Vol. 132 No. 13
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £672,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for employment and emergency schemes (including relief of distress).
Under this Vote funds are provided for the annual programme of works to give employment in urban and rural areas to men in receipt of unemployment assistance; and also for other related services, including the rural improvements scheme, which are a useful aid to the relief of unemployment. The provision also covers the salaries, travelling expenses, etc., of the staff of the special employment schemes office responsible for the administration of the Vote.
The services covered by the Estimate for 1952-53 are the same as those for which a provision of £752,000 was originally made in 1951-52, but during that year it became necessary to provide additional funds for expenditure under sub-head I—Development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers; and under sub-head K—Rural Improvements Scheme. For this purpose a supplementary Vote of £35,000 was passed in February, 1952, so that the total amount available for expenditure in 1951-52 was £787,000 plus a sum of £8,190 transferred to Vote 10 from the Vote for Increases in Remuneration.
As compared with the amount originally voted for 1951-52, therefore, the proposed provision for 1952-53 shows an increase of £256,000.
Since the Estimates Volume was printed it has been decided to increase the provision under sub-head I—Bog Development Schemes—to £150,000, leaving the total of the Vote to stand at £1,008,000 in anticipation of possible savings which may occur in connection with the execution of the many and varied types of schemes covered by the Vote.
Compared with the original provisions in 1951-52 the principal increases are:—sub-head H—Minor Employment Schemes—£95,000 increased by £25,000 to £120,000; sub-head I—Bog Development Schemes—£90,000 increased by £60,000 to £150,000; sub-head K—Rural Improvements Scheme—£125,000 increased by £50,000 to £175,000; and sub-head L—Miscellaneous Schemes— £52,100 increased by £149,760 to £201,860.
The provisions in sub-heads A to E of the Vote are to cover the administrative expenses of the staff of the special employment schemes office. They call for no special comment as the increased figure in sub-head A is virtually offset by increases in remuneration which were provided for by special Vote in 1951-52.
Provision for employment schemes in the various urban and rural units of area is made under sub-heads F, G and H. The moneys are distributed broadly in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients resident in each area.
The provision under sub-head I is for the repair or construction of roads and drains serving bogs used principally by landowners, who produce turf for their domestic requirements and for sale in neighbouring towns. The increased provision this year is intended to encourage a greater production of native fuel.
Sub-head J, provision £40,000, is to render available similar facilities in bogs acquired by local authorities to produce turf for their own needs.
The provision under sub-head K— Rural Improvements Scheme—is for the purpose of carrying out works to benefit the lands of groups of landholders, including small drainage schemes and the construction and repair of accommodation roads to houses, lands and bogs. State grants ranging from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the cost of approved works are made available, subject to contribution of the balance of the cost by the benefiting landholders. The landholders' contributions are graduated in relation to the average poor law valuations of the farms served, and in cases where the work is of substantial benefit to members of the general public in addition to the immediate beneficiaries the percentage of State grants may be increased. The additional provision included in the Estimates for 1952-53 has been found necessary owing to the increasing number of applications which are being received.
Sub-head L—Miscellaneous Schemes. The provision in this sub-head is mainly for contributions towards the cost of major harbour works, the amount of the contribution in each case being governed by the labour content of the work. The remainder of the provision in the sub-head is required to meet any cases of unemployment or of an emergency nature which may be brought to notice during the course of the year.
Am I to understand that under sub-head I—Development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers — the £120,000 in the Book of Estimates has been increased by £30,000, to bring the total to £150,000?
Yes.
That is a good job, but can this be the Parliamentary Secretary whom I heard speaking at Belmullet last Sunday? When I take up the Book of Estimates, I find that last year the provision for development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers was £141,500. This year it is £120,000. Will the Parliamentrry Secretary tell us when it was decided to increase that figure by £30,000?
The decision was made a considerable time ago.
It must not have been made before the Book of Estimates was printed.
The Deputy knows that the Estimates are prepared pretty early.
May I take it now that the provision is to be £150,000?
Yes.
