I do not know if it is desired to initiate a discussion on this matter at this stage. I merely wish to say that a request was made yesterday that a memorandum would be circulated explaining the nature of the various changes which have been made by the Resolutions which were adopted. I have looked into that matter and I think there will be no difficulty in arranging for an explanatory memorandum which I hope to have circulated before the Resolutions come before the Dáil on report.
In Committee on Finance—Financial Resolutions. - Resolution No. 7—General (Resumed).
The Dáil according to order resumed consideration of the following Resolution in Committee on Finance.
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs.
I should like to ask a question on these Resolutions. Are they to be taken as an amendment and an extension of the Finance Bill? What is running through my mind is that the Minister has brought forward and explained certain items but there are other items in the Finance Bill about which there is a great deal of doubt. I should like to raise the interpretation of some of the items in the Finance Bill. Would this be the time to raise that question?
We shall have the Bill later. These Resolutions must be embodied in a Finance Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
I take it the Deputy is referring to some items in the Finance Act which was passed in the last session concerning which he desires information. I would suggest that both from his point of view and mine it would be much more convenient if he tabled a Parliamentary Question.
Right.
There are some points which I wish to make on this Resolution. The Minister yesterday in the end seemed to give as an explanation of this whole tariff policy, that there was no way of dealing with unemployment, which was becoming more and more marked as indicated in the unemployment figures, except by imposing tariffs. He rather implied that employment had been provided for 32,000 during the last four months as a result of the tariffs which he had already imposed. I do not know if the 32,000 that have been employed during the last four months are the 32,000 that the electorate must take off the 80,000 odd, for whom the Minister promised the electorate during the election he was going to provide work in the tariffed industries, or whether the 32,000 have been employed as a result of relief work. He made certain statements, and generally his Party has been making certain statements with regard to unemployment figures, and what the tariff policy is doing for the unemployed. As Deputy Davin emphasised yesterday, unemployment has grown in his area. I do not think there is a single Deputy from any constituency, in spite of the Minister's suggestion that 32,000 more have been put into employment, who could not say that, as a result of the policy the Minister has been pursuing in the last four months, unemployment is very much more acute and has increased in their areas. I think it would be well if the Minister would give us some idea as to the areas in which these 32,000 persons are distributed, because they certainly are not to be found in the City of Dublin. The Minister knows himself, that unemployment in the City of Dublin has considerably increased, that it is indicated in the registered figures, in spite of the cloak the Ministry endeavoured to throw over these figures, a cloak suggesting that there has been a change of policy in the recording of the figures. The figures for the City of Dublin are but a small index, in so far as they mark an increase in unemployment.
If he examines the figures for money payments to able-bodied in receipt of outdoor relief he will find that they are 30 per cent. up since last year. He can go to dozens of different establishments in the city and get from them information as to the number of employees that they have actually paid off. As I mentioned before, there is one shipping company at the port that during the month of September paid about £700 less to dockers and £600 less to ships' crews. There was also a fall in payments in the month of August. I just give these as samples of the different classes of business in the city that can give the Minister first-class information as to the way unemployment has been increased in the City of Dublin as a result of the policy that has been pursued. The unemployed generally are being fed on the kind of propaganda that everything is to be all right for them. The Government organ on the 24th September gave them a great statement headed "2,000 fewer unemployed weekly." I understand that the Minister yesterday quoted 87,000 as the general figures for unemployment in the country.
87,000 registered as available for work.
Does that mean that they are not all unemployed?
Not necessarily. In fact 50 per cent. of them are small farmers.
That is a new sidelight. I wonder could we have any information as to the areas in which these 2,000 fewer unemployed weekly are distributed, because we are told that exact figures with regard to unemployment are now being got and that the Ministry are basing their economic policy on that. Up to the present we have been led to understand that the figures quoted weekly are of people registered as unemployed. Now we are told that they are not. I suggest that is simply another kind of red herring across the statistics that we here in the House naturally expect the Ministry to put at our disposal in order that we may get in touch with the general trend of things in the country, because while we might be alarmed at the actual size and nature of unemployment in a particular part of the country, our alarm would be modified by seeing from the statistics relating to other parts of the country that unemployment was not so great there: that the results of having increased employment in other parts of the country might be expected some time or other to spread back to the City of Dublin. If one takes the figures that the Minister makes available weekly, one is forced to feel a considerable amount of doubt as to what the figures do mean.
Up to the present I have taken them—Deputies generally have taken them—as being the number of people actually out of work. We are told now that that is not so. But generally, as from say the beginning of March up to date, if we take the figure the Minister gave yesterday— 87,000,— the number of people registered has increased three times. That figure is fairly constant all over the country. In Wexford the increase was twice; Waterford 1½ times; Dublin 1½ times, and Drogheda 3 times. But if we take the last figures available on the 2nd October, the number of persons registered in Dublin has increased 18 times.
