Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 23 Oct 1953

Vol. 142 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes (Resumed).

Mr. Browne

This Vote is similar to the Vote passed last night. It is a very important Vote. The amount included in the Vote is not sufficient to meet the needs and demands of the people, particularly those living in rural areas. The Parliamentary Secretary, coming from an area west of the Shannon, is well acquainted with the needs of the people, especially small farmers livingin culs-de-sac off main and county roads.

There is a huge mileage of roads in County Mayo and, therefore, a great mileage of culs-de-sac and by-roads. A big percentage of the people were forced into backward areas in years gone by. Even under native Government these people have not been provided with suitable entrance to their homes and holdings. Relief schemes are made available on certain conditions in certain areas, but unless there is a certain number of registered unemployed in the electoral division it is not easy to have repair work carried out on a road.

The same applies to Land Commission roads. In the area that I represent, a great deal of land was taken over by the Land Commission and a big percentage of it was allotted by way of addition to small holdings to people who were resident or employed on the land prior to acquisition, or to tenants living a distance of one to three miles away. Roads were made to accommodate the people who got the land. They were made on very poor foundation. The land was mapped out and striped; fences were erected on both sides and the road was made between the fences. The foundations were soft. The roads were well made by the Land Commission and gave great service to the people and provided suitable entrance to the land from the trunk road or county road. However, the roads did not stand the strain of increased traffic.

I go further and say that inside the last five or 10 years extra traffic that was never intended 20 or 25 years ago has been passing over those roads, culs-de sac and by-roads leading off the main roads, the county roads, into a village. The traffic has changed from every point of view, from the time when it was possible that some of the people living in those areas would perhaps only go out on those roads on a very special occasion to get connected to the main road or the county road. Now all this has changed altogether and it is a daily routine with the people that they have to pass out to get on to the main road. The point I am coming to is that I know that on plentyof those roads you now have a new kind of traffic. You have the private lorry and the lorry haulier and the tractor all making use of those roads even from the main road, perhaps, into some place where some method of work is available to somebody who employs either the lorry or the tractor or there is some work on which the lorry or tractor man can make use of those roads. All that heavy traffic is making things difficult as far as some of the people are concerned in those areas.

I understand that the regulations as far as the local authorities are concerned and as far as this Vote is concerned provide that there is a percentage of the people living in certain areas who cannot by any method or regulation get anything done on those roads except in a very small way. It is just a chance from time to time that you might get one little road or two done in an area of, say, two electoral divisions.

When one road is done you might irritate people living in other areas where they say: "Such and such a road was done last year or two years ago, and why cannot something be done on our portion of the road?" I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has his own trouble as far as demands are concerned especially with roads like this. I also know all the difficulties that face the people of Mayo and Galway, and I think that the Board of Works and the Parliamentary Secretary should come to some agreement by a survey so that those culs-de-sac and roads that would not in the ordinary way qualify for a relief scheme grant from the point of view of the present regulations will be attended to. In our own county I am a member of the local authority where we had this question of the by-roads on every annual estimate. It is one of the burning questions, and every member of the council has a similar grievance in his own area because of the fact that those roads do not come under the control of the county council so that members of the county council have no authority to expend money or to make it available to those roads in grants. They feel that if the county council takes any responsibility for therepair of any of those by-roads it becomes a question of the council taking them over, and if the council take over one of those roads they have the full responsibility afterwards for maintenance. Contract roads are a fairly big responsibility with the county council from the point of view of the extra traffic and the general regulations as far as the contractor is concerned, with the result that the county councils are perhaps up to 100 per cent. as far as they can go where the contract roads are concerned, without the responsibility of taking over any additional roads. As far as these roads are concerned, to my recollection there was a suggestion that in the annual estimate we should make a small tax on the rates and by this small tax we could have a special repair grant scheme where a local contribution was necessary to qualify for the repair of those roads, and that in that way, over a period of, say, five years, we would have met a big percentage of the needs of the people living in areas such as I have mentioned.

I was, however, given to understand at the time that a contribution like that by a local authority would commit the local authority to responsibility for the full maintenance of the road. I am satisfied that I am quite safe in suggesting that because of the fact that the county council, as is stated here, have the responsibility of administering the distribution of this money and the working arrangement of it in the areas where the money is made available, in a similar way if the council were allowed to make this local contribution percentage and this Vote was entitled to make a reasonable contribution in that way we would seem to be reaching the stage at which the people living in those areas would have the accommodation.

I know plenty of areas where turf and bogs are not as plentiful now as they were 25, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, areas where bogland and bog accommodation are running out, with the result that the people who were cutting turf in one direction 40 years must now go in another direction. In that way roads that were designed for traffic covering the bog areas 20 or 40 yearsago where people were living in perhaps two or three villages as far as four or five miles away from those bogs are now inadequate, and people going to the bogs have to pass into the culs-de-sac and by-roads through those villages, and very little is being done with those by-roads though they are available to a big section of the people from different parts. For the four, five or six people living on both sides of the roads, they are the only entrance they have into and out of the village to connect with the main road or the county road.

