Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Apr 1932

Vol. 41 No. 5

In Committee on Finance. - Immediate Needs of the Unemployed—Debate Resumed.

Debate resumed on the following Motion:

"That the Dáil is of opinion that steps should be taken forthwith by the Executive Council to provide work or maintenance to meet the immediate needs of the unemployed."—(Deputies Morrissey and Anthony.)

Mr. J.J. Byrne

We have magnificent headlines in the "Irish Press" informing the public at large of all that the new Government is trying to do to assist the unemployed. We have big black letters: "Planning the provision of work for all. Government solution for the unemployed problem." But this House is still waiting for some information as to how this magnificent planning is going to be carried out, waiting to hear of some concrete proposals to relieve the immediate necessities of the unemployed. The motion Deputy Morrissey has put down is a definite and precise motion. It calls for steps to be taken forthwith to provide work or maintenance to meet the immediate needs of the unemployed. The Government have accepted that motion. We want to know what steps they propose to take now to give food and shelter to the destitute that they themselves admit have considerably increased in numbers. The time has gone for empty promises; the time has come now for a little performance. Fianna Fáil were very generous in promising the electorate a new heaven and a new earth if they were returned. They have been returned and it is time that the public, and especially the unemployed, got some little fulfilment of these promises which is long overdue.

I think it might be well just for a moment to dwell upon the unemployed situation as it exists in the City of Dublin. We all know that there has been a great influx from provincial centres of unfortunate people looking for work and that that has acted very detrimentally on the Dublin people themselves. But I would like to point out that since the Government came into power unemployment has been steadily increasing. The needs and necessities of the unemployed have been thereby considerably increased and accentuated. I do not wish to paint an over-lurid picture of the situation. I will speak of facts that have come to my own knowledge.

Let us take the building trade-one of the great means of employment, especially in Dublin City. I have been credibly informed that building contractors have hastened work that they had in hands and have suspended the carrying out of other work. I have been credibly informed of two cases which will illustrate the state of uncertainty that exists in the country at present. In Dublin, one large industrial firm contemplated a building extension involving an expenditure of £10,000. That scheme has been indefinitely suspended. In another case, a firm contemplated a building extension involving an expenditure of £2,000. That scheme has also been indefinitely suspended. The feeling of uncertainty is such that even in commercial circles employment has been very adversely affected. As a matter of fact, large firms at the present time are keeping their staffs to the minimum and carefully conserving the capital they have in hands.

I may remind the President that, under the Dublin Poor Relief Act, £250,000 is being found annually to provide food for the unemployed. I regret to say that that £250,000 is grossly inadequate to deal with the existing situation in Dublin City. There were listed in the courts one day last week about 160 ejectment cases. In these cases, the landlords had been as lenient as they possibly could with their tenants, but there is a limit to which leniency can go and that limit had been reached. Within the past three weeks, I have had a great many callers stating that the bailiffs were coming and asking if it would be possible to obtain for them even a respite of a week in order that they might find some shelter. What hope have unemployed people of finding a shelter in the circumstances that now exist? What landlord would take in people of that type? What landlord dare take them in unless he wanted to provide for them at his own expense?

I draw attention to the fact that during the last week 8,014 families received poor relief in the City of Dublin. Last week, there was an increase of over 900 families receiving poor relief over the number for the same week last year. I ask the House to visualise an advance of 900 families in poverty over the number that existed last year, involving an expenditure of £4,375.

In accepting this motion, the State is undertaking to provide work or to maintain these people. It also involves the further responsibility, the lifting from the shoulders of the ratepayers of Dublin City of a burden that they can ill afford to bear. Public representatives on the various councils have stated that the position in Dublin City is desperate at present. The heart-breaking factor in the whole situation is that the distress is affecting almost every class in the community. There is a type of people looking for relief to-day that nothing but the pangs of hunger would ever force to seek for such help or for such remedy. Amongst the various applicants for poor relief last week there were three men who had managed large business houses in Dublin. One can understand the misery and the mortification of people of that type asking help from the State.

It is lamentable to notice that for one vacancy, for which the magnificent salary of £90 a year and apartments was offered, there were 112 applications. I think these facts should be considered by the Dáil, and that we should have some definite proposal from the Government as to what they mean to do before this debate ends. On this side of the House, we are not satisfied with the promise of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that something good is coming out of the Budget. We want something definite now. We cannot accept the statement that the Minister for Industry and Commerce made in the course of the debate, that a permanent solution of the unemployment problem cannot be separated from the abolition of the Oath.

We challenge the truth and the accuracy of that statement, and we unhesitatingly assert that it is the carrying out of this political programme of the new Government Party that has so considerably accentuated the present unemployment problem. I think that the Minister would have received much more sympathy and much more co-operation in this House in dealing with the difficult problem that is confronting him—we on these benches do not want to minimise the difficulty of that problem, for we have been up against it ourselves—and that he would have been more honest and honourable had he admitted the truth of the contention of Deputy Morrissey that the unemployment problem transcends in importance the abolition of the Oath, which will provide neither food nor shelter for the unemployed in this State.

I would remind the Minister for Industry and Commerce that, in the last debate we had here on this question, he made some very startling and dogmatic statements as to what it was possible to do, and to do immediately. Last December the present Minister, in the course of the debate for the relief of unemployment, stated that a sum of £250,000, if made over to the Dublin Corporation, would be insufficient to deal with the needs and the wants of Dublin City alone. The Minister is a representative of Dublin City, and there is no member of the House who should be more anxious to look after the interests of his constituents. We want to know what the Minister is going to do in face of the statement he made in December, a statement that is on the records of the House. We want to know what sum he is going to allocate to deal with the immediate necessities of the moment. He also told us that steps should be taken which would deal immediately, or almost immediately, with the unemployment problem. He reminded the House that there were 1,500 shipyard workers idle in Dublin. I can tell the Minister that their number has not diminished since he made his statement here in December. As I have said, the Minister stated on that occasion that there were 1,500 unemployed shipyard workers in Dublin City, and that the Dublin Dockyard Company had installed new repair equipment and were in a position to do repair work if it were only available. He told the House how that work could be made available if there was a proper Government dealing with the situation. Now that we have a proper Government capable of dealing with the situation——

Mr. Corry

Hear, hear.

