Vol. 97 No. 10
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £850,000 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, 1946, for. Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
Before referring to the programme of works proposed for the current financial year I shall give a brief review of the work done in the year ended 31st March last. The amount provided by the Oireachtas for employment and emergency schemes in the financial year 1944-45 was £1,250,000, of which £1,201,076 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added the contributions by local authorities amounting to £178,940, making a gross expenditure of £1,380,016. Subject to possible amendments in detail, the expenditure on the various sub-heads was as follows:—
|
£ |
||
|
A.-E. |
Salaries, Travelling Expenses,— etc. |
40,976 |
|
F. |
Public Health Works |
69,070 |
|
Housing Sites Development |
22,098 |
|
|
Road Works in Urban Areas |
161,141 |
|
|
Amenity Schemes in Urban Areas |
51,291 |
|
|
G. |
Roads works in Rural Areas |
195,795 |
|
Amenity Schemes in Rural Areas |
394 |
|
|
H. |
Minor Employment Schemes |
100,482 |
|
I. |
Bog Development Schemes (Landholders' and other private producers' bogs) |
106,318 |
|
J. |
Reconditioning or repair of Public Roads subject to heavy turf transport |
74,656 |
|
K. |
Farm Improvement Scheme |
394,000 |
|
L. |
Seed Distribution Scheme |
62,820 |
|
M. |
Lime Distribution Scheme |
8,900 |
|
N. |
Rural Improvements Scheme |
61,709 |
|
O. |
Miscellaneous Works |
30,366 |
Of the expenditure of £1,380,016, approximately, £386,000 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £994,016 during the winter months.
The maximum number of workmen employed at any one time during the year was: farm improvement schemes, 8,628; other schemes, 17,146; making a total of 25,774. The average number employed on all schemes during the period up to September was 8,255, and from October to March, 17,420. Of these, approximately 40 per cent. were workmen who would otherwise have been entitled to unemployment assistance; but if the figures for farm improvement, bog development and rural improvements schemes, on which the numbers of unemployment assistance recipients engaged are relatively low, be excluded, the proportion of workmen who would have been entitled to unemployment assistance if not engaged on employment schemes was approximately 84 per cent. 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 1944-45, apart from the farm improvements scheme, which is of a different order, is equivalent to 29,000 men each receiving part-time employment for four or five days per week, for an average period of 12 weeks.
The total number of applications received for minor employment schemes during the year was 3,799 and about 5,800 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out. During the spring and summer, approximately 600 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of £36,500, principally for the development of bogs used by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.
The total number of effective rural improvements scheme applications received up to 31st March, 1945, was 2,841, of which 2,248 had at that date been investigated on the ground by inspectors and reported on. Of these, 234 were for various reasons found to be unsuitable, and offers of grants were issued in 1,497 cases. The number of such offers accepted in the course of the year was 726, for which grants totalling £88,470 were sanctioned towards a total estimated expenditure of £114,607, the balance of £26,137 being contributed by the applicants. Allowing for difficulties such as the shortage of labour due to the pressure of turf production and farm work, good progress was made during the year in carrying out the works. By the end of the year under review a total of 297 schemes had been completed, representing an expenditure of £40,000, while a further 257 schemes having a total value of £47,000 were in hands.
As Deputies are aware, the rural improvements scheme was only begun in the previous financial year. It is supplementary to the farm improvements scheme, and enables groups of farmers to carry out various kinds of works for their joint benefit, principally small drainage works, and the construction and repair of accommodation roads to houses, lands and turbary. The usual rate of a contribution by the landholders is 25 per cent., but this may be reduced in special cases where the work, in addition to being of benefit to the landholders immediately concerned, also serves members of the outside public. It is rather early to make predictions, but it may be expected that as the scheme progresses and becomes better known, increasing numbers of landholders will be anxious to avail themselves of its benefits.
With regard to savings and excesses on the Vote, it will be observed that there was an under-expenditure of approximately £49,000 on the Vote in the last financial year. In explanation of this I should state that the employment schemes programme consists each year of 3,000 or 4,000 separate works, administered by several agent departments, and carried out by local authorities all over the country; and that, in addition, the works in the rural areas must, for the greater part, be carried out within the space of the winter months; in these circumstances it is virtually impossible to achieve the expenditure of the exact amount voted for employment schemes.
Furthermore, as the actual schemes on which the year's programme is based are not lodged until after the beginning of the financial year, it is generally impossible to make a close estimate beforehand of the amount required for each sub-head of the Vote. A considerable degree of latitude is therefore required in adjusting the amounts between the sub-heads, as the year progresses. I should also point out that in a Vote designed to cover emergency services it is necessary to keep in reserve until a late stage of the financial year a certain proportion of the moneys available, in order to provide against contingencies.
