Vol. 202 No. 11
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £555,900 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, 1964, for Employment and Emergency Schemes (including Relief of Distress).
The Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes makes provision for the annual programme of employment schemes to give work to men in receipt of unemployment assistance in urban and rural areas, including towns with a population of 200 and over and for other services not directly concerned with UA recipients, such as bog development, rural improvements and miscellaneous schemes, including minor marine works and archaeological excavations. The Vote also makes provision for the salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses of the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office who are responsible for the administration of the Vote.
Deputies will recall that as recently as last November I gave a very detailed statement of the work of the Special Employment Schemes Office including what it was proposed to do in 1962/63. This will be found in volume 197, No. 6 of the 13th November, 1962, columns 1030-45 and 1072-76. The provision for 1963/64 shows a small increase of £5,970 compared with 1962/63, and with the exception of administrative expenses the figures are, in fact, identical. I do not consider it necessary, therefore, to repeat all the details I gave on the last occasion.
Last November I made available to Deputies a statement giving particulars of the expenditure under the various subheads of the Vote for the six years 1956/57 to 1961/62 inclusive. I have brought these details up to date in the new statement which I have circulated. It includes the estimated expenditure for 1962/63 and the provision for 1963/64. The figures include payments from the National Development Fund in addition to the Vote up to and including the financial year 1960/61, when the last of the Fund money was expended. The audited expenditure figures for 1962/63 will not be available until about the end of May and the figures in the table represent the best estimate that can be given at this date. It may be seen that we expect that over 99 per cent of the Vote provision will be expended. At the peak period of employment in mid-December, 1962, a total of 4,556 men were employed on the schemes—549 in urban areas, 375 in non-urbanised towns and 3,632 in rural areas.
Grants for urban, rural and minor employment schemes are, as most Deputies are now aware, related to the number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance in each area. A geographical census is specially taken for this purpose annually by the Special Employment Schemes Office in the third week of January of the number of UA men as well as the number of men in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit resident in the various areas. To these figures of UA and UIB there is added for each area the number of men who formerly drew such payments but who were working on schemes financed from the Vote during that particular week. The census this year was taken for week ended 19th January, 1963; and, in accordance with the 1961 census of population, the figures for which are now available, the Special Employment Schemes Office census will this year give particulars in respect of each of the 60 urban areas, 484 non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over, instead of 477 as formerly, and 2,874 rural electoral divisions in the country.
These figures show a gross total of 23,357 UA men compared with 22,656 in the corresponding date for 1962: an increase of 3.1 per cent. The increase was almost entirely in the urban areas; the figures for 1963 being 6,677 compared with 6,066 in 1962, an increase of 10.1 per cent. For the rural areas including non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over the figures were practically unchanged, 16,680 in 1963 compared with 16,590 in 1962. Including UIB the over-all percentage increase was 8.5. In the urban areas it was 11.5 and in the rural areas 7.25. As the census date coincided with the peak period of the very severe winter weather, it may be assumed that the increase was largely due to that cause.
Coming now to the individual subheads of the Vote, there is an increase of £5,970 in the administrative subheads which provide for the salaries and for the travelling and office expenses of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The increase of £5,960 in the salaries subhead is mainly due to the balance of the eighth round increases in pay which amount to £3,900. Increments, as the staff get a year older, account for a further £1,500 and the balance is made up of minor items.
The provision for urban employment schemes is the same as last year, viz. £200,000. These schemes provide for works in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford; the Borough of Dun Laoghaire and the 55 other urban districts. The grants are conditional on the local authorities making contributions towards the cost and submitting suitable work schemes through the Department of Local Government for approval by the Special Employment Schemes Office. Including local contributions the total cost of the new works sanctioned amounted to £234,875. In general the schemes are carried out in the winter period, but in Dublin they are proceeded with the whole year round—each UA man there getting a 12-week spell of work.
A State grant of £92,000 was available for Dublin in 1962-63 which with the contribution by the Corporation of one-fifth made £115,000 available for new work schemes. The schemes sanctioned included two amenity works, viz., a grant of £6,320 for the continuation of the culverting of the Wad river and £22,400 for further development work in St. Anne's Park, Dollymount. The remainder of the schemes were for road construction works including £19,680 in Cappagh, £16,240 in Crumlin, £18,656 in Cabra and £7,920 for the resurfacing of Orwell Road.
The average number of men employed weekly on the Dublin schemes up to the end of February, 1963, was 80 of whom 63 were UA recipients. As the men are rotated at the end of each 12 weeks period it will be seen that some 250 fathers of families have each got a spell of 12 weeks work over the period. Priority in employment is given to men with the largest number of dependants, and the labour exchange records for the 12 months ending January last show that of the men engaged in that period 140 had each seven or more dependants; 46 had some five— six dependants each and 51 had some three-four dependants. Apart from the value of the schemes in themselves as necessary and useful public works, the schemes have value from the social welfare point of view in that they afford an opportunity of employment to men with heavy family responsibilities for whom alternative work is not readily available.
The allocation for Cork in 1962/63 was £17,500 State grant, £3,500 local contribution, £21,000 total. Schemes were sanctioned to absorb the full amount of the allocation. They included £13,685 for development work at Fitzgerald's Park, Mardyke, an open space at Mayfield and a playground at Grattan Hill; £5,510 for the widening of Curragh Road and footpaths at Centaur Park and Monaghan Road and the remainder £1,805 was for the widening of portion of Assumption Road.
The allocation for Limerick in 1962/63 was £14,000 State grant, £2,800 local contribution, £16,800 total. Road works absorbed £13,700 of the total, £5,700 being in respect of works at Corkanree and the other £8,000 for road works at Rosbrien, Cathedral Place, Lower O'Curry Road and Roxborough Road and footpaths at Greenmount Avenue and James Court. The balance £3,100 was in respect of amenity schemes, £2,500 for a passageway and fencing at Coolraine quarry and £600 for the completion of drainage work at Janesboro.
The allocation for Waterford was £7,500 State grant, £1,250 local contribution, £8,750 total. The full amount was duly sanctioned mainly for road works of which £4,065 was for the widening of Peter's Street, £4,100 for the widening of roadways at Stephen's Street, Newgate Street and Ozanam Street and the balance £585 was to demolish Murray House at High Street.
