Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 May 1946

Vol. 101 No. 4

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

Mr. L.J. Walsh

There is one further matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the Boyne road, near Drogheda. We find it impossible to get the county council to do anything to that road. The circumstances are: The original county road from the town of Drogheda to Termonfeckin and Clogher Head, is about one mile distant from the Boyne road, running parallel with it. Because of the scenic beauty of the Boyne, motor traffic is attracted to the Boyne road to Termonfeckin and Clogher Head. There are at least three very dangerous blind turns on that road. There is a bridge on that road, called the Beaulieu Bridge, where there is a right-angle turn. Very serious accidents have occurred at that junction. I very much fear that, with the return of motor traffic, we may have very serious accidents there. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should have that particular road inspected with a view to urging the county council to carry out the necessary works to make it a safe road for motor traffic. This road leads from Drogheda to the well-known Baltray golf links. I want to emphasise that I am not a golfer and have no sympathy with golfers. They are very well able to look after their own interests. I am more concerned with the rural community who have to use that road, with their asses and carts, horses and traps, and so on. The time has come when the Parliamentary Secretary should take action to force the county council to put this road into repair and to make it safe.

Unemployment relief grants are very welcome to a town like Drogheda and have been of great use to us in the past. I have had considerable experience of the administration of these grants over the period since 1934. Deputies have suggested that instead of four days a week for a period of two weeks or a month there should be full-time employment. I suppose that could be arranged if sufficient money could be provided. We have found the grants over the years that I referred to very satisfactory and we have very little difficulty in giving at least the half loaf to most unemployed people in the district. Public bodies should be induced to avail of these grants for the development of housing sites. If housing sites were developed with the aid of those grants, it would, eventually, assist public bodies in erecting houses at a cheaper rate, and, consequently, enable them to let them at lower rents. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should use a little pressure to induce public bodies to avail of the grants for this purpose. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department refused, at one time, to permit us to use these grants for the development of housing sites. I think that I can claim to be one of the first to make that recommendation to the Department. However, they have seen the light since and the change is welcome. The grants are being availed of for this purpose in a number of districts and I hope that public bodies in other districts will likewise avail of them, so that, now that the emergency is nearing an end, we shall be able to resume the housing of the people.

Mr. Davin

I fully agree with the Deputies who stated that the limited amount of money allocated for the purposes covered by this Vote has been efficiently spent on useful local and national schemes. My concern is that much more money should be allocated for this purpose until such time as schemes of the kind for which the money is allocated will have been exhausted. That will take a long time. I intervene in this debate mainly for the purpose of urging the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to bring about some revolutionary changes in the conditions under which citizens are employed on minor relief schemes. I have considerable experience, as other Deputies have, in dealing with the Department of Public Works in connection with proposals put forward by groups of constituents, by individuals and by local authorities, and, so far as I am aware, the moneys allocated to my constituency by the Department of Public Works have been so allocated without reference to political considerations or representations. I am sure that, if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department had more money at their disposal, much more satisfactory work could be done. From observation of some works carried out in my constituency, I am satisfied that much better results to the ratepayers and taxpayers would have accrued if full-time employment at decent rates of wages had been provided for those employed on the schemes. Deputies have been furnished, from time to time, with white papers and brown papers giving details of national development schemes which the Government propose to carry out, such as rural electrification, arterial drainage and turf development, but I see no commonsense plan in relation to the carrying out of minor relief schemes. Surely, it is the policy of the Government to provide full employment for our able-bodied unemployed whenever the opportunity is available. I understood from Ministers, speaking here from time to time, that their policy was a policy of full employment at decent rates of wages. Nobody in this House —I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to do so—could stand up and defend the coolie conditions under which workers are conscripted on minor relief schemes in rural areas. I use the word "conscripted" advisedly, because, unless they were registered at a labour exchange, they could not be forced to work under the coolie conditions appertaining to those schemes.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say how he justifies the allocation of the same amount of money this year for this purpose as he did last year. The total is virtually the same. In the Vote itself, there is a certain manipulation of figures. £40,000 is taken off the rural employment item and £10,000 off sub-head I, which deals with development work in bogs used by landowners and other private producers. That makes £50,000. He allocates that £50,000, taken off other sub-heads, to the Vote for farm improvement schemes. That is purely a book-keeping arrangement. In round figures, the total amount of the Vote is the same as it was last year. How does the Parliamentary Secretary come to assume that we shall have the same number of unemployed persons during the coming winter and spring as we had in the winter of last year and the spring of this year? I have here an extract from what, I think, is an inspired article in a leading British paper in which it is suggested that all the Irish workers who were recruited for civilian employment in Britain during the war period will be forced to come back here. If a fairly large percentage of them are forced to return, will the situation not be different from that which the Parliamentary Secretary envisaged when arranging the details of this Vote? Is it not a fact that, since the Estimate was prepared and approved by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government, there has been a considerable increase in the number of unemployed as a result of the demobilisation of thousands of able-bodied men from the National Defence Forces? The Parliamentary Secretary is, nevertheless, basing his figures on the position that existed during the winter of last year and the spring of the present year. Although I have no definite reasons for so doing, I question the wisdom of that policy. May we assume that if the number of unemployed persons in the rural areas is considerably increased, there will be an automatic increase in the Vote for carrying out works of this kind? The Parliamentary Secretary contrasted the figure of 57,000 unemployed men with that of 60,000 in January, 1945. So far as my constituency is concerned, large numbers of unemployed persons refuse to register at the local exchanges because they are not prepared to accept the conditions under which they would be compelled to work on minor relief schemes.

