too strongly the importance of agricultural roads in my part of the country. Some of them are only seven or eight feet wide and two carts cannot pass one another in some places. If I write to the county surveyor, he informs me that the road is too narrow and does not come under his supervision, as it is not nine feet. Then, if it is what is called a dead-end road or a cul-de-sac, it does not come under his supervision.

It would be wise to bring these roads under the supervision of the county council. When I am asked to write about a certain road, I have first to write to the county surveyor to find out if it comes under his supervision. When he replies that it does not, I must write to the Board of Works. It usually causes a certain amount of querying and waste of time, before we find out the proper authority. The roads of each county should come under the direct control of the county council. The manager has so many things to do that I do not think he would be able to look after them as well. Not far from Swinford, at a place called Bohola, something like £3,000 or £4,000 was sunk in the making of a trunk road. I may be out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Trunk roads are not under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Cafferky

It is just a little point I would make, with the permission of the Chair. The road from Swinford to Bohola only needed a little banking but, instead of that, they are making another road in from it, and it would take the hill of Croagh Patrick to fill it up. Yet some £3,000 have been spent and another £3,000 will be needed before it is brought to the level of the trunk road beside it. The agricultural roads and bog roads have not been attended to for years. The people cannot get out to Mass on Sunday, never mind taking a cart or vehicle in for turf or going to shop or bringing hay or corn to the market. I hope that whoever is responsible will bring about a remedy in the near future.

In regard to the schemes for the distribution of lime to smallholders in congested districts at reduced prices, I have been informed—I will be fair about it, I have not experienced it myself, because we burn our own lime— that the transporting of this lime costs more than the lime itself. I was asked to bring this up in the form of a Question, but I have not done so yet and will try to put it before the House now. Owing to the scarcity of petrol and tyres, the distribution from county council or Board of Works kilns costs more than the lime itself. If the necessary tyres and petrol could be got, it could be distributed more reasonably. The Board of Works also should advocate the repair of kilns. I do not see why small farmers should be dependent on a Board of Works kiln. Years ago, every little farm used to have its own, and if farmers were given a grant of £5 or £6 to bring them up to efficiency and a state of preparedness for the burning of lime, that would be done. There is an abundance of limestone in my county, every few miles you go, and there is no trouble in getting it.

The distribution of seed is very important this year, particularly because the small farmers had not got any seed, owing to the weather conditions. The word "pull" is used very much in the distribution of seed. It is not being distributed from the point of view of distress or poverty, or on an equitable basis. The Parliamentary Secretary should take steps to see that seed oats and seed potatoes, clover and hay seed will be distributed to the people who are most in need. I know for a fact that people who approached the responsible authorities last year for hay and clover seed were refused, while, on the other hand, fairly well-off farmers, better able to purchase such seed, were granted it. That is wrong and unfair; the more needy should come first. It is time to forget our political friends and see that the people for whom the scheme is intended are supplied. There should be more ruthless measures when it is found out that it is not distributed in the proper way, and there should be no pity whatsoever. An inspector should be going about and, if he finds seed is being distributed on an unfair basis for the sake of some "pull" of one kind or another, the offender should get what is coming to him.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the way the workers are being paid. Many Deputies have spoken about it here. The present system is very unfair. I wish to make it quite clear that the shopkeeper is not prepared to give food "on tick" now: that day is done. It is very humiliating—I know what it is, as my own father and mother had to do it, and I understand what it is like to go into a shop to get food "on tick" to bring up a family. It is humiliating to a young man of my age, who goes out working on the road, to have to wait two weeks for the wages due to him. I cannot see why the ganger cannot pay him, nor why the money cannot be sent on. In England, if you take up a job on Monday morning and finish on Saturday night, the money due to you is ready, and there is no trouble. We have men as clever and as educated to do this work as there are in England or in Dublin City. It is an important point, which should be looked into, to see that these men are paid, and that there is no delay.

If I write to the Board of Works about a certain drain and they reply that it is a necessary and important work, they say it cannot be done because there are not sufficient people registered in that area. Of course, that is altogether wrong. That drain or road may be only a few miles away from where there are ten, 20 or 100 men registered. It should not be considered on the basis of unemployment. If it is essential work, have it done and bring in the labourers to do it, or the men able to do it. I have registered at labour exchanges. I am neither afraid nor ashamed to say that, as I am a small farmer and have come in here to represent the working farmers. It is humiliating that they ask every question except one: "Why were you born?" That is the only one they forget. Any man with grit almost refuses to go in, he does not like it, as it brings him down to the rag-tag of society.

It is of importance that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the various points that I have tried to make on this Vote. This Vote, instead of showing a decrease in certain points, should show an increase. I am aware some of them have been reduced by £30,000. That is a pity, but I suppose there was a reason for doing that. At the same time, if the money is there—and I do not see why it should not be found—all these important matters, such as minor employment schemes, the development of bog roads, and so on, should be carried out to the fullest extent.

Mr. Corish

What I am chiefly concerned with is the amount of money proposed to be allotted for urban and rural employment schemes. Like other members of my Party who have spoken, I want to take this opportunity of again advocating that there should be continuous work during the whole week for men employed on these schemes. It is a relief to us to hear members of the Fianna Fáil Party now advocating that these relief workers should be given a week's employment. I remember the time when the Labour Party put down a motion suggesting that these relief works should be carried out continuously over the week, and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party voted against it. Time and time again, whenever an opportunity was presented to us, we advocated that.

One wonders if there is an election approaching, because of the attitude taken up by some Deputies here to-day. I suggest that if our advice had been taken at that particular time, so many men would not have gone across to seek better wages in another country, even though the conditions there might be appalling by comparison with the conditions they work under here. The life-blood is being sapped out of this nation. Young men have left this country in thousands in order to seek a livelihood, and I am very much afraid that a great many of them will not come back when the war is over. There will be a big amount of building work in England and many of these men will remain there. I suggest that no financial sacrifice will be too great if it will help to keep these young men, and in many cases young women, in the country.

I would like to know why it is stipulated by the Board of Works that there should be no work on Saturday, so far as relief schemes are concerned. Ever since these schemes started, urban and county councils have been told that the men are not to be permitted to work on Saturday. There has been an improvement within the past couple of years about the number of days on which men should be engaged on unemployment relief schemes, but the schemes are absolutely useless if you give a man only three or four days a week. I heard Deputy Allen say that the amount of money given to a man who works three or four days is calculated at a higher rate than what would be given to him for five or six days. I do not know if that is the case. I know they are paid at a certain weekly rate. That rate in rural Wexford is 36/-. Does anyone suggest that a man could keep a wife and family on 36/-? Would any member of the Government like to be asked to live on 36/- a week? Is there asked to live on 36/- a week? Is there any Deputy here who would make an effort to live on 36/-? Is there any member of the House who would be prepared to stop in the country and work for that wage, while, on the other side of the Channel, work at a much higher rate of remuneration is available, even though the conditions there are intolerable by comparison?