Mr. Byrne

——we want them to deal with it as they have promised. I want to point out to the House—I do not mind the interruptions of that man from Cork whom nobody minds—that the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time definitely outlined the ways and means by which this problem could be tackled immediately. He stated that firms like Heiton and Co., Guinness and Co., and the L.M.S. could be approached, that the L.M.S. carried the Irish mail and that pressure could be applied by the Government to get this repair work done here. Now the Deputy who made that statement is in control to-day of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and what we want to know is: has he approached these firms and what steps has he taken to carry out the statements he made in the House in December last? We want to know what pressure has been applied to Messrs. Guinness and Co. to have their repair work done at home. Has the Minister approached Heiton and Co., and what steps has he taken to deal with the L.M.S. Railway? If he has taken no steps in the matter, then I think it is perfectly obvious that his statements at the time had no sincerity in them; that they were made purely for Party purposes and were simply an exploitation of the miseries of the unemployed.

I think the situation amounts to this: that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government to which he belongs have bitten off more than they can chew. If he is incapable of dealing with the situation, and if the Government to which he belongs are incapable of putting into effect the promises they have so recklessly made, I think it would be better, in the interests of the unemployed and of the State, if they frankly admitted that they were mistaken in the views they held.

There is one thing an Irishman always admires and that is courage and manliness in anybody. I did not admire the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he told us that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Hugo Flinn, had various plans to deal with the situation. I want to ask those seven men on the Labour Benches what mercy will the unemployed of this country obtain from a man of the type of Deputy Hugo Flinn?

Mr. Anthony

May God save them from their friends.

Mr. Byrne

"May God save them from their friends," says Deputy Anthony, and in saying that I think he is echoing the sentiments of this House. The critical factor in the whole situation is that the President told the House that he had a sovereign remedy to solve the unemployment problem: that it could be solved more easily in this country than perhaps in any other country in the world. We are still waiting to hear that something is going to be done for the unemployed. I want to remind the President that promises in future of pensions for widows and orphans will not help the unemployed in present circumstances, and also the Minister for Industry and Commerce that his promise to place a fresh burden on industry and commerce, on capital and labour, for the payment of further unemployment grants will not help to provide additional work for the unemployed. I think it is due to the House that we should hear something definite from the President or from the Minister whom he has assigned to deal with this imperative problem.

Of course we all know that the solution of the problem is to manufacture at home the goods that we import so needlessly. We all know that the President has a cast iron tariff system up his sleeve and that the moment it comes into operation there is going to be a complete transformation of the present industrial position in the country. We have noted some of the immediate effects of that cast iron policy. We have noted it in the case of two of the most important firms in the City of Dublin, and I am sure the President has noted them. There are from 6,000 to 8,000 people in employment in Dublin City to-day who have noted the effects of that policy and who are in a very anxious frame of mind. One thing the new Government never appear to have digested and that is that the imposition of tariffs is a two-edged sword; that this imposition of tariffs is mainly directed against our best customer, practically our only customer, to whom we send 90 per cent. of our exports year after year. These tariffs are directed mainly against the customer who buys from us the products that we have to sell.

I suggested in speaking on this debate, on the last occasion, that the business of the State must be run on business lines, and I ask any sane man in this House is it business, or is it logic to begin to quarrel with your best customer? Could the President not have held his hand, for the time being, and not have created all this insecurity, and all this financial instability, until he sent his representatives to Ottawa, and saw what would be forthcoming there? There are two ways of accomplishing a thing— by force or by co-operation. We warned this country before Fianna Fáil were returned to power that one of the cardinal planks of their programme was a policy of non-cooperation with England. Will the President say if he still clings to that policy? Will he give us some information as to whether that is the line on which the economic resources of this country are to be developed, and the line along which he believes that this State can be industrialised? We have to buy, and we have to sell, and I suggest that the glorious policy of insular isolation, for which those on the opposite benches stand, can bring nothing in its train but misery and disaster either to industry or to the common people of this country. There has been, of course, a vast difference between the economic policy of the people on the opposite benches and the economic policy of the Government Party. The Government Party, while they stood for tariffs——

Mr. Corry

What Government?

Mr. Byrne

While the late Government stood for tariffs, and imposed tariffs, they always took care that there would be national gain, and not a national loss. We are now going to have tariffs imposed, regardless of national gain, and regardless of national loss. Deputy Norton, when speaking to this motion, asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Government Party generally, whether they were going to profit from the disastrous consequences that had accrued from similar policies in other countries of the world. Sometimes we are told that the great industries of the world have been built up by tariffs, but any man who knows anything about economics—and I am sure the President knows a great deal—knows that the imposition of tariffs is only one factor in the development of a country. The Minister knows that if he does not set up efficient industries in this country, it would be better that no industries should be set up at all.

If we are going to industrialise this country, and set up new industries, we, on this side of the House, are anxious to co-operate in that policy, in every way, but, in co-operating with that policy, there is one thing against which we stand, and that is the protection of industrial inefficiency. Anybody who is conversant with economics knows what industrial inefficiency means. We have examples of the greatest industries in the world co-operating to reduce overhead charges and expenses. We have vast schemes of industrial re-organisation being carried out in various parts of the world, and, in this House, not one single word of industrial re-organisation; not one single word of setting up our manufactures in this country on an efficient basis. We have only one thing—"impose a tariff and trust to God for the rest." Was there ever such an insane economic policy enunciated by any Party, especially in the case of an agricultural country like the Irish Free State?