A number of urgently necessary schemes are lying in the pigeon-holes of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. They were turned down because it was alleged that there were not at the local labour exchange the necessary number of men registered to carry out those schemes. I pointed out in correspondence that, in some of those cases, the men were available, although they were not registered at the local exchange, and I am now giving the real reason why large numbers refuse to register. If the Parliamentary Secretary will improve the conditions of workers on these minor relief schemes, he will find a considerable increase in the number of those registered in the labour exchanges in portions of my constituency, at any rate. I cannot understand why the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary refuse to improve the conditions of men working on minor relief schemes. On what grounds can the Parliamentary Secretary justify the treatment of those of its employees who carry out works of this kind less favourably than they are treated when carrying out works of a similar kind for local authorities or for farmers in the areas concerned?

The Government should be a model employer and should set a good headline in regard to wages and conditions of service. This Government should give good example to local authorities and to farmers living in the areas where these useful schemes are being carried out. I have never yet heard the reason why they cannot provide continuous employment, a full week's employment, and at least the same rates of wages as are paid by the local authorities for carrying out the same class of work and by the local farmers or by groups of individual farmers. This Government has been described as a "Workers' Government", but nobody who is compelled to work on minor relief schemes and only gets work for four or five days, or in some cases three days, in rural areas, would agree that the title is a proper description of the people responsible.

I read a very interesting article on this matter and, with your permission, I will quote it. His Lordship the Bishop of Galway spoke in Galway on Wednesday last and is quoted in an article headed "Wages—The Church's View". I am quoting from theStandard, which is infallible in matters of this kind, although it may not be infallible in other matters. I am sure it is correct in quoting His Lordship, at any rate. The issue is dated May 17th, in connection with a lecture on the “Catholic Social Programme.” It says:—

"The Church," said His Lordship, "had pressed strongly not merely for the right of a minimum wage, but a family wage, and She never put a ceiling to the top, but always held that the higher the wages go, and the higher the standard of living, the better not merely for the worker, but for the whole community.

That had been proved, particularly in the last 20 years, to be absolutely true. In the great economic slump of 1929, which reached its climax in 1931, it was found that the cause of the slump and unemployment was that money was not being spent, and it was not being spent because it was not being given out in wages."

The next portion is in black type, and I hope it will sink into the Parliamentary Secretary's head, and that he will, in his reply, deal with the policy expressed there:—

"The policy of the Church had been that the higher the proportion of money given to the working man in wages, the better for the whole community, because the money given to him was circulated quickly, kept within the country and, therefore, kept the wheels of industry and commerce going. The higher the proportion of the national income given out in wages, the better for the prosperity of the country."

These are words I would like to hear refuted, if they can be refuted, by the Government spokesman in connection with this discussion and related particularly to the starvation rates of wages and coolie conditions laid down for men who are conscripted to work on minor relief schemes.

In summarising the employment value of this work during the financial year ended 31st March, 1946, the Parliamentary Secretary said, as reported in column 219, volume 101 of the Official Debates:

"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 1945-46, apart from the Farm Improvement Scheme, which is of a different order, is equivalent to 31,000 men each receiving part-time employment for four or five days per week, for the average period of 12 weeks."

The Parliamentary Secretary is well posted by his efficient officials and I wonder if, without great trouble, he could give the number, in that 31,000, who have got four days' work per week, the number who have got five days' work and those who have got a full week, if any.

Mr. Smith

Some of them have.

Mr. Davin

Could he give us also the average earnings of the 31,000 persons over the 12-week period mentioned in this portion of his introductory speech?

Mr. Smith

It would all depend on where they are employed.

Mr. Davin

I would regard it as very important that he should furnish the House with the average earnings of the 31,000 men over the period of 12 weeks. If he has not got that figure, I would be glad if he would pass it on to me as soon as he is in a position to do so. The figure should be available, but perhaps I have not given him sufficient notice to answer the question now. I would be very much obliged if he would furnish the information as soon as he can.

As pointed out by his Lordship the Bishop of Galway, there should be a living wage and the citizen who is employed on a minor relief scheme is entitled to that wage just the same as the person employed by the local authority or by a local farmer doing the same class of work for which a higher rate of wages is given. It is a bad example to the farmers for the State to fix a rate such as has been fixed over a long period of years and which has remained stationary over a long period, for carrying out work of this kind. If the Parliamentary Secretary believes in the payment of a Christian wage, of a decent minimum wage—as I am sure he does—if he believes that the local authorities, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, are right in paying bonuses to the road workers and other employees to meet the increased cost of living that has arisen over the emergency period here, why does he not apply the same principle to the men employed on minor relief schemes and raise the miserable rate which has been in existence for carrying out that class of work for a long time? The rate seems to be stationary, no matter how high the cost of living goes or how much the condition of the families of these workers has been changed as the result of increased prices and shortage of supplies.