Turning now to the programme for the current financial year, 1945-46, it will be observed that the provision in the Vote for employment and emergency schemes remains the same, at one and a quarter million pounds. In this regard I should mention that the allocation of the moneys provided in the Vote for the relief of unemployment amongst the various urban and rural units of area is broadly in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each such area, and the programme for each financial year is based on a census of unemployment assistance recipients, including former recipients working on employment schemes, taken in the beginning of each year, usually in January or February, at a time when unemployment is generally at a maximum. The total number of men returned in the census taken in January last was just under 60,000 and showed practically no change on the previous year's figures. The figure for the census taken in February, 1940, before there was any significant movement of workmen to Great Britain, was about 111,500, compared with which this year's figure shows a reduction of roughly 46 per cent.
It is estimated that of the sum of £1,250,000 provided in 1945-46 Vote £692,000 will be spent on the continuation of schemes sanctioned before the 31st March, 1945, leaving a balance of £558,000 available for expenditure on miscellaneous new schemes.
To the amount of the Vote must be added contributions from local authorities and beneficiaries under the rural improvements scheme, estimated at £197,500. This gives a total sum of £1,447,500 available for expenditure within the financial year 1945-46; 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 £710,000 (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, 1946, 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 local authorities.
Subject to the foregoing remarks the proposed allocation of State grants for each class of work in the current year's programme is as follows:—
Schemes administered by the Department of Local Government and Public Health:—
|
Public health schemes in urban areas |
£20,000 |
|
Housing site development schemes |
20,000 |
|
Urban road and amenity schemes |
180,000 |
|
Public health works in rural areas |
20,000 |
|
Rural road and amenity schemes |
160,000 |
|
Reconditioning and repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport |
50,000 |
Schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture:—
|
£ |
|
|
Farm improvements scheme |
350,000 |
|
Seed distribution scheme |
70,000 |
|
Lime distribution scheme |
15,000 |
Schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office:—
|
£ |
|
|
Minor employment schemes |
100,000 |
|
Bog development schemes |
100,000 |
|
Rural improvements scheme |
90,000 |
Administration expenses are expected to amount to £47,329, leaving a balance of £27,671 for miscellaneous schemes of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment or distress.
The figures I have just given make up the full amount of the Vote, i.e., £1,250,000, and, as previously stated, a further sum of £197,500 is expected to be forthcoming in the form of local contributions towards the cost of certain types of schemes, making a grand total of £1,447,500 available for expenditure in the year.
If we have any quarrel with the amount provided in this Estimate, it is that it is not sufficient. So far as schemes which are covered by the Vote are concerned, I think Deputies will agree that they are very useful and very necessary schemes and that they do far more than merely providing a certain amount of employment for those who are unemployed. That is, of course, particularly true of the scheme known as the farm improvements scheme. I want to say that my sole objection in regard to that scheme is that there is not sufficient money provided to enable those who are anxious to take advantage of it to carry out very necessary works on their farms. Farmers at present are anxious to improve their holdings to the fullest extent. They have, perhaps, at the moment more money at their disposal to supplement the State grant than they had in the past and, perhaps, more than they are likely to have in the future. For that reason, I should like to see the farm improvements scheme expanded as much as possible. I think any money provided by this House for that purpose is money well spent, money which will be repaid many times over. We know that in many cases, as a result of the work carried out under this scheme, there are lands growing food to-day which, prior to the introduction of this scheme, were simply more or less waste. I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to make whatever representations he can to the Minister for Finance to provide the maximum amount of money that can be provided for this very useful scheme.
From the employment point of view, there is no improvement in the expenditure of money. So far as I am concerned, I always have been, and still am, absolutely opposed to rotation work. I think it is a great drawback to the expenditure of any money we provide for the relief of unemployment over a period that men are allowed to work for only four or five days in the week. I, personally, would prefer if a smaller number of men were employed on those schemes so that those who did get employment would get a full week's work. We know that the amount of wages paid to men even for a full week's work on those schemes is insufficient to provide the necessaries of life for a family.
