Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1925

Vol. 13 No. 20

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. LYONS

I move:

"That owing to the large number of citizens of the Saorstát who are suffering acute distress through the want of employment, the Dáil is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken by the Government to introduce legislation to subsidise existing industries and to enable grants to be made to Public Authorities of amounts equal to that which they are or may be authorised to borrow for the relief of unemployment."

This motion has been on the Paper for the past fortnight, and I am sure every Deputy knows its terms very well. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance is not here to tell us what amount of money the Government is prepared to give for the relief of the unemployed in the country. There is something over 80,000 registered unemployed in the twenty-six counties. We have had relief grants in the last year to the amount of £250,000. This year a very large number of the unemployed who were in receipt of unemployment benefit are now without benefit. Their families are suffering, there is acute distress in practically every worker's home in the two counties I represent, namely, Westmeath and Longford, and the same applies to every county. The amount of home help given in these two counties in the past year amounted to £12,500. In Westmeath alone £9,000 of the ratepayers' money had to be given for the relief of distress, while £3,500 was given in Longford. If the Government are really sincere in trying to relieve the citizens in general, surely they will do what is asked in this motion. Many industries at the present time are practically ruined, and a huge amount of money would be needed to subsidise them. A vote similar to that for the Shannon scheme would probably be needed. The bad state of these industries is not due to bad management but to the after-effects of the Great War and of our own civil war. The woollen industry gave employment to practically one-third of the population of the Saorstát. That industry has failed. In the town of Athlone, where 800 people had been employed in that industry, 300 people are now employed on alternate days. Some few days ago in Cork the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs lamented the ruin of the woollen industry and favoured tariffs on woollen goods coming into the country. At first he said he thought that tariffs were not profitable to the State, but that since their introduction he was satisfied that they did good for the country and gave employment, and he promised that he would try to get the Government to protect industries. Deputies who make these statements to their constituents and who are supporters of the Government have an opportunity now on this motion of putting forward their views, and I sincerely hope that they will do so. You have hundreds of small flour mills in the country that are barely existing; where 15 or 16 people had been employed in one of these small mills you have now one miller who acts as ploughman, gardener, and miller.

The Government, I think, have taken advantage of this motion. It has been on the Paper for a fortnight, and now they ask us to agree to the introduction of a supplementary estimate for relief schemes. We were not asked to agree to that a fortnight ago. The Minister for Finance got Deputy Sears to ask a question yesterday, and the reply was that the Dáil would be asked to vote a supplementary estimate. Whether the Government cares or not, I claim the benefit of having this motion introduced by the Minister for Finance. It would be too much, of course, to tell us what the total amount will be. I hope it will be at least half the amount that will be saved through the Agreement and through the deletion of Article V. of the Treaty, and if that amount is so huge as we are told, then I say that the workers of the Saorstát will have a very happy Christmas. I do not expect that the Government will do anything that I would wish them to do on this motion. I do not expect that they will float a loan for the purpose of subsidising industries, but I want it to be made clear that by subsidising existing industries you would be giving employment to a very large number of people. The unemployed at the present moment, I regret to say, are like a lot of unfortunates looking for alms from the Labour Exchange. They do not want that. They want employment. I do not expect that there is a worker's home in the twenty-six counties where there will be a turkey for the Christmas dinner. I know of a case where there are seven children in a house; five of them are of school age, and they have not gone to school for the past three months, or to their religious duties on Sundays, for the want of food and clothes. The father of these children applied to the Labour Exchange, and he was told that there was nothing for him. There are hundreds of similar cases in Westmeath and Longford, and I am sure there are thousands of them in the Saorstát. These people are living in deplorable conditions for the want of employment. They are decent, respectable people, but they are driven at the present moment to a state of absolute destitution.

Let Deputies visit those people and let them see the want that prevails in those houses. If they do that, and refuse to support this motion, then I say that their hearts are harder than the heart of the hard-hearted man. You have thousands of people in the city who are to-night going to bed without their suppers. I have this motion on the paper for a fortnight, and I think I should propose a vote of thanks to the Government for allowing me to proceed with it to-night. The milling industry has practically gone, leaving thousands of our people unemployed. In the creamery industry many people are unemployed. I wonder would the Minister for Industry and Commerce be able to give us the figures of unemployment in connection with the creameries for the past twelve months. They are not able to carry on for want of funds.

We have introduced a Trade Loans Act, but the interest on loans under that Act are as a millstone about the neck of any firm. At six per cent., some firms are paying, by way of interest on their loans under this Act, £2,300. How could these people give employment? Under the Act, a firm will not get a loan even at 6 per cent. except for the purpose of purchasing machinery. I wonder will the machinery purchased be something like the automatic bottle-making machine purchased by the Ringsend firm. I leave that question to the Dublin Deputies, who will be able to prove to the Government that the installation of such machinery does not mean the relief of unemployment but tends to add to unemployment. The same thing applies to big firms in the country districts. They can get a loan for the purpose of installing machinery but not for the purpose of developing their industries in other ways, which would give greater employment. The loan is not given to pay wages. The Government must do something very quickly to protect the few industries we have. It is not a question of money. When the Government, some time ago, issued a loan of £10,000,000 they had to refuse and refund money. It was over subscribed. Could money be devoted to a better purpose than the creation of industries and the diminution of unemployment? I do not want to say anything about the Northern Government. There is a lot of unemployment in the North, but they are giving a great deal more money for the relief of distress there than is being given in the Saorstát. As a people, they may be more generous there. I hope when the debate on this motion is concluding that the President and the Minister for Finance will be here, if possible. I want to see if the Government are really serious so far as the interests of these people are concerned. They can prove that by giving some little subsidies to Irish industries. The places of the Farmers' Party are vacant here at present. At the moment they are only a furniture party, but I do not see why they should not support this motion. It would apply to many industries which they are interested in, and I think the least they could do would be to try and get some relief for the people who are trying to carry on those industries. We do not want charity. I am not looking for charity for any individual. I am looking for employment for those people. I want the Government to do something immediately to give employment.

