Vol. 111 No. 13
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, 1949, 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 1947-48 was £1,250,000, of which £1,232,296 was expended within the financial year. To this expenditure should be added contributions, principally from local authorities, amounting to £225,985, making a gross expenditure of £1,458,281. Subject to possible amendments in detail, the expenditure on the various sub-heads was as follows:—
|
£ |
||
|
A.— E. — Salaries, travelling Expenses, etc. |
45,870 |
|
|
F. |
Public Health Works in Urban Areas |
58,284 |
|
Housing Sites Development |
8,448 |
|
|
Road Works in Urban Areas |
188,922 |
|
|
Amenity Schemes in Urban Areas |
41,150 |
|
|
G. |
Public Health Works in Rural Areas |
94,062 |
|
Road Works in Rural Areas |
154,159 |
|
|
Amenity Schemes in Rural Areas |
1,169 |
|
|
H.— Minor Employment Schemes |
106,813 |
|
|
I.—Bog Development Schemes (Landholders' and other private producers' bogs) |
107,992 |
|
|
J.—Reconditioning or repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport |
45,785 |
|
|
K.—Farm Improvements Scheme |
347,992 |
|
|
L.—Seed Distribution Scheme |
95,337 |
|
|
M.—Lime Distribution Scheme |
3,910 |
|
|
N.—Rural Improvements Schements |
144,270 |
|
|
O.—Miscellaneous Works |
14,118 |
Of the expenditure of £1,458,281 approximately £404,817 was expended during the period 1st April to 30th September, and the balance of £1,053,464 during the winter months. The maximum number of workmen employed at any one time during the year was: Farm improvements scheme, 6,090; other schemes, 12,985; total, 19,075. The average number employed each week on all schemes during the period up to September was 4,976 and from October to March 14,252. 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 1,473 and about 5,100 proposals were investigated and reported on, including proposals already partially carried out. During the spring and summer, approximately 470 minor drainage schemes were carried out at a cost of £31,500, 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 from its inception in 1943 up to 31st March, 1948, was 6,409, of which 5,660 had at that date been investigated on the ground by inspectors and reported on. Of these, 540 were for various reasons found to be unsuitable; offers of grants were issued in 4,912 cases. The number of such offers accepted in the course of the year under review was 1,030, for which grants totalling £97,738 were sanctioned towards a total estimated expenditure of £121,822, the balance of £24,084 being contributed by the applicants. The total expenditure incurred on the rural improvements scheme during the financial year was, approximately, £144,270. By the end of the year the number of individual works completed since the inception of the scheme in 1943-44 had reached 2,366, while a further 737 schemes were in progress.
I might remind Deputies that the rural improvements scheme is complementary 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 a net under-expenditure of approximately £17,700 on the Vote in the last financial year: having regard to the diversity of the types of schemes and to the large number of separate works—from 2,000 to 3,000—comprised in the annual programme, this is a relatively insignificant sum.
Turning now to the programme for the financial year 1948-49, 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 provided specifically for employment schemes 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 enumeration of unemployment assistance recipients made 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, 1948, was approximately 54,600, as compared with 54,000 in January, 1947. The corresponding figure for 1940 before there was any significant movement of workmen to Great Britain, was about 111,500, compared with which this year's figure shows a reduction of roughly 51 per cent.
Of the sum of £1,250,000 included in the Estimate for the current year, £766,600 will be spent on the continuation of schemes sanctioned before the 31st March, 1948, leaving a balance of £483,400 available for expenditure on 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 £273,000. This gives an aggregate of £1,523,000 available for expenditure within the financial year 1948/49, 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 £766,600 (State grant) in excess of the amount of the Vote. In accordance with the usual practice, this sum, equivalent to 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 coming year's programme.
In this regard it is desirable to remind the Dáil that a large portion of each year's Vote is allocated for expenditure by local authorities, and the expenditure of the full amount of the provision depends largely on the acceptance by these authorities of the grants on the terms offered, and on the prompt submission of schemes.
The bulk of the proposals for works on which the year's programme of employment schemes is based are not lodged until after the beginning of the financial year, and for that reason and because the incidence of unemployment both in regard to time and place is liable to fluctuations, it is not feasible to make a close estimate beforehand of the sum required for each sub-head of the Vote. It has always been the practice, therefore, to allow a considerable degree of flexibility and inter-dependence between these sub-heads, the eventual savings in some being set against the excesses on others. In addition, a certain proportion of the Vote is kept in reserve, in sub-head O, miscellaneous schemes, to meet contingencies, or to provide for classes of works which are not proper to the other sub-heads.