I think there is something almost degrading in men being taken on for four days and then laid off. There is something wanting in our provision when the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the average period of employment secured under those schemes by each unemployed person, even when that work was limited to four or five days a week, was only 12 weeks in the year. That is something which ought to give the Departments concerned cause for a certain amount of worry and reason to ask themselves whether more could not be done. I know that we have been told year after year in this House, even before the emergency started, that there was no difficulty in finding money, that the difficulty in this country was to find work on which money could be usefully spent. Every member of the House, particularly members living in rural areas, is aware that there is not a mile of road one travels in any part of the country where one will not find work which could be done, which would give useful employment and useful results from the point of view of the country. I want to give full credit to this particular Department for the amount of very valuable and very useful work that has been done since these schemes were started. It has given a good return to the country. I know, and other Deputies from the county know even better than I do, that in Tipperary bad roads and boreens leading into farm houses have been improved under these schemes, with the result that it has been possible for threshing sets, reapers and binders to be taken to farms where six or seven years ago it would not have been possible. We know how useful that has been, particularly in the last three or four years. But there is something that gives us cause for reflection.
One of the great troubles in this connection is that once roads are made either to bogs or farms, everyone washes his hands completely of any responsibility in regard to their maintenance. Roads which were made by the Land Commission and roads which were made under these improvement schemes within the last ten years are to-day, in many cases, in an infinitely worse condition than they were before the improvements were carried out. That aspect of the matter will have to be taken up by whatever Department is responsible. The maintenance of Land Commission roads and roads which were made or improved under this Estimate must be attended to because there is very little use in spending money in making a road for which the local authority has no responsibility of maintenance. Once they are made, they are left there and eventually become worse than they were in the beginning.
I was amazed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary tell us that it is not thought necessary to make any greater provision for the present financial year than was made for the last financial year. With 60,000 unemployed, with the prospect of more unemployed as a result of demobilisation of the Army and, I am afraid, the inevitable return of some of our people from Great Britain, I think this provision will be found to be totally inadequate. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take the necessary steps to ensure that no scheme which, in the opinion of the Department, is in itself a useful scheme will be turned down merely for the want of money, that no man will be left unemployed in a district merely because the necessary money is not forthcoming to do useful work. I do not think that any Party in this House would refuse to give to the Parliamentary Secretary money to carry on the work of this particular Department, because it is, in the main, work of a useful nature, it is, to some extent, work of a reproductive nature.
There were two figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary which surprised me—for public health, in urban areas, £20,000—that seems to be a very small sum—and for the development of sites in urban areas—£20,000. If we are at all serious in our talk about the immense housing schemes we are going to undertake immediately we are in a position to do so, that seems to be merely a token sum.
While we may not be ready, because we have not the necessary materials, to start erecting houses, undoubtedly we could be going a long way in the provision and development of the sites so that they would be ready immediately the necessary building materials are available. I must confess that I am disappointed that the amount provided for this particular part of the work is so small. However, on the whole, I agree that the work performed here is useful and necessary work. My greatest complaint is in regard to the retention and continuance of the rotational work. It is about time that was dropped and about time that in this country, that we talk so much about, we should be able to provide at least six days' work in the week for a man who is able and willing to work.
This is a particularly important Estimate this year in view of the likelihood or, shall I say, the danger that unemployment may increase to a serious extent during the coming year. One would expect that the Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing the Estimate, would have made some reference to the plans he has in view in the Department for expanding relief work and employment work so as to absorb those who will be demobilised from the Army and the considerable number of men who will return from Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It seems to me that the two branches of his Department in which expansion will first be necessary are those covered by the Vote for Urban Employment Schemes and the Vote for Rural Employment Schemes. It is essential that very substantial grants should be made to local authorities to enable them to carry out big development schemes. Urban employment schemes would cover a very wide field. As Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, the development of sites for the preparation of building schemes should be carried out and, if we have a large number of unemployed in urban areas, it would be necessary and desirable to carry out improvements in the appearance of provincial towns and villages by the demolition of old and unsightly buildings. This would give the urban areas, particularly towns and villages, a more attractive appearance.
That is work which could be carried out by unskilled workers and it is work that is required urgently to be done. As far as rural employment schemes are concerned, I understand they include grants to the county councils for the improvement of roads. In that connection, there is an almost unlimited field for employment and for the type of employment which would absorb unskilled labour. We must remember that men who have been in the Army for four, five or six years cannot be regarded as highly-skilled workers now, and ample provision should be made to give them suitable employment. Financial provision is being made for them, but that will be of very little avail unless they are given immediate employment as soon as possible after leaving the Army. The same applies to men coming back from abroad. There is an additional sum of £20,000 provided for rural employment schemes, but I think it will hardly be sufficient to meet the expected needs during the coming year.