The Government have started a Shannon scheme and they guaranteed 3,000 men employment for three years. Three thousand men could be got in one county alone. There are over 3,000 men unemployed in Longford-Westmeath. There are, I am sure, 14,000 or 15,000 ex-Servicemen unemployed. Those men are not entitled to benefit from the Labour Exchange, and their families are suffering. Ex-Captains of the National Army are quite prepared to take a hammer and go out and break stones, in order to keep body and soul together, but they cannot get even that employment. I wonder when many of those men were wounded and in hospital, and when arrangements were being made to give ex-Servicemen preference in regard to certain positions, was the fact that they were in hospital at the time taken into account, and will marks be awarded in order to put them on equality with men who were studying outside at that time? Day after day, the number of unemployed is increasing. The tariff on boots was instrumental in giving employment to 2,000 people extra. If you cannot subsidise industries, why not put a tariff on every manufactured article that comes into the country? Why not put it on woollen materials? To-day, there is a question of establishing a tribunal to deal with the cost of living. What better way could the Government deal with the cost of living than by giving employment to the workers and having the output increased. Goods could then be manufactured more cheaply. Every man, woman and child in the Saorstát is taxed to the extent of about £12 per head. What are we getting for it?

Mr. EVERETT

The Shannon scheme.

Mr. LYONS

The Shannon scheme and eye-wash. The Shannon scheme may be a good scheme. I have no doubt it will be the means of creating industry by providing cheap power. But at present we want something to relieve immediate distress. The Government have to-day introduced a supplementary estimate for relief schemes. Let us have something decent under this supplementary estimate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

How much?

Mr. LYONS

£3,000,000 or £4,000,000.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Why not make it £5,000,000?

Mr. LYONS

One thing I do want is, to get some relief for the unemployed for Christmas. If you cannot give them employment immediately, then every man who is unemployed, and ineligible for drawing benefit at the Labour Exchange, should get £1 or £1 10s. to bring home at Christmas. That would convince the workers of the Saorstát that even if the employing class do not recognise that they are Christians, the Government does and is not going to see them hungry for Christmas. You have thousands of people in this country who have locked up in the bank large sums of money, earned by the sweat of labour. But when the call came in 1921 for thousands of young men to don the uniform of the National Army and save the property of this country, who responded? The young men who saved the wealth of the nation then were heroes, but now they are not recognised. Why should not the Government, without paying one penny from the exchequer, not make an appeal to the wealthy class of the community for a loan for the purpose of relieving distress amongst unemployed?

I come now to the portion of my motion which deals with grants to public authorities equal in amount to those which they may be authorised to borrow for relief of unemployment. This would not mean new legislation. In past years the British Government gave grants to the extent of 50 per cent., or a sum equivalent to the sum which a local authority was prepared to borrow for the purpose of relieving distress. If a council is prepared to borrow £10,000 or £20,000 to relieve distress, surely it is not too much to ask the Government to give an equal amount? That money will come back on the double in a few years time to the district in which it is spent. This money could be spent on such work as road-making and bridge-building, which would be of benefit to the various districts. I am not asking something for nothing. I am asking the Government to give some assurance that they are prepared to subsidise existing industry by giving grants in aid so that they may be able to give more employment, and I also ask them to give to local authorities amounts equivalent to those which they are prepared to borrow.

Mr. DALY

I beg to second the motion which has been so ably proposed by Deputy Lyons. He has explored every avenue left to him for the purpose of relieving unemployment, but I think that the wind was taken out of his sails by the Supplementary Estimate which was proposed this evening. In my district there are four or five large mills which used to give employment to hundreds of men, but now they are working on half time. If there was a tax on manufactured flour which is imported, and if wheat were allowed in free, it might have the desired effect of getting these mills working again on full time. It is much easier to put a tax on such a commodity than to get a subsidy from the Minister for Finance. I think he ought to be willing to do so in view of the success of the tariff put on in regard to goods. That tariff has proved a great success in Cork. I would like also to see the Minister for Finance reduce the price of stout.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

That does not come within the terms of the resolution.

Mr. DALY

It would help to reduce unemployment. There is another way of helping employment, and in this regard I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture here. The agricultural grant is given indiscriminately to men with 500 and 600 acres who do not till a sod of it. That is, in fact, subsidising idleness. It is subsidising a man and a dog in a field. If that grant were given as a subsidy to those who till the land it would relieve unemployment.

Mr. SEAMUS MURPHY

took the Chair.

Mr. CORISH

I would like to say that I am in perfect sympathy with what I consider to be the underlying object of this proposal, but I am rather doubtful as to the wisdom of passing this resolution in its present form. Deputy Lyons asks the Government to bring forward legislation to enable grants to be made to public authorities of amounts equal to those which they can borrow for relieving unemployment. That, in my opinion, provides a loophole to the Government to get out of giving grants to local authorities. Anyone acquainted with the conditions prevailing in the Saorstát to-day will know the difficulties experienced by local authorities with the banks in raising loans. I doubt, in fact, if 5 per cent. of the local authorities could get a loan to carry out relief works and, if this resolution is passed, the Government will only be called on to provide grants to any local authority which is lucky enough to induce a bank to give it a loan. I am not criticising Deputy Lyons, but I think that he, on reconsideration, will see the difficulty created in that connection and I believe that the Government would be delighted to pass that particular part of the resolution. So far as the other portion of the resolution is concerned, in which Deputy Lyons asks the Government to subsidise the industries of the country, I do not agree with it. I do not believe that any subsidy which the Government could give to any industry would be sufficient to put that industry on its feet. I believe that the only subsidy which will do any good to industry is a full measure of protection.

I am in a position to speak for my constituency in which there are three agricultural implement manufacturers who up to three years ago employed 1,000 men, whereas to-day only 300 are employed. The proprietors and men have sent up joint applications repeatedly within the last two or three years asking for protection. They have assured the Ministry that their machinery is just as good as the imported type, and that it will be sold at the same price, but the Ministry have refused up to now to afford protection to that industry. I think that subsidies will only be a temporary palliative and they will not serve the purpose which Deputy Lyons hopes they will. As I have said, I am in sympathy with the object underlying the motion, and were it not for the fact that the Minister for Finance has carried the First Reading of the Supplementary Estimate-to-day I would have more to say on the subject, but I prefer to reserve my remarks on unemployment until to-morrow, when that Estimate will receive a Second Reading. I hope that this resolution will not be passed in its present form, but I hope that the Ministry will take cognisance of what Deputy Lyons has said about unemployment.

