Financial Motions. - Unemployment Assistance Bill, 1933—Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Wednesday, 27 Sep 1933

Financial Motions. - Unemployment Assistance Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Mr. Lemass

A Chinn Comhairle, I move that the Unemployment Assistance Bill be read a second time. The principle of this Bill is that all able-bodied persons who are involuntarily unemployed, and have either no means at all or insufficient means to maintain themselves and their dependents, should be given a statutory right to assistance in the manner in which the Bill proposes. I presume that it is not necessary for me to enter into any elaborate or lengthy explanation or defence of that principle, as it is, I understand, fully accepted by all Parties in the House. The question upon which difference of opinion may arise is as to the manner which will prove most effective in carrying that principle into operation. We have had that question under examination for a considerable period, and have arrived at the conclusion that the type of machinery and the mode of operation now enshrined in this Bill is likely to be the most effective in giving early and complete operation to the principle I have mentioned, and which we all accept.

The existing provisions for dealing with the relief of unemployed persons here are inadequate, as all Deputies have agreed. The main provision, of course, the Unemployment Insurance Code. The benefits available, however, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts are subject to two important limitations, and consequently cannot be regarded as adequate for dealing with the unemployment problem as we now know it. In the first place, unemployment insurance benefit is restricted to one week's benefit for each six contributions paid in respect of the insured person; that is, a person must be employed for six weeks before becoming entitled to one week's unemployment insurance benefit, but no matter how long a person has been employed, or how many contributions have been paid in respect of him, he cannot receive benefit of more than 26 weeks in any one year; consequently when insured persons have exhausted their right to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts they are—for a period at any rate— left without any further assistance from that source, even though they may still be unemployed and still in need of that assistance. In addition to the restrictions I have mentioned, it is, of course, common knowledge that the Unemployment Insurance Acts do not apply at all to persons ordinarily employed in agriculture, although it is clear that an agricultural worker, when unemployed, is probably not less in need of assistance than the worker following an insurable occupation.

In cases of actual destitution local authorities are empowered, under the Poor Relief Acts, to give assistance to able-bodied persons. The assistance given by local authorities varies from the area of one authority to another, and is in most cases altogether inaccurate, apart from the fact that there is associated with it a taint of pauperism which has deterred many persons entitled to that assistance from applying for it. In recent years various local councils have, from time to time, passed resolutions setting out the opinion of their members that the relief of able-bodied unemployed persons should not be a local but a national charge. The effect of the Bill now before the Dáil is, of course, to transfer from local authorities to the national exchequer the obligation of providing for the relief of able-bodied persons, subject to the conditions of the Bill. The Unemployment Insurance Acts and the Poor Relief Acts provide at present the legislative provisions for dealing with unemployment, but as Deputies are aware the State has had to supplement the operation of those Acts in recent years by the voting of money for the organisation of public works in various parts of the country, so as to provide employment for persons who are without it. While the organisation of those works served a very useful purpose, and it is proposed to continue them so long as the need for them exists, it is clear that they cannot be so arranged as to deal with all the unemployed. The works themselves must be of a useful nature, and it is frequently not possible to find, in areas where distress is greatest, works which can be usefully carried out and which are of sufficient magnitude to deal with the unemployment problem in the area concerned. In this country, as Deputies are aware, we suffer not merely from the effects of misgovernment in the past and the growth of a defective economic organisation, but also—due to historical causes—from the mal-distribution of our population.

Parts of the country which are richest in natural resources are frequently the least densely populated while the areas which are bereft of natural resources—areas along the Western seaboard and parts of the South—are very densely populated indeed. That disproportion in population as between areas as well as the fact that the most densely populated areas require help most urgently, while at the same time they offer natural difficulties to the affording of that help, make it necessary to have some over-riding provision for dealing with distress which will ensure that any gaps left by the other schemes designed to deal with unemployment will be filled in some manner, and the distress alleviated in consequence. Relief works also provide only for the needs of a certain type of worker. No doubt the workers who find employment upon these different works are the most numerous in the country, but there are other workers who, because of their physical strength or their previous training, or for some other reason are unable to avail of these opportunities of employment. No other provision is made for them, if they are not entitled to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts apart from the provision made by local authorities under the Poor Relief Acts.

When one comes to consider the manner in which the principle of State unemployment assistance should be applied, one has to bear in mind the facilities of organisation that exist at the present time and to ensure that any new organisation that may be created will fit as closely as possible into that which is there already. I am sure that Deputies opposite, like Deputies in other parts of the House when they decided that the principle of the Bill was one to be supported, have been giving consideration to questions arising out of the practical application of that principle, and like the Government have decided that the most effective means of applying it in a practical and efficient manner is to use as fully as possible the machinery that is there already. I refer particularly to the machinery established under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. One could conceive various methods of applying this principle which would be somewhat less cumbersome in appearance than that proposed in the Bill and which might be applied in a country where no unemployment insurance scheme operated and where, one might say, the field was clear for the creation of a new organisation. Here in the Saorstát we have got an organisation of employment exchanges and a number of State officers trained in administering a scheme of unemployment relief along certain lines. We decided at the beginning that we would endeavour to model the new scheme as closely as possible on the old one, so that it could be administered not merely through the same offices, but by the same officers as in the case of the older scheme.

The proposal, therefore, is to give to every person in this country who complies with certain conditions, set out in Section 10 of the Bill, the right to apply for what is called a qualification certificate. The person need not be unemployed when applying for that certificate. The certificate is merely an indication that such person complies with these conditions; that he is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann; that he is over 18 and under 70 years of age, that his means, calculated under the Act, do not exceed £52 in a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire or £39 elsewhere; that his parents or other relatives are unable to maintain him, and would not ordinarily be expected to maintain him, or, in the case of a married woman, that her husband is a dependent or that she has one or more dependents and, in the case of a widow or spinster, that she has one or more dependents. The applications for qualification certificates will be examined by unemployment assistance officers to be appointed under the Bill. To prevent misunderstanding, I should say at this stage, that the unemployment assistance officers to be appointed under this Bill will, in the main, be Employment Officers under the Unemployment Insurance Acts or, in certain cases, old age pension officers under the Old Age Pensions Act. The term "unemployment assistance officer" is used, but it does not necessarily imply a separate individual or a separate group of individuals to the group of officers now administering other Acts.

It will, of course, be necessary to give full effect to the scheme set out in the Bill to extend the organisation of the employment exchanges, to open additional branch offices in certain districts and to substitute exchanges for branch offices in other districts. That will involve undoubtedly an increase in the clerical staff, but the new scheme will be fitted into the old so that it will be administered from the beginning by persons trained in the administration of a scheme of this kind. When a person has applied for his certificate the statements of fact, which he makes with his application, are verified by the unemployment assistance officer. If the unemployment assistance officer disputes the statement of fact and refuses a certificate, or in some other way acts contrary to the applicant's opinions of his interests, an appeal lies from the unemployment assistance officer to a committee to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a committee which will be appointed on somewhat similar lines to the Old Age Pensions Committee in the Department of Local Government. The decisions of that committee upon questions relating to the qualification certificate will be final.

One may ask why it is necessary to have these certificates at all; why it could not be possible to devise a method by which a person, when unemployed, would make his claim, establish his right to it and become entitled to assistance forthwith. The purpose of this certificate is to enable the scheme to be brought into conformity with the unemployment insurance scheme. The certificate will, in fact, be similar to the unemployment insurance book. When a person is employed the certificate like the insurance book will be in his possession; when he becomes unemployed and decides to claim assistance or benefit he will lodge the certificate with the exchange in the same way as he lodges his insurance book at the present time. The device of the certificate not merely makes it possible to bring the scheme of organisation into conformity with the unemployment insurance code but it also ensures that no impediment will be placed in the way of workers moving from one part of the country to another in search of employment. The mobility of labour will not be impaired. It also provides a very useful method of preventing fraud and particularly the possibility of a person claiming and receiving unemployment assistance in two places at the same time.

There are provisions in the Bill for the modification of the certificate and for its revocation in certain circumstances. It is not necessary to discuss these at this stage as they will arise for consideration in the Committee Stage. My aim now is merely to give a general picture of the type of organisation which it is proposed to set up in order to implement our common principle in the matter. When a person holding a certificate becomes unemployed certain things happen. First of all, if he is insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, he makes a claim under those Acts for benefit and he does not become entitled to unemployment assistance under this Bill until his claim to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts has been exhausted. That affects the majority of industrial workers. The agricultural worker, however, who is not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and not entitled to benefit under those Acts comes directly to make his claim for unemployment assistance under this Bill.

When a person insured under the Insurance Acts has exhausted his right to benefit and makes his claim for assistance or when a person not insurable becomes unemployed and makes his claim, he has to establish certain things to the satisfaction of the unemployment assistance officer. The first is that he has been continuously unemployed for at least six days. We have inserted in the Bill a provision similar to that which exists in the Unemployment Insurance Acts which provides that two days employment or two periods of unemployment of not less than two days each separated by two days during which the person has been employed is regarded as a period of continuous unemployment. In other words, if a person while waiting the six days to become entitled to assistance succeeds in getting one day's casual work, he does not have to start the six days all over again. The six days are regarded as continuous for the purpose of Section 15. Having established that he has been unemployed continuously for six days in accordance with the definition in the Bill he must next satisfy the officer that he is capable of work. In other words, this Bill applies only to able-bodied persons; persons who are prevented by physical or mental infirmity from earning their livelihood are not affected by the Bill. The Bill is designed only to ensure the provision of assistance for persons who are capable of work. He must also satisfy the officer that he is available for and genuinely seeking but is unable to obtain employment, that is, suitable employment having regard to age, sex, physique, education, normal occupation, place of residence and family circumstances. If a person leaves his employment voluntarily or loses his employment through his own fault or refuses an offer of employment when an offer is made to him he becomes disqualified from receiving assistance under this Bill for the period set out therein.