The allocation for Dun Laoghaire was £4,000 State grant, £1,000 local contribution, total £5,000. The full amount was absorbed in amenity schemes including £1,000 for footpaths in Killiney Hill Park, £3,440 for the development of an open space at the Martello Tower, Seapoint, and £560 for the development of an open space at Avoca Avenue, Blackrock.
The allocation for the 55 other urban districts in 1962/63 was £60,000 which with the local contribution of £8,325 made £68,325 available for new works. The full amount was duly sanctioned and the State grant for the approved work included £30,000 for road works and £18,000 for footpaths. The remaining £12,000 was utilised for various types of amenity schemes such as improvements of parks in Youghal, Trim, Monaghan, Clonakilty, Templemore and Carlow; a promenade at Kinsale; an open space at Longford; a promenade at Ferrybank, Wexford; clearance of derelict sites at Cornmarket, Wexford and Holborn, Sligo; and improvement of Fairgreen, Ceanannus Mór, Riverside Walk at Wicklow and the sea-wall at Dungarvan.
It will be noted that the estimated expenditure on these urban schemes last year amounted only to £182,000 against the provision of £200,000. For a number of reasons grants have not matured for payments as quickly as expected. The principal saving is in Dublin which is largely due to delay in submitting schemes to absorb the full amount of the allocation. It will be necessarily some time yet before the amounts of the allocations for the new financial year can be determined. Grants as heretofore will be allocated to the individual urban areas in relation to the number of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance in the various areas. As stated earlier the increase of 600 in the total number of unemployment assistance recipients in these urban areas is mainly due to the exceptionally inclement weather in January when the census was taken. Having regard to the increased demand on the Exchequer in other directions as set out in the Book of Estimates and also to the substantial allocations from the Road Fund for road works in the larger urban areas it was considered that the sum of £200,000 was the most that could be allocated for this service in 1963/64.
The provision in the next subhead, Rural Employment Schemes, for 1963-64 is £35,000, the same as in the last six years. These works are confined to non-urbanised towns with a population of 200 and over. There were 477 of these towns according to the 1956 census of population. There are 484 such areas according to the 1961 census of population which is now available. Last year 125 towns in each of which there were not less than nine registered unemployed (UA and UIB) and in which 2,872 of the total of 3,665 unemployed were concentrated got grants, and no grants were available for the other 352 towns with 792 unemployed (UA and UIB) in all. On the 19th January, 1963, there were 1,154 UA and 3,474 UIB resident in the 484 towns with a population of 200 and over according to the 1961 census of population—a total of 4,628.
Grants for these town areas are made available to the County Councils concerned, who are required to contribute one quarter of the cost so that a total of £46,665 is available for expenditure on the schemes. The full amount was duly allocated last year, and the works consisted mainly of footpaths in the towns and environs. Minor road works in the immediate vicinity of towns were also included. About £2,000 of the £35,000 was allocated for various amenity schemes, including further work on the Fairgreen at Cootehill, a playground at Whitegate; parking spaces in Loughrea, County Galway, and Duagh, Dooega and Keel in Achill, County Mayo; and the clearance of a derelict site at Fethard. As in the case of urban areas it will be necessarily some time yet before the allocations for the individual towns in the new financial year can be determined. The works will not be due to start until next November.
Minor Employment Schemes (Subhead E) are primarily intended to give employment to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance in rural electoral divisions, and are carried out in the winter period from November to March. The works consist of the repair and reconstruction of noncounty accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs. They are confined to what was formerly known as the congested districts, and are done only in parts of the twelve counties of Cavan, Clare, Cork West, Donegal, West Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo where substantial numbers of men in receipt of unemployment assistance are concentrated. The unit of distribution is the district electoral division of which there are 2,874 in the whole country.
In 1962/63 grants were given in 354 electoral divisions in which 13,116 of the total 15,675 UA men were resident, and no grants were given in the other 2,520 electoral divisions in which the remaining 2,559 UA men were scattered. 880 schemes costing £125,475 nett were sanctioned and it is anticipated that expenditure will amount to £136,000. There were 15,526 UA men resident in rural areas according to the census taken on 19th January, 1963 and as the provision for 1963/64 is £130,000—the same as in recent years —it may be anticipated that there will be relatively little change in the allocation of these monies in the new financial year. As in recent years, it is proposed to ear-mark £10,000 of the £130,000 for extra bog road grants in the areas in which Minor Employment Schemes grants will fall to be made on the basis of the UA figures. The works will, of course, not start until November next.
The provision in 1963/64 for Subhead F, development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers, is £160,000, the same as in each of the last six years. This subhead makes provision for drainage works in bogs in all parts of the country which are carried out in the summer and autumn periods as well as for bog road works in non-UA areas. In areas with large numbers of unemployment assistance recipients the bog road works are financed by Minor Employment Schemes grants and the road works in the Bog Development Subhead are confined to the 2,500 electoral divisions in which no Minor Employment Schemes grants are authorised. In 1962/63, 1,370 grants in all were authorised representing an expenditure of £159,100 of which 700 schemes costing £71,750 were drainage works and 670 costing £87,350 were road works.
The Bog Development subhead is not related at all to the unemployment position even though it does provide employment for a number of UA men and UIB men in the areas in which grants fall. The available funds are distributed having regard to the amount of turf produced in the different bogs, the number of families served and the cost of the relevant development works. In cases where the development works are too costly to permit of a full cost grant being given under Bog Development Schemes, the beneficiaries have the alternative Rural Improvements Scheme available to them, provided they are prepared to pay the necessary contribution. We have, as explained last November, many more applications for full cost grants than the Bog Development funds available to the office will permit us to sanction. In 1962/63 we had reports on 3,060 drainage proposals costing £310,000 for examination in the summer programme, but it was possible to sanction only 700 schemes, costing £71,750. In the main winter road programme 3,070 proposals were examined costing approximately £496,000 of which 647 schemes, costing £76,550 were sanctioned. Including road schemes authorised up to March, 670 schemes, costing £87,350 were sanctioned last year as already stated. The sum of £160,000 available for the new financial year will as heretofore be distributed on the more important drainage and road proposals available. It is, however, only right to say that there is little prospect of full cost grants being available for any new roads or extensions into bogs, which invariably are required to be dealt with under the contributory scheme.
