COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE NO. 51—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Tuesday, 30 Jun 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE NO. 51—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £266,484 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le Moltóir agus Cúirteanna Réiteoirí; Síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis, agus do scéimeanna Speisialta; íocaíochtanna le Cumainn fé sna hAchtanna Archais Díomhaointis, chun Roimh-íocanna le Lucht Oibre fen Labour Exchanges Act, 1909; Táillí agus Costaisí na nDochtúirí Réitigh fén Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; Táillí do Mháinleagha deimhniúcháin fén Factory and Workshops Act, 1901; Táillí agus Costaisí fén Trade Boards Acts, 1909 and 1918; Táillí agus Costaisí fén Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, agus fén Gas Regulation Act, 1920; agus fén Weights and Measures Act, 1889; agus fés Costaisí mar gheall ar Chó-ghléasa Idirnáisiúnta an Oibreachais (Cumann na Náisiún), maraon le Deontas i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £266,484 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, 1926, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including Umpire and Courts of Referees, contributions to the Unemployment Fund and to special schemes, payments to associations under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, for advance to workpeople under the Labour Exchange Act, 1909; fees and expenses of Medical Referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; fees to certifying surgeons under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901; fees and expenses under the Trade Board Acts, 1909 and 1918; fees and expenses under the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, and the Weights and Measures Act, 1889; also expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a grant-in-aid.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce going to make a general statement?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I wish to refer to railway matters that come under Vote 52 or Vote 53. I do not know if the matter can be regularised by moving the two Votes together.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We can take one Vote and let the discussion be general, since railways are involved in the policy of the Minister. It is the administration of a particular Act that is involved all the time.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not intend at the beginning to refer in any detailed way to the work of the Department, as, no doubt, points will arise on later discussion and can be dealt with then. I would like to submit to the Dáil certain observations on the present economic situation of the country and to draw attention to certain disquieting features which, in my mind, merit the consideration and the attention of every Deputy. There is a general feeling abroad that the situation here is one of economic depression. That phrase I would not quarrel with. I think it is accurate enough for the purpose, but I do object to certain of the quarters from which criticism on this point comes. In more than one direction it appears to me that people who feel a tremendous urge to inform the public at large what they think about certain matters have only one single test to apply to the present condition of the country, and that is the test of their own income. Are they earning as much now as they used? If so, the situation would appear to them to be sound. If not, the situation is unsound. That is the simple test. If that were the test, if that were the criterion, if certain factors had been weighed and brought into consideration, I should have no objection to it. But it is simply put-up in this way: "Have I as much money as I had five or ten years ago, or last year?" And on that simple calculation you get a general statement as to the economic condition of the country. These people fail to consider whether they work just as hard as they used to in previous years; whether they have made any attempt to adjust themselves to the political changes that have taken place in this country, or the economic changes that were the experience of every country in the world. They fail to consider whether they have used whatever resources they had at their disposal wisely or whether they have made intelligent application of their own skill and energy to the problems that beset them. They have only a single test, and if the answer to that test be in the negative, someone is to be blamed. The Government are people paid for enduring blame; consequently, blame the Government! That mere continuance of blame would not carry any section of the community very far. It is just at that point that the disquieting feature I have alluded to comes into play. There must be some basis of reason, some apparent basis of criticism, when people start out to blame those at the head of affairs, and that basis of reason is found in one way.

I think, to clear the ground, it is pretty clear what it is that caused the economic apathy that prevails at the moment. There is a necessity here for increased production, and there is a lack here of the two main factors necessary to bring increased production about, that is, technical skill and the application to technical skill of money in a fruitful way. Most of the critics would accept that particular statement of mine, but they do not appear to act on it—they do not appear to act as if they believed their own acceptance of that statement. Comparatively few, after agreeing to what I have just said, would go out of their way to assist or co-operate in remedying these two defects. Instead of that, you get from all sides one cry, a cry that simply shows the inclination on everybody's part to make a demand for what must be described as a spiritless and degrading policy, a policy of continued doles. Let no one jump to the conclusion that I am referring to unemployment benefit for workers in speaking in this way. That is only one aspect of the matter. It is not the most important and certainly not the most blameworthy. You have it in every section of the community—at least you have it expressed here in the Dáil as an expression representative of every section of the community in the country. I personally do not believe that when these phrases are put forward here they are representative of the general feeling in this respect in the country. I have too much evidence to the opposite, but it has been put forward here by every section. People who disclaim and who argue against the unemployment benefit for workers unite in demanding benefit or dole for themselves.

We have propaganda spreading up and down the country, actively assisted by a Press campaign running somewhat on these lines: "What must be your opinion of a Government that continues to spend the taxpayers' money on grandiose schemes like the Shannon, or sugar-beet, indulges itself in such a proposition as the drainage of the Barrow, tinkers with protective tariffs instead of giving, say, to the farmer moneys to recoup him for losses occasioned in his cattle by the spread of fluke, giving to the manufacturer a subsidy to keep a decaying factory alive, giving to the railway shareholder a subsidy from the Government funds to keep his dividend intact, or to the railway worker to keep his hours and pay as they are?" That has been spread, and spread very actively, throughout the country in the last couple of months and, to my mind, it is the most disquieting feature of life at present. Nothing could be more degrading and nothing could be more hopeless. There is no policy that could counter it if the people are minded that way. I have said I do not believe that expressions used here thoroughly represent the opinion held by the section supposed to be representative outside. I know personally from experience that the question with regard to the provision of money to meet farmers' losses through this disease has not the great enthusiasm behind it of intelligent, progressive farmers in the country. I spoke just now of unemployment benefit for workers. I had previously denied that that was dole. I believe we have now come to the stage—as I more or less hinted about a month ago—when any further provision of that nature must be looked upon as dole, because contributions having been exhausted and having been multiplied five times over, any further multiplication, in the state in which the Unemployment Fund is and having reference to these previous multiplications, would be nothing more or less than complete charity. But that I shall refer to later.

We had urged here, on behalf of manufacturers, during Budget considerations, that it would be much more profitable to give money to help big industries and to put it into schemes like that of the Shannon or other productive enterprises. Again, I do not believe that that is the point of view of the big body of manufacturers. Manufacturers, I think, realise that trades must have their "ups" and "downs," and that it is unnecessary for the State to come to its relief every time an industry shows the flag of distress. But we are getting to the point, actively assisted by the Press, of viewing Government funds as nothing more or less than charitable endowments, of viewing the Government merely as a charity-monger, and of saying that any revenue necessarily expended must be expended in this form of charity or else in provision of useless schemes. That was a policy that worked all right under an alien Government, when the attitude was that we paid more than ever came back, and that it was necessary to get the money returned in any way—if it could not be got in the most suitable way, then to get it in any form. Everyone in the country, no doubt, desires to have prosperity, and an individual can hardly be blamed for hoping to see himself as one of the beneficiaries. But if we are going to have prosperity, people must very actively will that prosperity. They must sit down and consider what the times demand, and they must see what is called for in the way of energy and application of skill. They must make up their minds that that will be afforded in the degree which is necessary. All that a Government can do in that matter is to co-ordinate and help the general effective will towards prosperity. There are very few Deputies in this House who have not by this time realised—no matter what may be said otherwise to constituents—that it is not in the power of a small body of men here to make intelligent and prosperous a people if that people prefers to live on doles rather than to put money, or to see money put, or to welcome money being put into profitable enterprises.

There is just one other aspect of that matter that must be attended to. If we are to go on with all this provision of money for loans that are sought for industries that are momentarily not at their best, that money must be drawn from one section of the community. It must be drawn from those who are helping to produce. The producing elements will, more and more, as this policy of dole is increased, be driven to get depressed themselves and to join the queues outside the Labour Exchanges. While this atmosphere has been spreading through the country— and much more through the Dáil—I have been listening very attentively to see what kind of economic contribution, or suggestion, would be made by parties in the Dáil this session. I was not present on the day in question, but I read a remark by Deputy Davin on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. Deputy Davin had heard, apparently, these underground murmurs as to wasting the money of farmers and manufacturers on such extravagant schemes as sugar-beet and the Shannon. Deputy Davin suggested that he was in favour of—here you get the same vague phrase again—"other schemes that would benefit the country more." I have, over and over again, challenged Deputies in the Dáil who said that, as to what schemes they meant. Deputy Davin was challenged, and Deputy Davin said "drainage." He should well know that drainage matters are well in hand, that drainage is one of the things being looked to, and that drainage will not put any unbearable strain on our resources. That whole question is one that is progressing as fast as is practicable. The question of drainage is one item on which the Government had made up its mind to be advised by technical and competent men.

I come to another point on which, I think, Deputy Davin was enthusiastic that night—the question of the Barrow. I have seen this propaganda shaping itself this way—that there have been prepared, a long time since, all the plans that were necessary for the proper solution of that problem, and that this seeking of modern technical advice on the subject was merely a Government excuse for inaction and for postponement. That is not the case. I think that was referred to and made quite clear here a couple of nights ago. When this sort of comment is made, when newspapers emphasise it, or lend their columns to people who emphasise it, when we are told that these plans have been prepared and that the obtaining of practical advice is simply "postponing" tactics, it does strike its roots with people who are depressed and whose resources are small and not sufficient to tide them over the period in which they are at present struggling. I think the position in regard to the Barrow was made quite clear some nights ago. But it may be well to repeat the facts. The plans on the Barrow were never complete. There were no detailed plans such as would have permitted work to be carried out. Plans, or at least a report leading to plans, has now been got, and the work will be done. But if there is to be delay —and delay there will undoubtedly be —it will be due to the fact that people who, nine months ago, when it did not seem that this matter would have advanced as far as it has actually done now, came along with promises as to how much of a contribution could be looked for from the areas to be benefited by the drainage of the Barrow, are not now so emphatic in their protests that half and half contribution can be looked for. The Barrow scheme, at any rate, would not be advanced one inch if the question of sugar-beet or the question of the Shannon, or the question of tariffs were dropped entirely from the Government programme. Nor would the question of drainage generally be advanced one inch if these things disappeared. The position is that these things must be postponed until such time as the Government have sufficient information to make them believe that they can be attended to in the most economic way. When that time comes, there will be no lack of money for those or for other schemes as long as they are remunerative and reproductive. It seems to me that in all this, the country has a choice to make. It is a choice as to either of two attitudes to be adopted.

You can either have this demand for Government funds to be used as I have said, for the provision of charity—and that money will come from the pockets of a rapidly diminishing section—or else you can have, on the other hand, a system that the citizens of pretty well every modern State have adopted in co-operation with their Government and helped on by their Government— that is to say, the proper application of their available resources to development which is at the same time remunerative and durable, the encouragement of technical skill and of financial enterprise, and the realisation by the people that high incomes and short hours with decent conditions and permanent employment are only to be got by a willing adoption of all means and of every approved device for raising the standard of living.

This country is not a poor country. The bank deposits are sufficient proof of that, but it has very little experience of how to use its money. It has no experience at all of the fruitful application of money—fruitful in the sense of use—so as to advantage not merely the owner but the community in which that owner lives. Some of the debates on the Shannon scheme notably, not so much here, show that even when experts of international reputation came here with their advice, their advice was not easily accepted. I have referred incidentally to the Shannon scheme and the beet sugar scheme. These, in my mind, are the only types of schemes and the only types of development which promise any improvement in the conditions of the country. If that were once recognised and these schemes pushed forward with energy and enthusiasm that would do more than even is to be derived from the two schemes themselves, because these things work in a circle. They inevitably engage other matters and they draw other promoters. They draw other people with big ideas and you get a general condition of enthusiasm and the application of intelligent technical ability to the problems that beset the country.

About a year ago, in a debate, I think on unemployment, I was asked to indicate what was the general policy of my Department towards the condition of the country as it was then revealed. I spoke on a line of attack, more or less divided into three parts. At that moment the question of unemployment benefit was before the House. I was then in favour of it, considering (1) the lack of any schemes of relief work, (2) the fact that no general improvement in trade conditions seemed likely at that period, and (3) the numbers that had to be dealt with. I said that after the immediate necessities had been met by an extension of unemployment insurance, we looked forward to certain relief schemes, which, while giving a better return than the provision of unemployment insurance money could not be looked upon as giving anything like a full return for the money spent upon them. I indicated the choice between relief schemes and unemployment insurance simply then was, in consideration of the numbers involved, a matter of cost. Beyond that I said there was a third line of my Department's attack on the conditions of the country —the question of certain remedial measures with regard to employment, of which, I think, I made two divisions, one being big radical changes which would take time to develop and which would not show a return for a lengthy period, matters such as the development of power or the grouping of the railways, and then certain other matters, minor to a certain extent, to which one could look as giving a return more quickly—things, for instance, like adjustments in the fiscal system, like the provision of statistical information, like the Trade Loans Act and like the proper supervision of the placing of Government contracts, the question of representation abroad, and the search for either other markets for our goods or to attempt to bring into this country people from outside with technical ability who could size up our problems and help us to solve them. These were the lines along which we moved. These lines were somewhat broken in upon last October or November by the fact that a very bad winter period faced us. Immediate action was necessary with regard to that critical but temporary situation. Action was taken, but, except for that temporary interference or derangement of plans, matters, as far as my Department is concerned, followed along those lines. The question as to the position between unemployment insurance extension or relief schemes is one of the matters I shall have to deal with in detail later. On the other matters, the question of these bigger remedial measures for the development of the country, I asked in November if anybody thought any link was missing in the chain, that the link should be revealed so that we could attempt to forge it in. I ask again if there is anything missing from what I have just said that it should be suggested here openly so that the country may be helped along in whatever small way the Government can help to bring the citizens along where those citizens are not willing to do the best they can do for themselves.