A person may refuse an offer of work on the grounds indicated in paragraph (b) sub-section (1) of Section 15 that the work is unsuitable for him having regard to age, sex or physique, education, normal occupation, place of residence or family circumstances, but a decision, in the case of a dispute between the officer and an applicant, given in the appropriate manner against the applicant would debar him from receiving assistance. He must also satisfy the officer that since the qualification certificate was issued there has been no change in circumstances or no other event has happened which has invalidated the certificate or which would, if known to the officer, have disentitled him from receiving the certificate. There is another provision which at the present time is merely a pious hope but which we will endeavour to translate into reality at some later stage. It is, that a person receiving assistance under this Bill must, if required to do it by the Minister, attend at a course of instruction appointed or approved by regulations under the Bill. That proviso is put in there so as to ensure that there will be no legal barrier to the adoption of some scheme of training unemployed persons in skilled or semi-skilled occupations.

There is another provision which is important and it is that nobody can get unemployment assistance in any of the county boroughs, in the borough of Dun Laoghaire, or in any of the towns over 7,000 in population unless he has been either residing in these areas for one year or has had not less than three months continuous employment in them. The necessity for that provision is obvious. The rate of assistance payable is higher in the cities than in the smaller towns and higher in the smaller towns than in the rural areas, and there must necessarily be some deterrent to people travelling from rural areas into the cities in order to get these higher rates of benefit, and the deterrent is that they do not become entitled to benefit at all unless they have resided in one of the towns or cities for at least 12 months or have had three months continuous employment there. If there is any feeling amongst members of the Dáil that the periods specified in that paragraph are not sufficiently long we can consider extending them.

Persons are disqualified from receiving benefits under other circumstances which need not be debated at length now; when they are out of Saorstát Eireann, when occupants of a prison or occupants of an hospital, infirmary, lunatic asylum or anything of that kind. Similarly they are debarred from receiving Unemployment assistance when they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. A person who is convicted of an offence under the Bill or who is convicted of any offence involving not less than two weeks imprisonment becomes disqualified from receiving assistance under the Bill for a period of three months.

I mentioned that one of the conditions for receiving a qualification certificate was absence of means exceeding £52 per year in the county boroughs, or £39 per year elsewhere. If a person has means less than £52 per year in the county boroughs, and £39 per year in the rural areas, he is entitled to get only the rate of assistance set out in the Schedule of the Bill, less his means, the first 2/- in the weekly valuation of his means being ignored. In other words, a person entitled, according to the Schedule, to 15/- weekly and having means of 10/- would get the 15/-, less 8/-. In calculating the weekly value of a person's means the nearest shilling only is taken into account. There are various provisions providing for the payment of assistance to persons entitled to it, all of which are similar to those contained in the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

In addition we are providing that a person dissatisfied with the decision of the unemployment assistance officer as to his availability for work, as to the reasons why he left employment, and as to his claim under the Bill, or in similar matters, may appeal to the same courts of referees and the same Umpire as operate under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. As Deputies are aware, under these Acts there is an appeal from the Employment officer to a court of referees and, under certain circumstances, from the court of referees to the Umpire. We propose to use the same machinery for determining appeals under this part of the Bill, now before the Dáil, in relation to appeals from the unemployment assistance officer. An appeal as to the qualification of a person to hold a certificate is, however, taken to an appeals committee similar to the Old Age Pensions Committee to which I referred.

It is proposed that the cost of the scheme will be defrayed from three sources. In the first place we propose to take £250,000 per year from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There is another Bill, now before the Dáil, to enable that Fund to make the contribution. The rates of contribution payable in respect of insured persons are being increased to the level at which they stood on the 31st December, 1931. From that date the rate of contribution was decreased, because the Government in office at that time did not consider it necessary that the debt of the Fund should be liquidated at the rate at which it was then being liquidated. Whether the cut in the contribution was too severe is a matter that may be debated. In any event the raising of the rate to the 1931 level will yield us £250,000 now in consequence of the increased number coming under unemployment insurance. I may say that the rate when raised will be still lower than the prevailing rates in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. We propose to levy upon the county boroughs and borough of Dun Laoghaire a rate of 1/6 in the £ on the poor law valuation. That figure is arrived at by taking what was the average of the poundage rate equivalent to the total cost of home assistance in the year ended 31st March last, in these five areas. The average equivalent rate for the five areas corresponding to the total cost of home assistance was 1/6 in the £. It is anticipated that that rate will bring in roughly £185,000. It is proposed also to levy an amount equivalent to the produce of a rate of 9d. in the £ on the other districts, where the medium rate of assistance is paid; that is in towns other than county boroughs and the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the population of which at the latest census exceeded 7,000. The average equivalent rate in these areas for the last year was 1/5. In the majority of cases the new rate will represent a very considerable reduction in the old one. The balance, whatever it may be, will be provided from the Exchequer.

Deputies will no doubt be anxious to know what the total annual cost of the scheme is likely to be. It is, of course, impossible to state with any degree of accuracy what the total cost is likely to work out at. One can make estimates and be reasonably satisfied as to their accuracy, but no one should lose sight of the fact that they are no more than estimates. In the calculation of the estimated cost of the scheme which we prepared there were no less than 15 estimated figures. There were 15 points in the calculation, where the figures used were estimated figures, any one of which may have been inaccurate. We determined that the scheme to be prepared and submitted to the Dáil should cost on the basis of existing unemployment roughly £1,000,000 per year. We tried to prepare a scheme which would involve that cost, and that cost only. However, in working out the scheme in detail we found it impossible to adhere strictly to our original idea of the cost and there is reason to believe that the scheme before the Dáil on the present basis of unemployment, will cost more than £1,000,000 yearly, leaving out the cost of administration. Roughly speaking, every thousand persons who, on the average, over the whole year, become entitled to assistance under this Bill will involve a cost of £30,000. The number of persons registered as unemployed, in the week when the highest number of persons registered was recorded, was 104,000. One week in January of this year 104,000 persons were registered as unemployed. That figure was reached after an intensive drive to get persons to register, after it had been announced that unemployment relief funds would be distributed as between areas according to the number registered, and after the provision of additional facilities for registration. It probably represents very accurately the number of persons in that week who were willing to take work if it were offered to them. There must, however, be deducted from that figure 26,000, representing those who were entitled to unemployment insurance benefit and also some other figure, difficult of calculation, representing the number of those registered who were landholder and possessed land of such a valuation that their means, as calculated under this Bill, would be sufficiently high to exclude them from benefit.

There must also be deducted a figure in respect of persons in receipt of pensions and other forms of remuneration in excess of the means limit fixed by the Bill. A certain number of those registered were, of course, juveniles, and some others of them would not be entitled to assistance under this Bill on one or other of the grounds set out. The lowest number of persons registered as unemployed in the present year, under similar conditions was, roughly, 55,000. From that figure similar deductions must be made in respect of persons entitled to unemployment insurance benefit, persons holding land or other property yielding an income in excess of £52 or £39 per year, persons in possession of pensions, juveniles and others. Making these calculations and trying to strike a figure which would represent the average for the year, a certain conclusion was arrived at. In order to check the accuracy of that conclusion, it was cross-checked by a calculation based on the home assistance figures. The total number of persons on home assistance on the last Saturday of March, 1933, was 130,614. Much more than half of those were children under 15 years. About 20,000 of them were men and women permanently disabled by old age or infirmity from earning their livelihood. About 4,000 of them were persons temporarily disabled by sickness or infirmity from earning their livelihood. Seventeen thousand of them were wives of men receiving assistance. The total number of able-bodied men on home assistance on that date was 14,817, and the total number of able-bodied females was 6,085. The corresponding figures for the present date are lower in each class, as one would expect. The number on home assistance would vary in the same way as the number of persons registered as unemployed would vary. Proceeding upon the basis of these figures and allowing what appears to be a reasonable margin for error, one would conclude that the average number of persons who would probably become entitled to assistance under this Bill would be less than 40,000—that is, on the average for the year. The figure would be lower at certain periods of the year and higher at other periods. It may be that that figure contains too wide a margin for error but it will be only when one shall have had experience of the scheme in operation for a year or two years that one will be able safely to calculate what the annual cost is likely to be over any period. It is because, for a year or two, the scheme must be regarded as experimental, we are making provision in the Bill for variation of the rates of benefit by Order, the intention being to ensure that if the cost is likely to exceed considerably that which we have estimated, some variation in the rates or some diminution in the number of classes entitled to benefit may be made, and vice versa.

