Vol. 106 No. 5
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, 1948, 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 Dáil for employment and emergency schemes in the financial year 1946-47 was £1,250,000, of which £1,028,347 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added contributions, principally from local authorities, amounting to £203,800, making a gross expenditure of £1,232,147. Subject to possible amendments in detail, the expenditure on the various sub-heads was as follows:— A-E—Salaries, travelling expenses, etc., £41,000. F—Public health works in urban areas, £71,104; housing sites development, £14,924; road works in urban areas, £126,757; amenity schemes in urban areas, £34,851. G—Public health works in rural areas, £78,237; road works in rural areas, £168,836; amenity schemes in rural areas. H — Minor employment schemes, £93,500. I—Bog development schemes (landholders' and other private producers' bogs), £86,200. J—Reconditioning or repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport, £18,845. K— Farm improvements scheme, £345,000. L—Seed distribution scheme, £32,000. M—Lime distribution scheme, £7,200. N—Rural improvements scheme, £102,432. O—Miscellaneous works, £11,261.
Of the expenditure of £1,232,147 approximately £370,237 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £861,910 during the winter months, that is, the time of year when the distress due to unemployment is most acutely felt.
The maximum number of workmen employed at any one time during the year was: Farm Improvements Scheme, 6,528; other schemes, 13,506; total, 20,034. The average number employed each week on all schemes during the period up to September was 6,153, and from October to March, 16,753. Approximately 33 per cent. of those employed 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 76 per cent.
The total number of applications received for minor employment schemes during the year was 1,544 and about 5,000 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out. During the spring and summer, approximately 500 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of £32,000, principally for the development of bogs used by landholders for the supply of their domestic requirements of turf.
The total number of effective applications received under the rural improvements scheme up to 31st March, 1947, was 5,408, of which 4,294 had at that date been investigated on the ground by inspectors and reported on. Of these, 463 were for various reasons found to be unsuitable; offers of grants were issued in 3,865 cases. The number of such offers accepted in the course of the year under review was 753, for which grants totalling £90,871 were sanctioned towards a total estimated expenditure of £115,264, the balance of £24,393 being contributed by the applicants. The total expenditure incurred during the financial year was approximately £102,432. By the end of the year the number of individual works completed since the inception of the scheme in 1943-44 had reached 1,607, while a further 412 schemes were in progress.
I might remind Deputies that the rural improvements scheme 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 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 will be observed that there was an under-expenditure of approximately £221,600 on the Vote in the last financial year. This was largely due to the quite exceptional weather conditions which prevailed during nearly the whole of the winter months, when works were held up for long periods in nearly all areas.
I should say that the proposals for works, on which the year's programme is based, are not lodged until after the beginning of the financial year, and for that reason it is not always feasible 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. Furthermore, in a Vote designed to cover emergency services it is necessary to keep a certain proportion of the moneys in reserve until a late stage of the financial year in order to provide against contingencies.
During the course of the financial year just completed, two changes of some importance were made in the regulations affecting the recruitment and employment of workers on employment schemes. For the purpose of distributing the benefits of these schemes amongst as many unemployed persons as possible, the rotational system of labour, which involved four or five days' work each week, had been adopted in 1936. While it will be agreed that this object was a desirable one in view of the limited quantity of suitable work available for employment schemes in many areas, on the other hand, the short week was looked upon with disfavour, not only by the workers themselves but by many of the officials in charge, with the result that there was often a loss of efficiency and economy in the execution of employment schemes. For this reason it was decided to change the system, and to give a full week's work to each of the men employed. At the same time, the period of employment for each worker was increased to six weeks in rural areas, and eight to 12 weeks in urban areas. The necessary instructions were issued to effect these changes as from November last.
The practice of giving employment to workers who, whether from long continued unemployment or other cause, were not fully fit, with the intention of rehabilitating them, led in the past to the employment of many unsuitable workers, which resulted in costly and inefficient work. In order to overcome this, the employing authorities have been instructed that in future only fully capable and suitable workers are to be engaged.
Turning now to the programme for the financial year 1947-48, it will be observed that the provision in the Vote remains the same at £1,250,000. In this regard I should mention that the allocation of those sub-heads of the Vote which are provided specifically 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 area, and the programme for the financial year is based on a special census of unemployment assistance recipients taken in the beginning of each year, usually in January when unemployment is at a maximum. The total number of men returned in this census in January, 1947, was approximately 54,000, as compared with 57,000 in January, 1946.
Of the sum of £1,250,000 included in the Estimate for the current year, £869,370 will be spent on the continuation of schemes sanctioned before the 31st March, 1947, leaving a balance of £380,630 available for expenditure on miscellaneous new schemes. To the amount of the Vote must be added contributions from local authorities, and from beneficiaries under the Rural Improvements Scheme, together estimated at £285,000. This gives an aggregate of £1,535,000 available for expenditure within the financial year 1947-48, 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 £826,570 (State grant) in excess of the amount of the Vote. This sum, representing the unexpended balances on works in progress before the 31st March, 1948, together with a proportionate amount for local contributions, will be carried forward 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.
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:—Public health schemes in urban areas, £30,000; housing site development schemes, £20,000; urban road and amenity schemes, £180,000; public health works in rural areas, £60,000; rural road and amenity schemes, £120,000; reconditioning and repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport, £50,000, making a total of £460,000. Schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture:—Farm improvements scheme, £350,000; seed distribution scheme, £70,000; lime distribution scheme, £12,000, making a total of £432,000. Schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office:—Minor employment schemes, £100,000; bog development schemes, £90,000; rural improvements scheme, £100,000, making a total of £290,000.
Administration expenses are expected to amount to £48,746, leaving a balance of £19,254 for miscellaneous schemes of an emergency character, or for the relief of any special cases of unemployment and distress which may be brought to attention during the course of the financial year.
As compared with the previous year the only significant changes in the distribution of the Vote as between the various sub-heads are as follows:— F—Urban employment schemes increase, £10,000. G—Rural employment schemes increase, £40,000. These increases are due to the inclusion of a large number of public health schemes which could not be proceeded with during the war emergency. The increase of £50,000 in these two sub-heads is found by a corresponding decrease in sub-head K—Farm improvements scheme.
Sub-head N — Rural improvements scheme—an increase of £10,000. This useful scheme shows a tendency to expansion, and it is expected that a larger number of applications will have to be dealt with during this financial year.
I understand there is agreement to discuss Votes 11, 9 and 10 together. Only Vote 11 has been formally moved, but the Parliamentary Secretary might make a statement on the other two Votes so as to open them for discussion at the same time without formally moving the Votes, which must be done by a Minister. They are allied Votes—Employment and Emergency Schemes, Office of Public Works, and Public Works and Buildings.
Following the procedure of previous years, I propose to take Votes 9 and 10 together. This year Vote 10 includes provision for expenditure in connection with bowline Dockyard which, in previous years, appeared in the Estimates as separate Vote.
Vote 9 bears the salaries and expenses of the administrative, executive and technical staffs of the Office of Public Works, which is the office responsible for the administration of Vote 10. Vote 10 provides the necessary funds for the purchase of sites and buildings for State purposes, for the erection, maintenance and furnishing of the Government offices and other State-owned premises throughout the country, for the erection and improvement of national schools, for the erection of major military buildings, for arterial drainage, for the maintenance of State-owned parks and State harbours, and for a number of minor activities.
There is an increase in Vote 9 of £23,520 in the Estimate for the Office of Public Works. This is due mainly to the consolidation of Civil Service pay, as explained at page 2 of the Estimates Volume, and to the proposed recruitment of additional staff for the architectual and engineering branches. The additional architectual staff is required for the national schools programme and for new works generally; the additional engineering staff is necessary in connection with improvement works at certain harbours which the Commissioners of Public Works are undertaking on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Estimate for Public Works and Buildings shows an increase of £48,170 on the Vote for 1946-47. The main increases are in the maintenance, fuel and light and drainage sub-heads.
We are asking for £500,000 for sub-head B—new works, alterations and additions. This was the amount voted for 1946-47, but supplies of steel, timber, heating and electrical equipment, essential for our building works, were still restricted during that year and we were unable to carry out our full programme. Expenditure on new works, which amounted only to £285,000 approximately, was also affected by the very severe weather experienced in the winter and early spring.
There are two items in the sub-head to which I should like to invite attention. One is our proposal for the reconstruction and development of Dublin Castle. The position in the matter of accommodating Government staffs in Dublin City has been unsatisfactory and difficult for some time past and we have been examining the problem for the past few years with a view to the formulation of a scheme for the provision of accommodation suitable and adequate for the requirements of the various public services. As a result of this examination, a scheme has been prepared for the reconstruction and development of Dublin Castle which, while retaining the castle's main historical features, will provide upwards of 300,000 square feet of office space capable of housing a staff of 4,000 persons. The full scheme will take many years to complete. As a first stage, it is proposed to erect a building to house the Stamping Branch of the Revenue Commissioners (of which the requirements are specialised and urgent) and to undertake such other works as will cause a minimum of interference with present offices.
The other item to which I wish to refer is No. 182, Public Concert Hall, Dublin. The cultural development of the capital has for long been hampered by the lack of a hall suitable for the performance of major musical works, and the popularity of the Radio Éireann Symphony concerts has emphasised the public demand for the requisite facilities. It is proposed to erect a State Concert Hall which will meet the exacting acoustic needs of the broadcasting service and be generally worthy of its national purpose. It is intended that this hall should also be available for public concerts, recitals, lectures and similar functions. A suitable site has been selected and agreement for a lease reached with the owner. Development plans are in hand but it may be some time before building work can be commenced.
We are again providing £250,000 for grants for building and improving national schools. Expenditure on this service in 1946-47 was £175,000, approximately, as compared with £176,000, approximately, in the preceding year. This was due mainly to the difficulty of placing contracts owing to the unsatisfactory supply position as well as to the severe weather already referred to.
Expenditure under the maintenance sub-head in recent years has exceeded the provisions and, in view of the prevailing high costs of materials and labour, we consider it necessary to increase the provision for 1947-48 to £260,000. As regards fuel and light, reserve fuel stocks are virtually exhausted and requirements in 1947-48 will have to be met almost entirely by purchases.
We had a full discussion on arterial drainage in this House recently and Deputies will already be aware of the extent to which we have found it possible to proceed with our programme. I do not propose, therefore, to go into the matter further at this stage. I would like to assure the House again, however, that every effort is being made to begin drainage operations at the earliest possible date.
Provision is made in the Estimates for the purchase of five new excavating machines which we expect will be available, and of other equipment such as air compressors, power pumps, concrete mixers, which will be necessary for large-scale drainage works. Provision is also made, as in previous years, for the reconditioning of our existing drainage plant.
I do not desire to say anything in regard to the employment and emergency schemes but in regard to Vote 10 I want to make some references to the expenditure of £30,000 on Dublin Castle, the sum in the Estimate now before us. Of course, as has been stated, that is a very small part of the sum that will ultimately be spent if this scheme is carried out as contemplated. There are several ways in which one can look at this expenditure. I do not know whether the Government consider that the Government offices exist for the benefit of Dublin or whether Dublin City exists for the benefit of the Government offices. We are on the threshold of developments in building which, whether they come quickly or slowly, will determine the lay-out of the city for many years. There is no doubt that in the vicinity of Dublin Castle there is a very considerable area of ground which is very poorly laid out. It has been laid out in the past, probably in annexes to various buildings, which I think the Government could with advantage sweep away.
The Minister for Finance in introducing the Budget mentioned that a block of offices was to be erected in the Castle Yard which would ultimately house 5,000 civil servants. I take it that is the ultimate end of this scheme or perhaps this is only an instalment of it. Perhaps I might be informed whether accommodation for 5,000 officials represents the complete scheme? Anyway, a very considerable number of civil servants are going to be housed there. Dublin Castle is, I suppose, a survival of many hundred years' gradual growth. Originally, I suppose it was a fortress. Then it became a Castle, and now it is to be the site of a number of buildings. It occupies a very considerable space in the centre of Dublin, probably in one of the most congested portions of the city, but there are now no roads through the Castle Yard. There is a front entrance, or whatever one likes to call it, in Palace Street. In the old days one went round, sweeping past the Government offices and came out in the Lower Castle Yard. I do not know, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary when replying can tell the House, why that gate is kept permanently closed, because whatever trickle of traffic might go through there cannot go through the Castle Yard if the gate is shut. I have no doubt that the Government advisers and architects would make a very effective scheme of a block of offices and that it would probably be a very fine building, but what I am not at all sure of is that they would give adequate consideration to the traffic problem of the city as it exists to-day and as it will be in the next ten years.
I should also like to suggest to the Minister that in the vicinity of the Castle the problem of stationary motor cars is going to become acute when the Government erects this block of offices. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what proportion of these officials will have motor cars. I do not know what the proportion is likely to be but even if you assume that none of them will have a car—I suppose if some Deputies were talking here about civil servants they would probably say that none of them could afford a motor car —there will still be a number of people who will come to transact business in these offices. I do not know whether they are going to park their cars round the buildings in the Castle Yard or how they are going to get through the present very dense volume of traffic which pours past Dublin Castle. I do not know how the £30,000 mentioned here will be spent.
I would urge on the Government that they ought to do a realistic amount of town planning and consider whether the centre of the city around the Castle can really stand a large increase in the present volume of traffic. The roads through the Castle ought to be laid out at the earliest possible moment and a realistic view taken of what amount of traffic is likely to go through that site which represents many, many acres in the centre of the city. If these offices are put up, then in the course of time there will be a block on all traffic in a part of the city which, from the traffic point of view, is already extremely congested. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that. I know, of course, that the site is complicated by the fact that there are different levels there. A scheme which I, personally, would like to suggest, and which I think ought to be carefully considered, is the linking up of Exchequer Street with the Castle. That would involve a removal of at least one modern building, but taking the long view I think it would be worth doing that. No doubt, the problems that would arise in regard to levels could be solved satisfactorily. The grounds are there, and I am sure that the block of offices that will be put up will be creditable from a building point of view, but they might have the reverse effect from the point of view of traffic congestion. They might make the position worse in an already congested area.