With regard to the good work which has been done under the farms improvement scheme, there is always a danger that some of that work may not be permanent. Here I am referring to the construction or reconstruction of farm boundaries and fences. I know it is a difficult problem, but something should be done to provide suitable quicks for those fences. Otherwise, they will crumble away in a very short time. The Parliamentary Secretary may observe that some of the work done in the past three or four years is already showing signs of breaking down. It is a pity that arrangements should not be made to provide proper fences, with a view to making them permanent. They would also improve the appearance of our rural areas. Proper white-thorn hedges always look attractive. They are not only useful as fences but they also provide a certain amount of firewood.
Another very useful branch of farm improvement work which ought to be very much extended is the removal of rocks and stones from land which is under cultivation. It is almost inevitable that in the future we will turn very much more to mechanisation in regard to farm operations; so it is necessary that, as far as possible, all stones and other obstacles should be removed from the land. As far as that particular item is concerned, I am not sure whether it is entirely in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary; it appears to be also under the Department of Agriculture.
With regard to rural improvement schemes, that particular branch of this Department has given very good satisfaction. But, unfortunately, there have been a great many disappointments, too: disappointments in the first place because of the difficulty of getting all the people concerned to share in the work and to share in the contribution. Many applications which appeared to be very promising have had to be turned down because all parties were not willing to contribute. Another difficulty arises from the difference of opinion which almost invariably exists between applicants and the officers of the Department in regard to the cost of the work. Usually the farmers' estimate of the cost of the work is much lower than what the experts calculate. I have been asked by some farmers to suggest that the officials of the Department should seek to make the work less expensive, that is, not to try to do as permanent a job as they would wish, but I am personally of the opinion that that would hardly be desirable. When an improvement work is carried out on a laneway or roadway, it is desirable that it should be done as well as possible, and made as permanent as possible. For that reason, I think the inspectors of the Department are usually right. However, the fact that the cost appears to be too high does frequently deter farmers from availing of the scheme.
Sooner or later, I think provision will have to be made for the maintenance of works carried out, whether under minor improvement schemes or rural improvement schemes. There is no doubt whatever that many of the roadways made during the past few years have deteriorated, and where a number of ratepayers are using a roadway I think the maintenance should be made a county charge. It is sheer waste of public money to widen and improve a roadway, and then find that in the course of a couple of years it has deteriorated to such an extent that it is worse than before it was originally improved. In many cases where a roadway is improved and made wider, and where a considerable amount of material, perhaps of an inferior quality, has been utilised for levelling it up, it is inevitable that the roadway will eventually become worse than it was before it was improved and levelled.
On every Estimate of this kind, the question of employment on the rotational system is raised. In view of the changed situation, in view of the fact that there may be a considerable number of people coming on the employment register, temporarily at any rate, after the war, and that those people are not what might be called chronic unemployed—they are people who have not been in the habit of being casual workers or of being frequently out of work—I think they should not be humiliated or degraded by getting only part-time work. Take, for example, men coming out of the Army; I think they should be treated exactly the same as, say, permanent road workers, and should be given a full week's work. Apart from the hardship of having only a small income for the week, there is also a certain amount of a slur or degradation to those men in having to work part-time. It looks as if there is something in the nature of charity, or as if they are simply getting relief, instead of being allowed to feel that they are full-time employees of this State.
Whatever can be done in this matter should be done immediately, because it is highly undesirable that men who have been in the Army, for example, or men who have been engaged in work across the water should be allowed to suffer under a grievance. We do not want any widespread discontent amongst that type of workers, and I think that the plea which has been made from all parts of the House for the termination of rotational employment should be met now.
Lastly, I want to deal with the development of bogs. Now that the emergency is possibly drawing to a close, it might be considered that development work should be wound up so far as bogs are concerned. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will take that view, and I do not think that he should be led by any Deputies to take that view. Our bog areas were neglected for many years. Our turbary areas were allowed to become waterlogged and the accommodation roads leading to them were allowed to deteriorate over a long period. People in those areas were left to feel that they were of no importance whatever to the State; that they had very little hope for the future. I think the emergency has shown that those people are useful and that the industry in which they are engaged is a very important one. Whatever may happen in the future, I think there will be a permanent need for considerable development of turbary.
In this connection, it must be remembered also that, in spite of the fact that a considerable amount of money was expended upon accommodation roads leading to bogs, the heavy traffic upon those roads deteriorated them and reduced their condition to such an extent as to offset the expenditure. Thus we have still quite a number of roads leading to turbary in a very bad condition. Further work should be done in developing these roads and putting them into a proper condition, because there is a future for turf in this connection, at any rate, that did not exist, say, 12 or 15 years ago, now that the development of motor lorry traffic enables turf to be conveyed a longer distance than heretofore. Thus a turf bog would be able to serve a much larger area in future than it did perhaps 10, 12 or 15 years ago. For that reason, it is essential that we should have good roads leading to our turbary areas so that the produce of our turf workers may be able to be collected and distributed.