There was one thing which I thought the Parliamentary Secretary might have referred to, and that was the position of this office. Quite a lot of Deputies, at least in my time, thought that the special employment schemes office was something to be looked down on. Indeed, some Deputies thought that it was an office that should not exist at all, but, as far as I was concerned and, I think, Deputies generally representing rural constituencies, we regarded it as a very important office. I want to say that during the three and a half years in which I had responsibility in that office I discovered that it was an office in which there could never be any progress made, for the simple reason that the inspectors and engineers who came into it were all on a temporary basis. They came in simply because they had no other place to go. They were barely trained into the type of work, of course, and the moment they saw something with a better outlook and some greater hope before them, they immediately left. The result was that every year, on two or three occasions, boards were set up to interview engineers and inspectors who were required, because no sooner had you got them in than they were off again.
I felt in my time that something should be done to remedy that. I felt that the engineers and inspectors we had down the country were very hard and loyal workers—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me—and that they should not be, so to speak, hanging at the end of a silk thread, that the office should not be in the position that no sooner were some engineers recruited than they were away to some other place where they had a brighter future. To prevent that I worked in a certain direction, namely, to have the office established. Now, from this side of the House, where I am more free to speak than when I was sitting on the other side, I must offer my congratulations to the Director—and to the previous Director, now the Chief Inspector—for the way they co-operated with me to have that office established. I also offer congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact of the office now being established. Establishment is there, the officers are not of a temporary nature and the office has come to stay.
I notice a sum for minor employment schemes, showing an increase of £20,500.
£25,000, I think.
Minor employment schemes, £20,500, under sub-head H, an increase of £20,500.
It is an increase of £25,000 from the original.
Whether it be £20,000 or £25,000 that is not enough. In my own county, Galway—the same county as the Parliamentary Secretary —£76,000 was spent last year under another Act, the Local Authorities (Works) Act and this year only £5,000 is being spent in that county. That will mean a great increase in unemployment. The selfsame thing will apply to every other county. While the Parliamentary Secretary tells me that for minor employment schemes there is an increase of £20,000 or £25,000, to me it is only like putting salt in cabbage; it will not in any way compare with the expenditure previously under the Works Act, which is now completely cut off by the present Government. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into that, especially in his own county and mine and such counties where that scheme operates.
And forget about the rest of Ireland.
No, places such as Kerry, West Cork, Donegal and counties like that, where that scheme used to operate generally, as in those areas we had more unemployment than in any other place.
I come now to the rural improvements scheme. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take anything I say as being personal. I heard him read from his brief to-day about the rural improvements scheme as it operates at present, but I listened to him in places in North Mayo during the past fortnight, especially last Sunday at Belmullet, saying he did not believe in the present rural improvement scheme as it is worked. I hope now that I am not taking an unfair advantage when I say that my only answer to the Parliamentary Secretary is that, if he does not believe that the scheme is working in a right and proper fashion he has been there for the past 12 months—why did he not change it?
When the Parliamentary Secretary was explaining that rural improvements scheme to the people of North Mayo—and his heart bleeding for the poor people down there on the eve of a by-election—he told them that it was a Fianna Fáil scheme. There are many Fianna Fáil schemes and there are many Fianna Fáil "schemes" too.
Fianna Fáil failures.
Is it not true that it was initiated by Fianna Fáil years ago?
I will deal with this if the Parliamentary Secretary allows me. When I came into office I examined that scheme—or "scheme", one might call it—where the people contributed 25 per cent. of the cost— that is, where there were two qualified, those two contributed the 25 per cent. and the State contributed 75 per cent. At that time, I think £20,000 was spent by the State every year. What did I find in areas that did not qualify because they had not the number of registered unemployed when they looked for this "scheme"? Engineers and inspectors were sent on the job, but 19 out of every 20 of those applications were eventually turned down, after they had been surveyed, estimated, etc., for the simple reason that the poor people who did not actually qualify for the minor employment scheme to get a full cost grant were not able to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost. I found, however, that, in the richer areas where people had £200 or £300 valuation and had probably 500 or 1,000 acres of land and wanted an avenue up to their doors, they applied, they were damn well able to contribute the 25 per cent., and they did so; and it was into areas of that description that most of the £20,000 went and not into the areas where it should have gone.