I hope, before all the young people go out of this country—and in a great many cases they will not return—I hope before it is too late, that the Minister will ask the Government to give these people a decent wage. Time after time the Labour Party has asked for that. This Party warned the Government that unless a decent wage was given to these unfortunate men who were subject to the conditions of the relief schemes, they would leave the country. The Government was obliged to issue Orders to prevent them leaving the country. They were forced to leave because of the bad conditions under which they had to live.

The Government and public bodies should set a headline for employers, but here we have a Government dragging down wages, smashing wages, preventing men getting sufficient to keep body and soul together. On the Estimate for the Department of Local Government I indicated that persons working for private employers are allowed, under certain Orders, to go before the Wages Tribunal and there they are graciously permitted to receive at least 10/- a week bonus. The same conditions do not apply in so far as the employees of local authorities and those engaged on relief works are concerned. One wonders why.

We are told that it is inadvisable to have a man working on roads or under relief schemes paid more than an agricultural labourer. I do not agree that an agricultural labourer gets enough wages. He does not get enough to keep body and soul together. The conditions under which these men work are entirely different. An agricultural labourer, provided he is a good, decent man, is kept all the year round. The other unfortunate men are brought in for three or four weeks or months, as the case may be. They are living from hand to mouth for the rest of the year —and even under these schemes during the period of their employment—so little do they receive. It is easy for a private employer, if a man is brought to do casual work on the docks or elsewhere, to pay him considerably more for the few days he is working than he would be paid on constant employment.

The Minister should take these things into consideration. I hold that 36/- a week is not even approaching a living wage. It is an absolute scandal to ask a man in these days to work for 36/- a week. If there are one or two wet days in the week a man is neither on the exchange nor is he employed. The Minister may say that provision is made so that that man can do another day or two some other week. The point is that when the wet day comes the man is prevented from working and he does not get money for that day. These hardships are inflicted on the working men by the rotten policy of the Government.

A good deal has been said about the rural improvements scheme. The Government deserves credit for bringing in that scheme but, like many of those who have spoken, I am rather doubtful as to whether it will work properly. It has been suggested that the county councils should put up 25 per cent. of the money. I think that should be considered by the county councils themselves. For years past the county councils have been considering requests made by dwellers on cul-de-sac lanes or roads and in a great many cases the county councils have been most anxious to accede to the requests, provided that those who live in the immediate vicinity are prepared to take some share of the responsibility for maintenance.

The law would have to be changed drastically to permit the suggestions made to be carried out. I am not saying I am against it, but it would involve county councils in big liabilities and costs and I suggest it should be examined thoroughly before there is any drastic change of that kind. I can visualise a position wherein there might be a roadway leading up to a place occupied by a large landlord. People in that position would be well able to maintain the roads leading to their places. If the precedent that I have referred to were established, the road would have to be done for him as well as for the small struggling farmer. I think that there are other ways in which an adjustment could be made to prevent this burden of 25 per cent. falling on the shoulders of the farmers.

In my constituency there are certain people who, through the medium of parish councils, have made application for this grant. They have been sent a form on which one of the questions is: "What is the cost of the work?" Surely it is not suggested by the Board of Works, or by anybody else, that an ordinary farmer would be able to tell, even approximately, what it would cost for a roadway that has been neglected for years. One would imagine that there should be some co-operation on this matter between the Government and the county council, and that some of the engineers employed by the latter body would be made available to help those farmer-applicants to give an approximate cost of the work. There is very little use in sending a form of the kind that I have referred to, to any farmer, and I suggest that facilities be afforded, through the medium of the engineering staffs of the county council, to enable farmers to give at least an approximate estimate.

I do not think I have anything more to say on the Estimate. Again, I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity of seeing that decent wages are paid to the men I have referred to so as to prevent, as far as possible, the best blood and sinew in the country leaving it. In my opinion, no price would be too high to pay in order to keep those men and women at home. What I am afraid of is that, when the war is over, there will be so much work offering on the other side that those people will be lost for ever to their native land.

Mr. Dillon

I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would mention to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the point raised by Deputy Cafferky in regard to unemployed men being churlishly treated at the labour exchange. This Vote is primarily designed to help unemployed men, and I think we are all agreed that if a man who is not accustomed to that kind of thing has to go to the labour exchange and is treated cavalierly—I will not say more than that—he is liable to feel it more than the person who is not under the strain of unemployment or financial difficulty. We all know that when men are doing the same job every day, as labour exchange officials are, there is the temptation to become cursory and abrupt. They may not realise that themselves, but to the man who goes occasinally to the labour exchange it means a very substantial addition to his distress of mind if he is treated more or less as a pauper, when, in fact, all that he is doing is going to the proper source to get employment whereby he can earn his living. I was rather surprised to hear Deputy Corish comment adversely on the form issued by the Board of Works in regard to the ordinary minor relief schemes.

Mr. Corish

Not the minor relief schemes.

Mr. Smith

It was the rural improvement schemes Deputy Corish referred to.

Mr. Corish

Farmers came to me and told me about the matter I raised.

Mr. Dillon

I think the farmers who spoke to the Deputy were confusing the form they received with the minor relief schemes. I have frequently complimented the Board of Works on that form, because I think it was extremely well drafted. I have filled in hundreds of them, and have given a figure of the approximate cost. I have never found that the Board of Works raised the slightest difficulty in regard to under or over-estimation. The figure gives a kind of vague idea as to whether the proposed work comes within the scope of a very large undertaking, or whether it may be truly described as a minor relief scheme. I have found, I must say, that every scheme I submitted during the time of the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, the late Deputy Flinn, and of his successors, was fairly examined. We all know, of course, that certain schemes with very little merit have been done at the instance of Fianna Fáil Deputies, and that schemes recommended by Opposition Deputies have been turned down. I must say, honestly, that whenever I submitted a scheme which, on its merits, deserved urgent attention, it got reasonably rapid attention.

There was—and let us face it—something approximating to gross corruption in the matter of relief schemes in the way of doling out money to Fianna Fáil T.D.s on the down-grade. There were a few lame ducks over there, most of whom collapsed in the last election. We all know that an effort was made to prop them up with these minor relief schemes under the Board of Works. All that leaves a dirty taste in one's mouth—that public money should have been used for that purpose. It ought to be stopped. I suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his salad days, got as many of these questionable schemes done as any other Deputy. I do not know whether it is a good thing to set a poacher to catch a poacher, but it may be, now that he is in office himself, that he will be a little more vigilant when Deputy Fogarty comes to him with some questionable proposal from Tipperary. Far be it from me to say it that Deputy Fogarty is a lame duck. We will discover that at the next general election.

