When I moved the adjournment of the debate on this motion last week, I was making the point that the motion submitted by Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Morrissey disapproved of tariffs and protection of industry generally, and, in fact, reproved everybody who ever dared to stand for a scheme of protecting our national industries. I said that a policy of that kind was not calculated to assist the industrial development of this country, that we were living in circumstances which made a continuance of free trade impossible, that national and economic sanity demanded that we, in this country, should endeavour to protect our industries from foreign competition, and particularly from unfair foreign competition so that these industries might be enabled not merely to supply our own people with the goods and services they required but to absorb our unemployed people, while utilising the raw material of the country, so far as it was available for utilisation. I passed from that to say that it was rather an academic question whether the standard of living had increased or had been lowered, that a much more important question was: What was the standard of living of our people to-day; what steps are being taken by the Government Party, charged before Parliament and the nation to deal with a situation of this kind, to remedy the widespread poverty which everybody who has any experience of the country knows exists.
Private Deputies' Business. - Standard of Living—Abolition of Duties on Foodstuffs (Motion).
Mr. Morrissey
You do not know whether the standard of living has increased or decreased.
Whether it has or not is an academic question. The main and important question, as those who have experience of the country know, is that there is a wide stratum of poverty throughout the country and that the object should be to remove that stratum of poverty, if possible. The academic question, whether the standard of living has gone up or down, is a secondary consideration compared with whatever proposals are contemplated for making war on the widespread state of poverty that exists to-day.
Mr. Morrissey
Do you think it has gone down?
The Deputy said it had, and it would be very impertinent of me to say that it has not, seeing that the Deputy regards his opinions on these matters as infallible.
Mr. Morrissey
You will not give us your opinion?
I am giving it at least as intelligently as the Deputy gave his.
The Deputy did not express any opinion on it.
I said on the last occasion that, in my opinion, the gravity of the economic position was that Ministers did not, apparently, realise the real situation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on this motion, worked himself into ecstasies proclaiming the prosperity of the country taking pride in the fact that more motor-cars were being used, that more spirits and tobacco were being consumed; as if these were reliable tests of the standard of living of the ordinary people of the country. Surely it is mere amateur economics to realise that you can have in a country unbounded wealth, on one hand, and indescribable poverty on the other hand. Is it not a feature of highly industrialised capitalistic countries that you have appalling wealth on one hand, and a condition of abject poverty on the other hand? It is the merest nonsense to suggest that the multiplication of motor-cars and the increasing use of spirits and tobacco are an index to national prosperity. They are no index to prosperity so far as the working classes are concerned. They may be an index to one fact— that the rich people of a country are getting richer, and that, while that is taking place, the poor people in that country are getting poorer. I suggest to the Minister that there are better tests than the increasing use of motor-cars and the consumption of spirits and tobacco of whether or not the condition of the ordinary people of the country affords scope for satisfaction to-day. One of the tests is the condition of the employment market. According to the latest Government figures, there are close on 100,000 registered unemployed at the employment exchanges—100,000 who satisfy the rigid tests of unemployment imposed by the Unemployment Assistance Act, 100,000 people craving for an opportunity of working on the nation's resources and not able to get that opportunity in a country which, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is using more motor-cars and consuming more spirits and tobacco. It would be bad at any time to have the colossal waste which goes hand in hand with such a large number of people in a state of involuntary idleness, but the condition of affairs is worse when we know that, right through the country, the overwhelming majority of those unemployed are being compelled to exist on rates of benefit which enable an unemployed man to receive only a sum of 12/6 per week to support himself, his wife and five or six children. The sum of 12/6 in itself represents an indefensibly low standard, but it is even lower when you consider that the man who is offered that sum has to pay for butter 1/3 or 1/4 per pound, and for a 4-lb. loaf 1/-.
Does he not get more than 12/6?
In every town in my constituency, which embraces two counties, the maximum rate of unemployment assistance is 12/6 a week, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce could tell that to the Deputy. In these towns the 2-lb. loaf costs 6d., and butter is costing 1/3 or 1/4.
Mr. Kelly
There may be places in which that is so, but it does not generally represent the rate.
In towns with a population of over 7,000 at the last census, the maximum rate of benefit is approximately 15/6 per week.
Mr. Kelly
It goes higher still.
In certain other places the rate of benefit is £1 per week.
Mr. Kelly
Does it not go to £1 5s. per week?
The maximum rate is £1.
Mr. Kelly
I think it goes to £1 5s.
Ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether it does or not. Everybody who has read the Act knows that the maximum rate of benefit is £1.
Mr. Kelly
Your remarks suggested that 12/6 was the highest rate.
And I say again that in the towns throughout the country with a population of less than 7,000— and that is the overwhelming majority of the towns in the country; it is certainly true of every town in my constituency—the maximum rate of unemployment assistance is 12/6 per week.
The majority of them do not live in towns of less than 7,000 population.
The majority of people are concentrated in areas where 12/6 is the rate of benefit.
Where does the Minister say they live?
They do not live in towns with a population of less than 7,000.