I do not know if the Government have considered what has been done in other cities. I suggest that the attraction of putting up a building in Dublin Castle is that the Government own the ground, and that, consequently, there will be no rent to be paid. That is quite right, but if one takes a long-term view it might be desirable to move father out. I do not know if any inconvenience was experienced when the Department of Supplies was housed in Ballsbridge. I know that special trams were provided to Ballsbridge, but that could not be done in the centre of the city. I merely mention Ballsbridge as a sort of happy medium between the centre of the city and asking that Government offices should be moved out to the suburbs. I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary were to look around some of the other districts he would probably find places adjacent to the city where ample parking arrangements could be provided, and where the traffic facilities would be just as good as at Ballsbridge. If that were done an improvement in the layout of the city would be brought about.
I am sure everybody in rural Ireland will approve of the scheme which has been adopted by the Government under this Estimate. The only criticism that one might offer is that enough money is not being provided. I should like to deal with the question of turf production and the provision of accommodation roads for the haulage of it. It is now a very valuable commodity. It is generally agreed that the possibility of getting adequate supplies of suitable coal is now very remote. We are hardly ever likely again to get coal of the quality that was imported in pre-war days. Hence, I and many other people feel that turf production has come to stay. We are all agreed, I think, that if turf is properly produced it is, if not quite as good as coal, at least a very good fuel for the people. One of the difficulties that arise in connection with its production is the provision of roads. I am thinking now more or less of the private producer. Those now engaged on the private production of turf are in the main persons who are not in a position to earn a decent living on their own holdings. They are small farmers or the sons of small farmers. They have not whole-time employment on their own holdings. Since, as I believe, turf production has come to stay, it is going to provide a means of livelihood in the future for them, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look favourably on my suggestion that he should provide grants, almost to the extent of 100 per cent., for that type of person.
The roads leading into the bogs are of no other source of benefit to the people and it is very hard to ask them to contribute towards their construction for turf production alone. Where application has been made and a guarantee given of maximum production of turf from a particular bog, the Minister should try to give a very substantial grant, almost 100 per cent., to those people.
There are many people who suffer considerably from small rivers and streams and since we have not the Drainage Act in operation in our county or places like it, I suggest that more money be provided for the cleaning, widening and deepening of those rivers. A lot of the useful land is being lost—it may be low land but useful land for grazing, as useful as the tilled land, since we know that grazing land to-day is as valuable as tilled land for the production of butter and milk and essential commodities for the life of the nation. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to concentrate more on that particular portion of the Vote.
There are also people who have no protection from any source, those who have embankments in tidal areas. Since I have come in here, I have been fighting with the Land Commission with a view to getting repairs done to embankments. There are some not protected in any way by the Land Commission, who are themselves liable for the repair of embankments. Through no fault of their own, these embankments become breached and that involves the unfortunate landowner in a very considerable outlay. If he is not in a position to deal with that, his lands become flooded and may be rendered useless for years and years. I suggest that for cases of that kind the Board of Works should be prepared to give substantial grants for the reconstruction and repair of the embankments so destroyed. Even when the tenants should have the protection of the Land Commission and have been refused such protection or assistance, I intend in the near future to see if financial accommodation could be obtained from the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and I would ask him to give that point favourable consideration.
Regarding the farm improvement scheme—which speaks for itself throughout the country—unfortunately, on account of the increased amount of tillage during the past few years, many of the bigger farmers have not been able to avail of the scheme as they would wish. The smaller farmers, with more time or at a looser end, certainly gave a lead and it speaks very well for the scheme. Even where you see piers and gates constructed, they are a credit to the people who have done the work and are a compliment to the Department and the Government in making provision for such work. They beautify the areas concerned and it is grand to see a pier or a gate instead of a bar or a bush. Due to the intensive tillage, however, many of the farmers who would wish to take advantage of the scheme have not been in a position to do so.
I would also like to refer to the short period this year given for the completion of the forms for that scheme. A few people in my area who made applications had them cancelled, due to the fact—which speaks for itself also—that the amount of money was all used up. I suggest that more money be provided under this Vote for that particular work. There is a lot of useful work which can be done on the farm and the land can be improved by draining or the removal or reconstruction of fences. I suggest that the period be extended or at least opened much earlier, so that these people can make application and ensure that they may be able to avail of the scheme. I also suggest that the schemes be well advertised in the local papers at the particular time.
There is another very pressing question which I brought previously to the notice of the Department of Agriculture, namely, the possibility of providing pumps for people in areas where they have no water supplies. There is a Vote here for certain amenities. Would it be possible to devise a scheme, to be dealt with by this particular Department, for the sinking of pumps in rural areas? The possibility of getting relief from the local bodies is very remote, as they are fully occupied in dealing with schemes for urban towns and such places, where there were a lot of buildings built just prior to the emergency and where during the emergency they were not able to get suitable materials, including pipes, to carry out water and sewerage schemes.
Could provision be made by the Board of Works for the sinking of those pumps for groups of people in rural areas? It is really very important, as in many areas they have to travel for miles for a supply of water and a lot of valuable time is lost. A lot of inconvenience is caused, particularly to the poorer sections of the community. There are many cottages where the men are out working during the day and the women who have young children have no hope of providing a supply of water. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be a very good thing if a scheme could be formulated to give financial accommodation through the Department for the sinking of such pumps. It would relieve those people to a great extent and would bring about a certain amount of contentment.
In conclusion, I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the works which have been carried out and the Government in providing this type of scheme, which, I think, is definitely an asset to the country and which speaks for itself.
There is one satisfactory aspect of this Vote, that is, that the sums of money provided last year were spent—and, I believe, spent usefully. In providing sums for this purpose, we ought to think in terms of improvement rather than employment, since in the last analysis the State, just as the individual, cannot afford to spend unwisely, extravagantly and uselessly, but must bear in mind all the time that the money be spent to good purpose. The late Deputy Hugo Flinn on several occasions on this particular Vote in this House complained that his difficulty was to find schemes rather than money, that the difficulty was not the money but the schemes. At that time, money was spent on schemes, the dividend-paying quality of which might be questioned, but here, at all events, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot complain of any paucity of schemes, because, as the House knows, a limit is set to the period within which applications in respect of farm improvement schemes may be made, and, as a matter of fact, thousands of applicants are refused because they are a day or so late. They may even be in time and be refused, if the amount of money voted is exhausted. When the amount of money voted here is exhausted, the remaining applicants simply go by the board until the following year, when they may get preference.
In these circumstances, I cannot understand a reduction of £50,000 in the amount provided for the farm improvement scheme. Last year we provided £400,000 and this year we are asked to provide some £350,000. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on his Vote, told us we had either to export or perish, and, in view of the difficulties we have to face, and in view of the fundamental importance of expanding our production to its maximum capacity, we should not hesitate to spend money to improve the productive capacity of the primary industry, and, above all, to improve the only real asset we have, the most vital asset we have, the land. Money spent on this vital asset will pay handsome dividends to the nation, and there is no use in other sections of the community feeling that it is the farmer's responsibility to do the development. The farmers are the nation's instruments, utilising the nation's most precious asset, and it is the responsibility of the nation to see that the artisans are properly equipped to do the job and that the material they are using is in the best possible condition.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that we have neglected this drainage problem for many years in a country with a very high rainfall and in a country which, if we were doing our job properly and had the proper technique and methods of carrying out arterial and field drainage, should lead the world. Instead we know little or nothing about it, because we have not been doing the job. While I do not want to reflect on inspectors—they are keen young fellows and anxious to be of every possible assistance to the man who proposes to carry out a scheme—there is no technical advice available on field drainage, and, while our fathers and grandfathers were experts on the right type of drain, the distance which should be allowed between the drains, the depth at which to put a drain and so on, we of this generation are ignorant of these matters. I must admit that I certainly could not claim to be much of an authority. I have done a little drainage, but I should like to be able to meet a man who could give me expert advice.
This whole question of drainage is being approached in a piecemeal way, and, for that reason, I am doubtful if we are getting the results we should get from the money expended, if the problem of drainage and land development were systematically approached. We have to make up our minds that this is an immense problem which must be tackled in a systematic way. There is no use in doing a bit of drainage at one point and then neglecting the outfall and allowing all the drains to get choked, with the result that the work done is lost in a few years.
The country must make up its mind that we must put a lot of money into this job. Britain, when fighting for her very existence, with the pride of her manhood in the army during the war, reclaimed 1,000,000 acres of land. What did we do? We exported our people, and let the wet land go to the devil. What we are doing is scrappy, piecemeal work and we cannot point to any district and say: "There is a job well done. There is an area drained and we must see that these drainage works are properly maintained."
Let us approach this problem as it ought to be approached. Let us realise the immensity of the work involved and the neglect which has gone on for years. Let us get down to it systematically, and let us not think in terms of providing sums of money to relieve unemployment. Let us provide sums to add to the wealth of the nation and to build up the productive capacity of the primary industry. We will then be doing something useful and constructive and we will have carried out a certain amount of development of which we can be proud of later on. I am pleased with the approach. Farm improvement and rural improvement schemes represent an excellent approach, because the field of endeavour is immense, but it must be systematically tackled and the work cannot be done efficiently and well in the piecemeal way in which we are tackling it. If it is done properly and efficiently, it will pay handsome dividends in the production of what the world has always been acutely short of, protective foods. We in this country, in a particular way, are equipped for the production of these protective foods, but our productive capacity in that respect is exceedingly low at present. There are many factors contributing to that, but, in its own way, this neglect of drainage has contributed to it.
When the late Deputy Hugo Flinn was in this House, his attitude was: "We will provide all the money wanted, but we want the schemes." Here are Votes which show that the people appreciate that money is being spent in the right direction. Applications are pouring into the Department for money under the farm improvement scheme, and we are providing a smaller sum this year than last year. In the times in which we live, that is a very wrong mentality, and I might say generally that we have to make up our minds that we must spend capital and spend it freely on agricultural development, if we are to make progress, and if we are to tackle the stagnation in agriculture and establish an efficient industry. I do not want to discuss too minutely the details of it. Some of the scales fixed are too low and possibly some are too high. I feel that the inspectors generally are to be trusted and should get more discretion. In certain instances, a particular piece of work may be much more easily carried out than a smaller piece of work under different conditions.
On the rural improvement scheme, I want to say that I am not so sure that the right way to get the scheme carried out is through the local authority. Local authority engineers are generally in arrears with their work and they are rather annoyed when told that they have to carry out a number of rural improvement schemes and they pay rather scant attention to these schemes. They are left in charge of a ganger who is very often more anxious to swing the lead than to see that the work is efficiently done. It might pay very well to have a few extra engineers in the Department of which the Parliamentary Secretary has charge to see that the work is efficiently carried out. I know some schemes which were carried out in a scandalous way. One efficient worker doing a full day's work would do as much as five or six of them on some of the jobs. I do not want to blame the staffs of the local authorities because it is hardly fair to the engineering staffs of the local authorities to throw on their shoulders jobs which, properly speaking, ought not to be their responsibility at all. I do not know that I can be very constructive in my criticisms. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's difficulty in finding staff to do that work which is scattered all over the country. I do feel, however, that there could be supervisory attention by the inspectorial staffs of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department in rural improvements schemes. It is scarcely fair to expect an inspector of the Office of Public Works to be responsible for schemes over two, three or four counties, as occurs in some cases. I know with regard to a particular inspector I have in mind for Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny—I do not know how many other counties he does—that he has spent the past few weeks in County Kilkenny. I was very strongly urging to have one particular scheme carried out in South Kildare. The district is an intensive tillage district.
Good tillage land was flooded and, though the Department was not in a position to expedite this inspection, I know that the assistant county engineer was in a position to put a staff of men on the job to get the water cleared there in time to get crops put in. I made representations in the matter some weeks ago. I was in the Board of Works yesterday and the report from the engineer was only just back. That engineer had an immense lot of arrears to overtake. I could not expect that he would single out for inspection the particular scheme in Kildare while he had planned to do a lot of work in Kilkenny. If the inspector of the Department is not able to overtake the arrears of inspection he certainly can never pay a visit to see how the work is being carried out.
I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that money spent on the proper supervision of any job, no matter what it is, is money well spent. There is no supervision of rural schemes here. Money is being badly spent and men are "swinging the lead". I suppose it is only human nature to "swing the lead" when there is no supervisor to see that the work is efficiently done and that there is a decent labour output. My advice on this matter is to increase the engineering staff. We are spending a fair sum of money, we are doing good work, so let us provide the supervision to ensure that it is properly done.
There is a big sum here for urban employment schemes — £230,000 as against £180,000 for rural employment schemes. Urban employment schemes are for site development. Is not it an extraordinary thing that in an agricultural country such as this, when we compare the figures for urban employment schemes with the figures for rural employment schemes, we always find we are prepared to devote more money to urban development and town development than to the development of our primary industry? However, it is good policy to ensure that sites are developed at the present time so that we will be ready to proceed at the maximum rate with the building of houses when materials become available. We have a lot of arrears to make up. There are a lot of young people anxiously awaiting houses in order to settle down and rear families. This is a very pressing matter. I am aware that some of the regulations governing the development of sites are not conducive to the expedition of the work. The site must be completely developed or the grant goes by the board.
Under certain conditions it is impossible to have a complete development because under practical conditions perhaps half the site only can be developed until people are cleared out of condemned houses, when the remainder of the site can be developed. When we are tied up with a lot of regulations and try to operate them in a practical way, there is sometimes a deterrent to the work and to the development of the work. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter. I am speaking with some knowledge of a grant which was allocated for a particular site. The site could not be developed and, because of that, the scheme is held up at the present time. I may say, en passant, that the Transition Development Fund has somewhat similar conditions. We can appreciate why we have spent only something like £56,000 out of a sum of £5,000,000.