I have spoken on one thing to which I would like to refer a little more emphatically. We have attended to many of the things I have previously mentioned—the question of power development, the question of railway amalgamation, and the matter of fiscal changes. Everybody in this House knows what has happened with regard to these. The question of statistics is not so clearly before the House. I had hoped to have introduced and to have got a second reading for, before we departed for the Recess, a Statistical Bill, general in its terms, but under which it is hoped to carry out pretty well every one of the recommendations of the Committee set up to advise on statistical work. I have very little hope of introducing that Bill before we rise for the Summer Recess. It was a matter of getting co-ordination between Departments as to even its general terms, but it was not found possible to have an agreement reached in the time at our disposal. It is intended to carry out, as far as possible, all the recommendations of that Committee, and if I seem not to have fulfilled promises in that respect, it is not so much that I am abandoning the promises, but simply that I have to postpone the realisation of them until a later period.

The matter of the Trade Loans Act is again one which should be familiar to Deputies, both as regards difficulties and so far as there has been success in the carrying out of the Act. The matter of the supervision of whatever contract the Government is placing is, of course, a matter rather of administration, and naturally would not be so prominent before Deputies. But that point is also being attended to.

There is one matter that I would like just to say one word about. I refer to the project I had, and of which I spoke, of having a better trade representation abroad. I want the word "better" construed properly. I do not mean to criticise in any way those people who are abroad and who are doing very difficult work under very difficult circumstances, in a very capable way. I mean simply that the provision with regard to the trade representation abroad is not sufficient, and it will have to be increased. But the time for increasing is not yet. There is a second side to that foreign work, the side not so much of finding openings for our products, but spreading abroad a proper view of this country and enticing here, to help us with the problems that are around us, people who have met these problems in their own countries and who are willing to lend their technical skill to us. I refer to that specially for this reason that in conjunction with the Shannon scheme I found myself criticised, or I found the Government criticised, very much for what was called its restricted action with regard to the rest of the world outside Germany; that the Government did not invite tenders from here, there and everywhere. I found these complaints principally from journals in this country, which have their eye more fixed on England than on any part of the world. Complaints were made that no proper opportunity was given to our greatest customer to have anything to do with a scheme like the Shannon scheme. I have dealt with that matter in so far as it was a question for the Shannon at all, that I regard this whole scheme as an invention; that it was not a question of inviting anybody. People came along and offered to do this work, and they were received in a cold way by the Government and in a way far from enthusiastic. But they persevered despite the difficulties that were brought forward even by the Government. They brought forward a very fine scheme. That same criticism has spread from the Shannon scheme to other matters. I would like to throw a certain amount of responsibility for what has actually happened on those very newspapers themselves.

There is a certain type of paper which sets out to depict this country as being no good for anybody to prospect in, as having no future for development, and as offering no field for energy to outsiders. If certain people are influenced by these journals, and take that point of view, then they ought not to begin to lament when they find that there are possibilities which they have themselves lost by believing in those newspapers. I shall have to refer to the correspondent of one newspaper in connection with railways. There are papers here, as well as correspondents here who write for outside newspapers, and they have depicted this country in a certain way for many months. It was put to me rather jocularly about two correspondents for outside papers that whereas one of them headed his column "Ireland Week by Week," the other could consistently head his column "Ireland Weakness by Weakness," because there was nothing revealed that would encourage anybody to have anything to do with the country. If the people wish to have outside brains and experts brought to bear upon matters in this country, they had better see that a true picture is presented of the country, and the people should get some hope that if they come along here they will not be beset by all the difficulties that certain imaginative folk have raised about the place.

There are several very big problems to be examined here. The whole question of transport is one. The whole question, I should say, of the financial system operating here is another. Probably the economics of modern agriculture in this country is a third. To speak of matters that are more relevant to my own department, the question of the scrutiny of the limited natural resources that we have—limited both as far as quantity, quality and locality are concerned—is another. But for that purpose of the using of these resources, limited in the way I described them, there is no doubt that we are in a very good position, because we inherit, or we should be able to inherit all the discoveries that the country brought about for the proper utilisation of the resources I have described, even in the limited way in which they are found here. We have no vested interest to fight against either in their scrutiny or utilisation. In that respect, and in reference to what I have been saying as to how news of us abroad is received, I was brought up against this point very early last year when I was abroad. I happened to meet an Italian engineer who was interested in the details of the Shannon work, but he happened to be much more interested in the details of other work. In a very short conversation he succeeded in letting me know what a definite and deep knowledge he had of conditions here and of certain problems that had to be attacked. I queried him as to where he got his information and why he was so interested in the country, pointing out to him that if one were to take the Italian newspapers and their records of the doings in Ireland it would not be very enticing, and it would not be the sort of matter that would lead to any man turning his eyes from his own country to this. His answer was that newspapers he did not mind, because he looked upon them as always a record of the abnormal, not the normal in any country's life, and to that extent they were distorted and he did not mind them.

But he did say this, that he had made certain investigations and certain approaches to this country and that he found himself discouraged more by what would be called, I suppose, the advances to meet him made by certain financial houses here whose warnings were such that he could not disregard them. The effect upon him of the whole thing was that having worked up a tremendous mass of material about the country, and having found a certain project that would be of use, he simply had to abandon it and turned his attention another way. Now the critics of the country, through the columns of the newspaper, or in any other way, may say what they please about the country; they may take that course, and in an unpatriotic way say what they please about the country. That is their own affair. But having said that it is not right and it is not fair that these same people, or this same section of the community, should proceed to criticise because, as they allege, certain folk have been kept out, and the aid of certain people has not been invoked.

I would like to mention one small matter in reference to statistics before I revert to that point. While it will not be possible to have a Statistical Bill introduced even this Session, it is so far forward that, without doubt, it will be one of the earliest Bills to be considered in the next Session. It is my hope that it will pass into law before the beginning of next year. I should like to indicate something of my intentions in regard to that Bill. I should like to have as much publicity as possible for the advance warning that I have to give. If possible, we shall have a census of production taken during the course of next year, covering this year, 1925, or some selected portion of it. Merchants and manufacturers who have had experience of a census of production, and who know what it means from other countries, might take this as an intimation that details will be looked for in the year 1926, covering their business as in the year 1925, and that books and details should be so kept as to afford the most accurate and the readiest information on those matters.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister said "merchants and manufacturers." I think his second word was a correction of the first. It would be well to make that clear.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I had not intended using the word merchants. I really meant manufacturers, excluding the others. I want to refer to some points in connection with the work of the Department. We will take, first of all, this matter of railways that has been so much debated, and so inaccurately debated, during the last few weeks. As far as the present storm can be traced to any source, it is said to have had its origin in a statement that I made in answer to a question put down by Deputy Alfred Byrne. The Deputy seemed to me to make certain insinuations, under the guise of a question, as to matters in the railway world, not so much since the Railways Act, as his question actually put it, but as a result of the Railways Act; that seemed to me to be an insinuation. My reply to that has been described in pretty well all the terms that varied vocabularies can put upon it. It was described as tart, very foolish, and absurd, and it was even almost stated to be untruthful. The "Irish Times" elevated the thing to the region of the leader, and wrote a comment on the 11th of this month, of which I will give the Dáil some excerpts. The article speaks about the Dublin Stock Exchange, and refers to a quotation of the previous day, and continues:

"The cause of this lamentable decline is obvious. Since the amalgamation the companies' receipts have fallen at the rate of £15,000 per week."

Later on it says:

"At the end of this year, if matters pursue their present course, the amalgamated company must exhaust the Compensation Fund in order to pay a full dividend on the Preference stocks, and there will be no dividend for the Ordinary shareholders."

The only clear-cut fact in any of the papers is:

"... the companies' receipts have fallen at the rate of £15,000 a week."

The editorial continues:

"... if matters pursue their present course, the amalgamated company must exhaust the Compensation Fund in order to pay a full dividend on the Preference stocks, and there will be no dividend for the Ordinary shareholders."

I am held up to scorn for having suggested that the collapse of the Great Southern Company's stock was the result of "adverse statements" by railway directors and politicians:

"The Stock Exchange knows nothing of politics or sentiment. It is influenced solely by facts and figures; and the present value of Free State Railway shares is an absolutely accurate reflection of the amalgamated company's present value as a financial concern."

Later on the "Irish Times" infers:

"the Government will make no statement on the railway prices until a full year of amalgamation has elapsed—until, in fact, the company stands publicly in default with its Ordinary shareholders."

Later on—this is put down to "tactics":

"the desire to put all responsibility for drastic reforms on the companies' shoulders has inspired the Government's policy of apparent indifference."

and the climax of the argument follows:

"apart from the fact that it was the Government's own action which put the companies into an untenable position, the crisis is far too serious to admit the luxury of tactics."

If you search that editorial right through, there is only the one fact:

"The companies' receipts have fallen at the rate of £15,000 a week."

Then you get all this extravagant deduction that is made there:—The Compensation Fund must be exhausted; the company will stand publicly in default with its ordinary shareholders, and then there is the statement made that it was the Government's own action which put the companies into an untenable position.

The "Independent," on the 13th June, went into much more detail and, as is usual with the "Independent," when it goes into detail, it went into much more inaccuracy:

"Interest and anxiety in the situation have been accentuated by the rather extraordinary and amazing statement made in the Dáil on Wednesday, by Mr. P. McGilligan, Minister for Industry and Commerce, who, when his attention was called to the position of the Great Southern stock on the market, said: ‘The share market is not a correct indication of the position; it is influenced by adverse statements made by directors and Deputies in this House.' The Minister also denied specifically that any loss that had occurred had been due to the Railway Tribunal set up by the Railways Act. Even a cursory examination of the returns and a short study of the events of the present year will prove the absurdity of Mr. McGilligan's statements."

Then follow certain traffic returns, and next we have:

"On January 1st this year, the Railways Act came into force, amalgamating all the railway services in the Saorstát into one combine, now known as the ‘Great Southern Railways.' The Act became law in July, 1924, and on October 15th the first meeting of the tribunal set up by the measure was held. The first business before the Court was an application by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a reduction of the passenger and goods rates. The proposal was for a reduction of 27 1-3 per cent. on goods and 20 per cent. on passenger rates."

And then some statements of those who opposed the application are quoted. The paper says they "prove in the light of present conditions, to have been prophetic." A quotation then follows from Mr. S. Brown, K.C., acting for the companies. The quotation is:

"An all-round reduction of 20 per cent. would make it impossible not only for the railways to pay a dividend, but even to carry on at all."

Then they give other quotations, including a quotation from Mr. Keogh, the general manager:

"The decision of the tribunal was to give the following reductions:—

20 per cent. on goods,

25 per cent. on ordinary passenger fares,

15 per cent. on season tickets,

20 per cent. on traders' tickets."

I want that joined up with the statement above, that an all-round reduction of 20 per cent. would make it impossible not only for the railways to pay a dividend, but even to carry on at all. That was the statement that was shown to be prophetic. The whole point rests on the traffic returns week by week. I have spoken of inaccuracy. There was no decision of the Tribunal to give any of those reductions—nothing of the sort.

Take those figures:—20 per cent. on goods, 25 per cent. on ordinary passenger fares, 15 per cent. on season tickets, and 20 per cent. on traders' tickets. You would get there an all-round 20 per cent. reduction, and, further up in the article it was stated that an all-round reduction of 20 per cent. would make it impossible not merely to pay dividends but even to carry on at all. Towards the end of the article they get on rather more solid ground. They give a quotation with regard to the fall in stock and loss of revenue.

"The loss of revenue indicated above, as compared with 1924, may not be the result of amalgamation, but it may be correctly attributed to the action of the Railway Tribunal in reducing the rates, the high cost of labour, coupled, to some extent, with the general depression of trade."

That was what I was denying the whole time, and my statement was said to be absurd:—

"The loss of revenue ... may not be the result of amalgamation."

I think a fair reading of the article would be that amalgamation caused a demand to be put up for a reduction in rates and that has caused those other things I have mentioned. They are not apparently to be considered as of the same importance as a reduction in rates.