I have great sympathy for those for whom Deputy Cafferky spoke, the congested tenants in the County Mayo. For them, both he and I have a fellow-feeling. Anyone coming from Kilmovee is, in a sense, dear to the heart of anyone from my house. I sympathised with him when he spoke of the necessity of providing accommodation roads for those congested tenants, and of the difficulty of those small tenants in being able to make any contribution towards the cost. At first glance, I would like to give everyone a road, but who is going to maintain all these roads? If we multiply the number of by-roads in the country indefinitely, sooner or later the residents of the county will be confronted with the burden of maintaining them. It was suggested, I think, by Deputy Allen that, no matter how far a man may live from the main road, he ought to have a road up to his door as against the community. Are we prepared to go a step further and say that in the case of any landlord who has retained his demesne and has an avenue one and a half miles long to his residence, it is going to be maintained at the expense of the community, or do we stand for the principle that there should be equality before the law for rich and poor? If there is to be equality for rich and poor, and if the poor are to get all that the rich are entitled to, then vice versa the rich should get all the poor are entitled to.

Mr. O'Leary

The poor get very little.

Mr. Dillon

If we establish the precedent of building an avenue which may be one and a half miles long to the door of a landlord, then the next thing we will get is an application from the spiritual descendants of Lord Clanrickard to maintain that avenue even though they live that long distance from the main road. Is it being seriously suggested that you are going to make the cost of maintaining a road which serves one house a county charge, because if that is the case why should you not extend the sewerage to a man's house, even if it be one and a half miles from the main road, if he wants to put in a water-closet? Where are you going to draw the line? The Board of Works very properly expect that, before public money is expended on a project of that kind, a reasonable number of householders should benefit. I think the Board of Works would make a great mistake if they abandoned that position altogether. If they were to abandon it, the floodgates would be opened to demands of a most astonishing character. There will be roads rambling over the mountains here which will astonish the natives. Seeing that it is hard to construct roads, are we to construct them this year and let them sink into the bog next year?

I advise Deputies to reflect on that. Bog roads I consider to be one of the most beneficent types of rural work that could be undertaken. Anybody who has not cut turf to a depth at which it is suitable for domestic fuel cannot guess what a difference it makes in the life of the people to have a decent road over which they can get turf out of the bog. There is nothing more calculated to make such work laborious than in a wet September to have to try to cart it over a road that has practically disappeared, or on one where a donkey and cart cannot travel. Any money spent on building roads to turf banks normally used by people is money well spent. I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board of Works has made one great mistake in the building of bog roads. The bogs must be drained so that every bank will be served and made useful.

I have seen roads made which were very desirable, but anybody who know the bogs knew perfectly well that these roads would not last when there was no drainage laid down. If one man drains a turf bank and if there is no means of letting the water away, the result is the deplorable practice of cutting four or five spits of spadach, leaving the best turf under water, because there was no way of getting at it. I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary, before the Department undertakes to make bog roads, that it should be satisfied that there is a satisfactory system of drains. As part of the road scheme it should insist on suitable drainage being carried out, so that every bank served by that road is accessible down to the bottom, where the best turf is, and from which it can be taken out.

The farm improvements scheme is a most excellent one. I believe it took seven years' agitation on my part to get that scheme started. I believe I was the first Deputy to point out that the old approach of the Department of Finance to the question of spending public money on the property of citizens ought to go by the board in rural schemes. I pointed out that one of the best ways of spending money or of financing a farmer was in draining his land, because that would be an asset to the whole community. I am happy to say that my words ultimately penetrated the imponderable skulls of the Fianna Fáil Party. There is a variety of plans envisaged in this scheme. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the best, from the point of view of the community, is that for draining the land and for subterranean drains. Nothing is more urgently wanted. Without these drains, practically anything else done on the land yields only half its value. Could we not, in laying down the percentage to be contributed by the State for the improvement of land, vary the percentage that will be given in the direction of giving that type preference? If that were done I suggest that a very much more substantial sum should be given for such drainage. I stress the construction of subterranean flag drains instead of French drains.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy does not know anything about them.

Mr. Dillon

I venture to say that I have made more than most Deputies.

Mr. Allen

You have not.

Mr. Dillon

I have made plenty of them. Not only should we construct drains of that character, but arrange for the cleaning of ditches to provide for the autumn flow of water which escapes from drains. There is no need for Deputy Allen and myself to differ on this question because I speak on behalf of Monaghan and the West of Ireland. It is notorious that the soil in the two places of which I speak is more retentive than the soil in Wexford, which is a tillage area. Deputy Allen's interruption is useful in reminding me that whereas it might be useful to weight a scheme in favour of flag drains in Monaghan and Mayo, it might be desirable to weight it in a different direction in Wexford. There the Parliamentary Secretary will have to depend on the advice given him by the Minister for Agriculture, because he will be more familiar with the conditions there.

The last point I want to deal with concerns the provision of swimming pools. There is a lot of talk at present about getting back to the land and persuading people to stay in the country. I am one who believes that if the amenities of rural Ireland are not improved we cannot expect young people to stay there. A good deal may be done by providing cinemas, by having town halls where parish activities could be carried on, and by the erection of ball alleys; but one of the most valuable amenities would be the swimming pool. Those with a comparatively substantial income can play golf for their amusement, but a great many young people cannot engage in sports of that kind. One sport that will cost nothing is swimming. It is a very healthy and a very good exercise, but it cannot be widely engaged in when there is no accommodation available. Of course, there is a river or a lake near most towns, but not infrequently a river is not the kind of place in which one would like to see young people swimming indiseriminately. Some rivers are very deep, and we know how many young people have been drowned. They enter at a shallow place, and then get into deep water when there is nobody there to warn them. If swimming pools were constructed at the shallow ends of rivers, and if the deep water parts were marked, such as in the case of Blackrock and other places around Dublin, swimming as a sport could be greatly developed, and would add materially to the amenities of rural life.

I go so far as to suggest that it is practical, with the water supplies we have in rural areas, to construct swimming baths except where the confluence of a river would not permit it, and then suitable pools could be created. Take the position in Ballaghaderreen. For nine years I have been trying to persuade the Board of Works to deal with the tail-race of the river there. Very little blasting would remedy the position. If the existing bank were blasted a dam could be erected and an excellent bathing place provided. That would be a valuable amenity in that town. I am sure conditions there could be duplicated in other parts of Ireland. I believe that if the Parliamentary Secretary put his mind to development along such lines, he would find that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would assist him, because he so stated recently in public and, in that way, he would leave, after his tenure of office, a monument of useful work in the way of additional amenities in rural life and healthy exercise for those who swim. That would provide a more lasting monument than brass, and what politician is not anxious to acquire that during his career?