As a final word, I would like to make this suggestion. It is in connection with farm improvements. The last two or three times we discussed that particular matter in the House a number of Deputies talked about helping to build houses in the yard, etc. I take a different view. I think there ought to be a separate scheme for farmyard development. We ought to ear-mark this money for land development and improvement. I think if we bulk it all into one sub-head, Sir, that eventually we will spend nearly all the money on farm development, on the provision of floors in cow-sheds, and on the development of farmyards, etc. I want to suggest that we ought to spend this money on land improvement, development, reclamation, clearing out scrub, etc. The same applies to drainage. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider bringing in another sub-head and putting a separate sum in for farmyard development and keep it in a separate category.
There are about 70,000 on the unemployment register, Sir. I often wonder whether, in fact, we have that much unemployment or how many people are diddling the State of money. I think there is a good deal of that going on. I think a lot of people are signing and working at the same time, and that the matter requires closer supervision. I often think that, so far as unemployment in this country is concerned, instead of putting a premium on unemployment we ought to try to put a premium on employment.
We ought to provide some sort of a subsidy for employment so that an employer who increases his staff permanently over a period might get some financial assistance rather than pay premiums for fellows to remain idle. I think the suggestion is well worth considering. The State cannot afford to pay big premiums on unemployment, conditions being as they are in the world to-day. It is true, we cannot ignore destitute conditions. People who are unemployed may be facing destitution and the State has a responsibility to provide for those families. The scheme we have been pursuing in this country and which has been pursued in neighbouring countries has not been healthy and it has demoralised a great many people. It has not given them the right outlook on life. When the Almighty placed people on this earth, He put the responsibility on the individual to carve his own niche in life. That is his primary responsibility and the State comes in only when he is unable to make provision for himself and his family. We have gone much too far in that direction and it has wholly demoralised many of our people. The new approach should be some sort of provision which would induce employers—even employers in a small way—to increase their staffs by the aid of a form of subsidy from the State.
I should like to remind the Committee that we are discussing the three Votes, 9, 10 and 11 together.
I wish to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary, his predecessor and the Commissioners of Public Works on the very practical work they have done for rural Ireland. I think that no Department of State has carried out work of so valuable a character for the farmers as have the Office of Public Works. I notice that the farm improvement scheme is mentioned here. I was of opinion that that was, to a certain extent, the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. I wonder if it is contemplated to co-ordinate grants for outoffices and farm buildings with the farm improvement scheme. I think that the Minister for Agriculture mentioned something about that recently. There is a good deal to be said for Deputy Hughes' point of view—that that should be separate from ordinary improvements such as drainage or the building of sod fences. I believe that a different type of individual would be required to supervise it. Furthermore, there should be planning as to the type of out-buildings which would be suit able for the farmer.
As regards the rural improvement scheme, excellent work has been done in respect of bog development. We were told at a meeting of Galway County Council a few months ago that a proposal had been put up, through the Minister for Local Government, whereby the supervision of the carrying out of rural improvement schemes would be taken from the engineering staffs of Galway County Council and given back to the Board of Works. That, I take it, would also apply to schemes of bog development. We all know that it was an inspector from the Board of Works who went down and made an estimate for the work but the carrying out and completion of it was under the supervision of the county engineer and an assistant. In that way, a very excellent return was obtained. I do not know how things were done in Deputy Hughes' area. He mentioned that some gangers were inclined to "swing the lead". That is not applicable to our county. Every 1d. of the money was well expended. I think that more value was got for it than from any other form of expenditure—particularly in regard to the rural improvement schemes. I suppose the people were interested because they were contributing a certain amount of money but the gangers who supervised the work and the engineers—experienced men—saw to it that the money was not unwisely expended and that the best return was obtained. If it is proposed to reorganise all these schemes—and very beneficial schemes they are—the Parliamentary Secretary should act cautiously.
I quite admit that there are in this country young men from the universities with engineering degrees who are as capable as any in the world but they lack experience of the practical work. In that connection, if it is proposed to have this matter dealt with entirely by the Board of Works, the assistant engineers of the county councils should be taken into consideration and recruited on terms no less favourable, or, if anything, better than they are enjoying at present. In the Army during the emergency—I do not know whether they are there now or not— there were engineers who went into virgin bog and carried out drainage work. In addition to carrying out drainage work and development, they supervised the cutting and saving of the turf and the laying out of the bog. It would be very hard to find anything to excel the work they did.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary understands all this as well as I do but it may be no harm to remind him, because we know that pressure is oftentimes exerted from some quarters in favour of the man with high technical qualifications as the best man for the job. I suppose that that is so, but, nevertheless, he requires experience. The people I have in mind have the qualifications and have experience of carrying out and supervising a considerable amount of this type of work since the schemes were initiated.
The rural improvement scheme has been one of the greatest blessings conferred on the farmer. Excellent work has been done—so much so that, in counties where the scheme has been taken up, a great many of the roads that were almost impassable are now in a good state of repair. While I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary mention the number of drainage schemes that were carried out, I fear that the same attention is not being given to applications for drainage schemes as is given to applications for repair of accommodation roads and roads into bogs. Of course, roads into bogs are very important. I believe, however, that in various parts of the country where farmers are prepared to combine, from now on there should be a lien in favour of drainage schemes. I believe that some schemes for the cleaning of a river have been turned down on the ground that the amount of money involved was too great. I think that is a mistake. Provided the people are prepared to subscribe the required amount, I think the bigger the scheme is the better it will be and the more people to whom it will give relief. I know that it was very difficult during the winter and early spring to inspect a number of proposed drainage schemes for which applications for sanction had been made. As the weather has now improved, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to impress upon his Department the necessity for giving priority to the inspection of proposed drainage schemes.
There is only one other small point which I wish to make. When an application is made for a grant for a rural improvement or bog development scheme the card which is sent out gives only the name of the townland and the address of the person who acted as correspondent. In my opinion, there should be a reference number on that card referring to the file in which the application is placed, as sometimes inquiries have to be made by Deputies and others and by the correspondents themselves with regard to the application. I feel that it would be also helpful to the people in the Department in tracing the application as giving the date is not very helpful. Sometimes when inquiries have to be made by Deputies they get particulars of the work and the townland, but the name of the townland given to them may be different from that given in the application. If a reference number were put on the card it would get over that difficulty. I wish again to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and I trust that he and his Department will continue with the very good work they are carrying on.
When speaking on this Estimate last year I strongly urged upon the Parliamentary Secretary the initiation of a new war—a war on furze. Many poems have been written and songs sung about the golden gorse and the purple heather, but I think that both of these are a very insidious enemy of farmers, particularly farmers living on high and hilly lands. We know that over 15,000,000 acres are accounted for as having passed through the hands of the Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts. Of that acreage, something less than 11,000,000 acres are reputed to be arable land. Of the remainder, a great portion is waste, rough grazing land, bog and high hilly land which is capable of reclamation. So far as bogs are concerned, I am somewhat suspicious about them and a little bit afraid of them. There is an old saying in the part of the country from which I come that a bog once said to a farmer: "If you break me, I will break you". I know that a considerable amount of land has been brought into an arable condition by field drainage, but I think there are greater prospects of bringing high hilly land which has deteriorated into cultivation by reclamation than there is by attacking the bogs, and if these two are to be taken in the order of priority, I would be inclined to back the reclamation of high hilly land rather than of bogs.
We all know that, particularly in our mountainy counties, there are vast areas of land which were once good agricultural land but which have, with the efflux of time, deteriorated and become over-run with heather, whins and furze. We might say, perhaps, that that reflects great discredit on the farmers concerned. We must, however, remember that farming is not a philanthropic occupation; it is a matter of making a living. But if a farmer finds that the expenditure on the maintenance of poor upland does not give an adequate return in profit, he is inclined to concentrate on endeavouring to farm the best part of his land and letting the inferior part go by the board. That is a matter which ought to be tackled vigorously. If we could add 1,000,000 acres to the total of arable land in this country it would be a tremendous asset to the nation. Experts are agreed that high hilly land, when properly reclaimed and maintained in cultivation, is almost equal in productive capacity to a great part of the low lands.
We know that in the last few years there has been introduced in Northern Ireland a scheme for the reclamation of hilly land. I have not the scheme before me, but I think it is very much more far-reaching than our farm improvements scheme, inasmuch as it provides for a longer term of years for the carrying out of schemes and also for a system of re-seeding, in addition to reclamation. The scheme is intended to bring waste land into cultivation and to maintain it. That is a scheme which should be carefully examined, as I think it has advantages over our present farm improvements scheme. I am not one of those who advocate copying our neighbours in everything; but, at the same time, if we see some progressive ideas being adopted by a neighbouring country it is only right that we should take advantage of them. I am quite sure that our neighbours in other countries will not be slow to take advantage of any progressive idea that may be brought into operation here.
There are so many types of work which can be, and ought to be, undertaken under the various schemes for which public money is provided that it is perhaps, merely a waste of time to enumerate them. We all know how desirable it is to give assistance to rural dwellers to obtain a water supply by some system or other. We do not apply the farm improvements scheme to that particular type of work, I suppose, because the inspectors would scarcely have the necessary water divining and engineering knowledge. Nevertheless, it is desirable that something should be done in that respect. Nothing is more necessary than to have a supply of good drinking water convenient to a rural dweller's home for private use and for the use of live stock. In connection with these schemes—rural improvement, minor relief and urban and rural employment —which are operated by the Minister's Department in conjunction with the local authorities, nothing is more necessary that that there should be a stepping-up of efficiency. As Deputy Hughes pointed out, the engineers of the local authorities have not the necessary time, particularly in view of road and bog development, to devote themselves to that type of work. In addition, the persons appointed specially by the Minister's Department to supervise this type of work would require to be supported by a trained staff of overseers.
There has grown up in this country, as we know, in the past 20 years, a vast system of employment by the State, involving manual workers of various types. We have all the schemes under this Department which involve a very considerable number of manual workers. We have, in addition to the vast expansion of employment directly given by the local authorities, the expansion of employment given by the Forestry Department. There is to-day, as compared with 20 or 30 years ago, an enormously increased number of manual workers on the State pay-roll.
Efficiency in the different types of work demands that there should be highly skilled leaders in control of the men wherever they may be employed. No matter how well intentioned the men may be and no matter how willing they may be, everything depends on the skill, ability and energy of the ganger in charge. Inspectors of the Minister's Department can do something, but it would be very little. Engineers can do a good deal in laying out the work, but in the actual hour-to-hour supervision it is upon the ganger in charge of each team of men that you must depend for output and for the quality of the work. I think the occupation of ganger or leader of teams of men working on various schemes should be made a permanent one for the efficient man. It should be a fairly well-paid position because it is a responsible position and an all-out effort should be made to secure well-trained men who will understand their job thoroughly and, having got such men, you should guarantee them security of employment. We all know that those schemes are to a certain extent haphazard. You may have a big rural improvements scheme in one district and a minor relief scheme in another district and a ganger is taken on temporarily to supervise the work. Much of the work will require to be carried on from year to year over a very long period.
An almost unlimited amount of development work requires to be undertaken. Accommodation roads to our backward rural areas, the opening up of those areas to the public roads so that the people living in the backward country districts will have easy access to church, chapel, school and the local towns—these things are very necessary. Arterial and minor drainage are works which offer an immense field of development. The backbone of the organisation in carrying out such work must always be the local man in charge of a team of workers and, until we realise that we must have the most efficient man available for such work, we cannot hope to make much progress. When we have got such a man we must retain him by offering him every inducement. Until we reach that stage, we will not have the high degree of output and efficiency which are so necessary in the carrying out of these big development works.
Unfortunately, I was not present when the Estimate was introduced and I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary explained the reduction in the Estimate for farm improvements. It is certainly true that large numbers of people were disappointed this year, mainly because the period for making application was cut extremely short. I have a feeling that it was cut short in order to keep applicants out. Given time, I am sure there would have been at least twice the number of applicants. We all know that in rural areas farmers very often have to depend upon the weekly paper for any information they may require. Frequently, by the time many farmers got the provincial paper in which this scheme was advertised, there were only a few days left in which to make the application, obtain the form and fill it in. I think having regard to postal and other difficulties in rural areas, the time was cut extremely fine. I do not think that is necessary or desirable.
I think the farm improvement scheme has justified itself. It has given good results. The Department have not to carry out the work themselves; they have simply to supervise it. I think the supervision has been efficient and that a lot of useful work has been carried out. Much land has been reclaimed, fences improved and farmyards substantially improved. Having regard to all these facts, there is no reason why the grant should be substantially reduced. One would imagine that in a successful scheme of this kind which has given good results, the grants would be progressively stepped up every year, as the people would come to appreciate the scheme better and as the inspectors under the scheme would become more experienced and efficient.
It is unfortunately true that many of the most urgently needed rural improvement schemes have been held up, because where there are five or six people living on an accommodation road, there is invariably one person, either because he is cranky or because he has some disagreement with his neighbours, who refuses to co-operate in the carrying out of the scheme. That creates a difficulty which is hard to overcome. In this, as in many other matters, I am not in favour of compulsion. I believe that if this is a free country we ought to keep it free and even though four or five persons might desire a scheme to be carried out, and one object, I think compulsion should not be applied. I think that with goodwill and the application of intelligence, it should be always possible to overcome difficulties of that kind. When a person takes up an unreasonable and unreasoning attitude you can always, if you are persistent, overcome and wear down his objections. This applies to nearly all human activities. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins pointed out recently, in regard to the removal of infectious patients to hospitals, that persistent application and moral suasion usually overcome the most stubborn objection. I am not prepared to join with some other Deputies in asking for compulsion in these cases, but I certainly ask that the Department should co-operate actively with the willing applicants in their efforts to overcome opposition.
