Vol. 94 No. 4
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £820,000 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, 1945, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
There has been some misunderstanding about the circulation of this Vote for the Order Paper. I propose to give the House a review of the activities of the Special Employment Schemes' Office for the year that has closed. The amount made available by the Oireachtas for employment and emergency schemes in the last financial year was £1,250,000, of which a sum of £1,091,623 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added the contributions by local authorities amounting to £195,037, making a gross expenditure of £1,286,660. Details of the expenditure to 31st March, 1944, under the Vote are as follows:—Salaries, Travelling Expenses, etc., £32,970; Public Health Works,—State Grant, £45,460; Local Contribution, £71,668, Total, £117,128. Housing Sites Development—State Grant, £17,430; Local Contribution, £17,430, Total, £34,860. Road Works in Urban Areas—State Grant, £133,919; Local Contribution, £42,386; Total, £176,305. Amenity Schemes in Urban Areas—State Grant, £51,219; Local Contribution, £15,410; Total, £66,629. Rural Employment Schemes—Roads—State Grant, £183,574; Local Contribution, £42,350; Total, £225,924. Minor Employment Schemes—State Grant, £135,677, no local contribution. Bog Development Schemes—Landholders and Other private producers' bogs—State Grant, £76,925; no local contribution. Farm Improvements Scheme —State Grant, £303,824; no local contribution. Seed Distribution Scheme—State Grant, £9,517; no local contribution. Rural Improvements Scheme—State Grant, £1,330, Local Contribution, £459; Total, £1,789. Miscellaneous Works—State Grant, £33,894; Local Contribution, £5,334: Total, £39,228. The total figures work out as follows—State Grants: £1,091,623; Local Contributions, £195,037—£1,286,660.
In addition to the £1,250,000 made available under the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, 1943-44, a sum of £50,000 was provided in the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health for a type of work, namely, the reconditioning or repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport, which comes within the scope of the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, 1944/45. The expenditure on such works in 1943/44 was State, £39,988; Local, £14,050; Total, £54,038; and if this expenditure by the Department of Local Government and Public Health is added to the expenditure from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote the aggregate expenditure amounts to: State, £1,131,611; Local, £209,087; Total, £1,340,698.
Of the expenditure of £1,286,660 from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, including contributions by local authorities, during the financial year 1943/44, approximately £374,000 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £912,660 during the winter months.
The maximum number of workmen employed at any one time during the year was: Farm Improvement Schemes 12,618; other schemes 19,229; total 31,847. The average number employed on all schemes during the period up to September was 9,002, and from October to March 18,382. Of these, approximately 40 per cent. were workmen who would otherwise have been entitled to unemployment assistance; but if the figures for Farm Improvement and Bog Development Schemes (on which the numbers of unemployment assistance recipients engaged are relatively low) be excluded, the proportion of workmen who would otherwise have been entitled to unemployment assistance would be 77 per cent. approximately.
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 1943/44, apart from the Farm Improvement Scheme which is of a different order, is equivalent to work for 31,000 men each receiving part-time employment for four or five days per week, for an average of 12 weeks.
The total number of applications received for Minor Employment Schemes during the year was 3,184 and about 5,100 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out.
During the spring and summer approximately 450 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of £30,800, principally for the development of bogs used by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.
The Rural Improvements Scheme under which grants on a contributory basis are made available for works for the joint benefit of groups of two or more farmers, such as accommodation roads and small drainage schemes was introduced during the past year. The total number of effective applications received up to 31st March, 1944 was 1,503, of which 372 had at that date been investigated on the ground by inspectors and reported on. Grants totalling £8,174 were sanctioned in the year under review for 45 schemes estimated to cost £10,992, the balance of £2,818 represents the total of the amounts contributed by the applicants.
It should be stated, for the information of the Dáil, that this first period, from the introduction of the scheme to the end of the financial year, has been mainly one of preparation, recruitment of staff and the laying down of procedure. The scheme did not lend itself to immediate application on a wide scale. It involves in effect the making of a contract with the applicants in each approved case to expend a specified amount, partly provided by the State and partly by the applicants, on some agreed work; and the applicants in view of the fact that they pay part of the cost, naturally take a very keen interest in the execution of the work and in the results achieved. Consequently, in order to avoid subsequent disputes it was essential that a careful specification and estimate should be made in each case and that the offers of grants should be very clearly set out and that any circumstances peculiar to an individual case should always be noted. It was also necessary to have a very definite understanding with county surveyors, who have undertaken to carry out the works, to ensure that they would, as our agents, fully discharge our obligation to the applicants.
Accordingly, in the initial stages stress was laid rather on laying the ground work properly than on issuing offers hastily, in the expectation that any time lost would be amply recovered later in the smooth operation of a carefully planned system; and it may be some measure of our success in this regard that in no case completed to date has any difficulty arisen with the applicants, while in many instances they have expressed satisfaction with the results. Some delay was also occasioned by the difficulty in recruiting the required technical staff, and also by the travelling difficulties occasioned by the present emergency.
It may be expected that, with the difficult preliminary stage now safely over, good progress will be made, and that a very considerable number of cases will be dealt with in the current year: but this again depends on the willingness of applicants to pay the contributions required of them.
From the figures which I gave at the outset it may be seen that the expenditure against State grant was £158,377 less than the sum provided by the Oireachtas. On the other hand the expenditure against local contribution was £15,037 more than anticipated. The increase under the heading of local contribution was due mainly to a higher proportion than was anticipated of schemes having a comparatively high rate of local contribution being carried out.
In regard to the under expenditure in respect of voted moneys the position generally is that it is very difficult to achieve within the financial year the expenditure of the precise amount voted. Each year's programme of relief works consists of a large number of separate schemes of which a very considerable proportion are undertaken by the various local authorities throughout the country, and the period of execution of the schemes is limited as far as possible to the winter months when the need for employment. is relatively greatest. Every effort is made, by watching the returns of expenditure submitted periodically by the various bodies in charge of the works, to regulate the progress of expenditure but in the circumstances as already explained complete success in this regard is not to be expected.
Added to these general causes there was also the circumstance that last year there was a further decline in the number of unemployment assistance recipients throughout the country, with the result that in some cases it was difficult to obtain sufficiently large gangs to permit of schemes being carried out at all, while in others the gangs were smaller than expected and the rate of progress correspondingly slower.
Further causes operating to reduce expenditure were: the difficulties already referred to of getting the Rural Improvements Scheme under way, and the failure of farmers in certain cases under the Farm Improvements Scheme to complete works for which grants would normally have become payable during the year of account, owing mainly to the increased demands made on the available labour force by the emergency food and fuel production programme.
The estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1945, for employment and emergency schemes is £1,250,000, made up as follows:— continuation of schemes sanctioned prior to 31st March, 1944 (re-vote), £660,000; miscellaneous new schemes, £590,000. To the amount of the Vote must be added contributions estimated at £206,000 expected from local authorities, and from beneficiaries under the Rural Improvements Scheme. This gives a total sum of £1,456,000, available for expenditure within the financial year 1944-45; and to enable this expenditure to be achieved as far as possible within the time limit, it is proposed to authorise schemes to the extent of £665,000 (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, 1945, to form part of the ensuing year's programme.