The majority live in small towns in rural areas.
It would be better to state the general rate rather than a particular rate in certain districts. It makes a difference.
Deputy Kelly may be interested in this fact. In the combined constituency of Carlow-Kildare, with over 80,000 people, if one of these people is unemployed and seeks unemployment assistance, the maximum rate payable under the Act for himself, his wife and five children, or ten children, is 12/6 per week. Deputy Harris knows perfectly well that in the town of Athy, a town of no mean size, the maximum rate of unemployment assistance is 12/6 per week. People have recently been taken out of slums in that town and transferred to small houses there, and they are being asked to pay 3/10 per week out of the 12/6 for a small house and, at the same time, try to buy bread and butter when the 2 lb. loaf costs 6d., and butter 1/3 and 1/4 a lb. Is it any wonder that the local authority cannot collect the rents of these houses? Everybody who cares to read the reports of the Athy Urban Council knows that the council is complaining of its inability to get the rents out of the tenants of these houses because the tenants are unemployed, and when they are put to the test of deciding what they will do with the 12/6 a week, food naturally claims their first attention.
That is the situation which exists in the country. It is known to everybody who wants to investigate the economic facts. It is an unpalatable condition of affairs and a disturbing set of facts for anybody who wants to hug the illusion that the country is prosperous. I prefer to know the truth and the facts of the position, in the hope that the cruelty of the situation may induce the Legislature and those responsible to take steps to remedy it rather than engage in logic-chopping about the greater use of motor-cars and an increasing consumption of spirits and tobacco being reliable indices of national prosperity. I said that payment of a rate of 12/6 a week was an indefensibly low standard for unemployed people in existing circumstances, but when you remember that 12/6 per week will only buy about ten loaves and 5 lbs. of butter per week, and that there is no provision for rent, light, fuel, clothes, footwear, school-books or for many other commodities which ought to occupy a place in the domestic budget of a comfortable family, I think the House will get some picture of the deplorable economic conditions which are being allowed to drift on from day to day.
Unemployment need not be the only test which can be applied to an examination of the economic condition of affairs to-day. Emigration will provide a further test and will, at the same time, disclose that there is a very serious position in that respect, particularly in the rural areas. Anybody who has any contact with the rural areas and who makes it his business to inquire, on visits to the rural areas, as to what is the drift in respect of emigration, will all the time get the disheartening information that thousands of young boys and girls are fleeing from this country to-day, trying to find in Britain the employment which is not available for them here.
Everybody who has any contact with the port cities knows perfectly well that Britain to-day, in respect of our emigration, is taking the place which the United States took in other years. There is a constant drift of young boys and girls to Britain, seeking there the work they cannot get at home, and that drain, not merely on the manhood and womanhood of our country, but on the virile manhood and womanhood of our country, is a problem that ought to engage the attention of the Executive Council. Is it any wonder, when we export the most virile of our manhood and womanhood, that this country has the lowest marriage rate in Europe to-day and, in fact, the lowest marriage rate, I think, of any white nation on the face of the earth to-day? Is that a symptom of prosperity? Is that not a symptom of the fact that the Celt is going and no steps of an effective character are being taken by the Executive Council to deal with that problem?
Deputy Moore, in endeavouring to explain the emigration, said that there was at present a boom in England. There is undoubtedly a boom in England, a boom which may continue for a while, but, typical of all other capitalistic booms, it will come to an end. Then unemployment will set in, the whole economic equilibrium will be disturbed and the Irish who are forced to seek employment in Britain will be forced to return home, seeking at least the shelter of their homes or the homes of friends. But if to-day, with all the export of our manhood and womanhood, we still have the problem of 95,000 unemployed, and that at a time when the Minister for Industry and Commerce is screeching prosperity, what chance have we of absorbing into productive employment those who return to this country when the temporary prosperity of Britain begins to wane? The particularly bad unemployment position here will be enormously intensified by the return of people once the depression sets in in Britain, and not only are we not able to deal with the large number of unemployed to-day, but we apparently have no plans for clearing these off the unemployed market before we get the back-wash of the first stages of the depression which is bound to come in Britain following upon the artificial boom which exists there to-day.
Home assistance is another test which might be applied to ascertain whether the condition of affairs in this country is satisfactory. Recently, an official of the Kildare Board of Health; imagining that he has some capacity for discerning economic factors, reported to the board of health that home assistance was decreasing. It was decreasing by reason of the scheme of refusing to pay home assistance to people if they have any miserable pittance at all under the noncontributory section of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. Decreased expenditure on home assistance brought about in that way is a saving effected only at the price of inflicting suffering and privation on those who ought to be the recipients of greater care and solicitude from officials and local authorities charged with responsibility in the matter of relieving destitution.
Commenting on this state of affairs, and on the fact that home assistance expenditure had been reduced, the Irish Press furnishes an illuminating example of the way in which people will cling to any kind of statement, no matter how reckless, if it just happens to suit their point of view:—
"That compendious statement sheds a flood of light on conditions in agricultural districts. The first point to which to draw attention is that there are now no persons actually destitute in Kildare County. That surely is a most remarkable as well as a most gratifying state of things. It means that pauperism in its old bad degrading sense does not exist in that county. When we come to examine why there has been such a marked drop in the expenditure on home assistance, the reasons given to account for it are equally satisfactory."