I think it was a progressive step on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to discontinue the system of the short week. There was always a strong objection voiced in this House to that system. It put men working on various types of relief work in an inferior position to other workers employed on the roads and elsewhere. In the long run, it did not make for efficiency, either in supervision or any other way. The fact that the Government, after resisting demands for this reform over a number of years, finally adopted it just shows what moral suasion can accomplish even in this House. I think that there is a very urgent need for greater organisation throughout the country in regard to the solution of the unemployment problem and the provision of permanent employment. The position is that it is the duty of the State to provide for those who cannot obtain work in schemes operated by ordinary private enterprise. It is the duty of the State to make provision for those people in some way. I think that that provision should be in the nature of employment rather than unemployment assistance. With proper organisation I think it should be possible always to have in reserve in every district such schemes as will absorb any men in that district who become unemployed so that, when a man finds himself out of work, he can always report to the labour exchange and find that he is immediately sent on to a job. That is the system at which we have got to aim. It may be difficult to operate it in some districts but in the majority of districts there is always development work available.
So far as single men are concerned they can be sent to any part of the country where there is work, whether it be on turf development schemes or other schemes of that kind. For married men it should be possible to have local schemes in mind to which the men could be drafted immediately on going to the labour exchange. Some time ago, I gave a lift in my car to a man who was making his way to the labour exchange to draw unemployment assistance. He told me that he had been drawing unemployment assistance on and off for four or five years. I asked him how he would feel if eventually work were provided for him, would he be able to deal with it having being unemployed for so long. He said that he felt that he had nearly forgotten all about ordinary work, "but," he said, "it does not matter so much. I have become so skilled with the pen signing my name five or six times a week that I think I will be able to get into the Civil Service and I will not have to work any more."
That is typical of the outlook which is being instilled into the minds of many of our people. Instead of doing some useful work and adding to the resources of the nation, they are simply frittering away their time and wearing out their boots in tramping sometimes long distances to the labour exchange to report themselves as unemployed and in travelling back again. That kind of life is neither good for the nation nor for the individual. It leads to degradation and demoralisation. There is no reason why, under some of the headings to the Votes for minor employment schemes, urban employment schemes and rural employment schemes we should not always have on tap work available in every area to which men could be directed immediately they reported themselves unemployed. That is one of the reasons why I am so keen on having a permanent staff of trained overseers or gangers recruited who would always be available to the Department in every area to supervise and put in hands any work that is to be carried out. There is no use in spending vast sums of money on various schemes of this kind unless we ensure that good results are obtained.
Deputy Hughes referred to the fact that some of the schemes under the farm improvement grant are of a nature which it is difficult to hand over to a young inspector to supervise and lay out properly. He mentioned in particular field drainage. In that matter, I think some special training should be given to the supervisors. It is hardly fair to expect a young inspector to be qualified to supervise all these different types of work, and, therefore, special training would be necessary. I know, of course, there are areas where the farmers themselves are highly skilled in field drainage work, but there are other areas in which that particular type of skill has disappeared completely. We know that field drainage work has not been carried on extensively for a considerable number of years. As a matter of fact, in many districts it has not been carried on to any extent since the days of the landlords. It is essential that a study should be made of the best type of field drainage and instruction given to inspectors so that they would be able to advise on the layout of any scheme which a farmer is inclined to undertake. There is no use in having work done inefficiently.
The same applies, to a great extent, to the reconstruction of fences, both earth and stone faced fences. In doing work of that kind, a lot depends on the kind of soil on which one is working. An inspector coming from, say, portions of the West of Ireland, where there would be very few earth fences, would not know much about their erection, and in the same way, I suppose, inspectors from parts of Leinster would know very little about the erection of stone faced fences. All that is a matter to which study should be given because, as I say, there is no use in spending public money and not getting an adequate return for it. Those schemes are very necessary in the national interest. The money spent on them is, in the main, reproductive, but since that is true it is urgently necessary that they should be brought as near perfection as possible. They should be stepped up in efficiency from year to year as we gain increased knowledge and experience.
I think that these employment emergency schemes should be called "employment and hardship schemes." They are carried out in severe winter weather, and are of no value to the local community or to the workers concerned. As a member of a public body, I urge that they be carried out in fine weather, so that the workers will be spared those hardships. That would also mean better results for the public bodies concerned. Men are taken from the labour exchanges to work on these schemes in winter. The men are badly clad and badly fed. During last winter when we had heavy snow men tried to stick the work for a few hours. They would have been better off if they had been allowed to remain signing on at the labour exchange. I know that from experience because I am with the workers. I was a worker myself. The schemes that were introduced by the late Deputy Flinn to provide work for the people on three days a week were a disgrace to any body elected by the people. As a result of the agitation carried on for some years they have been improved but only for a few workers. Single men are debarred and no longer get work. Their rate from the labour exchange is only 9/-. When a list is sent down by a council for men those with influence with the ganger or the engineer on the job are taken on, and remain on all the time. The others return to the labour exchange to sign on again. On Monday I had to appear on behalf of men from Enniscorthy who were brought to the labour exchange because it was said that they were not genuinely looking for work. They are signing for work but cannot get it. A single man will get no work. I do not agree with Deputy Cogan at all.
The Deputy is now dealing with unemployment assistance.
I am dealing with employment schemes—and with how men are taken from the exchanges to work on the schemes.
That would hardly come into this Vote.
I believe I am in order. I am dealing with the emergency schemes.
The Deputy is quite right but he is talking about the conditions under which the men are employed, which I think is a matter for the Minister for Social Services. I want to point out that unemployment exchanges are under the control of the Minister for Social Services, not the Minister for Finance.
I understand that the men are governed by the employment exchanges.
There are so many changes in Ministers that it is very difficult to know who is the right Minister. That is my experience. We see that £2,000,000 is being spent on Dublin Castle instead of being spent on the roads for the benefit of the ratepayers of the Twenty-Six Counties. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the intention is to carry out work on Dublin Castle in order to provide accommodation for 4,000 civil servants. I would like to see 4,000 people in the colleges being looked after or some other work being carried on in the country. I happened to be in Dublin Castle once. There is plenty of room there that could be very easily converted into offices without the expenditure of £2,000,000. There are places there where big functions are held once every year. Some foreign representative comes here and there is a function in Dublin Castle to do him honour. The hall that was shown to me is as big as Leinster House and it is centrally heated the whole year. It is unwise to provide more accommodation at this stage. An emergency scheme is going to be operated in the City of Dublin, in Dublin Castle, for the purpose of accommodating civil servants instead of being used to create employment throughout the country and to provide houses for the people.
Deputies have referred to good results being obtained from the unfortunate unemployed men. I say, carry out the schemes in the summer time. At present the system is to give a relief grant for the relief of unemployed about a week before Christmas. The men are put out to work and, with bad weather, it is probable that they will not be able to work two days and then they have to go to the relieving officer. Such schemes are no good; they are merely hardship schemes. There would be greater satisfaction, both for the men and for the local authorities, if the schemes were carried out in the proper time, in fine weather. We are told that the schemes are put in operation to tide the men over the bad period and to help them at Christmas. That is foolish. I have received many complaints from people who have been engaged on schemes. The winter time is not the time for these schemes. Even if they were to get more during the winter time out of some other fund, it would be better to have the schemes carried out in the summer time. It would not involve so great a hardship as is involved when the schemes are carried out in the winter. That is where the unemployed men have a grievance. Under the new regulations that I have seen there are men at the labour exchange who will never get a day's work although they may be signing for 12 months because, by the time their turn comes around, the scheme will have closed down, the money will have been spent and they can wait until the next year. I would prefer that the ports should be opened and the workers allowed to go away freely to England to work than that they should have to wait for relief schemes for nine or ten months in the year. How could any working man have any heart in the country or any interest in it when he cannot get a living in it?
Turf work has been referred to. That is only a seasonal job. After a few months of the summer, turf work is finished and the men can go back to their homes and may sign at the labour exchange until the next turf season comes along. They cannot get away because they are turf workers. Many agricultural labourers cannot get away because they are agricultural workers. Many people are clamouring at the labour exchange to get to the mines and they cannot get away until a representative from England comes to interview them and to take a fancied few here and there. Open the ports, take off the restrictions, if we cannot find employment for them in our own country, and let the men go and get a living elsewhere.
A reference was made here some nights ago to the rate of wages in England and the rate of wages in Ireland. The Minister did not tell us that Irishmen in England get 24/- subsistence allowance on £6 and £7 a week. I have had an opportunity of signing forms in respect of the 24/- subsistence. The Minister kept that back but he said that tradesmen have more here than they have in England.
What I want to know is, how long are we going to have the present state of unemployment in this country? What effort has the Government made to create employment since the emergency ceased? These schemes are still referred to as emergency schemes. There is no honest effort. We have a larger number of unemployed to-day at the exchanges than we had during the whole of the emergency and the years that preceded it. We were told when the Fine Gael Party were in power that unemployment was not a matter for them. We were told when Fianna Fáil were seeking office: "Put us in and we will provide work for everybody." They have failed. There is work to be done in this country. There is work to be done in every county. There are many roads to be widened and many roads to be made but there is no money for roads although there is £2,000,000 for the reconstruction of Dublin Castle.
It is time the Government and the responsible Minister faced up to it and, instead of giving out a few paltry shillings in the dole, they should provide grants and put all these men on the labour exchanges into work. They would be happier and more content as what they are getting to-day to try to keep their families together is a miserable pittance—single men with 9/- and married men now in or around 30/- with the vouchers taken off and the cost of living what it is. Then when they go on these relief schemes, they can only be paid a certain amount.
Every county council and every local authority must put up a certain sum to meet every grant given. The ratepayers of one town must put up £300 to meet a grant. When will the rates be brought down, with that going on? We have Ministers telling us it is providing employment, that they are doing this or doing that. At the same time every grant means a burden on the people of the town or the county, to be met out of the rates, and if they do not meet it they will not get any grant at all. These are things the people should be told about, as every year the rates are going up and the people are saying: "What is all this about, where is it going to stop?" As long as the Government insist on this, the rates are bound to go up. We have a scheme going on at the moment. It is nearly coming to a close now. We will apply for a grant next year to continue that job. It must be put up next year again. If it goes on for five or ten years, the local authorities must put up £300 to meet what is given. Then the men do not get a fair wage, even under these grants. For a few months they get some work and then they go out, as the grant is finished.
The county councils are clamouring to have the roads done. We all like to see the roads right for the traffic. There was post-war planning here during the emergency. Where is the post-war plan to-day? There is no plan, for tackling the unemployment problem. The Government are not doing their duty. It is the duty of the Govvernment to find work for every man who is willing and able to work. It is the duty of the Minister for Social Welfare to provide social services for those who are not able to work. There is no such thing as charity required. No Irishman wants charity to-day. It is necessary to provide only for those who, through old age or disability, are unable to work. The poor people should get the social services necessary for them, but there is no man I know of in the exchanges who would not prefer to be going to work every morning instead of signing against a certain time every day and getting nothing for it. The work is not being provided and the responsible Minister may tell us he has not the money, that we should provide the money and it will be done. We can all see the state of the country and the plight of the working man and the unemployed man and the old age pensioners and all the poor old widows trying to exist on a few paltry shillings a week, while at the same time, in this Book of Estimates, there is plenty of money to be spent in the wrong direction. There is enough there to provide employment for every man, but the Government prefers to be talking about aerodromes and airways and money for luxury hotels. The hotel owners now must pay to the Tourist Board 2/6 for a single bed and 5/- for a double one, to come under the regulations. The like of that is outright codology.
If the Minister does not put into operation immediately some scheme, which was promised to the House and the country, to provide work for the unemployed, there will be a very serious situation. It will not be the organised workers who will be threatened by bringing a Bill here, but the unorganised workers who will be marching on Leinster House as they did before. Something will have to be done to provide work for the people. It is the duty of every Government throughout the world to provide work, as when the work is going on the nation is on the march and when work is let lie and is put off from one year to another and there is a rising cost of living and rates and taxes going up at the same time, the situation cannot be allowed to continue and a stop has to be put to it some day—and will be put to it.
The unemployed of the Twenty-Six Counties have great patience. Their patience has been tried on a couple of occasions. The Government took away the vouchers which made them sure of a loaf of bread or some butter. They said they would provide a substitute, as they wanted the butter to go somewhere else. The unemployed man with six in family has in or around 30/- a week and the majority of them are urban dwellers paying rent and rates to local authorities. Go to the country exchanges at certain hours in the day and you see the men queued up there, young and old, fathers and their sons, queueing up to sign the register. Everyone that you meet asks if there is any chance of getting a passport or of getting an interview with the lady who comes for the men for the mines— while our own Government knows there is work to be done. They are providing money for Dublin Castle, money for luxury hotels, money for the Tourist Board, but none for the unemployed.
What the Government should do is to put all this money which is being spent in other directions into productive work, such as making and widening roads. They would then be doing something useful. As the roads are now, with bus traffic, heavy Córas Iompair Éireann lorries and doubledeckers, one is in danger of losing one's life because this traffic keeps to the concrete part of the road and people must go what other way they like. There is plenty of work to be done, and if the Government will give the local authorities the money, the local authorities will get the men to do that work. There are not enough men employed by the county council. In some of the county councils, there is an uproar if the rates go up, but we have to-day in County Wexford five extra surveyors who were sent down to survey the roads, while, at the same time, we have a whole lot of local engineers. I know what these men who have been sent down will be doing for the next 12 months. They will be going out the roads and asking some old man or woman what part of the county they are in. That will be done at the ratepayes' expense, at the rate of seven guineas per week. All that is unnecessary. We have enough engineers and surveyors of our own to carry out the work without the Custom House sending down five or six young fellows without any experience. They are being sent down to get experience at salaries of seven guineas per week, but when we wanted to give road workers a few shillings' increase, the Minister would not sanction the increase.
He is not this Minister.
I know, but it is no harm to remind him.
It is; it is out of order.