Two facts stand out. There has been a fall in the Stock Exchange, which knows nothing of politics or sentiment. The fact is stressed again that the receipts are falling off by £15,000 a week. Deputy Figgis wrote about the same matter in the "Sunday Times" and referred to a great crisis involving the financial credit of the State. I am not called "absurd" in this, but the adjective "tart" is used, and it is stated that I wish to fob off criticism at an awkward moment. The Deputy says:—

"It cannot indeed be longer postponed in the interest of the Free State. And as it is certain that it will be dealt with during the coming week the essential facts may now be briefly reviewed. The central fact about which all else hinges concerns the price of stock."

Certain material follows with regard to the stock and how it has fallen, and then it states:—

"It is unnecessary to enlarge on the gravity of this fall, for the gravity is only too evident... It is idle, not to say foolish, for the Minister to blink at the fall and to say that the share market is not a correct indication of the position. The fall is a fact; it has caused widespread loss."

Incidentally, a mere fall in the Stock Exchange quotation need not necessarily cause a widespread loss unless people are driven by panic statements like those to sell out. There would be a loss, but I do not know whether that would be attributable to statements of that kind or to people who tried to get a reduction in rates and fares. The article goes on:—

"What is the cause of this declension? The Minister vigorously denied that it was due to anything that had been done by the Railway Tribunal."

Then certain points are given, namely, that the stock of the largest railway company had fallen some twelve points, that the new amalgamated company took over under the Act concerns of admittedly lesser stability, and that the tribunal, on the application of the Minister's representative, reduced freight rates by 20 and passenger rates by 25 per cent. It did not. It did not reduce the fares by 20 or 25 per cent. Then it says:—

"There may be some other explanation in the Minister's position that has not yet been made public, but these facts are, on the face of them, sufficient to account for what has happened."

That is the technique. You get any collection of facts, and you can say that they are sufficient to account for the fall, but whether they are correct or not it does not matter. You can throw them in and say that these account for it and they have to be explained away. There are three points to be explained. I alluded to the phrase that people who opposed the application proved to be prophetic. Deputy Figgis continues in his effort:

"Moreover, the event was foretold before the Tribunal by counsel for the company, foretold with accuracy and prescience. An all-round reduction of 20 per cent. He said, in resisting the Minister's application, ‘it would make it impossible for the railways not only to pay a dividend but to carry on at all.'"

Then we get a paragraph which is headed by the caption "Losing £15,000 a week." The same solitary fact emerges—losing £15,000 a week.

"Of course, it is inconceivable that any State can allow its essential credit to collapse in this way, especially with considerable loan issues pending. Whatever is necessary to be done will have to be done soon or late. That goes almost without saying. But the accuracy of this forecast is worthy of note, for it shows that the behests of Government and of political convenience cannot cause short paths to be taken across plain economical calculations."

Then we get this warning, by an aside:—

"A consideration of some moment in other than purely railway matters also."

The Deputy gets back to what he calls the facts of the railway situation. He goes further than either of the two newspapers which I have quoted. He says:—

"At present the position is that the railways are losing money progressively at the rate of about £15,000 a week."

Not merely £15,000, but it is getting worse. I do not know whether he means that it started at £15,000 and that we got to an enormous figure, or that the progress has landed us at the figure £15,000. The similarity of these three articles must be noted.

"This means that at this rate there will be no dividend for the ordinary shareholders. Some question has arisen in regard to Preference stock." The Deputy's answer is:—

"But probably the Compensation Fund will be raided (and exhausted) to meet the full dividend here."

If I may go back to the Irish Times article, it says:—

"At the end of this year if matters pursue their present course, the amalgamated company must exhaust the Compensation Fund in order to pay a full dividend on the Preference stock, and there will be no dividend for the ordinary shareholder."

Deputy Figgis continues:—

"No one can contemplate either of these prospects without dismay. The first would cause much suffering and unsettle the foundations of investment. The second would deplete the railway exchequer while a weekly loss continues."

Then follows a phrase against which I must protest:—

"Mr. McGilligan vaguely suggested that a half-yearly statement might convey some new information; but as it is the habit of many Ministers to think much more of scoring debating points for the cheers of their followers than of speaking always by the book, it is impossible to say what this might mean, or if it means anything at all."

If that phrase means anything it means that I made a misuse of information which was to my hand, and that I either suppressed or distorted it in some way. That is a suggestion which I would resent from anybody in this House, but I resent it particularly from Deputy Figgis, and I would remark for his information that when the Dáil has considered me worthy of a Special Committee and the Stationery Office has erected to my memory a monument such as he has, I will consider myself a fair target for his arrows, but not before that. Then we get the summing up, "The Prodigal's Way," and the article ends:

"In the meantime the Irish railways will probably not pay a dividend to their Ordinary stockholders."

I want these things considered. One fact is stated —£15,000 loss on traffic receipts—and the editor of the Irish Times, some special correspondent of the Irish Independent, and Deputy Figgis, the special correspondent of the Sunday Times, think fit, on seeing a calculation on one side of the account, without adverting to any other side of that account, simply to give this definite statement that the railways are bankrupt, and that there will be no dividend for the ordinary stockholders. You get a further deduction, peculiarly enough running through all the three articles, and in two instances the words are the same:

"The Compensation Fund will have to be raided and exhausted for the payment of dividends to the preference stockholders, leaving nothing for the ordinary shareholders."

You get the misleading comment made in two articles in the Independent and by Deputy Figgis, to the effect that the tribunal gave a reduction on freight rates of 20 per cent. and on passenger rates of 25 per cent. If that is going to be the sort of business acumen brought to bear on problems in this country by two leading newspapers, then I say we are in a very bad way. You are going to have deductions drawn simply because on one side of the account a fall is shown, and there is no examination whatever as to whether there is any reduction on the other side of the account. You simply see a fall in the Stock Exchange, and you put this one item of £15,000 a week reduction in the traffic receipts, and on that you get all this comment. I am not quite clear how far it is for me to do for the stockholders in the Great Southern Railways what, apparently, they have not been able to do for themselves, that is, to get information from their own directors as to how their affairs stand. I am asked by Deputy Byrne a question which, I think, has a certain implication. I deny the implication, and say that it is harmful in this House for Deputies through the Press, or directors of any big company to make remarks that are despondent, and which are bound to have a depressing effect on the Stock Exchange, in so far as they adversely influence the sellers and purchasers of stock.

If the Irish Times is correct in its comments there would be no harm in my getting up and making the most astounding remarks about railways. I may be as irresponsible as the newspapers, and say all sorts of defeatist things about the railway position. That would have no effect on the Stock Exchange. It is above all these matters. Stockbrokers may not be people very full of politics and sentiment, but the buying-and-selling public lends an ear to what is said by the directors about a concern, and certainly lend an ear to what is said in this House to Deputies who are put up to ask questions about the same concern. If shareholders in this company want to get the fullest possible information as to the position of the company, I suggest the best way of getting it is to go to the directors. The shareholders are the proprietors of the company, and they can get any information they please from the directors. If I might give a line to them in their cross-examination of the directors, let them put the simple question: “How far has the 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. reduction”— that is the average reduction—“in rates and fares been met by economies which are even in the first year already shown as a result of the amalgamation?” Just let them ask that question, and then when they have got the information asked for they can set off the losses in the reduction of fares as against the economies in administration, which are definitely the result of the Railways Act.

I fear if I go into too much detail in this matter that certain shareholders will be accusing me hereafter of having said too much about the railway concerns, and having made a revelation to the public, which is only made by the directors to their shareholders. But I think I can go a little further. I have the traffic returns for a certain period of weeks. I can make comparison between the Great Southern Railways, as an amalgamated concern, and the Great Northern Railway, which is not amalgamated. I find there is a percentage decrease in the Great Southern Railways of 14 for the 22 weeks to the 29th May, as compared with the corresponding period last year. The rates have been reduced owing to the case made before the Railway Tribunal by certainly not 20 per cent., but something between 10 and 12 per cent. There is a factor which is still hidden, in the sense that if I have figures they are not figures I can publish to the House, but it is a factor which has to be taken into consideration: what economies have taken place that will set off the whole or any part of that decreasd? Let me make this statement, that it will be found that the economies estimated to take place within this year will be found to balance the estimated loss owing to the compulsory reduction of rates and fares in the year. Put the reduction at the higher figure, 12 per cent., and you, therefore, have the Great Southern Railways with a reduction of about 2 per cent., as compared with the corresponding period last year, which is not to be attributed to the reduction of rates and fares. The 2 per cent., which is the difference between 14 and 12, is due to some cause other than the compulsory reduction of rates and fares, and that is due to the falling off of traffic.

Mr. JOHNSON

What sort of traffic?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Almost entirely live stock. As against the 12 per cent. I have taken off, I make the other statement, and the shareholders can get it verified or disowned by the directors of the railway companies, that the effect of amalgamation has been to give the public the benefit of the reduced rates. As a result of the amalgamation, there have been economies which off-set that reduction in rates definitely, and the amalgamation of the railways kept open all the small lines in the country, pretty well every one of which would have been closed were it not for amalgamation. The Great Northern Railway for the same 22 weeks shows a percentage decrease of 13. It has not reduced rates and fares as compared with this time last year on its system. Therefore, it has 13 per cent. loss, which must be put down to the falling off in traffic. The Great Southern Railways have 2 per cent. loss, which is almost entirely due to the falling off in livestock. I hold a proper deduction from that is that the reduction of rates and fares imposed by the Railway Tribunal has saved the railway companies in the Free State a certain amount of traffic which otherwise they would have lost, and that the loss due to the falling off in traffic is only 2 per cent., whereas it is 13 per cent. in the Great Northern Railway.

Another fact is that, notwithstanding this tremendous loss put on the companies in the Free State by the Amalgamation Act, they themselves have reduced their fares beyond that in certain places in order to stand against road competition. They have suffered certain losses imposed on them by the Railway Tribunal, but they had to go beyond that themselves in places, and they found that it paid, for by doing so they saved traffic they would otherwise undoubtedly have lost. The figures I have quoted so far are up to the 29th May. The figures for recent weeks preserve much the same relation. The figures for the 24 weeks ending on the 12th June show 13 per cent. decrease for the Great Southern Railways, and 12.8, or almost 13, per cent. decrease in the Great Northern Railway. The Great Northern was not 13.6, as I stated in the first period, but was a 11 per cent. decrease, and in the 24 weeks there was a 10 per cent. decrease. That is still maintained on this 25 weeks' basis, whereas for the Great Southern Railways the figure is 13.6. For the 22 weeks the figure was 14 per cent. for the Great Southern Railways, and it is now 13.6, so that really there is not much of a difference.

Mr. HEWAT

Is the Minister giving figures which refer to the whole of the Great Northern system, not the part in the Free State only?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Decidedly. So that is the whole problem, and that is the grave financial crisis that has come upon the State. I do not want to minimise the state of affairs in which the railway companies find themselves at the moment. The percentage reduction due to loss of traffic is a very serious matter, and it is a matter that will have to be attended to, but it is no proper appreciation of the situation to say that there is a loss of £15,000 a week—simply to state that fact and not to allow for anything on the other side, and to go further and say that the railways have been put into an untenable position by the Government's action. Let the railway shareholders ask the railway directors how far they consider themselves to have been put into an untenable position. Let them have facts and figures showing the immediate results of what they say is due to Government action, which are not set off by economies on the other side, very definitely the result of Government action.

Amid all these newspaper comments about the situation, I found that one weekly paper had a certain amount of comment on it, that while it was not entirely accurate, yet it had much more accuracy in it than the comments in any of the daily papers. This weekly paper alone was able to make any reference to the future and as to what the conditions would be, say, next year. What is the whole basis of the Railways Act of last year? It was this, that a certain revenue was fixed as a standard revenue, and that rates and fares are to be settled by a railway tribunal on this basis: that with economic and efficient management a standard revenue would be earned. So that supposing there is a loss on the railways this year, the new rates will have to be fixed at the end of this year; it is for the companies to come before the tribunal and prove that they cannot earn the standard revenue with efficient and economical management and on the rates and fares as they are now fixed. It is for them to make their case to have them raised if they consider that they have a case for having them raised. That is to say, if they consider as railway managers that their situation is going to be improved, and that they are going to get more traffic or keep the traffic they have at present by raising their present rates and fares. That is the basis of the Railways Act, and I do not know that shareholders were ever better protected.

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Then we have all this clamour and potter about this grave financial crisis, and we are told that the whole credit of the State is tumbling because of an unbusinesslike and incorrect series of deductions taken from one item on one side of the account. That is put forward as criticism of the Government or of the Government measure, and it has appeared in two Irish newspapers and in one English newspaper.

I do not want to leave this point without emphasising again the comment that I made previously, that matters are at the moment serious on the railways, and that there has been a falling off in traffic. That falling off in traffic, although limited to a percentage decrease in receipts of two per cent. may bulk to a very large sum, and all these are matters that will have to be attended to, and they are matters that the railway companies are attending to. Again, I would ask these proprietors of the Great Southern Railways when they go to their Directors to inquire from them as to how they were received when they came to the Government. I would ask them to inquire from the directors if they had been sympathetically received, or if the Government had shown any inclination to resent or to fob-off awkward questions or to postpone matters that did not brook delay. I would also ask them to find out from their directors—it again appeared in an editorial in the "Irish Times," that the onus of constructive suggestion rested with the Government—how far that onus of constructive suggestion had been taken up by the Government, and what is the present position with regard to the railways. Let the matter be debated clearly and accurately with a proper knowledge of all the facts and figures as regards the railways, and with a proper understanding of the question.