I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary personally for this policy. I quite agree that it is Government policy, but he has considerable influence and I am sure he has sufficient influence with the Government to get them to alter their policy in this respect. I am sure he will agree with the very good reasons I have given and with the very much better reasons given in the recent speech by his Lordship the Bishop of Galway.

I am reliably informed—and I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it, too—that at a recent meeting of one of the area agricultural wages committees a decision to increase the rates of pay of agricultural labourers was carried by a big majority. I hope the national wages board will confirm the recommendation made to increase the rate by 7/6 a week. It was right and proper that such a decision should have been taken, immediately after the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech made £1,000,000 available so that farmers would be able to pay agricultural labourers a decent rate of wages.

If the local authority and the farmers and others employing persons in every sphere of activity in agriculture, in industry and commerce in this country find it right and proper to increase the rates of wages over the pre-war figures, which were fixed in regard to the price of commodities at that time, surely the same argument must be applied to the people who are working on these minor relief schemes? If there is some reasonable improvement in the working conditions of men who are conscripted from the labour exchanges for work on these schemes or in other works of the kind, the Minister would find it would increase the number of registered unemployed locally and, as a result, he would be able to find the necessary number of men to carry out the many works which I believe have been approved or recommended to his Department and which are urgently necessary in several portions of my constituency.

It is a pity that any red tape regulations or any other reasons should be a barrier to the carrying out of useful schemes of work urgently required in any portion of a turf-cutting county. If a scheme is recommended by the county surveyor or by the Parliamentary Secretary's inspectors as being urgently necessary, and if there are able-bodied men registered or unregistered who could be got to do the work in the area it should be finished in the shortest possible time. I drew attention on previous discussions, during the period of office of the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, to the fact that some small schemes which were sanctioned, and for which money was allocated, are being carried out in a piecemeal fashion. Are there not good business reasons why a minor relief scheme, costing perhaps £200, to repair a bog road or to carry out drainage, should be undertaken and men continuously employed until it is finished, rather than repairing half a road this year under a Vote of this kind and leaving the other half to be finished in the coming year?

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that these are good business reasons why such work should be finished as quickly as possible. It is one way in which men could be employed continuously until the work was completed. I know of one case in portion of my constituency where such a scheme took three years, and I am not sure that it is complete yet. There were three separate Votes dealing with it. The best results are not got for the money that is spent by doing work in a piecemeal fashion. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will review the procedure regarding the carrying out of these small schemes. If it is decided to find money for them, then give the largest possible amount of employment locally, and pay a decent rate of wages for a full week's work. I fully appreciate the value of the work that is being carried out by Votes of this kind over a long period. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the points I have put to him, especially those concerning the conditions of workers employed on these schemes, and relate them to the conditions of service of men employed on the same class of work by local authorities.

Captain Giles

I agree that this Department works wisely and well, but I am not satisfied when agriculture is not in the position of being able to benefit itself. It is hard luck to be asking for sops. We have been giving sops and doles to the unemployed for 25 years, and now we find that we have to give sops to farmers to look after their own little affairs. I think that is bad. In bad times it is all right to give help, but I do not stand for a Department continuing to give it permanently. A certain limit should be fixed, so that such a practice should stop, as it involves the time of hundreds of officials to look after small schemes. It is my belief that if agriculture could stand on its feet, and if trade agreements could be reached with other countries, whereby there would be stability in the industry, there would be no need for these schemes and farmers would be able to fend for themselves. If a farmer has to fix a drain, to put up a ditch, or to sink a pump, there is no reason why he should not do so without applying to the Government for help. I do not believe in doles. It was all right to help during the economic war, or in a time of stress, but we should now concentrate on putting agriculture in its proper place, so that farmers would be able to fend for themselves.

If we keep going on with all these schemes we will have a type of people who will always be looking for doles, while at the same time getting nothing from the Government really but money that came from their own pockets. I think that is a stupid practice. Millions of money are being spent on schemes and thousands of officials have to be employed to deal with them. That is waste of money.

I admit that this Department does good work, but we will have to stop this system and let schemes of that kind be done on a business basis. Let the farmers fend for themselves, and let the Government see that they have proper markets, so that they may know what prospects are before them for say ten years. No farmer should be going to the Government asking to have a drain cleaned up or a pier erected at the entrance to his farm. I believe in having work done that is of benefit to the public, such as opening up bog roads, and leaving them in a condition in which they could be taken over by county councils. Work of that kind gives good results, and we should concentrate on it. The farm improvements shceme is all right but I think we are going too far with it, as every Deputy wants to go further ahead and spend millions of money under it. The ordinary farmers are going in for these schemes because they think they are a help. We have been told that agriculture is in a strong position at the present time and that there are millions of money in the banks. If that money is lying idle why not apply it to help those who need it in their business?

Mr. Davin

How would it be paid for?

Captain Giles

There is no need to borrow money if agriculture is put on a proper basis. There should be no need for the State to have to help ordinary farmers. I believe this Department is carrying the baby for the Minister for Agriculture who has flopped on the job. If he was doing his job as he should do it, there would be no need for this Department. As it is there are far too many looking for this money and there are too many officials to see that these schemes are carried out. I think we would accomplish more by maintaining roads that were built by the Land Commission. County councils will not take over these roads at present because they are not in proper repair.