The relief schemes are only a waste of money and they are no good, so far as employment for the unemployed is concerned, because they are carried out at the wrong time. There is plenty of work to be done on bogs and rivers. We were told by the present Minister for Agriculture that the Government had a drainage scheme of £7,000,000. When will that scheme be put into operation, or is it the policy of the Government to keep it hanging from one five-year period to another, so that they can go out to the people and say: "Put us in again and we will put into operation all these schemes we promised you." I speak with practical experience as a worker. I know the position of the workers from A to Z. It has been said here on a few occasions that the unemployed would not work, but I should like to know the man who would remain on the dole if he could get a constant job at £3 or £4 a week. I hope we will never again hear that statement from Fianna Fáil members which we heard a few weeks ago.
There is no dole in these three Votes.
The men are taken off the dole.
Then they are not on the dole.
They must be recruited from the labour exchanges. I hope something will be done for the unemployed. No housing is being carried out, the snag being that there are no materials, but there is plenty of work to be done on every road, and especially on the by-roads, if the Government were in earnest about it. So far as I can see, this Government and the previous Government provided roads only for the seaside resorts and for bus traffic.
That is a matter for Local Government.
The farmers are left in the bogs, although they are paying the piper, and, with the workers in council houses, are paying their share of the rates. One thing which will have to be done now is to provide employment for our workers and keep them at home with their wives and families and not force them into the emigrant ship. There are young men I know who can go freely to Goraghwood to join the British Air Force, but who cannot go to England to work, because the Government will not allow them.
That is not in these Estimates.
It has happened.
There is provided in the Estimate this year a sum of £12,000 in respect of the lime distribution scheme, which fits into the provision for land reclamation schemes, for the benefit of smallholders in congested areas. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would examine the results of the operation of this scheme for years back and see whether it could not be improved upon, because, if we look at the Appropriation Accounts for 1945-46, we find that of the sum of £15,000 provided that year, only £6,856 7s. 9d. was expended, £8,143 12s. 3d. remaining unexpended. One of the conditions under which this scheme operates is that the landowner's place must be valued at not more than £20. I take it then that, in view of the fact that so much of that money has not been expended, the people for whom it was intended did not avail of it to the full extent. As a matter of fact, less than half the amount was used. I have been approached by farmers in my district whose valuations are over £20 and who are, therefore, not allowed to avail of it. On their behalf, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter should now be reviewed and that landowners with a valuation of more than £20 be included in the scheme. The principal advantage to them, of course, is that they will get lime at 9/- a ton instead of having to pay anything from 44/- to 48/- a ton for it. Of the schemes operated by the Parliamentary Secretary I think the one that seems to be giving greatest satisfaction is the rural improvements scheme where there is a local contribution, where the beneficiaries contribute something to the work, and where they get an opportunity of actually assisting in doing the work themselves. I wish those schemes were extended and that there were cooperation between the Department and the local authorities in the matter of the provision of water schemes in the rural areas where there is a scarcity of water at the moment. I tried to induce the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor to introduce such a scheme, at least to try it out, especially in a place like South Kerry where, with the minimum expense, gravitation schemes can be introduced, so that people will not have to travel, as they have at the moment, as much as two or three miles in the summer time for spring water. It was pointed out to me on that occasion that the provision of water was a matter for the health authorities in each county. There would be a double advantage in having local schemes provided in the way I suggest. In the first place, more money would be available to the local authority, the beneficiaries could be got to subscribe and the scheme would be operated, would be the property of those who contributed, and the local authority would be relieved of the responsibility of having to pay caretakers. I seriously suggest to the present Parliamentary Secretary that he should have that position examined with a view to having the water schemes that I suggest made available to those districts where there is a scarcity of water.
I would like to draw his attention, too, to the position of the bog roads and in any constituency where there is an abundance of turf and where people in the non-turf area will be dependent on those areas for a supply of turf it is absolutely essential that the turf be removed from those districts as speedily as possible. That cannot be done unless the bog roads be put in proper shape. The operation of the minor employment schemes is reduced to a minimum in that part of South Kerry I come from, for the simple reason that the number of unemployed is small. For that reason, the grants available have been reduced in number. In some cases, instead of applying them to the repair of bog roads, they have been expended on improvements in the main roads, through the county councils. I have had representations made to me from the Kenmare and Rathmore districts that there are bog roads there which are in immediate need of repair and unless they are attended to before the autumn it will not be found possible to remove turf from those districts.
The people in the district in which I live are particularly, may I say very keenly, interested in a piece of ground which extends to about eight acres attaching to the college known as Colaiste Caoimhghin in Glasnevin. Some time ago, a local organisation in the district and subsequently the Dublin Corporation itself, made application to the Board of Works to have this particular ground used as playing fields. In both cases, I am sorry to say, the request was turned down. I do not know of any valid reason why that request was refused because there must be no very great need, so far as the authorities are concerned, for the use of the grounds for their purposes. The house attaching to the grounds is used by a section of the Ministry of Defence, mainly for clerical purposes. I do not know whether the cause of refusal is because the military or any section of the Defence Department are in close proximity. I do not know any grounds of defence that would warrant refusal from the point of view of the Department concerned. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that this ground is situated in the centre of an extremely populous district. As he is aware, it is impossible nowadays, with the expansion of the city outwards, to secure playing fields for the boys of certain districts in the city. This is ideally situated because it is very finely fenced in and, as I say, in the centre of the district. I would appeal to him, if there are no insuperable difficulties or grave reasons why it should not be handed over, that the request of the corporation, supplementing as it was a local organisation, should be acceded to. There is a keen demand at the present time for facilities of this particular character. I think the Government should be the very first to meet that type of demand and that type of need. The ground is not very extensive but would serve the immediate needs of the district. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to use whatever influence he may have to see that the wishes of the local people and the corporation are acceded to.
I might use this opportunity also to draw his attention to another scheme which was initiated by the town planning department of the corporation some three years ago—the scheme known as the Tolka Riverside Walk. The scheme was intended to extend from Annesley Bridge to Finglas Bridge, skirting the Botanic Gardens. It had a dual object. It was considered that it would be an excellent civic amenity and, at the same time, that it would be calculated to give much-needed employment. A number of Government Departments are involved in this scheme. One difficulty which presented itself had relation to fish passes in the lower reaches of the Tolka. That affected the Department of Agriculture. I think that the Board of Works have some responsibility in connection with the scheme. It has been in contemplation for three years. Great hopes were aroused when it was first intimated that the scheme would be tackled. I am sorry to say that those hopes have not been realised. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that, so far as his Department is concerned, there will be the utmost cooperation as between its various sections and Dublin Corporation, who are primarily concerned.
A point was raised by Deputy O'Leary in connection with unemployment relief schemes. I understand that the basis of the grants in connection with these schemes is the number on the live register. Deputy O'Leary complained that only a certain number of people could get employment on those schemes and that, invariably, they were the same types of persons—persons with large families. That is perfectly true. Unless that basis is altered—and it can be altered only by an increase in the grant—that unsatisfactory feature of the scheme will continue. Single men, and married men with small families, will have no hope of getting employment on those schemes. That is undesirable after these relief schemes have been under test for from eight to ten years. I suggest that there is need for reform. I need hardly remind the Parliamentary Secretary that these relief schemes serve two purposes from the point of view of the Government. They get men, to use our friend's term, off the dole and they ensure that the local authority—in our case, the Dublin Corporation—will make a certain contribution to their wages. The scheme can be attractive from the point of view of the Government and I urge that the restrictions to which I have referred be removed. In such cases in future it should be possible— though it can only be done if the grant is increased—for single men, and married men with small families, to obtain employment.
I propose to refer to one matter and one matter only. I was interested in the reference by Deputy O'Leary to the description of the Vote as "Employment and Emergency Schemes." He questioned the use of the term "emergency." I think that we should drop all consideration about "employment" and concentrate on the "emergency" aspect of these schemes. Since the beginning of the war, there has not been so acute an emergency in respect of fuel as we are experiencing now and as we are likely to have in the coming winter. I have not yet seen in County Galway a stack of this year's turf. That is a very serious position. We had a great deal of turf stacked this time last year. The reason I refer to that is that one of the best ways of increasing the production of turf is to get the private producer on to the job. In a great many places, the absence of roads is militating against the production of turf by private persons. If the Board of Works would concentrate more on the bog roads and not wait for the ordinary winter schemes to put their proposals into execution, if they could carry out during the summer months whatever bog road works are necessary to give us an emergency increase in turf production, they would be well advised to do so. I have been informed that there are many places in which large amounts of turf would be privately produced if even the promise of roads were made—roads to be extended or existing roads to be repaired. If the Board of Works inquire from the county surveyors, they will find that there are many places in which the county councils would be able to get a large amount of contract turf. In Galway, the county surveyor is trying to get as much contract turf as possible because he is doubtful that he will be able to produce as much as he has been accustomed to produce by direct labour. That is a matter of the first urgency. I think that it is the only urgent problem we have to face. Any Department of State which can do anything to ease the problem should endeavour to do so because it is the first of their responsibilities.
On Vote 11, each year——
Votes 9, 10 and 11 are being discussed. I do not think that the Deputy was here when that was announced.
No. I was under the impression that we were dealing only with Vote 11. On Vote 11, a good deal of discussion takes place each year regarding cul-de-sac roads, by-roads and drainage. One distinction has been made in connection with by-roads and that distinction has been dealt with here time and again without avail. In areas where there are not the specified number of unemployed or dolemen, by-roads and cul-de-sac roads will not be tackled. They have to go on to the rural improvement scheme. In many areas where a minor employment scheme would be put into operation, it cannot be introduced because of this regulation and a rural improvement scheme is not suitable because of the inability of the beneficiaries to meet the 25 per cent. contribution. We have asked again and again to have that contribution modified, because it is quite clear that jobs which require doing are just as urgent in an electoral division where there are 15 or 16 unemployed as in the other areas which have the required number of unemployed. If minor employment schemes cannot be put through in such areas and if work can only be carried out under the rural improvement scheme, the contribution in many cases should be higher than 75 per cent. I put this suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary: In cases where the holdings of the beneficiaries are under £15 valuation the Board of Works contribution towards the scheme should be 90 instead of 75 per cent. In cases where eight, nine or ten beneficiaries are asked to contribute £3, £4 or £5 each, it is very difficult to get that money. It is not easy for poor people to contribute that much money, even though they may have first preference for employment on the job, or even though the county engineer may choose one of them or one of their sons to be ganger. I suggest that when the land of beneficiaries is under £15 valuation the Government contribution should be at least 87½ or 90 per cent. in order to meet these special cases.
I could quote dozens upon dozens of cases where there are four, five, six, or perhaps 12 or more houses in a village for which a road is required but the people cannot contribute towards it. I have known cases of beneficiaries who, in order to get a road made, sold stock to find the money required. This scheme was not framed to meet that kind of situation.
The same thing applies to drainage in many areas. There are vast areas of perfectly good bog which are useless owing to the want of adequate drainage. There are a number of cases where a fair amount of arable land which could grow good crops is flooded for nine months of the year because the rural improvements scheme does not go the whole way to meet such cases. In counties where there may be a large proportion of fairly well-to-do farmers a contribution of 75 per cent. may meet the situation. But, in the west, where the rainfall is heavy, where drainage is very badly required, and where the valuations are low, it is time that the rural improvements scheme should be extended to meet the position there. I know there are occasional cases in which the contribution from the special employment scheme fund is increased perhaps to 90 per cent., but it is time to make that a permanent feature in cases where the holdings of none of the beneficiaries are valued at over £15.
A good deal of trouble arises when a rural improvements scheme is introduced. There will always be one or two beneficiaries who are unable to make a contribution owing to their circumstances. Then you will get one or two or three who are indifferent towards the scheme because they will only benefit slightly. In the case of a road, for instance, you will always get one or two, who are nearest the public road maintained by the county council and who have only to travel 50 or 100 yards on a bad piece before they get to the good road, who will not agree to contribute. That is one of the flaws in the scheme. You will also have the case of an old person living alone who cannot see why he should contribute when his neighbours will have two or three sons working on the job.
Some Deputies made reference to compulsion in this matter. There are cases where one person deliberately holds up a useful drainage or road scheme simply through perversity, or for some other reason; perhaps his neighbours may differ from him in politics or there may be some old feud between them. In that way, one person can stand in the way of others who want to make some improvement. Last year and the year before on this Estimate I suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary should take powers similar to those exercised by a county surveyor when he wishes to improve or widen a main road. A county surveyor can clear a small piece of ground or move a wall in five or ten feet at a dangerous turn. In these cases, the circumstances are exactly similar and I do not see why the Board of Works should not take powers like that to deal with a person who will not give a few feet of land for an improvement scheme and thus holds up the whole work. That might be encroaching on a man's rights to a certain extent, but it is for the general good. You may have the case of such a man living at the head of a road on which there are eight, ten or 12 other persons living and beet lorries, threshing mills, or other heavy vehicles cannot go up the road to these other people. Surely one man who wishes to pose as being in a key position should not be allowed to hold the others up to ransom. No greater hardship would be imposed upon him by taking a few feet of land from him than is imposed in a case where a county surveyor takes a small bit of land from a man to straighten out a dangerous bend on a road.
The same thing applies to drainage. In March last I put down a Parliamentary question about a drainage scheme for three villages comprising some 25 homesteads which are subject to flooding. In that case one man, who would not benefit by the drainage scheme, objected and told the Board of Works engineer that his land would be flooded if the drain was made. The fact is that his land is six feet higher than the bed of the stream there and even if two or three times the present volume of water came down his land would not be affected. The result of that man's objection was that the whole scheme fell through. In cases like that, if the engineers are satisfied that no damage will be done, the objector should be overruled. In this particular case, although any water brought down by the drainage would not affect his land, that man deliberately stands in the way of this drainage scheme being carried out for the benefit of three villages. I am referring to a case in the townland of Cashel in the rural district of Westport. I know there are many other such cases. As I say, the engineers in cases like that, where they are satisfied that no damage would be done, should go ahead with the job where farms and homesteads are being destroyed for want of proper drainage.
