Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Unemployment Problem.

Mr. Norton

I beg to move the motion:

That in view of continued widespread unemployment the Dáil instructs the Executive Council to make available forthwith sufficient money to permit of the carrying out of large scale schemes of public works, so as to relieve the distress caused by unemployment.

The object of that motion is, firstly, to call attention to the serious unemployment problem which exists, and, at the same time, to urge the Government to take steps in the form of the provision of large scale schemes of public works to relieve the distress occasioned by the long-continued widespread unemployment. There is no gainsaying the fact that we have in this country to-day, as they have in other countries of the world, a very serious unemployment crisis, and while there are many who take the view that international co-operation between nations, and the regulation of international standards of life on a high scale, will contribute something to the diminution of that serious problem, the fact remains that we cannot wait here, any more than any other nation can wait elsewhere, for that international co-operation to develop in the manner that everyone would wish. We have within our own control and within the ambit of our own life here all the power we need to deal with the serious problem which faces us here.

I do not propose to make comparisons between the unemployment figures of to-day and those of last year, and the unemployment figures during the period that the last Government was in office. I do not think they matter very much. The serious position to-day, so far as the unemployed people of the country are concerned, is not so much a matter of comparison of unemployment figures to day with those of two, three, five, or ten years ago. The problem for these people to-day is to know what steps the State, which has a moral responsibility in this matter, is going to take for the relief of the unemployment which is pressing so heavily on the people. It is no consolation to the unemployed people to know that there is a slight fall in the unemployment figures. It is a cause of despair to the unemployed if there is a rise in the unemployment figures, but until such time as you can absorb all the people into productive employment, or recognise that they have a right to maintenance at the expense of the whole community, and maintenance on a decent basis, it is little use to make comparisons of that kind and to expect that these comparisons afford any hope, or provide any measure of rescue for the unemployed people from the suffering and privation they are compelled to endure.

In order to get an appreciation of what our problem in relation to unemployment is, it is necessary, to some extent, to survey the industrial position. I think it can be said truthfully that our industrial activities are showing signs of expansion, and, I think, in many respects, of considerable expansion; but it is a matter of considerable regret that in some of these new fields of activity, the labour which has been employed is mainly female labour and that a large section of that female labour is juvenile labour, recruited under bad conditions, paid bad rates of wages, and working intolerably long hours. That phase of industrial development is unhealthy. It is formed inevitably on a sandy foundation, and there can be no great measure of prosperity for the bread-winners in this country in respect of employment in industries where that kind of evil is a feature of the employment. While there is industrial expansion in many directions, and praiseworthy industrial expansion in some notable directions, we have got to realise at the same time that while people are being absorbed into employment on the one hand the development of the machine and the greater exploitation by mechanisation is on the other hand sentencing people to unemployment. So that while, perhaps, the imposition of a tariff or the provision of new capital and a new pioneering spirit, on the one hand, may result in employment for certain persons, we have got to remember that, on the other hand, there is inevitably a growth in mechanised industrial development, and that is showing itself in the form of introducing machinery which is responsible for many people being put out of employment and compelled to join the throng of unemployed people.

I think that the Minister must be familiar with certain cases in tariffed industries where, although the output of the industry, with the assistance of tariffs has been doubled or trebled, the amount of employment provided in the industry has actually decreased. There is a noteworthy example of that in respect of the brush-making industry. I think that the output of that industry under tariffs has nearly trebled, but there are less people employed in the industry to-day than before the tariffs were ever imposed. Anybody who has any experience of that industry and whose business takes him into close touch with the workers knows well that in that particular industry we have a classic example of an industry being protected against foreign competition by the State and installing foreign machines in order to sentence the Irish workers in the industry to unemployment. That is an example which illuminates to a considerable extent what is taking place in many other industries.

The plain fact that we have to face in respect of our industrial activity is that our industries to-day are not capable of absorbing all our unemployed people. Our industries to-day are able just to hold the present number of employed people. They may, in the course of further expansion, be able to employ an additional number, but it is quite clear that you cannot, within any reasonable period, hope to see our industries developed to such an extent as to make it possible to absorb into productive employment even half of those now seeking for an opportunity of working but who are unable to obtain that opportunity. I think much more could have been done in the matter of ensuring that our industries provided more employment if the Government had the courage to face up to their responsibility in the matter of trying by legislation to reduce the hours of work in those industries. It seems to me to be nothing short of economic lunacy to see the employed section of the community working long hours while other persons, willing and anxious to work, are denied an opportunity of working. Ordinary sane economics would suggest that if you have one section of the community working 56 or 60 hours a week, as happens in many of these small industries and in commercial establishments and shops of one kind or another, while at the same time you have people looking for an opportunity of working, the obvious policy of the State to work for is the regulation of hours in industry, so as to ensure that we should not have long hours worked by employed people side by side with unemployment amongst people able and willing to do the same kind of work if given the opportunity.

We can pass from the industrial to the agricultural position and it requires no words to emphasise the fact that the agricultural industry in this and in every other country in the world is passing through a period of acute depression. It is a paradox, but it is nevertheless visible for all to see, that the production of human food goes hand in hand with cycles of depression and with an intolerably low standard of living in the industry. In respect of our main agricultural activity, the raising and the export of cattle, everybody knows that that industry is in a serious position. That unsatisfactory position is ascribed to various causes. It is sought to suggest that the economic war is wholly responsible for the position of the cattle industry to-day. But, even in countries which have no economic war, it has been found quite impossible to export cattle on the scale that we knew ten years ago, and quite impossible to obtain the prices for cattle which were obtained even two years ago.

