I move: "That on its rising to-day, the Dáil do adjourn until Wednesday, 20th February, 1929."
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - CHRISTMAS RECESS—PRESIDENT'S MOTION.
Is the President making that motion now?
If it is not disagreeable to the House I shall move it now. If the House so desires, I propose to finish the business it is proposed to take to-day and then make the motion.
What business is it proposed to take to-day?
The National Health Insurance Bill, 1928 (Committee); the Cork City Management Bill, 1928 (Fifth Stage); and the Public Safety Bill, 1928 (Report).
Does the President propose to take first the motion for the adjournment of the Dáil or the proposed business?
I desire to take the motion first.
Question proposed: "That on its rising to-day the Dáil do adjourn until Wednesday, 20th February, 1929."
As I indicated yesterday, we object to the adjournment at this stage. There are certain motions down on the Paper which have been there for several months. There is, for instance, this motion in regard to a tariff on flour. This is, perhaps, the most important question that we could discuss, and we had only one day for that discussion. I suggest there is a splendid opportunity now offered to the Executive to have a full discussion during the coming week on this question of tariffs. The whole question of our national economy in a sense arises upon it. It is very much better that we should deal with that question at a time like this than that it should be scamped when a number of other questions are pressing. As far as we are concerned we think that it is extraordinary on the part of the Executive to propose at this stage an adjournment when matters of such fundamental importance are on the Paper. A Committee has been set up and it is proposed that that Committee should examine a number of questions. This question of the general trend of national economy is not going to be decided at that Committee; that is pretty clear, because it is a question of general national policy, and it will have to be decided by this House as a whole.
There are other reasons which have also been suggested, including the question of the immediate making of some provision for dealing with urgent unemployment. Labour Deputies yesterday raised that question and we are heartily with them. We think it is a most unfair action that the Dáil should adjourn at this time without any attempt to provide for what is an urgent necessity. Our attitude in the matter has been made clear a number of times. We have already said that we regard it as the duty of the State to see that every citizen is given an opportunity of earning his daily bread. That duty has not been fulfilled by the Executive Council, and now they propose evidently to fail in it very definitely, making no provision for unemployment at this particular time. I do not think it is necessary to go over the ground any more fully than that. These are the main reasons for our objection. We believe that this question of unemployment should be dealt with and some provision made for temporary relief while we are waiting for some measures that will go to the root of the difficulty and solve the problem as a whole. Then we think that the opportunity should also be availed of to have a discussion on tariffs generally in relation to the whole national economy, and particularly the question of a tariff on flour. We think an admirable opportunity is presented to the House to sit next week and deal with it.
As intimated yesterday by Deputy O'Connell, the Labour Party are opposing this motion made by the President. They are opposing it primarily because of the Government's failure to make any special provision this year for relief works and also because we believe that there are a number of important and very urgent matters that should be dealt with. In the discussion that we had here a week ago on this question of making provision for unemployment we tried to show—and I do not think our case was at all met—that there is a greater necessity this year for a Relief Vote than there was I think, in any year, since this House was set up. We felt that very strongly when we had that debate on unemployment. Since then, we have got reports from all over the country which unfortunately go to show that the position is really much worse even than what we thought it was last week. It is all very well for the Ministers to say so much money is being spent on drainage works; that so much money is being spent on public buildings and that so much has been allocated for road work and for public works. That is all to the good and we are not grumbling so far as that is concerned. But our complaints is that notwithstanding what has been given in that way, there are still thousands of unemployed who cannot get work and whose dependents as a consequence are in a very bad way. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health in reply to a question, I think it was yesterday, told us that he was not yet in a position to state what moneys would be allocated to county councils for road works this year. It seems also, from the answer, that the Minister would not be in a position to allocate these amounts this side of Christmas.
Because the county councils will not do what they are asked to do.
The Minister says it is because the county councils will not do what they are asked to do. The county councils were not asked until last month, and I suggest that this is not the time to be making provision for the allocation of the moneys and to be looking for information. I would suggest to the Minister that it is for this month and the month of January that relief is more urgently required, much more urgently required than it would be in the month of March or in the month of April. We know that the county councils and the county boards of health are not making the provision that they should make, either for the upkeep of the roads out of their own rates or for the relief of the destitute. It is well known, and it has been stated in this House before, that the county councils have used the grants which are given by the Government, not for the relief of distress or for the relief of unemployment but for the relief of the rates. The Minister knows quite well that the rates have been cut down. The Minister knows quite well that scales of 4/- a week for women and 1/6 for each child have been fixed by the county boards of health. We say that the House should not adjourn without the Government making some special effort to give relief to those people who are unemployed and who are anxious to get employment.
There are several other matters which remain to be dealt with, but there is just one matter that I would like to mention. In March last the Labour Party introduced a Town Tenants Bill here. That Bill went through the House, and the Government were then asked to state what their intentions were with regard to the report of the Town Tenants Commission. We were told very definitely by the Minister for Justice that it was his intention to introduce in the autumn a Bill to give effect to the findings of that Commission. That Bill has not been introduced, and I suggest that, if the relations between the tenants and the landlords are to be put upon a proper basis, it must be done before the present Act expires. We think that the Government should have introduced their Town Tenants Bill, even if it only got the First Reading, in order that we might be able to consider the matter during the adjournment. For these reasons the Deputies of the Labour Party will certainly oppose this motion moved by the President.
I agree with Deputy Morrissey that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should take this opportunity of stating when the moneys will be made available to the county councils. The Kilkenny County Council has, I think, supplied the information that is required, and it is in the same position as other county councils. The position that Deputy Morrissey refers to that at this particular season of the year, when there is the utmost distress and when large numbers of labourers are thrown out of employment, is one that should appeal to the Government. I do not see for the life of me why the Minister for Local Government and Public Health cannot make the moneys available now, in any case where he has got the information from the county councils, and why he cannot make it available now as well as in February or March next. It is entirely a matter of bookkeeping, unless it is that he wants to carry it on to the end of the financial year.
I rise to oppose the adjournment. I wish to call attention to a statement that the Minister for Local Government made a short time ago on the unemployment debate. He said that the sum of £65,000 was at the disposal of the Cork County Council for the carrying out of relief works on the roads in that county. Since then I have made inquiries from the County Council, and find that all this money has been allotted and spent, but that the returns have not yet come down from the Local Government Department. The Minister also stated that the county council were delaying as regards sending on information. I heard from the Cork County Council that the information had been sent on. I know that the Minister's Department, and I make this plea on behalf of the Farmers' Union of the county, are using a very unfair inducement for the purpose of getting the trunk roads of the county put into good order for Rolls-Royce cars, and that they are putting the minor and the bye-roads of the county into such a condition that they cannot be travelled upon. I have seen a letter that came from the Minister's Department to the Finance Committee of the County Council in which it was stated that a refund of 50 per cent. would be given on all moneys spent on trunk roads and 30 per cent. on link roads, and not a penny on the county or bye-roads. The County Council were unanimously of the opinion that it is now time for the Local Government Department to put an end to this definite loading of the dice against the roads which the farmers need, namely, the ordinary bye-roads. I challenge the Minister to send down an engineer from his Department who had been over the bye-roads in County Cork in the years 1924 or 1925. If he does so, I guarantee that this engineer will report to the effect that these roads are not in as good condition now as they were in 1924 and 1925, owing solely to this definite inducement held out to the county council to spend money on the trunk roads, on which, according to the letter from the Minister's Department, they are to get refunds in one case of 50 per cent. and in the other of 30 per cent.
I also definitely oppose the adjournment on account of the present condition of the agricultural community. We are told that agriculture is our principal industry. Owing to the benevolence of the Government, we were allowed seven hours this week to discuss the present condition of our principal industry. Indeed, it is the only industry that we have. I consider that this is a case of loading the dice in a most unfair way against the agricultural community. The Minister for Agriculture succeeded in getting the Estimate for his Department through without discussion on the inducement that we would be allowed an opportunity for a full discussion on the present condition of agriculture in the country. I say that only to allow us seven hours for that discussion was most unfair. There are members of this House, some sitting on the opposite benches, who have a good practical knowledge of agriculture. For instance, Deputy Hassett is one. These members got no opportunity of putting before the House their views on the present condition of agriculture. I consider that to offer a sop of a seven hours' discussion on the present condition of our principal industry is nothing less than an insult to our agricultural community. I consider that, before the adjournment takes place, two full days at least should be allowed for a debate on the present condition of agriculture in the Saorstát. I think that is absolutely necessary. I know very well that the Minister for Agriculture is saying to himself over there, "Leave him alone until I am done with him and then there will be no farmers to bother about." I think it is time that an opportunity was given for a full discussion on the present condition of agriculture. It was nothing less than an insult to allow only seven hours for that discussion when we consider that those engaged in the agricultural industry are practically starving while their money is being squandered here.
Whenever it is proposed that the Dáil should adjourn we have a debate in which Deputies give a list of the things that have not been discussed and dealt with. We are urged that it is of vital importance that the Dáil should sit on for another week. In my opinion, no matter when it was proposed to take the adjournment, we would have precisely the same kind of debate. For my part I do not believe that there is anything to be gained by having, say, another debate such as we had on the question of relief and the need for relief. There are no debates that, I think, are less useful in the House than the debates we have once or twice a year on relief because, as I said before, there is a great deal of unreality about them. We generally have the tendency of almost every member in the House to intervene in such debates. Every Deputy has to put in a word for a share of any money that may be going for his own particular bailiwick. We could have these debates every week, but so far as providing any help for the solution of the problem of unemployment or distress we would get nothing from them.