Mr. Healy

I regard it as an absurd policy on the part of the Board of Works to carry out drainage schemes during the winter months. It is unfair to expect men to work on these schemes at such a period of the year, and especially at present, when it is impossible to procure waders, etc. If the Board of Works decides to proceed with such schemes, through necessity, men must accept the work, and we often find that these men must spend the greater portion of the day working with their feet in water. I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that the bog roads in South Kerry are in a deplorable state, due to the fact that, in the turf areas, there is very heavy traffic on these roads—traffic, which it was not expected would be on them, such as motor lorries.

Mr. Smith

Are these county roads?

Mr. Healy

No, bog roads.

Mr. Smith

Do they appear on the county council sheets?

Mr. Healy

They are bog roads, some of which were repaired within the past few years and which to-day are absolutely cut up. I think the Department should request the county surveyors to send in reports setting out which bog roads should be repaired, because if these roads are not repaired immediately, it will be impossible for the farmers to remove their turf from the bogs, and, further, if they are not repaired immediately, it will cost huge sums of money to repair them in the course of a few years.

I heard much praise of the rural improvements scheme, but I think that scheme will never be a success, especially in poor areas, because the farmers are expected to contribute at least one-fourth of the cost. Any one familiar with the poor districts knows very well that farmers cannot make any payments for such work, but if the Board of Works is prepared to accept the free labour which the farmers are prepared to give in lieu of payment, I am sure the scheme will be a success.

I want to draw the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the distances which labourers in country districts are expected to cycle or to walk in order to obtain employment on Board of Works schemes. I think no labourer should be expected to cycle a greater distance than four miles, and that any man who has not got a bicycle, or is unable to cycle, should not be expected to accept work in an area more than two miles distant from his home. It is essential that the bogs in South Kerry should be drained more elaborately than is done at present, because anybody familiar with turf production knows that, unless the turf banks are drained for at least three years, it is impossible to produce good quality turf.

Mr. Maguire

My view as to the rural improvements scheme is that it is a very good scheme which provides what all Deputies have advocated from time to time for a good many years, that is, the type of farm improvement which the ordinary scheme of the Board of Works did not provide. The Board of Works schemes, as we know, were very largely confined to areas in which there was unemployment, and to that extent they had not the utilitarian features of improvement which similar operations would carry in perhaps better areas in which there were fewer employed. The question of the contribution is undoubtedly a problem, which the Parliamentary Secretary will have some difficulty in overcoming. Personally I agree—and I am sure the majority of the people concerned will also agree—that a reasonable contribution is a useful thing in relation to any of these schemes, whether of farm improvement or rural improvement. That contribution should be a more general feature of any of these schemes, but I can visualise that, where a number of farmers are concerned with a combination road, some of them will find it impossible to find the money which must be put down before the work can be undertaken Without in any way suggesting that the scheme is not well conceived or will have anything but very beneficial results, I emphasise that point to the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows probably as well as I know that such situations will arise. I mention the point in no carping spirit, but with a view to ensuring a more general application of this very good scheme.

With regard to drainage carried out by the Board of Works, very peculiar aspects in relation to some of the proposals submitted present themselves sometimes. For instance, for some reason or other, the Board of Works decided that, under no circumstances, would grants be forthcoming for areas included in a drainage district, no matter how bad the flooding in those areas. There may probably be some very good reasons for that decision, but it carries with it very undesirable and very illogical results. For instance, a person resident in a drainage area may receive a grant from the Board of Works for carrying out drainage operations, if the outflow of the water is into the drainage area. Let us call the drainage area "A" and the area adjoining "B". "B" area cannot get a grant for the improvement of drainage if the outflow of the water is into the river which is included in, or flows through the drainage area "A"; but "C" area, still further north, may get a drainage grant, and the flow of water into "B" area will be hastened, "B" area having no redress. That is a situation which is illogical and very hard to defend.

Personally, I could never see why a drainage area could not be subsidised from time to time as any other area. The people who are in what must have been regarded as the worst flooded areas in the country are compelled to pay rates levied by their trustees each year, and to that extent their lands are carrying a heavier burden than those of farmers who are not subject to a drainage rate. Why then this reservation, leaving them completely alone? They are compelled to pay a drainage rate. They are compelled to pay drainage costs for others who carry no drainage rate. But, under no circumstances, can they participate in anything like a Government grant to relieve their position. In any case, I suppose the proposed Drainage Bill will overcome that and other anomalies of the sort. It is unfortunate that for many years back they have been outside the bounds of any assistance from any of the Departments for no other reason than that the areas are known to be the most flooded parts of the country and that these people are subject to taxation to which the ordinary farmer is not subject.

On the question of consent, I have not infrequently come across cases where grants were made for cleaning up drains or the making of accommodation or bog roads and these grants have not been spent because some person whose land was effected refused to give the necessary consent. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will find on the records in the office of which he is now in charge many instances of that form of obstruction by an individual. Having that before his mind, I do not think he can be as emphatic as he seems to be that no form of arbitration with compulsory powers behind it will be required if this scheme is to be carried out generally and be as widely accepted as he anticipates and as we all hope it will be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that it would require a statutory body with statutory powers to do that. It is purely voluntary, hence it has no compulsory powers.

Mr. Maguire

I accept that, but where any of these proposals have been put into practice we find there are abuses existing. I hope I will be in order in bringing these irregularities before the people responsible with a view to legislation being brought in if necessary. I do not think that that position would arise in all cases and that legislation would really be required, because in many cases where objection is raised there is an existing right of way. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that these objections ought not to be taken as final and as an indication to his Department that the money should be withdrawn. Where other parties concerned in the right of way take the responsibility if litigation ensues, and where it is obvious to anybody who knows the circumstances in connection with the right of way that the objection on the part of the individual is without justification and could not be sustained in court, then I think the Board of Works should allow those people to take the responsibility in connection with the proceedings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the Department do not want to undertake lawsuits voluntarily.

Mr. Maguire

I do not suggest they should. I am referring to cases where the objection is without apparent substance and the other persons concerned are prepared to give an under taking that, if litigation does ensue, they will take responsibility for it and relieve the Department of any share of the legal expenses. I am submitting the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary and probably his Department will find a solution other than the one I am suggesting. But it is rather a hardship on a number of people who have made an application perhaps for a grant for a road to their houses that, after expense has been incurred by the Board of Works in having the proposals examined and it is finally decided to give a grant, which is of some importance for the relief of unemployment in the district, the whole scheme should be turned aside simply because of the unreasonable attitude of one person. I should also like to refer to comparatively small contracts entered into by the Board of Works, say, for schools or Gárda barracks or such like things.

Mr. Smith

That could be raised on the next Vote.

Mr. Maguire

All right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy does not propose to speak on the next Vote, he can make a cursory reference to it now.

