rose.
Private Deputies' Business. - Immediate Needs of the Unemployed.
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.)
Before Deputy Bennett resumes the debate, may I ask the President if he will indicate when he proposes to intervene in this debate, as he promised on the last day to state how the Government proposed to give effect to the motion?
I already indicated to the House that when I saw a convenient moment for doing it I would do it.
The President suggested on Wednesday last that when he saw an opportunity of intervening in the debate he would do so. He impressed on us that he was anxious at the earliest possible moment to make that speech.
He never says what he means.
Is the President going to make a statement on his unemployment proposals to-day?
The unemployment created by the gentlemen who are now talking.
The President has indicated that he proposes to accept this motion, but I think this House has a right to expect from him, early in this debate, a real indication of how he proposes to give effect to this motion. We have heard a lot of talk about mandates in the discussion during the last three or four days, but if there was one mandate given by the people in the recent election, it was on this question of unemployment. Through their constituencies, Deputies in their speeches insisted that this question stood before all others, and that it should be, and would be, solved if the Fianna Fáil Party got into power. We, on this side, do not expect Ministers to perform the impossible, though Deputies on the opposite side suggested to the electors that even miracles were not impossible of performance by the Fianna Fáil Party if they got into office. Every conceivable promise that could be made in regard to this unemployment question was made to the electors. This House, by its vote the other night, declared expressly its view of the preference given by the electors to the President and his Government in their legislation here. It declared emphatically that this question of unemployment came before the Oath. We have been here three days already, and the Government proposes that we should spend two days more discussing the Oath while the Labour question is relegated to the background.
Who is discussing it?
Does the President suggest—I believe he has suggested— but does the House follow him in his suggestion, that this Oath Bill is solving the question of unemployment, that it is going to provide work for the workless, or food for the hungry, or that it is going to lead up to the finding of work or food for the unemployed and the hungry? Will it not rather add to the number of unemployed that we unfortunately have in this country? Will it not place us in the unfortunate position that while, relatively speaking, for the last three or four years we were freer from the consequences of general world-wide depression as regards unemployment than most countries in the world, we, by this Bill, deliberately attempt to break up the foundations of our common services in this country and the Treaty under which we here function—
On a point of order. I submit that the Deputy is discussing the Oath Bill and not unemployment.
I will hear the Deputy develop his argument.
I suggest, sir, that this Bill which the President has brought in and which this House has been discussing for the last three or four days relegates the question of unemployment very much to the background and adds to the number of unemployed by creating a fear in the minds of leaders of industry and commerce in this country, that any extension of their business under present circumstances is unprofitable and hopeless; creates a fear in the mind of the farmer that the importance of his industry is hampered, and generally throughout the country, creates, and has created an impression in the minds of the people that the prospects of immediate prosperity in this country are meagre.
I suggest the real reason for bringing in the Bill for the abolition of the Oath was to get the minds of the public outside, and of Deputies in the House, if it were possible to do so, off the question brought forward in Deputy Morrissey's motion, a question which undoubtedly above all others was the one that the present Government was put into power to deal with by the electors.
Might I ask the Deputy when did he, and the members of his Party, get their minds on the question of unemployment? When did they become interested in it?
We have never suggested that the solution of it was not difficult. We do not suggest it now. What we do suggest is that the Fianna Fáil Party at the election, and the President, both here and in other places, did not hesitate to say that the solution of the problem was easier perhaps in this country than in any other country in the world to-day. We have said that it is a difficult and an urgent problem, but the government have never admitted it. In this House and outside of it they definitely told the people that this question above all others was one for which an easy solution could be found. Therefore, it is natural to expect that having won the election on that issue, more than on any other, one of the first acts of the Government would have been to find means to end unemployment in the country. If the President and his Ministry were really desirous of tackling the question they would have given it consideration during the last seven or eight weeks; they would have given to it the time and attention that they have devoted to the Oath Bill which could have waited until the problem of unemployment had been solved.
So far we have had no indication from the President or the members of the Government of the proposals that they intend to lay before the House for the solution of this problem. Are we to be told that the almost weekly imposition of fresh tariffs is intended as a solution of it? If that is so, I do not know how long the new coalition is going to last, because the leader of the Labour Party, speaking in this House within the last two or three days, stated definitely that the imposition of tariffs was no remedy for the relief of unemployment. I agree, and so I think will many other Deputies, with that statement.
What about the butter tariff?
If there is one section of the community that the butter tariff may help, it is the poor farmer and possibly the labour depending on him.
Will the Deputy vote for it?
Even the butter tariff has dangerous reactions as every other tariff has.
Does the Deputy oppose the butter tariff?
Tell us what it is about. We do not know yet what it is about.
As far as I can read from the Press, if there is any reality in what the Press publishes, the Ministry are running away from the butter tariff already, and intend to change their minds.
Hold them to it.
I think we intend to hold them to it.
Another convert.
Does any one suggest that the increase in the tariff on boots is going to help our unfortunate workless labourers, or that the increase in the price of clothing is going to help unemployment or make it easier for the workless man to live? We are rapidly getting nearer to nature. I fear that in a very short time it is only the very rich who will be able to afford anything in the line of boots or clothing, except something perhaps in the form of a bathing costume.
Or a fig leaf.
Or a fig leaf, as Deputy Anthony puts it. That, so far as we know is the only proposal that the President and the Executive Council have to put forward for solving unemployment in this country—to send the young boys and girls running about the country ragged, naked and bootless by the imposition of these extraordinary tariffs. It is not for us to put forward proposals for the solution of this problem, but we did expect that at an early stage of this debate the President would have spoken and indicated to the House what he proposed to do. If he had done so, we would be in a much better position to discuss the question. As it is, we are only groping in the dark while waiting for some responsible member of the Government Party to get up and tell us what their policy is.
I suggest there are numerous ways of helping at least in the solution of the problem if the Ministry were really anxious to set about it. In my constituency, in the City of Limerick, there is at present a very big undertaking in prospect by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners—a dock extension and the building of a railway. The details of that huge scheme have already been prepared by the Harbour Commissioners. They have been ready now for some considerable time. The work was advertised, and a contract for it, I believe, accepted. The starting of the work has been delayed, I understand, awaiting the issue of sanction by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce for power to borrow money, whether by provisional order or some other method. I admit that there may be some difficulties, so far as Government Departments are concerned, in making that order, or in taking the necessary steps towards the making of it. What I complain of is, that the Ministry, instead of taking the necessary steps for the granting of that provisional order to enable this work in Limerick to be carried out, devoted themselves to other matters such as this Oath question.