In this regard it is desirable to remind the Dáil that a large portion of each year's Vote is allocated to local authorities, and the expenditure of the full amount of the provision 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 table sets forth for each class of work the proposed expenditure in the year 1944-45:—
|
Schemes administered by: |
|||
|
Department of Local Government and Public Health. |
Estimated Expenditure |
||
|
State |
Local |
Total |
|
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
CLASS OF WORK. |
|||
|
Public Health Works |
45,000 |
67,500 |
112,500 |
|
Housing Site Development |
10,000 |
10,000 |
20,000 |
|
Urban Schemes—Amenity and Roads |
185,000 |
42,550 |
227,550 |
|
Rural Schemes—Amenity and Roads |
160,000 |
39,625 |
199,625 |
|
Reconditioning or Repair of Public Roads subject to heavy Turf Transport |
80,000 |
27,000 |
107,000 |
|
Department of Agriculture |
|||
|
Farm Improvements Scheme |
350,000 |
— |
350,000 |
|
Seed Distribution Scheme |
75,000 |
— |
75,000 |
|
Lime Distribution Scheme |
20,000 |
— |
20,000 |
|
Special Employment Schemes Office. |
|||
|
Minor Employment Schemes |
110,000 |
— |
110,000 |
|
Bog Development Schemes |
70,000 |
— |
70,000 |
|
Rural Improvements Scheme |
90,000 |
18,000 |
108,000 |
|
Miscellaneous Schemes: |
|||
|
Miscellaneous Schemes of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment and distress |
17,564 |
1,325 |
18,889 |
|
Total Expenditure on Schemes |
1,212,564 |
206,000 |
1,418,564 |
|
Add Subheads A-E.(Salaries, etc.) |
37,436 |
— |
37,436 |
|
Total Expenditure from Vote |
1,250,000 |
206,000 |
1,456,000 |
Between January, 1943, and January, 1944, the total number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance fell by about 11.7 per cent. The principal reduction occurred in the rural areas, but even in the urban districts there was a substantial decline in the figures.
In view of the reduction in the number of unemployed, smaller provision has been made under sub-heads F, G and H for employment schemes in rural and urban areas, and the provision under sub-head O for Miscellaneous Schemes has been reduced.
As a partial offset to these reductions, it has been found advisable to make increased provision under sub-head L (Seed Distribution Scheme) and sub-head I (Bog Development Schemes); and provision has been made under sub-head J for schemes for the reconditioning or repair of public roads subject to heavy turf traffic which, in the previous year, were provided for in the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health. Taking the Vote as a whole, there is a reduction of £50,000 as compared with the provision for corresponding services last year.
Most Deputies are aware of the principles underlying the allocations of grants under the Vote, and it is scarcely necessary for me to refer to them now. As in previous years, we shall rely mainly on the various local authorities—county councils, urban councils, etc.—to provide the works needed to make up the employment schemes programme. Excepting minor employment schemes, this is the only source from which we can obtain proposals of definite public utility and high unskilled labour content in sufficient number to provide the required amount of employment during the winter months.
We shall, however, always welcome proposals from any source which seem likely to satisfy the essential requirements of public utility, high unskilled labour content and proximity to the places of residence of unemployed persons.
The emergency services provided for in the Vote—sub-heads J, K, L, M, I and N—are directed towards the facilitating and encouragement of food and turf production, and will be used accordingly. In addition, the moneys provided under the other sub-heads for purely employment schemes in rural areas will, as far as is consistent with their primary purpose of providing employment in necessitous areas, be used to further the same ends.
I understand that a good deal of delay occurs in the payment of beneficiaries under the schemes. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be able to expedite that?
Which type of schemes has the Deputy in mind?
Rural improvement schemes and schemes of that sort.
There is no direct payment made to beneficiaries under rural improvement schemes. Perhaps the Deputy is thinking of Farm Improvement Schemes?
I mean bog road schemes.
There is no direct payment by us to any beneficiaries in bog development schemes, which are carried out by the survey staff of the different county councils.
There are two matters I wish to raise. When we speak of bog development, I am afraid the Government is beginning to be somewhat dazzled by the significance of the larger schemes they have in connection with the winning of turf for the national pool. There are very large development schemes in connection with the operations of county surveyors but, in addition, a great many bog roads have been constructed during the last few years to accommodate the opening of new bogs for the provision of turbary for local consumers. My experience is that a great many of these bog roads have had very heavy traffic on them during the past two years and are disappearing into the bogs. I represented to the county surveyor in Roscommon that, in respect of one bog road there at least, steps should be taken to put it into repair before it went beyond repair; and my recollection was that he said he had no labour wherewith to do the work. That road is situated in the Aughalustia bog in the Ballaghadereen electoral area. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will find correspondence from me in the Department about it: if not, the county surveyor in Roscommon has it. I would direct attention to the necessity of keeping these roads in repair, if the local people are to get turf supplies as well as the national pool.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Monaghan we have a most extraordinary situation? Coming, as he does, from Cavan, he is probably familiar with the extraordinary scarcity of turf. The local authority not infrequently closes a road, in order to get to the turf that lies underneath it. I trust that the officers of his Department are collaborating to the limit of their capacity to facilitate local authorities, or whoever is acting on his behalf in County Monaghan, in getting access to any deposits of turf there may be. I am very much concerned about the fuel position in County Monaghan, and I am very much afraid that, next winter, with the devastation that has been wrought on the available supplies of timber in that county, whatever turf we can get out of the turf banks in the county may not be sufficient to supply the requirements of the towns in County Monaghan. I would be doing less than my duty if I did not direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fuel problem, so that he may not have sprung upon him in the late autumn a very crucial situation, for which he may be called upon to answer by the Minister for Supplies, for having failed to take measures to get the largest available local supplies of fuel during the emergency out of the bogs in that area.
The other point I would like to mention is that I am amazed, in the times in which we are living, to read of the numbers of unmarried men without family responsibilities who are drawing the dole. Most persons who have a job to offer at the present time experience a labour shortage. It is a very healthy and comfortable thing that, if you advertise in the paper for a working man, instead of being inundated with applications from men asking a wretched wage in the hope of getting the position, you may have to go hunting for a man. Any person having skilled services to offer is in a position to command a good wage now, and any honest workman who is prepared to do an honest week's work finds employers more than willing to give him a liberal week's pay. Yet we have this extraordinary picture of groups of young men assembling at Civic Guards' barracks all over the country, collecting the dole.
My political advisers always have told me: "Do not touch the subject of the dole, or you get your head in a halter; everyone is getting the dole, and they all will vote against you." I cannot help that. If they are going to vote against me for what I am going to say now, that is just too bad. I cannot see any justification at present for providing doles. I want to distinguish between unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance. The man who is paying into the Unemployment Insurance Fund is entitled to get his benefit out of that fund, if the risk against which he insured eventuates, and he is under no obligation to anybody. I am talking about unemployment assistance—commonly known in rural Ireland as "the dole." I cannot see what justification there is for paying the dole to hordes of young fellows who, in my judgment, are no more unemployed than I am. I believe that it makes a great many of these young people reluctant to do a hand's turn on their parents holding, for fear the fact that they do a bit of work on their parents' holding might disqualify them for receipt of the dole. Am I right in believing that the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to payment of the dole in connection with this Vote?
I fear not. It arose on the previous Vote. However, the Deputy might cut his remarks short.
I do not wish to be irrelevant. I think that this whole question of providing the dole for young unmarried persons without family responsibilities should be reviewed. I am all in favour of providing relief schemes or anything else that may be necessary to enable a married man with family responsibilities to continue to live at home and keep his family together in the interregnum between one job and another, but I have no sympathy at all, be it politically popular or unpopular, with the expenditure of public money in order to spare an unmarried young man without family responsibilities from the obligation of faring forth throughout the country in search of employment, wherever it may be available. Such a person has no right to claim the dole, or that eleemosynary employment will be provided for him within walking distance of his home. If that system is to continue in this country it will demoralise the entire rising generation.
The Deputy might leave it at that. The question is only somewhat indirectly related to this Vote.
Very well, Sir.
While I have nothing but commendation for the rural improvements schemes, which are filling a most useful role, I have some fear that there may be a tendency to overdevelop them to the detriment of minor relief schemes. Although the rural improvements scheme is undoubtedly conferring a benefit, I fear there is a tendency to have that type of scheme attracting too much attention, with the result that there are many boreens and culs-de-sac throughout the country that are equally clamouring for attention left to deteriorate to a very great extent. There are many roads leading to the bogs that should come under the category of minor relief schemes and they are left waiting until such time as they come within the category of a rural improvements scheme. The minor relief scheme seems to be in a sandwiched position or left out altogether. Prior to the introduction of the rural improvements scheme we found they were being excluded because the money was largely being utilised on the roads improvement scheme, reconstructing and maintaining the main roads. Certain sums were allocated to the main roads and the boreens had to go without, with the result that a lot of the by-roads and boreens have got into a deplorable condition. The people whose interests are affected are ratepayers and, even if they are poor and even if they are cottiers or small holders, they are entitled to some amenities. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his serious consideration. I am not objecting to the rural improvements schemes at all, but I fear there is a tendency that they may overshadow the equally important and perhaps more necessary minor relief schemes, where there cannot be a contribution made. In certain portions of my constituency the number of minor relief schemes carried out during the past five or six years could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Most of the work has been done on the main roads.