Mr. A. BYRNE

This motion gives me the opportunity of drawing attention to the unemployed in the City of Dublin. Almost daily we have processions of the unemployed in the various trades, men who are willing to work if they get the chance. One of the largest processions I saw of the unemployed in Dublin was composed of members of an old-established industry—that is, the coachbuilding. The coachbuilders at present, I think, have not more than 33 per cent. of their members working. Of the rest some get casual employment, but a large number get no employment. Some time ago I raised here a question as to the possibility of the Government allowing into this country, free of charge, motor car chassis so that the bodies could be made in Ireland, and so give much-needed employment. Coachbuilders are also very seriously affected owing to the action of our controlled railway company, who, in spite of promises given some time ago in this House that they would not import any more foreign waggons or engines, have been, as we noticed recently, importing large quantities of material for use on Irish railways. The excuse was given from the Government Benches that it was a question of space, that they were not able to find space for all these men, the boilermakers, coachbuilders, and so on. That statement was made, that it was merely a question of space, while everyone knows that the directors of that controlled company have closed down one of their workshops—I refer to the Westland Row workshop. The men who were employed there were transferred to another workshop that the Minister said was insufficient for the work, with the result that foreign-made waggons from England were imported whilst we had many hundreds of these men—smiths, coachbuilders and other mechanics—walking idle about the streets. I hope that importation will not be repeated again.

I have seen in a list of our imports, and I noticed that on a recent date very large numbers of room-doors, hall-doors, and kitchen-doors had been imported, with the handles and locks attached, all practically ready for fitting on. I do not think that should be allowed. The Government provided money for housing schemes, and it should not be permissible that these manufactured doors and shutters for the houses that are being built should be brought in ready-made, and so depriving the woodworkers or carpenters of work. The Government should interest themselves in that matter so far as their housing schemes are concerned. I also take the opportunity of drawing attention to the condition of the printing trade. Fifty per cent. of the skilled men in the printing trade are unemployed. Passing through the streets you will see on the advertising hoardings coloured posters and other public announcements that are not printed in the Saorstát. Go into any ordinary shop in town and take up a prayer-book or a bible, and turn over the front page, and you will see that the book has been printed in Belgium. When the Government are dealing with their next Budget I think they should take these matters into consideration. Wholesale importation of printed matter into this country should not be allowed while so many members of the printing trade are walking the streets idle. I raised the question of woollens on the occasion of the last Budget. I hope that the matter referred to by Deputy Lyons in this connection will be taken into consideration, and that some effort will be made to revive the woollen industries. I am aware that in the constituency of a Deputy who has just spoken, one of these industries was closed down a few months ago, and it formerly gave much-needed employment. I also wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the failure to provide, or to encourage the provision of any employment, so far as female labour is concerned. I know of one or two industries in Dublin which in the past gave employment to female labour, but they are not employing their former workers even on half-time as a result of the wholesale dumping of goods not made in this country. I mention that as a matter that ought also be considered.

The Minister for Finance allows thousands and thousands of grosses of matches to be dumped at the North Wall and sold in the Saorstát. These matches, made abroad, are placed exactly on the same terms as matches made in Dublin as regards duty. I suggest that some preferential rate should be given to the Irish-made matches so far as the duty is concerned. I am satisfied that the match factory in Dublin is capable of employing twice its present number. All during the war when there was a difficulty in getting a supply of matches. Paterson's match factory was able to supply the whole of Ireland. The machinery is there capable of doing the same again. The consumer gets no benefit as a result of foreign matches coming into the country. A man going into a tobacconists pays one penny for a box of foreign-made matches, but the Irish box of matches for one penny contains the same number of matches as the foreign-made box, and the Irish matches are of better quality. I certainly think the Government should give some preference to the Irish article. Some time ago I raised a question regarding the bottle-making industry. I regret to say that the tax on bottles has not been as successful as I hoped, as the result of the introduction of machinery subsidised under the Trades Loans Act. I understand one firm got a grant of something up to £60,000. When they gave that sum of money, I think the Government should have got some guarantee that the old bottle hands who were formerly engaged in making hand bottles would get employment. I have had an interview with some of those old bottle hands, and I understand if they could get a small grant they would form a co-operative society. If they even got a couple of thousand pounds they would be satisfied to put the fires going again and would set to work in turning out hand-made bottles.

A month ago I asked a question as to the number of unemployed who were drawing or were refused unemployment benefits for a period of three weeks—October to November. The total number of applications for a continuance of unemployment benefit was 26,264, and of these over 18,000 have been allowed. A certain number were rejected, and some 6,000 were awaiting a decision. That means that the number rejected could not get a continuance of benefits, and no effort is made to provide employment for them when they lose benefit. How are they to live with no unemployment benefits and no relief schemes? I am speaking for the centre of Dublin, for the area I represent, and I am aware there are hundreds of people in there on the verge of starvation. They have made repeated applications for unemployment benefits without result. They cannot get a day's work, and I would like to know what is to become of that class of person?

Many of them have been looked after by the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charitable institutions, but the resources of these institutions are practically exhausted, and they are unable to do anything for that class of person, except to give a temporary relief order to tide them over a day or two. It is the duty of Governments to see that people shall not die of hunger. That is a duty the Government have accepted, and I hope something will be done for the unfortunate casual worker who never registers and gets no unemployment benefits. The figures we get about the registered number of unemployed are not the real figures, as I think every Deputy knows, because there is a class of casual workers, both male and female, who never register or apply for benefits. Every Deputy knows of the class of person I refer to, who just gets an odd day's work here and there. I hope my representations will be considered favourably by the Government. I put them forward with all seriousness. I say that, as a result of the wholesale dumping of foreign goods, one-fourth of our population is unemployed to-day, and many of them are hungry.