There are other schemes, huge drainage schemes, held up here in the Board of Works, and in other places, while engineers are travelling around the country and not presenting their reports. I know there were always delays, and I will be told by the Opposition that there were delays in the last ten years. There were, and there always will be, and I want to be fair and say that the Ministers, and the different Departments, have difficulties. They have those difficulties, but if they were as sincere and as solicitous for the unemployed as they told the people in the last election they were, they would relegate contentious matters to the background, and concentrate their attention on these different matters I have mentioned. By confining their attention mainly to these questions, and the other economic matters with which this country is really concerned, they would get much nearer to a solution of the unemployment problem than they will by passing, or trying to pass, contentious measures such as that we have been discussing for the last two or three days, and which creates in the public mind, an atmosphere of fear and unrest.
I suggest that we should have to-day from the President, before this debate goes very much further, an expression as to the means he proposes to give effect to Deputy Morrissey's motion, which he has accepted already. I said a moment ago that this was an urgent problem. It is an urgent, if difficult, problem, and, being the urgent problem the Ministry know it is, they could, and should, have tackled it immediately. There is more urgency for it than there is for continuing the discussion on the Oath Bill until tomorrow night, much more urgency.
Hear, hear.
I am glad to hear the Deputy say "hear, hear," and the Deputies who answer me know that there is more urgency for it. I hope they will put pressure upon the President and the Ministry to spend as much time on the unemployment problem as they have spent on this Bill to upset the Constitution of this State. What has Labour done to advance the cause of the unemployed?
Do not be so hard on Deputy Morrissey.
As far as I can see, from the debates that have taken place, the real Labour Party in this House is the Independent Labour Party—Deputies Morrissey and Anthony.
Far from it.
The only Party in this House who are concerned with Labour first, last and every time; who are not concerned with the keeping of one Party, or the other Party, in office; who are independent in action and spirit, is that Independent Labour Party, and the electors of Cork and Tipperary proved that, in the last election, by electing Deputies Morrissey and Anthony, in face of the opposition of that Party that now calls itself the official Labour Party, whose only interest in Labour is to relegate the question of unemployment to the background in the official programme of their stronger allies. I do not intend to delay the House any longer. We have been accused here of wasting time, but I suggest that any time spent here in honestly discussing and endeavouring to discover some means of lightening—I do not say "curing," because I do not believe they can be cured—the cares and troubles of the unemployed, should be given, and certainly the question should have been handled and, if possible, solved, before the introduction of the contentious Bill of the President, which, to my mind, and I believe to the mind of most of the Deputies in this House, has relegated the solution of the unemployment question to the background, and made it much more difficult than it world otherwise have been.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Deputy Bennett, who has just spoken, does not, I think, realise what he has been talking about at all, because it is not so long ago since his Party were the Government, and they definitely took the stand that the matter of solving unemployment, or of providing work for the unemployed, was not, in their opinion, a matter for the State to concern itself with. As against that, Fianna Fáil have taken the full responsibility of taking that matter in hand, in due course——
In due course!
Yes, in due course. Deputy Bennett admits that it cannot be done immediately, and yet he wants it done immediately, and he talks for the sake of talking. I am sorry Deputy Byrne has left the House, because he made an interjection before, stating that the members on this side were well paid——
You should be the last to suggest that I talk for the sake of talking.
As I said, Deputy Byrne should be the last to refer to what people get in this House, when it is known that weeks and weeks of the time of the Dublin Corporation were wasted in trying to get that man to accept a lesser salary than the £2,500 he enjoys as Lord Mayor. It is the same class of interjection we will get from all of them, and the members of the Opposition should be the last to enter into that debate. We have taken responsibility, and so soon as we are satisfied that the causes which bring about instability in this country, the causes which affect the proper progress of trade and industry, are removed, we know that we will be able to advance in the right direction, nationally and economically. Deputy Bennett, whether accidentally or not, I do not know, but if he reads his speech he will see that he said that Fianna Fáil had as part of its programme the statement that they were miracle workers and would be able to provide work by miracles. We never said any such thing.
You suggested it.
What we said was, that we were not miracle workers, and that the people could not expect miracles, but that we would do our level best to accept the responsibility if it was put on our shoulders, and the Government are now facing up to that. This motion is supported by every member of the Opposition, who knows that there is a Ministry in office here for a very short space of time, which has to have at its disposal all the facts and figures of conditions in this country; that it will have to deliberate, as it is deliberating, practically into the early hours of every morning, with the full knowledge that every hour which passes is an extra hour of misery on these people, for whom the Opposition did not care twopence during the past ten years. We know all this, and every member on these benches is satisfied, whether he is at the back of the House or not, that we have got a decent, honest Ministry, led by a President who will not shirk, or unload, his responsibilities, and who will make every endeavour to deliver the goods to which the people of this country are entitled. It is all very well for these members of the Opposition to get up and talk now. Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, set us a headline in every debate on this matter of unemployment, when he said that people would have to starve and that it was not the duty of the Government to intervene.
Will you quote the Deputy?
Does the Deputy deny that that was said?
I deny that the Deputy has quoted Deputy McGilligan properly.
Does he deny that what I am quoting is in accordance with the sense of Deputy McGilligan's remarks?
I deny absolutely that that is so, and I will charge the Deputy with misquoting Deputy McGilligan in order to misrepresent him.
Does Deputy Mulcahy deny that Deputy McGilligan, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, stated that people would have to starve and that it was not the duty of the Government of that time to provide work?
I do. I deny that and suggest that if the Deputy is seriously interested in a statement by a person who was a Minister at the time dealing with unemployment, and that that was an important statement, he ought to do himself the justice of quoting it from the records of this House when he thinks it necessary to mention it.
I will get the exact quotation. I should like to say to Deputy Mulcahy that when we make references we shall be able to produce them and they certainly cannot be compared with the filth that Deputy Mulcahy put over his name in the North City election news—filth and scurrility that any man who took the responsibility of going before the electors of the City of Dublin as a responsible Minister in a supposedly responsible Government should not make use of.
What about unemployment?
I am talking about unemployment. Deputy Mulcahy was a member of that Ministry and subscribed to the idea that it was not a Government's duty to look after the unemployed.
Quote the Minister.
You will get the quotations in plenty of time.
We have not got them.
You will get them. Do you deny that?
I say that Deputy Briscoe has made a very grave charge against the Minister on a statement alleged to have been made in this House, and he does not go to the trouble of getting the volume of the Official Reports that can be brought to him by one of the attendants and quoting what exactly the Minister said.