Now that the traffic on the main roads is not what it used to be—the motor traffic has practically disappeared—perhaps a little more attention could be given to the improvement of the roads to farmers' houses, labourers' cottages and the bogs, whether or not a contribution is available from the particular locality concerned.
I am of the opinion that the advantages that are derived from the rural improvements schemes are not yet fully appreciated. I think it would be well if the Parliamentary Secretary would do something to get the people to appreciate the advantages of these schemes better. In my county such schemes could be put into operation with great advantage. I know there are many farmers who would derive considerable benefit from the rural improvements schemes. There is one matter in which I think we have failed and that is in getting the farmers to co-operate. I have made efforts in vain to get them to realise the benefit that can be derived from these schemes. I have met with no success whatsoever. I have even got promises from the Parliamentary Secretary to give grants over and above 75 per cent of the cost and yet I have failed to get any response from the farmers who should be interested in having the roads repaired.
I think it would be well if some attention were drawn to this matter in the Press, if an appeal were made to the farmers and if it were pointed out that the State cannot wholly be held responsible for the condition of the roads. It is only reasonable to expect the people to give a contribution towards the maintenance or repair of the roads. They will then be able to see that it would be unwise for them to expect that the present or a future Government will grant 100 per cent. towards the maintenance or the repair of those roads. This is really a splendid scheme and the only difficulty is in getting the farmers to realise the advantages they will gain through cooperating.
There is a lot of money being spent on the main roads and I think the bog roads and the smaller agricultural roads or boreens—whatever you like to call them—deserve more consideration. The traffic on the main roads has been very much reduced. On account of the production of turf in County Mayo, the bog roads there are getting the worse for wear and some of them are in a pretty bad condition now. As a rule those bog roads are narrow and the lorries using them wear out the surfaces very quickly. The man with the horse and cart who is removing turf to his home sometimes finds it difficult to get past the lorries, which take up a lot of space. The sides of the bog roads are not very solid and the consequences of vehicles trying to pass each other are sometimes serious—perhaps a lorry or a cart may have to be hauled out. I think it is desirable that the Parliamentary Secretary should give some attention to that matter.
As regards minor improvement schemes, I understand there has to be a certain number of recipients of unemployment assistance in an area before any grant can be given for the construction or repair of a road. On another occasion I pointed out that there are in different areas young men who are not desirous of going to the labour exchange and who feel they would be coming down a peg if they have many questions to answer. They would rather get on without having to go to the exchange. I think it is wrong that the grants for minor relief schemes should be determined on the number of such recipients in a locality. I think other considerations should be taken into account, such as the population of the locality and the number of young men available between October and March. That should be the position especially in South and North Mayo, where large numbers of young men come home in October and remain until March or April, or perhaps this time of the year. They have to depend mostly on the savings they made in England, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that the grant to be given for minor improvement schemes in areas where those young men reside should not be determined purely on the number of assistance recipients. That should be determined on the number of young men in the particular area and their financial position.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the farm improvement scheme. Of course, there is no criticism to offer there. Undoubtedly, it is a very fine scheme. It has helped to brighten small farms and is a great help to the small farmer. I believe farmers in general are availing of that scheme and making good use of it. One or two complaints have been brought to my notice in connection with roads leading into houses, or tillage roads. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, in my part of the County Mayo a lot of land is reclaimed land. In other words, underneath it is bog. We have only to go down a foot or six inches to find bog. Some tillage inspectors or supervisors—I think not deliberately, but perhaps through misunderstanding—say that they cannot give a grant for a road unless it is built on a gravel or solid foundation. You might have to go down 10 to 20 feet to get a gravel foundation in some places. If there is a drain put on each side of the road, I think the grant should be given. I do not think it is right to ask that they should go down 10 or 15 feet to the gravel foundation.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, to say if anything could be done as regards determining the grants under the minor employment schemes and in bringing to the notice of the small farmers the importance of the grant under the rural improvement schemes. It should be made plain that they should be grateful to the Government or Department that is willing to give 75 per cent. grants under the rural improvement schemes. There are many areas in South Mayo where, if they could understand that, they would be prepared to co-operate in making the scheme a success.
First of all I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his vision and optimism regarding the rural improvement scheme. I think I owe him an apology because I was one of the few Deputies in this House who criticised the scheme last year, adversely, if you like, not because I found any fault with the scheme, but because I was not so optimistic as the Parliamentary Secretary that the 25 per cent. would be forthcoming from the people. I felt that the fact that the people had been accustomed so much to getting full grants for everything under minor relief schemes would be a very great barrier. I am glad to see that barrier is being broken down. I am also pleased to know that the county I come from is availing of the scheme, and that numerous applications have been made to the Department for rural improvement grants, and that in a number of cases the people are willing to contribute the 25 per cent. required as a local contribution.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that there were 1,503 applications submitted, and that 372 were being sanctioned. I believe a greater number could be sanctioned, but of course the scheme is in the initial stages, and the preliminary work had to be carried out. I believe the number of inspectors, particularly in a big county like Galway, is too few to deal with the numerous applications. I believe we have only one inspector in County Galway, whereas in order to cope with the applications in an expeditious manner it would take at least three inspectors.
As far as schemes of public utility are concerned, where a road is going to benefit a number of people other than those directly living on it, it should be brought home to the local authorities, and particularly to the county surveyors, that there should be much greater co-operation with the Board of Works than there is at the moment. I know that in our county, for a number of years, we have been voting money for new roads, public utility roads, not culs-de-sac, to the extent of about £10,000 or £12,000 a year. The rural improvement scheme is a very big advantage, but I fell that the county surveyor is not inclined to co-operate as fully as he might. He will co-operate to the extent of seeing that the work is carried out well, I am sure, because all works that have been carried out under the supervision of the county surveyor and his staff under the minor employment and other schemes have been carried out very well, but there seems to be a reluctance on the part of our county surveyor— and I think that applies fairly generally—to add additional mileage of roads to the mileage already existing for maintenance purposes. That is the chief reason why they are not cooperating as fully as they might. That is why I should like it brought home to the Department of Local Government, and through the Department of Local Government down to the county surveyor, that where a grant has been made available for a road which is of public utility, serving the general public, the county surveyor and the local authority should go all out to help to have that work carried out.
As regards the bog development schemes and the making of roads into bogs, I regret the Estimate on this occasion is reduced by £6,000. I think, in a time like this, that is false economy. If anything, it should be increased because the making of good roads into bogs is very important and very useful not merely from the point of view of getting home a supply of fuel for domestic purposes but, where there is a bad road leading into a bog, at the period of the year when the farmers should give attention to their other crops, they have to neglect these crops in order to try to procure their domestic fuel. I believe that is a strong argument in favour of putting roads leading into bogs in proper condition.
I believe that if the representatives of all Parties in the House when meeting their constituents told them of the advantages of this rural improvements scheme, what it would mean to them, and that it is as far as this Government are prepared to go and, in fact, as far as members of every Party are prepared to go, it will be an incentive to them to avail of this scheme. I feel that perhaps some of the criticisms that were made last year, including criticisms by myself, may have prevented some people from availing of the scheme. When the housing grants were made available in 1932, a number of farmers said that £70 or £80 was not very much good and they did not avail of the grant. But, when their neighbours took it up and showed what £70 or £80 could do in the building of a house, the others followed suit. I believe, therefore, that there is a good future for the rural improvements scheme, which is a Godsend to the small farmers in the backward areas.