Deputy de Valera referred to the Economic Committee that has been set up. That Committee may be able to do great things, or it may be able to do small things. We do not know until it gets together and gets down to work. But I do think myself that, when we are looking for constructive suggestions for the economic problems of the country, we are much more likely to find them arising out of the discussions of a committee of that sort than out of the discussions that we have had so much experience of in the Dáil in relation to this question. The continuance of the Dáil for the purpose of having such a debate, in which, as I have said, nearly every member of the House will think it necessary to take part in order to try and have money earmarked for his own particular district, will only delay a Committee, such as the Economic Committee, in getting to work, and tend to make it difficult for people to set their minds to a definitely constructive effort to deal with the matter.
Deputy Morrissey mentioned the need for Town Tenants' legislation. Even the getting of Town Tenants' legislation is not going to be speeded up by sitting on for another week in relation to that particular matter. Deputy Corry said that we had only seven hours to discuss the question of agriculture. I seem to have heard, during the past year, a great many discussions upon agricultural topics—discussions of exactly the same nature as we heard the other day. In fact, these discussions are bound to run along on the same topics, and while the House had not the advantage, I think, of hearing Deputy Corry on the last occasion, I do not think that the House need sit on specially for the purpose of hearing him, because I am sure that his views are so sound that they will keep.
The members that I alluded to are members who would wish to speak on this subject. Their experience is much greater than mine perhaps. I referred to Deputies on the benches behind the Minister, but probably they were gagged for the occasion. If the Minister for Agriculture wants to have a trial of the country's opinion of his agricultural proposals, let him resign his seat, and we will put up a man who will hunt the tail off him.
I think, as a matter of fact, that if we were to sit on for another week, that members would find that the condition of public business was not any more suitable for an adjournment then than it is at the present time. It is probable that if we did sit on we would find that not the business that Deputies are now suggesting would be discussed, but other business. Once there is time given for debate, we would find Deputies discussing, not what they would regard as urgent matters, but rather putting in time debating other matters that they do not now propose to discuss.
I agree with Deputy Corry's statement that grants were sent down from the Local Government Department to the County Council and were not used for the purpose intended. On one occasion a sum of £29,000 was sent down but that sum was not used. It was left optional to the council to use it for any purpose they desired. I asked that it should be used for improving the byroads or other roads so as to give employment, but the first man to jump up and say "We will not do it" was Deputy Corry.
My statement was borne out by the Minister.
That statement was published in the Press, and I challenge Deputy Corry to deny it. He asked the Minister for Local Government, "Am I right," and he also said, "Come to my assistance, and say I am." The Minister then said it was optional for the council to do what they liked with the money. The council had the option of using the money for improving the roads for the benefit of the farmers, the very roads that Deputy Corry now says they cannot travel over. Between Deputy Corry and a few more the £29,000 went the way Deputy Morrissey described a few moments ago.
I support the views expressed by Deputy Morrissey on behalf of our Party. I have a good deal of knowledge of the position in my constituency at present, and I think it would be a calamity if the Dáil adjourned without something being done to relieve the situation. I know that the people in the country are expecting something will be done towards providing employment in the coming months. I have no desire, and I do not think any of us have, to exaggerate the position in any way or to describe in detail the conditions that prevail. In the western portion of my own constituency we were discussing during the last two or three days the auditor's report in which it was pointed that the home assistance estimate had been exceeded by £3,000 or £4,000. We have practically come to the end of our tether in the matter of affording assistance. With regard to the position of local roads, the Minister for Local Government talked here on the motion to, increase the Estimate for relief schemes and mentioned that a sum of £60,000 was available for work in Cork. We went to the trouble of having that matter looked into, and we find the position is that while Deputy Corry was not quite correct in saying the money had been spent, that all the money was ear-marked and very little of it was available. Some of the works are finished. The remainder of the money is for contracts not yet completed, and a certain percentage remains for tar-spraying. That is work that can be carried out only in the summer time. West Cork Deputies during the last week or two received letters of a painful character in regard to certain portions of the county. I am satisfied it is incumbent on the Dáil to afford some help to the people who are in a bad plight at the moment, and not to be shutting down and suggesting that they should exist as best they can during the bad period that is coming. The Minister talked about unreality in this debate. I know a good deal about this matter, and I know that there is reality in the situation as we describe it, and that we are speaking with sincerity. We are not anxious to prolong a debate on this question, but this is the only place in which the realities of the situation can be discussed. We ask that something should be done. We agree that relief schemes are not going to provide a solution of the question, but they deal with the immediate problem that confronts us. The period from now to march is going to be desperately, frightfully hard in the poorer areas. Surely to goodness we ought to do something on their behalf before the adjournment.
The Minister for Finance appears to be under the impression that the motron is opposed because Deputies want the Dáil to sit another week. That is not the case. We are opposed to the motion because it involves an adjournment of the Dáil for a period of three months, and because there are many urgent questions awaiting decision. Some of these are indicated on the Order Paper. Others are not; but every Deputy knows we are awaiting a decision on a number of questions, the postponement of which until February or March will have a serious effect on many interests. Deputy de Valera referred specifically to the motion on the Order Paper dealing with a tariff on flour. Personally I have the impression that the Government is very anxious to shirk a division on that motion. I would be anxious to know why? Since the report of the Tariff Commission on that question was submitted we have been given no opportunity to test the opinion of the Dáil on the action of the Government in relation to it. The Government are no doubt congratulating themselves now that they can move the adjournment at this stage and postpone a decision for three months. The President, last June or thereabouts, made a statement, which was emphasised and re-echoed by his supporters in the daily Press, that the attitude which the Fianna Fáil Party were adopting at that period was holding up a very urgent and necessary measure, the Censorship Bill. The President tried to put on the Fianna Fáil Party at that time the onus for the fact that the censorship was not in operation at that time. The Bill was introduced and got its First Reading in the Session that terminated in July. It got its Second Reading this Session, and now it is proposed to postpone the further stages of the Bill until the next Session. If the Government were half as anxious as they pretend to be to put the Bill through the House they can do so. They can postpone the adjournment of the Dáil a week or so and deal with the amendments to the Bill.
The Deputy is not in earnest.
It is not a question of whether I am in earnest, but whether the President was in earnest when he tried to put the onus on us for the passage of this Bill.
That has escaped my memory if I said it.
If the President looks up the file of the "Irish Independent" he will find a reference to the statement to which I have referred. The Censorship Bill is, like the motion on a tariff on flour, a matter which the Government appear to be very anxious to shelve. The Minister for Justice is shaking his head as if denying that statement. He is no doubt congratulating himself that the Committee Stage of this Bill has been postponed for three months.
Why?
I do not know. Perhaps Deputy Gorey will give me some information.
Perhaps Deputy Lemass will give us some information.
If the Minister is anxious to get the Censorship Bill through in this Session he will oppose the motion for the adjournment and ask that next week be devoted to the consideration of the amendments to the Bill. We would have the Bill through all its stages in this House before the end of next week, I am sure, if the Minister would use his influence with the members of his Party to oppose this motion. There is not a single Department of the Government, I think, which did not promise to introduce legislation on some matters in this session, and these promises have not been redeemed. For example, the Minister for Local Government gave us to understand that the Bill to reestablish democratic control in the government of Dublin City would be introduced and passed through this House before the period of office of the Commissioners had expired, which. I think, is the 31st of March next. It does appear now that it will be necessary to extend further the period for which the Commissioners were appointed, and there has been no sign yet of any Bill to provide for the future management of Dublin City. That is another matter which is urgent, which should be dealt with, and which could be dealt with, and if this adjournment were not for the period which is suggested, we could arrange to have a Bill introduced and passed here before the 31st March to enable the Dublin Council to be reappointed, provided, of course, that all the time of the Dáil were given to that purpose. Let us meet, not on the 17th February, but on the 17th January, and devote a month to that. It would be well worth giving a month to it without any other distractions.
How would you deal with the tariff on flour and the Censorship Bill if you devoted all your time to the other Bill?
I suggest that we remain in session now until the 17th December, and we will have plenty of time. I think Deputy Tierney is beginning to realise that there is no need for a three months' adjournment unless it is the wish of the Government and, of course, of the Party, to shelve all these matters. There is also, of course, the very important Bill introduced by Deputy Thrift this morning and supported, I think, by Deputy Byrne, a Bill to alter the allowance paid to members of the Seanad. Surely, in justice to those who are seeking election to that body, that Bill should at least be given a Second Reading before the conclusion of the election, so that they may know what the terms of it are.
Some of them might not go on.