Mr. Maguire

I very much appreciate the attempt which is being made here to deal in a new and larger way with the problem of better roads and better facilities for the farming community. I have no hesitation in standing behind the proposals. The question of future maintenance may require some consideration. I can see Deputy Dillon's point that we might make ourselves liable for roads all over the country, up and down hills, and long avenues leading to mansions, which should not really be included in any form of grant of this kind. I do not think that it has been the intention of those who framed this proposal that these accommodation roads should lead to the houses of anybody but necessitous farmers who have not the necessary convenience for reaching their houses. I do not think there is any serious danger of such a widespread application of this scheme as would really turn it in a direction in which it was never suggested it should be applied.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tá uaim-se tagairt do rud nó dhó a bhaineann leis an Vóta so. Sa geéad áit, ba mhaith liom traoslú don Rúnaí Páirliminte ag teacht dó ós comhair na Dála don chéad uair i bhfeighil an Mheastachán seo. Tá cúram mór air agus tá súil agam go n-eireoidh go geal leis. Beidh fáilte ag pobal na tuaithe roimh an scéim nua go ndearnathas tagairt dí ag an Rúnaí Páirliminte agus ag roinnt mhaith Teachtaí sa díospóireacht so. An scéim fheabhsúcháin don tuaith atá i gceist agam. Tá's agam go bhfuiltear mí-shásta leis an gcoinníoll sa scéim maidir le símtiúis ós na daoine a bhainfidh tairbhe aiste agus tá eagla orm go mbeidh deacracht le sárú ag an Rúnaí Párlaiminte in oibriú na coda san den scéim. Creidim féin, ámh, go mba chóir go mbeadh daoine go bhfuil uatha feidhm a bhaint as an scéim sásta glacadh leis mar atá sé agus an sintiús a dhíol. Is fada atámíd ad iarraidh scéim mar é a chur ar fáil agus is maith liom-sa go mór go bhfuil sé ann sa deire. Is eagal liom, ámh, nach eol do chuid mhaith a bhainfeadh tairbhe as go bhfuil sé ann ar aon chor fós. Tá's agam gur chuir Oifig na nOibreacha Puiblí fógra ins na páipéirí go léir i dtaobh na scéime nua so, roinnt mí óshoin. Ní dóigh liom gur leor san. Ní dóigh liom go bhfaca a lán des na daoine, go bhfuil suim aca sa scéim seo, an fógra sin ar aon chor. Ba chóir a chur in iúl arís, dos na daoine go bhfuil an scéim sin uatha, go bhfuil a leithéid sin ann.

Deineadh tagairt annso freisin do na mion-scéimeanna fostaíochta a tógadh idir lámhaibh bliain nó dhá bhliain nó trí bliana ó shoin agus a fágadh gan críochnú. Aon scéim go dtosnuightear ar a dhéanamh ba chóir é chríochnú. Maran féidir é chríochnú i mbliana, ba chóir é chríochnú an bhliain seo chughainn. Tá cuid mhaith dhíobh ann agus tá fhios agam fhéin go bhfuil siad im Dháil-Cheanntar féin. Dá bhféadfaí na mion-sceimeanna sin nár críochnuíodh go tdí so a chríochnú i gceart, ba mhaith an rud é.

Rud eile: Tháinig a lán iarrataisí go dtí Oifig na nOibreacha Puiblí o am go ham ar dheontaisí chun bóithríní do dheisiú, chun dréineáil agus oibreacha eile fé na mion-scéimeanna fostaíochta a dhéanamh. Níor bhféidir aon rud a dhéanamh i dtaoibh cuid mhaith des na scéimeanna sin go bhfuil iarrataisí istigh ina dtaobh agus go bhfuil iarrataisí nua dá geur isteach ina dtaobh o am go ham. Maran féidir le hOifig na nOibreacha Puiblí glacadh le scéim agus deontas a chur ar fáil dó ba chóir é sin a chur i dtuigsint do na daoine go bhfuil suim aca sa scéim agus a rá nach féidir aon ní a dhéanamh dóibh. Más féidir deontas do chur ar fáil ba chóir é sin do chur i dtuigsint, leis.

Tá fhios agam go bhfuil deacrachtaí i geásanna áirithe mar gheall ar na deontaisí a bhronnadh ar na scéimeanna toisc nach bhfuil líon na ndaoine atá gan obair flúirseach go leor chun deontas do thuilleamh don cheanntar, acht i gceanntracha ina bhfuil na coinníollacha go léir dá gcólíonadh agus a chuir iarrataisí isteach fá na mion-sceimeanna, tá siad ag feitheamh annsan go fóill agus níl fhios ag na daoine cionnus tá an scéal. Ba mhaith liom go mór dá bhféadfadh an Rúnaí Páirliminte rud éigin a dhéanamh mar gheall ar na hiarrataisí sin.

Captain Giles

While I agree that any schemes to assist the rural community are good, I cannot understand how it took four years of war to bring them about. This scheme is brought in at a time when all workers have gone across the water to earn their living, and when the farmers are faced with far more work than they have ever had to do. The scheme should have been brought in four years ago. I am afraid that these schemes are more for political than for national benefit. It is a pity that the Government did not get five years ago the rap on the knuckles that they got at the last election. If that had been the case, we would have had some of these beneficial schemes years ago to keep our workers at home. There is always one feature of any scheme introduced by the Government, that is, that it is too late. This scheme is too late. It is being rushed on the farmers when they are not able to cope with the work under the tillage Order, and have not time to improve the amenities around their homes. There is hardly a worker available in the country districts to carry out these schemes. It is just like all the schemes of the Government. For the last five years I have been urging the Board of Works to come to the aid of the many farmers and cottiers in my constituency whose lanes were impassable. They were a disgrace. In the case of many farmers, when they had their tillage operations completed and their corn and wheat in their haggards, they were unable to get a miller to thresh it, with the result that in many cases the corn went in the sheaf to the cattle. These lanes are in the same condition still. That is no credit to any Government.

While I admit that many lanes were put into good repair over the last six or eight years, I hold that they were lanes where certain people had political "pull" and were able to get them repaired. But many farmers, opponents of the Government, asked to have lanes repaired and were always passed by on the plea that unless there was a certain number of unemployed in an area, the work could not be done. They are still an eyesore, and a discredit to the Government. The Government comes in at this late hour, when the emergency is almost over, to tell them they are coming to their relief.

I would ask that those lanes in my area which I have reported to the Board of Works year after year should be immediately looked after. It is really a disgrace that they were not looked after long ago. These people who are carrying out tillage at great inconvenience to themselves, and all the people in that area, have had no relief whatever for the last four years. Increased tillage was forced upon them but their appeals were not heard.

I would ask the Board of Works to look after private bog lands and to consider the question of introducing some scheme whereby ordinary farmers and persons who have certain facilities on different bogs in the country would get relief. There are many places around Ballivor and Athboy area where, if the Board of Works spent a little money, the people could get into their bogs. Most of the money was spent on the public schemes where the county council operated. I would ask that these private concerns should get more attention in future.