While we all agree that the rural improvements scheme is a very good one, unfortunately, we find in many cases that where a scheme would help a number of people living on a road you will always find others objecting to having the work carried out. In a case I have in mind a person living at the entrance to a particular road objected to interference with his property and the work could not be carried out in that particular case. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if possible, compulsory powers should be secured to carry out such work where objections are made to a scheme being carried out, as in that instance, by those living at the entrance to a road. The owner of the land at the entrance to the road objected to having anything done to his private property and there are eight people living on that road. Unless that person will agree to allow a threshing machine in through his land these people cannot get a threshing machine in. That is an unfortunate position for these people. They cannot get the threshing machine in through the entrance as it is too narrow. Therefore, I suggest that compulsory powers should be sought so that the work can be carried out in such cases. As to utility or link roads, I think work on these should be carried out as minor relief schemes or by the county surveyor under the supervision of the Office of Works. In the case of such roads you will get people to agree to contribute a certain amount of money, but others will not agree and therefore the work cannot be done. The unfortunate people living in the middle have no way out. Therefore, I suggest that the county surveyor, under the direction of the Office of Works, should carry out such works, because there is no getting away from the fact that such roads are very essential. Repairs to such roads would be very helpful to the people. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should give immediate attention to these two points.
I was delighted to hear Deputy Beegan praising the rural improvements scheme, because for quite a while he did not feel that way about it, as he admitted himself. Personally, I had always great hopes for it because, if there is one thing above all others that it will do, it will teach the people to co-operate and that will be a great thing. In my area the people are taking advantage of that scheme and it certainly is a good one. As regards the minor employment schemes, I have no grouse so far as they go. But I do believe that something better could be done, because people are required to sign a form when work on a road is proposed and one individual may refuse to sign because of some jealousy or bitterness against his neighbour and the whole thing goes flop. In a case like that, where the majority of the people sign and a certain individual through jealousy or spitefulness towards his neighbour attempts to hold up the scheme there should be some power to overrule people of that description. In other Departments that is done. I fail to see why the Parliamentary Secretary should not get such powers and use them. I know of one special scheme in my own area which would have accommodated at least 25 people and which was a most necessary work. I went on three occasions to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the matter and I was very pleased when I found that it was sanctioned. Later on it turned out that some individual, for spiteful reasons, managed to prevent the work from being carried out. If the Parliamentary Secretary has not got such powers, I hope he will obtain them, and that he will not allow individuals of that sort to stand in the way of such schemes.
How many people does the Deputy think should be benefited before a person's land is compulsorily taken?
It is not a question of taking land. It is only a question of taking a yard or so off a corner which any man who is not spiteful would not object to. I am not talking about running a road through a man's land. What I mean is taking a little off a corner, or shifting in a fence one yard, or a foot.
That is the difficulty. We are all agreed about the foot, but the trouble is where are you going to stop?
I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are quite capable of drawing the line and that we can safely depend on them to do so. I think he knows what I mean. I do not mean that we should compulsorily take over a man's field; I am speaking of the man who will object to the putting back of a fence for a distance of a yard or so. I have seen a man objecting to the cutting of a hedge for reasons of spite and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the matter.
There is another matter which I want to refer to and which made it necessary for me to come to Dublin with the Galway county surveyor last January. It appears that under the regulations governing minor relief schemes no person but those who are registered unemployed can get work on them. The schemes have to be finished by 31st March and there are quite a number of people in the area who never register but who require work just as much as the people who make registering a profession. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should not stand in the way of these people getting work if they want to work on these schemes. In relation to the position in my area, the Parliamentary Secretary more or less gave us our way and these men were allowed to work on the schemes.
With regard to bog development, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should turn the attention of his Department to schemes of bog roads and bog drainage. I am glad to note from what I have seen during the past week that a certain amount of this work is being carried out by his Department. Some of the schemes have come to my area and, I hope, to other Deputies' areas as well. Now that there is a great need for turf production, we have the opportunity of our lives to build roads into these bogs. Now is the time to build these roads, the building of which will increase turf production by at least 200 per cent.
In my own area, there are people who never succeeded in taking out 50 per cent. of the turf they cut, on account of the condition of the roads, and I know places where, if they do not succeed in taking their turf away early in the month of July, they have no hope of getting it out until June of the following year. We should take the opportunity which presents itself now and get the people to realise that it is not slavery to get turf out of a bog. In my area, it is not a question of the cutting or the saving of the turf but of getting it out of the bogs.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider these points: the matter of the man who stands in the way, for reasons of jealousy, of the pushing back of a fence a yard or so, the cutting of a hedge or such other work: the matter of roads into bogs and the drainage of bogs, because now is the time to get the people bog-minded and turf-minded; and also the matter of allowing every man who is willing to do a day's work for a day's pay to do that work.
Ten or 12 years ago, before the people realised that we would have to depend almost entirely for our fuel supply on turf, very great improvements in the form of drainage and the making of roads were carried out on the bogs of Kildare. At that time, before the agricultural policy of the Government was fully developed, there was great unemployment in the rural parts of my constituency. Although many people did not approve of the action of the Government in spending so much money on bog drainage and the making of roads, it has been proved to have been very wise expenditure, now that we are thrown back on turf for fuel. I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the importance of attending to these roads and to the drainage carried out at that time.
There has been a very considerable production of turf over the past few years by small private turf producers, people who produce small quantities of turf. There is a large number of these producers in my constituency, and their total production would be very considerable every year. Traffic over these bog roads has been very heavy, with the result that they have greatly deteriorated. The development of national turf production and the activities of the Turf Development Board and the county councils, I am afraid, tend to overshadow the importance of the great number of small turf producers, with the result that drainage and roads have deteriorated.
This deterioration and neglect of the roads is also due to the fact that we have not very many registered unemployed in the county, and I suppose it is not possible to have these works carried out as minor relief schemes, as in the past. I have made an effort in a few cases to get these small turf producers to avail of the rural employment scheme, but I found that it is almost impossible to apply that scheme to some of the bog areas to which I refer, because considerable areas of the bogs are owned by individuals who lease the banks yearly to the producers. These owners have never shown any interest in the drainage or the making of roads into the bogs. They left that work to be done by the Government. The man who leases a bank does not see his way to contributing to a rural employment scheme in order to have the work carried out, and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider this problem.
There is another matter which I think is a genuine grievance, and, in fact, a disgrace, but I do not know whether it properly arises on this Estimate. Large areas in my county were nothing more than swamps 12 years ago. They were of no value whatever, but a considerable expenditure of money was carried out on building roads and making drains, and, when they were made valuable by the expenditure of Government money, the owners immediately raised the bog rents, which at present are exorbitant.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise the importance of the small turf producers in Kildare. I do not suppose there are in existence any records of their production, but they are making a large contribution to the fuel requirements of the country at the present time, and something should be done towards maintaining the roads which those small producers are not able to keep in repair.
Because of the prominence given in the debate to the minor relief schemes I fear there is a possibility that the Department of Public Works may lose sight of the rural improvement schemes which have been put into operation in recent years. I should not like to see that happen. I think the rural improvements scheme is one of the best schemes ever introduced here. I think also that the scheme should not be relegated to secondary place in certain areas. There are, however, some districts in which it cannot operate successfully. I have in mind a few cases in the parishes of Knock and Bekan, County Mayo, where there is very necessary work on the construction of roads into bogs and even accommodation roads into lands, where the people who use those roads live a distance of up to three miles away from the roads in question. They are the only people interested in the improvements, and if they adopt the rural improvements scheme and contribute one-fourth of the necessary funds they will not be able to take part in the work and earn some of their money back. It is only the people immediately adjoining the roads who will benefit from the work in the way of wages. In cases of that kind, where the people who require the work are too far removed from the jobs themselves, I think consideration should be given to the adoption of the minor relief scheme. The difficulty in that regard is that there are very few registered unemployed in the district, but since the Department had the foresight and wisdom to adopt the rural improvements scheme I think they should also have the foresight and wisdom now to put into operation schemes that are absolutely essential without insisting on the rule that there must be a certain number of registered unemployed in the area. There are sufficient people there to do the job. At a certain time of the year there will be plenty of people who are not registered unemployed available for the work. I think the Department should waive that rule in regard to minor relief schemes in certain areas when the rural improvements scheme cannot be put into operation by the people because of the distance which divides them from the particular accommodation roads that they require.