There are some candidates who would perhaps like to see that Bill before making up their minds as to which House they intend to belong to. I think that Deputy Thrift, if he is really anxious to press that Bill, should also oppose this motion, to enable the Dáil to meet for another week or so to give that Bill proper consideration. We were promised a Housing Bill, a Minerals Bill, a Merchandise Marks Bill, a Town Tenants Bill, and quite a number of other measures were to have been introduced during this session, and not one of them has appeared, due to the congested state of the Order Paper. The President will remember also that there are no less than four of his Constitution Amendment Bills which have not received their Second Readings yet, and although these were introduced so urgently the session was terminated in July.
They are much more mature now.
We sat up all night on some of them.
We sat up all night, and I think we passed a resolution that their passage through this House was necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace and safety of the State. They are still there.
A DEPUTY
It is still being preserved.
And the Dáil is going to adjourn for three months and leave them in cold storage for that period. There is another matter to which I would like to refer—I think it constitutes a very strong argument against the adjournment of the House for a long period at this time—and that is the activities of the Civic Guard, which have repeatedly been referred to in debates here. They have been raiding extensively throughout the country for no apparent reason, and their activities seem to give the indication that the Department of Justice has embarked upon some policy designed to irritate those opposed to the Government and to produce a situation in the country different from that which exists now. If the Dáil is going to adjourn for three months we would like to get from the Minister for Justice an undertaking that these unnecessary raids will not be continued during that period, and that the activities of the Civic Guard will be confined to what are their legitimate duties. It is not their duty to raid the houses of officers of the Fianna Fáil organisation and to read the communications which I send to the various secretaries through the country. If the Minister wants to know what Fianna Fáil is doing I will arrange with the editor of "The Nation" to send him a copy of that paper, free of charge, every week, and he will be able to keep himself fully informed as to the activities and the growing strength of the organisation——
A DEPUTY
Do you want to kill the man?
It might corrupt him.
It seems to me at any rate that any Deputy who is taking his business as a Deputy seriously will oppose this motion, because only those who are anxious to shirk work and to shirk the duties which they are elected to do will support it. I am very anxious now to see what the Division will be like.
My only reason for intervening in this debate is on account of a remark made by the Minister for Local Government, in reply to Deputy Morrissey, when he stated that the local councils will not do what they are asked to do.
Oh, no.
Well, I took down the words. I would be glad if the Minister would explain that further when the opportunity arises. I would be glad to know why it is that so many members of this House who are members of local boards will not press those boards to do what they had been in the habit of doing prior to the existence of this House, and that is, at certain times in the year to strike a rate for relief, so that each local council as far as possible would look after its own needs during the period of depression that exists every year. I cannot understand why at present no council, not even our own in Dublin, will venture on some work without getting a grant from the Government.
I would ask Deputy Byrne to explain how that could be done in Dublin.
For very many years Deputy O'Kelly, who is on your benches, the President, who is on these benches, and myself were members of a body, and year after year for practically twenty years every Christmas that body struck a rate and formed a distress committee which gave relief work in deserving cases.
What happened that body?
What has happened is that these councils make no suggestions on their own part, and will not strike a rate for the relief of distress. I want to know why it is that they will not put up some suggestions to the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance? I would be glad to hear from the Minister for Local Government if any suggestions have been put up to him by any councils for improvement schemes, towards which they would contribute 50 per cent or 75 per cent., or, in fact, any part of the cost, in order to coax him to make a grant for the relief of unemployment. I am hopeful that when members of the councils return home they will insist on their own councils looking after their own people; that they will make some suggestions and let Deputies know whether suggestions have been made, and if a valuable improvement scheme is put up to the Government that local people will agree to bear portion of the cost. I have raised this matter of unemployment so often, and so have other members of the House, that my arguments are exhausted; but I still repeat that the conditions in the City of Dublin have not improved, but are much worse. There is poverty beyond description in the City of Dublin. We are not as fortunate as those in the country, where Deputy Morrissey says a rate of 1s. 6d. has been struck for the provision of home assistance for children.
That was what was paid.
I agree. Bad as that is, in Dublin City we are not getting it. In Dublin, if a man is healthy, no matter what the condition of his wife and family he will not get any relief. He is told by the relieving officer that there is no power under the Act to relieve a healthy unemployed person, but, if he presses his case, he is told that he can bring his family into the union. The Dublin worker will not do that. He prefers to suffer the hardships outside that he is suffering. I join in the appeal made so often by Deputies to the Minister, that something should be done, and very quickly, to relieve the distress that exists in Dublin.
I suggest that the——
Will the Deputy sit down.
I would like to join with other Deputies in appealing to the Minister for Local Government and the other Ministers, to speed up schemes for which money has been already allocated. Westmeath County Council has sent in a scheme and asked for a grant, and I hope the Minister will deal with it as soon as possible, because a large amount of unemployment prevails in both Longford and Westmeath. The next three months will be a really serious period, because during the spring a very large amount of work will be given owing to the development of the Shannon Scheme. I understand that the work on that scheme has started already in these counties, and that it will be developed by the spring. A good deal of money has been allocated for drainage, housing, and for work that the Land Commission can speed up. A good deal of land is about to be divided, and the making of roads, ditches and work of that kind would give employment. During the ten weeks for which the Dáil will adjourn I hope that the various Departments will do everything possible to provide money for such work. This period is the really serious one, because the position looks very much brighter for the early months of the coming year. We are faced with a very difficult position in Westmeath where £10,000 a year is being spent on home assistance. That is a very big burden for the ratepayers to meet. Owing to the very serious flooding that has occurred in Athlone district it looks as if that sum will have to be considerably increased. I hope that the Ministers in charge of the various Departments will do everything in their power to provide money for schemes that will provide work, owing to the great amount of unemployment that prevails.
There was something very pathetic in Deputy Byrne's valedictory address. His vale and farewell was one of the most pathetic things I have listened to for a long time.
Is it farewell? I am glad you think so.
Mr. HOGAN
I hope so. I hope it is not a farewell for three years but for a longer period.
I might come back.
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy told us that he had exhausted all the arguments he knew of in an endeavour to convince the Government of the importance of this problem. One argument that the Deputy did not exhaust, and that he took good care not to exhaust, and that was when he walked into the opposite lobby when a motion was tabled the other day in favour of the unemployed. He found himself counted in the opposite lobby to that of those who sponsored the motion.
I always do what I think right regardless of politics.
Mr. HOGAN
I realise, of course, that there is no working-class constituency to be wooed and won now. We have only to woo and win another kind of constituency, so that Deputy Byrne has made his valedictory address, and I am glad I had the pleasure of listening to it.
I might come back.
Mr. HOGAN
I find myself in agreement with some of the statements made by the Minister for Finance this morning. He told us that there is never any real result from a debate of this kind. That is quite true—very little result. Whom does he blame for that? Does he blame those who initiate the debates? If there is one thing remarkable about this debate this morning it is the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce; the absence of the man charged with responsibility to this Dáil for statistics as to how many people are unemployed, how many are receiving unemployment insurance benefit, and how many are said to be looking for it. Having that particular information, which is peculiar to his Department, he is not here. What is the reason? Because the Government has no real information as to conditions in the country as regards unemployment; has no real figures that it can stand over; and it knows that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be asked here to-day, what is the number unemployed; what is the number on the books; what is the number of people who have exhausted unemployment benefit, and what is the number signing and receiving no unemployment benefit? The Government knows perfectly well that the Minister is responsible to the Dáil for that information and studiously kept him away, so that he would not he here to give it. It has to acknowledge that his Department has not the information. Therefore the Government has not the information, and cannot deal intelligently with the problem that faces it.
We are asked to agree to an adjournment for practically three months, during which nothing will be done for scores of thousands of people who are a national asset, and who will have by some means or other to try to rear their children and support their families, because no special provision is made by the Government to tide them over that period. We were asked to sit late to pass Estimates for other services. We were asked to sit late to pass Estimates for services that, in the opinion of some of us, were not a national necessity, and yet, when we ask the House to sit longer to consider some proposition for the unemployed, we are told that is not necessary, that we should go home, let the unemployed fend for themselves, and face starvation during the winter months. Most people during the Christmas will face, if not a full, at least a fairly decent larder. The unemployed will face an empty one, and their children will face starvation and cold. I am putting this position not in any sense in an endeavour to harrow the feelings of Deputies or the public, but I know from practical and personal contact with the people in my own county and town that there are cases on the verge of starvation owing to want of employment, and the Government is making no real attempt to give any relief this season. I know that we are paying between £14,000 and £16,000 yearly in home assistance, and that that makes very little improvement and is of very little use in relieving the distress prevailing at present.
The Minister for Local Government told us something about roads. One would imagine that roads are the only thing in this country to which any attention can be given. The statement made about roads shows how little information the Government has as to the real condition of affairs. You have roads for which these grants are given running through a county and for twenty or thirty miles on either side of these roads you have people unemployed. Is it suggested that these people can find employment on these roads? Is there any other means by which employment and work can be got for these people? Deputy Shaw told us about housing. Does he not know that the money for housing has been practically expended already and that for the coming months it will provide no relief for distress?