If the road was eligible for repairs by the county council and recommended for work in the ordinary way the number of registered unemployed would require them to be called on to put up a local contribution. The contribution, as I understand it, is based on the valuation of the people living in the area, and if we called upon the two, three, four, five or six people living in that area to make a local contribution, in a lot of areas they would be satisfied to make it for the repair of the road which is specially intended for themselves but the people who use that road at only one period of the year, to take their turf from the bog, feel that it would not be fair that they should be asked to contribute to the making of the road to the bog. In fact, some of the people concerned use the road only one month in the year and if there was a call for local contribution, not one penny would be subscribed by them. In view of all that has been done for the trunk roads, the main roads and the county roads, I think it is about time that something was done for the section of the people for whom I now plead. We are improving our main roads and our trunk roads in an endeavour to attract more tourists and we are making every effort to repair county roads. As a matter of fact, steamrolling has now been extended to the county roads. In all the long years, practically nothing has been done to tackle the problem of those people who live on the roads of which I have been speaking.

There is a road in the electoral division of Deel and many applications have been sent in by the residents inthe area: it is at a place called Rathmore. There are four or five families living in the area which that road serves. Many other people have occasion to use this road in order to get out on the county road and from that county road they get on to a main road and they have to do that round when they want to bring home the turf. I have a clear recollection of that road. I remember attending a funeral there some years ago and the road was in a desperate condition and certainly it was most unfair to the people there to leave it as it was.

I know that applications were made in respect of that road and I am making special mention of this matter now because I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will attend to it without delay and give it his sympathetic consideration. I am certain that if the road is inspected the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials will be only too willing to agree that the repair of that road should get priority in the repair schemes.

There is the possibility that there may not be a sufficient number of registered unemployed in the area to enable a 100 per cent. grant to be given in respect of the repair of that road but in the adjoining electoral division or within a radius of two or three miles you will find a sufficient number of registered unemployed and, though they may not be in the same electoral division, they are living along its border. I suggest, in connection with the making available of this money, that if there are areas in which there are not a sufficient number of registered unemployed to qualify for a grant, some of the registered unemployed in an adjoining electoral division should be considered in conjunction with the registered unemployed in the area in question.

It sometimes happens that, in a certain area, you will always find that there are a sufficient number of unemployed and that, in that area, money has been spent every year over a period of years with the result that it has the advantage of a good road, and so forth. It may also happen that, in an area immediately adjoining that electoral division, there may be a road which is in such a bad state of repairthat it hardly deserves the name of "road." I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will note that point for future consideration in connection with the giving of grants.

We must not forget the problem of culs-de-sac. I know how important this matter can be to the people living along them because I have had much experience of it as a member of a local authority. I know that every member of a local authority is anxious to assist, by every means possible, the residents of culs-de-sac and all those other people who have occasion to use these culs-de-sac.

I think that the Department of Local Government is the Department which is responsible for our roads. If the local authority were prepared to levy even a small tax on the ratepayers in their annual estimate, and if they were allowed to use the money derived from that tax on those culs-de-sac, back roads and accommodation roads for, say, a period of five years, and if that money were supplemented by a grant either from the Board of Works or some other Department dealing with roads, much good and badly-needed work would be carried out. It would be well if the county council were allowed to administer such a scheme on the understanding that the local authority would not be committed to any further responsibility so far as maintenance is concerned. If the job of repair were well done it would last for ten or 15 years and the local authority would have no further responsibility after having put the road into a proper state of repair. I believe that some scheme like that would go a long way towards giving suitable accommodation roads to those small farmers throughout the country who live a long distance from main roads and trunk roads.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I was not present when the Parliamentary Secretary introduced this Estimate but I assume that the fundamental purpose of this particular Vote is to provide for the extraordinary unemployment situation which we have at the present time.

Let us examine this Vote now and bear in mind the present unemployment situation. Having regard to the total amount provided this year, I think that it would be fair to say that the sum which this House is asked to provide for unemployment is a very puny effort when one has regard to the numbers of unemployed in our cities, towns and rural areas. I think I would be putting it very mildly indeed if I said that the amount which the Government asks for this year is not half enough nor quarter enough to meet the situation which this country and, in particular, this Government is faced with.

I have no criticism of the amounts paid in salaries, wages and travelling expenses to those people who are responsible for the employment and emergency schemes. When we read this total of £685,000 odd we must bear in mind that, out of that amount, over £70,000 must go for salaries, wages, allowances, travelling and incidental expenses. Therefore, the net amount for actual employment and emergency schemes is but £600,000—and that £600,000, despite the fact that unemployment is greater this year than last year, is £100,000 less than was provided for the year 1952-53.