Then there is the question of drainage, which has only been tackled in a comparatively small way up to the present. Bogs must be properly drained if we are to get the best results from them and if the workers engaged in them are to give a decent return for their work. It is along these lines that employment will be found in our rural areas for the people coming out of the Army and coming back from other countries, as well as for the naturally increasing population of the country.
While there are, in connection with some Votes here, possibilities of reducing expenditure, I believe that in this particular case the House should agree to a considerable expansion of expenditure. We should be far more ambitious in connection with schemes of this sort. It is only by getting people into productive work that any nation can hope to achieve success, and I think that the types of schemes we have in this Vote are very useful. If most of them do not lead to direct production, at least they certainly lead to indirect production. In the matter of development schemes for housing, it is absolutely essential that all possible preparation should be made, because we are very much in arrear. A great many houses are required, not merely in urban, but in rural areas as well, and a good deal of preparatory work can be done in that direction now. The provisions here are scarcely adequate for that type of work.
So far as rural schemes are concerned, I think the farms improvement scheme and the rural improvements scheme are providing very useful and what will prove to be productive employment. But they are merely touching the fringe of the problem, and ought to be organised in a different way altogether. So far as the farm improvements scheme is concerned, one big problem that we have in farm improvement is drainage. We all realise that, so far as improvement work of that sort is concerned, and in fact in many other directions as well, our people—and it is not peculiar to our people—are expecting more and more State intervention. Work of this sort is not carried out at all except where you have State intervention. We have not achieved very much so far as field drainage is concerned. I think we will be a very long time solving this problem of field drainage if we proceed by the methods we have adopted.
The object is absolutely sound, but I think that we will have to adopt much more modern methods. So far as schemes of this sort are concerned, we look at them mainly from the point of view of solving the unemployment problem. That is not a proper approach. While the unemployment problem cannot be overlooked, our object should be to expand our productive capacity, because that will eventually solve the other problem. The adoption of the most modern methods for the expansion of production is, I think, the right approach. Sometimes, schemes are possibly too costly from an economic point of view. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, being in charge of the Board of Works, very much appreciates not only the problem of arterial drainage but the necessity of field drainage as well, if the arterial drainage is to be a success. During this war, Great Britain claims to have reclaimed 10,000,000 acres of land. When you compare our little efforts here with the success which they have achieved in that direction and the huge amount of land they have brought into production as a result of that work, you see that we are merely touching the fringe of the problem. We have great potential wealth there, awaiting development.
Some of the land which was at one time in production has deteriorated through neglect—through direct neglect in some cases and indirect neglect in other cases as a result of the neglect of arterial drainage. A lot of the work done in Great Britain has been done by modern methods, by mechanisation, especially for the opening and closing of drains. If we are to solve this big problem, we must have not only the direct State intervention that we have here at present but we must intensify it and modernise our methods. The methods we are adopting at present make the final cost almost prohibitive.
In preparing schemes for the post-war period, we must secure employment for more and more people. It must be remembered that the use of more modern methods in drainage need not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of men engaged in the work. We will need to use more men as well and that will help to solve the problem of unemployment. We can increase very substantially the amount of work that can be done by the use of modern methods.
As has already been said by other Deputies, it is time now to consider our programme for the immediate post-war years, to find employment for men discharged from the Army and for people who may return from Great Britain. There are other schemes that could be expanded in every direction. The farm improvements scheme is something which we have not tackled intensively. We have a lot of hill land covered with scrub and producing no national wealth. It is a potential source of production, if it is reclaimed, and we should have a hill scheme of some sort. There has been great success in that direction in Wales, under the pioneer there, Sir George Stapleton, who put up an experimental station and succeeded in providing excellent vegetation on hills which were barren and worthless from the national point of view. We have the same problem here and there is no reason on earth why we could not achieve what they have achieved and bring that potential source of wealth into active production. I imagine that there must be a very considerable acreage in that condition here and there is no reason why we should not deal with it.
We have heard it mentioned by the Minister for Finance, by the Minister for Agriculture in the Vote recently, and by the Minister for Supplies in discussions on more than one occasion, that we may have an exchange problem and the only way we can satisfactorily import our necessary requirements is by an expansion of our export trade.