After five or six years roads built by the Land Commission, when not kept in repair, are full of pot holes, and horses cannot travel on them. The Department should concentrate on the maintenance of such roads. If they did the unemployment problem would receive more attention. I admit that very good work has been done by the Department on roads leading to bogs. I find that that work has given a good return to those who are cutting turf. Many big merchants are engaged in the turf business in my constituency, where everything possible was done to facilitate them, but beside these people are private individuals who work very hard on the bogs. They provide a good deal of turf but they receive little attention. The same facilities should be given to private producers as are given to merchants with a monopoly. All parties should receive the same treatment. If money is to be spent under this Vote lanes and bog roads should be treated in the same way as other roads. I agree with what Deputy Davin said regarding rotational employment. I believe in a full week's work. The men hate the present system of three days on and three days off. There is too much waste in connection with that system, and in putting gangers on to segregate them. On these schemes the men should not be paid less than the county council rate. It is a real scab job that we are doing. Men are put out to work on these schemes who are not fit for work. Some of them never worked and others are in bad health and not able to work. But, under this system, when they are called upon they have to turn out and work. They are not able to do more than two hours' work in a day. If they had to work for eight hours I do not believe they would be able to get home at night. They are just what one might call human scarecrows. The county council rate is not very big, and these men should not get less than that. As it is we have hundreds and hundreds of the county council workers on strike because they find they are not able to live on the present wage. Why then give these poor fellows less? It is a disgrace. The Parliamentary Secretary should force the Government to do something in the way of giving these men a living wage and in doing away with the rotational system.

I am satisfied that this Department is alive and energetic. Its officials are good. At the same time, it is a Department that, to the extent of 80 per cent., could be wiped out if the Minister for Agriculture was doing his job. He is not doing it. He is sitting down on it, and the Parliamentary Secretary has to carry the baby for him. It is a disgrace. We shall never have peace or contentment in the country until the farmers are allowed to do their business in their own way. I do not believe in subsidies. They are bad for the nation, bad for the Government and bad for the farmers. In times of emergency, I suppose they are necessary but there should be no need for them now. There is a great waste of money in connection with these schemes. We are told that they give employment to a great many men. In my experience there is hardly a farmer in the country who takes on an extra man in the winter months to do work on these schemes. If they were doing that, then I agree it would be a good thing to have the schemes, but I find that they give employment to very few extra men. The few boys on the land do whatever work is to be done—the building of fences or the making of a few hundred yards of a drain or a ditch. At any rate, in my opinion, very little extra employment is given. Generally speaking, the Department is giving good satisfaction, and a good return for the money. At the same time, I would like to know where we stand as regards agriculture.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

This Vote falls under three headings which are concerned with the Minister for Agriculture, the special employment branch and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. It is in connection with the latter that I want to make a few remarks. In connection with the schemes as a whole, I intend to reserve what I have to say until the Vote for the Minister for Local Government comes before us. I would be glad if what I have to say were passed on by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. I am rather surprised in connection with a particular scheme which was heralded in the House with trumpets two years ago, a scheme which promised to give great results— I refer to the riverside walk scheme at the Tolka—that nothing, apparently, has been done about it. I intend to refer to it at greater length on the Vote for the Minister's Department. I was interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the sum asked for in this Vote is based on the number of unemployment assistance recipients in the various areas.

So far as Dublin is concerned, I wonder if the Vote is drafted on those lines, because from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement one would assume that all recepients of unemployment assistance would get a share in that particular type of work. Speaking subject to correction, the procedure invariably followed in the case of Dublin is that it is only the recipients of unemployment benefit at the top of the scales who are engaged on these particular schemes, while those on the lower scales rarely, if ever, get a turn on this type of work. If that be so, there is something there which calls for examination so far as the City of Dublin is concerned. No matter what may be said to the contrary, I think the prime purpose of these schemes is to transfer a good deal of the responsibility, which should rest on the Government, to the local authorities. The individuals drawn from the unemployment assistance category are automatically put over, to a considerable extent at any rate, on the local authority in as much as it has to bear a certain proportion of the cost of particular schemes. There is, of course, in connection with these schemes a grant given by the Government.

My object in rising was to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the discrimination there is against Dublin in the allocation of these particular schemes. I understand that the grants are based on something like 70 per cent. for general amenities, 50 per cent. for housing development and 40 per cent. for sewerage, whereas in areas throughout the country the percentage is as high as 90. Some Ministers, I have no personal experience of this, justify that discrimination—not exactly in this particular case but in other cases where grants are due to the local municipality—on the ground that Dublin is a wealthy city and should pay a higher proportion of the cost of the schemes I refer to than other areas throughout the country. That, in my submission, does not take cognisance of the fact that you have a greater concentration of poverty and unemployment in the City of Dublin than you have, relatively, in other areas. Therefore, I submit that Dublin is entitled to greater consideration than the more favoured areas. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would look into these grants, which are considerable in their range of activities so far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned, and ensure that the corporation will, so to speak, get a fair crack of the whip.