And in Mayo?
The Minister tells us that the figures in Mayo increased from 200 to 12,000, and the same thing happened in Galway. That is not a fact. In Galway the figures have increased 4½ times and in Mayo 32½ times. If we get figures from the Minister we require to have some assurance that they mean something definite and tangible. If the Minister exaggerates employment and tells us that the number of people registered in Mayo and Galway have gone up——
The Deputy is comparing two figures which cannot be compared and which have no relation one to the other.
Does the Minister suggest that in Mayo there was a different attitude towards registration compared to Galway say pre-March last? Does he think that the Mayo people are more inclined or less inclined to register than the Galway people, or would he tell us what interpretation we are to put on his statement that the number registered had increased in Galway in the same way as in Mayo, the increase in one case being 4½ times and in the other 32½? Would he tell us what on earth is wrong in that part of the country that the Minister for Lands and Fisheries comes from, because in the area around Ballina the number of persons registered has increased by 57 times?
Then we are told that this is the foundation upon which the new industrial policy is being based. I suggest that the Minister is treating his responsibility for collecting and interpreting these statistics very lightly. The figures as they were under the old system did, in fact, give an index as to the relative position with regard to unemployment in the country. The figures as they stand now do not. I would ask the Minister if he can give us any indication as to the extent to which the tariffs that he now proposes to put on are going to give work to the persons that are looking for work in the Ballina area to an extent 57 times greater than they were looking for it in March last. The Minister based his whole statement with regard to tariffs on the fact that it is only by tariffs that you can keep the position of affairs that he claims is disclosed in the figures that he provides weekly with regard to the number registered weekly as unemployed.
I put definitely to the House the question: That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs. That was carried and the Leader of the Opposition was present. It is on record. However, as Deputy Mulcahy has spoken I will allow the Minister for Industry and Commerce to reply briefly.
Were I in the House at the time?
I do not think so.
Then I admit I was completely out of order. I did not understand that. I thought that we were dealing with the main financial motion.
As the matter has been opened would the Ceann Comhairle allow other Deputies to deal with some matters of urgency?
The only members of the House the Ceann Comhairle will hear now is the Minister in a brief reply.
Would the Ceann Comhairle say with whom that arrangement was made?
With the House. The question was put to the House and carried.
Deputies will understand it was the intention to circulate a memorandum as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, and it was apparently intended that the general discussion on tariffs would be postponed until the memorandum was circulated. I am glad, however, to have the opportunity of dealing with the particular points raised by Deputy Mulcahy, because I am aware that some confusion has been caused as a result of statements which have appeared in the Press that were based on a misunderstanding of the figures given by me. When I mentioned yesterday a figure of roughly 30,000 persons placed in employment, it was in relation to a statement made by Deputy McGilligan that the system of utilising the employment exchanges which was operated by the late Government was effective because, he said, 17,000 persons were placed in employment through these exchanges during the course of the year. I was arguing at the time that for the vast majority of the people of the country seeking work under the old system the exchanges had no significance whatever. I was comparing, in support of that contention, the number of vacancies being filled through the exchanges now with the number of vacancies filled through the exchanges when the old system was operating. Roughly speaking, the number of vacancies filled last year through the exchanges was 17,000. At the present time, the number of vacancies being filled through the exchanges averages from 1,500 to 2,000 per week. That means that much more general use is being made of the exchanges. Consequently, there is much greater inducement to persons seeking work to register in the exchanges, and that is precisely what we are seeking to attain. When I say that 2,000 people are being put into employment in a week or that 30,000 people have been put into employment over a specified period, it does not mean that that number of persons have been provided with permanent employment. It does mean that that number of vacancies has been notified to the exchanges and filled through the machinery of the exchanges. That arises because it is necessary to understand precisely the significance of the figure given each week as to the number of registered unemployed.
When the Government came into office, we said that it was our intention to try to make that number a number with real significance. We deny that under the old system it had any real significance. The number of employment exchanges was few, and the number of unemployed who registered was very small. For a large number, if not the majority, of the workers outside the cities, the exchanges had no significance whatsoever. We instituted a new system of registration, by which persons could register at exchanges through post offices and Gárda stations all over the country. As a result of the institution of that system of registration, the number of registered unemployed increased in one week by roughly 40,000. The jump from the old figure to the new figure took place within a fortnight—all due to the fact that people were registering at the exchanges who never registered at the exchanges before. There was another reason. When it was decided to vote a large amount of money for relief works, we endeavoured to get some basis upon which that sum could be divided between the different counties so as to be available to meet hardship wherever hardship existed. We asked ourselves "Upon what system are we going to divide this money as between one county and another county, and as between one part of a county and another part?" We said: "It is not a question of taking it by population, rateable valuation, or any of the devices used in the past. Clearly, the best means, if possible, of dividing this money is in relation to the actual number of unemployed." Consequently, it was announced that the work to be given under these relief grants would be given solely through the exchanges and, secondly, that the total amount would be allocated as between county and county in relation to the number of persons employed in these counties.