It goes on:—
"As a result of the industrial policy of the Government work has been found for a large number of people in the new factories which have been started..."
The article states that considerable numbers of people have found employment in the county, or were getting work on special employment schemes, and on tillage, and that the Government's unemployment assistance benefit scheme was assisting those unable to find work, while "the Windows' and Orphans' Pensions Act had given a measure of security and comfort to two classes who were at the same time the most unprotected and the most deserving of sympathy in the community." The article wound up by stating that that condition of affairs reflected the utmost credit on the Government. A person who wrote an article of that kind, without knowing the conditions that actually exist in the county, ought not to be employed in a newspaper office at all. He ought to be employed painting flowery pictures in some art gallery. Notwithstanding all the nonsense written there, and the more concentrated nonsense in the statement by an official who did not know what he was talking about, everybody knows that there is a wide and deep stratum of poverty in County Kildare. In that respect. I suggest that that county is symptomatic of a similar condition of affairs which has been experienced throughout the country. If conditions in County Kildare were ideal, if even 100 per cent. of what was in the article was not due to imagination, people can be found less than 30 miles from Dublin working three days on rotation schemes and getting 11/- a week to exist on. The fact remains that all kinds of poverty and economic coercion are being utilised to compel people to work, and unemployment assistance schemes for 12/- a week, at a time when, according to the article, conditions of relative prosperity exist in the county.
We can take another example as to whether the economic position, and particularly in rural areas, provides a consoling picture. Apparently in an effort to grapple with the unemployment problem the Government, instead of providing regular work on which men could get a complete scheme of work, considers a type that will not provide a scheme of work but will merely continue them in unemployment assistance benefit, or provide a type of work at a rate of pay slightly in excess of unemployment assistance benefit. When a motion was before the House last year, urging the Government to take steps to provide employment for the large numbers unemployed, we were asked by the Minister for Industry and Commerce if we knew how much it would cost to put these people into employment. Deputy McGilligan, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, asked the same question in 1927. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce is advancing on his economic programme so rapidly that, in 1936, he reached the same stage that Deputy McGilligan reached in 1927—"You know how much it will cost to absorb the unemployed people." Apparently that is what is preventing the Government from applying its energies to the solution of the unemployment problem. It is cheaper to keep them on unemployment assistance benefit, and will cost less than to provide them with regular work which prior to 1932 they were promised. In that year, of course, the millennium was supposed to be in sight. The Government had a scheme for absorbing the unemployed. Here and there the remnants of posters exhibited by the Government Party in 1932 can still be seen on gaunt buildings. It might be quite a good idea if they were exhibited around the Labour Exchanges. The wording of these posters ran: "Fianna Fáil will cure unemployment; Fianna Fáil has a plan."
The President stated at that time that there was no reason why unemployment should exist here, and the present Minister for Education, when his attention was directed to the fact that there were 80,000 people unemployed, said: "Ah, well, should we not be glad to have them to do all the work that Fianna Fáil is going to make available for them?" Not to be outdone by the extravagant language of his two colleagues, the Minister for Industry and Commerce evolved the famous plan of sending to America, and of raking the cities of that great Republic to bring back Irishmen and women to do all the work that was going to be made available here. That was the kind of picture put before the people in 1932. That was the kind of economic El Dorado that was dangled before their eyes. Far from being able to solve unemployment, we have now reached the stage when we do not find it necessary to bring back the emigrants, but when we cannot stop the tidal wave of emigration to Great Britain. Yet, some people can find consolation in the fact that the number of motor cars is increasing, and that there is increased consumption of spirits and tobacco. The resort to the rotational scheme of employment apparently represents the highest pinnacle of economic endeavour on the part of the Government to deal with unemployment. At one time three or four days' work were given at the rates paid by the county councils. It is well known that these wages are only sufficient—if indeed, in many cases sufficient—to maintain in the most frugal comfort those employed by the councils regularly each day or each week in the year.
It is a hardship on workers when they can only get three or four days' work, even at the county council rates of pay, but last year and this year we find the Government resorting to a much more objectionable and more degrading scheme for coercing the unemployed into accepting work at rates of wages which ought to be a disgrace to a civilised Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was questioned last week as to whether workers were engaged in particular operations in my constituency, the number of days per week, and the rate of pay. To that question I got the illuminating answer that some of them were being employed for three days per week. Their total wages for the week was 12/-, less insurance, and in some cases less double insurance. In cases where they were employed at work which came within the Unemployment Insurance Act they got only 11/-. In other cases less than 11/-.