In this regard I should remind the House that certain sums have already been earmarked to provide alternative employment for turf workers disemployed through the cessation of hand-won turf production by county councils and Bord na Móna. £200,000 has been allocated to county councils for works of restoration on county roads and for works of additional maintenance in existing drainage districts; and £60,000 for a special scheme of field drainage. This latter scheme will provide for the carrying out by the Department of Agriculture of field drainage on farms in or near the areas where unemployment has resulted from the discontinuance of hand-won turf production. In the first instance it will be confined to the two counties of Mayo and Galway, and to areas therein in which there are sufficient numbers of men formerly employed on turf schemes to form gangs. Landholders will be required to contribute to the cost of the work at the rate of £4 per statute acre of the land drained, and the works will be carried out by gangs of eligible workers.
Subject to the foregoing remarks the programme of employment schemes for the present financial year will be broadly in accordance with the general practice in previous years.
I notice in some of these sub-heads this year there is a slight reduction in the amount provided. I also notice that in sub-head H., the expenditure was £106,000 last year, but this year only £95,000 was provided; also that the amount provided under the lime subsidy scheme was not fully availed of last year. I understand that it was part of the policy of the new Government to expand the lime scheme and I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if the amount provided this year, although £2,000 less than that provided last year, will be fully availed of and if further moneys will be provided if they are necessary.
£60,000 has been provided for field drainage and under this scheme it is expected that farmers themselves will contribute £4 per statute acre towards the cost of this drainage. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary is yet in a position to give an estimate of the total cost per acre of the new scheme. What percentage of the total cost does this £4 represent? If I am right in my opinion, land would want to be very valuable to enable a farmer to make a contribution of £4 per statute acre. We have had a lot of clamour to acquire extra land for forestry. The average price paid for forestry land in the past to buy it outright was about £4 per acre and under this new scheme if it is expected that farmers will make a contribution amounting probably to 100 per cent. of the entire value of the land, I doubt if there will be many applications for it.
Perhaps in areas where there is very rich, valuable land farmers might be willing to make such contribution as this specifies, but I doubt whether in Galway or Mayo which are the counties concerned farmers would be prepared to make such a large contribution as £4 would seem to represent. Of course in the absence of figures as to the estimated cost of the drainage, it is very hard to say exactly how it will work out. I hope, however, that there will be no economy with regard to the carrying out of the very many valuable schemes for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, schemes that have not merely given useful employment, but have brought considerable benefit to many parts of rural Ireland.
The minor employment scheme was the first of these. As Deputies are aware, in many areas where the number of registered unemployed did not justify the carrying out of a scheme, a scheme could not be undertaken. But, where people are willing to make a contribution towards the cost, they can join together and put up a portion of the cost of a scheme, which is usually about 25 per cent. In my opinion, that is an even more valuable scheme than the rural improvements scheme, because people who come together and pay a portion of the cost of a scheme and who may be employed on that scheme are much more likely to give a better contribution for the money expended than those who would be only indirectly concerned and who would have no personal interest in the job. That scheme is one of the best that has been introduced for a good many years.
As well as that, we recently introduced a farm improvements scheme under which farmers are given a contribution towards the cost of carrying out improvements on their own lands. That is a big step forward and it is a scheme which has been very much appreciated by the farming community. It is a big thing for a farmer to get a grant from the taxpayers' money to improve his own lands. I hope that, so far as these very useful schemes are concerned, the Minister for Finance will not step in to use his economy axe. I do not want to go into detail about the various methods of operating these schemes. I sincerely hope, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will resist any attempts at economy in regard to these very useful schemes which have been such a boon to the rural community. It is the aim and object of all Parties, according to their professed policies, to keep the people on the land. These schemes are a means of giving widespread employment to people in remote parts of the country where it is very much needed.
There is a small matter concerning the rural improvements scheme and the minor relief scheme which has given me cause for thought for some considerable time and about which I got a resolution passed at a recent meeting of our county council and sent to the Office of Public Works and to which I now wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, let me say that in connection with many of these minor relief schemes it would be desirable to have a decadal or quinquennial review of them. Small schemes are carried out and are a great asset to a locality and then they get into disrepair. If they were done every ten years or so the utility would be lasting.