When we are told what tariffs have done for other countries, I wonder if the people who make those statements know or understand what they are talking about. I wonder would it be news if I informed the House that France, one of the greatest protectionist countries in the world, could have at least trebled her export trade, especially owing to the advantage she enjoyed by reason of the geographical position, had she embarked on a different policy. To-day France has protection. It is like an old man of the sea round her neck, strangling her, and only for the fertility of the soil of France she could not have survived. To-day we have French statesmen looking for what?— the economic unity of Europe, in order to get some relief from this great panacea for the solution of industrial and economic troubles, which the new President sets forth. I wonder is the President aware that even in the highest industrialised countries, unless production costs are low, there is always a relapse and a reaction. I wonder would it be news to the House that the great United States of America cannot build ships because of their protection policy. I think these are facts that he ought to take into consideration. Important happenings are about to take place shortly under this new policy of the Government Party. We have Australia before our eyes. They proceeded upon exactly the same lines on which the new Government intends to proceed. They set up a cast-iron protection policy, and kept out practically all imports, making the goods themselves, and what was the result? To-day Australia has a National Debt of £350,000,000, and her currency is threatened with collapse. Do we want the same condition of affairs in the Irish Free State? If we do not, we ought to hasten slowly. This mad craze which is actuating the Government, and forcing them to close their eyes to the realities of the situation, must be examined, and examined carefully.

As I have already said, we, on these benches, stand for the industrialisation of this country. We know very well that tariffs can do a great deal to industrialise this country, but tariffs must be wisely and skilfully used. The unskilful use of tariffs will produce more evil than good. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance has come in and I hope he is about to disclose these plans to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred. The one thing we want to have, before the debate closes, is what is the Parliamentary Secretary, or any other member of the Government, going to do to find ways and means to deal immediately with the existing unemployment situation?

Mr. Corry

We have heard a very illuminating statement from Deputy J.J. Byrne on this unemployment question. He complains that Fianna Fáil have not relieved the unemployment problem in two months—this legacy of 80,000 unemployed, which Deputy J.J. Byrne, with the assistance of the Executive Council, has created in the country, during the past nine years. Now he complains that we have not completely relieved it in two months—Deputy J.J. Byrne, who sells Shamrock shovels, made in Manchester. I wonder how much employment would the making of those shovels give here?

Mr. J.J. Byrne

On a point of explanation. Is the Deputy so ignorant that he does not know that these shovels are not coming in at all?

Mr. Corry

I question that. I believe I could nearly produce one here. The Deputy also threatened us with any amount of ills and woes. He told us about Messrs. Guinness and Messrs. Jacob, and what they will do if we dare move. I can assure the Deputy that no employer in this country is going to dictate to the present Executive Council. The day when one of these gentlemen by raising his little finger, or when the Masonic Order by using the mailed first, could frighten the Executive Council is gone for good. The Deputy may be certain on that point. We have heard a lot of talk about what Messrs. Guinness will do. I have some figures here which may be illuminating to Deputy Byrne. Messrs. Guinness, in January, 1931, imported 9,240 cwts. of foreign barley. In January, 1932, they imported 152,000 cwts. of foreign barley, an increase of something like 142,000 cwts. in one month. There was imported into this country in January, 1931, 6,473 cwts. of foreign malt. This year they imported 12,796 cwts. of foreign malt, just double the import. The difference between the price of malt and the price of barley is 10/2 per cwt. The greater portion of that 10/2 goes to labour. The total amount of foreign malt imported last year was 322,000 cwts, or £167,000 taken out of the pockets of the Irish labourers whom Deputy Byrne complained about.

Mr. Byrne

£167,000 of imports and £5,000,000 of exports!

Mr. Corry

I shall settle all that in a few minutes. The imports of foreign malt increased from 137,000 cwts. in 1929 to 322,000 cwts. in 1931. There was no increase, but on the other hand a decrease in the export of beer and spirits in the same period. The total amount of foreign barley imported by Messrs. Guinness in 1931 was 458,000 cwts. To produce that amount of barley would require 22,000 acres of tillage. It is no wonder, when we had this condition of affairs existing, that in my constituency, where there were something like 11,000 odd agricultural labourers employed in 1926, there are less than 5,000 employed to-day. That is 6,000 men hunted out of employment on the land by this import of foreign barley.

Mr. Gorey

That is a bloody lie.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has stated in my hearing that a statement of Deputy Corry is a lie. He used an adjective connected with it which I will not repeat. That statement must be withdrawn.

Mr. Gorey

I withdraw it, and will say the statement is untrue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That statement cannot be allowed to pass either.

Mr. Gorey

How am I to describe it then?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not my function to tell the Deputy how to describe it.

Mr. Gorey

It is inaccurate then.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Grossly inaccurate.

Mr. Corry

No one takes notice of the bull that gets out of its stall.

Mr. Gorey

We are getting chastised by the baboon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow this to continue. No Deputy can be allowed to call another Deputy names. That statement must be withdrawn.

Mr. Gorey

Deputy Corry must withdraw his statement about me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have not heard that statement. If the Deputy made a statement which is not in accordance with Parliamentary procedure he will have to withdraw it.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

He compared the Deputy to a bull which had escaped from a stall.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That statement will have to be withdrawn also.

Mr. Byrne

Certainly both sides must get fair play.

Mr. Gorey

Very well, I withdraw.

Mr. Smith

The new leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Corry

I stated that the amount of barley imported was 458,000 cwts. I am allowing a produce of 10 barrels to the acre. That would mean that it would take 22,000 acres of land in tillage to produce that. I shall show another illuminating side to these gentlemen who confer the great benefit of their presence upon us. The price of barley in 1920, 1921, and 1922 was something like 52s. per barrel. The price of the pint of stout and the duty on beer and spirits were then the same as to-day. Last year the price of barley was 14s. 6d. per barrel. I do not know what Messrs. Guinness's dividends were in 1921 and 1922, but probably somebody will enlighten us. There is, however, a difference of 37s. 6d. per barrel, which has not been passed on to the consumer but which has been collared by the brewers. The brewers could at present reduce the price of a pint of stout by 1¾d. and have the same profit as in 1922. These are rather illuminating figures with regard to these benefactors who have conferred so much advantage upon us, and yet we are threatened that the sun will be removed from the heavens by them because Fianna Fáil is in office. I invite Deputy Byrne to consider these facts. I do not believe that Messrs. Guinness have increased the wages of their labourers. I believe the wages were reduced to increase the profiteering.