The Rural Improvements Scheme makes provision for grants towards the cost of carrying out works to benefit the lands of two or more farmers such as small drainage schemes, bridges and the repair and reconstruction of noncounty accommodation roads to farmers' houses, lands and bogs. It is a contributory scheme, and applies to all parts of the country. It is the only scheme under which land drainage as distinct from bog drainage can be undertaken by the Special Employment Schemes Office; and it is also the only scheme in which the road works can be undertaken to the houses and lands of farmers in the 2,500 electoral divisions where there are few or no unemployment assistance recipients.
Under this scheme, subject to the necessary contribution being forthcoming, works of a better and more durable standard can be carried out; and it continues to be a very popular scheme. In the year ended 31st March, 1963, grants were sanctioned for 797 schemes to absorb the full amount of the allocation, £225,000. Taking into account commitments in respect of uncompleted schemes at the beginning of the year, it is anticipated that the total expenditure will amount to £235,000. As most Deputies are aware, the demand for grants last year outran the available provision; and from December onwards it was necessary to defer the sanction of all subsequent cases in which the appropriate contribution was lodged by the benefiting farmers. At the end of the financial year 287 cases had accumulated representing a total commitment of £84,730. These, of course, will be a first charge on the provision for this service in 1963-64; and if the demand for new grants continues at the same rate as last year there will have to be a closedown at an earlier date. It could well be argued that in these circumstances increased provision should be made for this service in 1963/64. Due consideration was given to this problem but it was not possible to do more than repeat last year's provision which was, of course, an increase of £25,000 on the amount made available in 1961-62.
In mid-March, 1963, there were over one thousand applications under the Rural Improvements Scheme awaiting inspection and report. I am well aware from the letters that I receive that the delay in making inspections is a cause of concern to Deputies and others. I need hardly say that it is also a cause of concern to me and to the Office. The prime cause of this difficulty is the shortage of engineering inspectors in the staff of the Special Employment Schemes Office. Of the three vacancies two arose in September, 1960, and the third in April, 1961; and over this period of nearly 2½ years the Office have been endeavouring to fill the vacancies but up to date they have succeeded only in recent months in getting two officers—one at the end of January and the other on the 1st March. A further effort is being made through the Civil Service Commissioners to fill the remaining vacancy. The filling of the two vacancies will, however, make some improvement in the position.
The provision for Miscellaneous Schemes in 1962/63 showed an increase compared with the previous year from £15,000 to £17,000, and the latter figure has been included again for 1963-64. This subhead is intended mainly to meet expenditure on archaeological excavations and on minor marine works. Grants for archaeological excavations totalling £7,300 were authorised in 1962/63 including £5,000 for High Street, Dublin; £1,100 for New Grange, £800 for Creewood near Slane, and £400 for Knowth, all in County Meath. County Councils are required to contribute one-quarter of the cost of minor marine works and to maintain them on completion. The new marine works authorised in 1962/63 included the improvement of landing facilities in Garrahies, Bantry, £2,600, which will now be increased to £3,600; supplemental grant for Lehanebeg £1,610, Oilean na gCaorach, Bear Island, £720; County Cork; £500 supplementary grant in Cleggan, County Galway; Portmagee in Caherciveen £700 and the clearance of salmon hauling grounds near Cromane in County Kerry, £270, and Rathlasken Pier £350 in County Mayo.
The Appropriation-in-Aid subhead includes in addition to the major item of contributions under the Rural Improvements Scheme, receipts in respect of development works on privately-owned bogs, contributions from the county councils towards the cost of minor marine works, and the sale of surplus stores. The total receipts in 1962-63 are estimated at £45,000, compared with the provision of £41,000. It is not expected that receipts in 1963-64 will exceed £41,000.
In addition to the works financed from Vote 10 the Special Employment Schemes Office also acts as agent for the Minister for Transport and Power in respect of the carrying out of development works to facilitate the production of turf for the four hand-won turf-fired generating stations at Caherciveen, County Kerry, Miltown-Malbay, County Clare, Screebe in County Galway, and Gweedore in County Donegal. These schemes are financed from a National Development Fund allocation of £80,000 at the disposal of the Minister for Transport and Power. Forty-two new schemes costing £11,250 were approved last year including 22 costing £2,770 in County Clare, six costing £3,135 in County Donegal, and 14 costing £5,345 in County Kerry. Applications for these grants should be made to the Department of Transport and Power in the first instance and the expenditure will be accounted for by the Department of Transport and Power also.
The Special Employment Schemes Office also acts as agent for the Minister for the Gaeltacht in respect of the carrying out of accommodation road works in Gaeltacht areas financed from the Vote of that Department Sixty-three new works costing £38,410 were authorised last year of which 18 costing £13,075 were in County Galway, 20 costing £9,925 in County Donegal, 10 costing £6,905 in County Mayo, nine costing £5,760 in County Kerry and six costing £2,745 in County Cork. The expenditure on these schemes will be accounted for by the Minister for the Gaeltacht to whom applications for grants should be addressed.
Like myself, all Deputies would, no doubt, like to see more money provided for the different schemes operated by the Special Employment Schemes Office. Apart from the employment they give these schemes in rural Ireland in particular are well recognised for the assistance they give in increased agricultural production and also fuel production. The various amenities in town areas also contribute towards the improvement of conditions of urban dwellers. As explained in the recent discussions on the Vote on Account, the various items in the Book of Estimates were examined and re-examined this year and the Minister for Finance found it necessary to cut the provision for many desirable schemes and, in fact, to leave some out altogether. Having regard to the many claims on the public purse, it was felt that the sum of £874,900 provided in the Estimates was the maximum provision that could be afforded for these services in 1963-64.
I wish to move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
There is no motion to refer back this Vote.
I thought it would be included in the Board of Works but, in view of the way we got on, we will not make an issue of it. The Parliamentary Secretary said all Deputies would like to see more money provided. I would certainly like to see more money provided. During the term of office of the inter-Party Government, more money was provided than is provided now and, due to the increase in the cost of living, money is not worth as much today.