One other provision of the Bill requires to be explained. In Section 4, sub-section (3), it is provided that the Minister may make Orders declaring any period of the year to be, in respect of any class or any district, an employment period. If such an Order be made, no person of the class or in the district concerned will be entitled to unemployment assistance. In preparing a scheme of this kind, one must naturally try to visualise the difficulties that will arise. One of the difficulties that most obviously will arise is the assessing of claims for assistance made by the holders of uneconomic farms, As Deputies are aware, that difficulty has arisen under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and that matter has been frequently ventilated here. It is not always easy to determine when a person who holds land of small acreage and who supplements his earnings from the land by earnings from road work or some other class of work, is employed on the land or not. In order to overcome that difficulty and to get a clear and simple method of dealing with it, it is proposed to take power to make Orders providing that for certain periods of the year people of that class or some similar class will be regarded as employed upon their holdings or in whatever other occupation they may be engaged. That power of making Orders might also have to be used if it were found that the other provisions of the Bill were not sufficient to ensure that every person obtaining assistance under the Bill would genuinely seek and take, when available, whatever work was offered within the limits of the Bill.

Certain criticism has been offered concerning the rates of payment which it is proposed to make. The only answer to this criticism is that the total cost of the measure now before the Dáil is estimated to reach the maximum limit of the amount which can be provided for this purpose. Any increase in these rates, any amendment of the Bill designed to secure increased expenditure, would defeat the whole purpose of the measure as it could not then be proceeded with. If we find that our calculation as to cost has been grossly inaccurate, that the number of persons entitled to assistance under the Bill proves to be considerably less than we assumed, or that for some other reason the cost was likely to be reduced, then these rates can be reconsidered. But until that has been proved by experience we must assume our estimates to be correct and cut our cloth according to our measure.

Mr. Morrissey

Nonsense.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is an authority on nonsense I admit.

Mr. Morrissey

I am an authority on that. Ask the leader of the Labour Party does he agree.

Mr. O'Leary

Read his speech on the adjournment.

Mr. Dillon

We have it all here.

Mr. Lemass

Do not all speak together, because it is the mistake of Deputies opposite that they do not consult one another before they talk.

Mr. Norton

They have a new leader.

He goes on: "The importations of bread and buns, which were valued at over £200,000 in 1931, have also ceased. All the country's requirements are now being supplied from bakeries in the Saorstát. We ended that job in the last week or the week before... Deputies are familiar with the Government's proposals in relation to sugar. ... In this month"—he is referring to the month of August—"the job in relation to that product will also be completed.... In the case of glass bottles and jars, we have also completed the job.... In the case of constructional steel, the job is also completed.... The same applies to wire manufactures of all kinds. Again, I can say our task is done.... In respect of galvanised ware, considerable progress has been made. Concerning many classes of galvanised products I can again say that the job is done. In relation to the others, it will be complete in the very near future." The Minister places the value of such imports in 1931 at over £200,000.

He told us that in so far as commercial vehicles were concerned the task was completed long ago. Talking of the many industries for the working of timber, all important and all eminently suitable to the country, he said: "In connection with them we have also a story of continuous progress to record. Last month we shut down finally upon the importation of planed and dressed timbers." In relation to those industries he said that many firms had to build extensions and instal considerable machinery in order to enable them to produce the requirements in their own works. He told us that they had done that; that job was done. He went on: "In relation to the furniture industry, the job has also been done." These are all quotations from the Minister's speech on 9th August.

He went on to say: "In relation to the industry for the manufacture of cordage, cables, ropes and twine, we took the first protective measures in May of last year. I remember Deputy Mulcahy asking them was this intended to be a revenue duty I told him that though it might produce some revenue it was not designed for that purpose. I am glad to say that in the very near future it will not produce any revenue at all because the industry has been developed with remarkable speed and a market value at over £120,000 a year was retained for Irish workers... In relation to men's clothing of all kinds, the job is finished. We can shut down on imports and probably will. I can state with confidence that the existing concerns can more than supply all the country's requirements. In relation to women's outer garments, the same is not yet true although very considerable progress in that very difficult industry has been made. In the case of hosiery I said here some time ago that we had in 12 months doubled the production of the home industry and would, in this year, double it again. I am glad to say that our expectations have been realised, and I hope that in a very short time we shall be able to say in relation to that branch of the apparel industry that we have also finished our job. In respect to soap and candles the job is completed...."

Then he got tired. One might very well get tired after that tale of heroic endeavour and achievement. He said: "I could continue naming industries of this description. In those to which I have referred we have transferred to Irish factories from foreign factories, within a period of slightly more than 12 months, trade valued annually at over £5,000,000 and we hope to double that figure within the next 12 months." The job was done in relation to imports of £5,000,000 and they hoped to have the job done in relation to another £5,000,000. What should that represent in the way of workers on the old calculation of £220 per industrial worker per annum? There should be 23,000 or so more people employed in this country than before. When the other £5,000,000 job is done we should have 46,000 more people employed.

That was the Minister's speech on 9th August, yet at that time the cloud was hanging over him. The Minister for Education, who was acting-Minister for Industry and Commerce, said that we were facing this winter with the knowledge that there would be 60,000 able-bodied unemployed unable to get work and without the benefit of unemployment insurance. In the debate on the 9th August the Minister for Finance gave the same figure of 60,000 people. Now we are getting a scheme which, according to the Minister, is likely to cost the country over £1,000,000. There are many calculations to be made, and I think the £1,000,000 estimate is to be taken with reservation. Certainly £1,000,000 is not enough if the 60,000 figure is correct.

Mr. Lemass

Where did the Deputy get the 60,000?

Mr. McGilligan

From the Minister for Education, who was acting for you in your absence.

General Mulcahy

Oh, go back to the Flood!

Mr. Norton

I will come to a later period if the Deputy wishes. Deputy Morrissey was then concerned with the relief of unemployment. Seconding a motion in this House at that time he referred to the existing unemployment problem, and to the very bad position which existed in agriculture. He said: "The result is that the farmers are not in a position to pay men to work. Consequently, there is a disappointed hope which is leading to despair on the part of the workers. They have been expecting day after day, especially for the last three years since they got their own Government, that something would be done to try to give them a chance of earning a livelihood in their own country. Those hopes have been disappointed, and they have been led to a certain amount of despair." This was in the good old prosperous days of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. This was in the days when there was no economic war. This was in the days when the milk and honey turned on by Deputy McGilligan was flowing around the country, threatening to drown anybody who endeavoured to impede its passage. Deputy Morrissey went on to say: "We who are daily in touch with the want, the misery and the wretchedness that is in the country know the conditions that prevail. Apparently very few Deputies here have any real knowledge or regard of these conditions." Subsequently, Deputy McGilligan challenged that latter statement by Deputy Morrissey, only to find Deputy Morrissey not one iota repentant for what he had said. There was another Deputy in this House who, before he was swallowed by the Cumann na nGaedheal octopus, was leader of the then Farmers' Party. Deputy MacDermot may be interested in that gentleman's views of the position of affairs in those so-called prosperous days—October, 1924. Deputy Baxter, speaking in this House on the 30th October, 1924, said:

"We have misery, we have want, and we are fearing the winter in many of the poorer rural districts. I might suggest Connemara, Donegal or parts of Cork and Kerry and parts of my own county where I know people are looking on the coming winter with feelings of as deep despair as any of the workers in the city."

That was 1924. We got agreement then of both Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Baxter. When it was politically right then, they were agreed on this: that there was poverty, want, misery and distress in the country in 1924. That was at a period when Deputy Morrissey was pleading on behalf of his Party to the then Cumann na nGaedheal Party, of which Deputy McGilligan was a member, to do something for the relief of unemployment. If the position at that time was as bad as Deputy MacDermot's predecessor said it was, or if it was as bad then as Deputy Morrissey said it was, surely there was some obligation on the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy McGilligan, to make some effort at any rate to try to relieve the want, the misery, the destitution and the poverty which, according to Deputies Baxter and Morrissey, existed? Deputy McGilligan was pleaded with and asked to face up to his responsibility in that regard. He wants other people to do it now. He wants it done generously now, but he had ten years to do it himself in a very generous way. So far as I am concerned, I would support him in doing it in a generous way, but Deputy McGilligan had ten years in which to do it. He, at all events, cannot complain that he had never an opportunity of introducing a better scheme because he had ten years to do it and he failed utterly to do it. What was the Deputy's mentality on the matter? Again, on the 30th October, 1924, he delivered himself in this House of a speech which I think ought to disgrace any Christian public representative. Replying then to Deputy Johnson, he said:

"To-day Deputy Johnson says ‘feed the people this year even though they may go hungry next year.' I suggest that that is not what could be called statesmanship."

He did not want them to choke altogether. He did not want them to die from overfeeding. He wanted the thing done by slow stages, spread out as long as possible. He goes on:

"You have to look over a period of years and you cannot take measures this year which may lead to more people going hungry next year."

He was asked by Deputy Johnson:

He said it and he cannot get away from it because they did die of starvation.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Briscoe buried them.

Mr. Norton

At that period Deputy McGilligan's view was, in these good old prosperous days, when everybody was happy and contented, when the land was overflowing with milk and honey—Deputy Professor Tierney said subsequently in respect of that period that the first seven years of Cumann na nGaedheal Government would be known as the most prosperous years in Irish history——

A Deputy

So they were.

Mr. Norton

I wish ex-Deputy Baxter were here. I do not hear anything from Deputy Morrissey.

Mr. Morrissey

They were far more prosperous than the second seven years are promising to be anyway.