If anybody wants an example of that he has only to take the case of Holland, where cattle are being bought for slaughter by the State in order to prevent the cattle being a drug on the market and forcing down prices in respect of other cattle which have to be sold. Much as we may lament the fact that farmers are unable to get a reasonable price for their cattle, the plain fact remains that, with the cattle trade of the world in the position that it is to-day, it is extremely difficult for this nation and for the other nations facing the same problem to be able to legislate for the difficulty into which they have been so suddenly precipitated by the collapse of meat and cattle prices the world over. That depression in the cattle industry in this country—an industry which was the chief source of wealth and livelihood for our agricultural population—has inevitably caused unemployment. While the development of the tillage policy will give hope that that unemployment may be relieved by intensification of tillage, at the same time we have to realise the fact that the tillage policy is in a very undeveloped state to-day. It gives hope that it will develop rapidly, but in the meantime agricultural workers cannot live merely on hopes, cannot live on mere assurances that times will brighten. These people are entitled to expect that, until such time as the State can develop its policy, it will do something in a tangible and constructive way to provide them with employment until they can be absorbed into productive employment in the agricultural industry.

With our industrial and agricultural industries in the position in which, I think, I have fairly described them, the State has to ask itself what it proposes to do in such circumstances to absorb into employment the large contingent of people who are registered at the employment exchanges. The live register for 5th March last shows that there are 100,279 persons registered as unemployed. I agree that the introduction of the Unemployment Assistance Act has probably, to some extent, inflated that figure. Even if we take 20,000 off that figure, the fact remains that we have then an unemployed population of 80,000 people. Those are 80,000 people who come within the scope of registration at the exchanges. That figure does not include persons who are normally housewives and also adolescents who have not yet registered as unemployed. Let us say, for the purpose of agreement, that the number is 80,000, because we might get agreement on that figure. Seeing that we have that number of people registered as unemployed, and bearing in mind those dependent upon them, we have to realise that virtually we have here an unemployment problem which can best be described by saying that the unemployed of the country are a State within the State itself.

The State has to ask itself what it proposes to do in circumstances of that kind. It cannot clearly continue telling the unemployed agricultural labourers that there is hope when the tillage policy develops. It is unreasonable to tell the unemployed industrial workers that ultimately there may be hope for employment when our industries develop further. It is no use telling them what they are told now, with disconcerting and painful frequency, that Rome was not built in a day. The unemployed are not concerned as to whether Rome was built in a day or a year or ten years. The unemployed want an opportunity to work, an opportunity to enrich the nation by operating upon its abundant and sadly-neglected resources, and, over and above all, an opportunity to provide a frugal living for their wives and dependent children. The State has got to ask itself what it proposes to do to supply an obvious need of that kind. This motion seeks to provide the State with suggestions by which the problem of unemployment might to some extent be combated until such time as our agricultural and industrial position can be expanded sufficiently to absorb into productive employment large numbers of those who are unemployed. The motion, therefore, standing in the names of certain Labour Deputies, seeks to induce the Government to make money available so as to secure the carrying out of large scale schemes of public works in order that the distress caused by unemployment could be relieved. When we refer to public works as a means of employing unemployed persons, I think it will be generally agreed that there is need in this relatively undeveloped country for a comprehensive public works policy such as the country has never known during the lifetime of any person now living.

Our public amenities have been largely neglected; our people have been taught to accept a low standard of life, and a low standard of comfort; they have been taught to have a feeling of resignation, and that they have no right to expect those amenities which are the rights and the heritage of persons in enlightened countries of the world to-day. We suggest in this motion that large scale schemes of public works will not only help to provide employment pending further industrial and agricultural expansion, but that the carrying out of large scale schemes of public works will do something to improve the standard of comfort of our people, especially in rural areas; that such works if carried out will improve the amenities of living, especially in rural areas; but over and above raising the standard of living of our people, improving their amenities of life and providing them with employment, the motion suggests that the provision of large scale schemes of public works would put into the hands of our unemployed people a new purchasing power, which is vitally needed to assist industrial and agricultural expansion to-day.

It is generally recognised by enlightened economists that one of the evils of the world to-day is the contraction of purchasing power, and it has been suggested by economists in many countries that one of the best ways by which the State could contribute to deadening the worst effects of unemployment is the creation of new purchasing power, and the placing of it in the hands of the people, so that they may not only be saved from the miseries of unemployment, but that they may, in addition, be able, with the new purchasing power thus created, to sustain a demand for industrial and agricultural goods. The provision of large scale schemes of public works in this country would stimulate purchasing power, by placing in the hands of our people large sums of money with which they could serve demands on industry and agriculture to provide new goods. In that way not only would they be providing employment for themselves, but they would be improving the standard of life for themselves and for the nation as a whole, and they would be contributing their quota towards the solution of the unemployment problem in agriculture and in industry. If we assume that there are 80,000 unemployed people, or 100,000 unemployed people, the loss per week to industry and agriculture by reason of the enforced idleness of those people will be apparent to everybody. If we could put into productive employment the 80,000 or 100,000 unemployed workers, and provide them with decent rates of wages per week, the demand which they would serve on industry and agriculture for the supply of industrial products and agricultural goods would be such as to bring a large measure of relief from depression to industry and to agriculture. The large scale schemes of public works which this motion contemplates are large scale schemes of work which may be considered to be not only necessary from a social point of view, but, as I said, necessary in order to raise the standard of living of the people of the country.