We have also heard a lot about the labour exchanges and the increase in the number of people registering. I am very glad to see more people registering. It shows the faith they have in the present Government and the hope they have of getting employment now. I know of men with large families in my constituency who were out their boots going to the labour exchanges week after week to register. After registering for 12 months, one day, they saw a young man who had just come out of the national army registering at the labour exchange and getting the job that these men had been looking for. These people know now that they are going to get a fair share of employment, that the man with a family is no longer going to be put aside for the young single gentleman who walks out of a job one week and into another the next week. They know that they are going to get a fair show, and are now registering, knowing that there is going to be employment for them.

The first step towards giving that employment, not sops or doles, but permanent employment, was taken yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture in order to bring the dairying industry out of the hopeless mess of insolvency into which it was plunged by the late Government. That is the first step which will bring to the farmers some hope of getting a livelihood out of their industry. I quoted figures yesterday given by the ex-Minister for Agriculture on that head. He showed that a farmer with 20 500-gallon cows, at 4d. per gallon for milk, would at the end of the year have £18 to support himself and his family. That would be less than 7s. 6d. per week. I do not think any labourer with a family is getting as low as that. The Minister for Agriculture took the first step yesterday to provide employment in this country and I hope other steps will be taken along the same lines. We are told of the uneasiness and unrest caused by the proposal to remove the Oath, and that nobody is going to invest money any more in Irish industries. If the Deputy had a look at our post during the last three months it would open his eyes. The number of people who are anxious to invest money in industries here would amaze him.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Will they want a State loan?

Mr. Corry

If they will, they will get it, and they will not be knocking at the door like you were without any result. The Deputy told us about the American protection policy and what it had done for shipbuilding. I am very glad of it. We have an industry in Cobh as to which I have particulars before me. That industry is now looking not to double its employment, but to treble it, in the breaking up of ships owing to the new economic policy of the world. That industry alone will give employment in the town of Cobh, which has been practically starved out by the policy of the late Government, to treble the number employed at present. That is going to be a big change, and those people are not afraid to invest more money in new plant. Their whole complaint here is about the manner in which the fine machinery that was in Cobh was rendered useless owing to the manner in which it was worked by the late Government. Complaint has been made of the way in which everything was left to go to rust and rot and ruin by the policy of the late Government in Haulbowline. Everything was turned into a heap of scrap, good for nothing. The way we are going to deal with this problem will result in bringing people back to the land, where they should be employed. Neither Deputy Byrne nor I will then have any complaint of people coming from Cork to Dublin or from Dublin to Cork to get work at Ford's.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Is the single ticket from Cork to Dublin finished with yet?

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy will listen I will enlighten him on what is going to happen. I guarantee he will have to pay 33? per cent. on his Shamrock shovels in the future. We will make Shamrock shovels here, and then they will be entitled to have the shamrock upon them and they will give a good share of employment. As I pointed out, the barley imported last year would have meant 22,000 acres of tillage to grow it here. In conclusion, I can assure Deputy Byrne on one point. Our Executive Government are no longer going to be frightened by the bludgeons of a couple of employers, nor by the organised Masonic Order in this country. The day that they could frighten the Executive Government is gone, and gone for ever. There will be more employment in this country, and the wages paid will no longer be dictated by the Masonic organisation in Molesworth Street.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Does Deputy Briscoe belong to that Order?

Mr. Corry

I would not be at all surprised if the Deputy himself belonged to it.

Mr. Curran

I believe the unemployment situation has not been considered by Deputies in this Dáil as serious as it really is. From my point of view, it has not been considered as it ought to have been during the past ten years.

Coming from a rural area and seeing the conditions in North County Dublin since 1922, I fail to see what has been done, good, bad or indifferent to alleviate the unfortunate unemployed in Dublin. So long as Deputies were all right themselves they did not seem to care about the unemployed workers in the country. In 1922, as a member of the Balrothery Board of Guardians, I know that the outdoor relief amounted to £4,000. I have listened ever since to political meetings at crossroads such as the ex-President referred to yesterday. We are not speaking now at cross-roads, but I am at cross-roads every night and see the condition of the unfortunate unemployed. I have heard speeches at cross-roads, and in villages, at election time, when we were told the country was prosperous. In 1922, as I have said, the outdoor relief in Balrothery amounted to £4,000. In 1926, it increased to £9,146 but still, in 1927, at the General Election we were told that the country was prosperous. The outdoor relief in Balrothery Union rose from £9,146 in 1926 to £19,659 in 1931-32 and still we were told by the late Government, and the members of the present Opposition that the country was improving. I have sympathy with the new Ministers and I am not saying anything against them at the present time as they are only a couple of months in office.

I hope they will get going at once to try and relieve the conditions that are prevailing in the country. I believe that there are few in this House who know what starvation is. I might say that I have had a little experience of it, and as Chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance I have experience of what the workers and their children are suffering. Since 1922 the amount spent on home assistance has increased from £4,000 to £19,000. An unfortunate worker gets a food-ticket for 10/- on which he has to feed a wife and six children. If he has seven children he may get 15/-. I hope the present Government will get to work immediately to relieve the unemployed. Deputy Byrne, as far as I can see, is more concerned with the Oath. I am not concerned in the least with the Oath.

Mr. Gorey

And anyone else, no more than you.

Mr. Curran

What I am concerned with is that the Executive Council will do something for these unfortunate people. Rathdown area is in pretty much the same position. Home Assistance there has increased from £3,000 in 1922 to £13,615. In Dun Laoghaire it was £18,000 in 1926. To-day it is £32,130. These are the three outlying districts in Co. Dublin. £250,000 is distributed by the South Dublin Union. I appeal to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and to the Executive, to see at once what can be done. I am sorry that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government are following in the footsteps of the late Government in regard to registering at labour exchanges and the giving of work to the unemployed on the roads when a relief grant is given. If they continue to do that, I say, without hesitation, that they are going to come to disaster the same as the late Government. There is only one labour exchange between here and Drogheda. An unfortunate man looking for work has to walk 15 miles to Balbriggan Labour Exchange and walk back without, perhaps, a bit to eat, in order to register.