I ask the Government to take steps to see that articles that can be made in this country on equal terms and under more favourable conditions than imported articles will get some form of protection. In the city of Dublin, up to twenty years ago, we had a huge number of foundries, but to-day there are only two or three of them left, and these are almost on the verge of collapse. I mentioned that carpentry work was being imported for our housing schemes. I am satisfied also that ironwork, which could be made in the city of Dublin by our foundries on equal terms with the foreign manufactured article, is also being brought into this country, and to what purpose, I ask? No one knows, because I say the Irish article is just as cheap as the foreign one. I hope that in the future our iron foundries will get some consideration from the Government. This particular industry is one of the hardest hit that we have. In this industry, if employment could be provided for all the skilled men who are out of employment at present, it would mean that the number of unskilled men to be taken on could be doubled. I hope that the Government, so far as their own contract is concerned, will give this industry all the encouragement they can. If they do that, then I am satisfied that very many deserving people at present unemployed will be able to get work.

There is another matter I wish to refer to, and I am sorry the Minister for Defence is not present to hear what I have to say. In connection with this I have put down a question. Quite recently, I have been told, a contract for Army leggings and for Army caps was sent out of the Saorstát. I do not know whether that is true or not, but if it is, I do not think it is playing fair on the part of our Government. The Government certainly should not send out contracts to people who are not subject to taxation here or to the payment of rates and other charges which our own contractors have to bear. I hope that in this matter the Government will set a good headline and that if a home contractor comes within a reasonable figure of the foreigner who is not subject to our taxation that he will get sympathetic consideration from the Government and that when the giving of the contract is being considered that due allowance will be made for the fact that the foreigner is not paying taxes here. I hope that the points I have made will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government.

Mr. COLOHAN

I rise to add my quota to the usual Christmas wail. I think the Ministry is under no illusions at the present time as to the gravity of the situation that we are faced with. It is known to every Deputy in the House and to the people throughout the country that the Government should tackle this question of unemployment in a determined way and deal with it generously. I hope that when the Minister for Finance introduces his supplementary estimate to-morrow that it will be at least for £1,000,000. Anything less will not be of any use to solve this problem of unemployment that exists all over the country. I cannot agree with the motion tabled by Deputy Lyons, because it says that it is to enable grants to be made to public authorities of amounts "equal to that which they are or may be authorised to borrow for the relief of unemployment." I suggest to him that he should delete the words after the word "authorities" in line 5 to the word "for" in line seven, and that he should make his motion read: "That owing to the large number of citizens in the Saorstát who are suffering acute distress through the want of unemployment the Dáil is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken by the Government to introduce legislation to subsidise existing industries and to enable grants to be made to public authorities for the relief of unemployment." The reason I suggest that is that the local authorities are not in a position at the present time to increase their commitments.

Speaking for my own county, the County of Kildare, we have already exceeded the amount provided for home assistance this year by about £23,000. We provided £17,000, and by the end of the year we will have expended £40,000. That shows that we cannot borrow any more. There are a few points that were put before the Minister for Local Government on the 17th November last by our Board of Health which I would like to refer to. It is not necessary for me to go into these things in detail. There are a few points, however, that I would like to mention so that they may be remembered in the distribution of grants if any grants are made. Naas put up a demand for £8,000 for urban roads and sewerage extension works. Athy made a similar demand for a similar sum to carry out works of the same description, and also asked for assistance from the road-making authority. Newbridge and Kildare put up a demand for £15,000 in connection with the Liffey bridge and other works. I would like to mention the widening of the Liffey bridge at Newbridge. I mentioned it some time ago by putting a question down to the Minister. He gave me an assurance when the deputation waited on him last November that if we got plans, specifications and estimates sent forward to the Road Board, that he would recommend them; I hope he will keep that promise. The reason I am bringing this forward here is that I want to put the responsibility for any accidents that may happen or for any lives that are lost at that bridge on the Minister for Local Government. I have repeatedly brought this question before the authorities and it has been turned down. I was told a few months ago that we should concentrate on road services. Here you have a bridge crossing the Liffey close to churches and schools with all the traffic between Dublin and Cork passing over it. The bridge is a great danger to those who use it, as between the kerb and the parapet it is only eighteen feet wide, and you can understand that with six-ton lorries passing backward and forward over it what a danger it is to the public.

Another demand that was put forward was for a new cemetery to be made at the Curragh for the use of the Army there. That would give a certain amount of employment. I think there is an objection to them going into the old cemetery. We do not want them in the Newbridge Cemetery because it is small enough for ourselves. I expect that we will have it pretty well filled before long if the Government does not come to our assistance. I brought before the Minister on several occasions the closing down of the mills at Ballymore-Eustace, and I strongly urged on him the necessity of helping to re-establish these mills again as well as the mills at Leixlip. There is also a proposal to make a new road for the Tower Bus Company between Celbridge and Clane. There is another point I would like to draw attention to. It is this: that several schemes for arterial drainage were sent in to the Kildare County Council. They were passed by the County Council, and I presume have been sent on to the Ministry here. I heard since that it is not likely these schemes will be started until the year 1927. I would urge on the Ministry to get the levels taken and the necessary preliminaries carried out, so that when the weather conditions permit, these works can be gone on with. I imagine that 90 per cent. of the money expended on them will be given in wages and that as the farmers are clamouring to have this work done, the Ministry should do all in their power to facilitate it.

There is another thing I would like to suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Some years ago there were about 50 men employed in the ballast pit at Pollardstown, between Newbridge and Kildare. All these men have been discharged, and I suggest that the Minister should make representations to the Great Southern Railways Company to have this pit opened as a depot for the permanent way department. They could store all their sleepers and rails, and they could instal their creosote plant, including their saw-mills, and that would mean the employment of about 50 hands more. There is another thing I suggest, and that is that the concrete casting works be transferred to that pit. You have the finest material there for concrete in the country, and the place is central for distribution all along the Great Southern and Western line, and I think that the casting of wall-blocks, kerbs, copings, platform blocks, fencing posts, &c., could be made there, and in that way you would give a good deal of employment in the county. I think that the railway company should be brought to realise that they have drawn a great deal of revenue from Kildare in the past, and that it is their duty to do something for that county now, and I think the Pollardstown pit should be looked upon as one that deserves very serious attention.