Mr. O'Leary

As a worker, I feel I should join in this very important debate. The day on which the Government introduced the system of three days a week work for the workers of this country, they and the people who supported them failed very badly. For some years back the workers have been in a deplorable state. This is supposed to be a relief scheme. To my mind, it is not a relief scheme; it is a hardship scheme that the working class have to endure during bad weather in the winter time. I know men had to go to the quarries and roads in such bad weather that they had to return home and did not get paid for the day. These relief schemes in winter time are a waste of public money. They are a hardship on workers, who are subject to broken time and, after working 12 or 16 days in the month, find themselves worse off than before they started to work. Their boots and clothes are worn out and they have to go back on the dole and wait five or six weeks for it, with the result that, for that period, they have to go to the relieving officer to get a docket for 6/- or 8/- or 10/-, according to the size of the family.

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government that these schemes should be carried out in good weather, not in the frost and snow, when the unfortunate unemployed man is badly clad and has not been, for months before that, getting sufficient food.

Grants are now forthcoming and we are told we have to put up so much money to get them. I am chairman of the Urban Council of Enniscorthy and a member of the county council, and I have been fighting this system of three or four days a week work. It should not have been adopted in this country. It is a hardship scheme. I was surprised to hear some Fianna Fáil Deputies to-day talking about it. They should not have voted for it when it was introduced by the late Mr. Hugo Flinn.

Any of the men who went to the bogs under the turf scheme will tell how they were treated there. We had them on Mount Leinster. They were not provided with beds or anything else. The county council van was sent up with straw for the workers to sleep in until I brought it before the county manager.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, that does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. O'Leary

There has been discussion about the roads and lanes. The by-roads that people have to travel and on which the little children have to go to school, a distance of three to four miles, are impassable. They are full of potholes and in places where they have been treated with stones no covering has been put over the stones. Everybody is complaining now about these roads but for years—before the emergency started—the county councillors went to the meetings in their motor cars and never bothered about the by-roads. Now they notice that the roads are slippery because they have to come in a pony and trap to the meetings. Before the emergency was on, they saw nothing wrong about tarred roads or concrete roads—that was all they were interested in—but the ratepayers are paying the burden all the time, and the farming community are getting nothing for what they are paying, nor are the workers getting anything out of the grants they received, except hardships. All these relief grants only amount to a hardship on the working classes. These people are brought out to work in all sorts of weather, and, as a result of having to work in all kinds of weather, very frequently they have to be brought to the county home or the county hospital because they are not able to continue on with their work.

Well, if that is all that the Minister can offer to these people, in connection with these minor relief schemes, or any other such schemes under the Board of Works, then all I can say is, God help the workers of this country. Many thousands of our workers have left this country to seek employment abroad, and I was surprised to hear from certain Deputies in this House that farm labourers had to sign at the labour exchanges last week, because there was no employment here, in view of the fact that we were told, a month or so ago, that it was almost impossible to get farm labourers in this country to enable us to save the harvest. Of course, I know of cases of farm labourers who got what one might call staff jobs on the bog, working as overseers, and so on, because they had some Party influence; but I can say that very many capable men have been lining up at the labour exchanges throughout the country, and I would invite any Deputy here to go down through the country and visit the various labour exchanges, and there he can see for himself the type of men who are signing up for work in this country.

In that connection, I should like to see that payment for work in connection with any of these schemes should be made by the week, instead of by the fortnight, and I should also like to see that the man concerned should get a month's work, continuously, so far as that might be possible. Two or three, or even four days' work in a week is no good to such a man. It would be better to give him full and continuous employment for a week or a month, as the case might be, with full pay for that period, and then let him go back and get his unemployment assistance until such time as he would be working again. I am very sorry to say that, as a new member of this House, I have to call attention to the fact that it is a disgrace to see, in connection with an important debate of this kind, that the benches on both the Government and the Opposition sides are almost empty.

Mr. Coburn

And on your own also.

Mr. O'Leary

Yes, but I think it is a disgrace that the elected representatives of the people will not come in here to listen to the debates. After all, we have been elected to represent the people in this House, and give expression to their views, and I think it is a disgrace that there should be such a poor attendance in the House at the moment.

Mr. Coburn

I am glad to notice that, so far as these employment schemes are concerned, the Department has decided to dispense with this matter of rotation and that, as far as possible, they will endeavour to give full-time employment to men engaged on such schemes. Many years ago I said in this House that I considered that the money expended on these schemes would be wasted as a result of men being employed for only two or three days in a week. My reason was that anybody who knows anything about labour, or about human nature, must know that no man could possibly have his heart in his work if he is only getting two or three days' work in a week. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister and his Department in doing away with that.

I am also glad that this scheme of rural improvements is also being put into operation this year. I think it will be a good scheme, particularly for the people for whom it is primarily intended. In that connection, I should like to deprecate remarks that have been made by certain Deputies in this House—and particularly by some members of the Government Party—which tended to throw cold water on the scheme. Listening to the remarks of some of the Deputies in this House, one would think that no farmer had any initiative or any desire to improve his holding. I have a very different idea about that. I think that if the farmers are given a chance, they will do their work. From my experience of County Louth, I can say that the farmers there will take advantage of any improvement scheme, and I am surprised at the attitude taken up towards the farm improvement scheme by Deputies here, as expressed by Deputies from County Kerry. It seems to me that their attitude was that the farmers could not contribute anything towards this scheme. After all, the farmer is only expected to contribute one-fourth, and I wonder what would be the position of many farmers in this country if such improvement schemes were not provided? So far as my own county is concerned, I know of farmers who constructed their own roads, erected bridges and fences, and so on, long before this scheme was brought in, and I would invite the engineers of the Board of Works to come down and see the improvements that were made by these farmers on their own initiative.

I am sure that these engineers would agree that the work was excellently done, and that, in some cases, such work would cost anything from £500 to £1,000. Of course, the son of one of the farmers concerned was a tradesman, and that is how it happened that they were able to make these improvements economically, but that is one example of the way in which certain farmers in County Louth co-operated: they hired machinery and, where the drains were abnormally deep, they actually hired a crane and used it to hoist the stuff up out of the drain.

Now, we cannot expect the Government to do everything for us. There must be a certain amount of co-operation between the people and the Government, and if money is provided by the Government for such schemes as this, it should be impressed on our people that it is their own money and that it is in their own interests to see that value is obtained for it. That value can only be obtained if the farmers work harmoniously and in cooperation with one another in trying to make the scheme a success, and it should also be impressed on our people that the object of providing money for such schemes is the general improvement of the country.

I think that some Deputies who had doubts with regard to the success of this scheme were mixing it up with minor relief schemes, or other schemes of that nature. This is an entirely different scheme. It is left to the farmers themselves to come together and work the scheme, and I do not see why farmers, living on the one road, could not come together and work harmoniously in the promotion of the scheme, since it is obviously to their own advantage. The conditions laid down are easy to follow, and no hardship is imposed on any farmers who are prepared to take advantage of these schemes, which are there to be availed of.