Mr. Lemass

He can register by post.

Mr. Curran

The man who registers by post has very little chance of getting a day's work. Young men are sent out by labour exchanges to do work while married men remain idle. The officials in the labour exchanges do not mind whether they are married or single. The present surveyor in Co. Dublin, I must say, does give a preference to married men, but there is a provision that a man must register at the labour exchange before he gets work. There is work going on, at the present time, on the Velvet Strand at Portmarnock, and men are sent out there from Dublin, while local men are idle on account of this provision. I have sympathy with the new Government and I am not blaming them. I hope they are not going to follow in the footsteps of the late Government. I have sympathy also with the farming community. They are not able to provide money for all this relief. I hope that the present Government will put the country in a better position than it has been in for the past ten years.

Mr. Dockrell

I understand that the Government have a scheme and are working on it that is to put an end to unemployment. We have heard some remarks to-day on where that is going to lead us. I would like to urge on the Government that they should not abandon the ordinary and every-day methods of giving employment on reproductive schemes. I would like to bring a couple of matters in that respect before this House. Before the Dáil was adjourned, President de Valera stated that each Minister would enquire in his own department what necessary and reproductive expenditure could be proceeded with immediately. When you come to examine some of the matters that have come under my notice, I would like to ask him to practise what he preaches.

There was considerable trade which gave a certain amount of employment carried on from Dublin with the Six Counties. I will not now go into the question why that arose. There were questions of sentiment, people who knew the stocks held in Dublin and other centres and so on. A certain amount of trade went on and employment was given. There is no doubt that there has been political partition with the North for some time past. I can say without fear of contradiction that the last vestiges of economic connection with the North have been severed by the recent regulations that have come into force on the Northern boundary. I do not know whether the Government have made any representations as to these conditions that have to be fulfilled, but I say that if these trade matters could be alleviated by negotiation, the Government, even if they failed, might make the attempt. There is no reason that I can see why they should not negotiate with their neighbours and why that avenue for the relief of unemployment should not again be opened up.

There are two other matters, coming under my own personal observation, which I would like to bring before this House. A number of houses would be erected if sewers were provided in the public road at Stillorgan and Dean's Grange. I might explain that it is not a question of bringing up a sewer for miles to these two particular sites. The sewer is in each case at the corner, and has only to be extended along the public road. I would like that this matter should be considered seriously. It was brought to the notice of the Dublin Board of Public Health, Rathdown area. I understand from one of the previous speakers that there is considerable unemployment in the Rathdown area. One would have thought that if the President's pronouncement were being gone into seriously, in face of these representations, that would have provided over 100 houses, the Government would have gone into this question seriously. I do not suppose that it is necessary for me to argue the question that the provision of sewers would give desirable employment or that the erection of one hundred houses would also provide desirable employment for a number of men.

What was the reply to these representations? They replied that they cannot consider the question as the actual construction of houses on the ground has not yet begun. I would like to assure any Deputy who is not an expert, that the person who would build a house, without any provision for a drain in the roadway, would be a lunatic. I do not know whether the House can accept that statement or not, but I would like anybody who thinks I ought to be contradicted, to do so. I do not know whether I must compliment the Board on the tactful way in which they turned the matter down, because there is no doubt about it, that absolutely ends the question. If you are not going to provide sewers on the road, you are not going to have houses built. Do the Government expect people to erect houses first and then wait for the drains to be connected at the pleasure of the Board? I would like to say that in my humble opinion there is no use in expecting employment to be provided along those lines. I did bring that matter to the notice of the Government and I was not any more successful.

There is just one quotation I would like to make, and I know it is true. At least, I hope it is true. Deputies can judge of that when I read it to them: "General Election 1932. Fianna Fáil. Constituency of County Dublin. Paragraph 9.—Sewerage and water supplies are needed in the villages all over the county. The local people cannot pay the whole cost but the Government have given nothing." That is taken from the election address in the County Dublin, and I say it is true.

Mr. O'Hara

I represent a rural area in the West of Ireland where 75 per cent. of the small farmers have a valuation under £4. The majority of these farmers and their sons have to emigrate each year, many of them to America. That emigration to America has now been stopped. Their prospects in England are not very bright, either. There are several of them already there and they are unemployed. Furthermore, there was a partial failure of the potato crop in the West last year and no employment has been provided for these poor people. Will the Minister now, in his statement, say whether any scheme has been prepared to deal with it? Listening to the debate here, I can see that there was no notice at all taken of the West. It was all Dublin and Cork that were talked of. I do not agree with that. I believe in giving fair play to Dublin and Cork, but I do not believe in turning down the West altogether. Perhaps it is on account of some international question that the prospects of the people who migrated to England are bad. I cannot say, but I know cases in which young men went last year to England and were promised employment before they went there. These young men have been unemployed in England for the past three or four weeks. I cannot say what is the cause of that, but perhaps before a week or two we may be able to say whether it is due to an international question or a domestic question. On the other hand, there are some areas in the West and if a waterworks scheme or a sewerage scheme were started in an urban district, men living outside the towns would be told by the trade unionists in the towns when they went to seek employment on those schemes, "You need not come in. You do not belong to the town." I believe the same state of affairs prevails in the City and that if men from the country wanted work in Cork, Limerick, or Galway, they would be told to stay at home and starve.

Mr. A. Byrne

I expect when the Minister is replying that he will bring from the pigeon-holes of his Department some road schemes as a method of giving relief to the unemployed. I have had some experience of what road schemes did in the past in the way of providing employment for those skilled in that class of work. I wish to submit to the Minister a suggestion which might be attended to immediately. There is no use in promising consideration for suggestions that are put forward if they are not dealt with quickly. The building trade in Dublin, usually employing 2,000 to 3,000 men, is at a stand-still. To suggest to carpenters, plasterers or painters, that you are going to provide relief work in the way of road-making will give them little satisfaction. The engineering trades in Dublin, those engaged in boiler-making and ship-building, have been idle for from two to three years. I hope the Minister will give relief to those men as well as to the road workers. Then we have the clerk or store man, the man who will take different kinds of work, but who would not be fit for road-making. It is well to recollect that that type of man also has a family to keep. Whatever schemes are devised they should embrace that type of worker.