This money is mainly provided to give employment. That is a better way of doing it than coming along with other Votes, saying you are going to do some wonderful scheme, and not pointing out it is an employment scheme. The frightening thing is that we are spending £800,000 of the taxpayers' money for the purpose of relieving unemployment. But are we? I have here a copy of the Official Report containing the discussion on this Vote last year. The Parliamentary Secretary was questioned about the amount of machinery in use, the number of men employed, and how much it cost to give one man one year's work. He bravely replied by giving us the terrifying figure of £2,000. It cost £2,000 to give one man one year's work. I shall quote from column 1261, Volume 197, of the Official Report for the 14th November, 1962.
Mr. O'Malley: It is mainly the fact that machinery plays such a big part now, mainly in the allocation. The works now available in Dublin provide approximately only 25 per cent in unskilled labour costs. When you multiply that figure 50 times—a round figure— a figure of over £2,000 a year is reached to give one man employment for one year.
Mr. A. Barry: There is labour content for only one man?
Mr. O'Malley: That is right. I shall repeat the figures because it is quite obvious——
These are frightening figures. I am not criticising the Parliamentary Secretary or his Office. We provide this money in the hope of relieving unemployment in various parts of the country. The opinion may be held by some people that, if we want to get the best return for that, we must put in machines, that the machines will do more work than the men. I submit by doing that, we will be able to do more work but we will not be providing work. If we were to do it in the old-fashioned way with picks and shovels, we would not be able to do more work, but we would be able to employ more men. The whole idea is to employ more men.
This Vote is good because it is elastic. Money can be poured into parts of the country where there is less employment than other places. I have spoken about this on the Vote for the Department of Local Government. It looks fine to see these enormous machines, costing perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 each, pushing earth here, there and everywhere. At the same time, there are people in the districts in which these machines operate who have to walk to the labour exchange. Does this thing work out right? The Parliamentary Secretary is one person who could give us the answer to that.
The repair or construction of noncounty accommodation roads was mentioned last year. I am sure every Deputy has had cases such as I have had. A group of people living up a boreen are endeavouring to get this boreen done under these employment and emergency schemes. There may be contention between some of the neighbours. They are not able to get unanimity and the whole business must fail. The fact that one or two farmers hold out should not count if the majority of the residents decide on getting the boreen done. There are cases of this kind in nearly every county, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the State grant for Dublin alone in 1962-63 was £92,000, which, with the Corporation contribution of one-fifth, made £115,000 available for new works schemes. He went on to say:
The average number of men employed weekly on the Dublin schemes up to the end of February, 1963, was 80 of whom 63 were UA recipients. As the men are rotated at the end of each 12-weeks period it will be seen that some 250 fathers of families have each got a spell of 12 weeks work over the period.
That shows how expensive this is. I am sure that when the members of Dublin Corporation saw this figure, they thought many more men would be brought in under this.
I revert to the point I made at the outset when I said I was afraid this is a Vote through which we are largely providing money for the employment of machines rather than men. This point must be seriously considered because it is the most important we have to face in dealing with this Estimate. The allocation to Waterford, I notice, is £7,500 in State grants and £1,250 in local contribution, making a total of £8,750. I have seen the men at work on a scheme at Newgate Street and Stephen Street in Waterford, and I am glad to say that very little machinery was brought in. The job included the demolition of a small section of the city wall and of a couple of houses and I am glad to say that, as far as possible, men rather than machinery were employed.
Very often Deputies, who are also members of local councils like myself, are ignorant of the type of schemes which will qualify for grants under this Vote. I notice, for instance, that under the Vote, such jobs as the laying down of a walk in Wicklow, a sea wall at Dungarvan, a promenade at Wexford and at Kinsale have qualified for grants. We in Waterford did not know we could apply for grants for such purposes, which are so advantageous because of their labour content. Some years before the war, I visited a country in which there was terrible unemployment. I noticed a number of men on construction work and saw them carrying the materials to the site. The engineer, who could speak English, told me that with unemployment at the level then obtaining, they were employing men instead of lorries to draw the materials to the site. Men were also employed to mix the concrete, though there were some fine concrete mixers nearby.
That may sound primitive but if we are to spend large sums of money on this type of allocation, we should be careful to ensure that the employment content is as high as possible. I would point out that the figure in the Estimate this year is £874,900 whereas the Vote in 1956-57 was for £888,000. I submit that the Minister for Finance should this year have provided more money for these schemes. I do not, of course, blame the Parliamentary Secretary.
I am not being smart, but I would point out that there were 97,000 unemployed back in those days. The allocation must be considered from the point of view of the number of prospective recipients.
I am not being smart, either, when I say I could tell the Parliamentary Secretary where most of those unemployed are now working. The amount of money being allocated here, if calculated in the manner we agreed last year, would give employment for a year to only 400 men. This would only scratch at the employment problem at the present time, while at the same time the cost of living is going up. My point is that the Parliamentary Secretary should have been given more money for the purpose of relieving unemployment. I repeat that I regret very much the Minister for Finance has not provided more money for the relief of unemployment under this Vote.
I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to have this item disposed of. He has had quite a lengthy period in the House and has had to answer numerous questions. Therefore, I do not propose to hold up the debate any longer than is absolutely necessary. First of all, I note, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that there is a reduction in the amount. While the Parliamentary Secretary has given an excuse for that, I would not agree it is the complete reason.
It is true to say there is an increase in this year's amount over last year, but it represents a reduction in the figure provided in 1956-57. What worries me, representing a rural constituency, is the number of schemes being put on a long waiting list. It is just too bad to find schemes such as the RIS or bog development schemes held up in this manner. Last year, there were 3,060 applications, of which it was possible to sanction only 700. That means that the balance of 2,360 will start off the list this year and I assume this number will be added to as the year goes on. That being so, I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have been given much more than the £160,000 he has been given, although I admit that figure is a very big improvement on what was given in 1956-57.
The big trouble with rural improvement schemes is the difficulty in having them inspected. Every rural Deputy must be in the same position as I am, that every time I go through my constituency, particularly if I am having meetings, I meet half a dozen people who want to know what has happened to applications which they have made for rural improvements schemes. I am not blaming the Office because any time I have made inquiries, I have received nothing but courtesy, but it is regrettable that that situation should have been allowed to develop. We are told that the reason for the delay is the shortage of engineers. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this earlier to-day but I think it goes back a little further than he said it did. We are all aware of the position some years ago when there were too many engineers in the country and the colleges and universities were discouraging people from going for that profession. The result was that the intake, the numbers going in for the profession, dropped and dropped. This was bound to happen and I assume in another few years, we will go back to the position in which there will be too many engineers and people will be advising their friends not to send their sons into the profession.