The amount in the Vote for housing development is £20,000. I suggest it is grossly insufficient if councils throughout the country take advantage of the position as we in Dublin are doing. In Dublin we are embarking on a big housing programme. There is an extensive scheme planned at St. Anne's estate which comprises 400 or 500 acres, and almost beside it there will be the further development of land to the extent of 600 acres. The activities projected by the Dublin Corporation could certainly absorb most of the sum asked for in this Vote. I am surprised that, under that particular heading of the Vote, so little is to be devoted to housing development. The Dublin area could absorb it with great effect if the percentage is raised. The percentage, which is only 50 per cent., imposes a rather severe burden on the local authority. If, as I hope, as a result of an examination, the proportion is increased, we will be exceedingly interested in the Vote.

As to the schemes generally, I am not in a position to speak of their effectiveness or general usefulness so far as the country is concerned. I gather that in the rural areas a considerable amount of good work has been done, particularly as regards improvement schemes. Generally speaking, there is a wrong approach to relief schemes. Those schemes were introduced at a time when, perhaps, for panicky reasons, it was felt necessary to deal with what was deemed to be a rather urgent position in relation to unemployment. What was then regarded as a temporary expedient has now come to be regarded as a sort of permanent institution in our social sphere. I am not satisfied that it is a genuine attempt to solve the unemployment problem. I grant that from the experience of these schemes sufficient knowledge has been gained of an exceedingly useful character and I suggest it could be made a permanent thing along lines that will be useful and attractive, and eventually it could be regarded as a useful supplement to the labour market.

You will not have that position while you have rotational relief under conditions neither desirable nor attractive, with wages as they are and with workers assured of only four or five days a week. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be doing a good day's work if he arranges for a general review of relief schemes with the object of co-ordinating them on well-planned lines, not alone for one period of the year but for every month of the year, and ensures that they will be of such a character as will enable him to pay decent wages under conditions attractive to the workers. Until you have an approach of that kind, you can only describe the relief schemes, as one Deputy put it, as palliatives of a kind that will lead nowhere. It is very near time that we should have something in the nature of a general review in order to see where we are heading.

Mr. Smith

When leading off the discussion on this Vote Deputy Dockrell, among a number of complaints to which he gave voice, mentioned the lack of vision of the Office of Public Works in the selection of schemes. Back in 1934 an inter-Departmental Committee was set up and, as far as I can remember, it invited, through the daily Press, all citizens who had ideas to write in submitting any proposals that occurred to them. It was hoped, as a result of that approach, to get some original proposals. The committee also approached local authorities asking for their co-operation in the same way. Many suggestions were received, but I think the total result of the effort was fairly disappointing. The committee was looking for works of a kind that were not being dealt with by State Departments or different local authorities. The committee was disappointed, inasmuch as the proposals submitted did not contain any considerable percentage of original ideas.

There was a number of fairly large proposals suggested but, on examination, these proposals, as you often will find in relation to such matters, depended largely on the use of fairly heavy mechanical equipment and their unskilled labour content was fairly low, while the expenditure would be very high. The proposals would not commend themselves to a Department looking for work in which the unskilled labour content would be high. That particular type of scheme for these reasons would naturally have to be rejected.

Deputy Dockrell mentioned a particular scheme, the Merrion reclamation scheme, of which he appears to have considerable knowledge. That scheme was submitted to this committee. The estimated cost of it was around £500,000. That scheme was not acceptable for the reasons which I have already given and for the further reason that, when the area would be reclaimed, there was no well-defined use to which the reclaimed land could be put. There was some suggestion at the time that it might be used as an airport, but, that idea being rejected, there was apparently no other purpose for which the reclaimed area could be utilised.

As regards the submission of suitable proposals for employment schemes, my office and the Department of Local Government must depend in the main on local authorities. There is no other body in a better position to know the schemes that are most suitable. We have to depend upon the co-operation of these authorities for suitable schemes. Every proposal submitted by them is carefully examined and if it is found, on examination, to contain the elements that we insist upon, it is accepted.

Deputy Dockrell made the point that we should think in terms of improvement rather than employment. It is all very well to make a statement of that kind. If you were to give to my office the sum for which we are now asking the Dáil without stipulating any conditions whatever, there is a possibility that we would be able to apply it in a way that would give better results from the point of view of improvement than we are getting now; but the money we are seeking here is sought largely for the purpose of bringing further assistance to the section of our people who are on the unemployment register, and, that being so, we must naturally bring the money to the places in which these men are to be found. Therefore, we cannot think, as the Deputy invites us to think, in terms of effecting improvements rather than in terms of employment.

Deputy M. O'Sullivan, and indeed a number of other Deputies, mentioned this matter of the provision for housing site development works. Deputy O'Sullivan complained that the amount shown here was very small and also said that the 50 per cent. grant to local authorities and 50 per cent. contribution from the rates was unfair and not sufficiently attractive to induce local authorities to engage in this very desirable kind of work. We must, of course, remember that housing site development work is really not the type of work in which we should engage, that is, if we are determined not to interfere with the ordinary type of work which is at the moment the responsibility of the local authority. If, in the selection of employment schemes, we are to interfere, by the provision of attractive grants, with the type of work which must in the ordinary way be undertaken by local authorities, we are diverting the Vote to a purpose for which it was never intended, and, because of that, it is only in cases in which the housing site development work is of a kind which is not likely to be undertaken in the near future by a local authority that our approval is given.