When we went to the old figures to see if they would be any use in making that calculation, we found that, practically speaking, unemployment, as shown by the old figures, did not exist west of the Shannon, because west of the Shannon there is a very small number of agricultural labourers. The people who work on the land there are, in the main, small proprietors working their own land. These people are available for work upon roads, sewerage schemes and other relief works. In order to get that relief work, they had to register at the exchanges, even though they were not persons who were normally seeking insurable employment at all. They were seeking relief work as such. Consequently, we got that figure of 78,000 which, from one point of view, was of as little use as the former figure, because all these other elements entered into its computation. We are trying to get that figure analysed and divided up to show those who are seeking work in the ordinary way—industrial workers seeking industrial work as such—those who are seeking relief work and relief work only and particularly those who are seeking relief work who are holders of land or who are owners of some other means of livelihood. When we get this analysis made—and it is going to be a matter of considerable difficulty, without powers to require people to give accurate statements of their circumstances—we will have, I hope, a figure which will have greater significance.
We are told that unemployment is on the increase. I say that it is not possible to demonstrate that by figures. It is probably not possible to demonstrate the contrary by figures. We have got to face up to two facts. The first is that emigration has stopped. Normally, 25,000 or 30,000 people left the country every year.
Not in the year preceding that in which you took office.
I am taking an average for ten years and you get a figure of 24,000. This year, 1,000 emigrants returned to one district in Donegal and none went out. They are coming back into the country and, during the course of this year, the population of the country increased by 16,000. For the first year since 1850 or thereabouts, the population of Ireland increased. Consequently, if we had succeeded in finding employment for all those unemployed at the beginning of the year, there would be still unemployment, in consequence of that stoppage of emigration, the return of the emigrants and the increase of population. It was stated by a Deputy that unemployment had increased in consequence of the tariffs. That is very definitely not the case. The only instance he gave was that of a shipping company of Dublin. It is quite true that during the month of September, in consequence of the stoppage of exports of agricultural produce, there was a diminution of employment at the ports. That situation has been eased somewhat lately, but, under any circumstances, so long as we are setting out to develop production within the country, the amount of employment given in the unloading of imported goods is going to diminish—but not to the extent which might be assumed from the figures for last month, which were abnormal figures. Mention was made of a shipping company which, in the case of its crews, paid so much less in wages than formerly. I went into figures as to the employment given on the ships registered in Dublin, and if 50 per cent. of the crews of these ships were citizens of the Saorstát, there would not be an unemployed seaman in the Saorstát. If the Deputy is in direct contact with the members of these shipping companies, I hope he will use his influence to induce them to employ Irish people on these ships, because in the majority of cases they are not doing so now. There is, of course, one company which is an honourable exception, and of the others, some have quite a good record. I should like to mention, however, one company in particular which has a very large trade with this country, and is making a very substantial profit out of the trade of the country, and only 7 per cent of its total employees are citizens of this country.
Do I understand from the Minister that if there was a bigger percentage, say 50, 60 or 100 per cent. of these persons Irish citizens, all these ships would be in commission?
No. What I said was that if 50 per cent. of the persons employed on these ships were citizens of this State there would not be an unemployed seaman in this State. Reference was made to the figure of outdoor relief. We have had the figure relating to outdoor relief analysed. I want to warn Deputies against quoting that figure in relation to the unemployment problem, because it has no relation to it. Only 14 per cent. of the persons in receipt of outdoor relief are available for employment. Fifty per cent. are children.
When I mentioned outdoor relief, I mentioned able-bodied outdoor relief as having increased 50 per cent.
I do not know where the Deputy got the figures.
They are official figures.
The number of male persons in receipt of outdoor relief described as available for work and who will take work is 14 per cent. These are the people we are endeavouring to provide for. Again, I want to provide against a misunderstanding. There are two ways by which you can give work through the Labour Exchanges. You can say: "Give the work available to those drawing benefit and save the Unemployment Insurance Fund." Or you can say: "Give the work available to those who are not in benefit; let the Unemployment Insurance Fund maintain, as long as they are entitled to it, those in receipt of benefit, but give the work to those who are at present in receipt of outdoor relief or, in any case, in the greatest need of employment." We decided to let the Fund suffer. The instructions which have been given to the managers of labour exchanges require them, in choosing persons for employment, apart from other considerations, to choose those who are not in receipt of benefit against those who are, and to choose those who are longest unemployed in any eventuality, apart from the order of preference which requires them to give the first offer of work to married men with dependants and the second to single men with dependants, and married men without dependants, and so on. The effect of that instruction has been to secure in this year work for people who have been idle for years past. It has been found that some of these people are hardly fit to work, they have been so long idle. Now they are being brought back into casual employment, it is true, but, nevertheless, they are getting a restoration of self-esteem and are becoming employable again to an extent they were not before.