As to unemployment generally, it seems that is a hardy annual, and comes up every Christmas, but it comes up more intensely now than last Christmas. God knows it was bad enough last Christmas, but it is infinitely worse to-day. I ask the Government to tackle this question determinedly, and I ask the Minister when he brings his supplementary estimate before us to-morrow not to handle the matter in a beggarly manner. Nothing less than £1,000,000 will be any good if he wants really to tackle this question and do something for the people.

Mr. M. EGAN

For the past four weeks I have seen it stated in the Press that the Army contract for leggings was given away to an English firm. From enquiries that I have made I find that is not accurate, but it appears in the Press again to-day, and I suppose it was there that Deputy Byrne got his information. I should be very thankful to the Minister if he would state whether that is accurate or otherwise.

Mr. EVERETT

Like Deputy Colohan I take exception to Deputy Lyons' motion where it asks us to assist industries. I agree we can assist local bodies if we re-establish the Local Loans Fund. If the Minister would bring in a Bill re-establishing the Local Loans Fund a number of public bodies could then secure loans over a large number of years, and would be able to absorb a large number of builders' labourers and tradesmen in the erection of houses for the working-classes. Owing to the limited finances of public bodies at the present time they are unable to avail of the different Building Facilities Acts and other means, because the banks will only give loans for a certain number of years, and if you build a house you want to be able to set it at an economic rent, otherwise it will remain idle. I suggest to the Minister that he should assist local bodies by bringing in a Bill for the re-establishment of Local Loans, and give those bodies a chance of trying to solve the housing problem in their area as well as giving employment to a great number of people.

I also appeal to the Minister, when considering any grant to be given to local bodies, that he should consider the advisability of giving them a grant for reafforestation in their various counties. We are all aware of the number of plantations that were denuded during the great war. Very little has been done by the Government up to the present. It is not sufficient merely to replant 2,500 acres. Contrast that with the fact that seventy thousand tons of trees were removed from my own constituency during the great war and shipped to a foreign country. These local bodies are prepared to strike a rate if they get a grant to assist them in forming plantations that would add to the beauty of the country as well as providing work of utility in the future. I agree with Deputy Daly when he suggested that there should be a tax on foreign flour. We are all well aware that in a number of our rural areas we have flour-mills and that the men in these mills are only working three-quarter time owing to the number of English manufacturers who are dumping flour here at less than the cost of the manufacture in Ireland. Although Irish flour is equal, if not superior, to the foreign flour, unfortunately our people do not support it. I appeal to the Minister, when he is considering his Budget, to bear in mind the possibility of putting a tax on foreign flour. I appeal also to the farmers, if they are so anxious as they say they are to solve unemployment, to assist the Irish Fertilisers Association by purchasing from them Irish manufactured manure. It is superior to Belgian and other foreign manures which are dumped into this country, and Irish manures to-day are only 13 per cent. over pre-war prices. They have guaranteed to the Farmers' Union that if the Government puts a tax on foreign manures and gives the Irish producers an opportunity to compete in their own market they will not charge any excess price to the farmers for the manures, and they state that they will be able to employ over 3,000 more men in their firms in the Saorstát. Recently, a very representative body of the Farmers' Union sent a resolution to the Government appealing to them to put a tax on foreign manures which would help to double the output of industry and to give a great deal more employment to our people.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Will the Deputy name them?

Mr. EVERETT

The Wicklow County Council, which is controlled by the Farmers' Union.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I thought it was controlled by Deputy C.M. Byrne?

Mr. EVERETT

I am not aware of that. The Deputy may or he may not be in favour of purchasing the foreign article, but I put it to the farmers and the county generally that the foreigners always dump their surplus stock here so as to close up our manufactures. People may purchase the foreign and the cheap article for a time, but when our industries are closed up, and destroyed, the foreigner comes along and makes the farmer pay for his pound of flesh after he has succeeded in destroying our Irish manufactures. That will happen if the Belgian manures are supported in preference to Irish fertilisers. These are the only points that I suggest to the Minister on Deputy Lyons's motion. I would ask him to bear in mind the remarks I have made. Any other remarks I have to make as regards unemployment I will keep until I see what the estimate that will be brought in to-morrow will be. I do not agree with Deputy Colohan that a million pounds would be sufficient to relieve unemployment at the present time. If we are going to tackle the unemployment problem in real earnest, we will have to face facts and, if necessary, borrow money and provide work of public utility. In that way we will be able to bring peace and contentment to the workers.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

This opens up a great deal of argument. I do not intend to follow the argument to its full length, because it would mean going into the whole question of Protection and Free Trade. I do not approve of the idea suggested in Deputy Lyons's motion. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the unemployed, but I disagree altogether with the suggestions that are put forward here for the relief of unemployment. In particular, I disagree with the suggestion that subsidies should be given to industries. Deputy Lyons, Deputy Everett and Deputy Byrne seem to think that the Government——

Mr. EVERETT

I do not suggest that the Government should give subsidies to industries, but I ask for tariffs on foreign stuffs.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

It amounts to the same thing. These Deputies seem to think that the Government has some bottomless mine of wealth to which they can go whenever they feel like it and draw millions for subsidies, for getting that eventually the subsidies have to be met by the taxpayers, and that the eventual reaction of subsidies and grants must be an increase of taxation.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Did the farmers get any subsidy? What about the double agricultural grant?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I will deal with the farmers' point of view.