Mr. Norton

Deputy McGilligan's view——

And I will prove it— that there were 78,000 unemployed persons at that period. The Deputy wants to get into a battle of dialectics about "gainfully employed" and all that kind of thing, but the Deputy can walk around that trap himself as often as he likes. It is because the Unemployment Insurance Act has utterly collapsed in face of the unemployment crisis we are experiencing, and because of the fact that local rates are utterly inadequate to maintain those deprived of benefit under the existing Unemployment Insurance Act either because they are outside the scope of the Act or because they have exhausted their claim to benefit that it is absolutely imperative for the State to step in and endeavour to relieve these destitute persons from the misery and poverty and suffering which they are enduring. I personally would welcome a much more generous provision for them, but at this stage I want to discuss the principle of the Bill. The Bill is an admission of the claim which has for a long time been made by the Labour Party that it is not the duty of the local authority to relieve a national unemployment crisis. The responsibility in that regard is a central responsibility and ought to be discharged by the central Government. This Bill is a definite attempt to relieve local authorities of the burden of relieving able-bodied unemployed and to the extent to which it takes the able-bodied unemployed off the local rates and to the extent to which it makes provision for certain benefits for the able-bodied unemployed, I think every Deputy in this House will be in agreement with the principle of that Bill.

Since the unemployment crisis attained its present severity local authorities have been endeavouring to relieve destitution and hunger by a scheme of home assistance. That scheme of home assistance was altogether inadequate and, in many cases, the circumstances surrounding the administration of home assistance or outdoor relief were degrading and were reducing decent unemployed men and women to the level of mere paupers—persons who were prepared to spend all day with some relieving officer hoping that they might eventually soften his heart and induce him to part with some miserable sum in the form of some kind of partial insurance against what seemed to be inevitable economic death. That was the position in which the able-bodied unemployed were placed, due to the severity of the unemployment crisis and to the fact that no State provision whatever had been made for the relief of unemployment. This Bill changes that position completely. This Bill will take on to the central State funds those able-bodied unemployed who have been relieved in the past from the rates and, in future, it will be possible for them to receive unemployment benefit not in the degrading pauperised way in which they have received that benefit in the past but at the employment exchanges throughout the country and free, as I said before, from the degrading circumstances surrounding the administration of home assistance in many counties, and free also from the insulting remarks and gibes which are often hurled at them by those who are paid to administer to their physical needs.

That position will now change and these people in the future, instead of begging at the heels of some home assistance officer, instead of trying to induce a stony-hearted board of health to part with a few miserable shillings, will be able to go into the local employment exchange and with their heads up claim a State pension, State stipend or gratuity so long as they are unemployed, anxious to work and unable to obtain work. They can go in and do that, as I say, without in any way demeaning their manhood or their womanhood or without in any way being subject to the jeers and gibes of people from whom one would expect much better when dealing with people in that unfortunate position. That whole situation will change, and it is a very desirable change. It is a change that Deputy McGilligan agrees to because he knows that he dare not oppose it, but it is a change which Deputy McGilligan, over ten years, never once thought of making. It is a change in respect of which Deputy McGilligan, although the circumstances during his period of office demanded it, never once made any attempt whatever to introduce a piece of useful machinery or legislation. That, in my opinion, is a very desirable development under this Bill. It makes unemployment and the maintenance of able-bodied unemployed a charge on the central Government instead of a charge on the local ratepayers who are unable, because of the incidence of unemployment, to bear, as the State could bear, the heavy charges which long continued and widespread unemployment inevitably inflict upon them.

I say, therefore, that the principle of this measure is good. The principle of this measure will have the support of everybody who wants to see better provision made for the relief of able-bodied unemployed. It will have the support of everybody who wants to see, at the earliest possible opportunity, a complete scrapping of all that pauperism that is associated with the poor law institutions and with the administration of poor relief in this country. I should much prefer this Bill to be part and parcel of a genuine attempt to reorganise industry. I should prefer this Bill to be part and parcel of a scheme for stimulating industrial development and stimulating agricultural development in a much more effective way than, in my view, it has been done in the past, whether under Cumann na nGaedheal or in the recent past under Fianna Fáil. I should prefer this to be part of a definite emergency attempt, rendered more urgent because of the British challenge but necessary in any case, to grapple with our industrial, our agricultural and our economic problems in a much more comprehensive way. I should prefer the main stimulus to be the provision of work and, as I said before in this House, and I have no reason to change my view on the matter, even though Deputy McGilligan thinks that I would do so, I do not believe that tariffs of themselves will give this country a passport to prosperity or to success. They have not done it in any other country in the world and, in my view, it is expecting the impossible if you think that tariffs are going to bring about that result here. If you will, tariffs are an aid to industrial and agricultural development, of themselves tariffs will not bring to this country the prosperity which they failed to bring to every country which has resorted to them as the sole means of industrial and agricultural expansion.

On the Adjournment Debate I stated, and I repeat, that there is not merely the need but the unrivalled opportunity here for tackling our industrial and agricultural problems in a vigorous way. I know, of course, that many methods that could be suggested will be labelled as revolutionary and will be described as sheer Bolshevism. It will be said that these are a departure from the good old beaten track of industrial development, that track that is adorned with workhouses, with jails, and with men and women, struggling to make ends meet, who have been denied a decent standard of life. That is the beaten track we have been taking. It is the beaten track we ought to get away from, if we ever want to aspire to industrial and agricultural development which will give our people a decent standard of life. I do not believe, and Deputy McGilligan's speech to-day was proof, that merely producing here our commodity needs will absorb our industrial workers. There is the easy remedy for employers who want to do things in a big way, and to cheapen cost, and that is to instal more efficient machinery. Often the complete manufacture here of commodities which we need for ourselves might conceivably give less employment than by producing part of our needs here and exporting the other part. I think if the Minister will look up the statistics regarding brush-making and furniture-making he will find, in respect of these two industries, that the mere manufacturing here of all our needs, under these two headings, will not absorb more workers, and that, in fact, it has led to a diminution in the number of employees engaged in these two industries.

Whatever hopes one had of endeavouring to persuade this Government to march along the road of grappling with our industrial, economic and agricultural problems in a big and in a vigorous way, the prospect of persuading the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to do so was very poor indeed. Deputy MacDermot may provide some new blood, may be the spell-binder of the new Party, and may induce it to walk in future a road that it consistently refused to take in the past. I hope he will aspire to and perhaps fill the role of spell-binder in relation to the Party, but having regard to the way the Cumann na nGaedheal constitution digested three leaders of the farmers, I have considerable doubt whether Deputy MacDermot will be able to guide the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in the future—and that is the real name of the Party notwithstanding what is suggested in the title—on a different industrial bent to the one they had in the past. I hope the Government will not be satisfied in making this provision for the relief of the unemployed. I hope, in conjunction with this, and indeed as an inevitable corollary, that the Government will endeavour in respect to industrial activity to make provision for the absorption not merely of a greater number of people in industry, but for the elimination of the child labour which unfortunately has been allowed to drift into industry, especially during the past 18 months.

I suggest to the Minister that considerable progress can be made in that respect. It seems to me to be nothing short of industrial and economic lunacy that we should be asking some sections of workers to work 48 and more hours a week while there is a considerable number of workers able and willing to work portion of that 48 hours per week, but denied an opportunity of doing so. Would it not be the more sensible thing, if we have thousands of workers unemployed, to put them into industry by reducing the working week, so as to ensure the absorption of a greater number of persons into productive employment? Of course, I will be told that that would impose a heavy charge on industry. I am then tempted to ask whether man was born for industry or industry born for man. Surely it is more important to provide for the human needs of the man than to get the 1932 conception of the valuation of capitalistic methods of production.

I hope the Minister will not stop at this Bill, and that we will have from the Government some definite effort, not merely to sustain these people in idleness, but to put them into productive employment by reorganising industry and ensuring that those able to work will be provided with employment at the price of reducing the present hours of labour.

Primitive man lived in many respects in a better system of society than modern man. Primitive man only worked when there was a scarcity.

Mr. Dillon

How do you know?

Mr. Lemass

Can you contradict him?

Mr. Norton

I am tempted in that respect to believe that many of the evils from which modern man suffers to-day are due to the outlook of people like Deputy Dillon, having beguiled him from the simple path where he worked and got what he produced to the position where he now works,but does not get a fraction of what he produces. Primitive man only worked when there was a scarcity, and only then did he work long hours. You have modern man in this country in many industries working long hours as if there was no one else available to help. You have the State standing for an industrial system that asks people to work 48,56 and 60 hours per week, while thousands of unemployed people are available to assist in producing the commodities that are required. I hope it will not be long until we see the Government tackling that problem on somewhat similar lines to that upon which the problem has been tackled in America. In that mad house of capitalism, and of the capitalistic system of society, the American Government has found it absolutely necessary to cut down the hours in industry in order to ensure employment for those who are idle. In order that there should be no diminution in the demand for goods that Government has insisted, not merely that those employed will be guaranteed a continuation of the previous rates of wages, but that in many industries these rates of wages must be raised in order to ensure not merely a continuance of demand, but that there may be a greater demand in industry for what those newly imported into industry produce.