We suggest, in support of this motion, that there are abundant opportunities for carrying out a comprehensive drainage policy in the country, so as to ensure that the depressed lands and the ill-drained lands of the country can be drained, and their potential wealth consequently exploited to the fullest. The carrying on of large scale drainage schemes would not only make life in rural areas much more enjoyable than it is, but it would improve the land in rural areas enormously. It would prevent flooding; it would prevent losses by flooding; it would prevent the social inconvenience which annual flooding inevitably causes to the residents in badly drained areas. With the new concentration on turf production in the country, a drainage scheme has enormous possibilities for exploiting the latent wealth of the bogs. If a comprehensive drainage scheme were carried out, it would make the winning of turf a much easier proposition than it is to-day; it would make the winning of turf a much more economic proposition than it is to-day. If the State were to embark upon a scheme of drainage in rural areas, especially in bog areas, then, by making the bogs more accessible, the State would be helping by that very fact alone to encourage the local people to exploit the bogs to a much greater extent than it is possible to exploit them to-day by reason of the ill-drained condition of the bogs themselves.

Another useful scheme of public works that might be carried out would be the replacement of defective schools and the building of decent ones. Any Deputy who goes through the country will realise that in many cases there are schools in existence which are a disgrace, not merely structurally, but because they are in a frightfully insanitary condition as well. One marvels how, in such dreary, drab, insanitary and unhealthy surroundings, it is possible to brighten the minds of the children sufficiently to enable them to absorb the education which the unfortunate teachers seek to impart to them in those frightful circumstances. In many areas throughout the country—I suppose in pretty well every area outside the cities and towns—the condition of our schools is something which calls for remedy. Those structures are in many cases not edifices in which we can take any great pride. The replacement of defective schools by the erection of modern, hygienic and sanitary schools would not only be a work of national importance, but I venture to suggest that the substitution of bright, sanitary, hygienic accommodation in the form of improved schools would do much to ensure that the children of the country would be able to absorb education in a much better way than it is possible for them to absorb such education in the circumstances under which it is imparted to them to-day, in dreary, drab schools, which would not make good cells much less good schools in which the citizens of to-morrow should receive their education.

Passing from the replacement of defective schools, we come to the necessity for water supply schemes throughout the country. Annually this City of Dublin seems to have a water problem. Annually the Dublin Corporation makes an appeal to the people which, in effect, is an appeal not to wash themselves. We get an annual appeal in Dublin in the form of printed red notices to the effect that there is a water shortage; be careful with the bath; do not waste any water, and do everything you can possibly do to avoid using water.

Mr. T. Kelly

Printing gives employment.

Mr. Norton

The printing of the notices, as Deputy Kelly says, gives employment, but Deputy Kelly must remember that if printing the notices gives employment there is quite a considerable amount of unemployment caused by reason of the fact that people cannot use the soap that would usually be used if the Dublin Corporation would stop appealing to the people not to wash themselves. This annual appeal from the Dublin Corporation is an appeal to the people not to wash themselves, and while it is more forcibly impressed upon the people of Dublin by reason of the publicity service of the Dublin Corporation, everybody knows that water shortages are common affairs in the matter of our municipal activities.

The provision of a water supply scheme in every town is not only a hygienic necessity but one can hardly visualise modern life without having at one's disposal a water supply not merely for sanitary purposes, not merely for hygienic purposes, but in order to prevent periodic epidemics of diseases, which are caused almost entirely by the absence of a water supply. Without such a supply, a sewerage scheme is quite impossible and impracticable. Sewerage might be referred to in that connection. And here one finds it difficult to understand the go-slow policy on the part of the local authorities and the State in the matter of taking all the necessary steps to equip towns with adequate sewerage schemes. In 1934 we find towns where there is no sewerage scheme whatever. We find in other towns sewerage schemes which are called sewerage schemes more by tradition than by reason of the fact that they are sewerage schemes. The State could do much in the way of encouraging the local authorities to carry out sewerage schemes and to assist effectively the carrying out of such schemes so as to improve the amenities of life in these areas, and, again, to provide necessary employment through these schemes.

Land distribution is another matter which opens up a wide opportunity for work. I think much more could be done than has been done in the way of acquiring and distributing land. I will probably be told that it was necessary to pass the Land Bond Bill in order to ensure that the owners would be compensated for the land taken from them. That is a strong defence perhaps. At all events now that the Land Bond Bill has passed the Dáil and that we are assured that the Government is anxious to speed up the distribution of land, I hope the Government will give attention to that particular problem and speed up this acquisition and distribution of land.

A settlement of persons in rural areas on economic holdings not merely takes such persons off the unemployment market but, in addition, it will possibly assist other people being taken off the unemployment market by reason of the employment that can be obtained by the full exploitation of the latent wealth of the country. Land improvement, subsequent to its acquisition and distribution, should provide additional employment and here there are abundant opportunities for assisting in the alleviation of the unemployment problems if the State would attack the thing vigorously and not merely in the routine manner in which it is being tackled to-day. The whole problem of land distribution will ensure a solution of the problem of unemployment. It will create agricultural holdings in the country which will provide some of our people especially in rural areas with an opportunity of working out their own salvation in the exploitation of their own holdings.