I do not want to add to the praise which has already been given to the rural improvements scheme. It is only in time that the people will adopt that scheme generally. It is only in time that that scheme will replace 90 per cent. of the works that were being done under the minor relief schemes. The best advertisement that the Parliamentary Secretary could employ is to carry out one of those rural improvement schemes in every parish at the earliest possible moment. Nothing succeeds like success, and when such a scheme is being carried out, and the people who benefit by it take part in it themselves by contributing a small amount to its cost, their neighbours in adjoining districts will be encouraged to adopt such a scheme too. There is great difficulty in inducing people to sign application forms asking that certain works be carried out under that scheme, and it is only when some jobs are carried out here and there throughout the country that people will realise the benefits of the scheme to the whole community. In regard to the amount of work done, I think you will get at least 30 per cent. better return from workmen on that scheme than you got formerly from workmen on the minor relief schemes, because they feel that they are doing their own work and have a greater interest in it than the workmen in the other case who felt that they were forced to go on the job because they were in receipt of unemployment assistance. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to speed up the inspection of those schemes in County Mayo, and I think it is only right to suggest that areas which have not hitherto been touched by reason of the fact that there were no registered unemployed there should be given preference.
In regard to main roads, it has been said that too much money has been spent on them. I do not agree with that at all. Unless there is a certain amount continually spent on the upkeep of main roads, in a short time the brunt of the expenditure will fall on the rate-paying public, in addition to what comes out of the Road Fund. If the main roads are allowed to deteriorate to a very great extent an enormous weight of expenditure will fall on the taxpayers in later years. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that, when the main roads are being repaired or improved, a track will be left at least on one side, if not on both sides, for horses and cattle. Up to a few years ago the main roads of this country were in a scandalous condition so far as the farmers were concerned, and steps should be taken to ensure that in future this track for cattle and horses will be a permanent feature of our main roads.
The Seeds Scheme too is an excellent one, but it has come to my notice that in certain areas in County Mayo a limited number of the Department's officials concentrate on the same recipients of seeds every year. The Department should have no pets so far as this is concerned. The Seeds Scheme is an excellent one, and the Department's Inspectors——
I do not think that arises on this Estimate.
We provide the money, but we have no responsibility for the administration of the scheme.
If it is not the Parliamentary Secretary's duty to attend to this matter, perhaps he would bring it to the notice of the responsible Minister that the people who ought to be given consideration in this matter are those who are most entitled to get the seeds and who will give the best result for them. On previous occasions, in other years, I pointed out that I considered money spent in that way to be badly spent because of the fact that certain people have got seeds under that head while others were not allowed to benefit under the scheme. In conclusion, I should like to say that I think the Department is showing initiative and even anxiety to serve the public, and I trust the Department will continue to serve the public in the coming year as efficiently as they have attempted to serve them during the last few years.
A few weeks ago, one of my colleagues from Dublin, Deputy Alderman Doyle, raised the question of roads on the Dublin hills where some hundreds of Dublin workmen cycle out to the bog to cut turf. These people complain that the roads are in a very bad condition and that when they get there and start out to cut turf they have to walk a distance that would involve almost nine miles from the bog to the loading base—nine miles in order to get a ton of turf. It was explained to me by one of these Dublin workmen, who cut turf on Saturday evenings, that by the time they had got sufficient sacks of turf from the bog to the loading base they had walked nine miles per ton of turf, and that if the Department could put the road in good order, or supply a somewhat smaller by-road, it would be very helpful to them. I forget what reply was given to my colleague, Deputy Peadar Doyle, when he raised that question, but I understand that the difficulties of these Dublin workmen in getting to their turf are as great to-day as they were at that time. When we find Dublin workers, who have no great skill in cutting turf, giving up their spare time and cycling, first, a distance of nine or ten miles to the hills, parking their bicycles somewhere, and then having to walk another nine miles to the bog and carry the turf back to where they can load it, I think some encouragement should be given to them. I think that every Deputy in the House will agree that it is too much to expect from these men that they should have to walk nine miles per ton of turf to the loading base.
Might I ask the Deputy if these people are private producers of turf?
Yes. They are ordinary workmen from the City of Dublin who go out there to cut turf.
They produce their own turf?
Yes. The question was raised by Deputy Alderman Doyle, and for the moment I quite forget what reply was given to him, but I understood that something was to have been done to make the lot of these workmen easier and to give them encouragement. Deputy Doyle also raised the question of transport for these people, who were game enough to go out there and work so hard in order to get a ton of turf. I think they should be encouraged, and if no petrol is available for lorries to help them to get to the bog, I think it should be possible to provide some of the horse-drawn vehicles which at present belong to the Army. Three or four horse-drawn vehicles belonging to the Army would be very helpful if they were put at the disposal of these men to bring them to the bog. I had not intended intervening in this debate, but as other Deputies from country districts, who know all about turf and roadways, mentioned these matters I thought I would repeat the question that was raised by Deputy Doyle, and I hope that something will be done to make the lot of these people easier because, in my opinion, it would be a great national work.
I do not want to delay the House. This expenditure is very useful expenditure and has been of very great value to the agricultural and rural community, but I must confess that I am not at all satisfied with the distribution of the works or of the moneys expended on minor relief schemes, or with the methods by which moneys are paid under the farm improvements scheme. It is true to say that no matter how strongly or how well a Deputy may recommend a work in a district, if a reply can be given that there is no unemployment in that district, the work will not be done. On the other hand, if the local Fianna Fáil Club makes a recommendation, an inspector is sent down immediately and every effort is made to have the work done.
If Deputy Donnellan were in the House, he would contradict the Deputy.
Well, I would not be surprised at that, and I would not be surprised even if the Deputy himself did it. Now, it is true to say that the work that is generally done, even on the recommendation of the Fianna Fáil Club, is of an essential nature, and I have no complaint whatever about that, but in some instances what is known as the one-man pass is being made. I know that that is not the fault of the Department or, very probably, of the Parliamentary Secretary, because the case might very easily be made that the pass may have been used by a number of people, but I hold that where money is going to be expended in a district, the work that would be most advantageous to the largest number of people should be undertaken first, and that, in particular, where turf is going to be drawn upon, and where the lane or pathway leads to a bog, it should be given priority.
The next point I wish to make is in connection with landholders and private producers. I do not know what the expenditure this year has been like, as I did not catch the Parliamentary Secretary's figure, but that is a thing which should be developed, and as I said in my remarks a while ago, on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce, the more money expended on that the better. Not only should it be expended on the building of walls around the farmhouse or farm place, but also for out-offices and buildings, because I insist that in a great number of farmers' places the facilities for housing cows, pigs and poultry are not nearly as good as they should be. In all these cases, where a job is undertaken and where this money is going to be expended on it, it should be seen to that the work is well done and fully completed. In my constituency a number of very essential passways and drains were recommended for work upon them a couple of years ago. The inspector, in some cases, said that it was too late for that year, but that next year it would be considered, but nothing has been done since. Am I to take it that an application of that sort has to be made each year?
No.
Because, mind you, there must be in your Department quite a file of good work that has been inspected and recommended and in connection with which nothing has been done.
And might never be done.
This was regarded by the inspector as essential work, and it is a very strange thing to see one pass being done several times within a few years, while nothing is done in connection with another pass in the very same district.
I shall be very glad if the Deputy would supply me with particulars of the cases he has in mind.
Well, I do not like to report a case, because it would look as if I was making a charge against either an official or a number of officials, but if the Minister wants me to give him the particulars I shall be glad to do so.
Yes, I should be glad if the Deputy would give me the particulars.
And I shall give the Parliamentary Secretary particulars with regard to the one-man pass.
Yes, that is what I want.
Again, I am not making a charge against the official concerned. I believe that he was supplied with incorrect information and I am satisfied that he acted perfectly bona fide. I raised the matter only in order that such incidents may be avoided in the future. If a mistake has been made, we cannot help it. If the work is done and well done, I do not think it matters very much but at the same time it creates a great deal of jealousy in a district.