That condition of affairs does not tally with the prosperity talked about by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. All over the country the local authorities have complained against being made the instrument of this scheme of coercing the unemployed to work at hunger rates of wages. Local authorities have asked that they should be permitted to employ men for a full week, or to increase their daily rate of wages so that they might get a wage substantially higher than they would get under the Governmental rotational scheme, or a wage substantially higher than they would get for doing nothing if registered at the unemployment exchange. The unchanged and unchangeable answer of the Government to these local authorities is that the grant will be withdrawn and no money made available unless the local authority is prepared to allow itself to be used to coerce unemployed workers into accepting employment under these degrading conditions.
Agriculture provides another test as to the condition of prosperity or economic stability in the country. We have been told here for the past few years of the comprehensive and sympathetic steps which are being taken by the Government to assist the agricultural industry. On the last occasion on which this motion was discussed here we had the Minister for Agriculture pointing, with satisfaction, at least, to himself, to the glowing prosperity which obtains in agriculture to-day compared to the year 1931. If there is that prosperity in the agricultural industry, if there is that stability growing in that industry, surely it should be possible for that industry to pay to-day a higher rate of wage than that fixed under the Agricultural Wages Act. Instead of that and in spite of all the efforts to assist the farmer, in spite of this talk of the assistance given to the farmer, in spite of the claim made from Government platforms that the farmer has been given a guaranteed price for wheat and beet and a guaranteed market for barley and oats and for certain other types of agricultural produce, we have reached the position to-day whereby, notwithstanding all that prosperity and all the schemes of subsidisation and financial assistance to the agricultural industry, according to the Government-appointed chairman of the Wages Board, that industry is capable to-day of paying only a wage of 24/- a week. After all the talk of prosperity in the industry and all the talk of the attractive proposals which have been developed for the benefit of the farmer in wheat and beet, we find that wheat and beet are still only capable of giving the agricultural worker a wage of 24/- a week. If that is prosperity in the agricultural industry it is the type of prosperity from which the agriculturists might well pray to be saved. If that is the kind of economic fabric the Government is building up in spite of the guaranteed markets, then God help the agriculturists. That is a very unreliable and insecure position for the agricultural labourers.
It is, of course, something akin to economic high treason to suggest that the cost of living is going up and that in consequence many sections of the people are feeling the economic squeeze very severely. Statements have been made by members of the Government that, in fact, there is no real increase in the cost of living and that if there had been an increase here and there, it is of negligible proportions. What are the facts of the situation? I have here a copy of the Irish Trade Journal, published by the Department of Industry and Commerce. That contains the official figures as to the movement of the cost-of-living index figure in recent years. We cannot, of course, compare in this respect the index figure for February in one year with the figure for August or November of another year. If there is to be any fair comparision there must be a comparision of the months which are similar and the conditions which are static and that do not suffer from seasonal fluctuations. What do these tables disclose? Take July, 1914, as a base and assign it a national index figure of 100. The cost-of-living figure for all commodities in the month of August, 1932, was 153. In the month of August, 1937, the figure was 170, a rise from 153 to 170. The cost-of-living index figure takes cognisance of a wide variety of articles, many of which in an economic blizzard must be shut off if the weekly income is so small that the barest necessities can only be purchased. That does not, therefore, give a real view of the cost of living as affecting the unemployed whose income in the form of unemployment insurance benefit does not enable them to purchase commodities over the range covered by the cost-of-living index figure. In circumstances of that kind the working-class people have inevitably to discard many things such as clothes, boots, cooking utensils, furniture and various other things which might not be described as the actual necessaries of life. In such circumstances they cling to the scheme of trying to conserve their income into purchasing food. It is the food index figure which in these circumstances gives the most reliable index as to the rise in the cost of living. Take the figure for the items of food alone in August, 1932. The index figure had risen to 134 for food alone in that year. In August, 1937, it had increased to 154; that is an increase of 20 points. If we take the figure for November, 1932, we find it was 135. The figure for November of this year is not yet available, but the figure for August last was 154. The indications are that the figure will be more than that in accordance with the customary upward movement for the month of November, 1937.
What was it in 1929?
The figures for 1929 are not available for the same months as for other years.
Do not ride away on that.
Read your own publications.
Read the figures for the months that are available.
The Minister would insist on reading figures which are not comparable. If the Minister has any knowledge at all as to what is happening in the Department, he will know that the figures are changed since 1931. And he can send down to the Library and get the figures.
The Deputy knows that the effect of the change was infinitesimal.
I know no such thing, but I know perfectly well that you cannot compare the figures for months which are not comparable. But, in any case, I am showing here that between these dates there has been a very substantial increase in the cost of living. In fact, when the Unemployment Assistance Bill was going through this House in 1933, the index figure for food alone was 129. In August, 1937, the index figure for food had risen from 129 to 154, while the benefits under the Unemployment Assistance Act, such as they are, remained static during the interval.
The food is our own production. It is not foreign production.
That is a great consolation for the fellow who cannot buy it. Deputy Kelly ought to realise that the poverty is due to our mismanagement as well.
Mr. Kelly
I am aware that poverty always was and always will be.