In connection with rural improvement schemes or minor employment schemes, from time to time we are told, even here in the Dáil, that the rivers or streams lower down are not in a fit condition to take the water and that the smaller works up-stream cannot be done until the main channel is cleaned and deepened. I think there is something very wrong there. In most cases, the main streams are quite adequate to take the water. The fact that a drain is deepened will not increase the volume of water coming into the stream. There will always be sufficient outfall and there will not be any hold up. Even though the Arterial Drainage Scheme may be slow in being put into operation, good land and good bog should not be left flooded and useless for the owners. There is a lot of good bog on which the owners would be glad to get a chance of cutting turf for the national supply if the bogs were drained. Sometimes I am inclined to think that the Department of Finance shelters behind these excuses and that they are not well founded in all cases.
I see the Estimate for the farm improvements scheme is down this year by £50,000, from £400,000 to £350,000. The farm improvements scheme is one of the most useful of the whole bunch. Many very useful improvements have been carried out under that scheme since it was inaugurated. In many places some valuable work was done. As a matter of fact, instead of cutting down this Estimate I suggest there should be a wider field opened up under that particular sub-head. Last year £400,000 was a very fine contribution towards that scheme, but I think the time has come when we should bring in farm buildings as well. There should be some scheme whereby farm buildings can be erected. In some parts of the country there is not such a demand for farm buildings, but in other parts of the country, where the people are emerging from the effects of the landlord system that obtained before the Congested Districts Board took control, the farm buildings are in a scandalous condition and in many cases they are dangerous.
The fact is that the people cannot meet the full cost of erecting or reconstructing farm buildings. Every one of them has suffered heavily through the loss of stock and crops. I maintain that all crops should be housed and all farm implements also. In addition to that, a much greater number of stock should be housed each year. The time has come when, under this sub-head, which covers the farm improvements scheme, agricultural buildings should be brought in. It is quite within the capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary and the experts in the Board of Works to do that. They must have a sufficient number of qualified engineers to supervise this work and to see that it is properly carried out.
There is a good deal of valuable work being done in the erection of tanks and walls and the scheme is being eagerly availed of by many people where there is sufficient help in the house and they can spend whatever time they may have at their disposal carrying out improvements of this nature.
Some up-to-date form of silo should be subsidised under this farm improvements scheme. The weather we get in the summer months for hay-saving is very changeable and it is common knowledge that we lose a vast amount of food for live stock each year even when our hay is saved under the most ideal conditions. I do not know if the farm improvements scheme covers the erection of silos, but I think it should. An improved pattern of silo could be perfected, something more suitable than the present low, circular silo, which I claim is injurious and causes a lot of damage to the ensilage in many cases. It sometimes happens in the existing silos that there is a foot or more of the ensilage inside the wall damaged to such an extent that it really becomes a loss. I suggest we should erect a rectangular type of silo with the roof supported about four feet above the top of the wall and have the structure sloping slightly to the bottom, with the corners rounded. That type of silo has proved very efficient wherever I saw it erected.
I think we should move towards the stage when we shall have nothing but silos for holding the feeding for our live stock. In a well made silo practically the whole food value of the grass crop when it is mowed is preserved and it can easily be retained over the winter. The Parliamentary Secretary should give a lead in that direction by offering a substantial grant towards the erection of suitable silos, not silos of the type we see erected at the present time. I do not know whether existing silos are assisted by grants, but the Parliamentary Secretary will give us that information when he is concluding the debate. The present circular type of silo which is about 20 feet in diameter by six feet high, uncovered, should be discouraged.
I suggest that tanks for the purpose of holding liquid manure should be encouraged throughout the country. At the present time much valuable liquid manure is allowed to go to waste. It is a very valuable fertiliser and if we are to keep pace with the modern methods adopted in other countries, we here must use the best and most economical methods of production. We are not advancing with the times if we allow liquid manure to go to waste, to help to grow weeds that will scatter over the land.
I see that a sum of £46,000 is being spent this year on the purchase of machinery, presumably to put the Arterial Drainage Act into operation. That represents a big increase on last year, when the figure was only £18,500. Repairs to existing machinery are estimated to cost £7,200 as against £3,600 for last year. I hope that is an indication that we are going to put the Act into operation at last. I admit it is a tremendous job, but it is very badly needed. There is no need to impress that on the Parliamentary Secretary. He has had enough pressure put upon him from all sides of the House whenever the occasion offered to speak on this matter.
Arterial drainage must be tackled at the earliest moment. Our rivers and drainage systems were dealt with in some kind of slip-shod, haphazard way in other years, but nevertheless they were dealt with under the old system. Once a certain class of people vanished from this country, the rivers and drains became overgrown and choked up. Land that bore good crops 20 years ago and that was quite suitable for tillage and meadow is now under floods for practically the whole year round, with the exception of a short summer spell, when that land is more of a danger to stock than anything else.
Everywhere you go through the country there is evidence that the drainage problem will be a huge one. The job is becoming heavier by reason of being put off from year to year. Weeds and bushes are growing and clogging up the river channels. The further you put off the job the heavier and the more costly it will be. Seven million pounds was allotted under the Act of 1945 to deal with drainage. I suggest that amount is not sufficient, but nevertheless some of that money should be expended at once. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will let us know whether this money is being allotted to purchase machinery in the future or whether that machinery has already been purchased. If we have the machinery we should start on the job right away. Do not wait for an election. The credit will go to you, anyhow. This is one job you cannot afford to let go by.
Our two main problems are food production and a supply of fuel for the winter. I am sorry to say that the finest bogs are untouchable because the drainage has not been completed. In many cases, arable land on a large number of holdings has been affected because good land that would be suitable for tillage cannot be classified as arable because it is flooded for five or six months of the year, and in some cases longer.
Before I conclude, I should like to express once again, even at the risk of repeating myself, the importance of dealing with by-roads, accommodation roads, and cul-de-sacs. This is a question which is agitating the minds of the people and causing a lot of uneasiness and discontent. People living in districts served by such roads say that they have to pay rates just as well as their more fortunate neighbours living along main roads, which are steamrolled or otherwise kept in excellent repair. They have to plunge through these by-roads in winter and summer, oftentimes up to their knees in dirt and water even though, as I say, they are contributing to the general taxation pool as well as to county rates. Fair play is not being meted out to these people. They were turned down under the special employment scheme. I have in mind one case of five families. When the weather is wet the children going to school on week-days or the elder people going to Mass on Sundays, have to wear their nailed boots or their Wellington boots until they get out on the main road and then change into their lighter boots at the head of the road. Sometimes on the occasion of funerals they have to knock down fences and travel across fields in bringing out the remains. Even in dry weather these roads are more like the bed of a mountain stream than anything else. This is a question that must be tackled at once and at least the urgent cases should get precedence.
I see here under the heading of rural improvement schemes a sum of £180,000 which apparently is to be devoted to the improvement of county roads which have suffered from the turf traffic and the heavy traffic which has developed in recent years. I would suggest that some of that money might be diverted to the repair of by-roads. There is also the question which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary of bypassing the minor relief schemes in order that particular jobs might be done under the rural improvements scheme. That is a matter that requires closer attention than it has received heretofore. Because of the facts I gave to the Parliamentary Secretary, it is not always easy to get a number of people to see eye to eye in the matter of contributing towards the cost of a particular scheme even though it is for the general good. They will not all benefit equally, and it is not easy to divide the 25 per cent. contribution equitably amongst the people concerned. The rural improvements schemes are, no doubt, excellent, but there should be some examination into the circumstances of the particular classes called upon to make a contribution. As I say, it is not easy to get agreement amongst all the people in some cases. In other cases you must take into account the poverty of the people concerned who are asked to contribute. I would suggest that 87½ per cent. or even 90 per cent. should be contributed by the State where the beneficiaries of a particular work have valuations of under £15 each.
I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can indicate to the House that the Board of Works is now beginning to plan the erection of suitable buildings for Government Departments. I asked a question some time ago as to whether there was in being a plan for the erection of Parliament buildings with adjuncts thereto, commensurate with the needs of Parliament as it is to-day, and suitable to the dignity of the nation. I was told there were no plans, nothing in contemplation. I think whether such a building is started sooner or later, that the Board of Works should have in mind that it is work that will have to be done some time and they should begin at least to think about it. We have a number of buildings occupied by Government Departments under the control of the Board of Works in the city. I suggest that the time has come when these buildings, now occupied by Government Departments should be vacated and made available either for demolition so that proper housing accommodation for the people could be provided or so that some of these buildings could be converted into flats to house people who are badly in need of accommodation. There has been recently built in Kildare Street offices for the Department of Industry and Commerce which are worthy of the nation and worthy of the Department concerned. Unless the Board of Works sets a headline in this matter, it is scarcely likely that other semi-Government or Government subsidised organisations will set about providing headquarters for their staffs. With the rapid development of electricity and the need that follows for more extensive office accommodation by the Electricity Supply Board, it may happen unless suitable plans are made for central offices that buildings which are badly needed to provide housing accommodation for the people will be taken over by that institution.
I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to another matter. I do not know whether the Board of Works keeps a stock sheet readily available of all the furniture and other items under their control, but I was rather amazed, as I am sure a big number of other members of the House were recently, when there was an international conference in Dublin sponsored by the Department of Industry and Commerce for which it was necessary to have a considerable amount of furniture. We found on coming in here to this House that from many of the rooms the chairs had been taken away. Deputies were left without chairs in order that officials of other countries might be accommodated. Surely to goodness the Board of Works should recognise on such occasions that this is the premier institution of the State and if there is a shortage of chairs or other furniture for such an occasion, they ought to make arrangements to hire them or otherwise provide sufficient furniture without interfering with the furniture provided for the accommodation of Deputies.
I do not want to deal with the other aspects of this Vote that have been discussed by Deputies from country districts but I would say that the views put before the House by Deputy Alderman O'Sullivan are shared by all members of the House who are representatives of the City of Dublin, particularly those who are members of the Dublin Corporation. I do not say that there is not willingness on the part of the Board of Works to co-operate to the full extent on schemes with the corporation but, without repeating the points made, I would suggest that these are matters which should be given immediate and favourable consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department.
I should like to express agreement with the point made by Deputy Bartley, that he would like to see the emergency rather than the employment side of the title of this Vote given some attention. That is particularly true of the farm improvements scheme. To my mind it is a great pity, to put it as mildly as I can, that the farm improvements scheme comes under this Vote at all. Except that the farm improvements scheme is to be regarded by the Government primarily as an employment scheme, I can see no reason why it comes under this Vote instead of under the Vote for Agriculture. The officers who carry out the work under the farm improvements scheme, operate under the Department of Agriculture. Their salaries are met on that Vote so that no excuse can be made that the officials who carry out this work are officials of the Board of Works. To my mind it is a very great pity that any tendency to view the farm improvements scheme as an employment scheme should exist officially. It indicates a very poor outlook on farm improvements work.
I must say that, as far as the direct operation of the scheme goes, it does not seem to cause undue trouble, except as regards the limitation there is on the time of the year in which the work has to be done. I believe that, if the Government really intended to take up farm improvement schemes in a serious way, no time limit at all would be set. I cannot see why anyone should imagine that a farmer is wilfully going to take men away, say, from the harvest fields or from some other special work to carry out a farm improvement scheme, and that, therefore it is necessary to restrict him to the time of the year when harvest work and spring work are not done. I suggest that would be a most unlikely development—that a farmer would do such an extraordinary thing. I think it is preferable that the scheme should operate for the full 12 months.
Last year I passed some few remarks on details of the farm improvement scheme, but even though I did so I have not noticed any great improvement. I am afraid that the seed fell on stony ground. There are difficulties—and this is one of the reasons why I think this scheme would be better dealt with by the Department of Agriculture—which crop up under any scheme of a farm improvement type, and in my opinion these would be more properly appreciated by the Department of Agriculture than by the Board of Works. There is the question, for instance, of the degree of latitude to be given to inspectors in certifying the cost of a work such, for example, as fencing work. A hard and fast rule is laid down that there is to be so much a perch for drainage and so much a perch for the removal of a clay bank or the construction of a clay bank. In many cases, where these works are vitally necessary, the fact that there is a hard and fast rule and a fixed maximum payment militates against the work being done at all because special difficulties look like cropping up and no farmer in his senses will undertake them. I can speak with some feeling on this because I ran into that type of difficulty myself under a scheme which entailed the removal of two open drains and the removal of the bank between them. The estimated labour cost was, I think, £10 which meant a £5 grant, but actually the work cost me £150. I am not suggesting that any Department is going to be so generous as to give 50 per cent. of the actual cost. At the same time I think a more generous outlook as regards the execution of that type of work is really called for. In the event, of course, it was quite immaterial to me whether I got the grant or not.
In the same way, many drainage works are adversely affected. As far as I can work out the figures, the estimated labour cost seems to be based on making the drain through land which is remarkably easy to drain from the point of view of using a spade. But if you have to make the drain through heavy clay, or something that is practically sandstone, the estimated labour cost does not go anywhere near meeting the real cost. I think there could be a better outlook by the Department on these things. I think that the attitude of regarding these as employment schemes is wrong. Under any scheme which involves the use of cement—concreting—my experience, and I think the experience of most people who have tried these schemes, is that if you are doing concreting the grant is practically negligible. The theory appears to be that these schemes can be carried out by unskilled labour. The estimated labour cost is, therefore, remarkably low. It is usually so much per square yard for plastering and that type of work. Some of these works cannot be carried out by unskilled labour such, for example, as the reconstruction of a byre, where exact specifications as to the size of the stalls, the level of the ground and the fall that is to be laid in two directions have to be complied with. That is not the type of work that can be done by unskilled labour. It means the employment of a skilled man, and by the time you have paid him for doing work of that kind you are not greatly bothered whether the grant ever turns up or not.