If the Government would tackle the problem of industrial development on these lines, I believe that, in many respects, the benefits produced would be even much greater than those provided under this Bill. If the Government would tackle the problem along these lines I think it would be possible to pay to the unemployed person with whom this Bill deals, a much bigger rate of benefit than is to be paid. Bad and all as these rates are, low as they are, in many respects they are often higher than the home assistance provided in many counties. If Deputy Minch were in the House I would ask him to name the number of single men in Kildare to-day who are getting 6/- weekly to sustain them. Every one knows that it is almost impossible for the single man to get any relief whatever. Every one knows that the attitude of the boards of health and the attitude of the relieving officers, with honourable exceptions, is to screw down to the lowest possible level the amount of home assistance which is being paid. Every one knows that the rates paid in home assistance throughout the country are much lower than the rates to be paid under this Bill. With the exception of Dublin, the rates of benefit under this Bill are probably higher than the rates of assistance in any area in the country. That is not necessarily an endorsement of these rates of benefit. In my opinion, they are altogether inadequate, and I hope it will not be long until the Minister exercises the powers conferred on him and increases the rates of benefit to persons with whom this Bill deals.

I told the Deputy before that anything that came from him was proof to me that it was not a fact. When he says "no" he means "yes." When talking in the House recently, during my absence about a little undertaking I was interested in, he reminded me of Balaam and the ass. He got up to curse and, like Balaam with the ass, he blessed. Every word he uttered in order to try to sabotage that industry has reacted in its favour. I am now able to tell him, much to his regret I am sure, that it is doing very well and improving every day. One brilliant idea I got from him was a nice trade name for the products of that concern. Everything that he tries to curse is blessed. As far as I am concerned, when he says "yes" I always interpret it as being "no."

Mr. McGilligan

Nobody is bothering about you.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy talked about the prosperity of undertakings when he was Minister. He did not risk his own personal money starting them, but the money of the taxpayers. That is the way he gambled and the way he made what he called very prosperous undertakings. I must say, however, that they have not proved prosperous yet. The Deputy asked who were going to be the extra officials to administer this Bill. He said they were going to be the friends of Fianna Fáil who failed to secure election in the recent municipal elections. That coming from a man whose whole family live out of public funds—three brothers in the Shannon scheme and a sister in the Registration office——

I know it is for an Irishman.

Mr. Briscoe

If I am wrong I will apologise to the man I most dislike. I will apologise to Deputy Mulcahy most humbly. Deputy Mulcahy talked about figures and talked about the number of persons who are going to get unemployment assistance and who are not in insurable occupations. He tried to jumble up a lot of figures. The Deputy knows that it was under his administration that persons who were subscribers to the Unemployment Benefit Fund, persons such as railway workers, became members of non-insurable occupations. The same thing applies to the tramway workers and workers in other occupations. It was under his administration that these men became unemployed in great numbers and they got no unemployment money or relief because they were in non-insurable occupations. This measure says that any person who has any benefit to his credit or any person who is in an insurable occupation is entitled to benefit if willing to work and unable to get it.

There were certain points raised by Deputy Norton. I hope the Minister will deal with them. I agree with Deputy Norton in what he says about the proposal not to pay single girls on the same basis in which single men are paid. That is a matter that I think should be looked into for if the argument that is put up is correct, if single girls are to contribute to this fund it is only fair that they should be given relief. I do not know what the Minister's explanation will be on that point but I am in full agreement with the arguments put forward by Deputy Norton. As to the amount paid to the married woman with a dependent husband and five children compared with the amount paid to the married man with five dependent children and a wife I do not understand the discrepancy. Possibly the Minister may be able to give some explanation. As Deputy Corry says, any man should be entitled to have 2/- less if he allows his wife to wear the trousers. That is something on which we would like to get information.

I welcome this Bill from many points of view. First of all it contains what I advocated when this Government introduced a large sum of money for unemployment relief. I advocated that there should be some connection between the relieving officers and the registration officers. I argued that the relieving officers were the best authority as to the necessity of the individual. He visits him when he is giving relief. That person should be considered when persons are applying for work on unemployment schemes. This Bill deals with the matter in a far better way than it would be dealt with under the method I advocated because it now takes the whole under one roof. As to what the Bill will cost in its administration I cannot say and I suppose the Minister cannot tell. But the Bill is bringing them together under one roof. In that way we will not have two bodies dealing with the same matter.

When the unemployment relief was being debated in this House I advocated that there should be some means of joining up the work of the two bodies. I welcome this Bill because it adopted better than I was able to express it the idea I had at the time. The administration of relief under this Bill is going to be far better for the country as a whole. It is going to be far better and more humane for the individual and it is going to save councillors a whole lot of bother and trouble in dealing with cases.

I can understand the attitude of Deputy Mulcahy and his Party about this Bill. They recently captured the administration of relief in Dublin to the exclusion of the Fianna Fáil councillors because they believed it was a good thing to secure votes through the administration of relief.

Mr. T. Kelly

Hear, hear!

General Mulcahy

That is another of Deputy Kelly's principles. The Deputy says "Hear, hear!"

Mr. Briscoe

No, it was Deputy Mulcahy who engineered and directed that scheme. As to the four or five business members of the Corporation or whatever name they have now, the Deputy is afraid that they are going to cease to function.

Mr. McGilligan

That is what is wanted.

Mr. Briscoe

Any body of men who took into their own hands the relief on behalf of the citizens in the way the Deputy's Party took it, to the exclusion of others on the council, may find that that may be good politics but it certainly is not very honourable. As Deputy Donnelly, who is an old political war-horse, says, it may be good politics, but in this case it has turned out to be bad politics because persons belonging to all Parties may be in distress. In the administration of relief the matter should be upon an even keel and no preference given to anybody because of politics. The people opposite give preference to their own supporters against all others. That was good politics but it was most dishonourable, and it turned out in the end to be bad politics.

This Government is giving fair treatment even to Deputy Dillon's followers. I do not know what they are now. They were farmers some time ago. It is really a mystery Party over there. Some time I will remain awake all night wondering about the Party to which the Deputy belongs. This Government has set a good example in so far as State resources are concerned. Every person will be entitled to his share. No longer will we have examples of the giving of coal to poor people in the winter time because they happen to support a particular Party during elections. In the past the other fellow could freeze or go hungry. We have now reached the point when there is going to be a fair deal for all. The people of this country did well when they chose Fianna Fáil a second time. I do not know how many times they will continue to select them, but I do know that Deputy Dillon will have a very long wait before he dons the mantle of ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Dillon

The last time Deputy Norton spoke in this House he said he had come to the conclusion that Fianna Fáil mentality was as daft as a halfpenny watch. When I was worming my way through Deputy Briscoe's oration to-day, I began to feel myself in agreement with Deputy Norton. It is extremely difficult to grapple with the mentality of a Party which views things from the standpoint of Deputy Briscoe.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on this Bill to-day, said this was the Fianna Fáil redemption of the undertaking given when they accepted the principle of Deputy Morrissey's motion calling for work or maintenance for the unemployed. It is well to remember that we began by undertaking to provide work for 86,041 people. We have had the blessing of a Fianna Fáil Government in this country for 18 months and they have not found work for these people. A Bill is now brought in to provide maintenance. I venture to prophesy that if we have the blessing of a Fianna Fáil Government for another 18 months there will be no maintenance, because every man and woman in this country will be on the dole.

Mr. T. Kelly

They will be all working.

Mr. Dillon

I say they will be all on the dole.

What is the cause of all this? Surely it is far more sensible, when we are face to face with a crisis of this kind, to look for the cause and try to correct the cause rather than endeavour to cure the symptoms. Providing doles will do nothing to cure the situation which makes the doles necessary. I agree it is necessary, while something is being done to remedy the cause of this situation, that doles should be provided, but it is madness to look forward for evermore to having a large part of our population mendicants, crawling to the Government for the wherewithal to keep body and soul together. Since Fianna Fáil came into office one section of this community has been reduced to the position of mendicants, crawling to the Government for a dole and for the right to live. Farmers have been brought down to a condition when they have to eke out an existence through relief schemes. The people are now becoming dependants of the Government. Gradually every individual in the country will become a charge on the Central Fund until there is no Central Fund to support them and then perhaps Deputy Briscoe will lead us to the Promised Land, wherever that is.

What is at the root of this trouble? In 1931 the trade of this country was £91,935,000. In 1932-33 the trade had been reduced by Fianna Fáil to £55,000,000. Our exports in 1931 amounted to £39,250,000. Our exports this year over the same period amount to £19,250,000. The adverse trade balance on our trade of £91,000,000 was £11,000,000. The adverse trade balance on our trade of £55,000,000 was £14,250,000. We are going to remedy that situation by a dole. We might just as well be pouring water into a sieve. Deputy Norton described, with a break in his voice, the jibes and the jeers that were hurled by the relieving officers at people who were industrious but who were compelled to seek relief. Does Deputy Corish endorse that? Does Deputy Corish state that the servants of the public authorities in this country were allowed to jibe and jeer at the poor when they went for the relief to which they were entitled by statute? I doubt if he would. I never heard any such complaint made and I should be very interested indeed to hear Deputy Corish substantiate or repudiate that allegation.

But what has escaped the attention of a good many people is this: When Deputy Norton talks about people going in with their heads up to get what they are entitled to by statute, does he realise that up to the time of the necessity for this Bill the working men and women of this country were providing their own unemployment insurance and they were beholden to nobody for a penny that they got? They paid for it. There was no question of going with their hat in their hand to anybody, but now every man and woman in this country who earns his bread is going to be converted into a mendicant and a beggar living on the Government. They are going to be beholden to the State for what they provided for themselves in times gone by.