As I am challenged, I shall produce the quotation.
The Deputy said that before.
Does he want me to cease speaking and produce it, because if he does I shall oblige him? He can have it anyway he likes. He must realise that he has to face the facts and conditions as they were and are now.
If the Deputy was considering the House and the members of it, he would bring his quotation here when he came to deal with the speech.
Deputy Mulcahy must not carry on the debate in this fashion. The Deputy must realise that a Deputy's statement must be taken in good faith by the House.
I am not challenging the good faith of this statement.
If Deputy Briscoe says that he is prepared to give the exact quotation afterwards I think that ought to satisfy the Deputy.
In the meantime he should withdraw what is alleged to be a misquotation.
What should be withdrawn is a matter for the Chair.
Are we to take in good faith the statement made by Deputy Briscoe in relation to the salary of the Lord Mayor of Dublin?
The Deputy's statement has to be taken in good faith because the House has no machinery by which it can test every statement made.
If the Deputy wants proof of what I said, I shall supply him with the reports from the Press and the motion put down several times by colleagues of his then Party. He saw the point.
Is the Deputy not aware that most, if not all, of the salary of the Lord Mayor goes in the cause of charity?
I am not aware of that.
Is the Deputy not aware that at the end of the month the Lord Mayor is giving an entertainment to poor children which will cost over £1,000?
Perhaps we can get back to the motion.
I am neither aware of that nor have I any proof. If the Deputy wants that gone into, I should like him to consult with the Lord Mayor, and if the Lord Mayor cares we can go into it with the permission of the Chair. To come back to the motion under discussion. Does Deputy Bennett pretend to be serious when he expects Fianna Fáil to be able to put on the Table of the House a formula or a plan immediately to take into employment every person unemployed who is able and willing to work? Is he not prepared to wait a little while, not five or ten years, but at least until the Budget is brought in to see what steps are being taken? He can put down a series of questions week after week if he likes as to the improvement in various industries and the increase in employment in them, and he will soon be able to convince himself that definite steps have been taken and are being continually taken. He tries to cross swords with the Labour Party as to why they are supporting the Government. The Labour Party are able to mind their own business and are the best judges of what they should do.
They should not be minding yours.
If they are prepared to give the Government a chance to put into operation what they say they want, surely Deputy Bennett does not want that they should put us out of office to let Cumann na nGaedheal in again to have the same conditions as we had for the past ten years? Deputy Bennett read out a long list of suggestions as to how unemployment should be got rid of and people employed.
Not a very long list.
A very long list for Cumann na nGaedheal. Why did he not get Cumann na nGaedheal, when they were the Government, to adopt the suggestions now made?
I made the same suggestions.
Deputy Bennett spoke about tariffs, but he does not know where he is in regard to them. He said he objected to tariffs and then he said that he wanted us to hold on to the tariff on butter because it affects Limerick. He should realise that the trouble which confronts any Government in this country is not such as confronts a military general who can move his troops left or right.
I am afraid you are beginning to recognise that.
We must recognise that unemployment must be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the different areas. I am quite satisfied and happy in the knowledge that Fianna Fáil will even surprise Deputy Bennett in a very short time with the amount of good that will result from their administration, and in a very much shorter space of time than Cumann na nGaedheal took to convince people that they were not able to deal with any problem confronting the country, national or economic. Instead of discussing this matter they should keep quiet. They should at least wait a reasonable time. If, in six months, Deputy Bennett were to get up and say that he was horrified at what had happened or what had not happened, I could understand it. He knows well the Ministry of this Government has done almost impossible work since they came into office, and he should realise that we understand what is annoying the Opposition is that they are beginning to realise that something is being done and that they will be shown up in a worse way than ever they were in the last ten years.
It is very difficult for one who was in close touch with the genesis of employment to intervene with any great hope of success in a debate carried on on the lines we have heard this debate carried on for the last two or three days. I would suggest to the House that the genesis of employment in the country is confidence, and I would further suggest that the confidence that is necessary to employment has had a very rude shock within the last six or eight or ten weeks. I suggest to the House that the Government in pursuit of their policy as we all know have prophesied with no lack of emphasis that they will create employment in this country. Every Deputy in the House is anxious that employment should be created in the country. But the policy of Government as regards unemployment has been to create an atmosphere which has resulted in this constituency in which the Dáil is situated in serious and steadily increasing unemployment. We have in this constituency a very much smaller amount of employment than we should have. We have an influx from the country of workers anxious for employment in this El Dorado of employment. We have to the best of our ability as a city tried to meet that influx as it comes and tried to absorb it. One of the most pathetic things I am faced with in my life is to find labourers coming from the constituency almost of every Deputy in this House, tramping the roads, seeking this El Dorado of employment. In the last few weeks I have had labourers coming to my house at all hours of the day seeking employment thinking that I could work some miracle on their behalf.
It is distressing when looking at this question to find that the Government have taken no steps to give an assurance that whatever happens, these existing industries were the most important items in the State, which I think will be accepted by all sides of the House, and would need fostering and care. But when any question of any cloud came upon the horizon the workers in this constituency in which we are sitting to-day have no hope that the Government are going to meet the situation as it arises with courage. They find the Government plunging into this question connected with their programme and immediately having the effect of increasing unemployment and putting further away the hope of re-employment. I sincerely hope the Government's prophecies will come true. I am prepared to give the utmost credit to every member of the Government if they do come true; but I put it to the Government that while their viewpoint is one that we all take as sincere, that they are going to give employment in this country, it is essential they should assure the people of this country, and the people of my constituency, that they will take every possible step to prevent reactions and to cure the reactions that have already occurred. There is no doubt whatever that reactions are occurring every day. The workers of the south city of Dublin, whom I have the honour to represent, are not concerned with the Oath. They are not concerned with anything except their right to work and the hope of sustenance for themselves and their families. Any interference with that suddenly by a new Government is going to have its reactions, and I pray that these reactions will not be as serious as I think they may.
At the beginning of this debate to-day, a statement was made from the Government Benches to the effect that the unemployment that existed in the Free State to-day was created by the late Government when in power. I think that is a statement that will not be borne out by any examination of the facts. On the contrary, I think an examination of the figures of unemployment of this country in the beginning of the year 1932 and a comparison made with the figures of 1922 will show that there was less unemployment in the beginning of this year than tea years ago. It is rather a unique condition in Europe. The only time an effort was made artificially to create unemployment in this country was when an armed minority, rising against the rule of established authority, tried to help their case by the creation and extension of unemployment.