In the meantime, schemes are being held up. A question which was asked earlier on the previous Estimate should apply even more here. It was in regard to the number of young engineers who went abroad because of the fact that there were better facilities available to them. In fact, jobs were offered to them. When we start this "Come back to Erin" campaign, if the engineers are offered decent salaries and conditions they will come to Ireland. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be only too glad to see that desirable situation being reached. It is no comfort to John Smith or Tom Murphy in the country to be told: "Your scheme is being considered but because there are no engineers it will be years before anything can be done about it." With the best will in the world in the Special Employment Schemes Office, that is the position.
I should like to refer now to something which is being done and which is so stupid and so ridiculous that I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary or his officials allowing it to continue. The situation is that there are a number of people employed by local authorities on road work and a rural improvement scheme, or a special employment scheme, is also being done in the area. The men employed by the county council work under the same conditions and for the same wages as the rural improvement scheme men. But the five-day, 45-hour week was introduced and we have the situation where people work with the county council for one week and work the 45-hour, five-day week and the following week, go to the Board of Works and do the same type of work, under the same engineer, the same foreman, and the same ganger, and must work a 45-hour, five-and-a-half-day week for the same rate of wages, despite the fact that conditions are exactly the same as if they were employed by the county council.
I think somebody is being childish about this and I do not believe it is the Parliamentary Secretary because from my experience I have found that he is a sensible man and he has had a sensible approach to anything I have discussed with him. I think somebody has got the idea at the back of his head that he is holding the line here and that he is going to ensure that nobody can accuse him of doing anything to create a bridge by which the five-day week could come into operation. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine this in a sensible way. They are the laughing stock of the country and even the farmers whose schemes were being done remarked to me how utterly ridiculous it was that the men have to work those extra hours because somebody thinks it is the thing to do. I will not say anything more about it at present.
Another matter which should be considered by the Parliamentary Secretary is the question of accommodation roads to farms. In County Meath, we have got over the question of roads into houses because the county council have taken over every lane on which there are two or more houses and have declared them to be public roads and they make and maintain them. Therefore, that problem has disappeared completely. Only the one-house lanes are left and lanes where there may be one house and a number of farms. They come directly under the rural improvement schemes. If the grant could be given to the local authority, it would be prepared to deal with them in the same way, but for some reason that cannot be done and the result is they are left. As Deputy Lynch said, there may be a contrary fellow in the lane who does not agree that he should pay because he does not like one of his neighbours. For that reason and only that reason, he will not pay the few pounds and he will not allow the scheme to go ahead. If the scheme could be changed in such a way that the local authority could get the grant, they could do it and I feel sure it would give general satisfaction.
There are two other matters to which I should like to refer. One is in regard to the time at which the Christmas relief schemes — as some people call them — are submitted. When I was speaking to some of the officials of the Department last year, I discovered that a situation had been recurring year after year in which some urban councils, town commissioners and so on, had not been sending in their schemes until the last minute. Why they did that I did not know. The only reason I could think of was that they never knew what it was to be without a meal coming up to Christmas and therefore it did not seem important to them that the scheme should be submitted in time so that it could be sanctioned and some men could get work in the period before Christmas. This idea of starting the job the week before Christmas seems to be at the back of their minds. Those men do now want work for Christmas; they want pay, and they can get it only if the schemes are submitted in time and are sanctioned so that the work can be done and the money paid out.
I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary because I have got the greatest co-operation from his officials in regard to trying to force these people, who were dragging behind, to do the decent thing and send in their schemes earlier in the year. This would give the officials the opportunity of deciding which schemes were to be done. I notice that some of them did not spend all the money they got. That is unfortunate in view of the fact that while we have not got 97,000 unemployed, we have over 60,000 and during that period of the year there are more people unemployed than we would like to see, even at the worst period of the year.
Would it be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to change the period of unemployment from 12 weeks to 13 weeks? A man who is stamping cards and works for 13 weeks is able to draw unemployment benefit for 26 weeks. If he works 12 weeks and goes back on the employment exchange, he goes back on unemployment assistance which was the same as he got before the 12 weeks. The one week makes a very big difference to the man concerned. I do not think it is appreciated that people who would be drawing unemployment assistance and are put on this type of work, while they receive the local rate paid for such work, at the same time some of that rate is being saved because it is not being drawn from the Department of Social Welfare. It is on record that people have been working on those jobs for half of what would be the normal rate because the unemployment benefit, or the unemployment assistance, was being saved during the weeks they were working. I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to change it to 13 weeks. While we will have people sneering at this effort to give others a right they have not got, I would say let them sneer because if the Parliamentary Secretary changes it, the people will thank him for it and give him full credit.
I wish to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department on the Estimate before us. I could speak for perhaps five, six or eight hours on the matters covered by it but I hope to be brief. We rural Deputies constantly ask ourselves if we are achieving anything in relation to the subheads of this Estimate. Take, for instance, the roads in rural Ireland. We must consider the amount of money spent on them. We must also ask if it would not be better to put two or three of the grants together for one road and to do the job properly and then ask the local authority to take it over. We must ask ourselves if that would not be preferable to putting a few shovelfuls of sand on a road to cover up the potholes. With modern machinery travelling along a road, unless the job is done properly, the road is as bad after a month or two as it was before the repair work was started.
I notice in my constituency and in my county that the only chance of getting roads taken over is when there has been a Gaeltacht scheme, when a very good job is done. It would be better if we could get a certain amount of money for a road and do the job well and then ask the local authority to take it over. I know that the answer in the case of my council would be favourable.
The second point I want to raise concerns the recruitment of labour. I have often felt that when the labour exchange is approached for labour, it very often happens that the people whom they send out are not actually from the townland or village to which the road leads. Whether men are on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit, I am sure every rural Deputy will agree that it would be better if people from the townland got first preference for work on the road, because naturally they would have more of an interest in it and in doing a very good job there.