Why does the Deputy object to anybody exposing it? I say that the solution of the deplorable and depressing economic position to which I have adverted cannot be found, in my view, along the lines of the motion which is before the House, nor can it be found by the continuance, on the part of the Government, of the present unplanned type of development which is taking place here. The whole policy of the Government has been to impose a tariff and to see what happens. Many of these tariffs have been imposed without adequate consideration, without the taking of adequate steps to ensure that the tariffs were used to enable our industries so to develop that they would be able to compete, at a subsequent stage, with their competitors in other countries without resorting to a continuance of the same artificial methods of protecting them.
Again, one incurred the abiding scorn of the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he suggested, at any time, that anybody was exploiting these tariffs, or that anybody was developing in a tariffed industry the complex of getting rich quick. It was therefore with astonishment that many members of the House read that the Minister went to Cork recently and there delivered a severe castigation to those who were exploiting tariffs, to those who were getting rich quick, to those who were raking off out of industry and at the public expense a rate of profit which was unjustified in the view of the Minister. So that we have it now, from the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself, in a speech delivered calmly and previously prepared, that under the tariff wall we have permitted to grow up here a type of financial rapacity which takes the form of exploiting the public and raking-off out of the public purse an indefensibly high profit. The Minister promised to deal with those people. So far, of course, we have had no real proposal to deal with them.
The Minister offered us recently another prices tribunal, in which, apparently, he has implicit faith. As I said then when discussing that Bill— and I think time will justify the correctness of what I said—the only thing that will happen under this new prices tribunal which the Minister proposes to set up is that the tribunal will go on inquiring into prices, and prices will go on rising. I think there has been too much attention paid by the Government to supervising the manner in which tariffs were imposed and the benefits which accrue from them, as well as too little utilisation by the State of the power which it had in its own hands to compel many of those artificially assisted industries to use the protection afforded by the State to develop along better lines than those which, so far, have been apparent in many of the new industries. It may be said, of course, that measures of self-defence had to be adopted, that these had to be hastily improvised, and, therefore, could not be given the care and consideration that in normal circumstances they should receive.
It is true, of course, that world conditions may force a country, even against its own desires, to adopt an economic policy which in other circumstances it would not embrace either so wholeheartedly or so extensively. Here in this country world conditions have, in a very large measure, forced the nation to adopt a policy of self-sufficiency, but at the same time I think we ought to know what we mean, and what the consequences are likely to be, by the adoption of a policy of self-sufficiency in a small country. Self-sufficiency may be a thoroughly sound policy in certain circumstances. Economic conditions may disclose that economic self-sufficiency is not a sound policy. Military and defensive considerations may override and point to the merit of economic self-sufficiency even when economic considerations would normally induce a country to abandon such a policy. Economic self-sufficiency, however, in itself is not a passport to the prosperity and to the stability that some people imagine. Whatever its possibilities are in big countries that have considerable resources in respect of raw material, that have a long industrial tradition and large sums of money available for the development of its industries, in a small country economic self-sufficiency has very definite limitations.
We ought, therefore, to recognise, when embarking on a policy of economic self-sufficiency, that we are definitely embarking on a policy which can never be brought to a full stage of development here or anything like it—a policy which, if fully developed here, could only be developed by the community on its part bearing pretty heavy sacrifices in order to enable the policy to continue. What can economic self-sufficiency give a small country such as ours, with a population of 3,000,000 people, in respect to industrial development? How many industries in this country to-day, which are being protected by tariffs of 50, 75 and 100 per cent., and which in other cases are being protected by quota orders and prohibitions, can ever hope to attain the stage of industrial production when they will be able to export their products to other lands? I venture to say that with one or two exceptions, and these are old-established industries which were able to do it without the assistance of any tariff, there is not an industry in the country to-day in the nonagricultural sphere which is capable of producing and selling goods in a free market in another country to-day. What, then, is the position that we arrive at? We arrive—and let us recognise the fact definitely and deliberately—at an industrial policy which is not capable, apparently, of supplying our own demands, or which, if it is capable of doing so, is certainly capable of supplying them only at an increased cost to the consumer, but which, in any case, because of the small population and the variety of the public taste, will never be capable of producing here nonagricultural goods for export to other countries.
Our whole economic situation here, whether we like it or not, depends on our capacity to assist the agricultural industry to maintain a basic position in the general economy of the country. Everybody knows that when it comes to a choice between agricultural production on the one hand and industrial production on the other hand we have no market for our industrial goods, at least so far as exports are concerned, and that the only goods we can export are the goods produced from the agricultural industry.
Hear, hear! I am glad the Deputy has found that out. Now you are becoming the "ginger" Party you talked about in 1932.
Perhaps, if the Deputy would take some of it himself, it might help to clear his head.
Evidently, the Deputy has discovered it, or, at any rate, he will discover it yet.