I suggest in all seriousness to the Government that the sums voted for relief on former occasions were altogether too small and were not sufficient to meet the situation. I suggest to them now that the position has not altered so appreciably that they can allow the unemployed to face three months without any consideration. I suggest that they are exhibiting callousness and have showed a lack of information on this important matter. In all seriousness, and understanding the gravity of the situation, I say that I know no position that a working man can be forced into which is more likely to drive him to rise in revolt than the condition of finding himself and his family in a state of starvation with no means of escape from it. I put it to the Government that there are scores of thousands of people in that position in this country. I can speak with intimate knowledge of my own district, and I know that there are people there willing to work who can find no means of easing their position. If the Government could be induced to give relief at this time, they would be only doing what is their duty towards the poor. We have looked after other services and have sat late and passed money for them. Are we to conclude that these people are the only people that are of no value to the State —that the other services are necessary, but that we are to allow these people to starve during the winter?
I think it was Deputy Morrissey who, referring to a reply of mine to a question by Deputy Broderick the other day, rather seemed to think that that reply implied that what was involved in the query sent to the county councils was that something was going to be done from the Road Fund to deal with a certain class of unemployment during the winter. That is not so—it would be wrong to take that impression. During the last couple of years I have endeavoured to put county councils in a position early in the year to know what position they were going to stand in financially with regard to their roads. I think we were able to let them know in February last year how money was going to be allotted to them. The amount of work that a county council is going to do on maintenance will determine to a certain extent how much is going to be left out of the Road Fund for improvement work. It was for that reason that early last month inquiries were addressed to the county councils with a view to getting them to give a fair estimate as to what amount of money they were going to spend in maintenance during the coming financial year, because fifty per cent. of the maintenance of trunk roads and thirty per cent. of link roads will be borne by the Road Fund. As soon as we are in a position to know from the information we get from county councils how much money will be required to be allotted from the Road Fund for maintenance, we will be able to tell county councils how much we will be able to allot them from the Road Fund for improvements during the coming financial year.
It seems to be thought that the Road Fund should be used as a kind of relief fund or that some portion of it should be. The Local Government Department is not a spending department. My desire is to put county councils in the position at the earliest possible moment of knowing how they are going to stand financially in respect of road works during the coming year. It is up to county councils, who are the spending parties in the matter, so to arrange their work as to give assistance during periods of unemployment that may arise in any particular county. Normally, more money is spent on improvement work, as distinct from maintenance, in the summer months and the big expenditure on maintenance arises during the winter months. If there is going to be any change in that, the local people, who are dealing with local circumstances, can bring about that change.
Some Deputies have questioned my statement that on the 1st October, I think it was, there was a sum of £300,000 still unexpended by local bodies in respect of the national road scheme, and on the 1st November £274,000. In the case of Cork, particularly, it has been questioned that there is a sum of £64,000 or £65,000 still available for expenditure there. Deputy Corry says the money has actually been allotted and spent. Deputy Murphy says the money has been allotted but is tied up by being restricted to some class of work that cannot be carried out during the winter. If a certain class of work cannot be carried out during the winter, it is for county councils to say what class of work can be carried out, and so to arrange the operations of their road staff that works suitable for winter will be carried out in the winter.
On a point of information——
I wonder what is the meaning of a point of information?
I should like to point out to the Minister that I was present at a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Cork County Council at which the statement was made by the county surveyor that the greater portion of this money had been allotted and spent but has not yet been sent out from the Minister's Department.
From the statement that the whole of the money had been allotted and spent, we now come to the statement that the greater portion of it had been allotted and spent. At any rate, there is money for the county council to spend if they consider that distress in the area warrants them carrying out a class of work now, even at a slight loss, which could be better carried out at another time of the year. I want to make it clear that, from the point of view of the Road Fund, the Minister for Local Government can do nothing but put the county councils as early as possible in the position to know what money is coming to them for improvement and maintenance, so that they can, with plenty of time on hands, make arrangements for the spending of that money in the best possible manner, having in mind the labour conditions in any particular district or any county over the whole year.
Does the Minister say that county councils will be allowed to spend the grants on works other than works for which the grants were allocated? The Minister stated that if the work for which the money was allocated was work which could not be carried out in the winter the councils could arrange to carry out other works which could be gone on with in the winter.
No.
The Minister stated that.
There are other moneys which the county councils are depending on which are not tied up. If they know that the particular money is not to be spent until next year, they can call on their resources in another way so as to carry out another class of work this year. If the Minister gives information, say, six or nine months beforehand as to the financial position that the county council is going to be in for the subsequent year, that does not mean that there ought to be a transfer forward in the expenditure of the road grant, and that money not really available in the winter of one particular year such should be spent that year by the county council. A very considerable burden has been put on the Road Fund by the expenditure of a capital sum of something like £2,000,000. Until we know better where we stand with regard to the fund we do not want to have any further burden like that placed upon it.
Does the Minister expect that there will be any money available next year for road improvement without further borrowing?
I do, but I am not in a position to state that until I know how much is to be drawn from the Road Fund for maintenance. Deputy Byrne raised the question as to why the local bodies did not do something in the shape of relief work, and he asked why something is not done in the City of Dublin. Something is being attempted by the Commissioners in Dublin but they find themselves obstructed in the matter. Never in the history of Dublin has there been so much work as has been going on this winter in the development of housing. A large area is being developed in Donnycarney of 31 acres even though it is going to be developed at a loss. The work could be more suitably carried out at another time of the year. Nevertheless the Commissioners are doing that work now. There is a further 46 acres of land at Cabra in connection with which negotiations are going on. Everything is being done by the Commissioners and myself to have this land secured forthwith so that the development of that 46 acres can be gone ahead with in the current winter. All that development will be carried out at the contract rates which the ordinary unskilled labourer earns in Dublin. The normal wage I understand, is, £2 18s. 8d. and that paid by the Corporation is £2 19s. 0d.
Deputy Byrne spoke of the difficulty in Dublin in which able-bodied men cannot receive the same home assistance as they do in the country. The disability under which people in Dublin labour is, to a certain extent, like that. The Commissioners have given very sympathetic consideration to that matter. We have explained here before the difficulty and the demoralisation brought about by putting into force Section 13 of the former Act by which indiscriminate relief could be given. The Commissioners have made an arrangement. There is, undoubtedly, a state of affairs in Dublin in which the heads of families are involved in a considerable amount of hardship owing to unemployment. The Commissioners are giving the greatest consideration to that and are taking steps to relieve serious cases of that kind by relief work.
At thirty shillings a week.
And in so far as that relief will be a relief by the direct payment of home assistance it will be at the rate of 7/6 to the heads of the family and 2/6 to each dependent. But in order to safeguard the situation, to some extent, they have started relief work, and for that purpose they have taken thirty acres of land for further housing developments. In that area they made arrangements in the first place for a test of the genuineness of the applications for home relief—a work test to find out the most suitable person to be given that work. Every person in touch with the situation knows that there are a number of men who have been out of employment for a number of years and who cannot be regarded, because of their want of practice and because of their physical condition, as being able to give a full ordinary day's work. Labour of that kind was utilised on certain relief work by the Commissioners on previous occasions, and a fairly generous estimate of the output of such men is 50 per cent. of the normal output.
The scheme at the Model Farm, which is the position to which I am referring, would give a certain amount of employment to 300 men of that kind. The Commissioners arranged to pay that labour 30/- a week for that work, which is less than the normal work by one hour per day. The scheme will be costed at the ordinary unskilled labour rate in Dublin, and if the cost of the scheme, as paid for at 30/- a week, is less than it would cost at the normal rate then whatever difference there is will be paid as a bonus to the men who work on that basis. The Commissioners are starting that relief work at a standard cost and are employing upon it men not able to do a full day's work, but they have arrangements to give them a pro rata return for their labour.
On Monday last 78 men were notified for work at this particular place; 40 turned up. The forty worked from Monday to Wednesday. Then they were interfered with and turned off the work. Every possible consideration and supervision is given to those men, and they are being paid for the worth of their labour, which is more than they would get as purely home assistance, They are, as it were, being weaned back to work in case there are persons among them who can be weaned back to normal capacity. They have been taken off that work simply because while they resent interference of the kind that is made they are not strong enough to resist the pressure brought upon them to leave the work. The persons who interfere with this work are doing a very grave injustice to a large number of unfortunate people and their dependents—a very grave injustice indeed.
Is the Minister's justification for the conditions pertaining to this particular job that the health of these men has been so undermined by four or five years of semi-starvation that they are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, only able to give half the return that men would give in normal health and that therefore the way to restore these men to normal health is to pay them the normal wage.
He is afraid they would eat too much and kill themselves.
The Commissioners have gone very carefully into the position and are treating it in this particular way but they have been stopped. I mention this to show the help that public authorities are likely to get in their endeavour to tackle this particular kind of problem in a particular kind of way. As to the question whether the wage paid should be 30/-, 31/- or 32/- the Commissioners are prepared, on their side, to spend additional money on home assistance relief in a way in which it might be said they have no rigid statutory power to do. In addition to that they are taking a number of persons most capable of being used in this particular way and are using them in this way. It ought to be very much more healthy from every point of view that persons drawing 30/- a week in outdoor relief should be given an opportunity of doing light work. The position the Commissioners are in is that they have to turn round and return this land for the purpose for which it was used before, that is, allotments. I hope that Deputy Byrne and other Deputies who are interested in the relief of the poor in Dublin will take some step to use their influence to see that something that is constructive and helpful, even though it is not the last thing in desirability, will be allowed to go on.