I see no sense in the Office of Public Works drawing broken stones a distance of maybe 40 miles for a scheme. In my constituency, that is like bringing coal to Newcastle. That sort of thing has caused me much disappointment. The Office of Public Works should get a crusher and crush the stone locally. There are plenty of quarries which could be got for nothing. The people are not asking anything for the stone. It may be argued that it would cost more to do that but I doubt it very much.
As regards the sanctioning of roads, people in my constituency are fed up submitting roads year by year which still are not selected. I should like to know how the roads are selected. Is a road selected on the basis of the number of householders living along it or is its selection influenced in any way by the number of householders cutting turf alongside it, where turbary is adjacent? I welcome every road that is sanctioned but I feel that, year by year, some are neglected and, indeed, some have not even been listed. I have in mind one townland in particular and the road leading into Cannower Cashel. It has been applied for down the years but it seems to be neglected over all that time.
Do the Office of Public Works go back over the number of applications submitted, say, three or four years ago, when these people got fed up filling up forms and getting no results? Do they make any inquiry as to the position of such roads at present? Neither the doctor nor the priest can at present travel over the road I have mentioned because it is practically cut across in several places. It is beyond me why that road has not been selected, in addition to many other roads like it in the area.
I do not know whether the completion of the list of roads is possible but it should be feasible. Every year, Deputies get a list of the number of roads in an area. In general, I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the list. For the first time, it came out last year with the amount of money marked down on it.
Galway getting the most of it, of course.
And rightly so.
Why?
It goes on to the local engineer who gets his ganger and men to carry out the work on the road. Suppose that that road is just a number on the list. Would it be wrong to ask the engineer, when that road is done, to return particulars to the Office saying that the road is completed? In turn, the Office could send the particulars to the county engineer to see if the council would be prepared to take over the road.
Up to this year, we had been taking over these roads in Galway in the month of January. I noticed the difficulty in connection with it and I asked at a meeting of the local authority if the engineer would be prepared to take over such roads twice a year instead of once a year. He agreed, and it was agreed to in general. By leaving a road from January of one year to January of the following year, there is every likelihood that, by the end of the year, the road will be torn up by modern transport and left in exactly the same condition as it was before work was started.
I come now to bog development schemes. I am sorry to say that at the most there are only about five of them west of the city of Galway. We have as much bog, and as badly in need of drainage, west of the city as east of the city, but, for drainage purposes, most of the money goes east of the city. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the west gets 95 per cent of the minor employment schemes. I agree. Nevertheless, we have the bogs. We still have to drain them and get the turf out of them.
Finally, I would urge that all roads leading into bogs where work is at present carried out should be brought up to a proper standard. The day is gone when the ass and cart is used to take the turf out of the bog. With modern transport, tractors, and so on, the standard of the road must be improved if we are to make full use of our turbary and if we are to make life somewhat less arduous for the people cutting turf who must bring it out along such roads.
I have a few observations make on this Vote for £800,000, which is mainly allocated for the relief of unemployment and the financing of certain emergency schemes such as minor relief and bog development.
I should like first to refer to minor employment schemes, and the recruitment of labour. One area in particular has come to my notice which would have qualified for a minor relief grant but for the fact that there was not a sufficient number of men registered as unemployed in it, but if an adjacent area—which was quite convenient, only a few hundred yards away—had been included, the combined area would have qualified. That meant that the people in that area lost the grant. That position should be examined.
Like other rural Deputies, I am particularly interested in the rural improvement schemes, because they are devised more or less to try to do something about the enormous number of cul-de-sac roads and lanes that are not maintained by the county councils. In my constituency, we cannot avail of a Gaeltacht scheme, a harbour grant or any of the various grants that are given to maritime counties, but we have an abundance of lakes and little hills and, as a result, we probably have a greater road mileage than most counties.
I was interested to hear a Deputy from Meath saying that Meath County Council have taken over all the lanes and cul-de-sac roads. In my constituency of Cavan, we still have roughly about 500 miles of lanes and culs-de-sac which the county council are not prepared to take over. Indeed, one could hardly expect them to do so in view of the enormous amount of money it would cost to put them in any kind of repair. For that reason, we are very glad that the rural improvement schemes are available. Because of the fact that in many cases the valuations are small, the Government have put up 90 per cent of the cost in some areas.
Another great improvement is that in some cases people living along the lane can themselves get work on the scheme. In that way, they can earn back the local contribution which they have made. At the same time, it may be necessary eventually to ensure that when the cul-de-sac roads and lanes are put into a proper state of repair under a rural improvement scheme, they are immediately taken over by the county council. I understand that at present that is a matter for the council. We had difficulty when some schemes were completed, and our engineer advised that the road was not of public utility. That is something that should be cleared up.
In Cavan, I believe about one-third of the rural people live along such lanes. In some instances, we have 20 families living in cul-de-sac roads or lanes which lead to lakes, rivers or mountain tops. When a rural improvement scheme is carried out, the local county council should be encouraged to take over the roads and maintain them in repair. Something might also be done to ensure that a better job is done. I think they should be brought up to modern standards and should be tarred. I know it is easy to carry out such schemes in Meath where the ground is firm, material is available and the farms very big but there is no easy solution for an area such as my constituency. Now that an enormous amount of work has been done in trying to clear up the backlog of cul-de-sac roads and lanes the SESO should again examine the problem and see if they can carry out further improvements pertaining to the local contribution and the standard aimed at.
With regard to bog development schemes, despite what many people may think, they are still very important. Bog roads should be wide enough to allow tractors to take turf out of bogs. Someone said that the antiquated methods are dying out in most areas but where they remain, they must be catered for. I should like to see more money provided for the different schemes carried out by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In that regard, I am of the same opinion as the Parliamentary Secretary. The only way in which we can get more schemes carried out and a better job done is by providing extra money. That type of scheme may look small in the eyes of some people, but in rural Ireland it is very important because it provides the little extra employment during the year which augments the income of the small farmers who live along these culs-de-sac and lanes.
I mentioned the fact that we have over 500 miles of such roads in County Cavan. That in itself should bring home to people's minds the enormous task which still faces many inland counties in which there is a great road mileage. The Special Employment Schemes have helped considerably since they were first introduced. I exhort the Parliamentary Secretary, even within the meagre resources available, to devise some scheme whereby when a job is completed it is automatically taken over by the local council so that it will not be necessary to put up money the following year to have it done again. That of itself would encourage many people to avail of this useful scheme.