We are told that Fianna Fáil has improved industrial conditions in this country. Deputy Norton gets up and talks for an hour and says nothing. A month ago he said a good deal: "I might as well be frank," he said. "There is no use in burying our heads in the sand—the unemployment problem to-day—I have no hesitation in saying it, because we gain nothing by dodging facts—is as serious as it was twelve months or two years ago." That quotation will be found in column 1568, vol. 49, No. 4 of the Official Debates. Then he went on and said that it was exasperating to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce talk about factories. Deputy Norton said that some of these factories "might be put in inverted commas... They are in kitchens, cellars, basements, lofts and in back lanes, the workers existing under conditions that even in ancient Babylon would have excited condemnation." That is not all either, because Deputy Norton went on to say that he advised the Fianna Fáil Government not to presume "too long on the sympathy and credulity of our people." I endorse most heartily what the Deputy said. Deputy Briscoe got up to-day and held himself out as the man whose heart is perpetually bleeding for somebody. His heart is bleeding for the poor of Dublin and for the starving people of Adrigole. In fact it bleeds in a most embarrassing way all over the place. The old stock lie about the people dying of starvation in Adrigole was dug up again to-day. It is an old political gag that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough you will get somebody to believe it, and if you dig it up sufficiently frequently, you will dig it up sometime when there will be nobody there to nail it. Deputy Briscoe was trying that on to-day. What astonished me particularly was that Deputy Norton took a leaf from his book and actually had the impertinence to quote part of an extract from the Official Report with a view to creating the impression that Deputy McGilligan laid it down as his view that, in certain circumstances, men ought to be allowed to starve. I remember Deputy Briscoe doing that about twelve months ago. He was taken to task for it and made swallow his words. It seems strange that Deputy Norton should do the same thing again, but he was made swallow his words just as Deputy Briscoe was. I wonder is that lie dead or will it be necessary to slaughter it again?

Mr. Donnelly

What did happen in Adrigole?

Mr. Dillon

I have great sympathy with the unemployed and the difficulties with which they are face to face. The sympathy of every man and woman in the country goes out to them. But I wonder do people, when they talk about the unemployed, ever think of the men and women in this country who are not unemployed; those who are employed at very arduous work from dawn till dark— theirs is no eight-hour day—and when they have finished their day's work frequently find that, instead of having earned a day's wages they have lost money. I think Deputy Corry will agree with me in that. Take the ordinary small farmer in this country.

Mr. Corry

You know nothing at all about him.

Mr. Dillon

What is his position at the present time? He works from dawn till dark and he finds that the more he works the more he loses.

Mr. Corry

It was better for him you deserted him.

Mr. Dillon

Another matter which I alluded to here some time ago was an application made to Deputy McGilligan's department for a small loan or grant towards the development of a mine down there. There was a grant given last year of £250 for the development of that mine. It only cost £250 to develop it. That mine is now giving employment to 50 persons and they are not children either; they are able-bodied persons. Those are the changes that have taken place in one little constituency, and I am only concerned with my own constituency. I am giving the facts as I know them in my own constituency. I say that the change which has been brought about by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to finding permanent employment for our people is a change that was very much needed and a change of which he has every right to feel proud. My reason for alluding to these matters is because of the statements that were made in regard to the unemployment problem. I am glad that the coping-stone is now being put on these efforts by providing that those who are now unemployed will at least get enough to maintain them until such time as they can get employment.

Undoubtedly efforts have been made during the last 12 months, and if I might say so scandalous efforts, by men who should have used their time better or found some other use for their time, to advise people in this way: "There is no use in starting an industry; it is going to go down; Cumann na nGaedheal will come in to-morrow or after and will close it down." You ought to know very well that you will never come back; you are finished. Owing to efforts of that kind and the dread that people have of putting money into industry, the wheels have been delayed somewhat, but they are going ahead now and going ahead very quickly. I believe that within the next 12 months in my constituency, the unemployment problem will be practically wiped out and there will be then practically very little occasion for this Bill or very little money, which is the main thing, spent under it. I am glad that the Minister is grappling with the problem in this manner and is providing that the unfortunate children of the poor and the unemployed people are going to get at least enough to live on, something to support them until such time as we can get permanent employment for them. I should certainly prefer to see these people provided for by employment, but owing to the manner in which legislation is being held up, for instance, in regard to the Land Bill—a Bill under which we could have found plenty of employment for these people on the land— these people have been kept waiting and we must provide for them until such times as we can get the decks clear. These are people who are made the victims of a wretched conspiracy, and I can call it nothing else.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has given his explanation.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

Mr. Bennett

It might. I rather respect this particular Minister's assurances. He assures me that this Bill is going to relieve the ratepayers of Limerick. If the Minister gives me some little assurance in that respect I will go home a little bit easier in my mind. He said that the Bill only applied to the able-bodied. The destitute poor is a rapidly increasing body, particularly amongst the farming classes. By the time this Bill comes into operation the number of sick and infirm, particularly amongst the farming classes, will have so increased that there will be a great addition to the cost of outdoor relief. I notice that Deputy Norton was in a different mood to-day than when he spoke on the adjournment debate, and that the Minister was very sharp in retort to certain facts quoted by the Deputy. The Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench were silent when Deputy Norton gave Fianna Fáil the greatest castigation that they ever got in this House. Deputy Norton's speech on that occasion might possibly be described as the greatest vilification of the Government, because he was carried away by his anger, and made statements, for which, if made by Deputies on this side of the House, they would be howled down by every member of the Fianna Fáil Party. When Deputy Norton made these statements those on the Government Front Benches and on the back benches were silent. However, Deputy Norton pounded his drum and the Government fell for it. This Bill is what Deputy Norton's speech has produced. Neither Deputy Norton's speech, nor the speeches of any member of the Labour Party, has made the Government attempt to fulfil the promises they made to the electors two years ago, promises that they repeated in this House on several occasions, to find work for the unemployed.

What the unemployed need more than any dole or help is work. If the Minister can in any way help, even gradually to find work for some of the unemployed we, on this side of the House, will rejoice. Despite the numerous factories, and the growing numbers employed in them according to Deputy Corry, we find the unemployed being added to every hour and every day, and in this the twenty-second month of the Minister's reign, he is compelled to bring in this Bill as a sop to the unemployed, in order to try to get them to forget the glorious promises repeatedly made to them. Of course, we will not oppose this Bill. Even if it offered greater help to the unemployed we would not oppose it. We rather welcome it in the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen. We welcome the fact that some provision is even now to be made for the unemployed. What was stated in this debate, and what has been stated for months, will bear repetition, that the only solution for unemployment in this country is the reopening of negotiations with people on the other side to end this unfortunate economic war, because until this war is ended, neither the dole nor any other action of the Ministry, will be of any comfort to the mass of the people.

Mr. Anthony

I desire to welcome this measure. I do so with a good deal of pride because it is, in my view, a corollary of the motion moved in the Dáil last session by Deputy Morrissey and seconded by myself. In that motion we demanded work or maintenance for the unemployed. To me, and I think, to the majority of the honest working people of this country, work would be preferable to doles, and if any objection could be raised to this Bill, it would be that the dole is over-emphasised in it. I sincerely hope that before this Government comes to an end it will get away from doles and provide work instead. I also support the measure because when we have a number of necessitous unemployed people. They must be maintained by somebody unless they are to starve. In the majority of cases, they would be maintained by the ordinary ratepayers. Now, it will be made to appear that they will be maintained directly out of Government funds. That is true to the extent that this Bill will probably relieve the ratepayers of portion of their direct expenditure by way of rates. I am not at all satisfied with some of the provisions with regard to the means test, but I shall reserve any comments I have to make on that for a future stage of the measure. I feel that this test will cause endless difficulties and be a source of inconvenience to the officials who will be administering the Act.

The Government have driven this country to the Plimsoll line and the people who want assistance are told that they cannot expect to get any more. When Deputy Anthony said that unemployment was never more widespread than it is at present, the Minister interjected "tripe." That is in keeping with the general line that the Ministerial Party take up here, and it is the complement of their treatment of those who criticise them politically outside the House. Deputy Norton, as Deputy Anthony said, gets up with a very different tune from the tune he had the last time he spoke here. When he spoke here the last time it was at the highest point of a rising tide of criticism by the Labour Deputies of the conditions that existed in the country. The Minister heard Deputy Corish say that things had arrived at such a point as a result of the condition of employment that the life of a public man was impossible in this country. Deputy Murphy (Cork) said there was a blizzard of unemployment passing over the country, and I think Deputy Davin echoed his appreciation of the fact that that was so, and gave a statement of his own. Deputy Norton now gets up with a completely changed tune. He has to run away from the position in 1933 and the prospects of 1934 to go back to 1924. Going back to 1924, he has occasion to discuss and criticise Deputy McGilligan for certain alleged consequences of his actions when Minister for Industry and Commerce. He likened him to a tank that was sweeping over industry in the country. If Deputy Norton were talking as a Labour man, following the Minister's style of language in referring to Deputy Anthony's remarks as "tripe," we could say that Deputy Norton was talking through his hat. But, as he has come into the Fianna Fáil fold now in fortnightly conversations we simply have to say that he was talking through his sombrero, because that is what Deputy Norton was doing.