At least, I hope that my discoveries will enable me to produce something better than the Deputy can produce. Any examination of our economic position, and any hope of building prosperity in this country, which is based upon the belief that we can develop our industries here to such an extent as to be capable of finding an export market for industrially-produced goods is, in my opinion, rather an illusion. It is right, I think, to produce in this country goods which our people require, so as to supply the needs of the people of our own country, but let us realise that that policy means sacrifices for the consuming public. It may be desirable, and even highly desirable, that these sacrifices should be made, but let us not imagine that that industrial development is of a kind that will give reasonable hope of absorbing into industrial employment the very large number of people who are already unemployed. As has been pointed out before, there should be a planned national policy to go hand in hand with this matter of industrial development, and, of course, we have not that to-day. The Government is kicking the economic football all around the field, so to speak, and does not yet know where the goal-post is. The Government policy is too much of a policy of saying: "Let us clap on a tariff, and then let us see what will happen." I think that the Government's position in this regard ought to be reconsidered. If we are going to have a continuance of the policy of economic self-sufficiency, there ought to be a realisation that that policy should go hand in hand with a policy of planned economy.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that the country was on the high road to prosperity and that certain increases in certain commodities were conclusive evidence of the fact that everything, generally speaking, was well in the economic field. I have pointed out that we still have in this country to-day—where there are some 100,000 people registered as unemployed in the exchanges, and where there are many others, although not registered at the exchanges, genuinely unemployed—a wide stratum of people in addition who are underpaid—people working on relief schemes for 12/- a week, and on agriculture for 24/- a week; and we know that, in many of the new industries, people are working at very low rates of wages per week.
That condition of affairs, as I have pointed out, is one which ought to compel the Government to review the whole position and to take some effective steps to deal with a situation of that kind. I should like to know from Ministers or members of the Government Party—whether on this motion or on any other motion—on what feature of its general policy does it rely in order to absorb into employment the large number of workers who are unemployed to-day. If there is any scheme on which the Government relies, other than the degrading rotational schemes or the giving of work for a few weeks in the year, then we ought to know what it is; but, in my opinion, there is no feature of the Government's policy which is calculated to offer any substantial hope of employment for the vast army of unemployed in this country, or for the substantial number of people who are compelled to toil for intolerably low rates of wages to-day. In my opinion, the Government appear to have no policy for dealing with that situation, nor do I believe that the situation can be dealt with by the adoption of this motion by the Fine Gael Party. In fact, the oftener one sits in this House and reads the speeches of both the big Parties whether Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, the clearer it becomes to me and, I am sure, to the people generally, that the difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is narrowing now to almost undiscernible proportions. I see nothing in the proposals of either Party that would be calculated to absorb the unemployed into employment or to deal with the wide stratum of poverty which exists in the country to-day. At this stage, at all events, however, a special responsibility is thrown on the Government to deal with the situation because it has special functions as an Executive Council in that regard.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us about the growing prosperity, and so on, but when we come to measure it we find that that prosperity has an economic fabric which is only capable of paying small pittances weekly to persons who are unemployed; that the agricultural industry has a fabric only capable of paying agricultural workers at the rate of 24/- a week, and that the only makeshift the Government can make to grapple with serious unemployment is to offer workers employment at 12/- for three days and telling these workers that, if they do not accept that, and if they are not prepared to work under such conditions, their unemployment assistance benefit will be stopped and that even hunger will be used in order to coerce these workers to accept it. In spite of all the talk about prosperity, the fact remains that we have a serious state of affairs, from the economic point of view, in the country, which ought to be dealt with. At one time the Government advocated the setting up of an economic council, with an economic G.H.Q., which was to deal with all these problems, but since 1932 we have seen very little desire on the part of the Government to establish an economic council or an economic G.H.Q. Even if it were to be established by people who have only a fragmentary idea of what should be done, still, even at this stage, I hold that some attempt might be made to deal with this whole situation.
Even at this stage there might be some attempt to face up to the solution of some of the bigger problems which affect us and which, in particular, affect the working classes. Many of the problems are of a kind which are readily soluble. Many of them have been solved in a very substantial way in other countries. In any case, all of them are capable under proper treatment of a substantial measure of amelioration, and nothing should be done to delay the bringing about of that amelioration.
I do not think that this motion is one which, under existing conditions, ought to be supported. Certainly, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, it will not support the motion, for the reasons which I gave at the outset and which other speakers from the Labour Party will also give. At the same time, I think that the economic position is such that the Government ought to stop rowing about the bay, that it ought to pull up its oars and make up its mind in which direction it is going to row, and, having satisfied itself, then get the best advice and counsel as to the best direction to take and proceed to plan its economic development on lines which will give us better results and which will, at all events, remove the worst features of the serious economic condition which exists in the country to-day.
After the flood of oratory we had from the last speaker; there is very little left for me to say. I am glad to see that there is unanimity on one thing in this House, as from all sides of the House I heard that the cost of living is very high. Two months ago if any man dared to say that he would be howled down by the Fianna Fáil Party. It cannot be denied that the position of this country at present is very grave. We can all trace that position back to the economic war which was started in 1932, the year the President fired his fatal shot. At that time we were told by the Fianna Fáil Party that, if they were put into power, this land would flow with milk and honey. We all hoped that day would come, but what is the position to-day? Instead of this land flowing with milk and honey it is flooded with sheriffs' writs. To my mind the whole cause of the trouble in this country is this mad industrial craze behind a wall of tariffs; the illplanned industrial development which to-day has our country almost on the verge of despair. There is no man on either side of the House but will agree that the establishment of industries in this country is needed, but these industries must be ones which are rooted to the soil of the Irish nation. We do not want those tin-pot factories which you see all over the country and which are nothing but assembly stations to absorb the raw materials which John Bull can flood in here.