Unlike Donegal, let us say, in the Midlands the boreens are hedged over with bushes. You have two kinds of minor relief schemes. You spend £100 on a boreen in a particular area where the fences are stone walls. That work lasts for at least ten or 12 years. On the main roads the farmers are obliged by law to cut their hedges and keep them breasted. You spend £100 on one of these boreens over which there is a canopy of hedges on each side. The dripping from the hedges comes on to the road and within a year you have pot-holes all over the place. The resolution which we have sent to the Office of Public Works asks them to take steps to compel farmers to dress their hedges so as to allow the sunlight to get through to the road that has been done. I do not know whether or not that would require legislation. I put the suggestion before the Parliamentary Secretary. If that is done, it will save money. Whether you should make application beforehand or not, I shall leave to the judgment of himself and his Department.
I did not quite catch the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave when speaking about the expenditure under the lime scheme. So far as I could follow him, there appears to be a big saving under that heading. I make that statement subject to correction. It is a very good scheme. We have heard a lot about the crushed lime industry being brought into operation, and the sooner it is brought into operation the better. In connection with all schemes, whether rural improvement schemes or minor relief schemes, there should be a little more elasticity in the Office of Public Works. I have two schemes in mind in a particular area in which there was flooding. The men had to cease work on that particular drainage scheme. They signed on at the labour exchange. If you had the elasticity which I advocate, these men could be transferred to the other work. Apparently, the local survey staff was bent on getting one job completed. I think a direction should be given that, where it is impossible owing to weather conditions to complete a particular work, the men engaged on it should be transferred and kept in continuous work as long as possible.
In connection with the £4 per acre contribution that is expected from farmers under the scheme which is going to operate in the West, I should like to have more details about it. I have discussed the matter with farmers in my constituency and they want to know the nature of the work. They are not prepared to pay up to £4 per acre for drainage of their land. They say that it is an impossible contribution to ask for. Take a man with 25 acres of land. You ask him to pay up to £100 for the drainage of his land. We should like to know the nature of the drainage and what exactly is going to be done. Are they going to put French drains or small piping all over the fields? We contend that it must be a very elaborate scheme which demands a contribution of £4 per acre, and we should like to know the details of the work that will be carried out. The farm improvements scheme comes under this Vote. There was a question about that in the House to-day. So far as I can see, in the Midlands the inspectors engaged under that scheme are idle at present. The people are ready to go on with the work, and the sooner that work is initiated in the present financial year the better for the farmers and for everybody engaged in it.
On the other Vote, Deputy Beegan spoke about a matter which also comes under this Vote. I understand there is some sum—I cannot give the exact amount—being provided for the men who were engaged on turf work in the last financial year and who are now unemployed. I should like to point out that there are a number of men in my constituency, and I am sure the same is true of other constituencies, who were engaged as helpers in the carriage of timber by lorry. These men have been notified that they cannot get work under this scheme. We have contacted the Custom House in regard to this matter but there seems to have been no definite decision made. Those men who have stamps on their cards are still going to the labour exchanges. Even though they are fathers of families or have dependents they are unemployed, because there is a rule that they cannot be employed under this scheme as they were not engaged in connection with turf production last year.
I have the anomaly in my locality of three single men being employed out of one house and a father of a family being disemployed simply because the three men worked on the bog and the other man did not. That matter should be remedied immediately.
On the question of minor relief and rural improvement schemes this is one matter in which the Board of Works, as it is, should "get the works." The system at the moment with regard to minor relief, whereby we have to have a certain number of registered unemployed in the area before a useful scheme can be carried out, is absolute nonsense. There are a number of reasons which I will give to the House to bear out that statement. In my constituency, at any rate, we have a number of young men who still have enough decency left not to look for the dole. They are not interested in registering for employment at the local employment exchange. They are the sons of small farmers; they have small holdings themselves and they do not like this business of registering as unemployed before they can hope to get work under a minor relief scheme. In the majority of cases that I know of, those who do register are generally men who live in the vicinity of towns. They are either very young fellows who want to get pocket money or else they are people who are not suitable for work on such schemes. It amounts to the fact that at times money is spent on minor relief scheme works and that the best possible labour is not available. The work is given to those people who are registered and who very often are not the most suitable to carry out this type of work. That means that there is a loss of public money because there is not a proper return of labour for the money involved. I fail to understand the reason for the proviso that there must be a certain number of registered unemployed in an area before a minor relief scheme will be started there. I cannot understand the type of mind that thought it up. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House if it was thought up in a lunatic asylum.