Deputy Norton described the effect of Deputy McGilligan's policy in this country as that of a tank going over our industries. Deputy Norton can refer to the statistics published with regard to that period. He does not believe in tariffs. Nevertheless, as a result of tariffs, Deputy McGilligan was able during that period to add 13,000 odd persons to industries which before the application of tariffs simply employed about 8,000 persons. Where 8,000 were employed more than 13,000 additional were added in tariffed industries. In the years from 1926-27 to 1930-31, the last year for which figures were available in the statistical abstract, there were 49,000 persons added to insured employment in this country by the "tank"; 34,000 were men, 11,000 women, 1,300 boys and 3,200 girls. Deputy Norton can compare the proportion of additional juvenile and adult employment given during those years, and he can go and get something else to talk about when he wants to avoid discussing the present economic situation in this country than the record of Deputy McGilligan or the other Deputies on this side of the House during that period. 49,000 was the increase in insured occupations between 1926-27 and 1930-31. But when we turn to the Minister, as Deputy McGilligan already pointed out, the Minister during the greater part of one and a half hours talk shirked the realities of the whole position, and then for a few minutes began ducking bricks that he expected to be hurled and that he knew very well should and could be hurled if people were convinced that discussing anything with him here could do anything to change him from, as I said before, the callous attitude he adopts towards the situation here. The Minister replies to criticisms here by reckless misrepresentations of the situation and tries to stifle criticism of the policies pursued by the Government by that kind of attitude, just as the Government try to stifle criticism outside by the blackguarding of public men, by attacks on Irish journalism, daily and weekly, and by an endeavour to suppress organisations that stand for a proper examination of Irish affairs and the sound criticism of them.

Arthur Griffith once pointed out that if the writings of Swift and Mitchel were obliterated from the memory of the Irish people there were certain publications still existing that were as powerful in seditious things as the writings of Swift and Mitchel and that these were the statistics published by the British Government. If public men outside could be blackguarded from platforms, if Irish journalism could be suppressed and Irish organisations could be broken up, there exists in the statistics and figures published by the Fianna Fáil Government to-day as powerful an amount of sedition as ever existed to stir the Irish people into reaction against the oppression and the blundering that is going on This document to-day is the culmination of a long line of seditious documents that have been printed for the last two years.

Mr. Cooney

What about our unIrish institution here?

General Mulcahy

Whatever institution is here, whether it is Irish or whatever else it is, run by the Minister, he has turned out information to-day that, properly understood, properly read, would have the present Government fired out of office head and heels in 24 hours. Deputy Corry told us the farmers in Cork were never better off; that they are much better off under the Fianna Fáil Government than they were under Cumann na nGaedheal. I have a cattle salesman's docket here from some unfortunate farmer in Kenmare who sold seven head of cattle and out of the money his cattle were worth £39 was deducted for customs— £39 for seven head of cattle!

Mr. Lemass

I think you, sir, stopped Deputy Corry from developing along that line.

An Ceann Comhairle

I prevented Deputy Corry from pursuing that line of argument.

General Mulcahy

Mr. Moore

It looked to me from this discussion as if the new Opposition were developing a new technique in debate. The keynote of the new technique is, I think, indirectness. Every speech to-day was an acknowledgement that the principle of this Bill is correct, but was an indirect attack on the Bill. Even with regard to the particular things dealt with the method of proving the statements made was a strangely indirect one; for instance, Deputy Mulcahy's method of proving that there has been no industrial improvement since the new Government came into office, that there has been in fact retrogression, is an outstandingly indirect method. He endeavoured to prove it by the unemployment figures. Why is he not able to quote some manufacturer in support of his statement? Why are they all so mute on this question? If they are not getting a fair chance, if they are not getting a market for the goods they manufacture, why is it that not one of them can be mentioned as stating that? The furniture industry is supposed to have remained stagnant, or perhaps to have gone back. It must have gone back for individual manufacturers, because it is admitted that there have been new factories, and if there has been no increase in the total production it must have gone back as far as individual manufacturers are concerned. Why are those poor men afraid to speak out and say: "This Government is ruining us. A while ago we had a market for our goods; now we cannot get it?" Where are the confectionery people who are in the same position? If there has been a reduction of £500,000 in imports, and it is asserted—as it was asserted by Deputy McGilligan—that that reduction probably represents a reduction of purchasing power, surely the Irish manufacturers must also have been affected by the reduction in purchasing power. Is there none of them at all friendly to the Opposition, seeing that they are afraid to give the chance to the Opposition of making use of their case against the Government, or what is the explanation?

There is a Federation of Irish Industries. I do not know whether it is dominated by supporters of the Government, or whether it is dominated by supporters of the Opposition. I think there is a fair sprinkling of both. They meet regularly. Every other day we see Press reports of their meetings. Why is there not one mention at those meetings of a stagnant market or a decreasing market? Why is there not a demand from those people to the Government: "Give up your present policy, and go back to the policy that prevailed under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government?" A statement from one of those people would be much more convincing than all this talk about figures of employment and so on. The whole method, as I say, was so indirect that it seemed to me it must be founded on some theory that a new technique was required with regard to attack from the Opposition. I think as a matter of fact that the principal thing which an impartial observer would gather from the Opposition speeches, when boiled down, is that this Bill would not be required, that there would be practically no unemployment in the country if the economic dispute with England did not prevail, and we were able to send cattle, butter and so on to England at the prices that would normally be procurable. That is a fairly big assumption. Surely Deputy Mulcahy and everybody else on the Opposition side would admit that, even if there never had been an economic dispute, prices would not be as good in England to-day as they were at the time Cumann na nGaedheal were in power. Surely they would not urge that they are as good to-day for the English farmer.

General Mulcahy

The farmer I mentioned would have got his £39.

Mr. Moore

Agreeing with all that, I simply want to get at the truth of the thing. What is the summary of the statements of the Opposition with regard to the present condition of things in this country? So far as I can see, as I have stated already, it is that if there were no economic dispute the farmers would have so much money, and the purchasing power of the country would be so splendid that everybody, or practically everybody, would be in employment, and there would be no need for a Bill like this. I, for one, do not believe anything of the kind. I believe that if the change which has taken place since the present Government came into power had not taken place, if there had not been a big reduction in imports, if there had not been this effort to get industry going in the country, and if there had not been the system of relief works which has been put into operation since this Government came into power, the position would be a great deal worse. If you come down to examine it in a concrete way I think it is obvious that there would be the same need for the Bill if there never had been an economic dispute.

And the Minister is very sorry that we are not opposing it.

Mr. Lemass

You have not got the moral courage to oppose it. It has been a display of moral cowardice which I do not think any political party in this country ever gave before. There is not one Deputy opposite who would not be anxious for and glad to get the opportunity of voting against this Bill but they cannot drag themselves to do it and that is why we have them here, one after the other, standing up and uttering a few trite phrases about the principle being good and about the provision being necessary and then proceeding to an attempt to damn the measure by their subsequent criticism.

We were told that the farmers' exports last year were valued for £9,000,000 less than in the previous year. I feel inclined to ask: what is the mere matter of £9,000,000 in relation to the damage done by Cumann na nGaedheal during their period of office? Let me tell you something about it. I do not propose to take the whole period, only the two years between 31st December, 1929, and 31st December, 1931, and to study the position. I want Deputies to bear in mind that the important thing in relation to economic affairs is the value of the production that takes place here, not the value of the goods we send abroad. The more of our total production we can find a market for at home, the better it is. It is the total production that really matters, and it is in relation to the production that took place here, when there was no economic war, and when Cumann na nGaedheal was responsible for our affairs, that I am going to enlighten some Deputies. In these two years the value of the production of bacon in this country decreased almost by 50 per cent., from £4,700,000 to £2,700,000. The value of butter produced in the Free State in these two years decreased from £7,000,000 to £4,200,000. Taking the group of commodities which represent foodstuffs of animal origin alone which happen to be first on the list, the value of the production in the Saorstát decreased from £14,000,000 in 1929 to £6,800,000 in 1931. There is the economic war for you! The whole of the decline in the value of agricultural exports from this country during the economic war is offset by the decreased value in production in one of the 20 industrial groups here. On these figures, and on certain others that I will give Deputies opposite, I am sure a great many of them will come to the conclusion that a Cumann na nGaedheal peace is worse than any economic war.

The next group we have bears relation to the production of cereal products and feeding stuffs for animals. The first item is wheaten flour. In two years the value of wheaten flour produced here decreased from £3,000,0000 to £1,800,000. In the total group there was a decrease in that period of £3,000,000 in the value of output. In the next group, miscellaneous articles, there was a decrease in value over the period of £700,000. That includes confectionery that all the talk has been about.

I do not think that it is necessary to deal with any of the other general points made in the debate by Deputies opposite. Some matters relating to the actual terms of the Bill were referred to by a few Deputies, but they were a minority of the Deputies present. Most of the Deputies who spoke took good care not to refer to the Bill at all.