The only other point I want to make is that it sometimes happens that when an important work which would accommodate a number of people is about to be carried out, that work is held up because one person refuses to give his consent. The work then falls through and is not undertaken. I think at a time like the present, when it is essential that all the food and fuel that can be produced should be made available, the Parliamentary Secretary should have conferred upon him, under an Emergency Powers Order if necessary, power to take over that particular portion of the pass which the owner in fee simple refuses to give. The owner should also be obliged to give an undertaking to assist in the maintenance of that road. It sometimes happens, even when the local Fianna Fáil club has got going and has succeeded in getting the Minister to send down an inspector, that because of the thick-headedness of one individual it is impossible to proceed with the work. Whether that individual be a Fianna Fáil supporter or a Fine Gael supporter I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have power when that is reported to him, as the local county surveyor has in the case of bogs, to go in and carry out the necessary work whether or not the owner likes it. In that way a lot of trouble would be avoided and a great deal of hardship would be overcome.
I should also like to point out that the delay in making payments of farm improvements grants is much too long. When the work is completed, or when it is in process of being completed, an advance should be made to assist the people concerned because money paid quickly on the nail is worth twice as much as when payment is delayed. If there is a delay of two or three months in making the payment, and it is perhaps necessary for the local Deputy to make representations, it leads to a good deal of annoyance because contractors are very difficult people to deal with. If the money were paid quickly, it would create more satisfaction all round. There is no reason, in my opinion, once the work has been inspected, why the money should not be immediately forthcoming. Again, in cases where a farmer dies before payment is made, if he dies without making a will or if probate has not been taken out, payment is held up indefinitely. I think that is very unfair. The personal representative of the deceased man should get it and the estate duty and succession duty authorities should be left to look after their own interests later. They will be able to get everything that is due to them afterwards. If a cottage is built on the farm, or some money becomes payable to the occupants, the estate duty authorities will see that their claims are satisfied and they will charge a very high rate of interest on any claim that is outstanding. I suggest that in every case where the person to whom the money would ordinarily be payable dies, payment should be made to the personal representative provided all the members of the family are prepared to sign an undertaking that they will indemnify the estate against any charge made against it. In that way the money could be paid over quickly and the people who were engaged in the work would be saved a good deal of hardship.
There are just two points with which I want to deal. I speak subject to correction, but, as far as I know, no inspections have yet been carried out in regard to applications under the rural improvement scheme in County Limerick. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have such inspections expedited. It would be a good thing if one or two of these schemes were carried out in different areas, so as to demonstrate to the people the benefits to be derived from such schemes and the value they confer on the people for whom they are intended. Secondly, I want to stress the importance of the completion of unfinished minor employment schemes. There does not seem to be much point in allocating a grant for a minor employment scheme and leaving the work unfinished at the end of the season, unless it is intended to come back the following year to finish the scheme. The areas for which grants under the minor employment schemes are allocated are usually thickly populated, and there is very little variation in the figures for employment from year to year. Usually the electoral division that qualifies one year will qualify the next year. I think it desirable also that the approach to the carrying out of these schemes should be more systematic in the respect I have mentioned. That is, that a scheme taken in hands in any electoral division should be completed before a new scheme is undertaken. That is not always the practice. I have more than once called attention to it, and I should like again to stress the importance of the completion of old schemes before new schemes are undertaken in any electoral division.
With regard to minor employment schemes, I have been urging for years on the Board of Works the desirability of grouping electoral divisions in order that necessary works can be carried out under this scheme. In the case of rural improvement schemes, the necessity for pressure does not arise to the same extent. At the same time, there may be areas where these minor employment schemes could be started if contiguous electoral divisions were grouped. I should like to plead for more consideration of the grouping suggestion in future. The introduction of this type of work by the Board of Works in the last ten or 12 years, and the introduction last year of the rural improvement schemes, has meant the promotion of very valuable amenities for the rural population. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the good work he and his Department are doing. I know that in his capable hands the work will continue to make further progress.
I am glad that all sides of the House are unanimous in expressing the opinion that these schemes represent the most useful expenditure we have from public funds. I am also glad that last year additional money was made available for the purposes of bog roads in particular. Deputy MacEoin, a few moments ago, of course, said that that was done on the recommendation of Fianna Fáil clubs.
No, I said a good many of them were done on their recommendation.
A good many. I think there is one thing that no man should be in a better position to realise than Deputy MacEoin, and that is that the Fianna Fáil organisation is a real live wire, and when members of that organisation come along and put forward a certain work, it does so because there happens to be more members of the organisation living in that area than the members of any other organisation.
There are some Fine Gael supporters in the bogs too.
The organisation, as I say, is a live wire and Fianna Fáil clubs put forward these works because members of the organisation are living in every village. The Deputy may have a bit of a grievance but I can assure him that the Fianna Fáil clubs are not going to leave out any particular road that they think requires attention. I have been sending forward roads schemes myself for years and years, but as the Parliamentary Secretary said a few moments ago, there are many roads that cannot be made while we are here and that will have to be taken over by the people who come after us. So far as the ordinary relief schemes are concerned, I think that the system of going on the basis of the number of people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance in a particular area should be ended, because unemployment assistance is now as low as it can possibly be.
No.
Most people on unemployment assistance now are ineligible for any sort of hard work. In districts all over our county, schemes had to be sent back last year. They could not be done because workmen were not to be had. I suggest that we again give preference to works of utility. I know of cases where farmers could not get in a threshing machine to thresh their corn last year. Here we are going about day after day urging increased tillage. That is all very fine but it is hard on people if they comply and then cannot get their corn threshed. Even when they do succeed in getting it threshed, they cannot get it out to the market. Hardship is also involved in this way in the case of children who have to go to school through their neighbours' fields. We should assess the value of those schemes more from the utility point of view than we have been doing up to the present. When relief schemes are undertaken in the towns in winter, they are generally concerned with footpaths and work of that kind, while useful schemes could be evolved in providing drainage for districts within a mile or two of those towns and in the making of roads. Such work should be undertaken before footpath work is put in hands.
So far as the rural improvement schemes are concerned, the idea is excellent but sometimes the result bears heavily on a few persons. If a scheme is prepared in respect of a road on which five people are living and the estimated cost is £700, £175 will have to be paid by the five persons who are to benefit. That means £35 a head and it is too much to expect them to pay that amount. How that is to be remedied, I do not know. If some sort of annuity scheme could be introduced, it would be better. I know it is hard to collect annuities in respect of work that is completed. That would be one of the biggest difficulties the Parliamentary Secretary would be up against. But a charge of £35 per head is too much to impose upon people for work such as I have mentioned. I am afraid that the people will not avail of those schemes as freely as we should like them to do unless some change is introduced.
Where an individual or a couple of individuals in any village go out of their way to hold up work which would be of benefit to the local community, the Parliamentary Secretary should immediately seek powers to compel those people to abide by the decision of the majority of their neighbours. I know of a few very important schemes, including roads over two miles long, which one or two individuals in the centre of the village held up because of some technical point.
They did not like the colour of the hair of the fellow who went out to do it.
Not necessarily that. They were afraid the scheme might benefit some person at the end of the village who was an enemy of theirs. I should like power to be taken to get over those difficulties. Where a number of people are prepared to put their hands in their pockets in respect of a particular scheme, it should not be possible for any individual to hold it up. That is a disgraceful state of affairs at a time-when we are trying to progress. Petty grievances should not be brought into play so as to hold up work of local or national importance.
I wish to add my voice to that of other Deputies in approval of the rural improvements scheme. I do that with a little qualification. I found in areas in my county that the working of this scheme had collapsed. The reason is: in a townland the valuation of which is £100 there may be as many as ten small landholders with a valuation of £10 each. A road may be vital to that area but the amount which would be required to make that road might run into £300 or £400. To ask these ten small landholders to subscribe 25 per cent. of that amount would be to place a very big burden upon them. It is a very big demand on a man of £10 valuation to require him to put down £5. Where the demand is only for £1 or £2, the response will be all right but, once it goes over £2, my experience is that it is difficult to get the scheme adopted. Necessary schemes in my area have collapsed because their cost was so great and the valuation and financial position of the people who would be affected was so poor that 25 per cent. of that cost would be an unfair burden to place upon them. In a position like that, the Parliamentary Secretary should take power to reduce the contribution below 25 per cent.