Another reason which I want the Deputy to keep in mind, and which explains the increase in the figures for outdoor assistance, is the grant made available by the Government for the provision of milk to children. A number of boards of health, in order to make people entitled to that grant, are giving 1/- per week outdoor relief so as to make them recipients of relief, as without that they could not get the milk provision.
Not to able-bodied men or women?
No. Having said that, I want to say that unemployment is a very serious problem here, and the measures which have been taken to deal with it up to the present, although they have been successful to a great extent, have not gone anything like reducing that problem within manageable proportions. We have no desire to minimise the extent of the problem. The size of it, as emphasised by the Deputy and his colleagues, is our justification for the measures we have taken; the abnormal provision of funds for relief work and the imposition of these protective duties in order to secure industrial development, because there is no other way by which unemployment can be solved except by the development of industries. There is no alternative.
Of course the measures which we have designed to induce additional tillage are going to have an effect, but their main effect will be to retain upon the land persons who would otherwise be moving to the cities seeking employment. It has been frequently mentioned here that the majority of the agricultural workers, that is including farmers and labourers, are not as fully employed as they might be and, consequently, you can increase the amount of work done upon the land considerably before you would actually attract persons back to it who are not engaged on agricultural labour. At the same time, when we get the tillage policy developed, and we hope to do so as a result of the measures to be submitted, we will, to some extent, stop the movement of rural labour into the towns. But there is a large number of unemployed in the towns already, and it is going to be no easy matter to find work for them. We have made very considerable progress. I hope to be able to publish in the near future figures which will indicate the nature of that progress.
It has not been shown, and it cannot be shown, that any substantial amount of unemployment has been created by the protective policy of the Government. Here and there a commercial traveller, an agent for an importing firm, or a clerk in an agent's office has lost his employment. That is correct. But, for every such person who lost employment, one hundred have gained it. Let me say, however, that in the majority of the cases in which industrial development has proceeded immediately following the tariffs the employment given is not of the most desirable kind. It is employment to juvenile workers or to female workers in the main part. The industries that employ adults, the heavier industries, are going to take longer to develop. We are making a start upon these, and I hope that in the very near future we will be able to announce the development of other projects which are going to operate in that way. We have put into employment many hundreds of people. We are going to put into employment many hundreds more, and that is as a result of the policy. I hope the Dáil will be prepared to judge that policy upon its results and not upon any preconceived theories. I am quite satisfied that if judged upon results it will be deemed to be highly satisfactory.
On the figures, I should like to ask a question. The Minister spoke of the abnormal amount of money spent on relief schemes, these figures being the basis for it. I should like some assurance that the distribution is not entirely based on these figures, because if you take the number registered in the City of Dublin on 2nd October, it was 14,294. For the whole county of Donegal it was half that, 7,205.
Does the Deputy wish to ask a question?
I was asking a question. There are four figures involved: Dublin, 14,294; Donegal, 7,205; Galway area, which includes practically the whole of County Galway, or most of Galway and Mayo, 9,959, representing seven areas. Of these seven, the Ballina area has 5,900. The figures for Dublin being 14,000, Ballina, 6,000, and the whole of Donegal, 7,000, is the distribution of unemployment relief grants going to be made on the basis of these figures?
There are other factors taken into account. We started out on that basis. Certain very energetic Deputies, including Deputies of the Party opposite, who saw at once the way to get to work, went round and canvassed all the persons seeking work to make sure they registered, and by doing so increased to some extent the allocation.
And the Minister gave instructions to his Deputies that they were not to do any such thing.
Unfortunately, they did not do it in some districts.
We must be strong in Ballina.
Might I ask if these 1,500 vacancies filled weekly include relief work?
Yes, they include vacancies of all kinds.
Mr. Byrne
All I have to say is that it is a good job the Minister is a Minister and not a Deputy. If he had to meet some of these people who get one day's or three hours' work and then are knocked off he would not again tell the House that he was filling 1,500 weekly.
I have spent a considerable time explaining that figure. I was comparing that figure with the figure for this time last year, not for the purpose of arguing that the unemployment situation is better than it was this time last year, but for the purpose of showing that the machinery of the employment exchanges is now being used to an extent much greater than it was used before.
Where is the value in having 1,500 vacancies filled if a man who has been waiting two years for work can get employment only for a day or a few hours?
What have you done to give them employment?
Having spent half an hour in the air, in vacuo, so to speak, I think it would be well if Deputies came back to the solid ground of the Estimates.