The matter of unemployment and the question of the extension of the unemployment insurance fund or some other means of dealing with the present situation is obviously a matter for consideration here. I indicated in my reply to the debate raised here on the 30th April by Deputy Corish that I thought the figures before me relating to unemployment insurance and the payment of benefit did not seem to me to be a sufficient basis for promising any further extension of unemployment insurance, and that is my position at the moment. The salient facts in connection with unemployment insurance can be put very briefly. There are three matters which have to come into consideration from my point of view. The first is the state of the unemployment insurance fund, the second is the benefits already drawn by people who at any time have contributed in comparison to what they would have drawn ordinarily, or, in other words, how the fund has benefited by the multiplying of the beneficiaries, or how often, as contributions have multiplied, they have tended to give increased benefit. The third thing is the present state of unemployment as seen through the Labour Exchanges.

No; these are all to be added together. There was the State contribution of £244,772, making a total of £917,298. Then there is the statutory appropriation-in-aid for the purpose of administrative expenses of £116,542, so that the net income in that year was £800,756. The figure I had for comparative purposes over that period was the amount paid in unemployment benefit in that financial year, and that amounted to £1,119,035. I am not sure I can get the further figures Deputy Johnson asked for, but I will make an attempt to get them before this debate closes. I hold the three points I have stressed, the fact that the Unemployment Fund is so definitely in debt, the fact that contributions have been multiplied so many times, and that without any extension of benefit, so many people are still in receipt of benefit, with me, does weigh until a stronger case is put up, not so much of the necessity as of the desirability of further extending the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I think we have got to the point where any further debt put on that fund will definitely make it insolvent. The insured contributors who have received so much in the way of benefit—it may not be so much absolutely, but relatively to what they were entitled— are, I think, without a case, for any further consideration in that privileged way as being definitely on industry, to accumulate a debt which will afterwards be paid by contributions taken from them if and when they get again into industry. If in the course of the debate, there is any question as to unemployment in the country districts as apart from the towns, say, unemployment amongst agricultural labourers, I have a series of reports which I can read. They are very lengthy, and if they are called for, I can give them out afterwards.

The only other matters I had to speak about were references to certain increases under the different heads of expenditure. I prefer, with the leave of the House, to defer these until individual Deputies ask for explanations as to why certain increased expenditure is estimated. I can then answer these in detail. These two questions, the question of the railways and the unemployment insurance question, the two matters which I have thought fit to segregate from the general remarks I had to make on the whole question of the Vote. I presume they will be debated in detail, and that, just as I have dealt with those two points, those two points will be dealt with in particular as apart from the general details of the work. At some later point we might get to the ordinary details of expenditure, and the question of increase or decrease.

Mr. HEWAT

The Minister has gone into certain matters in his general statement. I suggest it might save time if he made a similar statement with regard to the Marine Department, which is under his control. A series of questions will arise under that. I do not know whether he could make a statement on that as to the policy of the Government.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is one of the matters which I thought would be raised by way of question and answer. That Marine Service Vote is set out under other detailed heads. With the exception of questions I dealt with last year, in which a general policy was shown and about which there has been no change, and the question of coast watching and life-saving and the other matters arising this year—the school of navigation—I do not know that there are any big matters that would call for special comment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There would have to be a special motion on Vote 54 before the whole question would arise.

Mr. HEWAT

That was what I was suggesting. I thought a statement might possibly save time.

Sitting suspended at 6.45 p.m., and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

in the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has dealt with two matters—railways and unemployment—apart from his general statement of the economic situation in the country. I propose to deal for a short time with the unemployment side of his opening statement. He has told us that the problem cannot be dealt with on the basis of insurance, that relief cannot be given on the basis of insurance, and he has given certain figures to show what led him to that conclusion. Altogether he has treated the matter as one of figures: whether the fund can bear the charge. He has shown us that there were round about 50,000 claims made for the fifth benefit year, 39,000, or 78 per cent., of which had been allowed. He told us that of that number there is an estimate that 9,974 of the claims were from persons who would be entitled to from one to thirty days' benefit during the fifth benefit year; 9,253 would be entitled to from 31 to 60 days' benefit and about 20,000 would be entitled to from 61 to 90 days' benefit during the fifth benefit year. The facts one can deduce from those figures are that a large number of men and women, who were entitled as from 25th March to 30 days' benefit, have long ceased to be entitled to any benefit, and, unless they found employment since 25th March and remained in employment, they are now without resources. Another 9,000 who would be entitled to longer benefit if they remain unemployed, at a time later than the first nine or ten thousand I spoke of, will be without resources and so on. But, if we take any number of these persons who are unemployed from 25th March and have remained unemployed until now, even though they were entitled to the full 90 days—the maximum—during the first few days of July they will have exhausted all their unemployment benefit. The figures on the live register and the figures on the claims register have declined steadily. Whether that decline is due to an increased amount of employment or not, is hard to say. It is probable—I think it is certain—that there has been an increase in the amount of employment during the last two or three months. In certain trades, undoubtedly, that is the fact. But it is also the fact that thousands of people—I do not mind how few thousands—but certainly thousands of men, who are capable and anxious for work, are seeking work and have been in that position on and off for a very long time, are not able to obtain work, have exhausted their insurance, even with the additional benefit which recent Acts have added to their original unemployment insurance contract. Thousands of those have now been left, and are being left within this next week or two, without any resources whatever, and the Minister told us that nothing could be done through the unemployment insurance scheme and he is not suggesting any other way of meeting the needs of these people.

Unemployment insurance was devised to meet irregularities of employment, ups and downs of trade and commerce, and to meet the cases of men who have been able to accumulate certain reserves during a period of employment and give them something to fall back upon in their time of unemployment. The abnormal period of the last few years, both here and in Great Britain, has meant a practical exhaustion of the fund and an entry into debt of the fund so as to meet that situation. If there had been no Unemployment Insurance Fund, what would the Government have done? If it is the right way to face this question by saying that, inasmuch as unemployment insurance cannot be continued for men who have exhausted their ninety days' benefit, then, I ask, what would be the position of any Government in this country if they were met with large numbers of able, willing, active men who could get no employment, had no insurance, had no resources, if that number were increasing and were kept in that state for a prolonged period? I wonder is it suggested that the functions of a Government in such a matter are satisfied when they say, "We are doing our best to stimulate industrial activity, to inspire confidence in the commercial and investing public, and when that has had its effect, then these men will be absorbed." In the meantime they can live on air, or they may take advantage of the poor-law system, or they may beg or they may steal. I think no Government would take that view which had any sense of the responsibility that modern views on these matters entail. I think the situation must be faced as an abnormal situation, and that we cannot consider the position with any regard to the facts without recognising that we have in this country a number, which I have not attempted to estimate, of men who have come into manhood since 1914, many of whom at a time when they would be settling down to steady occupation, learning the habit of work, went into the British Army. They served a few years there, came home and found the country in a state of disturbance, the chances of settling down to steady occupation absent, and they have not settled down to sucl steady occupation. They have not been able to form the habit of work. We had the other element coming to manhood at 17, 18, 19 or 20 years of age at the time of enrolment of large numbers in the I.R.A. before the National Army. These, added to those who were enrolled in the British Army, constituted a very considerable number of young men who, as I say, have never had an opportunity of forming the habit of steady work, and are not as likely to find a billet where regular workers are required, who are only unskilled labourers in most cases and who are capable of taking up anything, but doing nothing where know ledge is required and long experience. These men are not responsible for the state of things in this country that has brought them to manhood in their present circumstances.

It may be said, as many people have said, that work is waiting and is available. I wish I could say that. Unfortunately it is not true. Those who say it and who point to the large numbers on the unemployed list and say they could get work if they would, but they will not, may read the figures given by the Minister, and they will say there has been a steady reduction from 50,000 in April to 30,000 in June, they have got to choose between two courses. They have got to say that the 10,000 who are now off the register are off because they obtained employment, which will show that they were willing to obtain employment when it was available, or they will have to admit that the increased employment which is alleged to have absorbed the 10,000 is a phantom, and that they have not actually obtained employment, and that they are not registered because they know that there is no chance of employment and their insurance benefits are exhausted. I do not want to make any exaggerated statements. I am going to assume that there is a steady decrease in the number of unemployed men. I hope it is true. The greater the increase of employment the less resistance can be offered to the demand that something has to be done to either add to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, or replace it. Something has to be done to make it possible for unemployed willing men to live without robbery, beggary or the poor-house.

There is not only the case of the unskilled man—the young man who came into manhood any time since 1914, who has not learned the habit of work, who has not had an opportunity of learning any trade, has not had an opportunity to apply himself steadily to any occupation which would make it profitable for an employer to keep him for the sake of keeping a skilled man—but we have a very considerable number, a number which I cannot estimate, of men skilled and semi-skilled, who know one trade, that trade being a trade which is becoming redundant because of new methods. Because the trade itself is becoming redundant, the men also are becoming redundant. We have, through the coming of motor transportation, large numbers of men disemployed, who were used to other kinds of occupation. We have here the engineering trade and the shipbuilding trades in which there are considerable numbers of men suffering the same depression as, if not more than, exists in Great Britain. Many of those men have been unemployed or very intermittently employed for a long time. Their own resources have been exhausted long ago. Their trade union resources have been exhausted or are on the point of exhaustion. They are in the position of being without resources, because unemployment benefit is stopped.

Many of these men are, of course incapable of reverting to other occupations. They are not even in the position of the young man who went through the Army and is able to turn to anything. Yet, they are the best of citizens, capable of doing good work, work that could be adapted to increasing the national wealth. We are saying to those men: "We have no use for you. We are sorry; but get off the earth." I have a view of the social responsibility for the individual which, perhaps, is not shared by the Government and may not be shared by the majority of the members of this House. I think of this nation as a community, and not as a mere chance aggregation of individuals, thrown one against the other, each trying to do the best for himself, the duty of the Government being merely to keep the ring and encourage, as the Minister has told us more than once, the people to extend their industrial activities and, by so doing, find opportunities for employment for all the citizens. If it succeeds in that, then undoubtedly the Minister's position is satisfactory and defensible. But when the method chosen to utilise those human resources is the method of relying entirely on private enterprise, industrial activities for private ends, and when that system fails to utilise the human resources, then the responsibility falls back upon the community. It must make up for the losses which this insistence upon the private-enterprise system and its whole reliance on that system has incurred.

I do not want anyone to take out of what I am saying now a plea for the entry by the State upon industry generally, and, through that, to supplant private enterprise. What I am saying is that if the method which is in vogue and which is the method generally accepted in the country— that the well-being of this country can best be attained by leaving the natural resources, in the form of land, to the farming community to make the best of for their interests, and by leaving the capital and educational resources and the general system of production in the hands of the entrepreneur and private individual—fails to feed and clothe and house the citizens of this country, then, I say, the communal responsibility remains and we have no right to allow these men to go hungry or to become demoralised by lack of work or to be forced to anti-social actions. We have this community responsibility. I say that the Minister's statement this evening more or less tells me, and tells the Dáil, that we are closing this Session without meeting the obligations that, I contend, we are bound to shoulder for those less fortunate men who, not by virtue of any failure on their part to carry out faithfully the duties of citizenship, but by virtue of the failure of the social, political and economic institutions of the country, which they are not masters of, are in their present position. There is, I submit, from the point of view of mere material economy, an obligation upon us to say to these men: "We will want your services when trade is good. We will want you to be as fit as possible to meet the requirements of good trade. We are not going to allow you to become demoralised, to lose the habit of work if ever you had it. We are going to give you an opportunity of becoming possessed of that habit of work. We are going to allow you to remain strong and healthy human beings, self-respectful and capable of doing good work for the country when you may be required to do it."

From the point of view merely of national economy in the material sense, it is bad policy to continue to allow large numbers of men to remain in the position that we have as a community forced them into. It is bad policy to say to them: "Not only are we allowing you to remain unused and inexperienced, to become demoralised physically as well as mentally, but we are going to deprive you of such resources as the unemployment insurance benefit hitherto provided." There is, I think, and there has been for some time, a general state of lethargy and inaction; perhaps one might say a reaction from the exciting periods of recent years. While a period of quiet was desirable following on the abnormal period of activity, nervous activity at any rate, this lethargic period is not good for the State, for the individual or the worker. I think it is not good to find that men in thousands are prepared to hang about street corners and shop doors, day after day, week after week, month after month, not even agitating, not even rousing themselves to fight and demand improved conditions. Some action should be taken on their behalf. Remember their position. I want to insist upon this as I have done very often—that for good or ill, wisely or unwisely, this community has said to two hundred thousand people or more—perhaps three hundred thousand people, I do not mind how many—workers in the towns who have no money and no property: "We have divorced you from the land, the land cannot bear you; there is not enough land to go round; you have no final ultimate resource in the soil; you have no other property; you are bound to work for a living and we have so ordered things that you cannot work for a living until some employer somewhere says he wants you and he is prepared to pay you. That is how you are going to live." That is what we have said to these two or three hundred thousand people.