A dispute has arisen as to the meaning to be attached to certain words used by an ex-Minister, pending an examination of the text from which these words were taken and which quotation was used very largely against the late Government in the late election. That quotation was to the effect that it was not the business of the Government to give work and to create employment. The Fianna Fáil Party say "it is the business, the practical business of Government to create employment and we are going to do so. We have got a great established plan for decreasing unemployment at once." When challenged now and for nearly six weeks since this House first sat to produce that plan we are told they are only a short time in office and are not in a position to produce the plan. But it must be evident to everybody who is a student of politics or everyday affairs that unemployment is not of to-day or yesterday and it was evident to the Fianna Fáil Party before they made their appeal to the country. We all remember those beautiful posters that adorned our walls showing ploughs proceeding through fertile fields and the wheels of mills revolving in the work of production. They must have been thinking of these problems of unemployment so that it is not true to say that their failure to produce their plans is due to the short time they were in office. One person told us—this was alleged—that no practical good could be done to relieve unemployment until the Oath was removed. That is a matter on which there is going to be very grave debate and whether reactions that will follow the removal of the Oath are not going to have a very contrary effect. Be that as it may people must live and they must live while these transcendental matters are discussed.
The people must live before they live in any particular manner. This question of unemployment transcends every other question that comes before this House at the present time. There are 80,000 people unemployed; there is an increasing number in the register of the unemployment exchanges every day. We had the doleful picture painted here the other night of the condition of the slums of Dublin and we must realise that there are 90,000 people living on outdoor relief in this country. While that is going on we are talking about international relations and we are raising up pictures of fictitious things that are to follow if this Oath is not removed.
The first and most urgent matter before this country is the creation of work to provide bread for the workers. There was a circular sent round to the local bodies lately that to some extent unemployment could be relieved by going in for housing schemes. Of course housing schemes can be carried out under the provisions already made, but these schemes cannot be carried through without encroaching on the local rates. When you have the houses built how are you going to get tenants for them when the people who require the houses are not earning a wage to pay the rent? We do not ask the Government at the outset to perform miracles, but we want them to produce the deliberate plan which they say they have and we want them to put into operation at once this scheme of directly and positively providing work for the workless.
Unemployment in Ireland is a problem that has been fought and tackled from different angles. So far at least up to the Dissolution it must be admitted that the Government were unable to find any definite plans for its diminution to any extent. The same trouble existed in other countries. The United States was unable to find a solution for the problem of dealing with its seven or eight millions of unemployed. But we were told during the election that unemployment in Ireland was on a different plane and that it could be easily solved. If it can be easily solved the present Government have a very excellent opportunity now of solving it, an opportunity on which they will have the concurrence and full support of every Party and every Deputy in this House. I think they ought to be challenged to produce that definite plan which they declared to the electors that they had and they ought to be ready now to put it into operation.
It is remarkable to find in this House the great change of mind of the Deputies in the past nine weeks. It is remarkable to find the change in the two Parties who now form the Government, that is, Fianna Fáil and Labour. I have been listening for the past five years to contributions on the unemployment problem from these two Parties. We had on every occasion contributions asking the Government to revive Irish industries; to open up lime and granite quarries, and to use Irish material in building, to use Irish slate and so forth. Now we come along after these few weeks and in face of that we are told that these things cannot be done until the Oath is removed. We heard from Deputy Curran a week ago that he did not care the snap of his finger for the Oath, but this morning he was prepared to vote for its removal in preference to the giving of employment to persons who are practically starving at the present time. We also heard from the Fianna Fáil platforms previous to the last election that they had a plan to relieve unemployment. All they wanted was to get into office, and they told us that as soon as they got into office there would be no more unemployment in this country.
We have Deputy Briscoe coming along this morning and telling us that the plan has got to be delayed, and that the unemployed are not to be dealt with for at least six months. We had every Deputy on the opposite benches for ten weeks previous to the election stating to the electors and to the unemployed that the plan was to be put into operation immediately they got into office. They tell us now that "we have to deal with this Oath Bill before we can deal with unemployment." Why? Because they have to accommodate the handful of super-patriots. I will call them super-patriots. We have to accommodate them or at least Fianna Fáil has got to accommodate them before they come to tackle the unemployment problem. I ask the President is he or his Executive Council of the opinion that if the Oath is removed and if these super-patriots come in here to this House, it is going to relieve unemployment? Does he think it will? I believe it will not and I ask the President in his reply to give us the figures of the unemployed on 9th March and the figures for the present time. Probably he will tell me that it is not possible to get them. I expect that will be the answer.
That is quite right.
Mr. Brodrick
The President might give the figures at a later date. I can assure the House that the number of unemployed has very much increased since the 9th of March.
How does the Deputy know?
Mr. Brodrick
I know it very well in my own constituency. I would ask the President to tell us how many local authorities in the Free State have either abandoned housing schemes or have at least adjourned them. I would ask if he, or perhaps Deputy Harris, would tell us what action the Naas Urban Council took on the housing scheme before them some weeks ago. I would ask the President to tell us what action have the Loughrea Town Commissioners taken on the housing schemes before them in the last seven weeks. He might give me that information when he is replying. The House will find that the number employed by the local authorities has much decreased in the last few weeks. It might be asked why? The reason is because of the deductions that have been made from the Agricultural Grant payable by the Government to the local authorities. I refer to the deductions made in connection with the land annuities. In every county we can see those deductions being made. As much as £3,000, £5,000 or £8,000 is being deducted from each county from the Agricultural Grant, and these deductions are being made because of the non-payment of the land annuities.
Were there any deductions made by the Deputy's Party while in office?
Mr. Brodrick
No.
There have been deductions made every year in the amount paid to the Dublin County Council since 1921. A sum of £16,000 was deducted in ten years.
Mr. Brodrick
If there were any deductions made the amount would not be nearly as great as the deductions made by the Fianna Fáil Government. Deputies must remember that every £1,000 deducted is bound to lead to a reduction of employment by the local bodies. That is because the rates have to go up and some services have to suffer. Deputy Curran told us a week ago that the Oath did not matter to him the snap of his finger.
Neither does it.
Mr. Brodrick
If you look at the Press and study the amounts deducted you will see how every one of these deductions means increased unemployment in this country. Some service or other has got to be reduced. The road services have got to suffer because the necessary road schemes cannot be carried through. I would ask the President to let us know what his housing policy is to be. We have been told for the last five years that if this Party got into office every member of the population throughout the country would be properly housed. We have been told from every Fianna Fáil platform within ten years that all this would be done. I ask the President to let us know what he is going to do about that now.