Mr. EVERETT

They are not unemployed.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

The farmer is the main producer in this country. He has to produce his goods and to face open competition in the world-markets with those goods, and no effective subsidy could be given or no effective protection could be given, in my opinion, to farm produce. While he has to sell in an open competitive market the farmer has to buy in a protected and subsidised market. The farmer has eventually to bear the great weight of anything in the nature of subsidies or protective tariffs, and there is nothing that he can get in return. It is not necessary for me to point out the dire condition of the farming industry. There are farmers at the present time who are practically unemployed, or whose remuneration from the work in which they are engaged is little better than that obtained by unemployed men who have gone on the dole. The farming industry is undoubtedly in a very bad condition, and anything in the nature of subsidising industries must react to the further detriment of the industry. It is all very fine for Deputy Byrne to talk about subsidising this industry and that industry, and giving the Army contracts to special industries. I would like to see Irish industries getting the Army contracts, but I would like to see them facing the competition of outside industries, just as the farmers have to face outside competition. If we are told that commodities of inferior quality can be sent in here to compete with commodities of better quality produced in this country, the implication is that the Irish producer is buying an inferior article. I do not believe that the Irish consumer is prepared to pay as high a price for an inferior foreign article as for a home-made article. If that is so, I would say the remedy is not so much in subsidising industries as by a system of propaganda, to encourage the Irish purchaser to buy Irish articles. I would say that it is up to the Irish manufacturer to keep in step with modern development and to advertise his products so that they will be as well known to the public as the foreign articles which are coming in and competing with them.

Deputy Everett has referred to the question of artificial manures. I know something about the importation of artificial manures. I believe that the very fact that the Irish farmers did buy imported artificial manures led to the very considerable reduction that has taken place in the price of artificial manures in the Saorstát. I know that a few years ago the quotations of the Irish manure manufacturers could not, in any way, approach the quotations which we could get for similar artificial manures from the Continent. I am not prepared at the present moment to deal with prices, but I say it is up to the Irish manufacturer to put himself in a position to offer his goods to the Irish farmers of as good a quality and at as low a price as the foreign importer. If he cannot, it is not fair to ask the farmers to subsidise him by paying higher prices than he could get goods for in the outside market. The Irish farmer does not get higher prices for his goods because they are Irish grown. He has to face open world competition, and I maintain that the Irish manufacturers have no right to get better terms than the main industry of this country gets, the agricultural industry. The effect of all this subsidising is increased taxation and the hampering of the Irish farmer, and thereby, in my opinion, an increase in unemployment.

I believe that a good deal of the unemployment is due to the fact that the Irish farmer is finding it difficult to make ends meet. He is finding it very difficult to make a profit, and as a consequence the whole tendency is to cut down expenses to the very lowest level, and to do the barely necessary work on his farm, and putting work which is not absolutely necessary on the long finger, with the result that there has been growing unemployment in the rural districts. That is a form of unemployment that is not reflected in the unemployment returns. I think there is a tendency for the unemployed in the agricultural districts to drift into the towns and gradually to increase the number of unemployed in the towns and cities. I believe that this is a bigger question than can be dealt with by means of a grant or subsidy. It may be all right to give a grant or subsidy at a particular season of the year. It is certainly almost impossible to object to anything in the nature of a relief grant at this season of the year, because nobody can have anything but sympathy with those who have to face Christmas without the necessary sustenance, and without something to cheer them up, but the fact of the matter is that all these grants and subsidies must eventually hamper the main industry of the country. I believe, if we are to put the country on its feet, and get unemployment wiped out, and stimulate industries in a natural manner, the way we will have to do it is to begin with the agricultural industry, give the agricultural industry a chance by reduced taxation, and by every other means at the disposal of the State encourage it, but not by means of subsidy. I do not believe that you could adequately subsidise the agricultural industry. The Minister for Posts would probably say that you could. I believe the best you could do would be to subsidise a section of it. You may subsidise beet-growing, or one particular section, but the result will be that you will have the whole farming industry paying a subsidy to a section. If you want to subsidise agricultural industry you will have to subsidise the whole industry, and as our agricultural exports are roughly forty millions, a fifteen per cent. subsidy on agriculture would mean something like six millions to the State. Is the State prepared to foot a bill for six millions? Even if it were, I, as a farmer's representative would not be prepared to back such a subsidy for the agricultural industry, because I believe in the final issue that subsidy would have to be paid by the agricultural industry, and in addition to paying this subsidy the industry would have to pay the salaries of a host of extra officials who would be employed to see that the subsidy was properly administered.

Mr. SEARS

I do not find myself able to support the motion of Deputy Lyons. I am not in favour of subsidies. I listened to Deputy Heffernan replying to the arguments of Deputy Lyons and Deputy Everett. He did not content himself with condemning subsidies, but he went out of his way to condemn tariffs. I do not think that he made a very good case against tariffs. Any experiments that the Government have made, so far, with regard to tariffs, have had wonderfully good results for both capital and labour in this country. Take the City of Dublin. A small tariff on tobacco has brought two new factories to the city in which hundreds of people are employed. Is not that a grand thing to point to? We have those young men and girls spending money in their own country instead of sending their money out of it. Take the boot industry. Deputy Doyle spoke of hundreds who have got employment in their own country and earn money from farmers and others for the boots they are making, instead of sending the money to Northampton or elsewhere. When there was trouble here about the Border question I met a man from Monaghan in the Lobby. He said:

"I hope that my little area will not be included in the Six Counties. When the tariff was put on boots I started a little factory in Monaghan I have sixty-five men employed and we are doing splendidly."

That is an argument in favour of tariffs. I listened to the case that Deputy Lyons put up about the woollen factory in Athlone where the hands are working on alternate days. I wonder do they have to do without meals on alternate days? That is the case of an industry that is starved for the lack of a tariff. Take the case of the agricultural implement factory in Wexford.