There are in Dublin to-day 8,000 families living on food tickets given by the Board of Assistance. There is no allowance made for rent and the result is that the police courts recently have been filled with tenants of rooms and cottages making appeals for time. That condition of things is not confined to one class in this City. You have the good type of cottage dweller who thought a couple of years ago that he would be able to keep a cottage and let a room. He got a cottage and shortly afterwards discovered that through some process or another his eldest son or eldest daughter lost employment and the casual employment given to the head of the house did not permit him to continue to pay 10s. or 12s. a week rent. One young man has to pay 10s. a week for a single room in a very poor part of the City. I am hopeful that the Minister will consider these cases when he is producing his relief schemes for the unemployed. I hope the schemes will not embrace one class only.

We have heard a lot of talk about the tax on butter. This 4d. a lb. on butter affects our own people very considerably. Daily one can see arriving in our port handsome, costly motor cars and motor buses ready to be put on the road, even the numbers being painted on them. Not a shilling's worth of upholstery, painting or coachbuilding has been done in Ireland. It is all Continental or English work. I think something should be done to provide work for the City coachbuilders. Within the past couple of weeks, I have had experience of cases where people living in country districts come to Dublin in the hope of finding employment. One was a very sad case of a man who brought his whole family to Dublin on the day of a football excursion. Next day he found himself in a back kitchen in one of the worst tenements in the City. His health broke down, he went to Crooksling Sanatorium for 14 weeks and it was only a few days ago one of our Dublin institutions sent the man and his family back to the country. The unfortunate people, not having the two years' residence qualification, were not entitled to any kind of relief in the City. Such cases should get the immediate attention of the Minister.

I appeal to every Deputy to use his best efforts to prevent people leaving the land and coming to Dublin in the hope that they may get work. We have a labour bureau in operation in the Corporation where 250 to 350 men are watching closely for a day's work. The 8,000 families on relief tickets in the City do not represent the actual number unemployed here. There are families receiving 15s. a week through having a son or daughter working and they do not apply for assistance.

It is sad to see men with large families, seven, eight or ten, as the case may be, out of employment for the last five years. One man in that position was sent to me and he told me he had nine children and he had not been employed for several years. In another case a man wrote: "I will appeal to you for the last time to save a life and a home; will you do it?" When these cases are investigated we find that even the very mattresses on the beds, as well as the bedsteads, are gone to the pawnbroker's. In some cases, only the religious pictures are left in the rooms because the pawn offices will not take them in. I have been in a room where there was nothing but sacks to sleep on, and sacks to cover the children.

I will not bore the House by going into a few of the many hundreds of letters I have received. I do not want the House to think that I am the only one who receives them. I know that every Dublin Deputy receives such letters. We are at our wits' end to stave off many evictions that are pending. It might be said that we see few of these evictions. I can assure the House that when a notice to quit is served and an order made by the court the unfortunate person waits until the very last day and then he goes to one of the Dublin T.D.'s and asks him to see the sheriff. I know other Deputies in Dublin have interested themselves in this matter, and nearly in all cases the sheriff has given an extra week or two. The tenant does not wait to be evicted; he does not want to see the last stick of furniture or the bedclothes on the streets. In one or two cases, I have known the contents of a room to be packed into a perambulator. The people pack up their little belongings and are taken in by some other tenant nearly as badly situated as they themselves are.

I mention these cases in order to show the Minister the necessity of doing something immediately. He should not content himself merely with promising road schemes or indicating what is to be done in the case of housing grants in three months or six months. I have another very unpleasant matter to mention. It is open to any Deputy to go to the North Wall and there he will see silos being erected for unloading corn from vessels. That work was done by hand right up to now and there was an average of 250 men employed on that class of work. I understand the silos will be ready for operation within a week or two. Then we will be faced with providing for the maintenance of 250 or 300 dock labourers. After the usual ten or twelve weeks we will have to provide them with food tickets. I make an earnest appeal to the President and those associated with him to do something speedily.

Mr. McMenamin

I am going to speak on the assumption that the President is going to deal with the question of unemployment from a national point of view. I want to join with my western colleague in putting forward the claims of the people in my own area, the North-West. I would like the President to pay particular attention to the unemployment in Co. Donegal and the congested areas in the West. There are many young men there who will not be able to find employment outside this country in the future. They live in congested areas, and the problem there created is one that should be promptly tackled. At the moment no opportunity for employment exists. In the past the people there lived by migrating to England and Scotland during the agricultural season. The other avenue open to them was America. For all practical purposes those avenues are closed.

If this question of unemployment is going to be faced from a national point of view so far as my constituency is concerned I suggest to the President an intensive policy of afforestation. I think that would go some way towards helping to solve the problem with which the House is now dealing. In carrying out afforestation we will be doing a national work that will be reproductive and that will provide the country in normal and abnormal circumstances with an essential thing in any State. So far as my county is concerned it would add enormously from the point of view of beauty and that might tend to attract tourists.

I have read debates that have taken place here on other occasions, and reference was made in the course of those debates to the cost of procuring land for afforestation purposes. I could indicates large tracts of land in Donegal that are now utterly barren and that could readily be utilised. If the Government is going to launch a huge national scheme to cure unemployment I am sure these lands could be secured at a very nominal figure. I suggest that if it is necessary the Executive Council should obtain power to acquire such land compulsorily in the event of the owners hesitating to dispose of their interests unless they are given a price out of all proportion to the value of this barren land. If people attempt unnecessarily to increase the value of such land legislative authority should be taken to acquire it. Afforestation is one of the greatest needs in a county like Donegal. The timber that grew on the demesne lands was cut down when the landlords ceased to have any interest in them. Plantations were demolished on the demesnes and now these places are an eyesore to people passing through the country. There remains where the timber stood only stumps of trees and shrubs, so that these places appear to be a wilderness instead of being places of beauty. If the President is going to outline a policy that will solve unemployment from the National point of view I would urge him to adopt an active policy of reafforestation in Donegal and in the other counties on the western seaboard.