Another question raised by Deputy Alfred Byrne is whether the local authorities have put up to the Local Government Department schemes for improvements in order to meet the present situation and whether they offered to put up 25 to 50 per cent. of the cost, the State to put up the rest. I do not think that we can approach the solution of the unemployment problem in that particular way, asking the local bodies to put up their improvement schemes and asking the State to support them by making a grant of 50 per cent. In so far as the area of charge has for many purposes been very considerably widened recently and until a fair trial has been made of the increased area of charge at the back of improvement schemes like this, it is simply absurd and not at all constructive working or thinking to ask that the area of charge be extended.
took the Chair.
I am sorry I did not get an opportunity of putting some questions to the Minister before he delivered his speech. There is one matter that has caused considerable consternation during the past couple of days and I was anxious to ask the Minister whether he would deny it or confirm it. I allude to the report that a mileage tax is to be imposed on the bus services of the country. We all know that in connection with these bus services, the Government has up to the present encouraged them in everything but name. The Government has declined taking any action whatever to control the services and has defended in this House its policy of taking no action. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has said that he is as much entitled to interfere with regard to the number of drapers' establishments as he is with regard to the number of motor buses on the road. Even when the plea was put up that if these buses were to be allowed to increase indefinitely in numbers, we should at least have this much out of them, that the bodies should be of Irish manufacture, the proposal got no reception from the Government. We know what has been happening, that bus companies have been forming at the rate of three or four a month. Vehicles have been brought in on the hire-purchase system, and great numbers of people have left their ordinary employment to take up employment with these bus companies. If this report of a mileage tax is correct, it will drive a great number of these services out of existence. It will cost the biggest company in the country a sum of £35,000 a year. That will need some explanation, and I suggest that the Minister should make some pronouncement upon it before the House adjourns. Such a pronouncement is needed in order to relieve the minds of people who have invested all their capital in these concerns and who are arranging to invest further capital in them. It will not do to leave these people in a state of suspense for three or four months.
The question, also, affects the important industry of coach-building. When I remind the House that one coach-building firm is trading on a loan obtained under the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act, the Deputies will understand that the Dáil ought to be particularly concerned in this matter. Naturally no bus company is going to order further bodies until that company sees what is the policy behind this tax and what are the Government's intentions. You may have, therefore, a very serious situation arising in concerns such as coach-building factories, at least one of which is working under a loan obtained under the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act, and I suggest that the Minister should make some announcement on this subject before we separate. I also want to remark with regard to Deputy Alfred Byrne's suggestion that local bodies should prepare schemes, that the Deputy is very innocent if he thinks that the Local Government Department is going to pay any attention to suggestions of that kind. I think it is the case that at least one county council during the past few months has proposed to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that it is prepared to raise £20,000 to relieve unemployment in its area if the Government would put up a corresponding sum. My information is that the Minister has even refused to discuss the matter with that county council. No doubt there is a great deal to be said against dealing with the question of unemployment by applying a different policy in different counties. But in the county where the controlling body show themselves so alive to the situation, where it has exhausted all its resources, in an endeavour to meet the situation within its bounds, such a proposal should not be turned down merely on the grounds of red tape and because it might be an unfortunate precedent, or anything of that kind. The Wicklow County Council which has made that proposal is faced with a shocking problem during the next few months. In East Wicklow there are three or four towns, Bri Chualann, Wicklow and Arklow, where there is most shocking unemployment, and a similar condition of things exists in West Wicklow. I think Home Help which has been costing something like £15,000 a year, so far as I can learn, cannot be continued. The ratepayers are unable to bear it. Further, it is not anything like sufficient to meet the situation which exists in the different districts. If the Minister were to go into any one of these towns at the present time and make enquiries for himself, he would find that families are living in a state that is not a credit to civilisation, a state that is in my opinion, a reflection on this Dáil.
I think Deputies should look on the matter in that way. If we go down to our constituencies, and if we find during this winter that there are thousands of people who have not got fuel, and have not got food, and have not got any of the comforts that a human being claims, then that is a reflection and a very strong reflection on ourselves. For that reason I suggest it would be well worth while for the Dáil to meet on one or two days next week and go into this question on non-party lines. I am sure if we examined the problem in detail to see whether home help could be increased by the assistance of State funds, or whether we could not devise some scheme which would meet the problem as far as possible in the towns that are most seriously affected—if we can do that we would be doing an extremely good work and a work that would at least give us the feeling that we had not turned our backs on those who are less fortunate than ourselves. If on the other hand we adjourn to-day leaving the outlook as bleak as it is at present and as black as it is at present for the unemployed of the towns, then I submit we are not discharging the duties for which we were sent here.
May I intervene to inquire what would meet with general approval in the matter of business to-day? We have the National Health Insurance Bill; we have the Cork City Management Bill, and we have the Public Safety Bill to put through to-day. I think it will be generally admitted that these three Bills should be disposed of and that business completed. I am disposed to suggest that we interrupt this discussion just now, take up these Bills and finish them, or, alternatively, to get agreement now from the House as to what time this debate will conclude and finish it in time to deal with these Bills. It must be clear to everyone that it is most undesirable to conclude the debate on the adjournment at such an hour as would make it impossible for us to finish these three Bills. I think there is a general desire in the House that these three Bills should go through, and I would be glad if accommodation could be arrived at just now so that we would be able to take these measures and conclude them to-day.
If it is absolutely essential why not sit until three or four o'clock to-day, because we all realise that this is a most important debate and the most important question that could be debated. I suggest, in order to meet the President's views, that we should sit until three or four o'clock, if necessary.
The President's suggestion is that the present debate should be interrupted now in order to take up the three Bills.
I think it is the most sensible thing.
Does the President suggest that the Bills on the Order Paper are more important than what is now under discussion—the relief of unemployment?
What about the suggestion of continuing this debate until it is finished?
I am looking up the Standing Orders to see if that can be done.
Why not meet next week, and then we will have plenty of time to finish the matter?
Has the President made up his mind that the Dáil will not meet next week? Is it to be a party question and will he get his——
It is not a party question. I would have spoken after Deputy Lemass in order to answer some of the points put up by him, but I was not given an opportunity. It is not altogether a question of coming here and deciding this and other questions. All those matters require some consideration before they can be put before the House. The presentation of Bills, dealing with Bills in the House, is one of the simplest of the duties that fall upon Ministers. In regard to most of the discussion which has taken place here, if I were given an opportunity of replying I might be in a position to put quite another complexion on the matter.
Does the House agree to suspend the discussion that has arisen on the motion for the adjournment and take up the three Bills mentioned?
I do not think the Chair can take it that that is agreed to. There are a few Deputies on these benches who want to speak on the matter. We may have some important contribution to make on the questions of unemployment and relief schemes. We are prepared to meet the President by extending the time of meeting by at least another hour.
How that can be done under the Standing Orders, I do not know.
In view of the adamant attitude of the Ministry in regard to the subject that is under discussion, I think this House should not give any facilities to the President for suspending this discussion in order to take up Bills. The discussion should now go on.
As far as I understand the Standing Orders, the only way the President can get done what he aims at is by moving the closure.
That would be merely a waste of time, and I want to give Deputies the maximum amount of time available to discuss this matter.
When this question of unemployment came up a few weeks ago the House was given just two and a half hours in which to discuss it. The subject is again brought into the House and we are told that the most sensible thing to do is to adjourn the discussion on unemployment and go on with the consideration of Bills. This question of unemployment is a question that the Dáil could deal with now, and no time limit should be put upon the discussion of that question, because it is a most important matter.
Of course this is a matter for the House. The suggestion the President has made is that this discussion should be suspended in order to take up the three Bills he has mentioned. When they have been dealt with the discussion on the motion for the adjournment would be resumed. It is a matter for the House to decide.
Could the President not speak now and give us an indication of the policy of the Executive Council in so far as the unemployment problem is concerned?
I do not want to be unfair to the President or to the House. but would it not be much better if the President fixed a time limit for the discussion rather than suspend it now while the Dáil would be dealing with the Bills specified?
The Standing Orders prescribe that in order to sit late one must move to do so immediately on the sitting of the Dáil. That is my understanding of the position. The motion must be moved early. The position now is that we can meet only until 2 o'clock. If we continue to discuss this question until 2 o'clock and leave the three Bills untouched I do not think it is a matter that will give general satisfaction. Deputy Anthony does not want the Commissioner to remain in Cork and the same view is expressed by others. Deputy de Valera wishes to have the Public Safety Bill completed, and it is the wish of the House that the Public Safety Bill should not last, as was expressed last year, beyond 31st December. Unless they are dealt with now all these Bills are going to be postponed until February. That is the position if this particular discussion is not ended before 2 o'clock, and if it is not possible to deal with the Bills that I have referred to.
What is the extreme urgency of adjourning to-day? Why is it not possible to sit next week?
We can sit next week and there will be business and there could be more business. In considering that and other matters I came to the conclusion that it would be better if we adjourned a week earlier in this session and started a week earlier next session. It gives more time for important business— business which concerns the Dáil.