I came before this House to make what I thought was a very honest change, that it should be on a valuation basis, that where you had a low valuation such as £5 they should get 95 or 100 per cent. full cost grant. Where the valuation was £5 to £7 they should get 90 or 93 per cent. That idea would run roughly up to £18 valuation and from that on they should be asked to contribute the 25 per cent. as in the old scheme. But when I brought that before this House, the present Parliamentary Secretary—who was in Belmullet last Sunday and his heart bleeding for the poor low valuation, down-trodden people of North Mayo—was the very man who opposed that scheme in this House. He is the very man who said in North Mayo that he did not believe it should be so. If that is the case, I ask him now, through the Chair, why he does not abolish it. Why does he not go back again to the £500 or £600 valuation man and give it to him? I think it is very unfair of the Parliamentary Secretary to carry on in that way and to give the impression to the people of North Mayo that what he knows to be the truth is not the truth. The proof of that scheme is plain to be seen if only in respect of the increase in the amount of money. I think that at that time only £20,000 was spent on it. It has increased considerably because the poor people to whom I have referred can qualify. They are able to pay the small contributions that are asked from them. I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary attempts to make any change he will come before this House and let us know about it. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that any change he attempts to make, other than a change for the better, will be strenuously opposed by me. It will receive as serious opposition from me as I received from the Parliamentary Secretary when he was sitting on this side of the House.
I am quite sure that none of us who were members of the last Dáil will forget the accusations of jobbery and trickery made against me by Deputy Killilea. We all remember how he used to say that I used that office for political purposes. How often did I sit through an adjournment debate and have to listen to his violent abuse of me, not to talk of his abuse of me in Galway and in the Province of Connacht? I am sorry that Deputy Killilea is not in the House now. In view of the accusations which were made by Deputy Killilea while I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, I defy the present Parliamentary Secretary to point a finger to anything which I did for political purposes. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say that I gave any appointment outside the advice of the officials of that Department. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say that I was responsible for appointments which were not given on merit alone but which were given through the political trickery to which Deputy Killilea used to refer. In view of all these accusations and in view of the fact that the present Parliamentary Secretary now has the information available to him, I ask him to be honest about the matter and to reply to my question.
I know the rules which prevail in the Office of Public Works. Appointments have to be made—and damn little thanks any man ever got for making appointments. That is my view. Any appointment that is made in that office —any appointment that I ever made in that office or, I am sure, that the present Parliamentary Secretary will ever make in that office—was and is and will be made on the advice of the officials of that Department. That is the rule and it must be carried out.
I desire to avail of this opportunity to pay a tribute to the officials of the Board of Works. While I was Parliamentary Secretary I received many letters from people in different parts of the country who wanted a road built to the bog or to the village or to their house. I may say that the Parliamentary Secretary who was in office previous to me also received such letters, and I am sure that the present Parliamentary Secretary receives them also. On many occasions I tried to get the work they wrote about carried out for them. I used to call on the chief inspector and very often on the director to discuss such matters with them. Very frequently things which I badly wanted to be carried out could not be carried out with a full cost grant. The fact of the matter is that the Act was there, and that the provisions of the Act had to be complied with. Probably I was often blamed for not taking a certain course of action, but the position was that the money had to be spent as the Act stated it should be spent. I am sure the present Parliamentary Secretary has experienced the same state of affairs.
I want to pay a tribute to the cooperation and the goodwill of the officials of the Department. While I was Parliamentary Secretary I heard Deputies in this House say that the officials of the Board of Works found no difficulty in refusing to grant requests, and that they used to have a smile on their faces when refusing people. I deny that there is any truth in such a statement. The officials of the Board of Works do their best within the meaning of the Act. I only hope—I believe they will—that they will be as loyal to the present Parliamentary Secretary as they were to me. If they are, I am sure he will pay the same tribute to them as I am paying to them now.
This is a very important Vote so far as the poor areas of this country are concerned. I desire clarification by the Parliamentary Secretary on a number of points. At the outset I want to say that any help that we can afford to people living in isolated parts of this country is definitely due to them because the people in those areas are labouring under many disadvantages. They are the real old Irish stock and the backbone of this country. In view of the huge cost of public services in this country at present, and having regard to the conditions that obtain in the areas to which I have referred, I consider that this Vote should be at least twice the size which it is.