As regards the minor relief schemes, I find that the area from which I come does not benefit very much from them. Three-fourths of the money coming into County Mayo is spent in other portion of the county owing to their low valuation and dense population. Oftentimes, jobs have been done there two or three times in succession—small jobs. I have no suggestion to make as to how that can be got over. I see the difficulty with which the Parliamentary Secretary is confronted. There may be work with a good labour content to be done in a district in which a large number of people are on the register, and it would be difficult to urge that the money should be spent anywhere else than where these people are living.
On the whole I agree with what was said about people who hold up work on these schemes, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with the observations of Deputy Dillon about the way to draw the line in that respect. Once you admit the right of a public authority to use private property, or to secure compulsory powers to acquire it, it is very hard to draw the line. Undoubtedly abuses exist at present. In some cases neighbours, for personal reasons, or for spite, deliberately create obstructions. At the same time, I would be very cautious about going so far as giving compulsory powers to deal with such cases. Power of that kind should be used cautiously, as very often greater abuses might arise than those it was intended to remove. As far as I have seen what was done under the rural improvements scheme in County Mayo, it has been most successful in the case of small landholders, and has been an advantage on such farms. I have seen remarkable instances of the improvements that were made. That scheme has been an overwhelming success. In County Mayo I cannot say that there has been what would be called co-operation regarding roads and drainage. I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to look into cases where schemes about the drainage of bogs are submitted, and to examine details of the valuation of the applicants, to compare them with the gross amount of expenditure that would be necessary, and to secure an estimate as to the levy on each individual that would be involved. Certainly, if small landholders in County Mayo are expected to put down part of the 25 per cent. of the expenditure involved, and if that amounts to a couple of pounds it will not be done. I impress the importance of that aspect of the matter on the Parliamentary Secretary. As regards individual farmers who have taken advantage of the farm improvements scheme and the rural improvements scheme, the success under both headings has been remarkable.
For many years now this Vote has been a very popular one in this House, especially in so far as Deputies representing rural constituencies are concerned. It deals with matters that affect in an intimate way many deserving classes of the community. I hope I am justified in thinking that, as there has been so little criticism of the Vote, that may be taken as an indication, in spite of the remarks of Deputy MacEoin, of general approval by the House of the manner in which it was administered.
You got off very lightly.
The three matters to which reference has been made are the Minor Employment Schemes, Fram Improvements Scheme and the Bog Development Schemes. Some Deputies stated that we should be more generous in regard to the latter schemes, that is, in the provision of money for bog development, drainage and the repair of bog roads. I am not very long at the Board of Works, but understanding as I do this problem as well as most Deputies from rural areas, one of the first things I did was to seek information on the attitude towards bog development schemes of one kind or another, realising as I did their importance from the point of view of private producers, especially in areas in which turf is running out. Deputy Dillon referred to the position in County Monaghan, which I know fairly well, and what he stated about that county is true of Cavan and of a number of other counties in which the turf supply is on the point of being exhausted. In these places it is vital, in the opinion of people in those areas, that efforts should be made, by the provision of money, to ensure that the fullest possible use should be made of whatever residue of bogs there is in these areas by private producers. I found that matter was being attended to efficiently and well. I was interested in the question and it was my first thought to get information as to policy regarding it. I want to assure the House that that will continue to be the policy of the Office.
As I am also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, I may say that his generosity is not to be regarded by his size or his general physique. He is a very generous man, and I am sure he will not hesitate to make whatever provision is considered necessary for work of this type. While making that statement, it is only fair to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Office and the officials responsible for the administration of these schemes have to have some standard to work on. They have to have regard to the amount of turf available.
If, say, an application comes from Longford, Cavan, Mayo or Galway, surely it is natural that one of the questions to be asked should be: what is the amount of extra turf likely to be produced by the people making the application. A second question would be: what would be the cost of the work necessary to drain this bog or make this bog pass. You must have some standard to go by. If the extra amount of turf to be produced would not justify the expenditure that would be involved, you cannot go along to drain a bog or make a bog pass simply because some people ask you to do that. You must have regard to what is in the area, and what is likely to come out of it as a result of the expenditure that you propose to undertake. Keeping these general reservations in mind, I can assure Deputies that there will be no question of trying to save money in our attempts to make bogs available for development by private individuals.
The other point mentioned was in relation to minor employment schemes. That question has been threshed out many times in the House. It is surprising to me that Deputies who have been in the House for a great many years seem to fail to grasp, or refuse to grasp, the whole basis upon which minor employment schemes are selected. I can say that the money provided in this Vote for minor employment schemes must be expended, and will be allocated, on the basis of the number of people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance in the area in which they live. There is no use in Deputies saying to me, or to my Office, or in making statements in this House, to the effect that there are people deserving of work who are not on the register, and giving various reasons as to why that is so. This money is voted by the House to give to people, qualified according to law to receive them, certain sums from the State by way of unemployment assistance. The money is provided in order to ensure that, over certain periods of the year, they will get a certain amount of employment. The fact is that these sums are provided by the Government, and voted by the House, for that specific purpose, and for no other.
The point has been made that a minor employment scheme was undertaken last winter in, say, County Limerick. The scheme was approved and the sum of £200 sanctioned for a particular work. That amount was expended, but the job on which it was spent was not completed. The suggestion has been made by Deputy Ó Briain and other Deputies, not only to-day, but in the past, that this work must and should be completed in the following year. I agree that it should, provided the unemployed position that justified the making of the grant originally is still the same. If, however, it is not the same; if, for some reason or other, the position has altered in that particular electoral division, then neither I nor anybody in my place, inside or outside of the House, can give any assurance on that matter. In fact, it cannot be done.
The point that I made was that the work should be completed before any new scheme in the same electoral division is put in hands.
With that general proposition I agree, but there may be some special cases in which that is not possible.
Let us say that a grant of £200 is given for a work, and that £100 of it is spent this year. What is the position in view of the fact that the other £100 was not spent within the year, and that the work is still unfinished?
The question of what is spent and what is not spent does not matter.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that, if the unemployment position changes in an area, the remainder of the grant is not spent in the following year?
The statement that I make is this: suppose a minor employment scheme is approved of during the coming winter for the parish in which the Deputy lives, if a sum of £200 is allocated for that work and is expended next winter, and that as a result of the expenditure the job is not completed, I cannot give any assurance that the work will be completed in the following year because I cannot know whether the unemployment position in the following winter will be the same as it was during the winter of this year.
That satisfies me.
The next main point to which a general sort of reference was made had relation to the rural improvement schemes. When I hear some Deputies agitating in favour, as they say, of the abandonment of the basis on which the minor employment schemes Vote is distributed, I always feel that they are coming along with the thin end of the wedge against the scheme that is based on a local contribution. I think I have enough contacts and enough experience, and that I am sufficiently long in this House, to know the difficulties there are in getting a contribution from farmers, whether large or small. Deputy R. Walsh talked about the farmers in South Mayo. I should say that in the main they are small farmers. Deputy Harris, representing a constituency in which the conditions are entirely different from those in Mayo, also spoke, and made the same sort of protest that Deputy Walsh had made by drawing attention to the difficulties of inducing the beneficiaries to give the required contribution. I am quite prepared, with the knowledge that I have of these difficulties, to admit that the difficulties are there. My idea is that we are not helping to overcome them if, in this House or outside of it, we emphasise their existence too much. Deputy Walsh said that it would be a great hardship to ask some of these smallholders to make a contribution of £5. It may surprise him—or it may not—and may surprise other members of the House to learn that we have already secured from farmers whose valuations are round the £10 to £15 mark contributions not of £5 but of £10 and higher.
What I would like to see, as I said last year on this Vote, is that members on all sides of the House would take an active interest in inducing our people to take advantage of this particular scheme. Deputy Cafferky said that it is not properly understood by those who could and should benefit under it. We advertise the scheme in the daily newspapers. Apart from that, I know of no better means of making the public aware of the scheme and the conditions attached to it than that Deputies in the rural constituencies should meet groups of farmers and discuss it with them. They should take an interest in the scheme and explain it to the people. If they find that farmers are not perfectly satisfied that they are going to get value for their money they could advise them to take a chance and see how the scheme works out.