Mr. Vaughan

When the unemployment question was discussed in this House before the last election we were informed that there were about 80,000 unemployed in this State. Since then large numbers have been added, which means that further burdens have been placed on the ratepayers and taxpayers in order to provide relief for these people. Conditions are infinitely worse now than they were in the past seven or eight years in North Cork. Owing to depression in agriculture, and to the low prices for produce, many farmers are unable to employ labourers, and these have been added to the role of the unemployed. Now we have a new Government which sought the active support of Labour to put them into power. They promised they would leave no labouring men unemployed. It is up to the Government to deliver the goods. The majority of the supporters of the Labour Party voted for Fianna Fáil. They accepted as gospel truth the statement that they would get employment from the new Government. Now comes the test when the Government can say what they are going to do to carry out their promise. Time will tell whether they were honest in their policy or not. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told the House this week that the Government had only been five weeks in office. I would remind the Minister and his colleagues that they have been five years in Opposition. Surely during that time they were formulating plans to relieve unemployment, or otherwise their statements were only propaganda for the electors. Now that they are in office, their only plan so far for relieving unemployment is by way of indiscriminate tariffs. I am really surprised at the attitude the official Labour Party has taken towards the Government. Of course, they thought they would get everything they asked. Otherwise they would remain independent and fight their own case. They are not doing that, and they will find out their mistake.

The official Labour Party was induced by the present Government to support every scheme they brought forward, especially the legislation that has already been introduced. When they have got the support of Labour to pass that legislation, the Government will turn round and say, "We have done our best to solve the unemployment problem. We will put it on the long finger until each Department looks into and considers each scheme." How long that will take we are not aware. Probably we will not hear the result until after the next general election, when the Government will go to the electors and say, "We did not get a chance. We had our schemes prepared. Now we want you to give us a full mandate to go back independent of Labour, when we will deliver the goods and see that no man is unemployed." The President has stated that Ireland was a country in which the unemployment problem could be most easily solved. Now that he is in office, we hope it will not take long until he does so. I hope the President and the members of the Executive Council will put the interests of people before that of Party, that they will accept the motion, carry out the policy they advocated at the election, and do something for the working classes.

Mr. Gorey

I understand that the motion that has been put down by Deputy Morrissey is being accepted by the Executive Council. I do not know if that is true or not. We were told in posters and on the platforms before the election that Fianna Fáil had a plan. Not merely were they considering a plan for employment but they had a plan. A plan is something that is mature. They had taken decisions, we were led to believe, and knew where they were. If that is so, there should be no delay on the part of the Government in acting on this motion and delivering the goods. We heard of this plan during the election at every cross-roads and on every dead wall we had posters announcing the plan. The Government has or has not a plan. I do not rise solely to criticise the Government in this matter because I know that the proposition in front of them is rather a big one. They cannot do everything without the help and co-operation of the citizens.

I have always been held up here as an antagonist of Labour. Perhaps the attitude of the Farmers' Party, of which I was leader, to Labour in 1922 and 1923 was hostile. It had to be hostile, and it was hostile in the interests of Labour itself. We knew that Labour had gone beyond the limit then and had struck an impossible line. It is now up to organised Labour, to those in the sheltered trades which are really represented here, to act. Strange to say, the Labour members are not returned by any of the organised Labour constituencies as such. The official Labour Party to-day is really a Party of organised Labour—clerical workers, school teachers, railwaymen, postal workers and those in sheltered trades. The reason I am appealing to Labour is because of facts that were put before me regarding Kilkenny, the capital of my constituency, where the Corporation were trying to get a type of house erected suited to the poorer class of workers. They could not build these houses economically, in view of their borrowing powers, unless Labour agreed not to insist upon wages of £4 15s. weekly for joiners, masons, plasterers and workmen of that description, and 50/- for ordinary labourers. My figures may not be absolutely correct.

Mr. T. Murphy

They are not.

Mr. Gorey

That can be decided later. They are within a few shillings of being accurate. I know that an offer was made on behalf of the Corporation of £3 10s. 0d. for joiners, masons and plasterers and 36/- for the ordinary labourers. That was turned down. I do not think that is facing the situation. This country was more prosperous in 1922, 1923 and 1924 than it is now, and there was more money in circulation here as elsewhere. Circumstances have altered. That is why the attitude of Labour is the greatest obstacle to the provision of work and the greatest enemy of the workers. I think that statement will be accepted in our altered circumstances. Money is not as plentiful as it was in those days and workers are not as well off. To be honest, up to nine or ten months ago it was unusual in my county to find labourers going round looking for work. It was only occasionally that occurred. For the past seven or eight months, men are coming into the haggards looking for work, and the numbers are increasing. It is nothing unusual now to have six men calling to a farmhouse in one week looking for work. Some days two and three men call. One man from Kerry called to my place recently and two men from Tipperary. That seems to be general owing to the altered circumstances. It is time for organised Labour and those in the sheltered trades to come off their high horse and to throw in their lot with the rest of the community. Otherwise, it is up to them to accept the consequences. Other countries have found it necessary to deal with the pigheadedness that characterised Labour. Italy did so, so did France and America, because they found it necessary to do so. That is the position. I am making no threats. Labour cannot be its own greatest enemy and survive. Deputy the Lord Mayor of Dublin referred a short time ago to the fact that silos had been erected at the docks to deal with corn. Why was that done? Because labour was uneconomic both in output and in cost. Labour has done much to have machinery invented and installed because of the pigheadedness of some of its leaders, and because the general body—dock workers and the rest—were misdirected. However disagreeable it is to hear these facts, men are being put out of employment and machinery is being erected where perhaps such would not be the case if Labour met the situation. The workers may be offended with what I say, but we may as well face the facts fairly and squarely and not stick our heads in the sand like the ostrich. I appeal to the Labour Party to realise the situation and to save themselves and the people they represent from the consequences. Other countries have had to take action. They saw that it was a waste to continue talking, and they had the vision and the courage to take action. The position in these countries is now much better than it is in ours. In Italy, the position of the worker is much better. If we want proof of the truth of what I say, it is only necessary to look across the Channel to see what happened there. Britain stood on top of the world in 1918 and 1919. She had the trade of the world at her feet. The ball was at the tip of her toe. Instead of playing the ball, they lay on it. They thought it was a nation for heroes to live in and that they could live idly. If they had put their backs into the work, and grasped the opportunity and not allowed the coal miners, the railway workers—the miners especially—to ruin their Empire trade, we would have the best market in the world for our produce at our doors. The British have lost their steel, cotton and coal markets, and I doubt if they will ever get them back—all through the action of people who should be most interested in them. They lost them through the pigheadness and the misdirection of people who were vitally interested in them. That is an example for us. The British have not the trade of the world to-day. They lost it through their own fault and they may never get it back.