While much has been done in respect of housing activities much more could be done. In reply to a question recently the Minister for Local Government and Public Health stated that since the 1932 Housing Act was passed, about 17 months ago, there had been erected or there were in course of erection or under consideration for erection 30,700 houses. While that is very commendable house building activity, and represents a substantial advance on the housing attainments of the previous years, there is still scope for further intensification of housing activities. In my own constituency I come across cases where the local authorities place contracts with small builders who are only able to put up one or perhaps two houses at a time, whereas if the matter were on an organised basis there would be less delay in starting the work, and the starting of such housing schemes would be in a big and comprehensive way. It would not merely provide additional employment, but it would ensure that a bigger and more effective impression was being made on the housing problem as we know it to exist to-day.

Apart from these matters which offer scope for constructive work and opportunity for employment there is the question of the cleaning up of our towns. One passes through towns and villages and finds a few nice houses, then some tumbled-down ruin which is allowed to produce all kinds of weeds and foreign grasses and provides a general dumping ground for the refuse of the neighbourhood. Such a ruin is allowed to obtrude on the main road of the town or village, with nobody, apparently, having any power to compel the owners to remove it, or nobody likely to avail of the powers that exist to ensure the removal of that kind of structure. If the Government would take in hand the question of compelling local authorities to clean up towns and villages much good could be done in providing work, and much could be done in the way of eliminating those eyesores which are all too ubiquitous in our towns and villages.

Burial grounds provide another opportunity for improvement and for the provision of work. The manner in which we keep our cemeteries is not an indication of our reverence for the dead. If it were, then there would be little reverence for the dead. Many of the burial grounds in the country might as well be lakes, because they are allowed to get into a flooded and overcrowded condition. The attempt to plan cemeteries in the country, to construct decent cemeteries is a most lamentable exposition of our want of foresight, and shows an incompetence that makes one wonder. Everybody seems to imagine that the ideal cemetery is a little small spot with railings round it. Let it get into a swampy condition or into a lake, and nobody does anything to ensure that it is cleaned up. This blot on the manner in which we bury our dead should be removed completely.

This being an island country, the problem of coast erosion is an ever-present one. Coast erosion in many counties is a very serious matter for the local authorities. The present position in law, I understand, is that the local authority are responsible for the maintenance of sea defences. That means that the local authorities, let us say the Wicklow, the Wexford or the Donegal County Council, are responsible for waging a constant war against the sea so as to ensure that coast erosion is effectively combated. All local authorities are not in a position to undertake the defences of their boundaries against the sea, to defend the land against the sea, because of their limited resources. In any case, the maintenance of the whole island against sea attack is surely not the responsibility of the local authorities around the coast. Surely the inland people have some responsibility for financing the work of coast defences. It is as much the concern of the inland residents as it is of the coast dwellers to ensure that the land army wages a successful battle against the attacks of the sea.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid the local authorities are the worst offenders in removing the natural barriers that are there.

Mr. Norton

Even assuming that is so, it shows there is something necessary in the way of defending the land against erosion.

Mr. Flinn

Against the local authority.

Mr. Lemass

That is the problem, nine times out of ten.

Mr. Norton

I would like to hear the Minister develop that point. The defence of the land against the sea is not the problem of the local authorities. In any case, if the local authorities are negligent and do not carry out their duties, or are unable to discharge their duties because of the crippling financial burdens they have to bear and which the defence of the land against the sea imposes on them, then there is an obvious obligation on the State to ensure that effective steps are taken to combat coast erosion. The State cannot sit idly by while the local authorities are either carrying out their duties inefficiently or accelerating coast erosion by these undesirable steps which the Minister for Industry and Commerce suggests they take, or who become undesirable because of their failure to undertake the duty. At all events, there is a problem in defending the land against the sea, and in providing adequate defences against the incoming sea there would be involved the kind of work which the State could carry out and that would offer opportunities of constant employment. It would also be extremely useful work.

As regards the cleaning and deepening of rivers, that is a matter which conjures up pictures of enormous opportunities for providing work. Many of the rivers and streams are allowed to get into a very neglected condition and they collect all kinds of trees and obstacles. Sand is allowed to accumulate and the river is rendered impossible of navigation. Eventually the streams and rivers degenerate into the position that they cease to be effective for draining the surrounding land. There is an enormous amount of work which could be done in the way of cleaning and deepening the rivers. If one traces the Liffey from its source, even that river we all know so well will be found at various points in a choked condition, and in some places, because of the choked condition, the river has been allowed to run out of its course, to undermine roads and bridges and cause quite a considerable amount of destruction by reason of the fact that no effective attention is paid to the drainage except on the portions of the river commercially operated.

General Mulcahy

Another thing you could do would be to fill it in.

Mr. Norton

That is another problem, and perhaps I am not as sweet on that as is the Deputy. Here in Dublin City is an unrivalled opportunity to do something to improve its architecture. Government Departments are scattered all over the city, north, south, east and west. They are housed in this and that kind of building and very few civil servants seem to be satisfied with their location. Perhaps the Government Buildings in Merrion Street are the most comfortable of all. Many Departments are compelled to carry out work under very unsatisfactory conditions and in very unsuitable places and inevitably there must be loss of efficiency where branches of the one Department are scattered all over the city. The provision of a decent set of public buildings would not merely effectively stimulate Government work, but it would ensure efficient and smoother administration and at the same time give the city a block of buildings that it might well feel proud of. The present scheme of establishing Departments in any old building that can be got merely because it happens to be vacant or cheap is very unwise.