One Deputy from my county was brazen enough to say that the standard of living has gone up in that county. Never in my experience have I seen the people of that county so low in despair, so low in pocket, and so impoverished-looking. Never before did I see the sheriff going from door to door, dragging a few cows off men who were not able to pay their land annuities. These were honest and decent men before any Deputies here were ever heard of, and always paid 20/- in the pound and would pay it to-morrow if they got the chance. These people are being degraded and destroyed by the Party who claim to be the Irish Republican Party. As one of the old Republican soldiers who did fight when it was dangerous to fight, I am glad to say that I survived to be able to come to an Irish Parliament and state my views of the position of my country. I may say that I am disillusioned, after all the sacrifices that were made and all the sufferings my comrades went through, to see our country brought to beggary, the Republic hung up on the shelf, and the sheriff let loose on the old people who sheltered us in the days of danger. The only hope for this country is to give back to the Irish farmers and agricultural workers, who made this State, their right to live in the land of their birth, and to give them back their sons and daughters whom Fianna Fáil are forcing to go over to England to become cannon fodder for Imperialist guns in a few years. It is hard to keep one's temper when one sees the Minister for Finance here grinning and gloating over the miseries of the people. It is easy for a man with £1,700 a year and a free motor-car, who in 1916 did his best to get into the British Army——
This has nothing to do with the motion.
It has a lot to do with the motion.
The Deputy will allow me to say what has to do with the motion.
The Mayor of Drogheda asked me a few days ago to read the history of Meath and see what took place there. I am glad to say that I read the history of that county when I was a very young boy, and it brought me to be an Irish rebel in 1917.
The history of Meath has nothing to do with the motion.
I am going further—
The Deputy will allow me. The history of Meath, or the biography of the Deputy, may be interesting, but they have nothing to do with this motion. The Deputy must come to the motion. As a new Deputy I allowed him to go somewhat beyond the terms of the motion, but he will have to come to the motion now and cease dealing with the history of Meath and other things which have nothing to do with the motion.
The Deputy from Drogheda told us that Cromwell put the people out of Meath. Not only did Cromwell do that, but the policy of the present Government put the people and the cattle out of Meath, so that to-day we have nothing left there but a wilderness. Deputy Kelly also told me to look at the prosperity which we had in Meath and all the houses which are being built. I quite agree that there are some cottages being built in Meath, but I am not satisfied that they are being built as they should be built. They are being gerry-built and are a pure waste of money. I challenge any Deputy to say that these cottages will last twenty years, because they are illplanned and ill-devised, so that the smoke, instead of coming out of the chimneys, is coming out of the doors and windows.
The Deputy is travelling very far from the motion. How cottages are constructed in Meath, whether they are well-built or ill-built, does not arise on the motion. The Deputy must confine himself to the terms of the motion.
I submit that the value of the cottages in Meath may affect the standard of living of the people.
If we had the money which was squandered in building these cottages we could keep down the cost of living. In 1933 Deputy Norton, who is now the fairy-godmother of the Irish nation, said that for the next five years the Labour Party would be the "ginger" Party, and if the Government did not solve the unemployment problem the Labour Party would drive them out of office in 24 hours. That same man has helped to prop up the Fianna Fáil Party for the last five years, with the result that, as he said, there are 100,000 unemployed in this country and 40,000 have gone over to England. I wonder when the Labour Party will ginger up Fianna Fáil, as he said? I hope he will ginger himself up to-day. The problem of unemployment in this country is not a big one if the Irish nation tackled it in a proper way. We all know that the place to absorb our unemployed is not in cheap factories but on the land. I am satisfied that there is about one-fourth of the arable land of this country under sedge, weeds and water, and if our people were put to work on the land, or if the farmers were put in a position to pay better wages and to employ more men, there would be very little emigration to England or to any other country. Until we get back to that position we will never have peace in this country. We are told that there is Labour unrest, and I am not surprised to hear that there is Labour unrest, because a Labour Party can only be built on the poverty of the people. I hope that Deputy Norton has not that in his mind, but we all know that he is the head of the Labour Party and that if they ever want to be a strong Party here they can only hope to build that Party on the poverty of the people. The Labour Party, of all Parties in this country, should have very little to say at the present moment, because if Fianna Fáil was Enemy No. 1 to the Irish agriculturist, Deputy Norton was Enemy No. 2, and he knows that well. I ask Deputy Norton to-day to do his duty, to stand up and say: "I propped up Fianna Fáil when I should not do it, but to-day I will take off my coat and undo some of the dirty work." If he does that he will redeem his name.
I got 10,000 votes at the last election which was more than you got.
What did you get them for?
I did not want them. I had too many.
He got them for talking against the Government and now he will vote for them.