To fifty thousand of them we have said: "We have no work for you, therefore there are no wages for you, and no wages means no clothing, no food, unless you can become a pure parasite, clearly a parasite, on the community." To put in conscious knowledge fifty thousand men of that position is the work that somebody has to undertake. I think it is not good that this large number of men should go on week by week, and month by month, lethargic, idle, waiting for something to turn up. Personally, I have felt that in the past few months it would be rather harmful than beneficial to encourage anything like violent agitation on the part of unemployed men. I have realised that the state of the country was such that the needs of that body of men might be easily exploited for other purposes, not for the benefit of the unemployed men and not for the benefit of the community. I had some faith, apparently misplaced, that the State, the organised community, would at least refuse to consign these men to the position of relying on the workhouse or charity. I believed there was something to be said for the assertions of those who brought this State into being, that the helpless, the disinherited, would not be allowed to go hungry and that their children would not be allowed to go hungry.

While I never thought that it would be possible within one year, two years or three years even for this State to do what other States have failed to do in a much longer time, no matter how desirous and eager they would be, to arrive at the solution of the social problem completely, I believed at any rate that the community would, through its organised institutions, move in that direction, and in the meantime while the problem was in the course of solution that we would maintain even though at a low standard, the helpless and prevent them from becoming the hopeless. I am sorry to think that the obligation which I believe the State has laid upon itself, is not being faced. I am sorry to think that the urgings I personally made have not had very much fulfilment in this respect. The hopes that were held out that the Irish Free State, governed as it is by men who entered upon the movement for political emancipation, would have some social gospel, some regard for the needs of the common people, have not been fulfilled. I am sorry to think that any hopes I helped to create in that regard are being dissipated. I think that there is a need for rousing the unemployed workmen so that they will not continue in this state of lethargy. Whoever this rousing is to be done by and whatever the consequences of that rousing, I think it would be better than to allow them to get into a state of demoralisation through inaction. Yet, I realise that those who will the most readily respond to any agitation of that kind will be the least responsible. Perhaps those who would be the ablest and most capable in appealing to that large number of the disinherited will be the least responsible.

I realise that there are risks. There are risks to the stability of the community. There are risks even to the near-coming of industrial prosperity. But I say that if industrial prosperity is to depend upon the sacrifice of ten or fifteen thousand men who are at present unemployed, and who will be without resources, the price is very high. For men in this position it is questionable whether you have any right to appeal to their social responsibilities, to their citizenship, or to their sense of neighbourliness, when their neighbours and the community have cast them off. "You have nothing to lose but your chains," they have been told, and they will be told I have no doubt, and they will believe it. When we are casting off ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty thousand men, and when we say: "As a community we have no responsibility for you; you must wait until trade improves; you must wait until the employer can make a profit out of you; or you must wait until some employer is able to make room for you without making a profit, but at any rate you must wait," well, that is a state that, I think, you ought not to ask men to enter, and I think it is a good thing for the health of the community that the men should be roused from that state and not allow themselves to be cast into outer darkness.

If we take the position that we are not going to be responsible for the unemployed whose resources are exhausted, for the men who have no more insurance, for the men who, if they were skilled workers in a trade which had accumulated when trade was good, unemployment benefits, but which those trades having been long depressed, have become exhausted—if we say to these men: "It is not our business; your trade, the industry you are trained in, made no provision for you, they have not organised themselves in such a way as to maintain you during unemployment, and the community also washes its hands of you," then, if we declare that, the individual worker becomes outlawed, excommunicated economically. You make him an outlaw and he will act as an outlaw. Otherwise you will say that he is a spiritless creature and it does not matter whether he is employed or not; you will say he is not the kind of man, and they are not the kind of men, to make a virile nation. They may accept that challenge to prove that they are virile individuals and that they belong to a virile community.

I have had, if I may be allowed to say so, a somewhat peculiar responsibility, inasmuch as I have, against my desires, had to accept a dual office. I have urged people and have endeavoured to restrain, shall I say, the less responsible and the less thoughtful, perhaps, and the less farseeing. I have urged the desirability of maintaining, and making the most of, parliamentary institutions. I do not know how many Deputies here know anything of the struggles that have been going on throughout Europe since the war and during the war as to the value of democratic institutions, and more particularly, the value of parliamentary institutions, and how delicate even to-day the position of parliamentary institutions, and even of the democratic methods by which the State should be governed. We talk here and we assume that everything is all right, that democracy is something final and settled and will never be altered. But it is not quite so settled; it is not quite so certain. I have not yet seen any experience anywhere, so far as I understand things, which justifies me in preferring those other methods to the democratic State, democratic methods, and parliamentary institutions. But I know there is a very strong body of opinion throughout Europe and Great Britain, and a less strong body of opinion in Ireland, which thinks lightly of parliamentary institutions, scorns parliamentary institutions, and thinks of them only as institutions which are at the beck and call of the better-off classes in society; and that the poor working classes are relying upon a broken reed if they rely upon parliamentary institutions to remedy their grievances. I have tried my best to teach that parliament is an instrument which may be made of very great use, at least, in remedying the obvious evils of society, and the grievances of the workers, and that it is within the power of the common people to use these parliamentary institutions to remedy those grievances and to soothe, shall I say, the scars which the capitalist system, the prevailing method whereby industry is organised and wealth is distributed, brings upon the social fabric. I have tried to teach that parliamentary institutions may, at least, salve the wounds, possibly even may make it practicable to re-construct the social order gradually and easily, without having to go through the violence which a revolution of a catastrophic character entails.

I have tried to inculcate that view, and now I find that I can be told I was only mocking the poor; that they had no right to rely upon Parliament; that they had better use their industrial machine, use their economic organisations; they could, perhaps, better force the community to think of them and that they were foolish men to have listened to the doctrines that I and others of us here have preached. They may mock, of course, and it may be taken as mockery. They may taunt us with having preached the doctrines of ordered development because we believed that the community would rise to the occasion and would save them, those disinherited ones, from the evils that we all know so well. Now the Minister has told us that, at any rate, nothing is going to happen between now and October or November, and the fine weather, and the possibility of blackberries growing on the hedges, might enable them to keep alive for the intervening three or four months, and then we shall see how things are. It is very sad; it is very difficult for anybody with any sense of responsibility to carry on and face men, having promised them, and having assured them that it was better to trust ordered Government than to aim at the breaking up of social order by violent means, or by economic activities of a destructive kind.

Of course I know full well the weakness of my position. I know that the possibilities are that an agitation such as I foresee as inevitable, if the working people of the country are to be saved from utter damnation, will arise, and a general national discredit will ensue; industry will be longer in reviving; the area of distress shall be increased; the numbers of unemployed will be greater, and the possibilities of recovery will be more distant. I realise all that. But when you have told men who have been unemployed for months, who have been living upon unemployment insurance or the dole, if it is a dole, that that is no longer available and they have nothing more to lose, but have a world to gain—well, it is not a pleasant prospect. I am not made of the kind of stuff which would enable me to enter on that particular kind of agitation; and yet I believe most sincerely that that kind of agitation is necessary if the workers here are to be saved from the demoralisation I have spoken of.

I can speak for a number of people, certainly for myself, when I say that we have been hungering for an opportunity to go out and preach the gospel of reconstruction and of national development—"all hands to the pumps' —to make a great nation, if possible a healthy and a prosperous nation. I have endeavoured occasionally to say: "Give us at least the assurance of employment and then I believe you will have a response to a call for national service that will surprise you." But I cannot go to men and say: "Give your free, active whole-hearted service for this week and next week and the week after and at the end of that period you may go and sit in the Park, unemployed." Give us some kind of assurance of permanent employment, then go to the people and ask them to think only of the country and the country's good and I believe you will get a response. I had hoped that we might be able to rally all the life-giving elements in the community to the service of the community. I think it is possible to do that in a small country where there are only three million people, not many more than could be employed by one big industrial trust. You might be able to do in a small country like this, what you could not do in a big industrial complexly organised community. I am afraid, however, that nobody has that conception of this nation who is in a position to do any agitation for it.

The answer of the Minister is, I think, that so far as the disinherited are concerned, the community is against them; they may respond by saying: "We are against the community." Now, who will blame them? I said I am not the kind of person who could enter very actively into a campaign of agitation such as I think is necessary. I suppose I may claim that there may be opportunities even in this House to do good service of a minor kind in a less responsible position. I think, and I say this very sorrowfully, that the attitude of the Government on this question is not helping to revive faith, to create faith in the community; is not helping to create faith in either the economic, the social or the political institutions of the country.

I do not know whether there is any possibility of anything happening during the period when the Dáil will be in Recess. I do not know what figure the Ministry has in mind in regard to the relief schemes, whether it is proposed to adopt big schemes which will absorb any large number of those unemployed men and make them free from the need of unemployment insurance. I do not care whether it is unemployment insurance, whether it is the dole, or whether it is relief which is given, but fundamentally the important and necessary thing is that men shall not be allowed to go hungry, or to see their children hungry, and, secondly, that they shall not be allowed to become demoralised. I fear, I am sorry to say, that the Government has failed to appreciate the importance of the position that is facing it. It has failed to realise the risks it is running, and it would be cheap to provide maintenance for the large body of unemployed men in the State, so that they will not be forced into aggressive industrial or social activities. I move that the Vote be refered back for reconsideration.

General MULCAHY

I feel that many members in this House will sympathise with Deputy Johnson in the very difficult position in which he is, but, speaking for our people, we may be perfectly sure that at this particular stage in our history we are not going to allow any semi-decadent theories coming from nations which have broken themselves up in unnecessary war to undermine our belief that we can govern through parliamentary institutions. We have just taken the control of our country in hands and we have set up parliamentary institutions, without very much machinery that would enable either the Government as a whole or individual parties here, to do their own share of that particular work. I think our people may be satisfied that in a period of very great difficulty tremendous things have been achieved for the country through the working of parliamentary institutions. Even Deputy Johnson must have felt, if much has not been done for the workers in the country through the working of this Dáil during the last couple of years, that a considerable portion of the cause was that even on his side there was not machinery that would enable him properly to estimate the conditions of the country, and to put up proposals which would make some attempt to remedy some of the problems which he has in mind. We cannot, without a very considerable amount of machinery, whether purely administrative or political, stretching out from the different parties in this House, or from the different bodies in the country, sum up a great number of problems that face us here in bringing about order and social conditions and a happy employed people, but an immense amount of work has been done to provide that machinery during the last couple of years. I think, that an examination of what the Government has done, in the line of estimating the position on its side, and endeavouring to pass such legislation here as will bring about additional employment, bring about a better order in our lives, will show how much it has been possible to achieve.

I fully appreciate how difficult Deputy Johnson must feel his position, but very often too great weight of responsibility makes you take a very gloomy view of things. Nobody, however, looking round the country to-day could take a gloomy view of what the people by organising and concentrating on their own affairs, could do for themselves. When we faced the work of setting up a native Government here in 1919, and when we put before our people what was then called the democratic programme, there was nobody who entered the Dáil at that particular time who did not in his heart believe that it would be possible to do the things that we set down in that democratic programme, and who was not absolutely determined to do his particular share in making these things possible. The same spirit that filled our people who entered the Dáil in 1919, so far as I can judge of them in doing their share of work here, is there to-day. We must realise that in taking over our country from a foreign administration we took it over with its channels of trade and commerce bruised and broken, and with many blots on the social fabric of our country, and we knew that we could not, in two or three days, or in two or three years, rectify all these things. We did know, however, that the spirit that drove us to free our country was a spirit that was not going to stop there, and we could not consider our country free until we had freed those portions of our population that were labouring under the results of foreign domination here. You have had the necessity on you to take a certain portion of your population and give them doles. There may be a necessity to do it to-day, even for a certain number. A case could, perhaps, be made by Deputy Johnson that a greater number of people than those who are getting unemployment benefit to-day should be getting it. That, however, is one thing, and it is another thing to throw up your hands and despair of the prospects of achievement through parliamentary institutions. You have set up a considerable amount of machinery which you want in order to do your work. You will have to set up more. To-day our new county councils and our new urban councils throughout the country are coming together and facing in a new spirit and in entirely new circumstances, responsibilities somewhat varying from those which they have supported up to the present.