I am merely drawing the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to two aspects of our rural economy that have been neglected to a great extent and that can only be tackled under a farm improvements scheme of this sort. The question should be thoroughly examined and would prove a great national asset if tackled in a constructive way. The neglect of many years has accumulated, but the potential wealth lies there and can be brought back if we tackle the problem as other countries have tackled it.
The rural improvements scheme is also very advantageous to the agricultural community. In our circumstances, we have people living in very remote districts away from main roads and the means of approach to their homesteads is in a shocking condition, in many cases. Apart from the type of transport they may have of their own, those people find that the modern lorries cannot approach their homesteads at all. Some improvements should be effected in that respect and a further extension of the scheme would be of great benefit to the community. Of course, a rural improvements scheme cannot be applied to a single individual. It is really in its infant stage yet, as it has been only a year or so in operation, so I suppose we may hope for further development. I feel it will prove a hardship on individuals who happen to live in isolation and have no neighbours nearby.
We must distinguish it from the farm improvements scheme, as we cannot have overlapping.
The financial aspect of the farm improvements scheme would be to the disadvantage of the applicant.
No, as in that case he would get 50 per cent. As a farm improvements scheme, he could do it if it only concerned himself. Would you not have overlapping if you had not the stipulation of there being two or more persons concerned?
At any rate, he has a definite advantage if he has two or three neighbours living in the one lane. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there would be some overlapping. It really costs him a lot more, as if the lane or road is to be improved, the whole burden falls on himself. If it comes under the farm improvements scheme it costs him 50 per cent. of the labour cost. In the other case, the 25 per cent. is divided between the two, three or more neighbours, as the case may be. Deputy Morrissey has mentioned the maintenance of work of that sort. Where roads are made by the Land Commission, in improvements of this sort, under the farm improvements scheme and the rural improvements scheme, especially where a group of people live on the road, there is divided responsibility and there is always neglect. It is a problem which should get some attention, as it would look as if it is waste of money to develop it and provide a decent roadway, if the local residents neglect the maintenance. If a decent job is made of it, some attempt should be made to make it a responsibility on the local authority. Subject to the width of the road or lane, where there is any sort of a decent carriage way, it should be finished properly, steam-rolled and given a decent surface.
Rotational work has been mentioned and is always adverted to on this Vote. I suppose that in certain circumstances rotational work can be defended. In the West of Ireland, for instance, where there are small holdings, and where a man is engaged on work of this sort and has a certain amount of work to do at home, you could defend it. He does not mind if he is laid-off for a day or two in the week. He can devote those days to ensuring that his own farm work will not get into arrears. As regards the ordinary legitimate worker, I think it is a great hardship on him. It is unfair to him and to his family to be put on rotational work and to be laid-off two days a week. If it is suitable in certain areas to have rotational schemes—that might apply in the West of Ireland— we should not overlook the fact that in the eastern counties it would not apply so well. The vast majority of the men in the eastern counties have to rely solely on their work to maintain themselves and their families. The Department should operate the rotational idea where it suits people, but where it is not suitable, where workers have to rely purely on this employment, the rotational scheme means a great hardship, and some effort should be made to get away from the rotational idea in the areas where it does not suit the workers.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that expenditure under this heading could be expanded to a very considerable extent. There is any amount of work in the way of improvement to be done all over the country, and some of it is an essential prerequisite to an expanding system of agriculture. We cannot hope to get it done without State intervention. That is the tendency, not merely here but all over the world, and we look forward to much more elaborate schemes to deal with problems that are tackled here only in an initial way.
At this stage, facing a difficult post-war period, when there may be very serious difficulties so far as employment is concerned, and very great difficulties in securing raw material necessary for construction and other work, we have here a source of very profitable employment. We have here a source of employment that will be productive and a decided national asset. I hope we will see a considerable development of schemes of this sort.
Ba mhaith liom traoslú don Rúnaí Párlaiminte agus don Roinn mar gheall ar an méid atá déanta acu le deanaí sna bailte móra, ar na bóithre agus ar na feirmeacha chun iad do chur i dtreo agus d'fheabhsú mar is gá i ndiaidh a chéile, ach tá a lán le déanamh fós, go mór mór chun slí do sholáthar i gcóir na hoibre atá romhainn le linn na huaire agus ba cheart dúinn cur chuige agus tabhairt fé níos déine fós gan mhoill.
The Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are to be congratulated on what they have done for the improvement of towns and rural areas, with much advantage to the community. I should like to point out the great necessity that exists for clearing derelict sites in towns and cities in preparation for the building schemes that are to come. I join with Deputy Morrissey in asking for an extension of rotational schemes, so as to give employment in the urban areas. In many of our towns where there are local authorities, and in many villages where there are no local authorities, very little attention is paid to those schemes, and we all know the lack of amenities and sanitary conveniences that are a blot in some of our cities and towns. We must wait, of course, for the materials that we now have not got in order to go ahead with those schemes in full blast, so to speak, but the time has come when preparations must be made.