This is one of the Votes on which Deputies can speak exclusively on the question of employment. In other Votes, emphasis is laid on the work done or the work to be done. Listening to some of the speeches from both sides of the House last evening and this morning, I have discovered that what many Deputies regard as the most important thing in this Vote, and the moneys provided under it, is the doing of a particular kind of work. That, in itself, is important but, as far as this Vote is concerned, the important thing is the provision of work for men who have been sick, idle or who are not able to get work in this country. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the main intention of this Vote is to provide work, by way of different types of schemes, he should press upon the Minister for Finance, who, in turn, should press the Government, to introduce from time to time Supplementary Estimates for the provisionof extra money where there is an extraordinary situation in the matter of unemployment.

I submit that we have that situation at present. I do not want to minimise or to exaggerate it, or seek to distort figures, but it has been stated emphatically by the Taoiseach that, in many of the smaller areas particularly, the housing programme, as visualised after the survey of 1947, has been completed. We all have evidence of that and it must, therefore, be appreciated that, the housing programme in these areas being finished, there must be an increase in unemployment, especially amongst unskilled workers. Deputies have an example of that in the towns of Gorey and Enniscorthy, where house-building schemes have stopped completely, and one is therefore forced to ask oneself what is to become of these unskilled workers, especially those who, for the past three, four or five years, had fairly constant employment on these schemes.

I suggest that they are signing on at the labour exchange and, if that is the case, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Finance should be well able to make a case that much more money is needed for the provision of work for these people who have been disemployed through the cessation of house building. Unfortunately, we know that that is not the case, that, on the contrary, the Vote has been cut down by £122,000, if one compares it with the amount provided for the year 1952-53. It must be readily admitted, too, that there is less work in the rural areas and that the amount provided this year should be much bigger if the original intention of the Vote, the provision of work, is to be carried out.

All of us have come to realise that, with the introduction of machinery into the agricultural industry, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for rural workers to get employment. Where a farmer had work for two or three workers three, four or five years ago he is now well able to carry on the business of his farm with one man because of the introduction of farm machinery. Cottage building in the rural districts has diminished over thepast few years, and, as I said, the Taoiseach told us some few months ago that the house-building programmes of many of the county councils have been completed. There is less money available between road works and Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes and generally the situation is such that there are very few opportunities for unemployed workers in rural areas at present of getting employment. From that point of view, the Vote, under the heading of rural employment and minor employment schemes, ought to be stepped up rather than cut down by a substantial amount as is the case.

The Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to explain away the decrease in respect of one of these headings by saying that the Minister for Local Government has provided more money for work on county roads. Be that as it may, the Minister for Local Government, on the one hand, can boast about more employment in the rural areas by saying that there is more money for county roads, while the Parliamentary Secretary can say he cut down a particular heading because the Minister had found it possible to provide more money for county roads. I suggest therefore that the increase boasted of by the Minister is very much offset by the reduction which the Parliamentary Secretary has made.

There was some discussion here last night about the situation in Dublin City. I am not a member for the city, but I think the demonstrations that took place during the summer and the situation as it is in the city in the matter of unemployment are of concern to every Deputy. In recent weeks, there has been an attempt, successful, in some degree, to provide additional employment, but I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary now if it is not a fact that the money being provided to give employment in the city is part of the money which these men would have received in the ordinary course, money which is being made available a few weeks or months in advance of the time at which it would ordinarily be made available.

No matter what any Dublin Deputy or the Parliamentary Secretary may say, in this Vote there are no additionalmoneys for the provision of additional employment in the city. The Fianna Fáil or Independent Deputies may have had a private assurance from the Minister for Finance or the Government that £1,000,000 would be made available for the provision of employment, but so far as we can see from the Book of Estimates, there is no evidence of any such provision, unless, as I say, there is some private arrangement between the Dublin Fianna Fáil Deputies and the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned last night that there was a sum of £57,000 to be advanced to Dublin for the provision of work in the form of relief schemes. A sum of £57,000, while it might seem a very large amount, will not give the amount of employment that is required, especially in the winter months. It might seem big, but it will not relieve the unemployment situation in the city to any great extent. If there is any hope in the setting up, as has been suggested, by the Government of a national development fund for the doing of national work, and incidentally the provision of employment, it will be all to the good, but I am afraid that this national development fund is just the Transition Development Fund, which was very good in itself, with a different name. We can only wait and see what the Government proposals in this regard are, but, so far as the Labour Party are concerned, the National Development Fund Bill will receive a warm welcome, if it is a Bill which will provide a sum of money annually to meet extraordinary situations of unemployment.

The larger towns are very disappointed that the amount to be spent under sub-head F—Urban Employment Schemes—is £34,000 less than last year. We have an instance in the town of Wexford, where unemployment is greater than it was last year— in fact, greater than it has been for a number of years—that the relief schemes grant is less than it was last year. That seems a rather funny situation, remembering, as I said at the beginning, that this Vote was originally intended to meet unusualsituations in regard to unemployment.