I personally feel that we will have our new councils doing their own share in their own way, and there may be different ways in different counties to put the affairs of their own particular areas under the microscope, to enable us here in the Legislature to take advantage of their experience, and to take advantage of the fact that they in doing their own work will bring out that which will enable us to do many things for the country that we could not do without their working in new circumstances and in a new spirit. In one of the first meetings of this Assembly, in 1922, I said that I thought it might be possible to divide the country into zones, and make an examination of what improvements of a public nature might be made from time to time in those areas, in dealing with roads, drainage, and other matters that would disclose themselves after examination. According as unemployment for any reason showed itself in any of those zones, instead of giving unemployment benefit and instead of resorting to the dole system, public works might be opened with the money that would otherwise be paid out in unemployment benefit, and so get constructive benefits for the country. I hope that some one of our county councils to-day facing its new work will turn itself to things that are not necessarily within its direct province as a county council, that it will look on its area in a new and paternal spirit. As I say, I hope we may have some one county council, or two or more, which will examine affairs with a view to seeing how far they can inside their own borders deal with this question of unemployment, and that they will examine their own area and see what improvements are necessary there from the public point of view. Some of them will be improvements that will bring return of one kind or another to the country, and would help us in facing the unemployment problem, so that when there is unemployment in a particular area it might be possible to absorb the unemployed on useful public work there. Even if there is to be exploitation of the unemployed, it should be an exploitation of them that will do good to the community and do good to themselves.

We are only beginning to get our machinery in order to do the work, we are only beginning to get the machinery that will inform us properly of the condition of things, the machinery that will enable us to gauge any particular problem, and to introduce legislation here. We may feel there are people who deserve pity and special attention to-day. There is no reason, even if we are not in a position to do what we wish, if we do not care to make up our minds that it is necessary for the Government to bring immediate assistance to those people, why we should adopt a despondent spirit, throw up our hands, stop at this particular point of our work, and say we can do no more useful work here We want information as to the condition of affairs in the country. We want to exchange our opinions and ideas with one another on these matters.

You are going to get no other place in the country but our parliamentary institutions here that will enable us to put that information before us in the best way, to put us in the position of being able to make up our minds as between all sections as to how our problems should best be tackled. Even here, as Deputies from different parts of the country, during the past two years we have not had our full quota from the different constituencies, that would provide us with a link as complete as is provided by Dáil and Seanad representation alone with our constituencies. We have been working here in the Dáil with one hand, but we are coming immediately to the days, though we may have for some short time to continue working here with one hand, when our machinery throughout the country through local bodies and other organisations, will be growing up day by day. I feel that Deputy Johnson's despondency at the moment is only a passing thing. There are at least some people who are very well satisfied with what our people have shown they can do for themselves through parliamentary institutions. There may be some people in the country who do not know sufficiently about the worries of European countries, who are made despondent by their own worries and their own theories.

The PRESIDENT

I had not intended intervening in this discussion, but I cannot help saying that I listened with great attention and with infinite pain to Deputy Johnson's contribution to the discussion. I do not know if Deputy Johnson was really just, however he may have endeavoured to be, with the Government in this matter. His speech was, I might say, mild in so far as it ventured criticism of the Government, but underneath the mildness there was a condemnation such as, I think, I have not listened to in this House before. I believe it to be unjust on many grounds, and on the principal ground that due consideration and due weight have not been given to the efforts that have been made by the Dáil and the Government during the past two or three strenuous, difficult, and hazardous years. This particular discussion, and some of the other discussions on the estimates, have satisfied me that the Executive Council in the general view of the economic situation, and in the case that is made for extended sums to be given in respect of certain services, has not got common justice from certain members of the Dáil.

Within the last six or eight weeks the Minister for Finance propounded his Budget. It is not a particular piece of legislation or administration which admits of what a builder of carts and carriages would call cutting and shutting. The Minister is not in a position to give you certain items of advantages in connection with the Budget, and at the same time have certain demands made on him in respect of other parts of the Budget. The Budget stands or falls as a whole, and in connection with its standing or falling the whole of the contributions in respect of unemployment insurance, contributions in respect of relief schemes and the remission of taxation —each and every one of these hang together in one part and in one entire piece. You cannot remove a part at liberty, and you cannot increase or diminish the particular items which go to make up the whole Budget without unbalancing it. Within the last two months Deputies from the various parties in the House, no matter how much each of them might have criticised the Minister's Budget, all of them in their hearts and in their consciences admitted that the Minister had effected a solution which was well to the advantage and satisfaction of the House. He attacked the subject of national finance in a manner which, while nobody at any time ever said he was satisfied with it, yet every man went home, no matter what party he came from, slapping himself on the back and feeling that he had got the best that could possibly be got out of the circumstances of the times.

That is as far as the Budget is concerned. As far as the contributions towards the uneconomic situation that has been developed to a very considerable extent by Deputy Johnson and the attack which he made on us in respect of one unfortunate section of the community—the section for which we do not accept entire responsibility—as far as that is concerned it is a responsibility which we share with every other section of the community inasmuch as we came into possession of the Government here at a time when circumstances were not economic, at a time when industry was infirm and when the condition of national affairs required bold statesmanship and bold handling. I submit, in justice and in fairness, that the problems set us and the complex situation that arose would require far better and far greater statesmen than the world has ever known, to solve in any way better than we have managed these great problems in the interests of the country.

During the past three or four years, what sums of money have been put in circulation, compared with our wealth, which went towards the relief of unemployment? No other country in Europe could bear examination in respect of the huge sums of money that we have made available for employment. Practically every penny of our revenue has been spent on work of one sort or another. What is the state of our national debt? It is not perhaps one-sixtieth of the sums of money that we have put in circulation. We can be criticised certainly upon certain items in the estimates, upon certain expenses which persons may say are extravagant, and which they affirm this nation was not rich enough to bear. It will be admitted, I think, by our strongest opponents that these were negligible items. Examining the criticisms that come from those who would have us swept off the face of the earth, I fail to find a sum which would relieve taxation if it were not spent. When we examine the sums of money put in circulation and which should have benefited employment, I say that they bear more than a favourable comparison with that of any other country.

The sums paid in compensation amount to many millions. I have not the exact figures before me, but the sums paid in compensation would, I imagine, approach very nearly to our national debt at the present moment. Deputies know that we have managed to pay into the Road Fund very considerable sums of money, and that this money has been of great advantage in relieving unemployment in the country. Deputies know, too, that huge sums of money have been spent in repairing our railway bridges and our roads. We have an Army of something like 15,000 men, and we have mobilised in the Civic Guards something like 6,000 men. When examining the present political situation and weighing it in the balance, what would have happened if it were not for the course we recommended to the people of this country? What would have been the position of unemployment in this country if we had not, in 1921, made peace? If we had not signed and got that peace, what would have been the position of those persons whose property was destroyed throughout the country? What could they expect to get from either one side or the other, from those who were with the people in the struggle or those who were against the people? What would have been the position of these people? Within twelve or eighteen months or possibly within two years, there will not be any person in the country who has lost anything in connection with the struggle who will not have been compensated not, I suppose, to his satisfaction, but at least I think it can be claimed, honestly compensated and in the best manner that appears to be possible in the circumstances.

I dispute the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this is not a poor country. It is a poor country. It is relatively poorer than any country in Europe, and the circumstances of the case left it nothing else but that it should be a poor country. Can we compare with Denmark in our exports of agricultural products, can we compare with France in our industrial activities or with Belgium as regards our industries and manufactures. Where is the wealth, if we are behind in all these things, that make for material prosperity? Does material prosperity grow of itself? If it does, why is it that we are behind the Danes in the matter of the sale of our products? Why is it that we have got to go to Germany to get a contractor who will harness our white coal? Why is it we cannot do it ourselves? There is no use in talking about this country being rich. It is not rich. It is undeveloped and what contribution, I ask, have we got towards its development? Nothing. Are we entitled to get it, entitled to get anything from this side or from that. Not a day passes, but one reads in the newspapers of someone or other attacking the Government, either from the Labour side or from the Capitalists' side, as the Labour side calls that particular side. To-day we are told that we need to be roused. I suppose we do. We need first, co-operation, and a little more hard work and a realisation of the problems that confront the country and the best methods of solving them.

We had scarcely made peace with the British, a peace which they had kept most honourably, and a peace which we taxed them to the utmost to keep most honourably—I do not mean to say the country as a whole but I mean to say some of the people of this country—when on the very day that we assembled to sign that peace we were faced with a railway dispute.

Since then we have been faced with port disputes, with disputes as regards the bringing in of goods to the country, and we have been faced with the postal dispute. I ask, in common fairness, was there justice meted out to the Government of this country in trying to solve the desperately complex problems that faced it? I know in my heart that there is no member of this House but who wishes to do us justice, but has it been done? We hear day after day from the one side and the other: "We are willing, we are willing." Where, I ask, is the meeting point and where is the agreement to be ratified as between the two. Has the country got the best out of what is labour in it and what is capital in it. There was a time in this country when the captains of industry could mobilise together and insist upon their own order supporting home manufactured goods in the country.

There was a time when a pride was taken by artificers and craftsmen and workmen generally, in the quality of the work they turned out and the style and material of it. If we wish to fulfil the contention of the Minister that this is not a poor country, we will have to bring into being some better understanding between the orders of the community, and we will have to have a better realisation of our responsibilities to the other orders of the State, and to demand that uneconomic institutions and uneconomic funds such as this, must not be kept uneconomic. We have said that we cannot support industries in the country which are uneconomic. Neither can we support funds that are uneconomic. We cannot remit taxation on the one hand and fail to meet our expenses on the other. We could fund this unemployment fund at the cost of the tax on tea. We could fund it at the cost of the re-imposition of the taxation on sugar. Would it be for the benefit of the country to have that done? We must admit there are certain services which the Government may bring into being which are uneconomic. My view of many of these services is that they are uneconomic because the full benefit of the money raised is not put into the service.

This particular service costs a huge sum to administer. Can you afford this extraordinary cost? There are advantages, I admit. Employment is given to a large number of people in respect of its administration and so on, but is it sound business? And if these particular services were continued, if we cannot remit taxation that we have remitted, we must impose or re-impose some other taxation in order to meet it, and every penny collected costs money to collect and every penny sent out costs money to send out. You have to pay the cost in respect of services such as this and we are endeavouring to so regulate the manufacturer and the industry and the business of this country as to lessen the costs in the in-comings and the out-goings, so as to relieve industry from every possible tax that could be placed upon it and to expect from industry, in return, a more expert treatment of our industry and manufacture, so that we will be in the position to compete with other countries.

I do not think that on a review Deputy Johnson will adhere to his statement that some big effort must be made by the disinherited, as he calls them, that some rousing must take place. Rousing such as this, in a country such as this, has an exceedingly bad effect on the business of the community. Now, if the end in view be the rehabilitation of our industry and commercial position, is that going to effect it? Is that going to benefit it? What are the things that would benefit or improve our commercial position? And it is our commercial position that needs improvement. We must improve our commerce and our trade. Everything that has happened here in the nature of disturbances of one kind or another, has impeded business and interfered with its progress, has made it more expensive and has frightened off persons otherwise inclined to risk money. Now, what has happened in the last few months has convinced me, at any rate, that there is a much better atmosphere for business than there had been. I have, within the last few months, heard of very many more people starting to rebuild than I thought was possible two or three months before. They have started to rebuild premises that had been destroyed or injured. I have been told by those in the position to know that building activity round about the city of Dublin has been much better than for a long time. I have been informed by agriculturists that the weather of the last three or four weeks has been worth millions.

Mr. GOREY

Including the rain to-day.

The PRESIDENT

Including the rain to-day, as Deputy Gorey says. In the various parts of the country that I have been in recently, there is a better spirit and a more confident spirit. The business and employment in the country require one and the other and a more hopeful outlook, and, certainly, if there be no message of confidence and hope to be had from this, the first assembly of the nation, it is unfair to expect from the people that confidence and hope that we should infuse amongst them.

Mr. HEWAT

I think it is necessary that I should say something in this debate which has taken the form of concentrating on particular points as regards unemployment insurance. Deputy Johnson, of course, was extremely impressive in his claim for the unemployed worker who was not entitled to benefit and who had exhausted benefit under the found.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. HEWAT

I would not care to take the responsibility of minimising in any way the seriousness of the position as regards the amount of unemployment that still exists. I believe that in the gradual improvement of business the unemployment question is not as acute as it was. It is quite impossible to say that that is so as a matter of fact without a more intimate knowledge than I have of the condition of things over the country as a whole. But I deprecate Deputy Johnson's case that this whole question has not had very anxious consideration and that any section of the community is inclined to minimise the importance of the situation in connection with unemployment. The President has said, and I think rightly, that the Government have made herculean efforts to deal with the question for the period of the last two years in providing relief work and works of all sorts in which the expenditure of capital is involved. That must be more or less of a temporary nature and if it is to continue on the basis of getting loans of money to a large extent for unproductive works it is thereby going to be a burden and an increasing burden upon the people contributing towards the resources of the State and also towards this very question of dealing with unemployment. Deputy Johnson says that every man in the community must be provided with work or, if work is not available, with sustenance. That means the dole. I wonder if Deputy Johnson would be prepared to carry that out to its logical conclusion. In no State that I have ever heard of— perhaps such a State is to come into existence—has everyone of the population been at work at the one time. The provision by the State of work for everybody would mean that at every period in the career of a man the State would have to enter and would have a claim on him for the services which they required at a remuneration to be fixed. That is a very large question, and I do not think that we have yet arrived at that situation. I think the President was inclined to throw a responsibility on employers which, as far as I am concerned, I am not willing to repudiate. It may be, and I am quite prepared to admit it, that in the peculiar state of affairs that existed over a considerable period in Ireland as a whole confidence has not been engendered generally in a commercial sense regarding the investment of money in the interests of the country. Various considerations arise in that connection, and it may be that blame would have to be apportioned not in one but in various directions.