The Fianna Fáil Party took great objection to the several housing schemes that were put up here for the past five or six years by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They also found fault with the Act passed in 1931. By that Act £20 is paid by the State for every £20 that is put up by the local authority. Why does not the Fianna Fáil Government amend that Act? It would not take a very long Bill. They could have amended that Act. It would not be a very difficult thing to amend it.
Did you vote against that Bill?
Mr. Brodrick
I voted for it. Every one of the Fianna Fáil members said that if their Party were in office they would have a much better Bill. The Party are now about eight weeks in office and it is time they did something.
Is that the Bill the Loughrea Town Commissioners turned down?
Mr. Brodrick
It is not.
It is, and it is the one you voted for.
Mr. Brodrick
That is not the Bill the Naas Urban Council took action over. I would like the President to answer the few points I have raised. He should tell us what he is going to do. Deputy A. Byrne talked about the conditions in Dublin. We should not have to wait a further six months until the Government make an effort to cope with unemployment. If work is not provided for at least six months there certainly will be a dreadful condition of affairs existing amongst the workless people of the country.
I have been asked by members of the House why I did not intervene in this debate at an earlier period. One of my reasons for sitting quietly here listening to the debate is that I was in the hope that I might get from the Opposition some acceptance of the principles in this motion.
On a point of correction, I did not ask the President —that is, if he is referring to me— why he did not intervene earlier. I asked him if he would indicate when he was going to intervene, and that is quite a different thing.
There were certain comments made as to why I did not intervene earlier. Everybody in the House knows that we accept the principle of this motion. Deputy Morrissey knew it when he introduced the motion. I take it Deputy Morrissey's purpose is not what is in the motion, but to elicit a statement from me.
I was hoping the President and the Government would accept the motion. In view of the statements made by the President and other members of the Government when they were in opposition I expected that they would accept this motion. What I want to hear from the President is how he proposes to give effect to the motion and when.
It is an extraordinary thing that Deputy Morrissey, who knows so well the procedure in this House, should not have asked that by way of question. Had he done so he would have saved a long discussion— that is, if that were his purpose. But no, that was not his purpose and he knows it. Deputy Morrissey's purpose was quite different. We are anxious to get on with the work. I am quite willing to admit that one of the principal things we were elected to do was to try to deal with the unemployment problem. We are quite willing to do it and we stand or fall by our ability to do that work or not to do it. We propose to try to do it and we hope we will get from those who have been talking on this motion the support which anybody who stands by these principles ought to give us in the work that is before us.
Absolutely. You are quite assured of it.
There have been statements as to what we said or did not say during election times. Of course it is the privilege of the opposition, I suppose, to misrepresent. The suggestion was made that we went to the electors and thought the electors so foolish as to believe that we could suddenly produce out of a hat a solution of the unemployment problem. We said nothing of the kind. The people were too sensible to elect any body of people who went out on pretences like that. What we said to the electors we supported by arguments and proof. The arguments that were good then are good to-day and I say with a full knowledge of all the difficulties—difficulties the seriousness of which even outside I was able to have an idea of, difficulties the seriousness of which outside I did not realise as completely as I have realised them since I saw the mess we had to take over, the mess in which our opponents left the position— that we are determined to do our utmost to solve the problem.
Our opponents retired before the Budget because they knew that they could not, in the circumstances they had created, go with a Budget to the people and hope after ten years to be elected on that Budget. They wanted to anticipate things. They did not want to balance their accounts, present them to the people and say: "Here are the accounts; here is the result of the period of our office and we ask you to judge us upon that." They went out before the accounts were balanced so that they could say just what they pleased. I want to repeat what I said outside. I said that looking around the world and trying to understand what were the causes of unemployment in different countries. I came to the conclusion that there was less reason for unemployment in this country than in any country of which I know. I said there was less reason for unemployment here than in the United States, because in the United States you have the people industrialised to such an extent that the moment their outside markets fail they have a surplus of produce that they are not able to dispose of and the whole machinery of capitalism is broken down for the time being. The same takes place in Britain.
We had a long list submitted to us of countries that have a similar problem of unemployment to deal with. We were told that President Hindenburg could not solve it, that President Hoover could not solve it, that Ramsay MacDonald could not solve it, but that de Valera could solve it. In the long list of countries where there is unemployment and where a solution has not been found there was a very remarkable omission. France was omitted from that list. In France you have not the serious unemployment that exists in other countries. You do not have it there, mainly because the economy of France is largely an economy of trying to be as self-supporting and self-sufficing as possible.
What is the position of France to-day?
I have not examined it since, but I believe that France is to-day relatively better off than any of the highly industrialised countries that are dependent upon foreign markets. I believe the fundamental conditions are such that it stands to reason that France should be in a better position than other countries that are dependent upon foreign markets, countries such as the United States and Britain. Let us look around at the circumstances in this country. What do we see? We see a country capable of producing food for far more people than are in the country. We see resources of various kinds, all the resources necessary to provide for the material needs of the human beings in this country; we see the hands that could be put to these resources for the purpose of working them up and making them available for the material comforts of our people. We see that those resources which could be so readily utilised have not received any attention.
We saw that the economy of this country had, in the past, been dictated not for the advantage of the people here, but for the advantage of people across the water. We saw that this was a dumping ground for foreign manufactures, and that employment that should be given to our own people was given to strangers while our own people had either to go without employment and starve, or otherwise try to find employment in foreign countries, a source that is now closed to them. I am quite willing to admit that during my whole time in struggling for the freedom of this country I had only one object and that was to get free so as to be able to order our life for the benefit of our own people. I never regarded freedom as an end in itself, but if I were asked what statement of Irish policy was most in accord with my view as to what human beings should struggle for, I would stand side by side with James Connolly. The thing that was most heartbreaking in this Dáil since I came into it was to find the two Parties who should have stood side by side trying to secure the freedom in order that they might have power to order their own policy, divided. I am speaking of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party. These two Parties had, naturally, the same programme, and when I differed with the Labour Party after the Treaty it was because I thought that that Party was making a mistake and that they did not see what James Connolly saw, and what he told me he saw, that to secure national freedom was the first step in order to get the workers of Ireland the living that they were entitled to in their own country. Because he said: "As long as a foreign Imperial Power holds this country the workers are the people who will be principally exploited." We wanted our freedom in order to put an end to that. When I was speaking to the people I was not so foolish as to believe or to ask the people to believe that we could suddenly, when I came to occupy the seat that was occupied by Deputy Cosgrave, change overnight a situation brought about in the course of centuries of foreign misrule and ten years of the serious misrule of those who occupy the benches opposite. I did not think anything of the kind, and I told the people of Ireland, before the election, that if there was to be any real change in the situation it should be envisaged as a whole, and be gone about in an ordered manner, that haphazard methods would not do, that it would not do to have a patch here and a patch there, but that, if you wanted to build you should do so on sound foundation, and build as a whole. Since we came into office that is what we have been trying to do. We have been trying to get the facts. How many people are unemployed? No one knows. We have figures and we know that they are wrong. I had a map made indicating the various parts of the country where there was unemployment, and when I asked questions about the figures on which the map was based I was told that they were taken from the employment exchanges, or something like that, that could not be depended upon. I asked local people who know the facts, and I was told that the figures did not represent the situation. We have to find out exactly what the situation is as a first step.