I should like to conclude by telling the Parliamentary Secretary that he and his chief, the Minister for Finance, should be ever ready to come into this House to ask for more money under this particular Vote. As it is, we have this £685,000 or £700,000 spent year after year just as a matter of course. The expenditure is no more or no less in any particular month of the year. If there is an extraordinary unemployment situation, so far as building, for instance, is concerned, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should ask this House to provide for the workers in that industry during the period of unemployment. The original intention underlying the Vote was that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should come into the House and ask to be given more money to provide work for the people unemployed. The tragedy of the situation is that when men find themselves unemployed for a matter of two, three or four weeks, their first reaction is to emigrate to Britain to find employment there.

The further tragedy is that when they go to Britain and get employment there, they are wont to stay there and, after they have been in a job for some time, to send for their wives and families. We in this country do not seem to be concerned at all about people who are forced to emigrate to Britain because of unemployment here; yet if we want money for several other things we always seem to be able to provide it.

When we want money to boost the tourist industry—I am not objecting to that—we seem to be able to get it in this House in a matter of minutes. Similarly, when we want money to do certain things for the horse-breeding industry we can get as much as £250,000 for the mere asking of it. When we want to increase salaries in a particular direction we can also get it but when it is a matter of providing money for the relief of those who are unemployed, the cry of the majority of Deputies in this House is: "We cannot afford it." We should remember that while these schemes are called relief schemes, and whilst the original intention was to provide work for certainclasses during periods of unemployment, the money so provided can be utilised on many useful schemes which would build up the country. If bog roads, county roads or any type of road can be constructed or put into repair, I suggest that any money this House votes to promote schemes of that kind will be money voted in the right direction and it will have the additional merit of providing employment for those in need of it.

Mr. Palmer

I do not suppose that very much more can be said in connection with this Estimate as practically everything that could be referred to has been already dealt with by previous speakers. The two most disappointing and unsatisfactory features of this Estimate are the reduction in the Urban Employment Schemes Vote of £34,000 and in the Vote for the development of bog roads of £20,000. I have no idea how many urban areas would qualify for an urban unemployment scheme, but I have in mind the one urban area in my own constituency, Killarney, where there are no industries and where during the winter months there is always a great deal of unemployment. Up to the present, there had always been a pretty generous grant for that urban area. In fact, people had come to look at it as, and to call it, a Christmas grant.

One would also have expected an increase in the Vote for bog development because in those areas where turf generating stations are to be erected, for a few years before these come into operation I think everything possible should be done to ensure that good roads will be made into bogs likely to be developed by private enterprise.

I recall that Deputy Cowan yesterday said that money had been voted for the development of bog roads for the past 30 years and he asked how was it the work had not been done. Anybody who understands the situation with regard to bog roads knows that roads already made will always require repairs. In these days especially, when people as a rule transport turf from the bogs in lorriesand by means of tractors and trailers, bog roads are likely to fall into a state of disrepair very quickly. In fact, I think the great mistake that the employment schemes section make is that they do not, before these roads become very bad, make provision for voting a certain sum for their repair. The same remarks would apply to roads repaired under the minor employment scheme. As a rule the money voted is not sufficient to complete the work. Some people will say that even though the engineers actually recommend a sum that should complete the work and place the roads in a fairly decent condition, the men employed on the schemes do not exert themselves to any great extent in order that the work may be completed. Be that as it may, it is only right that when certain money is voted for the repair of roads under the minor employment scheme, if the road is not completed in any one year, a further sum should be voted in the succeeding year to complete the work.

The Parliamentary Secretary stated that in certain areas large sums of money had been allocated for the repair of roads, steamrolling and so forth. While such work will give a good deal of employment in a particular area, it must not be forgotten that roads running into pockets or through townlands also deserve to be remembered and a generous grant should be allocated for the repair of these. While minor employment schemes will help to give temporary employment during a certain period of the winter to the unemployed, I do not think that the scheme as a whole has ever been a great success because the work is not carried out with the efficiency with which it should be. The people employed seem to be under the impression that the money is simply voted to be drawn by them and they do as little work as possible. The engineers and the gangers employed should see to it that the men give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That must be confined to Kerry; it is not general.

Mr. Palmer

I am speaking from my own experience. That would be muchbetter not only for the men themselves but for the carrying out of the necessary repairs to these roads. In the rural improvements scheme section, good work has always been done. When these roads have been put in a proper state of repair it is a pity that after two or three years a further sum is not granted so as to redress or resurface them or to open drains to take off the water. When roads are put in repair in that way there should be some provision by which the county council would take over and be responsible for their future repair, especially roads serving townlands with five, six or more inhabitants.