In conclusion, I desire to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that, as far as is humanly possible, he should do away with this system of giving only three or four days a week and that he should provide at least a full week's work for whatever men are engaged on these relief schemes. The system of partial employment has not been a success in the past and will not be a success in the future. In fact, I would almost say that the system was a danger up to a point because many of these men went to work in bad weather, badly fed, badly clothed and badly shod, and in a way it would be very much better for them if they had not gone out to do three or four days' work, as they would have escaped the exposure which it involved. I would welcome a change of heart in that regard and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that these men get six days' work per week in the future.

Mr. Smith

I have been listening for some years to discussions in this House on this particular Vote. As a Deputy of the House, I was myself interested in this Vote and I must say that in the discussion to-day many of the points, many of the complaints and, I suppose, some of what Deputies would regard as the shortcomings of the Department, have all been referred to as they were on previous occasions. There were a few general points made to-day with which I should like to deal before I attempt to cover some of the smaller points that have been raised by various Deputies from every side of the House. The first of these general points—and it is a matter to which the House has often devoted some time on previous occasions—is the allegation made by Deputies of the application of red tape to prevent the carrying out of minor relief schemes submitted from every part of the country. Some Deputies will understand, but I suppose some of the newer Deputies will not understand, that these applications for minor relief schemes, received from different parts of the country, were always determined not altogether on the merit of the work involved, but on the merit of the work in addition to the unemployment position in the electoral division in which the work was situated. Those who were administering this Vote during all these previous years were bound down by that condition. It was because of that fact that the Minister for Finance was induced to believe last year, on the occasion of the introduction of his Budget, that there was an injustice there, inasmuch as many schemes in which there was a great deal of merit could never be considered because there was not in the areas in which they were situated a sufficient number of people registered or in receipt of unemployment assistance to warrant a grant being made for them.

The Deputies who contributed to this debate have spoken of that problem, and, as I said at the outset, that was one of the main matters of discussion over all the years that I have been listening to the debate on this Vote, when I had no connection with the Board of Works, especially amongst Deputies representing rural constituencies. It was a problem which I, as a representative of a rural constituency, felt should be met, a problem for which some provision should be made, a problem for which a solution should be sought, apart altogether from the conditions attaching to the distribution of money provided for the relief of unemployment. We have had, however, a lot of loose talk on these rural improvement schemes—what should be done, what the people who use these lanes, passes and boreens are entitled to, how they pay county council rates, and how they have the same right to claim that the local authorities and the State will provide them with the same means of access to their holdings as those provided for people who are sufficiently fortunate to reside along a county council road. All that kind of talk sounds very good, and I was glad to hear the observations of Deputy Coburn in that connection. I think he dealt more effectively with the matter than any other Deputy who approached the subject. Suggestions were made that the county councils should be asked to strike a rate representing the 25 per cent. that farmers are asked to contribute in order to secure a rural improvement scheme. We are assured that county councils would be only too willing, and that the ratepayers of different counties would be only too glad to pay such a rate.

I was a member of a county council for years—a chairman of that body— and we could never see our way to strike a rate sufficient to keep third-class roads in order, not to speak of striking a further rate or undertaking a greater responsibility, a responsibility so enormous as that which it has been suggested here from many sides of the House should be accepted by local authorities.

As Deputy Coburn has rightly said, when a scheme of this kind is introduced it is a mistake for Deputies to throw cold water on it and try to make those farmers concerned believe they have a grievance. Undoubtedly, they had grievances in the past and I know their grievances as well and as intimately as any Deputy, no matter what Party he represents. As a matter of fact, I was one of those Deputies who struggled silently for years in order to get from the Government an appreciation of the problem facing the farmers living in backward areas where there was not sufficient unemployment to warrant a grant from the Minor Employment Schemes Vote. I would say that, in reply to the criticism that has been levelled by Deputy Giles against this rural improvements scheme. Those who suggest to farmers so affected that this scheme is not a generous approach to a solution of their problems are not being helpful. In my view, the provision that has been made here in this rural improvements scheme, in which farmers will have to make a contribution of 25 per cent. in certain cases, and maybe less in other cases, is the best provision possible. I do not believe that a more generous approach to a solution of that problem is ever likely to be made, either by the State or the local authority.

Deputies of all Parties who are interested in this rural problem and who have spoken in this debate, instead of throwing cold water on a scheme like this, should encourage the farmers to take advantage of it. Undoubtedly, it does present certain difficulties that all of us see. There is the difficulty of inducing certain groups of farmers to make this contribution. I know that these difficulties will arise. Those who have been responsible for formulating the scheme saw many of these difficulties.

Perhaps, there are some that may arise in the course of the operation of the scheme that we have not been able to foresee, but one thing on which our minds were clear was that this was a generous attempt to meet the problem. Deputies who are interested in seeing that every group of farmers would have a suitable, a proper and a fairly permanent right of way to their homes, their lands, to fairs and markets and to church, and for children going to school, should try to break down any little prejudices they may find amongst groups of farmers who may raise questions about the contribution they are being called upon to make.

Some Deputies have made the suggestion, both inside and outside this House, that we should take this contribution in kind. In that matter, too, I do suggest to them that they are really doing more harm than good. Every aspect of the way in which this contribution might be made, every aspect of that difficult problem, has been examined by us. Deputies might ask themselves what difficulties would arise, even if the 25 per cent. contribution were to be made in kind. Would you not have a man in some case—the one man in six—who would refuse to turn out on the work? Would you not have the man who would be, perhaps, at the point in the roadway that was nearest to the county road, having the least interest in its improvement, who would say to himself: "I am not interested, I have some other job to do to-day or this week, I will not give any free labour to a work of that kind"? No matter from what angle you approach this contribution question, whether you seek it in kind or in cash, as the contribution is being sought at all you will certainly meet some of the difficulties which have been referred to.

My point is that, instead of pointing out these difficulties and trying to magnify them. Deputies who are interested should try to induce farmers to come together, to apportion amongst themselves whatever contribution may be necessary. Then, we will give to those groups of farmers the assurance that, so far as we can, through the agency of the county surveyor and his assistants and staff, those who made the contribution will be given any work that is available in carrying out the improvements suggested, after the few that may be registered or in receipt of unemployment assistance. In fact, in many cases, farmers who come together in this manner will be able to earn something that will be much larger, in my opinion, than the contribution that they will be called upon to make before the necessary sanction, approval and direction can be issued to the county surveyor to undertake the work.

We know that the scheme has, perhaps, some limitation. In the administration of it, we may find that certain alterations may have to be made, and we are prepared, of course, to listen to any suggestions and any amendments proposed from outside. The one thing I would ask members of the House to keep in mind is that it is not very likely that we will ever get an offer from the Exchequer that will be more attractive than the present offer. Some contribution will be required to enable farmers to secure sanction for any scheme.