I appreciate that the initiative in that respect must come, in a great measure, from the local authorities. I think, since the appointment of city and county managers, that public representatives do not take sufficient interest in initiating schemes which would be of advantage to the communities they represent. These things are left more to the managers, and that is not right. The initiative should come locally. At the same time, there is no doubt that local inspiration and incentive should get some assistance from the Department in the sense of taking an interest in the schemes and co-operating in the carrying out of them. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is most anxious and willing to do anything in reason and I am sure that his help in matters of this kind will be appreciated. I hope in the near future that more progress will be made in providing work for the unemployed.
As regards rotational schemes, we know that those who draw the highest rate of unemployment benefit get preference, and rightly so, but this virtually excludes many deserving applicants. We can see around us many openings for an extension of the schemes which the Department has initiated and of which the local authorities should avail more fully. The work that is being done in rural areas is greatly appreciated. The reclamation of land and similar schemes would more properly, I presume, come under the operations of the Drainage Act, but there are other schemes that could be proceeded with. It is to be hoped that the rural community will take a greater interest in these schemes which, unquestionably, will have a good effect in improving not only rural dwellings for the farmers and by-roads, which are in a very bad way, but the amenities of our towns and villages to the general advantage of the community and will take from us many of the reproaches which are sometimes levelled at our day.
I was surprised by the claim put forward by Deputy Hughes that the State should make itself fully responsible for the cost of field drainage.
I did not say any such thing.
When one takes into consideration the fact that field drainage is an improvement of a holding, and that out of the improvement the occupier expects to get a benefit for himself and his family, and in view of the fact that it should be not alone the ambition but the constant endeavour of every occupier of land to improve his holding, the State, in my opinion, is generous when it contributes 50 per cent. of the estimated cost, together with the other contribution which it makes to agriculture in the having of the annuities. Field drainage is something which ordinary farmers should be interested in, and the State is doing well by a farmer in contributing 50 per cent. of the estimated cost of field drainage on any farm on which it is necessary.
So far as the drainage of hill land is concerned, I do not think the problem in England and Wales is the same as that which exists in this country. There are no people living on hill land in England and Wales. They left it years ago, but in this country many of our people reside, for historical reasons, on hill land. In my opinion, people are living on land here on which they should not be living at all. It would appear to be better for the State and for the people themselves to utilise fully our more fertile soils, because it is a well-known fact that full use is not being made of our fertile soils, or even of our grass lands. When the Office of Public Works decides to tackle the problem of our hill land, I hope they will take into consideration the argument put forward by certain people that our hill lands are admirably suited to forestry.
I want to pay a tribute to the Office of Public Works for the type of work they do. There is no doubt that it is one Department which makes sure that the money spent is well spent and that the work done is well done. I want to pay a tribute to them also for the expeditious manner in which they arrange for the sanctioning of grants to urban and county councils and carry out all the other types of administrative work necessary in order to have money made available to local authorities.
With regard to the rural improvement schemes, it is unfortunate that we have not got more co-operation from the people who should avail of these schemes. It is unfortunate that the State has to take to itself powers to enter on land in order to make improvements in rural districts. It is an undeniable fact that, in a great many cases, when a form comes from the Office of Public Works for the signatures of local people and for the making of their contribution of 25 per cent. of the estimated cost, one or two people will not sign, that they wait until this House gives legislative power to the Office of Public Works to do the job and then collect the local contribution. It would be far better for the Office of Public Works, for the people and for the improvement of our rural areas if we had that co-operation from the people which is absolutely necessary and which will be more necessary in the future.
In connection with rural improvement schemes, it would be advisable if the Office of Public Works could induce county surveyors to give the use of their steam-rollers wherever a roadway is being laid down. In County Meath, the county surveyor and county staffs have done first-class jobs on small roadways by finishing off the jobs properly with their steam-rollers. They have done jobs which will last for a long number of years, whereas, if the steam-roller had not been used, the work would deteriorate very rapidly and it would become necessary to do the job again in a short space of time.
I thought the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the Estimate would have given the House some idea as to the progress made in implementing the Arterial Drainage Act, and I hope that in closing the debate he will tell us how far he has got in that respect. I should also like him to say whether, if labour comes on the market to the extent to which certain people think it will come in the near future—I do not share that view myself—it is the intention to implement the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act so as to absorb a certain number of them. I again express my appreciation of the type of work carried out by the Office of Public Works.