Then there are farmers living in places where they have to cross a river or even rivers to get to their homes. Just because there is only one house in the place the Special Employment Schemes Office are not empowered to erect a bridge. It was rather strange that when these estates were being purchased some sum was not retained from the purchase money to erect bridges in such cases. There are about 50 such cases in my own constituency. Sometimes when these farmers go to a fair or market or to church, or on some other business in the morning, when they return later they cannot reach their own homes because of floods. Some provision should be made by which money would be allocated for the erection of bridges in such cases, even on the condition that the person concerned would have to contribute a generous portion of the cost. I am sure that such people would be willing to do so.

It has been the experience of the Special Employment Schemes Office, I am sure, that when money is devoted to minor relief schemes or rural improvement schemes trouble arises sometimes in connection with the appointment of gangers. It might be a question of a political dispute or neighbours not being good friends. It frequently happens in such cases that the grant is lost. When a local person is appointed ganger, if some of those through whose lands the road runs or persons who are to be employed on the work are dissatisfied with the ganger appointed, the engineer of the Officeof Public Works should have full authority to bring in a ganger from an outside area, in other words bring in a stranger. In fact, it would not be a bad idea if that were done in all cases because, no matter what my friend, Deputy Murphy, may say, I think that a ganger from outside the area would see that better work would be done.

On the whole, I am sure the Special Employment Schemes Office do their best to allocate the money as generously as possible in the different electoral areas. I think, however, it was Deputy Blowick who referred last night to the fact that unless there is a certain number of unemployed in a particular electoral district, ten, 12, 15 or 16, whatever the number is, no free grant can be allocated in such a case.

That is scarcely fair to the district. It would be well if the office would consider in that case joining two electoral areas together and making an extra allocation to provide for those unemployed in the electoral district where there is not a sufficient number to qualify for a minor employment scheme grant. In that case I am sure that they would all be satisfied.

I should like to say that at all times when approaching the Office of Public Works I personally, and I am sure all Deputies can say the same, have been always received with the greatest courtesy and that the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials have always tried to do their best to meet our demands, which of course are not always capable of being met in the way we would like.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I think it is generally agreed by all Deputies that the money expended under this Vote is usefully employed and that the benefits conferred would compare favourably with the results obtained from money expended under any other schemes that come before this House. The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to the debate on Votes 8 and 9 last night, mentioned that it was very easy for Deputies to come into this House and agitate for different kinds of schemes which would entail additional expenditure. Everyone agreeswith the Parliamentary Secretary in that. The cost of any extra works that are provided or any additional services made available to the people is bound to be borne by public funds and the money must come from the people's pockets. However, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has carried that attitude a little too far. He has a rather conservative outlook and I believe his only fault is that he is entirely too soft for the job he holds. It would be quite in order and possibly admirable for all concerned if his colleagues on the front bench held the same view. I have the feeling that the Parliamentary Secretary is afraid to expend any extra money under this Vote, while his colleagues are not afraid wantonly to waste public money on many other proposals which they have brought before this House.

During the course of the discussion on this Vote 12 months ago, I advised the Parliamentary Secretary as strongly as I possibly could to increase the allocations under the Vote in the present year. The result, however, is quite the opposite. Not only is there no increase being made but, as pointed out by previous speakers, there is a fairly substantial reduction—almost one sixth of last year's Vote.

There is no need to dwell upon the many benefits which accrue from the schemes carried out under the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote. They confer a dual benefit on the people. Not only are they beneficial to many farmers, particularly small farmers living in rather remote areas, but they give to the workers in rural districts an opportunity of productive employment. That being the case, surely to Heavens there is a stronger claim for more money out of the vast amount of money it takes to administer the affairs of this country? We are spending over £100,000,000 this year— £101,000,000 to be exact—and we are getting an additional sum by way of loan of £25,000,000. In other words, we are supposed to have approximately £130,000,000 available for use. Out of that huge sum, only £600,000 is made available under this heading.

I think that the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, outlining theVote, was most disappointing and that the people who have made applications for these schemes will be very disappointed. Similarly, workers throughout the country, who are expecting some improvement in this scheme for the forthcoming year, will be equally disappointed. The amount is entirely inadequate and the Parliamentary Secretary himself will see that even in respect of any scheme approved during this present month of October there is not one penny available for the implementation of it. I think there is not. That is a scandalous state of affairs.

Every Deputy who approaches the Parliamentary Secretary's Office, say, from September onwards, is told that, irrespective of whether the scheme is approved or not, it must wait over until next year before it can be implemented, that there is no money available. I think the Parliamentary Secretary—and I regard him as one of the most decent gentlemen in this House—has completely failed in his obligation as being the man in charge of the Office of Public Works and the Special Employments Schemes Office. He should have made the case much clearer than he did to the Government and he should have got from them, if they value his advice or recommendations in any way, at least three times the amount of money that is required in this Vote. I think it is due to the fact that the money is made available in a very niggardly fashion that we have an increased number of a certain type of letter sent out covering contributory schemes and even contributory rural improvement schemes.