I should like to say, however, in relation to what Deputy Norton said, that I fully agree with him that tariffs alone cannot produce the industrial development we want here. It is futile to think that we can get by tariffs alone the measure of industrial activity we are aiming at. It is also futile to think that we can get that without tariffs. I say that we must first of all secure that the market is available for Irish producers in the products we want them to produce. That is the first step. When I said here in the Dáil that we had completed the job in relation to confectionery or readymade clothing, or some other class of goods, I meant that we had now reached the position where the demand of the people was for goods produced in Irish factories and that foreign producers were no longer supplying that demand. It will take some time before we have industries here that can supply the goods we require in the varieties we require them, but until production has reached the point of providing these varieties we shall have to be satisfied with what varieties are available. We must also recognise the fact that it is impossible on any day to look forward and say what any degree of industrial activity will mean in employment unless we can take into account the various technological improvements likely to take place in the meantime. They are taking place in these days with considerable rapidity, so that very frequently a very substantial increase in production in a particular trade can be secured without any increase in employment at all. But we have succeeded in every trade in increasing employment and it is increasing still, although the first effects of our policy and of the stimulating efforts of the Department of Industry and Commerce produced results in the industries that were easiest of establishment, which required the smallest capital investment, and the smallest degree of technical skill and organisation. That was covered and we got to the stage of larger units requiring greater capital investment, a greater degree of technical knowledge and managerial skill. That is being provided and one by one trades and industries marked out for development here are being established. There is not a day in the week that Deputies cannot read that in the Press for themselves.

On the matters relating to the Bill which were referred to, I want to say a few words. Deputy Norton referred to two matters of considerable importance which might have usefully engaged the attention of other Deputies as well. It is to be noticed that the Bill does not provide for assistance to single women without dependents. The particular difficulty which necessitated the deletion of provision for single women without dependents is the absence of employment for such women outside certain very easily defined centres. All over the rural areas, particularly in the West of Ireland, there is a large number of single women who can claim to be seeking employment but who are unable to find it because, in fact, employment, apart from domestic service or employment of that kind, would not be available for them, and we are not anxious that it should be specially made available for them, say, at the expense of adult made labour. In so far as the families of these people are being provided for, they are being secured, I think, against serious destitution. To include them in the Bill under a separate heading would, so far as we can estimate, increase the cost of the measure by almost 50 per cent. and we do not believe the amount of relief which would be secured for that additional payment would be commensurate with the cost. There is a class of female worker who is in a different position and that is the female worker who ordinarily follows an insurable occupation. It is conceivable that such a worker might become unemployed, exhaust her rights to unemployment insurance benefit, and have either no one to support her or no one depending on her. In such a case she would not be entitled to assistance under this Bill. The addition of that class to the Schedule of the Bill is a matter which will have to be very carefully considered because, as I have said, the total cost of the measure has already, so far as we can estimate, reached a point in excess of our original intentions and it is not possible to contemplate any increase in that cost, so that the addition of another class might necessitate some counteracting changes elsewhere. However, it will be possible to estimate with a fair degree of accuracy the number of people likely to be affected by an amendment of that kind because, of course, the statistics will be available in the various offices of the Department of Industry and Commerce and when information is available decisions can be made.

Deputy Norton also referred to an apparent discrepancy between the second group of cases and the fourth. In one case a man with a dependent wife and children is given relief at the rates set out. In the other case a wife with a dependent husband and children is given relief at a lower rate. If strict logic were to apply in the preparation of that schedule in the Bill, the class to which Deputy Norton referred, that is the sick husband, permanently incapacitated, with a wife and two children, would not be covered by this Bill at all. Ordinarily, the powers of the local authorities should be used to provide for the sick people who are in need of assistance. This Bill is designed only to deal with the able-bodied unemployed. There is, however, a type of case which is intended to be covered there and which cannot be left entirely uncovered no matter how logical it might be to do so. Deputy Norton referred to Pat Murphy with his wife and children, Pat Murphy being entitled to 20/- a week if unemployed. That 20/- supports Murphy, Mrs. Murphy, and the five young Murphys. If Mrs. Murphy claims, she only gets 18/- and that supports Mrs. Murphy, Pat and the five children. That is not quite correct, because in order to effect that change we must assume that Pat Murphy changed himself from a healthy able-bodied man into a man who is permanently disabled by sickness from supporting himself and having no means of supporting himself. Now it can be argued that we must relate in some degree the rates of assistance set out here (1) to the ordinary earning capacity of the person concerned; and (2) to the rates of assistance payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I do not say that when we relate these rates to earning capacity that we should do more than do so in a very general manner and take into account the cost of living in rural areas. It will, I think, be agreed that the average earning capacity of a female worker is lower than the average earning capacity of a male worker and it was on that basis that a lower scale was fixed in the case of female than in the case of male workers. The male worker with one dependent gets 12/-, with two dependents 13/6, with three dependents 15/- and with four 16/6. The female worker with one dependent gets 11/-, with two dependents 12/6, with three dependents 14/-, and with four 15/6. However, these are details which we can discuss more usefully in Committee.

We have to bear in mind what the possible cost of any suggested change is to be. If there were adequate money available there is not one here I am sure who would not be prepared to suggest an increase in these scales. But we have to bear in mind that any substantial increase in the burden of taxation might have results other than we desire. Deputy Doyle referred to the condition in relation to the qualification certificate, which requires that an applicant must be in the position that his parents, children or other relatives are unable to maintain him and that he would not ordinarily be maintained or maintainable by them. I have been considering this particular section of the Bill since it was drafted and I think that we can achieve the same purpose as is designed in that paragraph in a more satisfactory manner and certainly in a fairer manner by deleting it from that section and inserting it in the section relating to the means provision, a paragraph providing for the taking into account of the value of any benefit received in kind by the applicant from relatives. It is quite obvious that we do not want to put the son of a man with £1,000 a year in the same position as the son or the relative of a poor man. It is obvious that the son of a man with £1,000 a year should not be in a position to claim unemployment assistance. It must be possible to take into account the fact that the applicant's father has £1,000 a year and that he is well able to maintain him and should do so.

Deputy Doyle referred to the condition in Section 15 which requires that before assistance is given the holder of the certificate shall prove that he has been six days continuously unemployed. The Deputy referred to the case of a docker who might get one or two days' work in the week. Well, we have provided that two days of unemployment followed by two days' work, followed by two days of unemployment is a continuous period of unemployment. That provision is intended to cover the case of a man who gets casual work for a day or two. One or two days' casual work do not disqualify him. It will not mean a break in the continuity of unemployment.

Deputy Doyle asked if this were a substitute for the 1929 Act and other Deputies referred to the possible effect of this measure upon local authorities. It is not a substitute for the 1929 Act. If the Dublin Corporation wishes to make provision for able-bodied unemployed over and above the provision that is made in this measure they are at liberty to do so. That is a matter they have to decide. If they think that the amount of assistance provided under this Bill is adequate or is as much as can be afforded that is the matter for them. If they want to supplement it by a contribution from their own resources they are at liberty to do so. That applies all over the country.

When you arrange a scheme of organisation like this it is almost inevitable that it is going to leave out individual cases that should be covered. It is not possible to provide in a national scheme for every possible type of case that may arise, and local authorities who give assistance following personal examination may continue to deal with cases that may not be covered by this measure. They may fill any gaps in the scheme that may necessarily arise because of the fact that it is designed for national application dealing with easily recognisable and easily definable types of cases.

The effect upon the rates in any district will again depend upon the local authorities themselves. If the information which has been furnished to me is accurate it is clear that assuming a local authority does not wish to make provision for able-bodied unemployed out of its own funds, then in the majority of cases the enactment of this measure is going to mean a reduction in the rates even after the contribution under the Bill has to be paid. If the local authority decides to supplement the rates under this Bill or to make provision for relief of destitution which they are entitled to do on a more generous scale than in the past, then the effect upon the rates will be what their action occasions.

I think there can be no good ground whatever for criticising the Bill because of the local contribution set out. Unemployed persons in the City of Dublin and in other boroughs will be paid at a higher rate than unemployed persons elsewhere. Unemployed persons in towns over a 7,000 population will also be paid a higher rate than the unemployed in rural areas. It is because these additional payments are being made as well as the fact that it is necessary to ask the local authority to contribute that that section stands in the Bill. I would ask Deputies to bear in mind that if the Central Funds did not provide in previous years for the relief of unemployment, a considerable scale of rates would have been leviable in order to deal with the destitution. Local authorities will find that this measure will be a considerable relief to them, because not merely will it mean a simpler system of dealing with able-bodied unemployed, but it will also provide that uniformity of operation which will have its effect upon the character and morale of the unemployed. There is also the fact that classes are provided for in this Bill that the local authorities in the majority of cases cannot deal with at all—classes that cannot be helped out of the local funds except in institutions. I am glad that the principle of the Bill has received such an unanimous acceptance from the House, and I hope that the Party opposite will have got new orders from their Leader so that they will have mustered moral courage to deal with the Bill on its merits.

Mr. MacDermot

I wish to draw your attention to an important matter. The Minister for Industry and Commerce refused just now, as he had a perfect right to do, to allow me to intervene in the middle of a speech to ask him a question. He had a perfect right to do that, but it is unusual. The Minister for Industry and Commerce himself half an hour earlier was interrupting and frequently interrupting Deputy Mulcahy by way of question.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy MacDermot's question came at an awkward moment.

Mr. MacDermot

The Minister did not trouble to rise to put these questions which he shouted across the floor of the House. Now nine-tenths of the interruptions in this House take the form of being shouted across the floor, and I suggest that this disorderly sort of interruption will be bound to increase if we penalise people who rise to put a question in an orderly way.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 27 Sep 1933