The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.
Am I to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will conclude in the usual way on the group of Votes?
On Vote No. 67 only. Votes Nos. 9 and 10 go together later.
I mention the point because I wanted to raise a matter referred to by the last Deputy.
It comes up on the next Vote.
Votes Nos. 9 and 10 go together.
The points made in the course of the discussion have been very few and, to the extent to which any criticism was levelled at us, I must confess that it was very mild. The principal matter to which reference has again been made by most of those who spoke was this vexed question of rotational employment.
As I said last year, that has been discussed on this Vote all down the years. There are many views that can be advanced both for and against, but taking one's mind back to the introduction of the Unemployment Assistance Act, and the developments that followed the passing of that law, I, at least, could always see the justification there was for an endeavour by the State to secure that those who were being provided for through the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act should be called upon to give some return to the taxpayer in general in the provision of amenity schemes that would prove of value to the community, while at the same time making some extra provision for them over and above the amount to which they were entitled under that Act. I have given a good deal of attention to this particular matter since I went to the office of Public Works. I am prepared now to admit, as was said by Deputy Hughes, that this is a problem that can be viewed from different aspects in different areas. When you examine the register of people entitled to benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Act you find that quite a number of them reside in rural areas. You find that quite a number of them are owners of small farms of land; you find another section composed of labourers pure and simple, and, in addition, you have the town workers. I would be prepared now to agree that every one of these sections presents a different problem. While it is quite reasonable and, in fact, just and equitable to expect that the man who is the owner of some land can always find some work to do on it, the position is that while employment on three, four or five days, as the case might be, might be all right in his case, it might impose certain hardships on some of the other sections of people appearing on the register. All I can say is that we have that matter continually under review. To those who advocate a departure from this system of employment I would ask them to think of the other side of the argument. After all, if a man is unemployed, and if the State decides to make certain provision for him while he is so unemployed, there is an obligation on him to seek work and to look for work.
Hear, hear.
There is an obligation on him, when he gets employment, to endeavour to give a fair return to those who employ him.
Hear, hear.
I throw out the suggestion that if you were to accept the argument that the State is to be responsible for the provision of full-time employment at the prevailing rates in the area in which the man is offered that employment, well, to my mind, to the extent that you make that offer to him, to that extent in certain cases, you relieve that man of the obligation to seek work, and you relieve him of the obligation to move about, as most people must move about, to try to fend for themselves. I am inviting members of the Dáil who have been advocating the abandonment of the rotational system of employment to remember that there is that aspect of this problem that must be kept in mind. Having said that much, I can only repeat again that, as far as my office is concerned, we have been keeping an eye on the effects of the rotational system, and, while, as I have said, I am prepared to admit that in certain cases it is possible to draw attention to certain hardships that may arise as a result of the operation of the system, it is also wise to remember that there are other sides to that problem.
I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he will never be misrepresented from this side of the House for having said that, much as he misrepresented Deputy McGilligan for saying the same thing.
I am not going to protest, no matter what effort the Deputy may make to misconstrue any words that I have used in attempting to give to the House a presentation of my attitude towards this particular problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary need never fear treatment similar to that which Deputy McGilligan got from him.
A few points were raised in connection with the bog development schemes and the advisability of providing money for the removal of derelict buildings and those roofless houses that one often sees in small villages and towns through the country. As well as I remember, the Dáil some years ago passed an Act giving to local authorities the power to remove such buildings. As far as we are concerned, we have, through the Department of Local Government and Public Health, been inviting local authorities to submit to us schemes for the execution of that sort of work.
In the case of bog development schemes we have not been ungenerous. There is no question of the Minister for Finance closing down, as it were, on the amount of money made available for this type of work. We have certain standards to which we adhere. They are generous, and it all depends on the area with which we are dealing and the amount of turbary in that area. I think that the limited amount of criticism that is being offered on that head is indicative of the generosity that has been displayed by us in making provision for work of that kind. The Estimate has been increased from £70,000 to £100,000. The same thing applies in the case of rural improvement schemes. Although the sum of £90,000 is mentioned in the Vote, we have not in the past, and neither has the Minister for Finance, tied himself down in any way. It all depends on the number of applications received, on the number of groups of farmers who are prepared to come forward and make their contribution to enable us to spend money in making proper access to their dwellings, and in relieving them, in certain cases, of flood water.
I do not think there is any other matter to which I need refer. I am thankful to the House for the manner in which they disposed of this Estimate.
