Or unemployment, due to movement of trade or the completion of works here and there. That is the position that is met by our unemployment insurance. It is intended to be met by unemployment insurance. We have, in addition, what might be termed the normally unemployed, and those constitute a very large number, indeed. We have many other people who get casual employment —short periods of employment on the roads or something of that kind —but who normally are unemployed. These are mainly unskilled people. It is for these we say that the Government have not made the efforts that we think ought to have been made, and could be made. You have, in addition, a great number of people who might be described as being normally under-employed. Among these, I would class many of our small farmers, especially the uneconomic landholders and their sons. To these, I would add the fishermen and people of that kind.
Attention has already been drawn on several occasions here to the fact that when the Government set out on what they call "a policy of economy," they effect economies by cutting down certain Estimates which provide money which normally would give employment. We have had various instances of that. We have an instance this year; there were very considerable reductions in the land improvement schemes on the Land Commission Vote. In fact, it always seems to us that whenever the Government set out on a campaign of economy of that particular type, the economy is effected by cutting down sums intended mainly to provide employment. That is not "economy" that can have any other than the opposite effect to that which, apparently, the Government intends. Surely, that is not economy. Moneys are saved nationally, or apparently saved nationally, at the expense of the ratepayers; that is really what happens. If the money is not available for distribution for useful work, then the local authorities and the ratepayers must come to the relief of the unemployed, because we have these men with us, and they must be supported. They must live, and they are a burden on the community. The community must support them.
It will not be sufficient for the Government to say, and certainly they are not doing their duty when they say: "We will not provide this money; we will not provide any further money which, under this head, in the past gave employment. We will leave that to the local authorities." That has been, as far as we can gather, the attitude taken by the Ministry on several occasions here.
What has been done by the Government in this matter? We have heard repeatedly trotted out here all the steps the Government have taken to increase industry, to revive trade, and, thereby, to create employment. I submit to the Government, without detracting in any way from what they have done in that particular connection, that these things in themselves are not sufficient to deal in an adequate way with this problem. They are too slow. Men must live while the Government schemes are being developed. We have heard in previous years of the fine things that the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts were to do.
I wonder could we get an estimate from any Minister of the actual number of people who have been employed as a result of the Trade Loans Facilities Act? I think we heard a statement here a few weeks ago to the effect that people had not made the use of that Act which they might have made, or which it was thought by the Government they would have made. If that is so, it is practically what some of us prophesied when that Act was going through, that it would not be able to do all the things expected of it, in the way of creating employment, by the Government at that time. About eighteen months ago, as a result of pressure from this House, the Government set up a committee to look into the question of unemployment. That committee made certain recommendations. What has been the result? I would like, especially as the President is here, to know what has become of the special sub-committee set up for the purpose of dealing with the question of housing? Certain recommendations were made in regard to matters of housing. The committee was confined to Dublin people under the chairmanship of a Deputy of this House. Although reference was made on many occasions to that committee, we do not know exactly what it has done, or what it proposes to do. The question which I want to ask the President is: has he thrown off his own responsibility, has the Government shifted its responsibility in this matter on to that committee? Is that the position? If the committee chooses for one reason or another—I am not saying who is responsible—not to make a report, and to do nothing, does the President propose to sit down and say: "I can do no more"? Is that the attitude of the Government in regard to that matter?
We were promised early in this session that a very comprehensive housing scheme would be introduced some time during the year. The only proposal we have is the extension, if it can be called an extension, of the present Act and of the grants available. Is that the last word of the Ministry on the matter of housing? A few days ago I was looking over the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission. I was looking at several recommendations which have been made. The Minister for Local Government was Chairman of the Commission, and, in the statement issued by the Government afterwards, observations were made in regard to those recommendations. In Recommendation 55, for instance, it was stated that a special system of loans and grants would be introduced for the improvement of houses in the Gaeltacht. In Recommendation 59, in regard to the question of State grants for the encouragement of land reclamation, it was stated that the Government were prepared to give effect to the recommendation and would have the matter explored with a view to the preparation of a suitable scheme. They are, however, still on that voyage of exploration, and we have had nothing tangible as a result of it.
In connection with recommendations for a comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage for the Gaeltacht we have it stated that one large scheme, which is outside the Act of 1925, for the improvement of Lough Corrib and the River Corrib was being examined. I expect that Deputy Fahy could tell us whether it has passed the stage of examination. So far as I know it has not, and the people in that area may still look forward to employment when its examination is complete. The same may be said in regard to other recommendations of that Committee. We have still to see their fruition. We have nothing but Government promises to depend on, and a comparison with the broken reed would be too good in that connection. Here we have this problem. We have work to be done. No one will deny that. There are many schemes of national development. They need not be enumerated as they are well known. Perhaps the Minister for Finance would not call them economic because they would not return five or ten per cent. on the money invested, but they are works of national importance which would add to the national well-being. As I say, the work is there to be done. The men are available to do it. The Minister for Finance will not deny that it would be possible to obtain money to spend on such work. You have those three factors present. What more is required except organisation and, perhaps, imagination and a little courage on the part of the Ministry to attack this problem in the way that it ought to be attacked? It has never been made the dominant issue that it should have been made, and no genuine attempt has been made to tackle it in the way that it ought to have been tackled.
We have now, at least, examples of the steps that have been taken in a neighbouring country to deal with this problem. Not alone, however, has no special Minister been appointed here, but the Government have not set up a special committee of the Ministry to handle the problem in the way it ought to be handled. We have those schemes to which I have referred, and I have no doubt that the Minister will sing out the litany again of all the various things they are doing. The fact, however, is that we have the problem of unemployment with us, and that is the test. Has there been a steady diminution in the number of unemployed people in the country? Take the City of Dublin, for instance. I have quoted figures which show that in Dublin, in any case, the problem is such that it should not be allowed by any responsible Government to continue. The Minister for Local Government, whenever this problem is raised, has always the one remedy —namely, the local authorities are empowered to deal with any man in a state of distress owing to unemployment. As I have said, I do not desire in any way to detract from the schemes which the Government have endeavoured, in a small and piece-meal way, to set on foot with the ultimate object of creating industry and providing employment. but I say that that is not sufficient, as, in the meantime, those who are unemployed must live. Whether is it better that we should simply throw these people on to home assistance or that we should provide employment for them which might not be fully economic, in the sense which the Minister for Finance would say is economic. I have no hesitation at all in saying that it would be a much better economic proposition for the country as a whole that such works should be provided, and that money should be specially provided for such work. That is why we have here repeatedly urged that money should be provided by way of special schemes, whether relief schemes or any other schemes, to give employment to men who are able and willing to work, but who are not in a position to find work, to give employment to such people until such time as they will be absorbed into other industries as a result of the Government's measures for the development of industry and for increasing trade.
The Government have deliberately taken up the attitude that they will not provide sums of that kind. Not only that, but they have gone further. They have reduced very considerably indeed the money which was available in the ordinary Estimates for employment, especially for the employment of unskilled men, who are the people normally unemployed. I do not wish to dwell on this matter in any great detail. I just want to deal with the question in a very general way, and to say that it is our belief that is the duty of any Government in power to make special provision so that people will be normally employed. It is because there is no doubt in our minds that the present Ministry have failed lamentably in their duty in that respect that I am moving to have this Vote referred back for re-consideration.