Some Deputies suggested the advisability of trying to get one of these Rural Improvement Schemes carried out in each parish or electoral division. I think that is an ideal suggestion. No people can contribute more towards securing that end than Deputies on all sides of the House.
On a point of order, to help the publicity campaign, I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would publish the places—and the names, if possible, of the people— where he has got contributions of £5 and upwards from small farmers of £10 valuation.
We have got them from neighbouring counties to that of the Deputy's.
He has got them in my county, anyway.
Yes, in Galway.
Would it be a wise suggestion to bring it to the notice of each county manager, so that he could inform the councillors?
They are aware of it. I emphasised here last year that there is no one more genuinely interested in this problem than I am myself. As Deputy MacEoin has pointed out, for years and years I have been contacting the Board of Works, asking them to carry out particular works of public utility, and I was always met—before I came into the Office of Public Works —with the same sort of excuse, the same reason and argument, that there was not a sufficient number of unemployment assistance recipients in the area and, therefore, the work, irrespective of its merits, had to be passed over.
And the Parliamentary Secretary has sent out a special form of application to every Deputy with an explanatory note.
It is because I represent a constituency in which the number of culs de sac and bog roads is as high in proportion to its area as you would get in any part of the country, that I understand this problem and would like to see this scheme fully developed. With the co-operation of other people in my constituency, I have endeavoured to get groups of farmers together for the purpose of implementing this scheme. I am glad to say that, once you get them together and get them to understand the position, and once they see one scheme carried out and realise that every man has an interest in seeing that the best value is secured for the money expended, that those who contribute to the scheme are given certain advantages, opportunities and privileges while the work is being carried out, the neighbouring people who have similar works, on which they did not wish to take a chance, immediately become interested, and feel they can now go ahead in perfect safety.
In giving figures of the number of applications received by the office, I indicated that only a small percentage of those had already been inspected. I want to assure the House now that every effort will be made, during the months that lie ahead, to have estimates prepared in all cases in which we have received applications up to date. The scheme is largely intended for operation in winter months, but the farmers who make their contribution will be free to do whatever work they might find time to engage upon, and to earn their contributions back. The estimates will be prepared, the amount of contributions that they will be asked to give will be fixed, and the documents lodged with the county surveyor, so that we will be able to go ahead with as many as possible of these works of rural improvement.
I would like to get out of the minds of Deputies the futility of writing to the office of Public Works with a view to having carried out a minor employment scheme at full cost to the State in an area in which the number of unemployment assistance recipients will not warrant the expenditure of that sum. If I could do that, we would be making enormous progress in having these schemes taken up. I know of areas where—as Deputy Harris has pointed out—the unemployment figure was much higher than it is now, and where many of those minor employment schemes were thrown in to absorb, even for ten or 12 weeks in the winter months, the people who were in receipt of unemployment assistance.
I know that that had a demoralising effect on the farmers whose boreens and lanes and drains were repaired. They simply said: "We had this sort of work done here four or five years ago." It is time now to get them to accept the new position. Deputies are only wasting their time and that of the farmers, as well as the time of the Office of Public Works, by writing to request that a particular minor employment scheme be carried out, if they know in advance that there are not, in the electoral division in which it is situated, a sufficient number of people in receipt of unemployment assistance to warrant the giving of the grant.
I think it was Deputy Dillon who tried to convey to us that he was a very courageous Deputy, in the sense that he was unafraid to say that those single men in receipt of unemployment assistance should not get it at all. I think there are other Deputies who find it hard to stand up to a group of farmers who are agitating to have a road, a boreen or a bog repaired at full cost to the State. When farmers challenge them, some Deputies do not like to answer: "You cannot get that done, unless you make a contribution your selves." I think there are some Deputies who do not like to incur displeasure by telling farmers that the work will not be done unless they are prepared to make a contribution.
We should rid ourselves of that feeling and should tell such groups of farmers, if they come to us: "There is a boreen, serving five or six of you; you were responsible for the making of it; and you have been responsible all down the years for repairing it; and if the State is now prepared to contribute £3 for every £1 you put up for its reconditioning, the State must be making a fairly generous offer to you; and the fact that you are prepared to put up £1 for every £3 from the State is indicative of your belief and your faith in the work itself." We must approach this problem from that point of view. Whoever is responsible for this Vote next year, I hope there will not be a repetition of the effort to sabotage this scheme, which has been designed to assist in a permanent way to make life more comfortable and more pleasant for those groups of farmers who live in backward areas and who have not the good fortune to have the county roads to their doors.
The next matter to which I will refer is the taking of powers to ensure that all schemes, whether small drainage schemes or minor employment schemes or rural improvement schemes, will, where it is considered advisable, be carried out. The suggestion is that powers should be taken by this office to ensure that no farmer will be permitted to hold up a scheme that is thought to be desirable. I think every one of us has in one way or another given some thought to that problem. I am prepared to agree with those who have referred to the matter that it is one of the most vexatious things imaginable to find that when people come together and agitate, and the State is prepared to make some provision in response to that agitation, one man, whose holding may be situated at the mouth of a laneway or a boreen, raises an objection and holds up a scheme. There seems to be a feeling here that that would apply only in relation to minor employment schemes. Not only does it apply to minor employment schemes, but it can also apply to rural improvement schemes, and while I see no hope that the Government or this office, or indeed any other Department, is likely to take the powers that would be necessary to deal with that position——
If you had the power you would never have to use it.
This is entirely a voluntary thing, where the State is coming forward with money and offering it to people in need of it. Is it not asking the Government to do a terrible lot if you impose a further obligation on them and say that not only should they go to the taxpayers and collect from them sufficient money to make some people more comfortable, but that they should also ask the Legislature to give them power to make certain people do what they may not be anxious to do?
Have you not given that power to the county councils?
That is in relation to matters of public importance, in relation to public highways and the selection of sites for hospitals.
And bogs.
With these powers I am in complete agreement, and I must admit a good deal of my sympathies would naturally lean in the direction of taking further powers.
You will only have an odd grouser against you.
Certain points were raised by Deputy Walsh as to the distance you can go—are you to remove a foot or a yard, are you to have the right to pass through his field, and where are you to draw the line as to the extent of the powers you will take for such a purpose? Apart from the difficulty of determining how far you should go in the taking of such powers, you have to remember the point to which I have referred—that if you are making some contribution to some unfortunate neighbour of yours that you are not obliged by law to make, and if that neighbour does not want to take it, the necessity to draft some regulation or to impose some penalty upon him can scarcely be justified. In this case the State is coming to the rescue of people in need of a proper right of way to their holdings, and it seems to me it would be going very far if, in addition to that, you were to ask the State to compel these people to take something they may not want.
I was thinking, in so far as the rural improvements schemes are concerned —and I should like those people who in some cases object to know this— that supposing you have, as has been cited here, the case of six or seven or ten people using a boreen and they decide to come together and apply for a rural improvements scheme, and the man in the mouth of the boreen, because he is most convenient to the public road, says: "I can afford to object to this; the other fellow is away at the back of the hill and let him go to"—some place I will not mention now—and he refuses to sign, then I think we could, without any question of additional powers, deal with a man like that. If he did reside at the mouth of the lane we could ignore the portion of the boreen leading to his residence, and, if we could get agreement from those who live alongside the remainder of it, we would be able to overcome the difficulty in that way.
I will admit it is not a satisfactory solution, but it is as well that people who have a tendency to object to the carrying out of work of that character should know from us that there are many methods by which we can overcome that difficulty. I do not see any hope—I do not think there is any chance—of our taking the type of power that has been recommended to us here. Deputy MacEoin has mentioned that in some cases of which he is aware a boreen or lane was repaired which accommodated only one man. I must say I find some difficulty in understanding how that could arise.
Not a bit of difficulty if you knew the circumstances.
It would not be enough to say that the inspector was misled. If he was doing his duty properly he must have gone on the job and have got some accurate idea of who was using it. However, there is no use in going into that point now. What I shall ask the Deputy to do is to give me some particulars of the case, or indeed any other case that he may have in mind, so that we can look it up and see exactly what happened.