I knew the town of Wexford when there were three factories in it and 1,500 or 1,600 men employed—as good a class of artizan as you would find in the whole world. Those industries now employ 300 to 400 men. If the farmers had given those factories any support, they would be getting better ploughs and cheaper ploughs than they are getting to-day. There is a tariff wanted to-day. Wexford men were thrown out of employment and foreigners are employed. Deputy Heffernan has to send over his beasts or his produce to the foreigner to pay for the implements that he uses, and he has to pay the cost of transit. Is that good business? That the Wexford foundries should be closed and that people should be suffering is a scandalous thing. I know of a case where a father of a family died of starvation, and in a fortnight afterwards the mother died from starvation. Yet the farmer says that none but a plough from Yorkshire or Derbyshire is good enough for him. In fact, he says: "I do not care whether those men are employed or not." That is bad policy. Tariffs are needed for this country, and Deputy Heffernan is preaching a policy for agriculture that is suicidal. He said that agriculture is the sole support of the State. If the State is standing on one leg, is not that a reason why we should put another leg under it? Should we not have an industrial prop as well? Deputy Heffernan says that they have to bring their goods into an open market. And he complains of that. Are we not offering him a market at home, a better market, where he will not have the same competition? In England, the small farmer has to bring his produce into competition with that of men who have farms large as a parish, who have motor ploughs and every facility for mass production. The Deputy is crying out against the very thing that would make agriculture rich. When protection was proposed in America, all the American farmers protested strongly against it. They said it would be the ruin of agriculture in America. To-day the States of America in which they have industries are the States where land is highly valued. In the States where there are no industries, farming is backward, the people are backward, the farms have a lower valuation, and the farmers are making no profits. The fact that agriculture is prosperous in the industrial State is attributable to protection. If America, which is a Continent, with no other country near it, needs protection, surely a little island like ours, side by side with the foremost industrial country in the world, needs protection. "Why," asks Deputy Heffernan, "do not the manufacturers of Ireland compete against those of England?" He might as well ask why does an ordinary man not enter the ring and compete with one of the leading pugilists? England is a long way ahead. It is, perhaps, the most highly-trained industrial country in the world. We are behind. They have a rich market at their door, whereas we have not. They have mass production, where we have not. But the case is not hopeless for the Irish manufacturer if we go the right way about it.

We have a rich country and an intelligent people. The manufacturers of England, Scotland and America are glad to avail of the service of our young men and young women. They make good use of them, and when Deputy Heffernan, or men like him, get hold of a product made by Irish hands in England or America, they find no fault with it. But there are men in this country who doubt everything Irish. The people who opened factories in Dublin recently and who are selling their goods in Dublin, are not proclaiming that their goods are Irish. There is no advantage in proclaiming them Irish. Some people have such a doubt of everything Irish that they purchase the foreign article in preference to the home-made article, thus acting contrary to the spirit in which the people of every other country act. The only way to save agriculture here, and to save the country, is by tariffs. I mentioned wheat-growing here one time, and the leader of the Farmers' Party scouted the idea. "Wheat in Ireland!" he exclaimed. Of course, I could not set myself up as an authority on the subject against Deputy Gorey. But I saw some men engaged in the milling trade in Ireland afterwards, and I asked if Irish land was so bad that we could not hope to grow wheat in it. They told me that in the Crimean war the British army was fed on flour made from Munster wheat. There was nothing wrong with Irish wheat and nothing wrong with Irish land then. If America had never been discovered, we would be using Irish wheat in our own home-made bread to-day. Our scientists would probably be able to give us a wheat suitable to our climate, as the French scientists are producing a wheat suitable to the French climate.

Deputy Heffernan referred to the poor wages paid to the farm labourers. How could they be paid good wages when we are paying £7,000,000 to the Canadian farmer to grow our wheat and paying the Canadian railway man to carry the flour down to the sea? We have a line of ships carrying flour across the Atlantic, and Deputy Heffernan is afraid that the Canadian farmer will lose this profitable crop if we take to growing wheat. Why should we not grow wheat? Wheat is the mainstay of every nation in the world, and, since the war, all the small nations of Europe have taken to growing their own wheat. Nothing can help us to grow wheat except a tariff on foreign flour and wheat. At the present time we have wheat, eggs, butter and practically every article of produce coming in from New Zealand, China, Russia, Denmark and other countries, and we are told that agriculture does not require protection. You say to the agricultural labourer that he cannot get a better wage, because this is a poor country. You say to the worker on the Shannon scheme that he cannot get more than 32/- per week, because this is a poor country. This is not a poor country. We have the most fertile soil in the world. As to the articles that you import, see the prices you pay for those articles. Those are the dimensions of your market, and if the farm labourer has to put up with small wages, because this is a poor country, there should be a tariff put on, so that every class would bear the burden of the poverty of the country. It does not necessarily follow that tariffs will always raise prices. Mass production leads to cheaper prices, and if Pierces were producing a thousand ploughs, where formerly they were producing 100, the price per plough would be cheaper. Tariffs can benefit both the farmer and industrialist. There should be no antagonism between them. There is nothing radically wrong with the farmer's son or with the young women of this country. They are able to make any article.

Mr. C. HOGAN

Specify the article.

Mr. GOREY

Gas, perhaps, with the Deputy as managing director.

Mr. SEARS

I submit that there is no substance in Deputy Heffernan's attack on tariffs. If properly applied, they will save this country.

Mr. M. DOYLE

Deputy Sears puts it to the Dáil that tariffs are the saving of the country, and he relates what an advantage they have been to the few industries they have been placed on. The few people engaged in those industries may have benefited, but they benefited at the expense of——

Mr. SEARS

You got cheaper cigarettes.

Mr. DOYLE

They benefited at the expense of the general public. Deputy Sears made a powerful onslaught on the farmers for not buying Irish-made implements and goods. There may be some truth in the charge, but I tell Deputy Sears that the farmer is prevented from buying those goods by his inability to pay for them, more than by any other reason. The price of these goods is prohibitive in the present state of agriculture. When no money is being made in the industry, the farmers must do with the old implements repaired. If there be any dereliction on their part in the purchase of Irish-made goods, that is the reason of it. It is not the farmers who killed those industries. Their inability to buy those implements may have hurt them, but, when all is said and done, I do not think it was the farmers who were responsible for depriving a lot of these men of employment in the foundries. Other reasons were responsible for curtailing their output. I remember myself when they were in a flourishing condition and were turning out all the stuff that Deputy Sears boasted of. What happened? A prolonged strike occurred in Wexford, with Mr. Larkin at its head. He came down there and practically shut the foundries and they never recovered since.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Lyons's motion is specific in respect of subsidies and grants to local authorities. I suppose that is the reason why the Minister for Industry and Commerce was replaced by the Minister for Finance and why he has been replaced by the President. I feel that it is just worth my while to say that I am not in entire agreement with some of my colleagues in regard to their advocacy of a full measure of protection—if that means a general tariff—for everything imported and their opposition to subsidies in any event. I do not take that view at all.