When speaking to the people during the elections I stated that a permanent solution—at least "permanent" so far as the time we are likely to be active beings on this globe—can be got on the basis of manufacturing, and making for ourselves, goods that we needlessly import. In the manifesto I put that down immediately after we had dealt with the international situation. As item No. 4, I put down the organised and systematic establishment of the industries required to meet the needs of the community in manufactured goods. The aim would be to make ourselves as independent of foreign countries as possible and provide for our people the employment that is at present denied them. Suitable fiscal laws, I stated, would be passed to give the protection necessary against unfair foreign competition. I do not believe in tariffs as if they were some kind of religion. I have regarded tariffs simply as a present means to an end. What is the end intended to be served? To protect our own industries to enable them to grow and to be built up. We made an estimate as a result of the figures we could get and we found that over eighty thousand people could be employed in manufacturing and producing goods that we import unnecessarily. The figure we thought reasonable, for the unemployed at the time was about eighty thousand. We set out to try to get industries protected and established to such an extent that they would meet our needs. I know that certain costs will go up, but that is necessary. You cannot have omelettes and not break eggs. You cannot have it both ways. You must make up your mind that if certain things are to be done, whatever the immediate hardships are they will have to be borne. What we have to see is that the community as a whole will bear them. We cannot get out of the present situation simply by tariffs or anything else. We will get out of it by our determination to bear the necessary burdens for the time being. Our purpose as a Government is to see that these burdens rest heaviest on the shoulders of people who are best able to bear them and rest lightest on the shoulders of those least able to bear them.
Not to make the poor make all the sacrifices.
One of the reasons I sat here quietly was to hear from members on the opposite benches an assurance that they stood for these principles so that when we come in here in a week or two with proposals they will not cry "we cannot bear this and we cannot bear that." We must bear it if we are going to get out of the present situation. Every member of the community has to bear his part of the burden. Members on the opposite benches said that I went in for a hair shirt policy. My answer was that theirs was the silk shirt policy for some and the hair shirt policy for other. If there are to be hair shirts at all it will be hair shirts all round. Ultimately I hope the day will come when the hair shirt will give way to the silk shirt all round. We have got to organise these industries. We have done something already in that way as a start. Deputies opposite want to pretend to the people of the country that we have been simply fiddling with the Oath since we came into office. Not a single member of the Ministry was occupied for ten minutes either on that Bill or anything else connected with it. They left it to me and to the lawyers as it was a legal question. We wasted no time on it. We knew what we were about. It was a legal question and we knew our legal rights. Although members on the opposite side wantonly went out of their way to create uneasiness not one of them stood up to say that we were not acting within our legal rights. People who knew nothing about it spoke. I am not blaming them. It is a difficult question. Attempts were made to excite suspicion, that we were trying to do something by some backdoor method. I issued that manifesto and I am not fit to sit in this seat for one hour longer than I am able to go one by one through those items and carry out each one of them strictly in the letter and the spirit.
The Oath I shall not deal with now. I shall have another opportunity to deal with it. But I want to protest against the pretence that we are occupying time here in dealing with a matter like the Oath—time which ought to be given to more serious matter. The gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. With one breath, they say that the Oath is not a matter of any importance. If it is a matter of no importance, why waste all the time discussing it? We have not wasted time on it. I did not widen the scope of the debate. I kept the question to what it is—a narrow, legal question. But from the opposite side we had a long discussion which took us back to 1916 and years beyond it. The people who are wasting the time are the people on the opposite benches. If I had my way, I believe it would be better for the country, the moment we had got these financial measures out of the way, to adjourn the Dáil for six months, because the work to be done is Executive work and the will to do it is there. That is what I would do.
The Departments have been at work. So far as the general purposes are concerned, there have already been put on some thirteen tariffs. I should like to ask the Deputies opposite how many years the Tariff Commission would be sitting before they would make up their minds, or the former Government would make up their minds, whether these tariffs should or should not be put on, or whether it was in the interest of the community that they should be put on. We have satisfied our minds, at any rate, that this protection was necessary. We have a fair idea of what the consequences will be, but we believe that these measures are necessary in order to enable the industries to be built up so that employment will be given by them. We have imposed no less than thirteen tariffs.
A Deputy
An unlucky number.
I did not notice the particular number until now, but it is a large number. Every one of these tariffs is calculated to protect the industry concerned from unfair competition from outside and to enable the owners to expand. When the expansion takes place and employment is provided, it will be for the Government to see that the benefits are shared all round. Our attitude in this matter is the same as that which the head of a family would have towards the members of his family. We believe that the Government ought to be able, in the present conditions of the world, to exercise the same sort of care for the community as a whole as a father would exercise towards the members of his family.
Will the President take steps to secure that the rich men will not become richer and the poor men become poorer as a result of the imposition of tariffs?
I promise that everything I can do to prevent that will be done. It is not easy, as the Deputy well knows, to prevent that, but certainly it will not be on account of want of will on our part if any such thing happens. To use an old and oft-quoted phrase, the "resources of civilisation" have not yet been exhausted, and I hope that we will be able to prevent that sort of thing happening. The object of putting on these tariffs was to protect the industries concerned in order that the employment that existed would be extended. Many people find fault and say: "Look at the tariffs put on such and such articles. There has been very little employment as a result." I put it to these people that they should ask themselves what would have been the result if there had been no sult." I put it to these people that they should ask themselves what would have been the result if there had been no tariffs. It is not sufficient to say that such a number was employed before and that only so many more are now employed.