The Office of Public Works confers a dual benefit. In addition to giving farmers and other people living in isolated districts an opportunity of having drainage works carried out, of getting roads leading to their houses made, and bogs developed, the workers in those districts are given opportunities of productive employment. I do not say that it is the present Parliamentary Secretary's fault but, unfortunately, since he assumed office the position has changed very much so far as West Cork is concerned, and I am sure so far as other parts of the country are concerned also.
As its name implies, the Office of Public Works is the employment schemes office. I assume from that, that its chief responsibility is to provide productive employment for workers in rural Ireland. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should take very serious cognisance of the position that obtains at the present time. In West Cork, particularly in the remote areas such as the Berehaven Peninsula, Schull and Goleen Peninsulas, almost 60 or 70 per cent. of the workers are unemployed at the present time. Those who are employed are employed only two or three days weekly. In those areas work is rotated. I do not know whether Deputy Donnellan let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned to the Parliamentary Secretary that they should satisfy North Galway and South Galway whatever about the other areas, as I am doubtful if the money is apportioned proportionately.
And West Cork.
I do not say that with any intention of casting a reflection on Deputy Donnellan, but West Cork is not getting its fair proportion of the money which is made available for schemes from the Parliamentary Secretary's office. There is no doubt at all about that. West Cork is one of the poorest constituencies and the people there find it very difficult to live. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of that.
I do not believe that could happen Cork so far as the Parliamentary Secretary's office is concerned.
The amount we got under the minor employment schemes and rural employment schemes last year is negligible having regard to the area covered. There is no doubt about that. The same could be said in respect of the other development schemes. A few thousand pounds are allocated under each heading. Having regard to the position which obtains in West Cork and having regard to the size of the area, the few thousand pounds allocated under these headings are of no use.
My information, whether correct or incorrect, so far as the current financial year is concerned, is that there is only one area in West Cork which will benefit under unemployment schemes. I do not know whether it is on the system of the number of registered unemployed or on the number of those drawing unemployment assistance that the money is allocated. I believe that must be a very tight system. I find that it is only the Berehaven Peninsula in West Cork that will benefit. The Berehaven Peninsula would need 20 times what it is getting from the Parliamentary Secretary's office. I fail to see why such poor areas as Goleen do not benefit. What is happening in Cork may happen in Kerry and Donegal.
It is hard to believe it could happen in Cork.
It is happening all right. You are wiping our eyes. I believe that the whole position should be reviewed. As I have already stated, it takes over £100,000,000 to run the public services of this country. I believe that the small farmers and workers living in those isolated areas are definitely entitled to a bigger slice of that £100,000,000 than they are getting at present.
I am fully aware of the many benefits this measure confers on the people. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take cognisance of the unemployment position. He would be quite justified in coming before the Dáil to ask for a Supplementary Vote to meet the unemployment position in the areas I have mentioned. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary would have the blessing of all the unemployed workers in the West and South of Ireland if he adopted that attitude. If we spent the money on the development of bogs in the rural districts it would improve the lot of the people to whom I have referred—people who are finding it difficult to eke out an existence.
Deputy Donnellan pointed out that the reduction in the amounts allocated under the Local Authorities (Works) Act is responsible for increasing unemployment and for the withdrawal of many schemes that would be of general benefit to the people in those areas. Many of the works carried out under this Act were somewhat similar to the works carried out by the Parliamentary Secretary's office. Since the Department of Local Government have failed entirely in their duty and have reduced the amount made available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act to local authorities to carry out essential works, I believe it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to say they have failed in their duty and to rectify the position. That is one line the Parliamentary Secretary could take if he thought fit to increase the amount under the various sub-heads in this Vote.
I know that the rural improvement scheme is a first-class one. There is no doubt about that. The State contributions are very reasonable. I agree with the former Parliamentary Secretary, when he says that the valuation system is the best system that could be devised for allocating moneys. Any group of farmers with less than an average valuation of £6 are entitled to a 95 per cent. grant. The grants are graded down to 75 per cent. according to valuation. I think that is reasonable.