On this matter of housing site development work, I cannot help thinking of a case of which I and the officials of my office had some experience because it refers to a town in the constituency of Deputy Morrissey who addressed himself to this subject. I cannot help relating some of our experiences in regard to a housing site development scheme there. The grant, as Deputies know, is on a fifty-fifty basis, and we found that there were 64 or 65 men in receipt of unemployment assistance in this particular town. The local authority submitted a proposal for a housing site development work, and it was ultimately approved, and the grant was sanctioned. The town surveyor proceeded to go ahead with the work, and shortly after he had started the job, we received from him a communication asking us not to insist upon the rotation of the men employed or to interfere in any way with the continuity of the work. We were surprised by this request because it had been put to us that there were only a sufficient number of men in the place to make one gang.

We proceeded to investigate and we found that the town surveyor, because the rates had to make a 50 per cent. contribution towards the cost of the work and because that 50 per cent. element would ultimately have a bearing upon the rents at which these houses would be let when erected, had to be careful as to the type of people he employed and, therefore, did not feel that people to the number of 40 odd, out of the 65 registered as unemployed in the urban area, were suitable or capable of giving the type of return that the local authority employing them would require to get in order to make the proposal economic.

I am citing that case to show those who have recommended to us the provision of full-time employment, the abolition of rotation and the payment of standard rates in all cases, that quite a number of unfortunate people, who, because of their economic circumstances and for a number of other reasons, are unable to find work—unable to find work in a competitive sense— and who are forced to the labour exchange in order to secure assistance, are incapable of competing in the open market, and, if employed, incapable of doing a full week's work and giving the sort of return on which any employer, even a local authority, would insist before taking them on.

Mr. Davin

Due mainly to malnutrition. Is that not so?

Mr. Smith

No, it is not so. I cite that case to show first, when Deputy O'Sullivan complains that the 50 per cent. contribution is too small in respect of housing development site work, that it is a type of work which would and should in the normal way be undertaken by a local authority and, secondly, that when it is undertaken on the basis of a 50 per cent. contribution by the State and the local authority, the local authority are not enthusiastic about it because they are obliged to take from the register people, who, apparently, in the opinion of the technical men employed by the local authority, are not able to give a return in work which would justify the 50 per cent. contribution which has to be made by such authority.

Mr. Davin

That happens everywhere with the unemployed, in every sphere of activity.

Mr. Smith

It is something worth considering when we talk in terms of what should and should not be done. Deputy Hughes and a number of other Deputies who were not thinking in terms of employment schemes in towns, cities and urban areas mentioned the reclamation of land on hillside pastures. I am at a loss to know how we could fit in the development of hillside pastures. Possibly reclamation of land could be fitted in, but I cannot see how development work on hillside pastures could be fitted in. I am at a loss to understand how you could divert or use this unemployment problem in rural areas for that particular purpose.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary has read something about what is being done in Great Britain in that respect?

Mr. Smith

What I am rather thinking about is the fact that somebody owns these hillside pastures. I might own 50, 60, 70, or 100 acres of them; Deputy Hughes might own 200 acres of them; Deputy Giles might own 300 acres of them, and so on. On what conditions are you going to treat and deal with these hillside pastures to which Deputy Hughes has referred? Is it to be on a contributory basis? Are you going to take the land from the farmer?

Mr. Hughes

Oh, no.

Mr. Smith

Are you going to recondition the land and, after you have paid for and carried out such reconditioning, are you then going to hand the land back to the farmer? If Deputy Hughes' hillside pasture is to be treated in that particular fashion then what will happen to my hillside pasture and where are all these priorities to come in?

Mr. Hughes

Where do they come in under the farm improvements schemes? The Parliamentary Secretary ought to answer sensible questions about them.

Mr. Smith

That is a different thing. I hope I know a little about it.

Mr. Hughes

I am sure you do.

Mr. Smith

And I believe I know a little about the difficulties that would confront any Government or any Department in attempting to use the scattered unemployed throughout the country, who form a rural unemployment problem, for the purpose of treating and bringing back into a state of fertility the hillside pastures of this country. I would like to see that done. I would like to see such work achieved if means could be found for doing so; but I have some doubt in my mind as to whether it could be done through this Vote.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary recognises that the land is the basis of our whole economy and on it depends the very existence of this nation.

Mr. Smith

I am not talking about that problem at all.

Mr. Hughes

You can relate it definitely to this unemployment problem.

Mr. Smith

I am dealing here with the number of people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance and who are registered either at branch offices throughout the country or at Gárda stations; and I am thinking in terms of how we are to treat these hillside pastures that Deputy Hughes talks about and how we are to fit them into that scheme, however desirable that scheme may be.

Mr. Hughes

I believe the Parliamentary Secretary will find a solution for that if he thinks over it.

Mr. Smith

Now a good deal of play, if you like, has been made by Deputy Davin and some others, with this system of rotational employment.

Mr. Davin

Did I misstate the position?