I have here the type of letter which is going around the country now, from one end of it to the other in greater numbers than before. Before I read this note, I should say I agree that it would be entirely out of place for any Government Department wantonly to waste public funds, but I do not think that arises in connection with many of these works. Here is what is sent out to applicants:—

"I am to refer to your application under the above scheme for a grant towards the cost of a particular work and to say we have had theproposal inspected. I am to inform you, however, that the cost of carrying out a certain work would be too high in relation to the utility which would be afforded and in the circumstances we regret that we must regard the work as unsuitable to be undertaken by us."

I claim that that type of letter is being used much more extensively now than it was when Deputy Donnellan was in charge of the Board of Works. It must be because there is no money available and because the Special Employments Schemes Office is failing in its duty completely.

I had one case in my particular area where 14 families in the Berehaven Peninsula would benefit by a certain work costing in or around £400. This work was the development of a bog road and I believe also there was some drainage work involved. The bog could be utilised by 14 families in the particular district. The Special Employments Schemes Office has the same opinion of that type of work benefiting 14 families as they have of this particular work I have mentioned. I should like to get the figures as to how many of these letters have been sent out during the first six months of this year and how many were sent out in previous years.

Another important question in dealing with particular schemes, such as bog development schemes, concerns the system by which it is ascertained that a particular work warrants a 100 per cent. grant. I have had the experience of seeing two applications being made for two particular works, side by side, to the Special Employments Schemes Office. In one case, where the work was of little or no use, a 100 per cent. grant was made available. There was little or no general public utility involved. In fact, it could be truthfully stated that that couple of hundred pounds which was definitely made available for that particular work would only benefit one single individual for the improvement of the bog where he was cutting his turf. On the other hand you had a work of general importance, benefiting several people, which was turned downor at least rejected, as a minor employment scheme and the beneficiaries were asked to make a contribution. That may be reasonable enough but I maintain that such a state of affairs should not exist. I put this case before the Special Employments Schemes Office and it was agreed by the office that this work for which a 100 per cent. grant was made available was a work of little or no value. Whose responsibility is that?

I understand that when application is made for a particular work the names of beneficiaries are attached to the application forms and that each of these people has to be approached by the responsible officer of the Special Employments Schemes Office with a view to ascertaining what benefits this particular work, if carried out, would give them. In the case I have mentioned four of these people, who, it was alleged, by the Special Employments Schemes Office would benefit from this work, informed me that not only would it be of no benefit but it would be detrimental to their interests. I asked them if they were approached by any responsible officer or supervisor and they said they had never heard of the matter. To 30, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin, at the same time a form was sent by some responsible officer of the Board of Works telling that office that this work would be of first rate benefit to these people, though they knew nothing good, bad or indifferent about it.

Mr. Beegan

Would the Deputy mind giving us the specific case?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have already given the specific instance to your office. As a result of my representations, I believe an inspector of the Department visited the area and ascertained that the information which I gave him was completely and entirely exact. So much so that the money which was made available and which had been sent out for the implementation of the particular scheme was cut out. I have given full particulars to the responsible officers in the Parliamentary Secretary's Department of that case. I think it is unfair and unjust that that should happen. Thatis only one case, but it is a clear-cut illustration of how the Special Employments Schemes Office works. I think that should not happen. I have already given the Parliamentary Secretary full particulars of that type of case. I am afraid that, at least in the constituency of West Cork, there are several more cases of that type.

I would like to know what authority any representative of the Special Employments Schemes Office has for making a written declaration to the director of the office that a particular scheme would benefit people when the people themselves claim, and rightly so, that it would be detrimental to their interests? I think that is a glaring scandal and that I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring it to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary and to the notice of the Deputies in this House. It will bear investigation any day.

Another item mentioned by Deputy Palmer was the selection of gangers. We have little cause for complaint in West Cork so far as the selection of gangers is concerned. The system has now been changed, so that instead of the Special Employments Schemes Office carrying out these works through the local council they will in future be carried out direct by the office itself. That may mean that the gangers who have been operating on these schemes may not now be employed by the office. Heretofore they were directly employed by the county engineer.

With regard to rural improvement schemes the position that obtained in my area, so far as the employment of gangers on them was concerned, was an admirable one. It is only natural that the beneficiaries who have to pay contributions for the works done would be anxious to get the best ganger possible and should make representations to the county engineer for a particular ganger who, in their opinion, would give the best results. I must say that in connection with this matter we are very fortunate in West Cork, because all our gangers were first-class men. However, the engineeraccepted the recommendations made to him and gave the beneficiaries the choice of ganger if that could be arranged at all. The result was that everything went on smoothly.