Whilst I am prepared at all times to go a long way to help the President, at the same time to me the problem, the tragedy, of unemployment in Cork City transcends in importance the establishment of a new Cork Corporation. Having regard to all this, I ask the President to facilitate the House, remembering that we have on occasions facilitated him. I ask him to give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter. I do not suggest that the speeches will be very long, but there are Deputies from various parts of the State who want to represent the state of affairs in their constituencies. I think it is only fair, if the Minister for Local Government, in conjunction with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, intends to frame a scheme to relieve the problem over the Christmas period, that the case for those constituencies should be presented.
Perhaps I would be correct in saying that the concluding stages of the three Bills the President has mentioned would be purely a matter of form. Possibly we could take them now and, as they are only a matter of form, they could be dealt with possibly within ten minutes.
If I had been asked to extend the sitting at the commencement of business to-day I would have had no objection to doing so. I understood that Deputies generally were aware of the position.
Would it be possible to get out of the difficulty now by moving the suspension of Standing Orders? Then we could proceed with this discussion.
I do not think so.
We have already wasted ten minutes on this one point.
The Bills could have been passed in that time.
May I take it that the House does not agree with the President's suggestion?
There is no confirmation of that.
We want to hear what the Government's policy is before we proceed.
Does the House agree that the three Bills mentioned by the President should be taken now?
That is not agreed to.
Then the debate on the adjournment motion must go on.
Having listened very carefully to Deputy Byrne, and made a particular note of one of his statements, in which he said that he, Deputy O'Kelly and the President were members of a certain Committee under the old Dublin Corporation, I began to realise that there were at least three solid reasons for dissolving the old Dublin Corporation. I followed closely what the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government had to say. So far as I could see, nothing emerged from their statements to indicate any change in their attitude since we had a discussion here a short time ago on unemployment. Nothing emerged but a confirmation of their attitude on that occasion which may be summed up in a few words as the attitude of benevolent neutrality. The Minister for Finance suggested that these debates on unemployment and relief schemes frequently resolve themselves into appeals by Deputies for money for their own bailiwicks. That, apparently to the Minister for Finance, was an attempt to dismiss in a few words the arguments adduced by those against the long adjournment of the House. I suggest that the fact that Deputies from the various constituencies have clamoured, and, I suppose, will clamour again for a share of any relief grants that may be going, goes to show the widespread nature of this great evil of unemployment, and the widespread nature of the demands calling for relief in this country.
In Cork city there is undoubtedly genuine and dire distress amongst a very large section of the people. I have some figures here which represent, in a degree, the poverty existing amongst a certain section of the people. For the year ending the 30th of last month, the number of families relieved in Cork city by the St. Vincent de Paul Society was 3,163. The number of persons in these families is represented by the figure of 14,978 or, roughly, 15,000. I have on more than one occasion stated here that the numbers of people registering at unemployment exchanges cannot be taken as any indication of the gravity of the unemployment situation for reasons which I must again repeat: that when many of those who have continued to register at the unemployment exchanges find that their unemployment benefit is cut off, they say to themselves that there is no use in registering any longer because of the fact that going down to the labour exchanges daily and registering one's name does not mean that one is going to get any employment benefit. Therefore, these people do not go down to register. There are over 3,000 men and women signing the unemployment register in Cork city. If you multiply that figure by three or four you will get the gross number of people who are affected by unemployment—that is to say the number registering—but I think you can safely multiply that figure again by five, and having done that you would reach the figure which nearly represents the actual numbers of the unemployed.
As a further instance of the gravity of the situation in Cork city, I might mention that a Board of which I am a member, the Cork Harbour Commissioners, recently undertook some work. It was more or less in the nature of a relief scheme. There was only work available for 40 or 45 men, and yet we had something like 500 or 600 people outside the gates of the Cork Harbour Commissioners' premises clamouring for that work. I noticed that the Minister for Local Government mentioned, amongst a number of other activities of the City Commissioners in Dublin, that they were empowered to give some grants in or about this period for relief work. I might say that it was the custom for the old Cork City Corporation to embark upon work of a constructive nature in or about this period of the year. That was quite a tradition, as far as Cork city was concerned. Every year, as long as I can remember, in or about this season, relief work was begun and continued well over the Christmas period. I want to know from the Minister if the Commissioner in office in Cork city at present is empowered to make a grant out of corporate funds for relief work for the unemployed in the city. I had some difficulty about this time twelve months in getting some of this relief work for the unemployed, and I would suggest to the Minister that, so far as Cork city is concerned, it should be an instruction from him to the Commissioner that this class of work would be gone on with immediately.
What is true of the bye-roads mentioned by some of the County Council Deputies in this House is also true of the side streets and slum areas of Cork city. Whilst you have the main and large streets of the city which are inhabited by the well-to-do shopkeepers and the streets and roads occupied by what I may call the bourgeois classes well looked after and maintained, we find that the narrow streets, the lanes and the alleys where the humble poor live are reeking with filth. That is not a state of affairs that should obtain. Many of those slum and tenement areas in Cork city are a disgrace to civilisation, and if the old Cork City Corporation were in power that state of affairs would not exist. I suggest to the Minister for Local Government that he should instruct the City Commissioner to carry out these works of grave urgency, not alone with the object of giving very necessary employment during the Christmas period, but from the point of view of hygiene and as a matter concerning the public health of the people. I suggest that the Minister should see to it that this work is carried out immediately. It would be one of the things that would help to tide the poor unemployed people over the season of supposed peace and plenty. We should not adjourn to-day while there are important measures on the Order Paper awaiting discussion.
I suggest very seriously to the President that it would be more prudent and better all round if we were to sit till the 17th and do some business, and not be keeping us here at the beginning of the new Session until 10.30 at night. I, with all my Party, agreed to accommodate the majority of the people attending this House by acquiescing in the agreement that we should sit until 10.30 each night. Personally, though possibly other members of my own Party may not agree with me in this, I am going in future to protest against facilitating people in this House who possibly would not go out of their way to accommodate me and people like me if they got the chance. I suggest that we by our action in facilitating certain interests in this House are not doing the right thing to the people who sent us here or to ourselves. I suggest to the Fianna Fáil Party, if they would take a suggestion from me, that they should not acquiesce in any agreement between any party which would result in keeping us here every night until 10.30 so long as we are going to have these long adjournments. Instead of sitting until 10.30 I suggest that we should sit two hours later on Friday and meet on the Tuesday. If we fix on that time we will possibly eliminate from the House many of the people who are simply making politics a hobby, who do not treat the matter seriously, and who wish, possibly, to have a delightful week-end in Dublin.
I make this suggestion seriously, and I am going to test the bona fides of people who make protests here in connection with other matters. It is most unfair to some members of this House that they should be kept here until 10.30 when, by meeting on the Tuesday, we could obviate these late hours and would be able to devote the same number of hours to the business of the State. We have, as I have said, important business on the Order Paper. We have the immoral literature Bill, and a motion dealing with tariffs, both very important questions. We have been bombarded with literature from all classes of society, religious and otherwise, in connection with the immoral literature Bill. I could fill a post bag with the stuff, and I call it that whether it comes from a religious society or a society of cranks—it is all the same. If we have this long adjournment we will have unctuous individuals going around the hustings in a week or two telling their maiden aunts—as some Deputy mentioned not long ago— about the very bad people in the Dáil who adjourned without considering the immoral literature Bill. I hope we will have none of that, and that we will be honest and frank about the matter. I am prepared to sit to the end of next week or the week after in order to get rid of some of the business on the Order Paper.
Before the House adjourns, some scheme should be laid on the Table by the Government as to how they propose to deal with the problem of unemployment. Some scheme of relief should be initiated which would tend to brighten the Christmas period of many of the unfortunates, particularly in the cities and towns. I suggest that should be done without delay. I would like the Minister for Local Government to give some indication as to what his attitude would be in relation to the City Commissioners regarding the expenditure of money in the city of Cork for the relief of unemployment over this period.
I oppose the adjournment for two reasons: first, that the Government have not tackled the question of unemployment, and, secondly, that they have done practically nothing to relieve distress amongst the farming community. As regards the question of unemployment, the only solution we heard so far was that suggested by Deputy Byrne that the local councils should borrow. If Deputy Byrne has nothing more than that suggestion to offer, we make it a Christmas box to him. The position of the local councils in some areas is very bad. They have borrowed money and mortgaged the rates, so that further borrowing is out of the question, as they will not get the necessary advances. Deputy Byrne is very solicitous for the poor. If we put down a radical motion to remedy this whole question, stipulating that it was the duty of the State to provide work for the unemployed, we would see how Deputy Byrne would vote. I do not believe in sops, doles and grants to relieve the unemployed. I believe it is the duty of the State to find work for them, and that can be done. The State has not tackled this question. Somebody has described grants as a temporary amelioration. They are. I would like when they are given the Local Government Department should not stipulate to certain county councils that when further grants are given to county councils already heavily embarrassed they should borrow twice the amount out of the following year's rates. That is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. As regards the position of the farming community, we had a discussion here on Wednesday, but there was no hopeful indication from the Government that they were going to deal with the present position in a wholehearted way. No indication came from them that they realised the position in rural Ireland at present. Anybody who lives in rural Ireland knows —I am speaking with knowledge of the Midlands—that the farms are unstocked and that a number of farm labourers cannot be employed on the farms. They are constantly coming up to members of Boards of Health asking for home help, men who two or three years ago had constant employment on the farms. The reason of this is that the farmers have no capital to go on with the work on the farm, and the Government have not assisted them with the necessary capital through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It does seem ridiculous to be always stressing this point, but it is a fundamental point that the Government have not met the farmers with the necessary credit.