In my opinion, it is complete and absolute nonsense—if I may use the term—and completely irresponsible, to make the statement that, having regard to the poor condition of many of the county roads, because of the inability of councils to strike a rate sufficient to keep them, a local authority can be asked to take over and maintain in good condition all the connecting by-roads and cul-de-sac roads in this country. I say that that cannot be done and, therefore, I advise farmers to pull themselves together and take advantage of what is, in my opinion, a magnificient scheme to effect improvements for which they have been struggling and agitating for many years.

Deputies, some of them anyhow, when speaking about employment schemes, seemed to think that the employment conditions attaching to minor employment schemes were applicable in the case of bog development, drainage, and road schemes. There is no such condition attached to the giving of grants for the drainage of bogs in the case of private individuals, farmers and others, nor does any condition attach to the making of bog roads to enable the turf to be removed. If, say, a group of farmers in Sligo, Mayo or Galway make application for a drainage scheme in connection with their bog banks, or make an application for the improvement of a bog road, naturally the Board of Works officials have to be informed, through their inspectors, whether or not the proposals that have been made, if carried out, are likely to be worth while. They have to ask themselves how much more turf would be produced by those farmers, what it would cost to drain the area and, in the case of a road, they have to ascertain how many farmers would benefit, what turf was previously taken over that road, and, if £200, £300 or £500 were expended, what increase would take place in the production of turf there. These are limitations, if you may call them limitations, attaching to the selection of bog drainage works and bog road improvement works.

Deputy Davin and some other Deputies seemed to suggest that the same red tape condition applied to the selection of these bog roads and these drainage works as attached originally to the employment schemes. I want the House to realise that that is not so. Where the Board of Works is satisfied that the production of turf can be increased in any area by five or six or 12 private producers, or where a bog road needs to be repaired, the question as to the number in receipt of unemployment assistance does not arise, but naturally we ask what the work will cost, and we examine that in relation to the benefits that that little community is likely to derive from the expenditure.

Deputy Roddy questioned my right to refer to the amount of employment given as a result of the expenditure under the farm improvements scheme. I think we have a fairly sound method of calculating the number of people who were employed as a result of the expenditure under that scheme. Where a farmer takes advantage of the scheme—and this is the important aspect of the scheme—he may be induced, because of the favourable conditions attaching to it, to retain the services of an employee that he might otherwise release from his employment. The fact that they can take advantage of a scheme such as that to carry out works that they would not finance out of their own pockets has induced many farmers to keep men in their employment. We are not trying to claim any credit for it; we are merely trying to give some indication of the amount of work provided as a result of the expenditure.

Deputy Norton objected to the carrying out of drainage schemes in winter time. It has not been our policy to carry out small drainage schemes in the winter months, because those months are not suitable. The difficulty with regard to these schemes is that any of them that are desirable and deserving of attention do not often qualify when the summer months arrive, because there is not in the area a sufficiency of workmen available to carry them out. Several Deputies referred to rotational employment. The wisdom of rotational employment was mentioned. Deputy O'Leary suggested that the rotational employment scheme was a hardship.

Mr. O'Leary

Yes.

Mr. Smith

Of course, all work is a hardship, if you look at it in one way.

Mr. O'Leary

There is no great advantage in having only three days a week.

Mr. Smith

I would be glad, just, as I am sure, my predecessors would have been glad, to give those men a full week's work and full wages, but the rotational system was decided upon with a different end in view. It was assumed that employment on a fulltime basis could not be made available for those who were unfortunate enough to be in receipt of unemployment assistance and the aim was to distribute the money provided so as to give those people at least 30 per cent. more than they were likely to receive through unemployment assistance. We would all like to see these men in fulltime employment, but it has not been possible to reach that stage yet.

Mr. O'Leary

In view of the shortage of labour at the present time, is it still the intention to engage these men for only three or four days a week? In view of the fact that thousands of workers have left the country, why are not those who are left employed for longer periods? Is there not sufficient employment for those who remain?

Mr. Smith

Some Deputies mentioned that wages under the minor employment schemes were paid in accordance with the practice of the county councils, once a fortnight. That is not a matter with which we are concerned. Deputies who have mentioned that point, and who are members of local authorities, must have heard the discussions at those bodies on the same subject. We have no right to intervene and direct that local authorities should pay their employees at any particular time. Deputies who are interested in this matter, and who consider it has an adverse effect upon certain members of the community, should be able to convince their local authorities of the wisdom of making, and the need to make, weekly instead of fortnightly payments.

Mr. O'Leary

We are generally told that the Department will not sanction it.

Mr. Smith

The local authorities are completely free to make weekly payments if they so desire.

Mr. O'Leary

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Smith

I think I have covered most of the points that were raised.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Parliamentary Secretary do anything about the swimming pool?

Mr. Smith

Have you a local authority in the town of Ballaghaderreen?

Mr. Dillon

No. We are under the county council—the board of health.

Mr. Smith

As far as I know, any scheme that is submitted for the erection or construction of a swimming pool will be sympathetically considered, provided that the other conditions attaching to any grant that may be given for such a work are satisfactory. I know that in a number of cases in my own county when an arterial drainage scheme was being carried out under the 1925 Act, and when certain representations were made by people living in a village near which the scheme passed for a little swimming pool, it was provided. I cannot remember now how it came to be provided, but the fact is that it was. I do not know what the position is in the town of Ballaghaderreen, but I do know in a general sort of a way that the Employment Schemes Office would be prepared at all times to consider amenity schemes of that nature, provided there was at that time in the area the requisite number of people in receipt of unemployment assistance to enable the Office to make a grant. Whether that would be regarded as a more desirable scheme than others that might be proposed for a town is something that I could not say off-hand. All that I do know is that we are always prepared to consider such schemes whether they are submitted by local authorities or others.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the basis of contributions in county borough areas so far as unemployment schemes are concerned?

Mr. Smith

I am not able to say at the moment. I take it that the amount of the contribution would depend largely on the type of work that the local authority proposed to undertake. It would also, I am sure, depend largely on the prosperity of the local authorities. In the case of some small urban areas you will find, I am sure, certain types of schemes in which a large contribution would not be sought, while in other urban areas the conditions might be such as to warrant a much larger contribution. I cannot say what the basis is, but I think it would follow on the lines I have indicated.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

My reason for asking the question is this: that there appears to be a very wide disparity in the matter of these contributions. In the case of a good many local authorities they have to make practically no contribution, while in the case of the Dublin Corporation it has to make very heavy contributions, apparently due to the fact that it is in a state of alleged prosperity.

Mr. Smith

I am now informed that the ability of the council concerned to pay determines entirely the amount of the contribution.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

So that is the reason we have to pay so heavily in Dublin?

Mr. Smith

Yes, naturally.

Question put and agreed to.