I have recommended, after great consideration, a number of schemes for minor relief. After about a month's dilly-dallying I got back, and am still getting back, this type of reply: "This scheme that you have recommended cannot be considered owing to the fact that there are not enough of registered unemployed in the area." The aim of the Board of Works and of the Parliamentary Secretary is to give employment on schemes—not to get out of giving employment by a quibble like that. It is a very important point and one that I would bring very forcibly to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
With regard to the rural improvement schemes, a local contribution of 25 per cent. is required. I suggest that, as a remedy for this mix-up between the minor relief and the rural improvement schemes, this local levy of 25 per cent. should be reduced to 10 per cent. and that the minor relief schemes should be cut out altogether. At the moment there are two staffs, I presume, one dealing with the minor relief schemes and the other with rural improvement schemes. Both are crossing each other, whereas the one staff could do the job successfully. A Deputy opposite mentioned that when a rural improvement scheme is carried out nothing is done about it for another ten years and that at the end of the ten years' period another rural improvement scheme is needed. I would suggest that when a scheme of rural improvement is carried out the local county council should be given authority to expend on maintenance a small sum of money, say, every three years to keep up that road or whatever else was done. That would eliminate the necessity of another rural improvement scheme being initiated in the area in ten years. I think that should appeal to the rural improvements scheme people as it would save them further expenditure. A small amount of money expended on maintenance every three years would save the giving of another big grant at the end of ten years.
I should also like some information from the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to this drainage. It is being carried out in Galway and Mayo and from what I know great interest is being taken in it, at any rate by the farmers in County Galway. I should like to put the case of Roscommon before the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not see why Galway and Mayo particularly should be singled out for these items in the beginning. The farmers in County Roscommon have shown as good a return as those in Galway and Mayo. Of course, if it was Roscommon the other Deputies would say why did Galway or Mayo not get it. But I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider Roscommon next year.
"Here's to Galway and Mayo,
That never feared the foe."
The Deputy ought to know that there is no need for a musical concert at the moment. I can assure him that there is no need and that there will be no need or hope for one in the next ten years until the mess you caused is cleared up.
I agree with all that Deputy McQuillan has said, simply because certain of the unemployment assistance recipients did not reside in that district. I know the answer the Board of Works will give. They will say that there are not enough poor men in the district and that that is sufficient proof that it is not a congested area or a district in which the people cannot very well afford to carry out this work themselves. We are surrounded by mountains. Our valleys are sparsely populated. It is impossible to transport people into them. There are not sufficient people in the valleys to do this work themselves. The present system, as Deputy McQuillan says, is impracticable. Why could not the Board of Works take a headline from the turf scheme? Why could not they transfer men to these areas as they transferred men to the bogs during the emergency? If that is not possible, then the Board of Works should help these people by scheduling this work as a rural improvement scheme. In one district in Beaufort there are only five men available. In order to recruit the 20 or 30 men required one would have to cross mountains. Transport for these men, who would have to travel ten miles into the valley, is out of the question. These areas should be inspected by the Board of Works officials in order that they might see the actual situation as it exists and the conditions under which these small mountain farmers have to live and maintain these roads off the beaten track. I have confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary, because he is not a man with an urban outlook. He comes from the western seaboard, an area very similar to Kerry. I know he will do good work, but he must cut out this red tape and circumlocution.
I want to make some comment with reference to the employment period Order. The matter may not be relevant on this Vote, but in my constituency there are numbers of men who are unemployed and who cannot find work of any kind. I suggest they have a prior claim on the State. They have been deprived of unemployment assistance on the ground that work is available. Work is not available. I have given details of this matter to the Tánaiste and to the Minister for Local Government. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary now to inaugurate schemes which will give employment to these people. I pay tribute to the Tánaiste because he did not enforce the Order this year until four weeks later than the date on which it was enforced last year. There are hundreds of workers in South Kerry and there is no work available for them.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I have asked the Board of Works to expedite a scheme for the erection of a sea-wall near Ballinskelligs Abbey. Thirteen years ago I approached the Board of Works in that matter. They gave instructions to the then county surveyor to prepare a scheme. They have now given instructions to the present county surveyor to do likewise. I called to the Board of Works recently to find out what had been done. Some months ago I put down a Parliamentary question on the same matter. I was informed by the officials of the Board of Works that the county engineer had prepared a scheme. They had asked him to come to Dublin for consultation and he would come probably in the near future. When he will come nobody knows. We may have to wait five, six or seven years for its implementation. This is an abbey of historic importance. Beside it is a burial ground. Because of erosion part of the burial ground has been washed away. Yet the Board of Works are unable to formulate a simple scheme for its protection. It is no wonder that Deputy McQuillan says the Board of Works should "get the works". They have certainly fallen down on their job. I hope the new Parliamentary Secretary will once more put them into action.