My main grievance, in so far as the rural improvement schemes are concerned, is the undue delay between the date of the application and the date the work is to be carried out. I see no justifiable reason why 14 months, on an average, should intervene. If a group of farmers make an application to-day for a drainage scheme or anything of that sort I cannot see why it should not be ready for implementation within six months. At the present time, if my information is correct—and I believe it is—it takes 14 months. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to talk this matter over with responsible officials in the Department and try to reduce the time to at most six months. I think that would be very important.
Under the heading of bog development schemes we only got a little over £1,000 last year. I cannot say that was a fair proportion for our part of the country. In many places you have undeveloped bogs. It is very difficult to develop them. It would take definitely an amount of money to do so, since you have to make roads and carry out extensive drainage works. It is often difficult for private individuals to get grants to carry out this work as it may be deemed to benefit only the person who owns the bog. Every effort should be made to facilitate any person with undeveloped bogs in the mountains and places like that. You will find these undeveloped bogs in the valleys between the hills. Every effort should be made to give facilities to those people who have those bogs to develop them. Some of the money we are sending to England to purchase coal could be kept at home if we developed our bogs.
I believe it is very difficult to find fault with those schemes. My main grievance is that the money allocated is entirely inadequate. People in the rural districts are entitled to everything we can give them. The majority of the members of this House know the difficulties with which people have had to contend for years past. They have small weekly incomes. I believe we should help them, and the best way to help them is to give them all the money they require under this particular Act for essential schemes. By doing that, the Parliamentary Secretary will be doing a good day's work for the country and for those people, and he will be calling down the blessing of God upon himself.
The first speaker was my predecessor in office, Deputy Donnellan. He mentioned the question of the engineering staff. I entirely agree with points he made. It was very difficult, as far as the special employment schemes office was concerned, to carry on in view of the fact that all the engineering staff were unestablished and engaged on a temporary basis. That state of affairs was the cause of grave dissatisfaction. We now have four Grade II inspectors and 12 Grade III inspectors.
On an established basis?
That is right.
There are 16 inspectors in all, four Grade II inspectors and 12 Grade III inspectors.
Yes. As Deputy Donnellan is aware, of course, there are still a number of inspectors unestablished, but we hope to employ some of these on an established basis in the near future. All this is done through the medium of interview.
I am very glad to hear that.
I think this improvement in status will encourage young engineers to offer themselves to us for employment in future.
Deputy Donnellan said that the money for the minor employment schemes was not sufficient, even though the sum allocated shows a vast in crease. The Deputy said, and so did Deputy M. Murphy, that this was due to the reduction in the money allocated under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts. I am not responsible for the Local Authorities (Works) Acts nor is this Estimate. However, I do know that the £5,000 mentioned is only a token Vote, and that there is a great deal more to come. I wish to point out to both Deputies that, as far as minor employment schemes are concerned, they were only intended to provide employment during the bleak period from November to March. They were never meant to be operated in the late spring, in the summer period or in the early harvest. We are sticking to that rule, and I believe it to be a sound rule.
The schemes established under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts are altogether different in my opinion. Such schemes are meant to deal with certain drainage works, with roads and with the relieving of flooding. In my opinion, the proper time to have such works carried on is in the dry period of the year and, consequently, the question of minor employment schemes being substituted for the Local Authorities (Works) Acts schemes does not arise at all.
Deputy Donnellan castigated me very severely regarding rural improvement schemes. I feel that he did not present the facts fairly. He said that I opposed them in this House. If my memory serves me correctly, what really happened in this House was this: members of Deputy Donnellan's own Party brought in a motion requesting the then Parliamentary Secretary and his Government to increase the State contribution from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. This matter was debated here for some time, though not for very long, because the motion had been allocated only a certain time. As far as my memory serves me, Deputy Donnellan informed the two framers of the motion—Deputies Beirne and Commons—that he would look into the matter if they withdrew the motion. I objected to the withdrawal of the motion, because I wanted to have the matter decided definitely.
I feel I was very fair to Deputy Donnellan in Belmullet on Sunday last when I said that he made a vast improvement in the rural improvement schemes as far as the poorer areas were concerned. There is no objection to that. It would be very difficult to change the situation now, but if I had been in the Deputy's place when the alteration was made I would still have had a flat rate for the entire country.
On what?