In present conditions, we have dumping going on all the world over. Some products, as Deputies know, are being burned. Products which would be useful to human beings are being sabotaged. It is easy to understand in these conditions how short a time it would take, with a flood of such goods coming into the country, to destroy whatever little industries we have left. You must not assume that tariffs have been unsuccessful simply because they have not done much to advance employment. The very fact that you are able to maintain the employment given is to a certain extent proof that they have not been unsuccessful, when you take existing conditions into account.
Most of the Deputies know that when I was speaking from the opposite benches I was in favour of establishing here something like an economic council, something like a headquarters staff, whose sole task it would be to look after the economic interests of the country and who would not be occupied with the ordinary departmental duties which a Minister has to perform. Their whole time would be occupied with that particular task, so that all the material necessary, would be prepared, so that the direction necessary and encouragement would be given steadily by them. That did not mean, as Deputy Cosgrave suggested at the time, that we were trying to place our responsibilities and burdens on somebody else. Nothing of the kind. It would mean, of course, that, with such a body, the Executive Council of the day would have to take full responsibility for the measures introduced. I immediately on taking office set about that matter. I consulted with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and considered what steps should be taken. I found out very quickly that to attempt to take such steps now would simply mean needless duplication, that the Minister himself was carrying out the sort of survey that such an economic council would carry out. The whole of the industries would have to be surveyed. Such a survey was already being carried out to find out what were the industries capable of expansion, what were our needs and to what extent the industries required to be extended in order to meet our needs. That would be about the first duty of such a council and the Minister convinced me that, for the present, at any rate, the work could be more expeditiously done by himself and by the officials of his Department than by creating extra machinery. I am against the creation of machinery unless machinery is necessary. I have an open mind on the matter still, but the work I would have given such a headquarters staff to do is being done. The necessary survey is being made and these tariffs are the result of a preliminary inquiry into the industries that can be expanded quickly to meet our home needs.
I cannot be expected to give more here to-day than a general indication of our view. I am, at the outset, trying to show to the members of the House that I have not changed one bit in my attitude towards the unemployed. It is the duty of the State to provide work. It is the duty of the State to try to organise industries so that the needs of our own people will be satisfied by our own work from the reserves of our own country and so that we will be able to give employment to our own people instead of to strangers. I have indicated already the work being done in the Department of Industry and Commerce to show that. A systematic survey is being made of the industries, of their capabilities and of the directions in which expansion is possible. The industrialists of the country have been interviewed. Suggestions have been made to them and they have made suggestions. I had myself a conference with a large number of them when this question of an economic council was discussed. The particular activity of every Government Department that has anything to do with unemployment since we came into office has been getting down to bed-rock, so as to work along the lines we have indicated. During the election, I said that we had 80,000 unemployed and that there was normally employment for 80,000 in the production of our own goods. The cure for unemployment, I said, was to set out to produce these goods ourselves and keep that employment for our own people.
I remember saying it myself in several speeches. I was quite frank about it and anybody interested can look it up in the newspaper reports.
I said, however, that we have something more to do than to provide what you might call this long distance cure for unemployment—something very much more than that. I even remember using these words to the people: that the unemployed might very well say to us: "That is a policy of live horse and you will get grass." They have to live meantime. I know that there are people on the verge of starvation at the present time. I have had a vivid picture of the struggles and anxieties of a number of our people from morning till night. I have had the picture of the father of a family going out in the morning in a hopeless quest for work, leaving his wife and family behind without even their breakfast. It is for that reason that I say we would not be doing our duty as long as there is luxury in one part of the country and starvation in another. We hope to come to the Dáil with measures to meet this situation and we hope that we will be met in the right spirit not merely by the members of the Labour Party and of our own Party, but by members on the opposite benches. Let them remember that they are Irishmen and that those who are starving are their brothers.
I am quite aware that there is an immediate and pressing problem. Side by side with asking the Department of Industry and Commerce to get on quickly with this part of the work, to carry out its survey and see what immediate steps can be taken by that Department to try and establish our industries, I asked all the Departments that had anything to do with work that would give immediate employment to see what schemes they had which were nearly ready, and to report as to what work could be given by these schemes in a short time. The main Departments, as you know, were those dealing with roads, housing, public works, drainage, public health, afforestation and the Land Commission, and for other purposes, of course, the unemployment exchanges. These were all individually communicated with to get to work and find out what schemes they had which would give immediate employment. They were asked, particularly, to choose those schemes from which there would be the results that Deputy Moore mentioned the other day. Everyone of us would, of course, prefer to have our people working on schemes that would be reproductive, and in the inquiries that were sent out the Departments were asked to differentiate between schemes that were reproductive, that were immediately necessary for public health and so on, and to let us know what the position was, because we felt that there was too much delay, that they were not getting on as fast as they should in that work of giving us the information. I considered that it would be well to get one person charged with the responsibility of going through all this information and presenting us with a report on the most pressing schemes. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who is in charge of the Board of Works, was chosen. He had conferences with the representatives of these various Departments. When they were brought together, questions like this were put to them: "Assuming the money was available, how much could a Department absorb in immediate schemes, and at what rate could men be absorbed in schemes that were reasonably sound?" We need not expect that all our schemes are going to return a profit. We cannot expect that every one of them will be what members on the opposite side would call economically sound. My view of it is that if a man is to get 30s. or 40s. a week I would prefer to see him doing something for it of some public value than to see him getting into a condition that is bad for his mind, for his soul and his body.
Therefore, we are anxious to get the work done that will be of some public value for the money that is spent on it, public health work, afforestation, or something of that kind. I must say that I have been disappointed in some of the reports that I have received in some directions, in which I hoped there would be reproductive employment. I am not satisfied that the examination has been absolutely thorough and I am quite willing to admit that I am not satisfied with the results in certain directions. They were asked what would be the result in actual employment, calculated in terms of the number of men employed immediately, the average, for one year, and so on. That has been done in an extended classification that I have here—the money that would be required for the schemes, the labour cost, the time that it would take to start the work, the number that would be absorbed within a certain period and so on. There is no use in my going through all this for members of the House, none whatever.
It has been suggested that we did not take the House into our confidence. A few minutes after I was elected somebody suggested that I should make a statement of policy. Deputy Cosgrave stood up and said he did not want statements, he wanted results in the way of schemes. I agreed with him that time should not be spent in talking of what we proposed to do, that we should come here with practical results. I wanted to do that.