I am glad that in the past month it was possible to get two extra engineers to examine the rural improvements schemes. It was annoying to have those schemes held up because of a shortage of engineers. That looked very bad; it did not give a good impression. I understand there is still a shortage of engineers. Quite a number of them leave Ireland each year when they qualify. Something must be wrong with the conditions if young men are not enticed to stay at home and apply for these positions.
When a scheme is completed, it should be inspected inside six weeks. Many people are interested in these schemes. In most counties, they have a very big effect on quite a number of people. People do not like to have to travel on rough roads. Farmers who are prepared to co-operate in a scheme should receive every encouragement. Inspection should be carried out within, at most, six weeks. I know of one case where agreement had been reached and the farmers concerned felt that they should go ahead and do the job themselves, lest there might not be agreement by the time the scheme was inspected and the grant given under a Rural Improvement Scheme. They were not prepared to wait. When agreement is reached, a scheme should be devised.
An effort should be made to have two engineers appointed. That would be sufficient to keep the Office up to date. I do not know whether at any time the Office were able to get a scheme inspected within six weeks but I do know that since I came into this House, delays of up to 15 months have been experienced. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear this matter in mind and will try to get the necessary engineers in order to expedite inspection and payment of grants.
It is a very good thing that most of the roads made under the Rural Improvements Scheme are being tarred. Tarring does not cost very much extra and it does mean that the road will last much longer. I have seen roads that were made and which were not tarred. After four years the road was in a worse condition than it was before it was gravelled and the people had to subscribe again towards the cost of having it tarred. If the tarring had been done in the first instance, the road would still be perfectly good. The money that is contributed by the State and by the local people towards the cost of these works should be put to the best possible use.
In my view, when work is being carried out on a lane under a Rural Improvement Scheme, it is altogether wrong that the first half of the lane should be dealt with first. It would be a much better idea to start at the far end of the lane. Obviously those living on the part of the lane nearer to the road are reluctant to subscribe the following year towards the cost of having the other half of the lane dealt with. If the far end of the lane were dealt with first, that would not be the case. It would be to everybody's advantage in that case to complete the work. If the far end were done one year, the nearer half could be done the following year.
At times, the cost of carrying out Rural Improvement Schemes imposes a heavy burden on local contributors. I have in mind a Land Commission road in which there may be ten or 12 people concerned. Some of these people may be migrants. Others may be local people. The valuations are fairly high and the assessments are also high. It would be a help in having such roads dealt with if the work could be spread over two years and if the half of the road farther from the main road were dealt with first.
In regard to bog roads and drains, it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure sanction for a scheme in view of the insistence that 100 tons of turf must be cut on the bog before the question of a minor development scheme can be considered. When sanction is obtained the work carried out is similar to the type of work that was carried out 20 or 30 years ago. It must be borne in mind that nowadays turf is taken out by tractor and lorry whereas in former days it was taken out by horse and cart or ass and cart. The type of roads being made will not stand up to the heavy traffic. I would suggest that when such work is being undertaken a really good job should be made and the road should be tarred. That would mean that it would not have to be repaired for perhaps ten or 12 years and, with a bit of luck, it might be possible to get the local authority to take it over. Usually the local authority has no objection to taking over a road that has been put into a good state of repair.
Quite a number of road improvement schemes are carried out each year. It is very necessary work but I feel that it would be a much better use of public money if the roads were tarred. It might be possible to reduce the number of roads done in any year so that a good job could be done on individual roads and over a ten-year period most of the roads would be done and done well.
With regard to bog development schemes, the people in my part of the country feel disgruntled because of the fact that £5 is taken by the county council. In quite a number of cases the scheme is sanctioned in order to relieve unemployment. The £5 is taken by the county council for the services of the engineer. The engineer would have to be paid by the county council in any case. When a number of schemes are in operation in an area, the £5 in relation to each scheme would represent an extra week's work for the men. You should look into that matter with a view to seeing that the entire allocation will go to the people whom it is intended to benefit.
Some trouble has arisen because of the fact that county council workers work a five-day week and when they are engaged on work for the Parliamentary Secretary's Office it is on the basis of a 48-hour or five and a half day week. Some Rural Improvement Schemes were held up for a few weeks because of this difficulty. It is difficult for the engineers to fit in the schemes into the normal pattern. It means that they must work the entire week on a Board of Works scheme. In case of adverse weather conditions they may have to defer the tarring of a road and may have to spend a couple of days in the following week on that work. It would be much simpler if there were more co-operation between yourself and the county council, so as to facilitate the transfer of workers from one job to another. When the weather is against them, they are in a very difficult position. You should impress upon the local authority——
The Deputy is continually using the second person. The Deputy should address the Chair, using the third person.
If you could get the county council to take over such roads and declare them public roads, some solution might be found to the problem.
With regard to bog development schemes, I should like to make some reference to drainage. You set a target of 100 tons before you agree to authorise a drainage scheme on a bog. It is quite impossible to cut turf in a number of bogs because of lack of drainage. These bogs would be availed of extensively if they were drained. There is one at Tyrrellspass where a few drains would make a considerable difference and where there would be no trouble in getting a number of people to cut turf if the bog were properly drained. At the moment no one can go into it. If you could see your way to get existing drains cleaned and new drains made——
Would the Deputy allow me for a moment? The Deputy must use the phrase "The Parliamentary Secretary" or "The Office of Public Works". He is using the pronoun "you" constantly and he is addressing me.
I am sorry. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would put these suggestions before the Office of Public Works. People in the rural areas would be glad to avail of these bogs. Properly developed, they would be of considerable benefit to the local people.
It is very significant to our rural areas and our rural community that there is a reduction in both the minor employment schemes grants, to the extent of £6,000, and in the rural improvements to the extent of £10,700. There is a slight increase in the grants for bog development, but there is an overall reduction of some £14,000. Rural communities have always looked forward to these schemes as a means of, first, improving their local conditions and, secondly, earning a certain amount of money during the winter months, money which helps them out economically during those months. It is even more significant to find that, while there is a reduction in these schemes, there has been an increase of some 20 per cent in the past two years in salaries and expenses amounting to over £18,000. The accent now is on increased productivity and lower costs and one would expect the Office of Public Works to meet the position by making more money available to help the poorer sections of the community. In the past five years, there has been an increase of 25 per cent, or £21,000, in a total of £80,000 odd since 1957.