Mr. Smith

Now I do not want to say—and, indeed, it would not be right for me to say—that we, as a Government, are in any way wedded to any system of this type. But in any criticism we have to offer we are—if we have given any thought at all to this whole unemployment problem—entitled, I think, to be reasonable. It may perhaps be unreasonable on my part to expect those Deputies, who come in here to criticise, to see things from my angle.

Mr. Davin

Is the Bishop of Galway right?

Mr. Smith

I have not the same kind of contacts and the same intimacy with the bishops of this country that Deputy Davin has. I would never dream of claiming to have the same facility for interpreting the words and the intentions of the Bishops of this country that Deputy Davin would seem to have; nor do I follow up the articles that appear in theStandard with the same care and attention as Deputy Davin does. Nevertheless I have to live. As I say, the Government is not in any way and has never been wedded to this system of rotational employment any more than it is wedded to other matters of policy. But, speaking as one who has some knowledge and who has some little idea of what this unemployment problem is both in town and country and the type of person for whom we are endeavouring to cater— the type of individual whom we find in the town to which I have referred where this housing development scheme was in operation—and keeping all these difficulties before our minds, I think at least it can be said to be a reasonable approach, not to the finding of a solution and not to the provision of a solution of the unemployment problem as a whole, which some Deputies allege it is, but a reasonable approach to assist those people many of whom, for the reasons I have stated, cannot be said to be capable and cannot be said to be made capable of competing in the open market with other workers for the employment which is available there. Now, as far as I can remember, nobody on these benches ever claimed that this Vote was a Vote to remove unemployment in that sense. As far as I understand it, it is a Vote for the purpose of increasing the provision made by the State for that class of people who, for one reason or another, are unable to secure work either temporarily or permanently. As I say, we are not wedded to the system, but I think it must be admitted that if the men, for whom Deputy Davin and some of the others speak, are in the physical condition in which they are alleged to be it would be unreasonable to start those men off by giving them in some cases four days a week, and in other cases five days a week, or six days a week, depending upon the amount of assistance of which they were in receipt.

Arguments could be advanced against any such scheme when one has regard to the inability of those men because of their physical condition. If you have regard to these considerations then you must appreciate that there is some justification anyhow, when asking these men to turn out on fairly heavy and somewhat laborious work, for ensuring that they are not asked to work a full week.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I quite agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. From experience I know that is so.

Mr. Davin

What about the responsibilities for the maintenance of their families in relation to the wage?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I know there are a great many of them and I know their families, and a very large number of them are not dependent upon their earnings.

Mr. Davin

You represent a very lucky area. You are a very lucky man.

Mr. Smith

Deputies from rural areas mentioned the desirability of taking compulsory powers to prevent farmers and others from impeding certain desirable works such as bog development, minor employment and rural improvement schemes. That is a matter that has been raised here on more than one occasion. It was raised, I think, last year and perhaps the year before and it has been raised also in a number of other places. It often crops up at county council meetings and, at one time, the General Council of County Councils made approaches to the Government with a view of having such powers taken for the purpose of preventing people from obstructing works of the kind I have mentioned. I do not think that it would be wrong to take such powers. Some Deputies thought it would be an outrageous thing to propose and other Deputies thought it was all right. I do not think that there would be anything wrong in taking such powers, provided you could show cause for that action. We certainly have not evidence of the kind and to an extent that would, in my opinion, justify us, or justify any Department, in seeking such powers. I have asked for the percentage of schemes that are not put through because of such objections, and I find that in the case of bog development and minor employment schemes it is under 3 per cent. and, in the case of rural improvement schemes, it is around 1 per cent.

When one considers that the right of appeal must be given to the individual and that an elaborate machinery would be necessary in order to protect everybody's rights and that in the operation of that machinery the time in which it was proposed to carry out the work would elapse, it is obvious that the machinery would be largely ineffective. As far as our experience goes, there is no evidence that would warrant us or any other Department in seeking such powers.

Several other matters were raised but I have dealt with the points that were referred to by most Deputies. I cannot say who it was who first suggested to me that employment schemes should be operated in the summer months. In so far as rural areas are concerned, such a proposal does not make sense. If a man is genuinely seeking work and if work is available at all, the summer is the period when he would be expected to get work as a result of his own efforts. Certainly for the last three or four years there should have been no difficulty, in rural areas, in finding employment for a man who was genuinely seeking work and was reasonably able to work. Therefore, by those who understand the conditions in rural Ireland, the proposal is one that cannot be taken seriously. In urban areas these employment schemes are continued in winter and in summer. Deputy Davin has complained—and he is not the only person who has complained—about the conditions under which men are asked to work on minor employment schemes in the rural districts. He has also complained in regard to the wages that are paid on those schemes. In that matter also we are always prepared to examine and re-examine and, if it is thought wise, to change our policy if there is justification for it. But, as I have explained, and as my predecessors in this House have explained, the wages paid on these schemes are regulated by the wages paid in agriculture. They are regulated, influenced and controlled entirely by the hourly rate paid to agricultural workers and I must say that while I, like Deputy Davin, would be glad to see the workers getting a decent wage, a reasonable wage, I have no hesitation about standing up in this House or any other place and justifying the importance that is being attached to the rate of wages paid to the agricultural worker and the importance of tying down the wages of those who are engaged in a number of other occupations—county council workers and those employed on minor employment schemes, rural improvement schemes and all such works—to the rate of wages paid to the agricultural worker.