It would be difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary, "the generous country boy," as he was described by Deputy Flynn, to resist the pleas made in connection with the contribution demanded at present and which has been demanded for some time in regard to certain schemes operated by him. I would like to say at the outset that I think it is a mistake both on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary and the members of this House to attempt to mislead the public into believing something is going to happen which will not, in fact, happen. If there is any plea that I would make to the present occupant of the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance it is that he should state quite clearly what his attitude is and what his attitude is likely to be on this matter. In reply to a Parliamentary question put by a representative from my own constituency he gave the stereotyped reply that there was not a sufficient number of registered unemployed in the particular area in which the proposed scheme was situated and that, if improvements were to be carried out, they can only be carried out on the basis of a contribution from those who would benefit.
Now, that reply was all right as far as it went, but Deputy O'Reilly was not satisfied with it and he pressed the Parliamentary Secretary still further and suggested there was some injustice in asking the beneficiaries to make such a contribution. The Parliamentary Secretary, in order not to let him down too roughly, in order to keep his hopes at a fairly high level, said "I hope to see the day when a contribution will not be necessary."
It may happen.
It may, but, if it happens, well and good. What I am pleading for is a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government as to what the future attitude will be, a statement that will clear away the doubts to which expression has been given by a Deputy who is a very youthful member of the House—youthful in years, in experience and in many other ways—and by Deputy Flynn. I would like a statement that will clear away doubts and give the sufferers some indication of where they stand. I understand that works of this nature concern people who are living in backward places and I refer to them as sufferers. If you hold out the hope that there is a chance of the elimination of this contribution, you are inviting them to remain in their present condition rather than make the contribution and have the work done at once.
If, on the other hand, a clear, positive statement were made, such as I made, with all my faults, in my time, not for the purpose of letting people down easily or in a hard way, but for the purpose of letting those people who were affected and who wanted to be relieved of walking through the muck and who would like to be relieved without any contribution, but who would make the contribution if they felt the work would not otherwise be done, know where they stood, it would be much better for all concerned. Instead of this sort of soft talk that we hear, instead of these generous gestures towards the Parliamentary Secretary and vice versa, instead of all this bowing and nodding, what I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to give us a clear statement of the policy to be pursued by his Department.
I noticed recently a public announcement from the office of the Parliamentary Secretary informing us of an experiment—again, strange to say, a Galway experiment——
There were a few Cavan ones in your time. Do not develop that point.
I will develop anything I decide to develop—do not be one bit afraid of that. I will develop it and stand over all my public actions in this House or outside it.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, will not forget the carpenter in the Board of Works.
I hope Deputy Smith will not be interrupted any further.
While I appreciate your desire to perform the duties of the Chair impartially, I should like you to know that Deputy Smith will take all the necessary steps to protect himself. It is not often I participate in public debate here, but I do not mind interruptions. I have stated that the experiment to which I refer was, strange to say, another Galway experiment. I have no objection to raise because of that fact. I shall deal with the experiment itself and what I think of it. Members of the House have some knowledge of the manner in which the execution of works, for which money is asked here, has been supervised. In the past that supervision has been carried out through the county surveyors and their assistants. This experiment proposes to set up in County Galway——
In Galway alone?
As far as the announcement to which I referred is concerned, it seemed to indicate that the experiment was being confined to Galway.
As regards this experiment, our intention is in some places to open offices to carry out schemes. Galway is one of the areas where the county surveyor told us he was not in a position to carry on the scheme because of the work he has to do in his own area. We have also taken up Clare, Tipperary North, Tipperary South and Roscommon. Therefore, it is not purely a Galway experiment.