We have a classic example of what the State will do in the central sorting and delivery offices in Dublin. In our capital city the central sorting and delivery office of the Post Office, which in every other country is something worthy of admiration, is situated in the vaults of a disused distillery. It has been there for the last 12 years. Year after year Ministers have made promises that the work of reconstruction would shortly commence, but so far no progress has been made. The existing sorting and delivery office is in a building that is hopelessly insanitary and unsuitable. Anybody who has seen the interior of the place can scarcely understand why it should be used as a sorting and delivery centre. The work of erecting a new building to house the staff would provide a great deal of employment for building employees now unemployed and it would remove a reproach on the Post Office administration. I might mention that some cross-channel firms that came over here when tariffs were imposed inspected this disused distillery with a view to acquiring it, but they decided it was in such a shocking condition they would not dare to go into it and they could see no hope of being able to reconstruct it so as to meet their requirements. Yet the State allows men to carry on very important work in this insanitary building which is an eyesore and ought to be removed. Many foreigners, post office people, who visit Ireland, have expressed a desire to see the central sorting and delivery office, but really one would be too ashamed to bring them down to that insanitary building.

One would be ashamed to take them to the place, because not only is it structurally bad, but it is a hideous eyesore, and the interior of the place resembles a shambles more than it does an efficient post office. That gives an idea of the necessity for the Government undertaking a policy of erecting public buildings for the discharge of Government work in the city. I agree that that cannot all be put up in a year, two years, or three years, but there should be some thought-out policy in the matter of providing buildings for Government work in Dublin, and efforts should be made to work to a plan which would eventually give the city a suitable scheme of public buildings.

At present there seems to be no policy and no vision, and if one can judge by the permanence in which certain Departments are located in certain unsuitable buildings, it looks as if the whole policy of the State in the matter of the provision of suitable Government buildings is: "Oh, carry on as you are. We will not be here very much longer, and we will leave the problem to our successors." Somebody ought to sit down and think out a sound policy in this matter and try to work to a programme of that kind, because I am afraid that, as Government Departments are expanding, due to new legislation, and as suitable buildings are shrinking, the position in that respect will ultimately become worse instead of better.

Traffic congestion is a problem which, with the development of the motor car and mechanised locomotion generally, will have to be dealt with by local authorities. This city is an example of the evils which can develop because of the inability of local authorities, through want of powers, want of money, or want of zeal, to obviate the traffic congestion which not only exists at the moment but which tends to grow worse with the passage of time. There is enormous scope for activity in the matter of widening streets, rounding corners——

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

What about our predecessors? They were always rounding corners.

Mr. Norton

There are a couple that could be done still. There is, however, abundant scope for widening streets, making it possible for traffic to move more smoothly and making it possible to avoid traffic congestion. General work of that kind helps to beautify a city and to provide employment. I have indicated a list of schemes which might be carried out. I doubt if any Deputy in the House will suggest that there is an unnecessary scheme in the list I have quoted. That work is necessary, and if it were carried out, not only would it provide employment for the unemployed until such time as they can be absorbed into industry or agriculture, or maintained on a decent scale by the State, but it would give hope to tens of thousands of unemployed people who to-day are driven to despair because of long-continued unemployment. If the work were carried out, it would not only raise the enthusiasm of the people, but the execution of the work would raise the standard of their lives and help to beautify their lives by providing improved amenities and an improved standard of living and comfort.

It may be said that the existence of unemployment is admitted, and that the problem is of such serious dimensions that it must be met by the adoption of an emergency policy of this kind; it may be said that these schemes are admittedly necessary, but that the necessary money or the raising of the necessary money for the financing of these schemes presents a problem which requires solution. I regard the fact that unemployment exists on such a large scale and that the work is necessary as the paramount consideration in a matter of this kind, and it should not be difficult for the State to raise the necessary money to finance useful schemes of public work of that character. The credit of the State is high. Nobody will question the credit of this State to-day, and its capacity to raise money is unquestioned. The standing of its securities in the public market is the best guarantee that not only is the State solvent, but its credit is as high as the credit of any Government in Europe, and higher than the credit of most Governments in Europe to-day. If the nation's credit is high, and its securities stand at such an enviable price, from commercial standards, in the public market, there should be no great difficulty in raising the necessary capital to finance a scheme of public works of that kind.

Relatively this is the wealthiest creditor nation in the world to-day. The three great creditor nations in the world are the United States, Britain and the Irish Free State, but, taking our population here in proportion to our foreign investments, this country is relatively a much wealthier creditor nation than either the United States or Great Britain to-day. When we make allowance for the foreign money invested here and for certain income in the form of pensions received by our people here, this is a creditor nation to the extent of, approximately, £220,000,000. A nation which has £220,000,000 in foreign investments is a nation which must inevitably have high credit, and that £220,000,000, in proportion to our own resources at home and our population, is the best guarantee that money can be raised to finance schemes of that kind from the point of view of guarantees that the State which borrows the money is solvent. If the State wished, it could borrow money at a low rate of interest, but, in any case, money could be borrowed on terms which would satisfy those who have the lending of money in their power. Quite apart, however, from the need for raising money in the ordinary commercial way, the State could do what many other States have been forced, in periods of emergency, to do, namely, to create credit and capital for the purpose of financing a public works policy of that kind. The State is quite entitled to create capital and to create credit and to use that credit for the financing of such activities.