It is the basic reason for the present economic conditions in the country. When the farmers have not the capital they cannot give employment. We were promised, when the amending Bill to the Act that set up the Agricultural Credit Corporation was brought in——
The Deputy cannot discuss that now. That was very fully discussed on Deputy Ryan's motion the other night.
I contend that a number of those who wished to discuss it the other night did not get an opportunity of doing so. As far as I am aware, only one Deputy discussed it. I was going to suggest that we would be well employed if we sat for some time extra considering the amending Bills which were promised in connection with the Agricultural Credit Corporation, in order to make that Act operative. I find in this House that when I switch on to this subject I am always up against the Chair. The only solution I have is that the myth of to-day is the science of to-morrow.
I only want to refer to the speech made by the Minister for Local Government, in the course of which he dealt very fully with the provision which has been made in the City of Dublin for the relief of the unemployed. I think that the distress due to unemployment is just as acute in the associated districts and townships around Dublin, as it is in the city itself. If unemployment is widespread in Dublin, it is equally so in Rathmines, Pembroke, Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, and if there has been no comprehensive scheme formulated in those townships to deal with that problem, the responsibility is primarily due to the Minister. As Deputy Lemass said, the Minister promised that the Dublin City Management Bill would be before the Dáil in the last session. If the Minister had formulated his proposals in regard to those districts, and if they had been passed by the Dáil, we would have some body—either one or two bodies— which would be able, as I have said, to deal with the problem of unemployment in the districts around Dublin in some comprehensive way. I believe that the distress in those districts is greater because of the fact that there is so much divided authority.
I think if we had one body that a good deal of the distress could be relieved. We do not, of course, believe that unemployment is going to be cured either by striking a rate or by imposing a tax. But we do feel that the distress which is consequent upon that unemployment is so pressing that this House should not adjourn without making some provision to relieve it. If, as Deputy Hogan said, the men who are workless, and their wives and children starving, are a national asset, they belong to this nation; they are of potential value to this nation, provided they are properly maintained. Is there a single Deputy who would go away from his business for three months and who would leave an animal or a machine without making provision either to maintain it or to protect it? That is what we propose to do if we adjourn the Dáil. I think one of the most effective, one of the most convincing, and one of the sincerest speeches delivered in the debate to-day was the speech of Deputy Hogan, because he did one thing: he rendered real service to the community. He dissipated the smoke-screen of hypocrisy which had been created by Deputy Byrne, Deputy Shaw and other private Deputies on the Government Benches who got up and asked the Government, in a hypocritical way, to do something to relieve distress in their own constituencies.
I was doing that when you were talking about flags and guns. I looked after the unemployed.
Those Deputies had an opportunity of achieving something practical when Deputy Cassidy's amendment in regard to the Estimate for Relief Schemes was before the Dáil. They had an opportunity of doing something practical when Deputy Tadhg Murphy's proposal, that the Government should examine the position which was created by the fact that no adequate provision was at present made for widows and orphans, was under consideration. They had an opportunity of doing something in a practical way, either to compel the Government to make proper provision for the relief of the unemployed, or else, if the Government refused to be coerced in this matter, to put out the Government, and to put in a Government which would accept responsibility for it. What did Deputy Alfred Byrne, who was so vocal about the sufferings, the misery, and the distress of the unemployed workers in his constituency, do? Instead of voting with Deputy Cassidy, Deputy Alfred Byrne, Deputy Shaw and Deputy John Daly went into the Lobby against Deputy Cassidy's motion, and maintained the Government in the attitude, that this Dáil should separate on this day, for almost three months, without making any provision to relieve distress, which everyone of us knows—which Deputy Byrne, on his own admission, knows—that the poor and the workers of this country will be subjected to during the coming Christmastide. I say that for that reason Deputy Hogan's speech was one of the most effective, and one of the sincerest delivered, and I hope, when Deputies who are now plaintive about the ills of the unemployed, go down to their constituencies, that those constituencies, and those unemployed, will hold them accountable for the votes they cast against Deputy Cassidy's amendment.
I do not think Deputies should regard a solution of the unemployment problem as a party matter, and to that extent I regret that the last speaker more or less directed his remarks to Deputy Alfred Byrne, rather than to suggestions as to ways and means by which the existing situation might be relieved to some extent. Many, if not all of the members of the Labour Party are agreed that the work of the Economic Committee which, in our opinion, is the most important committee so far set up, should be allowed to proceed in a peaceful, non-political atmosphere. I would be quite willing to agree that that Committee should begin its work with an agreed adjournment, and leave over the discussion of contentious political questions which are, from time to time, brought up in this House. But I could not take the responsibility of casting my vote in favour of an adjournment, because I know that the situation is abnormal as far as unemployment is concerned. If the President had got up as five minutes to twelve and announced that the Government were prepared to bring in a relief grant of £200,000 or £250,000, so that local authorities might, with the assistance of the ratepayers' money, be allowed to go ahead with useful schemes, and give valuable employment at this particular period, I would say that the President should be given facilities to make such a request. I am perfectly satisfied that money provided by way of relief schemes is only temporary relief in the existent abnormal situation so far as unemployment is concerned. No doubt the President is well aware that money voted for the unemployed by way of relief schemes last year was set aside partly for carrying out very useful public works. No one in the House associated with any party can get up and say that the sanitary condition of the cities and towns is satisfactory. Certainly no Deputy would have the hardihood to suggest that ratepayers in the rural parts should be forced to provide all the money required to carry out urgent and necessary public works.
If that is so, I think it is the duty of this House, and of the Government, if they are well advised, to insist on certain sums of money being made available immediately so that the towns and cities that are in a bad condition from a public health point of view might be provided with a reasonable amount of money to have these works carried out, and thereby relieve unemployment, temporarily at any rate.
As has been pointed out, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is absent, because, I suppose, he is not prepared to stand up and repeat the statements he made here previously regarding the numbers of unemployed. I hope the members of the Economic Committee, particularly the ordinary Deputies, will insist on getting the use of the State machinery to find out, as far as can be found out, what is the exact number of unemployed in the country at present. Everyone knows, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce knows better than anybody else, that the figures the Minister has quoted here from time to time do not give a correct representation of the actual unemployment situation, and, therefore, I hope that the Economic Committee will, if they start work, or if they try to go ahead with their work, try to get hold of the State machinery, so that the correct figures regarding unemployment will be given to this House as a result of their labours.
I am not a member of any local authority in my constituency, but I have been furnished with reports from the board of health, and, in the case of one county in my constituency, I have had particulars given to me showing the home assistance grants given in the months of August and September, and they showed an increase over the corresponding figures for August and September of last year. Now, if the home help allowances show an increase in August and September over those of August and September of the year before, surely to goodness the situation will be worse in January, February and March than it was in August and September. The four other Deputies who represent the same constituency as I do are members in their own counties of the county councils and of the county boards of health, and they can speak with greater authority on this matter than I can. But I happened, by accident, to run into the secretary of one of the county boards of health in my constituency when I was running through my constituency recently.
You were not in an armoured car?
A DEPUTY
Why did you run through it?
You must have turned the corner.
A slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind. At any rate, I inquired from this very energetic secretary of the Board of Health as to whether the increase in the home help allowances over last year was due to the generosity of present members of the Board of Health, and he assured me—and he is a very energetic and reliable man—that those who were in receipt of home help were actually in a state of poverty which justified the payment of the sums which were being given to them. Deputy Lemass, by the way, went down to my constituency, spent a good deal of time in it, and ran out of it disappointed.
I brought back two colleagues.
I am referring to the 1925 bye-election. I do not think you brought anybody back that time.
Neither did you.
At any rate, we certainly say with emphasis that it is the duty and the responsibility of the Ministry to provide at this particular period such sums as will enable local authorities to carry out those schemes that are already with the Department of Local Government and Public Health. If they did so, they would help to relieve the situation over a period during which, I hope, the Economic Committee will be giving consideration to the more important problem of finding a permanent solution for the relief of unemployment. I am not quite sure whether the terms of reference of that Committee will allow them to make an interim report, but if they have that right, or if they see fit to do so, and if they do it between this and the 19th February, assuming that the House is now going to adjourn by means of the mechanical majority of the Government, there will be no means and no opportunity for the House to give consideration to such a report. I would, therefore, urge the President to make a statement as to whether or not he is prepared to provide money by means of a Supplementary Estimate for the relief of unemployment and to enable those local authorities to carry out the schemes that are already in Government Departments.