Even if it were a Galway experiment, that does not meet the objection I will make to it. This problem is not a new problem. I am prepared to admit that it is a problem that was to some extent in existence when I occupied that office. It is a problem on the solution of which I have had many discussions with officials of the Special Employment Schemes Office and I am only proposing to give my considered opinion at that time as to the advisability or otherwise of proceeding along the lines that are now being followed by my successor. I am quite well aware of the legal position as regards the execution of these works. I am perfectly conversant with the objection raised to having these works carried out in this fashion, the objection raised by some county surveyors. I am well aware of the fact that in certain instances the manner in which the work was executed was not everything to be desired from our point of view. I am well aware of the difficulties with which the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials have had to contend. But is it not a peculiar thing that we have to resort to the setting up of this new organisation in the different counties?
We start with Galway and then go on to Clare, coming next to Tipperary, next perhaps to Mayo and finally we set up a new organisation for the execution of works of this nature whilst we have on the spot a county surveyor and a number of assistants. They have the necessary equipment, the necessary machinery. They have the places in which the machinery can be stored without expense. If we proceed along the lines indicated in the statements which have been published in the Press and confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary now, is it not obvious that we are building up a new organisation which will be dealing with somewhat, though not entirely, the same kind of work and, as a result, the overlapping involved will give rise to unnecessary expense?
Was that not decided on by your predecessor? Ask Deputy O'Grady.
I am responsible only for giving to the House the benefit of my own knowledge, experience and judgment, as I am doing now.
Ask Deputy O'Grady.
I say then that if we had in the past taken steps, not only in regard to this matter but in regard to matters under other Departments to cut out overlapping—if other Departments, as in the case of the Local Government Department, decided to amalgamate services carried out by different engineers and to make the county surveyor responsible with his assistants not only for the roads of the county but for all other services—how can we satisfy ourselves that the course that is now being pursued in the establishment of a new engineering organisation, provided with new equipment to carry out employment schemes and other works for which the Parliamentary Secretary and his office is now responsible, is a satisfactory arrangement? I have prefaced my remarks by assuring the Parliamentary Secretary that I was conscious of the difficulties in regard to this matter. While I did give all attention and consideration possible to the matter, I hesitated, and I believe wisely hesitated, before establishing a new organisation, in the full knowledge as to what that was going to cost and the lack of co-ordination and co-operation that would exist as between the county engineering services and the new organisation set up for these purposes.
You knew that that was decided on when Deputy O'Grady was in the Board of Works.
I have told the Parliamentary Secretary that I am speaking of my own experience and what my own opinion was and is. I have consulted no other person.
You walked into it.
Each Deputy is entitled to express his own opinion as to what he thinks of any proposition and I want to put on record my objection to the course that is being pursued. I am suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that while he might have found it difficult, it should not be impossible in respect of the county surveyors who had indicated their unwillingness, to ascertain whether the responsibility for the execution of these works could be regarded as coming within the terms of their appointment. Whether that was the case or not, there should be some means by which this Department could have insisted on their taking the responsibility they took in years gone by.
Like some of the other Deputies who have spoken on field drainage schemes, I am at a loss to know how exactly the Parliamentary Secretary could have arrived at a flat contribution of £4 per statute acre in a scheme like this. I think Deputies will agree that, however urgent field drainage may be in any particular area, there is scarcely any two acres in which you will find a like necessity for the same number of drains. While one acre can be effectively dealt with by 400 or 500 yards of field drainage, another acre may require 1,000 yards of drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary has not told us what type these drains are to be, whether they are to be stone piped or not. I can see an immediate objection coming from a farmer who has four or five acres of land requiring perhaps limited drainage, while his neighbour may require a substantially larger number of drains for a similar area. He can say: "It is not fair to ask me for a contribution of £4 per acre for a certain number of drains, whilst my neighbour is asked only for the same contribution although his land requires a greater number of drains." Like other Deputies, I can therefore see the need for a good deal of clarification on that matter. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find when he attempts, if he ever does attempt, to extend this scheme to other parts of the country, that it has been thought out rather hastily. Whether my prophecy should prove true or not, I should like to hear him give the House a clearer picture of the amount required for, say, an acre of the sort of land he has in mind in Mayo or Galway and what amount of that estimate this £4 contribution would represent. How does he propose to meet the sort of cases I have cited where the need for drainage is greater in one man's farm than another? Is it going to be a case of insisting on the farmer, irrespective of the need for drainage, or the number of drains to be made, making this contribution? I move to report progress.