Deputy Blowick mentioned silos. I do not know whether silos really come under this or not, but I think that they could very usefully be brought under it. He mentioned the objectionable type of silo—the large circular one. I do not know if anybody is still making that type. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the inclusion of silos, if they are not already included, under this Vote, and go in for the pit type, the rectangular type, which is sunk in the ground to which a tractor, a trailer or a horse and cart can be drawn and into which the material for making the ensilage can be thrown and made more compact. I think that Deputy Blowick was on very sound ground indeed when he said that more attention should be given to this matter. Last summer proved, if anybody needed any more proof, that if we are going to save grass in the summer for winter keep—to make silage of it is a very much better way than to make hay. There is, of course, the difficulty that, on the majority of farms it is very doubtful, to my mind, if you can get a sufficient crop of grass to make ensilage. You cannot try and make two or three tons of ensilage. You must always make a large quantity and there will always be a percentage of loss. The smaller the gross output the higher the percentage of loss will be. In other words, if you have a small silo you will have far greater loss than in the case of a big one. I think that some useful experiments could be carried out to see just how far silos can be brought into use on our smaller farms. I would hesitate to advocate them as an all-out policy, because I think there might be some difficulty about the amount of bulk that could be got on the smaller farms.
I am not sure if anything can be done under the farm improvements scheme in regard to water supplies other than the construction of tanks for holding water. I think that is the limit, but I also think it should be extended. There are farms where that can be done, but there are other farms where what is really needed is some sort of a reservoir on higher ground so as to be able to pipe a supply to the fields where there is no water. That is a matter that I think should be looked into. In fact, this whole business of farm improvements should, I think, be tackled in a more strenuous way. I do not like drawing parallels between this country and any other country, but I think we could usefully look around and see what is being done in other places. The grants, for instance, in Northern Ireland are certainly more generous than they are here and I think the outlook there on this matter is better. We seem to be inclined to regard it as some sort of relief scheme to provide extra employment in the slack period of the year. That should be considered as a separate matter altogether.
The reduction by £50,000 in this sub-head has been referred to already. Unfortunately, I missed the Parliamentary Secretary's introduction to the Estimate and I do not know what reason he gave for it. I assume that the full amount, £400,000 was not applied for but the Parliamentary Secretary will see that £388,000 was spent in 1945-46, which was an excess of £38,000 over the Estimate for that year and also over the Estimate for this year. I am rather horrified to see this drop of £50,000 in what is the best scheme under this Vote. If it is due to there having been an unused excess last year, I consider it is very shortsighted policy to use that one year as the headline and to reduce the Vote accordingly. The full amount of £400,000 should be provided but I presume there is nothing to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for a further sum if the scheme is taken up.
With regard to minor employment schemes, Deputy Blowick, I think, was not quite right in saying that in every case the number of unemployed is the main factor. I think I am correct in saying that where a bog road is concerned the Board of Works is prepared to waive the regulation regarding the number of unemployed on the live register in the area if it can be shown that the particular bog road is of vital necessity. I may be wrong about that. That was the manner in which it was worked a couple of years ago and I hope that that is the way in which it operates now.
With regard to arterial drainage, I do not wish to say a great deal. Every Deputy regrets that greater speed is not being attained. The Department, undoubtedly, has a reasonable excuse on the grounds of lack of machinery and the necessity to carry out preliminary surveys. But, when one sees— I think it was Deputy O'Leary who referred to it—extra road surveyors being engaged by the county councils to carry out special surveys with a view to estimating what the roads should be in 1970, I think it is a pity that the Board of Works could not secure these men and use them to press on with arterial drainage surveys.
I would like to make this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a mistake to confine consideration to those areas such as the Brosna, where a vast acreage is involved and where square miles of country are inundated and where undoubtedly there is very great need of arterial drainage. To concentrate on that type of work, especially at the present time, when extra production is so necessary is, in my opinion, a mistake. I would point out that there are rivers where there is no very great drainage problem, nothing in comparison with the problem in connection with the Barrow, but where flooding does occur. The land that is affected is good arable land or could be good arable land, and a fairly small drainage scheme, if it were thoroughly carried out would, in a short number of years, throw a very fair acreage into immediate production. The land is first-class, the only problem being that at times it is inundated.
I do not know the land that is affected by the Barrow and Brosna schemes, but it has been suggested to me that even when those lands are drained, it is very doubtful what the value of the land will be and that, at best, it will take many years to make it productive and to give anything like a reasonable return whereas there are these smaller areas which are being completely neglected at the moment in which a good return could be obtained. In many of them, in my opinion, no machinery would be required, except manpower and I do not think manpower is as yet one of our difficulties. There are two or three rivers in County Donegal where bad flooding occurs. I am not an expert but it seems to me that it does not require any remarkable modern machinery obtainable in America or elsewhere, to carry out drainage schemes of that kind. I would like to see the Department turning their attention to those rivers. Of course, everybody likes to see his own constituency being attended to but a reasonable case can be made for those rivers. I am not suggesting that flooding does not occur in other areas but undoubtedly it occurs in Donegal.
There is one other point I want to make. It is in connection with Vote 10—Public Works and Buildings. There are a few most depressing pages that crop up year after year in the Estimates. There are certain sums that are revoted year after year. Personally I do not understand that. I can never know what is going to be done and what is just being put on the long finger but there is one item in particular in connection with which I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that something should be done. It is the provision of an official garage and married quarters at Lifford Customs and Excise Station. The total Estimate for the work is £7,000. The Vote required for 1947-48 is £2,000. The further amount required for completion of the work is £5,000. The amount voted last year was £4,000. In other words, last year, in the Estimates, we were led to believe— that is, anyone specially interested was led to believe—that £4,000 would be spent in the following year on starting this work. Apparently, nothing at all was done and we are now a bit more conservative and are proposing to spend only £2,000. I very much doubt if even that will be spent but I suggest that some start should be made on this work. There is a serious housing problem in Lifford and the fact that there are several customs officers who have no official residences and who must live in the area, does not help to solve the housing problem. The Department could very usefully proceed with that work and, although it would be in a very minor way, it would be a step in the right direction towards relieving the local housing shortage.
A good many points have been raised already in connection with employment and emergency schemes. I would like to deal, first of all, with the situation of the Special Employment Schemes Office. It is in St. Stephen's Green, while I hold it should be in a more central place. The ordinary procedure is that, when a person down the country wants to get something carried through, he makes application to that office and they, in turn, send down the correspondence to the engineer in charge in that particular county, who sends back word to the office as to whether the work can or cannot be done. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, to obviate trouble and give the people in the respective counties direct contact, a central office should be attached to each county council premises. It would give the people in those areas an opportunity of making personal application and would give the engineer in charge of the district, when he came around to examine a particular scheme, the possibility of finding someone to show him around.
I am sure every Deputy has had representations made to him from time to time to have certain employment schemes carried on in his constituency and many a time, long after those representations were made to the Special Employment Schemes Office, nothing further has been heard. If the people down the country were given an opportunity on the lines I suggest, it would obviate the difficulties experienced very often in the office here in St. Stephen's Green.
In regard to minor relief schemes, it is necessary that there be a certain number of unemployed in an area before they can be sanctioned. I have one particular scheme in mind, where the number of people did not come up to the schedule, in so far as it would be necessary to have a couple of people more unemployed in order to have sufficient to put the scheme into operation. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is an incentive to the people in those areas, that they must be unemployed or go on the dole in order to get the schemes carried out. We can compare these two different sides of the country—where relief schemes can be carried out on the one hand and, in the other area, it is necessary to have them done under the rural improvement scheme. The people in those areas consider that there must be political pull in some direction or other, as these schemes were not carried out. I hold that, in order to carry out very necessary work such as is done under the minor employment schemes, the Department should be more generous and should not look at it from the paltry point that because the area did not come just up to the standard and might need one or two more people unemployed, a scheme could not be carried out.
A lot has been said already about work being done under the rural improvement scheme. It is a very good scheme, as everyone will admit, but difficulties are encountered in some areas, where there may be a particular beneficiary in the middle of the road or at the end of the drain, who may consider that the benefit he would derive from that particular work would not be an inducement to him to spend any money. Although a lot can be said against compulsion in some respects, I think that, where eight-tenths of the people are anxious to have a certain work done, compulsion should be used to have it finished. I have known work in my particular area which has been held up by people, whether for political reasons or for some other reasons I do not know, and there seems to be no hope of its being carried out.
The point has been made already that these rural improvement schemes should be extended to wells. Every county council, and particularly my county council, has requested many a time that provision be made for wells for people who have no water. It would be a very good idea if the special employment schemes department would embrace that in their work, so that 75 per cent. of the cost would be borne by the Department.
I would like the Minister, when replying, to say if it would be possible to have at least a small office, as I mentioned at the beginning, attached to the county council offices, where representations could be made by the people and which would enable them to have direct contact in regard to these schemes.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
Any bricks I have to throw will not be directed at the Board of Works but at Deputies here for the manner in which they are crying out against taxation and at the same time looking for more sops. Do they not know that one cannot reduce taxation and at the same time give sops? As we grow a day older, we grow a day worse here. I ask farmer Deputies to realise that on their shoulders depends our future salvation and if they go on as at present whining for these things they will have to go down to the elbow in their pockets to get the money. We must reach a sane position at some time. The country started 25 years ago with no national debt. Now we have £120,000,000 of dead-weight debt on our shoulders and an unknown dead-weight debt on county councils all over the country. To my mind, the Board of Works was a noble institution, but at present it is a cheap-jack. We have brought it to a very low ebb. It should be an institution for looking after housing, main and national drainage, granaries and farmyard utensils.
No free money should be given to anybody. The money from the Board of Works should be given at the cheapest rate and for the longest term. I am definitely against this giving of free money and bribes to our farmers. This could be a useful department, but it has got away from that. One thing I hate is what we have done to our farming community. The greatest type of people we had was our farming community. They were fine, vigorous, manly and independent people, full of honour and honesty. What have we done to them to-day? We have sapped their whole moral fibre with these cheap political bribes, with our farm improvement schemes and so on, under which we throw a few pounds here and there to a farmer for the purpose of putting a cement wall in his yard or a cement floor in his pigsty, draining a field or cleaning a ditch. Can he not do these things himself? Before he ever heard of these bribes, he did it and he was a better man than he is to-day. Have we got more production to-day as a result? We have not. Production is going down and down.
Therefore, I say, give the farmer back the old spirit he had. If you want him to work and to be independent, reduce national taxation, the big load at the top, and he will do his job at the bottom. Do not throw out these political bribes and sops. I am not blaming this Government for it. I blame far more the people on this side. They are either hypocrites or honest men, and I am afraid we have proved ourselves hypocrites, by the way in which we have acted for years past. What did we on this side do? We tried to force the Government to do things which had the effect of killing the farmers' independence. We do not want to see the farmers' independence killed, and yet we are killing it, and before our eyes there is national decay, deliberately brought about by the nonsense carried on in this House. I come from farming stock which always wanted to be independent and was independent, which always worked hard and wanted to work hard, which wanted nothing from the State or anybody else, but wanted to pay 20/- in the £ and to work from dawn to dark, so long as it was a paying proposition.
I want that spirit brought back, and it cannot be brought back if we continue on the lines on which we are going. The only way to do it is to make an honest effort to reduce taxation, to reduce the load on the farmer. When we do that, we can let the farmer alone, knowing that he will do his own work. It is not long since every farmyard and homestead in this country was packed with pigs, poultry, eggs, butter and bacon. Why have we not got these to-day? It is because we have sapped the moral fibre of our people and brought them to the position in which they can do nothing without looking to the State for a cheap bribe, for something to lead them on. It is very easy to dangle a carrot in front of a horse. The carrot is now being dangled in front of our labouring men and our dole men. It is being dangled now before the farmer and if the farmer is induced to follow it, Ireland is doomed, and our nation it doomed at present because of the way we are carrying on.
We would be far better off if we had never seen the farm improvements scheme. It is a curse on the country and I am sorry to have to say it. There are thousands of farmers who will disagree with me, but, on an ordinary farm of 40 or 70 acres, a farmer, his sons and a couple of workers, are well able to do their own work in their own way and to pay for it. They want no bribes, but, human nature being what it is, men will always fall for a bribe, and these are nothing but bribes. Therefore, I say, get rid of all this and put the Board of Works back as a noble institution lending money at cheap rates for long terms but giving no free money to anybody. I could understand something of this nature being done when the economic war was in full swing and when things were bad for our hordes of unemployed. I could understand a farm improvements scheme in such circumstances and small sops being offered to keep men from destitution, but I do not want to see this nation built up on that type of thing. When an emergency such as that is over, it should be regarded as being over. If it comes again, it should be met as it comes, but let us not make this policy a permanent feature of our national structure.
The Board of Works should get back to its own big job, and its first job is national drainage which should have been tackled long ago. I cannot understand what is holding it up. We were told six years ago by the Minister: "National drainage is now about to take place". What is the use of any farmer or rural worker trying to push himself into a ditch when our big rivers are choked with sediment and with trees? I speak of a river I know about, the Boyne. From Drogheda to Trim, there are stretches of the River Boyne in the middle of which trees have been growing for hundreds of years. If we drained that river with national money and national endeavour from Drogheda to Trim, all our troubles in Meath would be finished. We could drain our land absolutely dry without any help from the State or anybody else, merely by taking our coats off. We have been crying for 50 years for the drainage of the Boyne, but even the smallest flood on the river means the flooding of Trim and Navan, and the water pours down the streets, while in the middle of the river one can see a great big island. All that requires to be done is to remove that island, but it is not done. I see big ash trees growing on islands in the middle of the Boyne where 50 or 100 years ago no islands existed. Are these not things we could do and be proud to do? Are these not things on which we could spend millions, works which would give us a great return?
Let our farmers get out on their farms and take off their coats, and if the Boyne is allowed to flow as it should flow, we will drain our own ditches. I do not want to see any crawling to any Government for sops particularly when the sop is given to the farmer after being taken from his own pocket. Leave that money in his pocket which you are now taking in order to pay thousands of officials to poke their noses into the farmers' affairs. He should be a free man in his own homestead and should be king of his own castle. Is he king of his own castle to-day? He is not, so long as you hold out your hand and ask him to eat out of it. If he does so, his moral fibre is sapped and his independence is gone, and he becomes like all the rest who fall for these cheap baits. I want none of that. I want to see a system of co-operation which will have the effect of uplifting the country. If we had co-operation amongst our farmers, springing from our farmers and not from the Government, as sure as the sun rises, they will do their job, but so long as we keep them in a topsy-turvy condition, not knowing where they stand and piling loads on to them every day, we will not get the output. Why have we not got the output today? Because our farmers have no initiative, and why should they, when the position is that the more they work, the more they are taxed and the more honour they have, the more dishonour it is sought to bring them?