Now that the system is being changed, I should like to know what method will be employed by the Special Employment Schemes Office for the employment of gangers. The county engineers in the different counties will not, I understand, have anything to say to that in the future. I hope that those gangers will be employed on their merits, on their qualifications to supervise and carry out work and on getting the maximum output possible. I sincerely hope that they will be appointed on those grounds and not because of political qualifications. We have too much of this business in this country of people of different political views and public representatives trying to get positions for some of their own particular friends for which, possibly, they have no qualifications at all. I think that, now that the Special Employment Schemes Office is about to select gangers in the different parts of the country, it will select men who will give satisfaction to its engineers and to the beneficiaries. If the office does not adopt that course, then there will be many complaints from the beneficiaries who probably will be paying substantial sums by way of contributions for the particular works carried out with the feeling that they are not getting value for the money they have paid towards the cost of the scheme.

Another item which, owing to widespread unemployment, gives rise for complaint is the recruitment of men for work carried out by the Parliamentary Secretary's office. It is a very difficult job, particularly in many areas where you have a substantial number of unemployed men. For instance, in several districts you have, for every man that will be needed on the job, five or six applicants, all of them, possibly, equally deserving. I think that the best method of avoiding the bitterness which, unfortunately, has arisen in a few cases amongst workers and local people,would be to apply the rotational system. I think that would meet the requirements of the case. I would direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to this, that where, say, a scheme is to be implemented in a particular district, nine or ten workers may be required for the operation of it, but in fact you may have 30 or 40 applicants seeking employment on the scheme and all are equally deserving. The work to be done may not call for any exceptional skill. Therefore, I think that the rotational system would be the best to apply in a case of that kind. It would avoid any bitterness or differences amongst workers and the local people.

There is another small item that I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary. The position is one that may be fairly difficult to meet. I refer to the case of many poor applicants who would like to avail of some particular scheme. They are unable to do so, however, by reason of the fact that they are not able to make up the local contribution. So far as those small farmers and other people are concerned, they have no objection whatever to the making of a contribution for a scheme which may be a very admirable one. The contribution is relatively small in proportion to the cost of the work but there are many in my constituency who, in connection with schemes of that kind, would like very much if the Department could devise a system whereby it would accept work from them on the scheme in lieu of the payment of money. I have the idea that such an arrangement could be made with very little difficulty. The cost of the work would, say, be £400 and the contribution £30. If the Department would accept work from the beneficiaries of the scheme until they had paid the contribution in that way it would, in my opinion, be a very good thing. If the Department could devise a scheme of that kind the Special Employments Schemes Office could not lose on it, because if the beneficiaries failed to honour their obligations then the office could close down the scheme. I do not think that situation would ever arise. I amaware, of course, that there may be some difficulty in implementing a system of that kind but the fact is that in many instances these poor people find it very difficult to get together a contribution of £35, £40, and in some cases £50. Instead of making a contribution in cash they would be prepared to give their labour free and make up the contribution in that way.

In connection with these schemes it had always been the aim until quite recently—I hope we will return to that system in the future—for contributors to get first preference in employment for the supply of materials. That is not the position at present. In connection with a number of schemes recently, the position has been that, instead of the local people who contribute to the scheme getting employment in carting the material required for the scheme, the material is brought over a distance of many miles by county council lorries. The haulage of that material costs a lot. It eats up a lot of the money allocated for the scheme, and, in my opinion, it is not the best way of carrying out the job.

I want to express disappointment at the inadequacy of the amount of money that is being made available. I think, however, it would be unfair of me if I did not convey to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the people in charge of the Special Employments Schemes Office the gratitude of the many beneficiaries in my constituency. The number of people who availed of the rural improvement schemes are also very satisfied with the return which they got from the Special Employments Schemes Office. They appreciate very much the work that has been carried out. Unlike Deputy Palmer, I have no complaint to make. I can say that in all cases, without exception, the people were more than satisfied with the output given in connection with the different schemes. I have never yet heard, in West Cork, at any rate, complaints being made by people who got grants from the Special Employments Schemes Office.

I would like to put this matter before the Parliamentary Secretary,which arises all over the country. We have, unfortunately, the position in Ireland that a number of people may be living along a small road or boreen and for some reason or another there may be a tenant who is not agreeable. Before, one such person could hold up a particular job if he was a rather spiteful person or if he had some illfeeling or ill-will against the other users of the road, he could object to facilitating the Special Employments Schemes Office and could hold up work for an indefinite period. I think it was the former Parliamentary Secretary who made some move to rectify that position so that if two-thirds of the beneficiaries were willing to avail of the work the objections of the others would not be sustainable.

That may be the case so far as the rural improvements schemes are concerned but I would like to know what is the position in regard to minor employment schemes. I believe if you had 15 people benefiting by a minor employment scheme and one person who would not benefit but had land adjoining objected, he could get the whole scheme deferred. Where objections are made to the implementation of schemes by a particular individual he should be asked to state clearly and definitely why he is objecting and what adverse effect the particular work would have on his holding if it was carried out.