In so far as blame attaches to the want of enterprise by business men or the want of confidence in the development of industry I have no hesitation in saying that this should be swept away and that the commercial community as a whole should do its part. Also I say that Labour has a responsibility. I do not place the responsibility altogether on Labour, any more than I would wish to place it altogether on the commercial community. Possibly the viewpoint of Labour in the past has not been as broad or as intelligent as one would wish, and I am quite willing to admit in connection with the employers that from time to time advantage may have been taken of situations which ought not to have been taken. Deputy Johnson's appeal to-night appears to me to be of so serious a nature that I think no stone should be left unturned either by business men or by Labour to try to get over the difficulties of the situation, as far as they and we can contribute towards an improvement. I hope I am speaking in this connection for the people whom I am supposed to represent. I hope the time is coming when there will be less suspicion between different parties and different people in the country, and that men will arrive, even through tribulation, at an outlook when we will be proud to join forces in an effort to raise the country as a whole out of the morass in which it has been plunged by things with which many of us have had very little to do.

Deputy Johnson has stressed the social aspect of the question. One must remember that the old intimate relations between employers and employed has been largely done away with because of the social legislation that has been adopted by this House, in continuation of a policy of social improvement that has been adopted on the other side of the water. In any business to-day the burden of taxation on the employer arising out of social legislation is heavier than most of us realise. The different legislation— all good, no doubt, this very unemployment contribution, the various contributions that employers are compelled by Acts of Parliament to make in connection with old age pensions and other things—contradicts Deputy Johnson's theory that nothing has been done and that we are not interested in the welfare of the people. An immense amount of social legislation has been passed within recent years for the amelioration of the people who needed it most. The problem of unemployment to-day can be exaggerated. I do not mean to say that it is any comfort to the man who is unemployed to tell him that people are worse off elsewhere. I do not say, looking at it from the narrow point of view, that we are suffering more from unemployment than any other country in Europe or that even we are suffering to the extent they are on the other side of the border, but if that is so the position is not made more helpful for other people. It is not as bad on people here as a whole as it is on the people throughout the whole of Europe and probably throughout the whole world, but it is a very big problem and it is one which we have to face.

I do not say for one moment that we have not all to bear our share of responsibility in the matter, and we must all do what we can to minimise it, but I think it is useless for Deputy Johnson to insinuate that the way to relieve the situation is for men to take action such as he indicates. Believe me, no action of that sort will help the problem; it will largely accentuate it. The problem of the revival of industry must always depend on the confidence of the people in the administration of the country, and that confidence must be there before they will be prepared to spread out in various directions and to start new industries. We all know that there is a great deal of money in our banks. People who have money are disinclined to invest it in industries here, and why should they not be? We all know the experiences of men and women who have done so in the past. Do not blame them, I beg of you, if to-day they keep the experiences of the past in mind when the question of the development of industry comes before them in a new form.

Mr. CORISH

I am rather at a disadvantage in speaking, as I was not here in time to hear the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. At the same time, I have heard sufficient of the debate to know that the Government have not the intention further to extend unemployment benefit. Like Deputy Johnson, I think I occupy a rather responsible position, and I have counselled patience in my constituency for some considerable time. I represent a constituency that has been hit very hard by the slump in agriculture. I recognise, as well as everybody else, that agriculture is the staple industry in this country, and that when there is a slump in agriculture the whole country feels it. The constituency I represent is in the unhappy position of being at the moment the worst off part of the Free State. In Wexford town there are three factories engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements. Prior to the bad times this country is going through, those factories were responsible for the employment of about one thousand men; to-day they hardly employ three hundred. That is due to a great extent to the slump in agriculture, but it is also due to the fact that the farmers in this country are not supporting Irish manufacture. Day after day we see huge consignments of foreign machinery being dumped into various ports. The President has said that we seem to have forgotten the cry, "Support Irish manufacture." Personally, I think to a great extent, we have. I do not think there is any excuse for the farmers in this country not supporting the home-made article. I am given to understand it is equally good and efficient; it is as cheap, and, I think, in the interests of the whole country, the farmers ought to make an endeavour to purchase it.

The President has spoken rather heatedly in answer to Deputy Johnson. I think Deputy Johnson, in this House, has shown, time after time, that he has recognised his responsibility and has recognised that he is leading a Party that are directly responsible to people whose nerves, so to speak, have been at a very high pitch for some considerable time past. He and all of us here have counselled patience. As I said here before, the unemployed are a serious menace to the State. They are susceptible to the influences of people who have other fish to fry. They are susceptible to the influence of people who would exploit the unemployed in the interests of their own particular policy, and I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce ought seriously to reconsider the situation that at present prevails and the situation that will prevail in the country to-morrow morning when his statement is read. At present, I think it would be correct to say that practically everybody in the State are out of benefit The period of ninety days started in March and it will be spent on the 7th July. I think I would be correct in saying that under the present Unemployment Insurance Act those people would not be entitled to benefit until some time in October. This is a very serious state of affairs.

The President talks of an undeveloped country. Deputy Mulcahy says that when we took over the Government of this country, we took over the interests of the country in a broken state with a great many blanks to be filled in. That is perfectly true. We know that the British Government never tried to develop this country in the interests of the people in the country. We know they sent over syndicates to buy up any industry that made an effort to develop itself. That is all the more reason why the Government should, at this stage, do something for the unfortunate unemployed.

The President stated he is tired listening to pious platitudes about the employing side and the labour side meeting and agreeing on some definite policy which would enable the country to be developed properly. I do not think the President ought to get tired because I think it is the President's duty or the duty of some one of his Government to come forward and get the two sides together. It is not for one side to make overtures to the other. It is for the responsible Government of the country to provide that meeting.

Deputy Mulcahy informs us that the various urban councils and county councils are meeting to-day and he expects great things from those councils. He says they, in their own particular areas and way, can do a great deal to relieve unemployment, but a few moments before he confessed that it was almost impossible for the Government to do anything in this connection. If it is impossible for the Government to do anything, I do not think we can expect very much from the county councils. The power of the county councils and urban councils in the State is very limited, and I think if that is the only thing we have to depend on, the unemployed will still have to remain hungry. As I said the last time I spoke here, I wonder does the Government realise the actual situation that prevails. All over the country to-day councils of the unemployed have been formed. Where they have been formed in the areas which we represent, we have counselled patience because we consider that no Government could close its ears to the appeals made by people who are absolutely starving all over the country. I believe that between July and October, when people begin to feel the pangs of hunger, worse than they are feeling them now, the Government will have to do something very quickly to keep people from dying absolutely from starvation. The position is certainly a terrible one. I would invite Ministers to go to their own constituencies and find out the actual situation for themselves. I believe if they approached it from a humane point of view they would be forced to come back and introduce legislation to meet it.

To my mind a slight amendment in the Insurance Act (No. 2) of last year would relieve a great number of persons. Section 84 of that Act debars a great many honest working men from getting benefit. Take a man who was constantly engaged in an insurable occupation from 1912 to 1920 or 1921, and who got his employment card stamped continuously. If that man has not twelve stamps to his credit during the last insurance year, he is debarred from getting insurance. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. There are men who have been engaged continuously in a particular industry for eight or nine years, and because they cannot fulfil one requirement they are put aside as people who are not willing to work.

Deputy Johnson has given a really true reflex of the situation. I do not think the Government can afford to ignore the appeal he has made. As to the President's suggestion that Deputy Johnson's speech was a condemnation of the Government, I do not think it ought to be taken in that spirit. Deputy Johnson was merely dealing with one aspect of the situation. So far as our Party are concerned, we have never entered into wholesale condemnation of the Government. Many of us, at any rate, have given the Government full credit for what they have done. We recognise that the present Government came into power as the result of a revolution, had to deal with a wholly undeveloped country, and that they were faced with civil war immediately they took up the reins of Government. At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are people starving to-day who helped the present Government to get into power. Many a young man is disqualified from insurance benefit because he had been on the run for some years. The Government ought to pay attention to the appeals of such men. They may be wanted again. Even the National Army man, who we are told should get first preference for employment, is also thrown aside. His time is spent, the Government are finished with him. He merely got one period of benefit just to get him over the Christmas season.

The Government ought seriously to reconsider the situation. I understand that a certain amount of money is to be devoted to relief work. I have no objection to that. Personally, I prefer that men should be put to work rather than that they should receive what is called the dole. But is that money sufficient to relieve the unemployment that prevails? The Government should take their courage in their hands and raise sufficient money to put a great proportion, at any rate, of the unemployed at work. While that money is being spent, the President can come forward with his proposals and invite those who are in a position to speak for the employers and for labour to come together and find out what is really wrong, and, if it is possible, to remedy it. So far as my Party are concerned, we are prepared to extend the hand of co-operation to anybody who wishes to develop the country. It is in the interests of all classes that the country should be developed. This is not a matter for Party bickering, or for one Party trying to score off the other. I do not think that anybody who speaks from these benches will endeavour to do that. We recognise the seriousness of the situation and we know from first-hand knowledge what the actual position is. We only hope that the Government will do something in order to save its own life and the life of the nation.

Mr. HALL

We have been treated to a great deal of window-dressing as to what freedom has brought to this country and to its people. We have been told that many things have been done for the people by the present Government, but we have not been told what has been done for the unemployed. On last Friday I had the unpleasant experience of meeting three ex-members of the National Army— two ex-Lieutenants and an ex-Sergeant. They were wearing overcoats and had no other clothing but their pants. All the rest of their clothing had been pawned. These men held good positions prior to enlistment in the National Army and they are now thrown on the scrap-heap by the Government. Appeals were made on their behalf to the Resettlement Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but all that was received in reply was an acknowledgment. These cases are typical of many others. They lost good positions through joining the National Army to defend the State and to keep the present Government in office. When the civil war ceased, their services were no longer required and they were thrown on the scrap-heap, without any gratuity or any means of livelihood being provided for them and their families. There is no use talking of what freedom has brought to the people of the country. It has brought nothing.

Yesterday when speaking in Enniscorthy the President said that if there are citizens who are not going to do their duty by the State and who say that they have no confidence in the State, then this country will get on without their confidence. How could 150,000 men who have been unemployed for nearly two years have confidence in a State which has not come to their aid? It is an impossibility. There is a limit to human endurance. How can men of that type who have to look at their wives and children starving and without clothing, their homes without furniture, have confidence in a State that has not endeavoured to do anything for them?

I presume the President, when speaking at Enniscorthy, made the statement I have quoted in reference to a certain political party in this country.

I think he might very well couple with the political party he was hitting 150,000 unemployed whose patience is coming to an end. We have been told about the political freedom we have gained. What is political emancipation to the people without social emancipation? Where does the question of social emancipation come in with the present administration? The people who are looking to social emancipation are the working classes, who for centuries have been the victims of a rotten system. That class has always been neglected. Legislation has been introduced here giving benefits to all classes in the State, except the working classes. The working classes have not shared in any of these benefits. Yet we are told that we have secured political emancipation. I defy any Minister to get up and say that that class has secured social emancipation. They have not. If I could only voice the feelings of the unemployed workers, and those who want work in the country, in order to let the Minister know what many of them have been saying about the present Government, he would not say that Deputy Johnson has overstated the case. The Minister would agree on the whole that the unemployed are "fed up" during the last twelve months waiting on the Government to relieve the deplorable situation in which they find themselves.

About a fortnight ago I met a man in Navan who at one time held the responsible position of a Commandant in the National Army. He was disbanded some time ago and sent home penniless to his wife and family. He has remained penniless ever since and has not been able to find any employment. That man went to the different Departments in Dublin, and he was told that his application would receive favourable consideration.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. HALL

That consideration has not resulted in anything. I do not know by what means that man is eking out a living for himself and his family. He has got no employment, and I am certain he is not getting charity. The unemployed, from what I know of them, want no State charity in the form of a dole, if they can get employment. Many of the unemployed have been speaking to me, and their idea is that the Government should endeavour to develop the industrial resources of the country immediately, and should subsidise that development by the money they are handing out as a dole, so that people who are willing and able to work might be employed. Deputy Mulcahy stated that the new county councils will be in a position to investigate the conditions of employment in their areas. Is not that a very childish suggestion? Is the Deputy not aware of the fact that in the past county councils have never attempted to do that, and that the majority of the present county councils, who are antagonistic to working-class interests, will not consider what could be done for the unemployed so that those who are looking for work might get it. We cannot expect anything from them, and it is foolish of Deputy Mulcahy to think otherwise. The Deputy stated that Deputy Johnson did not put up proposals that would solve the unemployment problem. Does Deputy Mulcahy think that if Deputy Johnson put up a solution of the problem the Government would accept it? Certainly not. No matter what is suggested from the Labour Benches, whether a Bill or a motion, it is not accepted by the Ministry. Nothing that Deputies on these Benches endeavour to have done for the unemployed is agreed to by the present Government.