And, accordingly, the prospect for us is not anything like as bright as it should be. In fact, I am doubtful about the future. What I have said, I have said bluntly; but I have said, it honestly. I want Labour to try and meet the position: to do what they can to meet it. Otherwise, it is up to the Government to act, to see that the best is made of the situation with the material that is at their disposal.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

I desire to support the motion. I welcome the acceptance of the principle of it by the Minister and would like to say that his attitude represents a very great departure in regard to the reception of motions of the kind in this House. I would press strongly on the Ministry generally to take early steps to deal with the position that exists at the moment. Schemes that will give permanent relief to unemployment and the machinery necessary to give effect to them cannot be brought into being in a day or two, but there is an urgent need at the moment to have something done. I am aware that the members of the Ministry, when in Opposition, gave expression to the view that certain patched-up remedies were not likely to prove effective, but now that they are in touch with the position that exists in the country, I feel they must realise that some temporary expendients will have to be resorted to to deal with the present situation, which is getting worse, either through the machinery available in the Land Commission or in the manner already indicated in the course of this debate: that is, the raising of a certain sum of money through mortgaging the Road Fund. Some temporary expedient of that kind will have to be resorted to, and at once.

I would like just to anticipate what I may have to say on certain of the Estimates when they come up for consideration for the purpose of drawing the attention of the President to the opportunities afforded for dealing with this problem through the operations of the Forestry Branch of the Department of Agriculture. I do not know whether the President is aware of it or not, but to a very great extent the activities of that branch have ceased practically. Schemes formulated for various parts of the country have been pigeon-holed in the Forestry branch for the last five or six years and have been completely forgotten. I understand that some little change for the better has occurred recently, but I would urge on the President and the Minister for Agriculture to avail as much as possible of the opportunities that the Estimate for that branch affords for the initiation of useful schemes of reproductive work.

It would, of course, be too much to hope that the debate on this motion could conclude without our having to listen to the usual sort of ill-informed lecture that we get from time to time in debates of this kind. They afford opportunities to members who know nothing of the subject under discussion to relieve themselves, with the result that we get views expressed here that are altogether unbalanced and unfair. On occasions of this kind one of the stories usually trotted out here—the same occurs elsewhere—is that all our economic ills, particularly in regard to housing, are due to wage troubles. One would have thought in regard to stories of that kind that certain happenings in this country in recent years would have cleared up that position. I wonder if Deputy Gorey, who has devoted a considerable portion of his speech to telling us about the sins of organised and unorganised workers in his constituency——

Mr. Gorey

I did not say anything about the unorganised ones. I could tell you about the woes of these workers.

Mr. Murphy

I am going to proceed in my own way.

Mr. Gorey

The Deputy should quote accurately.

Mr. Murphy

I wonder if Deputy Gorey has ever heard of the operations of a body known as the British Housing Corporation, a body that built several houses for the Corporation in Cork some years ago. That body not alone paid the trade union wage in Cork City, but conformed to all the terrible restrictions that Deputy Gorey associates with trade unions and behaved from the trade union point of view as a model employer in every way. It carried out its contract for the Cork Corporation at a figure that was several thousand pounds less than the price quoted by the local contractors who had advantages that were denied to it. I do not know whether Deputy Gorey has ever heard of that position; but it was a clear indication of the fact, that it was not the wages question entirely that held up the erection of houses, but, more essentially, the question of profits, and the degree of profit, that was expected out of house building.

Mr. Cosgrave

Does the Deputy know if they were solvent?

Mr. Murphy

I know they carried out the contract to the satisfaction of the Corporation, and I think that is all I might be expected to say at this stage.

Mr. Gorey

You hide your head in the sand.

Mr. Murphy

But if the Deputy has any doubt that the line of argument I am pursuing in this matter is sound, I think that even in the operations of Departments of this State I could adduce some additional information. I would remind the Deputy who has spoken that, in the Housing Act of 1924 power was taken for the central purchase and control of materials, with a view to the erection of houses. It is within the recollection of members of this House that that power was never used. It was just a pious sentiment embodied in the Bill for the purpose of giving it a good appearance. The Gaeltacht Housing Act of 1929 contained a similar provision, but, unlike the Local Government Department, the Gaeltacht Housing Department utilised that power, and I challenge contradiction of the statement, that in certain portions of the State, and in my own county of Cork, particularly, the operations of the Gaeltacht Housing Department, in the matter of joint purchasing of materials for the erection of houses, has resulted in a decrease of forty per cent. in the cost. The figures are to be obtained and can be vouched for even to the satisfaction of such a pessimist as Deputy Gorey.

Mr. Gorey

That has nothing to say to it.

Mr. Murphy

It has everything to say to it, because that was the issue running through the Deputy's whole speech.

Mr. Gorey

Not at all.

Mr. Murphy

Of course it was. We are asked to say why Labour should continue to be so unreasonable; why we should look for extravagant wages, in regard to house building, and when we are going to be converted from the attitude of obstructing house building in this country. My reply to that is, that the charge is entirely unfounded, and that the difficulty and obstruction of house building in this country results largely from the question of profits rather than the question of wages. In regard to the general question—

Mr. Gorey

This was a question of direct labour; there were no profits at all.

Mr. Murphy

Surely if Deputy Gorey is not able to follow the logic of the conclusion that can be drawn from a statement of that kind, it is useless trying to help him.

I move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.