It may be urged, of course, that this is not orthodox finance. Possibly, it is not orthodox finance, but there are very few people in the world to-day who can make a case even for the orthodox finance we know of. It is difficult to talk about orthodox finance when you are presented with a situation in which you have 80,000 unemployed men and women, able and willing to work, and yet condemned to hunger because it is not possible for the State or private industry to provide them with work. If we are going to have any orthodoxy, we ought to have it in respect of our responsibility to human beings. If we want to be orthodox at all, let us be orthodox in relation to them and let us have less regard for orthodoxy as applied to modern commercial conceptions of orthodox finance.

During the European War, Britain was driven to all kinds of extremes in order to maintain a credit and currency policy at home. Britain created capital and Britain came through the war. Many of the old Conservatives in Britain, who, pre-war, would have looked on a proposal to create State capital as something akin to anarchy, were compelled during the war years to endorse a policy of that kind and those of them who have since taken to writing their memoirs have paid tribute to the wisdom of adopting such a policy and to the difficulties which were avoided by Britain in making use of emergency powers of that type in order to finance her war-time activities. Not only is the State financially solvent, but its standing in the European market is high and its foreign investments, approximately £220,000,000, invested outside the country and yielding annual dividends to our people here, are the surest guarantee of the solvency of the State. Quite apart from that, the State has a solvency in respect of the credit of its people and the character of its people, as well as in respect of the industry of its people and the wealth of the country, both actual and potential. All these factors are security for the raising of finances for a scheme of this kind, and there should be no difficulty, and there could not possibly be any great difficulty experienced, in a country like this in raising finances for public works of that kind, especially in an unemployment crisis such as that through which we are passing.

Recently I observed that the President exchanged congratulations with President Roosevelt and congratulated the latter on the courageous policy he had adopted in America. That was quite a kindly thing to do. But I hope that President de Valera did not intend that his congratulations to President Roosevelt were just in the form of a kindly greeting. Congratulating President Roosevelt seemed to me to imply an admiration of some of the methods adopted by President Roosevelt, and one would only wish that the President here would do some of the pioneering that the President of the United States has felt it necessary to do in a similar unemployment crisis that exists in that State.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

He is a long way behind us.

Mr. Norton

The Minister says he is a long way behind us?

Mr. MacEntee

He might be congratulated on following our example.

Mr. Norton

Well, that would be a spectacular gesture; but when the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduces a Bill to provide a 30-hour working week and to compel employers to pay decent wages and prevent children from being exploited in industry, then I shall be glad to congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce on being first, and I shall sympathise with President Roosevelt on being second. However, so far, I can see no reason to think that the Minister is first in the race, and in many respects, if he does not accelerate, he probably will be last in the race of those responsible for industry and commerce in various countries who are still holding on to old methods in the hope that something will happen to revivify confidence in those methods. I was saying that the President was congratulating President Roosevelt on his policy in America, and I noticed that on St. Patrick's Day, in the course of conveying further greetings on that festive day, the President again stated his admiration of the methods adopted in America and suggested—and the Irish Press underlined it—that the President here was endeavouring to follow the methods adopted in America of solving our problems in the same way as America had been forced to try to solve hers. I suggest that the President is not trying to solve our problems with the same courage as they are being tackled in that economic madhouse of capitalism across the Atlantic. I hope that when the President comes to congratulate the President of the United States in future he will be able to say accurately that, in fact, we are adopting methods which are not merely as courageous as the experiments being tried in America but more courageous than the methods that have been adopted elsewhere.

This motion is one that ought to commend itself to the Government. They have professed a wish to put an end to unemployment. There is a greater reason why effective war should be made on unemployment than ever before, because for some time the outflow of population by way of the emigrant ship that took from 25,000 to 30,000 of our people each year, has been stopped, and instead we are faced with a new problem of immigration. We are now faced with the fact that 30,000 people whom we exported annually are remaining at home, and that we are getting back some of those whom we exported in other years. That makes it more necessary than ever for the Government to face up to its responsibilities and to make war on unemployment. There is no more effective way of doing that than in the provision of large scale schemes of public works which will not only end unemployment but will improve the standard of life in the country. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this motion, and that its acceptance will be accompanied by a declaration on the part of the Government that they propose to provide money for large scale schemes of public works which, in the interval between now and the time when industry and agriculture can absorb the greater number of our people, will give some hope to the people that, at least in an emergency of the kind through which we are passing, the State will organise its resources to their uttermost limits in order to provide productive employment for the people.

General Mulcahy

This has been a great week, Sir, in some places. We have had the big black cat in Dublin, and then we burned the Hoodoo, and now, from nine o'clock, we have been blowing up the big balloon. It is almost a pity not to leave it at that and to go home. We could leave it at that and go home if the problem that Deputy Norton started to speak about was not there, and if there were not people looking for work and suffering because they had not employment. Deputy Norton has run through such a list of things that might be done by putting people on public works that I do not propose to add to them. However, I would ask the Deputy and his colleagues, who ought to be close up against the people that are unemployed and the people that are wanting work, now that the big balloon has been blown up with schemes, to turn around and face the question as to what they are doing to help to get employment for the people. If there is unemployment throughout the country at the present time, and if there is a falling off, as the Deputy says, in the purchasing power of the people, leading to a tremendous amount of unemployment, I suggest that the Labour Party are themselves more responsible for it than any other section of the country. Instead of turning around and seeing what are the principles they stand for in the matter of government and in the matter of applying themselves and applying the resources of the State to developing and fostering industry here, I suggest that they should turn around and ask themselves what exactly their fundamental principles are. Assume that to-morrow the Executive Council put all these men to work on the filling in of the Liffey or the deepening of the Liffey, or on keeping back the tide on the Wicklow coast or on rounding corners and putting up buildings, are we going to have a call from the Labour Party for a one day strike on the 1st May?