There is nothing like being frank. There is no use in getting up and saying that we are passing through a transition period, and are endeavouring to develop the industrial resources of the country. In the meantime, what are 150,000 of the unemployed to do while awaiting the development that the President and other Deputies spoke of? I would say that 100,000 of the 150,000 unemployed are men who gave some service to Ireland, and the Government are now reaping the benefits of that service. The majority of the unemployed are at the workhouse gates. They are styled able-bodied men able to work by the Minister for Local Government or his inspectors, and, accordingly, are not allowed into these institutions. At the same time the landlord is demanding his rent from men who are not able to procure the necessaries of life for themselves and their families. That is the way our people have been treated since this Government came into office. Heretofore there were workhouses into which the people might go. I may say that the respectable working-classes in this country would not lower or degrade themselves to the extent of entering the present slum institutions known as County Homes.

The President talked about the Budget, and talked glibly. What have the benefits given by the Budget to do with the unemployed if they have not the cash to purchase sugar, tea and the other commodities affected by the Budget? Will 150,000 people be allowed to starve? People have made sacrifices for political reasons and for the cause of political freedom in this country. Are 150,000 people to be allowed to die while awaiting the industrial development of the country? Is it a safe or a sound proposal to let 150,000 people, making with their wives and families probably 500,000, starve in order that others may live?

I do not think one constructive argument has been put up against the case made by Deputy Johnson to-night. Deputy Johnson has not overstated the case. The Government is quite well aware of the state of things, and they have every reason to take heed of the remarks made by Deputy Johnson, because he has been responsible for keeping very many of our working-class people—or "would-be workers," as I styled them before—from violent action in the past. Every man has a right to acquire the means wherewith to live. I say that if the Government does not take immediate action to see that the means wherewith to live are afforded every individual in the State, the unemployed workers are fools if they do not act on that policy—establishing their right to acquire the means wherewith to live, no matter by what means they get it.

Mr. EVERETT

I would like to support Deputy Johnson in his appeal for extension of unemployment insurance. I disagree with Deputy Hall when he refers to county homes as "slum institutions." In my constituency the county home is governed by a religious order—the Sisters of Charity—and it is a home where the aged or infirm could remain all their lives. They rest there in their old age, and if the institutions in Deputy Hall's area are of the slum kind, as he says, it is up to him and his colleagues to improve that condition of affairs. We have, on several occasions here, addressed appeals to the Government to extend unemployment insurance to the people deprived under the Act from receiving benefit. We have also, by resolution from public boards, put up schemes to the Minister for Local Government and to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for giving employment to the people or for the giving of grants to the public boards to provide employment. In Bri Chualainn, we have 700 unemployed workers. Out of the 700, there are 245 drawing the dole, the remaining 455 not being entitled to it. These 455 are men with large families. In Arklow there are 500 unemployed. Two hundred of these are drawing the dole and 300 are not entitled to benefit. In Wicklow there are 400 unemployed. 186 are drawing the dole, and 214 are registered but not entitled to benefit. In the rural areas there are, as I have stated—it has not been contradicted— over 2,000 unemployed men receiving no donation. The County Board of Health passed a sum of over £900 to relieve distress amongst the unemployed people, for the four weeks ending April. The allowance they gave was 5s. per family. A man with five or six children was given 5s. emergency help to provide himself with bread and tea and prevent himself and his family dying with hunger.

The Minister gets up now and says that it is not the intention of the Government to do anything for the unemployed people. We ask him then, what is the position of affairs? The President stated that he understood the Budget would be of some benefit to the people. If has been of benefit to the people who have the money. The capitalists have benefited by reduction in the income tax, but we in County Wicklow have received very little benefit. Only those who are able to purchase the necessaries of life, such as tea and sugar, can get the advantage of the reduction. In our constituency we have three flour mills. The millers are on three-quarter time owing to the importation of foreign flour. The foreign flour represents a surplus, which is sent to Ireland and sold at a lesser price than is charged in England, simply because it is a surplus. Again, we have the ratepayers' money going to provide the South of Ireland Asphalt Company with contracts for various public boards in the county. We find that foreign barrels are used by this company simply because they can be procured at 1s. per barrel less than they can be procured in Ireland. Foreign cement is also used by them and the money of the Irish ratepayers, as well as the money of the taxpayers, is going to support these contractors who, in their turn, are using the money to support English and foreign manufacturers. This is within the knowledge of the Local Government Department. The Minister for Local Government is quite well aware of the facts, but simply because their tender is the lowest, although they are Englishmen, it is accepted. The result is that our carpenters and manufacturers of barrels are idle.

The rural workers are unemployed owing to the absence of tillage in our area. I agree with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the statement he made that unless we change our methods from the bullock and the grass business to a system of tillage, producing employment, there is very little outlook for our country. The Minister was quite justified in that statement, because we have in our country to-day less tillage than we had some time ago, and we have the man and the dog taking the place of the men who should be employed on the land. I agree with Deputy Wilson that there is a good prospect for the farmer. But, at the same time, he has taken advantage of the unemployment. He is taking advantage of distress amongst the workers to get his pound of flesh. He is offering a small wage, and, because they are unemployed and hungry, the men must accept it. This is the stuff Deputy Gorey may not relish. Again, the patriotic farmers, led by Deputy Gorey, are purchasers of the foreign manures. We have the foreign manures imported, simply because they are a few pence less than the Irish-made manures. The result of the farmers purchasing foreign manures and fertilising materials, is that the Irish manufacturers have to put their men on short time, owing to the smallness of the demand. I hold that the Government should help the manufacturers of fertilisers, and also the millers, by putting a tariff on foreign manures and foreign flour coming to Irish ports. We have, in a small way, increased our price for discharging foreign manures, to try and prevent the Irish farmers from purchasing those manures for the sake of the few pence difference in the charge between them and for the Irish-made stuff.

It is the duty of the Government to provide either work or food for the people. We hear a lot about co-operation even from our Labour Benches. We hear of good-will between workers and employers. Where is the good-will? The employees have to accept every reduction that an employer may make, or starve. That is the only good-will that I have found. We have men using the position of the unemployed men at the present time to work against those who are working according to the Constitution of the State. I have criticised the Government—and justly so—in many ways. But I have given them credit in other directions. We have the Departments pestered day after day looking for grants for relief of distress. But we should not have to go making appeals to the Government merely to relieve distress. It is their duty. We recognise that they had their difficulties. They had more difficulties than any Government had to face in the last two or three years. They have faced them successfully. We ask them now to face this bigger difficulty, because this unemployment problem, to my mind, will be more serious than the civil war. You have provided millions for the Shannon scheme, and millions to compensate people for the destruction of their property. You have also agreed, through the Minister for Finance, to waive the clause regarding rebuilding of mansions for which compensation was given at a time when rebuilding would have given employment. Ministers can find money for 15,000 of an Army and 10,000 of a Civic Guard. Perhaps the least I say about these gentlemen the better for myself. You have found money for the Army, for the Civic Guard and for compensation. We appeal to the Government in this matter, not that I agree with the remark Deputy Johnson made in another place. I would rather what I suggested here some time ago—even though you may adjourn in a few days—obstruct every Government measure that comes along here and force them, by public opinion, to do something for the unemployed.

Mr. DAVIN

That is the right way to do it.

Mr. EVERETT

I do not agree that we should leave the House, not that I think that I might not do better work outside, but I do hold that if we get the support of other Labour Deputies, we may not leave the House voluntarily, but leave it when forced by the order of the Speaker with the help of the Guard. It is up to us that something should be done, not mere resignations —resign from constitutional action in the House and take up unconstitutional action. The Government then will probably realise that they must bring in the measure, because there will be bigger trouble outside the House than there will be inside with a few members. Of course, the Government represent a certain class; they do not represent the poorer class in Ireland. On their Benches you have shopkeepers, capitalists, and others whose one ambition is to get the workers back to the condition they were in ten or twelve years ago—a state of slavery. They will tie up their money like Deputy Gorey, and put it in other directions in a form which we do not approve of, and which, perhaps, the Minister for Justice does not approve of. We want the money, instead of being used in that direction to be used in the interests of the starving people. These people have not the time of enjoyment that the leaders of the Farmers' Party have. They have not the cash. If they had, it would go towards providing meals for their starving children. I have made up my mind, and probably will have a few others with me. I say that as constitutional action has failed here, as our appeals have met with no response, even if we were to meet to-morrow, we will refuse support. Probably, as I said before, a scene in some direction will have to be adopted to bring the Government to realise the duty they owe to the unemployed.

Mr. DAVIN

You are giving the game away.

Mr. EVERETT

We may be giving the game away, but we are giving them notice, and probably by the morning they will have repented of their action, and they may come in in a better frame of mind. If not, I agree with Deputy Johnson that it is useless to be here making appeals on behalf of the unemployed. We have heard a lot of talk about the League of Nations. That is of no concern to the poor, starving workers. What we want is work for the people. As you have deprived them of home help, and as you have deprived them of donations, we will have to take the matter in our own hands and force the unemployed to take control—even in spite of your armies, in spite of your Civic Guards—and to work Ireland in the interests of the Irish working-class.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I wish to support the appeals that have been made for an extension of the unemployment benefit. The city workers, I am sorry to say, are in a much more serious plight than the country workers.

Mr. EVERETT

I doubt that.

Mr. A. BYRNE

At the present moment in the city of Dublin we have most of our factories working halftime, factories that deserve better support from the people than they are getting. Quite recently the Lady Deputy of this House and I were invited to inspect one of the principal factories in the city of Dublin. We found there magnificent machinery capable of supplying all Ireland with its demands for twelve months. We found that the workers were working four mornings a week. It is largely owing to the dumping of foreign articles that these Dublin city workers are now only drawing two or three days' pay weekly. I think these industries deserve more from the Government than the treatment which has been meted out to them in the past. I refer to Paterson's Match Factory. Paterson's Match Factory pays very heavy sums by way of excise duty on their matches to the Government. They are exactly on a level with the German goods and the Italian goods that come in. They get no preferential rates for providing employment for many hundreds of girls and workmen. I think it is not right to wait until an industry has collapsed altogether or practically collapsed, or to wait until the Government gets an appeal from them under the Trades Facilities Act, to consider giving them fair treatment and encouragement to keep the industry going.

I will pass away from that point. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has made any progress following on the promises he made some time ago to inquire into the question of reciprocal arrangements for insurance benefit between Northern Ireland and the Free State and the British Government and the Irish Government. We have on the border at the present moment many men who are engaged in industries just over the border. They are living on our side of the border and the moment they become disemployed, they find they cannot get any unemployment benefit. I refer to the Belleek Pottery workers. The case of these men was mentioned in this House by various Deputies, both on the opposite benches and on these benches, and they were promised consideration. I am aware that for many weeks, and in some cases for many months, the men engaged in the Belleek Pottery Works are going about hungry, getting benefits neither from the Northern Government nor from the Free State Government, although their cards were stamped regularly. I am also aware that sailors and firemen engaged at Irish ports on shipping registered in England, have been deprived of benefits when discharged at the home port.

I hope the Minister will consider those cases. I would ask him also to direct his energies towards providing employment for at least five or six hundred men within the next twelve months by urging the powers that be to grant a concession to a company anxious to restart the Lucan tramway service and the Lucan electric lighting service. The people in Lucan are at this hour obliged to have their homes lighted with ordinary penny dip candles. There is neither electric light nor gas. In some houses they are even without a water supply. An apparently reasonable offer has been made by a company in Dublin. If they get a concession from the Dublin Commissioners they are prepared, without putting the Government to the cost of one penny, to restart this very valuable work. If it were restarted it would re-employ at least sixty men who were formerly employed by the Dublin and Lucan Tramway Company. As well as that, it would mean the employment of five or six hundred workers. I take this opportunity of making reference to the Lucan tramway and the electric lighting of Lucan; the motion which I handed in for discussion on Friday cannot be moved because the wording of it has not been found acceptable by the Ceann Comhairle. As far as I can see, it would be very difficult to find words for a motion that would enable this matter of the Lucan tramway to be discussed and to be considered by the Government.

Mr. CORISH

Get on the Government Benches.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy has succeeded in introducing it now.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

He got it in, all the same.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The question of unemployment was raised and I contend that this is a very valuable reproductive work. It must at least give work to four or five hundred men on the Lucan road for twelve months, and men who were formerly employed on that service can re-commence work if the concession is given by the Commissioners of Dublin. I hope the Minister will not forget to state what arrangements he has made on the question of reciprocity for unemployed men on the border and in connection with Dublin port work.

Progress ordered to be reported.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 30 Jun 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE NO. 51—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1925