The Board of Works will have to get back to its old system of giving nothing to anybody but what he earns. It is a grand thing to give these sops and bribes. To the ordinary man, it looks good to get £8, £10 or £15, but he has to spend far more as a result, and, with all the inspections and so on, he would be far better off if he never got the £8. He was much better off paying the money himself. Let the Government cast their minds back 30 or 40 years ago when our farmers were struggling. Did they ever look to anybody, to the British Government or any other Government, for anything? They never did. They reared families of six, eight or 12 children and reared them decently and honestly. They were proud to do so. Are we proud of what is going on in the country to-day? Some people may be, but I am not. I am satisfied that we are on the slippery slope and rearing a generation that another generation will curse because they have not the initiative or national integrity we should have given them.
Things are not right here because we are giving these cheap bribes to our people and our people are falling for them, and the day will come when some honest Government will have to clean up this dirty, miserable mess. My idea of a decent, honest and hardworking nation is a nation in which the family is able to stand on its own feet and pay its way. Families are not standing on their own feet and paying their way to-day. Money is no use. There is plenty of money floating around but it is not where it is wanted. It is not floating into the farmers' homesteads, thus enabling them to employ their own men and the type of men they want instead of having, as is the case at the moment, men foisted on them who will not do two hours' work instead of doing eight hours' work. Let the farmer and the worker make their own plans. We are fixing wages. We are fixing this and that. What are we doing? Are we bringing happiness, contentment and prosperity? We are not. I know cases where farmers and their labourers have worked together for the last 30, 40 and even 50 years and their own fathers before them. They never had a growl or a cry about charges. It was always paid, if not in cash, in kind. The labouring man was a happy man and he reared a decent family. Now the charges are fixed. The farmer must pay the labourer a certain amount and the labourer must get this charge whether he likes it or not. That is a bad system. That is killing Christian charity. That is killing honour and honesty. I say that if we throw the farmer and the labourer back on themselves we will have a happy country. There are a number of people in this country who have not done the decent thing. I know, however, that they are in a minority. The majority of the farmers have always done the decent thing and have paid their employees.
Has that anything to do with this Estimate, Deputy?
I would say to the officer in charge of the Board of Works that he should endeavour to make it what it was in the past and what I would like to see it in the future. A lot of that cheap nonsense should be cut out. We should not take the money out of the farmers' pockets to start those schemes. Those officers who investigate are paid out of the farmers' pockets and not out of the Government's pocket. That might be all right in a national emergency, but when things are normal and when money is plentiful I think the farmers should be left to themselves. Things would be much more satisfactory that way.
I can understand a rural improvements scheme. There is something in that. Such a scheme is in the nature of a national endeavour. It does not belong to a private individual. It is a case of repairing a road leading into a bog or repairing a road leading to a farm. I can understand that. It is national work and it is good work. But I say stop at that. I am not at all happy that the work which the Board of Works is doing is good work. It may be good for the individual, but in the long run it is bad for the nation. It is making us a soft and a sloppy people. It is making us cute. Some people look at every newspaper to see what scheme is coming into force and whether they can get something for nothing. That is a curse. These people should realise that anything they get comes out of their own pockets. Is it fair to ask the labouring man in a cottage, the poor unfortunate man with no house at all, or the unemployed man to cut and drain a ditch or to put in pipes or a floor for a farmer? What more are we doing? It is unjust and unfair. I say, leave to the farmer the old Irish independence he always had, give him a decent and fair crack of the whip and things will be much better. If we do that he will carry his burden. This nation cannot well be proud of the type of men it is rearing. It is not a sincere or an honest country. It is a country of impostors. The buck who cannot write his name is almost a millionaire to-day.
That has nothing to do with the Estimate.
Yes, we will have a new aristocracy of mongrels and nothing more.
First of all I would like, through you, Sir, to express my appreciation of the manner in which most Deputies, if not all, have approached this Vote. They have endeavoured, as far as possible, to be helpful in their criticisms and to put forward suggestions of a helpful nature for the direction of those in charge of the Department. That is a very fine spirit. I sincerely hope that it is but a beginning and that there will be a continuation of that good spirit when it comes to dealing with all matters which arise and which concern our people. It would indeed be a happy day for this country. I think it would set a headline not merely for our people, not merely for the Parliaments in all democratic countries, but for the Parliaments throughout the world. Though the elected representatives of the people may hold different political opinions, though we may hold and are bound to hold divergent views as to the nature or the method by which certain works can be done and carried out, that is no reason why the approach to a problem under discussion in this House should not be in the same manner as, I am pleased to notice, the criticism of this Estimate has been approached here to-night. It is, as I say, a very welcome indication of what, I hope, will be the future trend of discussions here.
As you are aware, the main criticisms have hinged around one or two special items. Perhaps I should, in the short time at my disposal, deal with the various points made by the different speakers in the order in which they have addressed the House. Deputy Dockrell was the first Deputy to speak. He raised questions concerning the provision of a sum of £30,000 in connection with the proposed provision of offices in Dublin Castle. He was anxious to know the number of staff of various Departments which might be accommodated there. In my opening statement I mentioned that it was hoped to provide accommodation in these buildings for a staff of 4,000. The immediate and the most pressing task confronting the Board of Works with regard to these Dublin Castle improvements is the provision of a suitable building for the stamping office. The Deputy also spoke of the possibility of a congestion of traffic in the immediate future when these offices are provided, also the lay-out of roads, parking places, etc. These are matters which do not concern my Department. They belong to other Departments of State and I do not propose to delay the House by dealing with them. It is scarcely possible for me to go into the points made by each Deputy. The prime concerns of most Deputies were the farm improvements scheme and the rural improvements scheme. I should like to say that the farm improvements scheme is, in my opinion, one of the best schemes ever devised by any Government anywhere at any time. We have had criticism of that scheme from Deputy Giles in his own particular way. He has expressed a point of view in a very forcible manner. Perhaps, he has exaggerated that point of view, for which there is, of course, a good deal to be said. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to argue that, because a farmer gets a refund of half the estimated cost of labour for improving his own holding, he will be demoralised, while, at the same time his neighbour, if building or repairing a house, is not demoralised by receiving a considerably higher grant. Deputy Giles seems to think that this is a modern innovation but, for many years back, we have had subsidies in respect of rates. Since the inception of the Local Government Act of 1898, rates have been subsidised. That has been growing ever since and I do not think that anybody could argue that it is having a demoralising effect on our people. The fact that a farmer knows that, for the first time, he will get a grant to help him to improve his own land and to bring the waste portions of his land into production, the fact that he knows that the State is thinking of him and is concerned about him because he is a unit in the community whose production is of value to the nation——
Where is the State getting the money to give to him?
I did not interrupt the Deputy or any other Deputy, and I propose to make my speech in my own way. I have gone out of my way on more than one occasion to emphasise that grants given by the State to any of its citizens can come only out of the taxpayer's pocket. It is the duty of the State to hold the scales as evenly as possible and to encourage production. In the main, our farmers are our producers and it is the duty of the Government to see that the farmers are helped by every means in their power. It was with that aim and object in view that this farm improvements scheme was devised by the Government. I do not think that Deputy Giles will get many people in this House or outside it to hold with him that the encouragement of the farmers in this manner is having a demoralising effect upon them.
Production is falling.
The Deputy must allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak.
Good work is being done under this farm improvements scheme. Deputy Cogan suggested that it should be made applicable to the improvement of the higher lands containing furze and heather. The scheme is available for such work. In my own constituency I have seen furzy fields cleared not merely of furze but of stones and brought under cultivation under that scheme. I do not think that the people who did that were in any way demoralised. The scheme is applicable to improvements of drainage and improvements to the surface of the land. It is also applicable, as Deputies are aware, to improvements around the farmstead itself—the provision of drinking tanks for animals, the provision of stalls and feeding troughs, the concreting of yards and surrounds of houses. Some Deputies wanted to extend that scheme so as to embrace farm buildings. I take it that they meant the erection of farm buildings. They also wanted it extended so as to include silos. The Minister for Agriculture, speaking recently, indicated that he has in contemplation a scheme for the erection or reconstruction of farm buildings.
The erection of silos is entirely a matter for the Department of Agriculture. I agree that the erection of these farm buildings is a very desirable objective but there are, perhaps, more pressing needs at the moment, having regard to the limited supplies of materials available. I do not think that there is any necessity for me to go into greater detail regarding the farm improvements scheme. It is of widespread application, is popular throughout the country and has been the means of having a good deal of our waste lands brought back into production.
Comparisons were made with works carried out in other countries. It was claimed that in Britain 1,000,000 acres of land had been reclaimed under some such scheme. So far as I understand, the scheme there is completely different from this scheme. It is a scheme for ploughing up rough, waste land with tractors, cultivating them temporarily and having reseeding done immediately in order to bring them into production again. There has been a good deal of criticism and there have been a number of suggestions regarding the rural improvement schemes. These schemes are in addition to the farm improvements scheme—or, rather, I should say that the farm improvements scheme is in addition to them, because they came first. Under these schemes, a group, or groups, of farmers can come together and, if they are willing to put up a certain proportion of the cost of making a road to their own homes, the State—again, at the taxpayer's expense—provides 75 per cent. of the expenditure.
It has been argued by Deputy Blowick and Deputy Sheldon that, in certain areas, that amount should be increased. In the case of roads joining two county roads where it is considered that the people are unable to put up the 25 per cent. which is the general rule throughout the country, the grant can be increased beyond that limit of 75 per cent. This scheme, too, is very popular throughout the country and has helped in many ways to improve the avenues, boreens and roads to people's houses. It has also helped to a considerable degree to increase the output of turf. Incidentally, Deputy Bartley suggested that the repair of these roads should be continued during the summer. In the summer period as most Deputies are aware, most of the workers living adjacent to the bogs are fully engaged in the production of turf. As well as that, the only period in which these drainage schemes can be carried out is after the turf-cutting season has come to a close, in the months of July and August, because, as we all know, any attempt to carry out a drainage scheme in the winter months, in the period of heavy rains, is absolutely impossible.
I also mentioned in my opening statement that we had altered the conditions of employment under the minor employment schemes. Under these schemes in the past workers were engaged for broken periods of less than a week. That has now been altered so that these men will get continuous employment in rural areas for a period of six weeks and in the urban areas up to 12 weeks. Although many Deputies have not referred to that, I think it is a big improvement and that it will go a long way to satisfy, not merely the workers concerned, but the officials and staffs who have to deal with them.
Another point mentioned by some Deputies was that of supervision, which is a very important matter. I agree with some of the speakers who stated that, if you have not proper supervision, you cannot get proper results for the money expended. When this scheme was first introduced, an arrangement was come to between the Board of Works and the various county engineers. That has worked with a certain amount of satisfaction, but owing to the increased programme of works ahead of the county engineers in the various counties some of them at least find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out the supervision of these minor employment schemes and rural improvements schemes, and some of these engineers are naturally anxious to be relieved of these extra duties so that they can concentrate their whole time on their own jobs in relation to the various engineering problems of the counties in which they serve.
This matter has to be examined very carefully, because, though many Deputies suggested that the Board of Works should have their own separate, independent engineering staff, we must always remember that a duplication of staff would cost more money and, if we are to have two independent staffs working side by side on works of a permanent nature, the cost will be considerably higher than it was hitherto. Although I may be alone in my optimism, I am optimistic enough to think that some kind of an arrangement may be possible by which we can obviate the necessity for creating a new, large and, perhaps, unwieldy staff of engineers throughout the country. None of us want to increase the number of civil servants or employees in the State and, if that can be avoided by any means in our power, I think we should aim at it.
Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Briscoe referred to a little park adjacent to buildings occupied by some of the military forces. I cannot state exactly the position with regard to that at the present moment, but I will have the matter inquired into and let those Deputies know what the situation is. There was also the question of a new walk or path to be provided on the Tolka. That is the subject of negotiations between the Board of Works and the Dublin Corporation which have not yet been completed.
There is another very important matter that I almost overlooked. Some Deputies referred to the delay in connection with arterial drainage. Deputy Sheldon seemed to think that the delay was due to lack of machinery. It is not; it is due to the machinery of the Drainage Act passed by this House. The Board of Works have to carry out every scheme in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down by the Act. The whole process is slow, but it is the process laid down in the wisdom or otherwise of the Oireachtas. If some Deputies who are most critical had their way, progress would be even much slower that it is at present. I do not want to go into all the details— I think I covered them fairly well before—that are necessary before a drainage scheme can be begun. Engineering and valuation surveys have to be made; various plans have to be provided; the nature of the soil, the volume and flow of the water, and other matters in the proposed drainage area have to be ascertained. When all these matters have been gone into, in accordance with the terms of the Act, the full scheme must be displayed with maps, etc., in the offices of the various county councils concerned. These public bodies have three months in which to make their observations or objections. Any parties concerned must also be notified and they also can make objections which have to be considered. At the expiration of that period, the Commissioners of Public Works must, in turn, consult the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and any other Department which may be concerned. When all that is done, after due examination the scheme has to be submitted for approval by the Minister for Finance, and then, and only then, will the commissioners be in a position to implement a drainage scheme. I hope that henceforth Deputies will understand that the operations under the Drainage Act must of necessity be slow. While Deputies may be impatient with that, there is a certain amount of wisdom in it, because, as we know, various schemes were rushed through, both in recent times and in old times, and the results were very poor for the moneys invested in drainage. If there were any other points made by Deputies with which I have not dealt I will have them examined, but I think I have covered all the points made by the different speakers.