Take the Departments themselves. Some of us are working very many hours a day. Men in the Departments have got to get sleep and they have got to get time to do their work. To bring in outsiders to help would be no use. You want experienced men who know the schemes to carry them out and there is a limit to human capacity in doing these things. We are seven weeks in office. We have been put into office at a time when the Budget would naturally be occupying the attention of the Government. The new Ministry has got to examine the whole situation. We could not go on with these schemes, even if they were completely ready, if we had any sense of responsibility, without having a decent stock-taking to start with. That stock-taking has been taking place.
Deputy McGilligan spoke about the Minister for Finance as if he were wasting his time. The Minister for Finance has never spent one minute away from his work when he could be usefully employed at it. He cannot do all the work himself. Various things have to be done by the officials in the Department. He cannot himself personally conduct every investigation. He has to get it done. The Budget was to be introduced on the 4th. We find that is impossible. The officials have been working all the time, but the Budget cannot be brought in until the 11th, five days later than Deputy Blythe brought it in last year. There is a limit to human capacity. What is the financial position that is revealed? It is this. On strict budgetary principles, putting revenue against what might be regarded as normal expenditure, there is a deficit this year of, roughly, £1,400,000. That is what Deputy Blythe has left us, a budgetary deficit of close on £1,400,000.
That is their contribution to employment.
Take the published Estimates and see what expenditure is envisaged in them. Calculate the yield from existing taxation and we find that we will have a deficit of three millions practically on that basis for the coming year. Do you think that any people with a sense of responsibility would not want to see how they were going to deal with that situation before they would involve the community in other directions. Do not misunderstand me. I do not say that any situation ought to be allowed to stand in the way of meeting the needs of the unemployed. I say that we are a solvent community. We have a potential capacity to produce wealth. We have the capacity to meet all our needs. All we want is to begin properly. We do not want to go off without a general idea of the direction in which we are going. We want to examine the situation, and I promise, just as I am firm when I think we are right, in dealing with England or anyone else, I am going, as long as I occupy this position, to be firm that the people who are entitled to get a living in this country will get it.
Again I want to say that there is no use in giving employment to one person if by doing so you throw other people out of employment. We have got to be careful. It may be that under the present system we cannot do the full work we would like to do, but we are going to try. I am going to say this, that if I try within the system as it stands and fail, then I will try to go outside the system, and I will go to the country and ask them to support me to go outside the system.
That is an advance.
I say that as far as we are concerned everything the community would do in order to face a position of war in order to preserve the life and the interests of the community, it is entitled to do in these matters of protecting the life and giving a decent living, a decent frugal living, and we are asking for nothing more, to the members of our community. As I said at the start, I cannot produce a scheme out of my pocket or hat, some miracle for the cure of unemployment. I do not pretend to. I did not make any pretence during the election; I stated what I am stating here, and I am prepared to be judged by it, that we intend doing all these things—the Oath, the Annuities and the other matters—or go down in doing them.
All this is work that we cannot do alone. No Government could. We want the support of every member of the Dáil. We want particularly the support of the Labour people who are interested in the workers. We have been in consultation already with the representatives of the official Labour Party. Their views and mine, as far as I have been able to judge, on the duties of the State towards the members of the community, coincide. We may differ on the various steps and the various measures, but we agree on the main question, and the only bargain that has been made with the Labour Party is simply a bargain as regards a common ideal, and the moment we differ on that we expect to go different ways. The Labour Party are supporting us in our programme because they believe in it and for no other reason. I do not want their support or the support of anybody else the moment they disagree with us. I appeal to members on the opposite side who were in the old Sinn Féin movement; remember that one of the first things thought of the moment that the Declaration of Independence was adopted was the passing of another instrument called the Democratic Programme. Deputy Mulcahy, I think, was a member of the Government in that Dáil.
Will the President point to anything in which that has not been fairly attempted since?
The statement I have made was not one of accusation. I am not going back on the past. What I say is that I want to appeal to the members of the old Sinn Féin movement, the people who came together and declared on 21st January, 1919, that they wanted to be an Independent nation, and to be able to give a decent living to their own people—I ask all these members to come along and to stand in with us. If these people who at that time stood together and if the interests they represented stand together, then we can have a democratic programme in spite of any section in this country.
I have had one or two talks with the representatives of the Labour Party on general questions. As far as I can find out they agree with us and I hope we will be able to get their co-operation. I hope we will be able to get the co-operation of Labour generally throughout the country. The former leader of the Labour Party, Senator Johnson, I think indicated on one occasion that he was quite ready to do his part in getting Labour to fall in in a general national scheme. We believe we will have the plain people of the country with us in any steps that have a reasonable hope of securing the end we have in view. Meantime, we have got to take stock. We have got to do things that any sensible group of business people would do before they started on any great undertaking. To my mind, that is the biggest thing that we have got to do. It is one of the main things we have got to do. It is suggested that I am risking that by the policy of standing on our rights in regard to the Oath. I am doing nothing of the kind, nothing whatever of the kind. We have a legal right, we have a moral right to do what I propose to do and I hope to show it to the House. I did not hear a single person in the House suggesting that he wanted the Oath, not even one. Nobody wants it. I say that we can sweep it away, and the only way we can be sure of sweeping it away is to take the steps I have indicated. We need lose no time about it. I was suggesting to the members opposite that they might have the legal arguments from both sides and let the House decide which is right and let us give the whole time for the moment to the more important pressing work.
Why is it being done? The removal of the Oath is being done to give us conditions of stability. There are a number of reasonable people in the country who, as long as they are compelled to undergo a conscience test will not accept even majority rule as long as that test is imposed. But the moment that is gone, the moment we can say to every young man in the country: "Come along. You are free to get your representatives into an Assembly where there is nothing asked of you except what everybody else who is selected on a level with yourself does, to accept the majority vote of that Assembly as deciding what national policy should be." There is not one on the opposite side who thinks for one moment that that principle can be denied to any extensive body of opinion. It cannot be denied, it is fair play. If you outlaw people, they have a right to feel, at any rate, that they are outlaws, that they can act accordingly if they are put outside the law, that the law is not protecting them, and that they have no responsibility to it. People opposite may say we have no mandate. They took out the means by which we could get a definite ad hoc mandate if we had a Referendum. To restore that is another part of our programme. They say it was not before the people. We say we put it before the people. The people knew it, and it was not the fault of Deputies opposite if they did not, nor was it the fault of the newspapers of the Party opposite. When speaking in the country during the elections I frequently spoke for a long time on economic problems, but what did I see when I opened the papers in the morning? “The Oath must go,” morning after morning. It seemed as if I were a person of one fixed idea and as if I could think of nothing else. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate accordingly adjourned.