Mr. Corish

It would not be the first time they helped you by a one-day strike.

General Mulcahy

We are going to have a one-day strike on the 1st May.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy liked strikes at one time.

General Mulcahy

I should like the Deputy to discuss that later.

Mr. Davin

That is an answer.

General Mulcahy

We have in fact the Labour Party attempting to smother up the whole situation, attempting to prevent the real development of this country and to hide their responsibility for the position of unemployment in the country by a kind of political smokescreen. The Labour Party are asking people who are at work to-day, as well as people who may be at work on any public works that the Ministers may have started in the meantime, to call a one-day strike on the 1st of May.

Mr. Corish

When did the Labour Party ask it?

General Mulcahy

The Labour Party can repudiate their position in the matter if they wish.

Mr. Corish

There is no use in making a statement unless you can prove it.

General Mulcahy

Will the Deputies deny that, as members of the administrative council of the Labour Party, they are taking part in a movement to ask people to have a one-day strike on the 1st May and that the reason they are doing that is to obscure their own responsibility for the unemployment conditions which are being brought about in the country?

Mr. Corish

When did the Labour Party advocate a one-day strike?

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy suggest that the administrative council of the Labour Party, or Labour Deputies have advocated a one-day strike? Perhaps he would quote authority for that statement.

Mr. Davin

Bad secret service.

Mr. Norton

If he can quote authority for it I shall be glad to have it.

General Mulcahy

I will quote authority for the statement. I will quote from the Irish Press of 8th March, 1934. This is headed, “Nation Protest against Fascism; Call by Dublin Trades Council.”:—

"The Dublin Trades Union Council has unanimously passed a resolution urging the trade unions to protect themselves from ‘the contamination of Fascist propaganda and the confiscation of their funds,' and instructing the Executive Committee to send a deputation to the National Executive of the Trade Union Congress and the Administrative Council of the Labour Party with a view to organising ‘a national demonstration against Fascism.' The resolution also instructed the Executive to circularise the unions regarding a proposal for a one-day general strike and to secure the co-operation of all anti-Fascist organisations in an anti-Fascist campaign."

Mr. Corish

Where is the Labour Party asking for a one-day strike in that?

Mr. Norton

Is that the authority?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy suggest that that is evidence that the Labour Party asked for a one-day strike?

General Mulcahy

I suggest that the Labour Party, who through their spokesman here to-night have talked for an hour and five minutes on all kinds of work that the State might pay workers for doing, are co-operating on their part to have a one-day strike on 1st. May for the purpose of obscuring the responsibility they have at the present moment for the condition of unemployment in the country.

Mr. Corish

Where is the evidence of co-operation?

Mr. Davin

Give the name of a Labour Deputy or of a member of the executive who advocated a one-day strike.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Davin can reply to me when he gets on his feet. I have hardly been five minutes speaking yet.

Mr. Norton

You made a bad start by telling those untruths.

General Mulcahy

I am getting nearer to the point and nearer to the bone of the matter than Deputy Norton did. The Deputies know very well what they are at in this matter. I should like to quote as further information for Deputies on the matter an extract from The International Press Correspondence, which is the principal Communist organ disseminating news and information to the country. I shall quote from the issue of the 16th March:—

"Since the inception of the Fascist Blue Shirts, with their adoption of the ‘Corporate State' and open threat to destroy the working-class movement, the Labour and trade union leaders have remained silent on the whole question of Fascism, except to urge the workers to rely on the de Valera Government. Suddenly they have realised that the workers have not adopted the same ostrich pose, and on March 6, the District Council of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union placed a resolution on Fascism before the Dublin Trades Council.

"The resolution urged the trade unions to protect themselves from ‘the contamination of Fascist propaganda and the confiscation of their funds,' and instructed the Executive to send a deputation to the National Executive of the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Administrative Council of the Irish Labour Party with a view to ‘organising a national demonstration against Fascism.' The officials had thought to make speeches on these measures, to have the resolution mechanically accepted, and to pass on. Instead, a militant delegate set the Council alight with enthusiasm by proposing immediately an addendum: that in addition to the demonstration the Trades Council call for a one-day general strike on May 1 against Fascism, and that it co-operates with all anti-Fascist organisations in a national campaign against the Blue Shirts. So surprised were the Executive by the immediate response of the delegates, that they dared not openly oppose the addendum, but could only insert the proviso that the union executives' endorsement be got first. The addendum was then passed unanimously.

"Already trade union branches in Dublin and Cork have unanimously adopted the proposal for a general strike all over the country. That the Dublin Trades Council—the decisive organ in the country—has taken this tremendously important step is in large measure due to the consistent exposure of Fascism by the Irish Communist Party and the Labour League Against Fascism, and the campaign waged in the Press, workplace and T.U. branches.

"It is essential now that every Irish Communist and militant worker realises the great class advance that this decision marks, and that all active forces be mobilised around the general strike."

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to hear the Deputy relate resolutions referring to Communism or Fascism to the matter before the House.

Mr. Corish

It is a despicable attempt to get Press publication in the morning to try to show that the Labour Party is allied with Communism.

Mr. Davin

Would the Deputy tell the House when the Dublin Trades Council had the power to call a general strike? He knows perfectly well that they have no such authority.