I regret very much to say it is my opinion, and I feel sure the opinion of many other Deputies, that these objections mainly arise from spiteful motives, because I cannot see how if a particular road was improved it could have any adverse effect on people surrounding it. These people should be asked to put their cards on the table and to state clearly that they are objecting and if those objections are deemed frivolous or unsustainable by the responsible officers of the Department, that work should go ahead regardless of what they think.

I will conclude on the same note as Deputy Corish by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this whole position so far as the sums ofmoney allocated are concerned. I hope that when he is bringing his Estimate into this House for the coming year it will be much more substantial than the present one, and I think he would have the blessing of this House if he were to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the current year. I feel sure it would meet with no objection.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Gallagher.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order. I have been here since 10.30 this morning and I am just beginning to wonder are the eyes of the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle beginning to fail or can they see as far as the Independents' Bench. Two speakers from the Labour Party and two from Fine Gael have been called upon already and no chance has been given to an Independent, although an Independent has offered himself on each occasion after the various speakers sat down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would point out to Deputy McQuillan that so far in this debate five Deputies have spoken and that no Government Deputy has been called upon. The Chair feels that a Government Deputy is entitled to be called and I am calling on Deputy Gallagher.

Mr. McQuillan

This is the first time a Government Deputy has offered himself. There have been a number of Government Deputies sitting there since 10.30 and this is the first time one of them has offered to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is no concern of the Chair.

Mr. McQuillan

It is very unfair to the Independent group in this House.

Mr. Gallagher

I am quite prepared to give way.

Mr. A. Byrne

I have been here since 10.30 this morning but Deputy Gallagher has just walked in at 11.50 and he is called on to speak five minutes later while two Independents are passed over.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would point out to Deputy Byrne that it is customary to give Deputies from all Parties an opportunity of stating their views. For that reason, I am now calling on Deputy Colm Gallagher.

Mr. Gallagher

I would like to point out to Deputy Byrne that I was here at 10.30 and did not see him. I was here; he was not, and there is no use in telling lies.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I would direct the Chair's attention to that statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Gallagher

I withdraw. It is not my style to accuse anyone, but I was here and the Deputy was not. He must admit that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What difference does it make?

Mr. Gallagher

Why should he say I was not here? However, what I am concerned with is this. The Parliamentary Secretary last night referred to the sum of £63,000 allocated for special employment schemes in Dublin. As a member of the Dublin Corporation and of the special works committee of the corporation, I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that in recent months we have put several hundreds of men to work in Dublin on different schemes and that most of that money, if not all of it, has been spent.

Mr. McQuillan

There were very few put into work down the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Gallagher is in possession. Deputy McQuillan will get an opportunity later of making his speech.

Mr. Gallagher

The Deputy will agree that it was done in Dublin. I think Dublin should be taken as a special case because there are more people here including some people from Roscommon and elsewhere. We must look after them when they are here and we have put several hundreds of people to work in recent months.

Mr. McQuillan

That displays the right mentality.

Mr. Briscoe

Why do you not do the same thing?

Mr. McQuillan

Why do you not give them a chance to work in their own area?

Mr. Briscoe

Do what we are doing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy Briscoe allow his colleague to get on with his speech?

Mr. Gallagher

We in the Dublin Corporation have provided schemes with a high labour content and there are further schemes that could be carried out. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce Supplementary Estimates to meet the schemes we hope to put forward. We are anxious to put as many men to work as possible and we in Dublin should be treated in a special manner. We do not want to see people walking the streets of Dublin and I think any effort we make should get the wholehearted support of every Deputy here, including Deputy McQuillan.

As regards my own constituency I must say the schemes carried out there —in Glasnevin especially—are appreciated by the residents. There were some laneways and footpaths in the Glasnevin district which were a disgrace to the country and money was spent on making improvements. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that there would be no hold-up in the provision of money for the schemes we propose. I must say that in regard to any schemes we suggested the Department of Local Government have wiped out a great deal of red tape which we usually find in the Custom House. The Department of Local Government and the Department of Finance have met us in this respect and we are grateful for it. Every member in the Dublin Corporation from all Parties is concerned in this and I think it should be the same with this House. No scheme that we put forward should be knocked down for the want of money. Our main concern is to do things in the city which should have been donemany years ago. We are not going to put up any wild schemes; they are sensible schemes. We have good technical officers and they went to a great deal of trouble in regard to these schemes which are for the benefit of the citizens. The citizens pay their rates promptly and it is about time, since there is a question of unemployment, that these men should be put to useful work.

Our technical officers in the corporation are working hard at the moment with plans and they will be submitted in due course. The Dublin Corporation will do its best to see that the unemployment problem is solved to the best of their ability. There was some talk last night about public parks and the planting of trees. In the City of Dublin there are many parks that require attention. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.