I formed the belief that at the time the Deputy would have been well advised to accept the motion framed by Deputies Beirne and Commons. In my opinion, while the present position is undoubtedly a big advantage to the poorer areas—it is giving them the full cost grant if you like—at the same time there is a considerable amount of delay entailed checking up on valuations in county council offices. We know that for some years a number of people have had three or four demand notes, perhaps under different names, though intended for the same persons. That means a considerable amount of delay in that respect. There are not so many farmers with a valuation of £1,000 in this country. We have not so many of this category of farmer even in the rich counties of Laois and Offaly which Deputy Davin represents.
Did you say rich?
The situation could arise where a number of farmers could be living in a district and where some very big farmer would be in amongst them near the end of the road who would have his valuation counted with theirs. The result would be that the other farmers would be penalised, and the big farmer would not give a pin whether or not rural improvement schemes were allocated. In this case all the valuations would be averaged. It will, therefore, be admitted that there are some snags with regard to rural improvement schemes, even though I do admit they are a vast improvement as far as the poorer areas are concerned, and that satisfied me, and I said in Belmullet——
You said you did not believe in them.
I said that if I had a hand in the matter I would have had a flat rate. I am not going to bring the rate back from 95 per cent. to 90 per cent. There is no point in reversing the clock. I still maintain that there should be a 90 per cent. flat rate.
There is nothing to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary from doing that now.
There is nothing to prevent my doing it, I suppose. At the same time it would not be received very well here if I put one section of the community back to a certain point and brought forward another section.
I do not intend mentioning here what transpired between Deputy Donnellan and other Deputies in North Galway. I am not going to go into these matters, but I would like to mention one matter which was brought up in this House with regard to the allocating of jobs. I am not saying that the men appointed were not all right. However, the paymaster system is a system in which I do not believe. I could appoint paymasters all over Mayo since I took office, but I would not do so. I could also appoint paymasters in Kerry and in Clare. However, I would not do so, because I believe that it is better to pay the people direct from the office. That ensures that the money goes into the home directly by means of a paying order just as the money paid by the county councils does. If the money is paid by cash and if the local public-house happens to be situated between the scheme of works and the employee's home the temptation to go into the public-house will be very strong. The result will be that all the money will not go into the home. However, the weekly or fortnightly pay docket paid direct from the central office will ensure the housewife will receive it all.
He could not be going home and saying: "I had so many days broken time that you knew nothing about and that is why I have only so much this week." But when the pay packet would be there she would have full knowledge of what that man's weekly wage was. That is the only objection I have to it.
But it was a recommendation of the office that such should be done.
It is a recommendation that I will not carry out.
Because financially it was a gain to the office?
In my opinion, whatever the gain would have been to the office it certainly was no gain to the workers. Deputy Donnellan mentioned the rural improvements scheme. He said there was only £20,000 spent before he took over office.
What I did say was that when I was in office £20,000 was spent on the rural improvements scheme.
In 1944-45 the expenditure was £49,000; in 1945-46 it was £99,000; in 1946-47—£75,000; in 1947-48 —£117,000; in 1948-49—£104,000; in 1950-51—£94,000, and in 1951-52— £152,000.
My idea was that the change over brought an increase of £20,000.
The above amounts were expended on those schemes. As far as the West Cork people are concerned they will get unemployment assistance in due proportion to any other part of the country. There has never been any differentiation in that way. That is how it was calculated in the office.
When I was speaking some time ago on the Supplementary Estimate I brought a certain matter to the attention of the Deputies in regard to the manner of making enquiries in relation to schemes. I do not blame new Deputies at all but Deputies who have been in the House for 30 years and who should understand every detail regarding minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvement schemes, send in queries to the office and give such vague details that it would take a month in the office to trace them. As a result of that I have got the director to prepare a letter which I have sent out. I hope it was not an insult to the older Deputies on to those who understood the routine. In a case like that you cannot have segregation thus inferring that some people were so unintelligent that they had to be reminded. However, if they will only apply that in making their inquiries it will expedite matters considerably. It is as simple almost as a telegram. There are only a few headings concerned—the county, the rural district, the townland, the nature of the work and the name of the correspondent. If that is submitted I will guarantee that it will not be so long before they get a reply showing what the real position is. That is all I have to say and I am thankful to the Deputies for letting me off so lightly.