The question is: Is the present number of unemployed in the country to be regarded as a normal number in normal times? Is the number abnormal, or over and above the normal figure for this or any other country in the existing circumstances? If it is, it certainly is not the duty of the ratepayers to find the money to relieve this problem. That being so, it is the duty of the Government, in the case of those local authorities which are willing to put up certain amounts—three-fifths in some cases—to put up the remaining two-fifths and thereby enable something to be done during the next two or three months when the House will not be in a position to give any consideration to these matters. If the House adjourns I sincerely hope that the Economic Committee will get to work, and, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to say to work in a peaceful and non-political atmosphere, because that is the only atmosphere which will enable them to do useful work. This Committee has been set up on the suggestion of Deputy de Valera, who is the leader of the Opposition Party, which has almost as large a representation in this House as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I hope, therefore, that if the Government, which has a responsibility for the relief of unemployment, and for dealing with those matters which are referred to in the terms of reference of the Committee, does not put up practical schemes for the solution of the problem, Deputy de Valera and the other Deputies on that Committee, who are outside the Government Party, will at least have the courage to put up some practical scheme, and I hope that when the House meets again it will face proposals coming from that Committee that will lead to the permanent solution of the unemployment problem rather than a temporary solution which, I suggest, can only be brought about by the Government agreeing to bring in a Supplementary Estimate of a reasonable amount to provide temporary relief during the intervening period.
I oppose the adjournment of this House to-day owing to the condition of the country. I do not intend to take up the time of the House very long now, but I would submit that if an estimate were wanted to relieve unemployment it should have been looked for when the Estimates were being discussed—not that I would oppose it now—but I would suggest that that was the proper time. It would be well, I think, that we should wait for at least another week to clear off some of the items on this programme so as to leave the time of the Dáil free after the adjournment for getting ahead with legislation relating to housing and other things that are badly needed. It seems as if advantage was taken of this debate to go into all the minor matters in the various counties, the unemployment that is there, the conditions of these counties, and so on. I do not intend to do that, but I intend to refer briefly to two communications that I have got from County Galway showing the condition of affairs there.
The Press recently has emphasised the terrible condition in which the farmers are along the Shannon from Portumna to Banagher, on both sides of the river. There is no need for me, therefore, to dwell upon it except to state that there was a promise given in this House in 1925 that inspectors would be sent down and relief given, but the only relief given was the sum of about £250, spent, I believe, a few weeks prior to and right up to the election of 1927—having nothing, of course, to do with the election. One of the items I refer to is a report to the Ballinasloe Urban District Council by the Medical Officer of Health that in the urban area there are 156 houses accommodating 800 people which are absolutely unfit for human habitation. That will give some idea of the conditions in an urban area. The next is a resolution passed by the Galway County Council—
"That Dáil Eireann be asked to immediately pass an Act amending the Education (Provision of Meals) (Ireland) Acts, 1914, 1916 and 1917, so that county councils or boards of health may have the same power to supply meals to school children attending any school in the county health districts as urban councils now possess within the limits of urban areas under the said Acts.
"In the meantime the Departments of Education and of Public Health and Public Assistance are requested to form local committees and make grants which, with the aid of private subscriptions, shall be sufficient to supply one meal per day to children attending national schools in the poorer districts of this county.
"This Council is of opinion that education suffers in such districts through mal-nutrition."
That is a sad thing to picture. We might not, by sitting here for a few weeks, be able to relieve much of that, but I suggest that by minding our business here even for another week we would be able to give some token that we were in earnest and were not adjourning frivolously when other counties as well as Galway are in the same condition in reference to these meals.
When I raised the question of poverty and unemployment existing in the country yesterday, and when I protested against the proposal to adjourn the Dáil for a period of ten weeks without making any provision for the unemployed, and suggested that a Supplementary Estimate should be introduced, the President made what I might term a low, mean, contemptible insinuation.
If somebody else made that remark in reference to Deputy Cassidy, I am sure he would rise to a point of order, and rise very passionately. Does the Deputy consider that kind of language should be bandied across the House? Would he like somebody to use it in reference to himself, for example? I do not think he would, and I think he ought not to use that kind of language. It does not carry us any distance.
The President mentioned yesterday that we were raising this matter of unemployment for publicity purposes. I suggest that that insinuation was altogether unworthy of the President, in view of the poverty and suffering existing at present amongst the unemployed and their children. The President knows very well that the insinuation is not correct. He knows that the reason we are raising this question of unemployment repeatedly is because of the undoubted fact that unemployment and poverty do exist. It is clear to me that an insinuation of that description, coming from the President, is put forward in the hope that it would deter us from raising the question. It appears to me that the Government want to draw a curtain over this question and do not want it raised in the House. For instance, when I moved an amendment to refer a Vote back for reconsideration, a time limit was put on the discussion. To my mind, that meant that the Government was only prepared to devote a certain amount of time to that discussion, whereas if they were serious with regard to it they could devote a much longer period. Again, when the question came up in regard to the adjournment, we find that the suggestion was put forward that it would be more sensible to adjourn the discussion and let other Bills be taken, and possibly continue the discussion for a very short period.
I suggest to the President that insinuations in regard to publicity do not come very well from him, in view of the fact that he has recently had an interview with a representative of the "Daily Mail" in which he referred to imaginary upward curves and turning invisible corners. I suggest to him that things of that description are not going to feed the hungry. The President is himself a bit of an adept in regard to publicity, in view of the fact that he had quite a number of reporters with him on his American tour in order to give him publicity. I suggest that what he did not know about publicity before he went to America "Big Bill" Thompson probably taught him. The President also said yesterday that this matter had not been raised in the Dáil for quite a considerable time. He must have a very short memory, because it was raised about a fortnight ago, and the President led his Party into the Division Lobby against the amendment. If the President did not know that he must have been voting against an amendment of which he knew nothing. I submit that it is absolutely scandalous for the House to adjourn for ten weeks without at least some provision being made to relieve the existing poverty and destitution.
The Minister for Local Government referred to the fact that there are in the coffers of the county councils at present sums of money belonging to the Road Fund. He put that forward as one of the reasons why a Supplementary Estimate for relief schemes should not be introduced. The Minister knows that in previous years provision was made for relief schemes, when there was also a certain sum of money available from the Road Fund. The Minister could also have told the House that moneys expended from the Road Fund, at any rate in the Gaeltacht area, did not go into the very poorest districts and absorb the unemployed there. He also knows that in connection with grants from this Road Fund he has refused to pay a decent living wage to those employed. In Donegal he stipulated for a rate of 26/- per week, and when the county council decided to raise the rate to 30/- his Department refused to sanction it and they are still refusing to sanction it.
If the Government had carried out the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission or of the Committee on Unemployment, or of the Sea Fisheries Conference, there would not be the same necessity as there is at present for bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for relief schemes. It is well known to every Deputy that there are thousands upon thousands of people in the country looking for work and who cannot find it. The Minister suggested, as far as Dublin City was concerned, that the Commissioners were giving relief work at 30/- per week. He also mentioned that owing to the physical condition of the men, brought about by prolonged unemployment, they could not give a fair day's work. I suggest to him that that was not the real reason behind this 30/- wage. I suggest, and I challenge him to contradict it, that this was a direct attempt to try and reduce wages in Dublin.
As I said before, there never was a period in which work in connection with housing was so much in evidence in Dublin as at present, and the Commissioners have always paid the highest possible rate of wages to their employees on the work. In the case of unskilled labourers, the normal wage in Dublin is £2 18s. 8d., and the Commissioners are paying £2 19s. 0d. It is quite unfair, and it is an attempt to hide the facts, to make an insinuation of the kind made by the Deputy.
I am glad to hear the Minister make that statement, but at the same time I would point out to him that when the Donegal County Council decided to increase the wages to 30/- a week his Department refused to sanction it.
They declined to change the rates of wages agreed upon some time ago in respect of a definite piece of work.
I submit that the present unemployment is rampant throughout the country, and that it exists not merely in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, but right through the rural areas. When looking at this question of poverty and destitution we cannot look at it from the point of view of unemployment alone, because we know that there are many small farmers and fishermen, especially in the Gaeltacht area, and their families who are in a state of absolute want. I suggest that in other years provision was made for the unemployed. This year no provision, in the way of relief schemes, has been made, although there are more people unemployed and in poverty and in destitution this year than two or three years ago. That may be denied, but it will be evident to anyone who goes to the County Donegal and the County Dublin or many other parts of the country. It is all right for the Minister to get up and say: "This question of poverty is not so pressing this year." The reason they think that and the reason they say that is because they do not mix with the unemployed. They do not know the poverty and suffinit fering that exist. I submit if they did they would endeavour to treat the problem in a far more serious way than they are doing at the present time.
We are now asked to adjourn the House for a period of ten weeks. During the past year the House has met for a period of only 25 weeks and sometimes three days and sometimes four days a week. I suggest we should not be asked to adjourn until the Government make known definitely that they are prepared to do something, and that they are prepared to vote a sum of money to be devoted to the relief of destitution in the country. There is a responsibility resting upon every Deputy in this House. I believe that every Deputy who votes for the adjournment of the House for ten weeks will be, to a big extent, responsible for the poverty and suffering that will take place in these ten weeks. I ask Deputies to look at it from that standpoint. When they go back to their constituencies they will see the poverty that exists there. Now is the time to relieve it. The President knows well the poverty that exists, and I put it to him that it is his bounden duty—and the responsibility is upon his shoulder and upon the shoulders of the Executive Council— to see that money will be voted to relieve the poverty and destitution that exists throughout the country. If they fail to do that they will have failed in their duty and will have a responsibility for a lot of unnecessary suffering in the ensuing ten weeks.