Any reduction in moneys provided for rural areas is very serious indeed. While there is an increase in urban schemes, there is a decrease in schemes for the rural areas. It is necessary now to draw attention to the serious increase in the costs of administration and, at the same time, the serious decrease in the grants for rural areas.
Deputy Geoghegan referred to material for road surfacing and repair being hauled over long distances in heavy lorries, leaving the very minimum to be earned by the local people. Twenty years ago, the material dug up alongside the road was used in the trunking up of the road. Roads which were treated in that way are still in first-class condition. A certain amount of fine gravel may be necessary to cover the road done the previous year, but hauling such material in heavy lorries long distances is all wrong when material perfectly suitable for the purpose for which it is required can be found on the spot. These heavy lorries damage the roads. Indeed, in one particular case this year they had to be stopped traversing a road because of the damage they were causing to it. Material was being hauled from 15 miles away and the crown of the road would have been utterly destroyed if these lorries had not been stopped. In most bog areas there is a suitable hard material nearly always available which could be used.
I should like to refer also to certain roads that are submitted year after year but never seem to be examined for a grant while other roads seem to come up every two or three years. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to have that position rectified. I know some roads which have been submitted year after year for the past 15 years and have never even been examined.
By and large, the Parliamentary Secretary has done a good job in regard to those schemes. However, it is serious that out of an overall increase this year of £11,000, £7,300 will have to go on increased salaries and expenses. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that, whatever schemes are put forward, the maximum amount will be channelled to the people who need it most and that the cost of administration will be kept in line with what it was in the past. The same thing applies to our local authorities. When there are deductions to be made it is always the poorer people who suffer. It seems to apply generally in administrative circles. It is not unreasonable to ask our Departments to pull up their socks and do their part in making things work well.
Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I wish to refer to a difficulty we have encountered in Cork where we have agreed to take over every road that has been brought up to the required standard. There are in the suburbs of Cork short roads where the people cannot obtain the rural improvement scheme grants. Would it be possible to permit the Cork County Council to pay the contribution to the Special Employment Schemes Office to have the work done for these people? They are good ratepayers contributing rates to the county at large and yet they are in difficulties. These are short roadways servicing their houses that were not included in the scheme of house building. They are in a very bad condition and the people are not in a position to avail of the grant. We are prepared to take them over if they are brought up to the required standard. Where the people have the wherewithal we insist on their doing the work but in many instances they have not got it. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter in respect of the coming year.
The point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan appears to be a national problem. I assume he refers to roads in housing estates which the building developer has left in a bad condition
No.
Roads provided for a certain number of houses——
Yes.
——which would not be taken over by the local authority until they were brought up to the standard meeting the minimum specification of the local authority. That is a national problem and it is not peculiar to Cork. It has been raised by the General Council of County Councils. However, as the Deputy has asked me about the matter, I shall certainly look into it and see if that type of road could be brought in. These are urban roads within the jurisdiction of the Cork Corporation?
No, county ratepayers who are not eligible for rural improvement schemes. I am inquiring if the council could be permitted to pay the contribution or if some media could be found.
They are not within an urban area?
No, not within the corporation area.
Are they in an urban area even within the county?
No, they are depending on the county for their services, housing, sanitary and other services.
Are they farmers?
No, not farmers.
I shall look into the point mentioned by the Deputy. Deputy Lynch, the first speaker for the Opposition, mentioned a point with which I have already dealt, the high cost of employing a man for a year. I raised that point myself last year and most of the criticism could apply to Dublin. It has always been the policy to have regard to efficiency in the carrying out of public works and our job is to strike a reasonable balance between efficiency and relief.
Since the Estimate was passed last year, this problem of employing a man in Dublin has certainly occupied our minds and we have not come up with any definite solution. We have had and are having discussions with other Departments. I hope the cost will be cut down because were it cut down, it would give employment to more men.
Deputy Lynch also mentioned the small number of men employed in relation to the total of unemployed. If the Government were to provide work for all the people who had not work the cost would be very great. There would not be enough useful and necessary public works there to employ the men.
Deputy Tully again mentioned the five-day, 45-hour week. Conditions in the Special Employment Schemes Office must be in line with those in other State services, the Land Commission, the Office of Public Works, etc. Government policy is to adhere to this 48-hour week. I need not go into the matter because I went into it in detail before. We must bear in mind the fact that agricultural workers have a minimum working week of 50 hours.
Criticism was made about rural improvement inspections in County Meath. There are only nine awaiting inspection: only one is over 12 months, one of nine months, four between six and nine months, and three less than six months. When we get the new engineer mentioned earlier we shall have those dealt with.
There was an important point mentioned by Deputy Tully and I am sure Deputy Dunne would be interested in it. He said that if workers in the Dublin area worked 12 weeks and if they got the extra stamp to make it 13 weeks they would qualify for a certain period of unemployment benefit. The fact is that the men in Dublin get 12 weeks' employment and they do get 13 stamps and, therefore, qualify for unemployment benefit. They start on a Thursday and that is how it is achieved, so the human element was taken into consideration. Unfortunately, workers in rural areas get only six weeks so it does not arise.
Deputy Crinion also referred to the delays in rural improvement scheme inspections. That is an aspect which we hope will improve in the coming months but there will always be delays to a certain extent in the scheme. The schemes are so scattered that excessive travelling costs would arise if they were looked into immediately a request for an inspection was received.
In reply to Deputy Lynch who mentioned that expenditure by the inter-party Government was greater than ours, I do not want to argue these points with anybody but the position was that in 1957-58 the figure provided under the heading "Urban" was £140,000 while, as Deputies will see from this Estimate, in 1963-64, the amount is £200,000. In 1957-58, £115,000 was provided for bog development, while the figure is £160,000 in this Estimate. For rural improvements, the figure was £150,000 in 1957-58 compared with £225,000 in the current Estimate. Those points are purely of academic interest.
As regards the points mentioned by Deputy O'Connor, he has already been in correspondence with me about some of them; I have discussed others with him personally and the remaining three or four points will be looked into and I shall communicate with him. I trust that I have covered all the other points raised.