I think that industries may be sustained by State action: some by tariffs, some by subsidies or bounties, some by assistance, through financial aid and various means of that kind. Different diseases require different remedies, and I am not going to shut out a subsidy where a subsidy is obviously the most effective and cheapest method for the general community. I can conceive, for instance, a certain industry that it is very desirable to keep alive for the country's health, not for the interest of individuals, and yet that it is not desirable to put a tariff on every article imported of the kind produced by that industry. So that in some cases a subsidy or bounty might be beneficent and I am not going to shut out subsidies.

As to Deputy Heffernan's remarks, I should like to put this to him. His contention is that the whole of the country's population is dependent, in the last resort, upon agriculture, and that all taxation is, in the last resort, paid out of the produce of agriculture. That is the basis of his argument and the contention of farmers generally. Men and women who are unemployed and are not adding to the public wealth must be consuming the country's wealth to keep them alive, whether in food, clothing, or otherwise, and their sustenance, at any rate on the hypothesis of the Deputy, comes out of the produce of agriculture. On that assumption, would it not be better if these people who are living on the farmers' produce were adding something to the country's wealth and living better on the produce of the farmers? They are an actual cost to the community, to the agricultural elements in the community, as they are. If they were producing they would be adding something to the total wealth of the community and becoming better and healthier citizens. If the Deputy wants to insist, as he has the right to do, that the population must live out of the produce of agriculture as things are, is it not better that there should be some encouragement given to other industries, in addition to agriculture, so that these very people will not have henceforth to live merely upon the bounty that agriculture provides? Something to encourage and increase the total gross production of national wealth is required. If that can be through agriculture so much the better. If it cannot be through agriculture, let it be through other things. But it is preferable that there should be an increase both in agricultural wealth production and industrial wealth production, and I have not yet seen any other method in the present state of the country's economy than positive State assistance—that is to say, a community organised and deliberately assisting in the production of increased wealth. That may be done by protection, by tariffs, in view of the general system of commerce. It may be done by subsidies in some cases beneficently, but I think that we ought to recognise that there is a case made for positive State assistance to employ both labour and capital in this country for the production of greater wealth.

There were two points raised by Deputy Byrne that I should like to emphasise. He touched upon the very grave unemployment at present in the coachbuilding trade. He spoke of the number of motor cars imported, and advocated a change in the fiscal system respecting motor cars, so that there would be encouragement given to the building of motor bodies here. He probably exaggerated the number of unemployed in that trade, but probably half the total number of skilled coach-makers are idle. I am told also that a concern, of which Deputy Byrne recently had something to say, is proposing to introduce a large number of motor buses, and is about to give, if it has not already given, orders for about 100 buses, which are to be made in England. It is a matter very well worth the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whether some kind of pressure could not be brought to bear upon industrial concerns, whether they are being assisted by the State or not—I do not know whether this one is—to get as much of their work done in this country as possible, and not to allow 100 motor buses to be imported while hundreds of coach-builders are idle here.

Another point made by Deputy Byrne was in respect to bottle-making. Undoubtedly there is something not quite satisfactory in respect to this industry. I joined with other Deputies in urging that assistance should be given by tariffs to bottle-making. I understand that considerable assistance was given to the industry in Ringsend through the Trade Facilities Act. I wonder what enquiry was made in respect to the effect upon employment. I think it is worth calling the attention of the Minister to that point. A case is made by the men in Ringsend that, while with the new method of bottle-making by automatic machine, they make bottles in larger numbers, it would have very little effect in increasing the amount of employment. From a return furnished by the Minister a few days ago, it is quite clear that whatever may have been the effect on the making of bottles, the effect upon employment has been very small indeed. On behalf of the bottlemakers, I have requested that the Minister will receive a deputation, and I would publicly urge him to give some attention to the case that these men make, that the automatic machine industry is not going to succeed by virtue of technical defects and unwillingness of purchasers to buy that particular class of bottle, and that there is a case to be made for what they call the hand machine bottle.

They contend that three or four or five times the number of men could be employed making a much better bottle, and probably as cheap. Deputy Egan may know something about that. I am not making a case definitely and positively on behalf of these men, but I am urging the Minister for Industry and Commerce to examine the case they make and to consider it, having in view not merely the number of bottles that will be made in the country, instead of those made outside, but also the number of men that will be employed in making these bottles. I put that forward, as I say, not as a special advocate of one method over the other, but I believe a case has been made, and I am doubtful whether full consideration was given to all the facts in respect of the effect upon employment when aiding this particular industry.

I do not think Deputy Lyons has been well advised in the formulation of his motion. I do not know whether it is necessary to introduce legislation at this stage to do the work that he requires to be done. Certainly a promise of legislation now would not assist people before Christmas. I am with the Deputy in this, that the Government should look with sympathy on authenticated cases where industries are capable of survival, capable of serving the public interests well, but are in a condition of sickness and ill-health because of undeserving attacks from competitors abroad that are in a very much stronger position. I do not think the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, taking into account the strong, well-organised foreign industry, in competition with the weaker and smaller capitalised industry in this country, should prevail. I think we have a right as a community to stand by the smaller and weaker industries in this country so long as they show vitality, so long as they show some life and recuperative power.

Mr. LYONS

I wonder if I would get permission from the Dáil to postpone the motion until to-morrow. The Minister for Finance, the President or the Vice-President were not present during the greater part of the debate, and several questions have been asked by Deputies who took part in it.

The PRESIDENT

I will be agreeable to an adjournment.

Mr. LYONS

If so, there might be an opportunity of getting some reply. I would also like to see, before concluding the debate, the amount of the supplementary estimate to be brought in.

The PRESIDENT

I think it would be only fair to the Deputy to let the debate stand over. I had not an opportunity of being in the Dáil to-day. I was engaged in the Seanad until late this evening, and so were other Ministers. It was impossible for us to pay attention to what was going on here.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Will you take the Supplementary Estimate to-morrow also?

The PRESIDENT

Very good.

Debate adjourned until Thursday, December 17th, at 3 o'clock.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.20 p.m.