Mr. MacEntee

What is the document he is reading from?

General Mulcahy

The International Press Correspondence, which is the principal Communist organ for disseminating general news.

Mr. Hugo Flinn

Is that being sent to all the comrades?

General Mulcahy

At any rate, you have the position that, while speaking in the way in which Deputies are here on the provision of employment for unemployed persons, the Deputies are doing nothing but attempting to obscure their responsibility for the position in which things are here at the present moment. I suggest that that is only part of the general campaign, another part of which is the organisation of a one-day general strike against their political opponents, and yet another part is an attempt to enforce a political levy on trade unions in the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely those quotations from a paper, to the effect that somebody wants to organise a one-day strike, are not relevant to the motion.

Mr. Davin

Somebody is pulling his leg very badly.

Mr. Norton

He is off colour to-night.

General Mulcahy

The attitude of Labour Deputies to the previous Administration just before the general election of 1932 was that they should be cleared out; firstly, because of their general record as an anti-working-class Party——

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear.

General Mulcahy

——and secondly that until they were cleared out the people would never realise that the Anglo-Irish Treaty could remain without them. At the same time they said that there was another popular belief which was sedulously fostered in the people of the country by another Party —the Fianna Fáil Party—that President de Valera and his colleagues were the only real friends of the working people in industry and agriculture. They said that until President de Valera and his colleague were put into office and the people had an opportunity of seeing what they were capable of, the belief would still prevail that the real Party which was going to benefit the workers here was the Fianna Fáil Party, but that when President de Valera had a term of office, with all the responsibilities of office, the best minds of the country would, the Labour Party were then sure, come to the definite conclusion that the only Party in which political and social salvation was to be found, was the Labour Party. They said they would get into the Dáil at that particular time with a very small Party, but their influence would be very great, and their responsibility would be very great. As far as the smallness of their Party was concerned, as far as their influence was concerned and as far as their responsibility was concerned, I think that their prophecy was fairly true. Their prophecy was also fairly true that after a short time in office, with the responsibilities of office on them, the Fianna Fáil Party would show that the workers of this country had nothing to expect from the Fianna Fáil Party. Conditions have been brought about in this country that were so undreamt of, from the point of view of badness, and the responsibility of the Labour Party is so great for having supported the policies that have brought those conditions about, that the members of the Labour Party are unable to admit to themselves now that the situation is what it is. When attempts were made by this Party during the years 1932 and 1933 to discuss public affairs on public platforms in the country they stood still while the Government endeavoured, through their followers, to bludgeon the Opposition Party off public platforms in the country, and prevent those discussions being carried on.

Mr. Davin

That is a falsehood.

General Mulcahy

That is absolutely true.

Mr. Corish

He has made a whole tissue of them since he stood up.

Mr. Davin

He knows it to be a falsehood.

Mr. MacDermot

Is this in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a statement that should not be made.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that the Deputy is again wandering far from the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

There have been so many interruptions that I have not heard the Deputy for the last two minutes. Deputy Mulcahy to resume.

General Mulcahy

Members of the Labour Party had occasion, even before the Fianna Fáil Government came into office, to protest at the treatment which they got at some of their meetings from what Deputy Murphy called the Fianna Fáil-Communist combine. I ask them at this late hour, when they have this proposal before this House, to look back to some of what they call their fundamental principles and to see whether they can get back to some of them, as a contribution on their part to helping people who are looking for work in this country to get work. Deputy Norton talks of giving this public assistance and public works until such time as our agriculture and industry can be expanded so as to absorb the unemployed. The policy of the Labour Party has been to wipe out the market for the product of our agricultural industry—a market which was three times as great as the market that was here. How long does he think persons looking for employment are going to continue looking for it while we are developing here, for our farmers alone, a market which will be equivalent to that tremendous market which they have practically crushed out? The Labour Party pride themselves in having put down in black and white in a little book their objects and their policy and their principles. Part of what they stand over in their book and in their speeches is shown in paragraph 45 of their policy: "We believe that a failure to improve the position of Free State produce in the British markets, relative to that of competing countries, would mean rapid retrogression involving enormous loss, and all possible efforts should be made to place our goods at the head of the market."

Mr. Davin

What is the Deputy quoting from?

General Mulcahy

I am quoting from something which I often quoted from before to try and remind the Labour members of it. It is a booklet issued under the names of William Norton, Chairman, and William Davin, Hon. Secretary, for the Administrative Council of the Labour Party, and entitled "The Nation Organised."

Mr. Norton

Keep to that and you are right!

General Mulcahy

My reason for quoting it here to-night is to try and keep the Deputies to it. Instead of having that long and rambling list of things which the State might do for the people of this country who have no work, I put it up to the Labour Party that there are things which they thought they could do, and which they said they would do. While they may be small in numbers here they could at least try to stand over some of the principles and some of the fundamental things they advocated. One of the things they did realise was that Irish agriculture had a market in Great Britain which was three times the home market here. They realised that our position in that market had to be expanded and improved.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy, I think, will agree that there has been ample discussion of the economic war during the last three months, and should not reopen that debate now.

General Mulcahy

I just want to ask the Labour Party a question. How long do they think this State will be providing, from loans or from revenue, money to put the unemployed on public works if they have to wait, before we can get other work for them, until the agricultural industry in this country has got in this country a market which will be equivalent to the market we have lost in Great Britain—a market which was three times as great as the market we had at home here? I move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.