In saying so, I am not contending or suggesting that these wages are as high as I would be glad to see them but, when you think of what an agricultural worker's task is, when you think of his hours, the extent of the supervision, the output he must give and when you consider that the man employed in county council work is finished work at 12 o'clock on a Saturday morning and has the remainder of the day to himself, while the farm worker has to continue, when you think of all these things, and especially when you have regard to the importance of the agricultural industry and the importance of doing nothing that will induce men to leave that important and very desirable employment, from the point of view of the community, is it any wonder that we, or that I, should without any hesitation in the world stand up here and defend the policy of relating and of keeping in relation the wages of such workers to the wages paid by farmers to their staff?

Mr. Davin

Is the Parliamentary Secretary defending paying a lower rate of wages than the local authority for the same class of work?

Mr. Smith

I am defending paying the rate of wages that is paid and relating the wages paid on these schemes to the wages paid by farmers.

Mr. Davin

But you are paying less and you know that.

Mr. Smith

I am paying the same hourly rate and if Deputy Davin is right in his forecast, and if the new rate that is suggested by the board to which he referred, becomes, in a week, a fortnight, a month or six months' time, the legal rate to be paid by farmers to their workers, then we will be prepared, of course, to adjust our wages to fit in with that general recommendation. I have had experience, perhaps not as much as many other Deputies, of local authorities. I have been associated for part of my life with local authorities. I always found, when applications came before these local authorities for increases of wages for their employees, and so on, the local authorities, while composed largely of farmers and their representatives and people who were employers, perhaps in a very limited sense, were always prepared to be veryflaithiúil when it came to a matter of disbursing moneys that were extracted from the ratepayers in general.

Many of them were not soflaithiúil when it came to regulating the wages of their own employees. I should be glad to see agriculture in a condition which would enable it to pay a reasonable wage but I, certainly, shall not apologise for saying at any time or in any place that the wages payable to those workers, who are not engaged in as important an occupation, in my opinion, as agriculture, and who are not called upon to be as skilled in their occupation as farm workers, should be related to the wages paid by the farmer to his employees.

As regards the rural improvements scheme, I might, to some extent, agree with Deputy Giles but I disagree with him that there is anything demoralising in the State coming to the farmer's assistance or tempting him to undertake useful works on a contributory basis. If the farmer is himself called upon to make a cash payment, there can be nothing demoralising in such a scheme. I was disappointed to hear the opinion of some Deputies that this scheme would not be a success. I should be even more disappointed if I were to accept them as reliable prophets. The facts belie their forecast. When the scheme was first mooted, many Deputies thought that farmers could not be induced to co-operate for the purpose of improving their rights-of-way or boreens or for the purpose of carrying out small drainage schemes. The figures I gave in my opening statement show that this scheme has been very successful, indeed. I do not think that Deputies are acting rightly in suggesting that such a scheme could not be a success. I believe that we should, on every occasion, encourage our farmers to co-operate. I think that the State is wise in making provision to induce that co-operation for the carrying out of useful works. The Deputy referred to the type of work produced by this type of scheme. The difference between output on such a scheme and the output on a scheme to which there is 100 per cent. State contribution is very noticeable, indeed.

In the main, we find that the output on a scheme to which farmers and beneficiaries have contributed is much higher than the output on schemes entirely financed by the State. When you come to do a job completely out of a State grant, even those who are benefiting by it, those whose approach-road is, perhaps, being improved, say: "If they do not make a good job of it this year, they will do so in three or four years more; they will be back with us again." The men employed on such a scheme may not be very closely supervised. The surveyor and his assistants may regard the work as a sort of side-line——

Mr. Davin

Is there not another reason for the better output—that the farmers' sons are better fed than the men who have been unemployed?

Mr. Smith

There is another reason —but the Deputy never gets the right reason. Because of the increase in output, I should like Deputies to encourage farmers to take advantage of those schemes. When they want the State or the local authority to have the tar laid on their road up to the door, it is not any harm to tell them that if they put up a certain proportion of the cost, the State will put up the rest. Though the scheme does not seem to find favour with Deputy Giles——

Captain Giles

It was not with the joint schemes that I found fault. I agree that the joint schemes are useful. I was referring to schemes carried out by an individual on his own farm.

Mr. Smith

Any scheme to which people contribute and which is designed to effect improvement is, I think, useful.

Mr. Hughes

There has been shocking neglect in the past. We are inducing farmers to attend to what has been neglected in the past.

Mr. Smith

To encourage them to go head with that type of work. That is all I have to say on the Vote. If Deputy Davin wants to keep me in touch with, and informed of, what is running through the minds of our Bishops as to the rates of wages which should be paid in this country, I invite him to ask the editor or manager of theStandard to send me a copy of the paper every week. I do not propose to become a contributor.

Mr. Davin

I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary at short notice. If he has not the figure now, perhaps he would get it for me. I want to know the average earnings of the 31,000 persons employed on minor relief schemes over a period of 12 weeks.

Mr. Smith

I shall send the figure to the Deputy.

Vote put and agreed to.