We shall meet you down there afterwards if you like another general election.
The sooner the better, as far as I am concerned.
The position to-day is that we must think seriously, at least those of us who have a national outlook. What this country needs is the restoration of the national aspirations that we held in the past, to bring back the spirit of endurance which brought our people through many great trials before. It can be done and it must be done. I say to the farming community and to the agricultural worker: "Join up to-day and demand to get your rights." To farmers in the Fianna Fáil Party I say: "Although you are sitting on the Fianna Fáil Benches, surely you are not afraid of the President so much that you cannot say to him, `I believe you are wrong in the policy you have pursued'." I say to the Fianna Fáil Party that they are a cowardly Party because they allow themselves to be bullied by one man. If they do not change their attitude, remember poverty will reach their own homesteads yet. Any man who knows the conditions which prevailed at the last general election will realise that the position is more serious than most people thought. We have been told of the magnificent wealth of Dublin. I am sorry to say that Dublin is wealthy and I wish that I could see some of that wealth distributed through the country. Who owns the wealth of Dublin? Is it the Irish volunteers or the Irish people? No, it is not, but the rotten old Jews.
A Deputy
Order!
What do you want order for? See what happened at the last election. We ought to hang our heads in shame at the fact that two of the finest Irishmen and one of the finest Irishwomen who ever lived—Miss Pearse, General Mulcahy and Paddy. Belton——
I cautioned the Deputy before and I gave him every opportunity to return to the motion. Surely he has not said very much about the terms of the motion——
There has been too much said about it.
I am not going to take any impertinence from any Deputy, no matter on what side of the House he sits. I am here to endeavour to keep order, to make Deputies keep to the terms of the motion and to be relevant in their statements. I am giving the Deputy every chance, and he ought now come to the terms of the motion.
It is very hard to come to the terms of the motion after listening to speeches which brought us from Australia to Canada. No man really knows what we are talking about here to-day. The position is that if you want the high cost of living reduced you must get back to the conditions we had prior to 1932. You must settle the economic war. If you settle that in an honourable way——
A Deputy
Why did you not settle it?
We will settle it when you people are out of there. It can be settled quite easily. You know as well as I do that the land annuity dispute was nothing more than a fake to bring Fianna Fáil into power. The land annuity dispute will be settled yet, whether you like it or not. I am one of those who do not want to see one penny more going to England than should go there, but I am afraid our grandfathers signed and sealed their names to the payment of these annuities and we, as their children, are prepared to stand by their signatures. If you stood by their signatures in 1932, I do not believe that you would be paying any annuities to-day. If you stand in honour you will never go down in dishonour. See what the industrial programme is costing this country. You have air bases and oil refineries, which are costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, being erected at starvation wages. If that money were turned into proper channels, instead of being wasted, we would have a reasonable standard of comfort for everybody in this country. We do not want your tin-bus factories. We do not want your air bases or your oil refineries. What we want is spades and shovels and an effort to put our farmers into a position in which they will be able to till the land and to develop the wealth of our soil.
Deputies opposite know that there cannot be intensive industrial development in this country. What would you say if John Bull announced that he was going to scrap all his industries and to make an agricultural country out of an industrial country? Would you not say that he was mad? We are told that the only hope we have of building up a grand nation is to throw away the market that New Zealand, Canada, Australia and every other country is clamouring to get into. We could get into it on better terms, too, but we prefer to sulk at home. We left our farmers hungry while the market was there. I say to Fianna Fáil, and well you know it— I would not be surprised if there were a good many of you drawing blood-money to-day——
Is that remark in order?
What is the remark?
The remark that he would not be surprised if there were a good many of us drawing blood-money to-day.
I heard the word "blood-money" but I did not hear the context.
It was addressed to members on this side of the House.
Even from the Minister I cannot accept a statement of what the Deputy said. I heard him use the word "blood-money" and I want to tell the Deputy that the word "blood-money," addressed to any Deputy, is a term that must be withdrawn.
I withdraw, then, and I say Saxon gold.
The Deputy cannot get away from the ruling of the chair in that way. He either obeys it or he does not. Does he withdraw the remark?
I withdraw.
He thinks that he is at the Meath County Council.
I am somewhat at a disadvantage inasmuch as I have been absent from the debates on this motion for some few weeks, but listening as I did last week I cannot help feeling that there was a note of insincerity amongst Deputies opposite who spoke on the motion, in their efforts to reconcile the present-day prices with those of five years ago. There is not a single housewife in the country who cannot give them information as to how the cost of living has risen. In every shop throughout the country, when the price of an article is named by the shopkeeper and a protest is made by the purchaser, the shopkeeper says that the tariff is so much on that article. In practically every shop that we go into we hear how much the price has risen in consequence of the tariff. There is a loud outcry amongst the community against the prices which prevail to-day—prices which are directly due to the impositions and tariffs which have been imposed. People with a limited wage have to make that wage cover the increased cost of food, clothing, and every other necessity. Take coal, for instance. We must buy it. Under the agreement made by the Government, we are bound to purchase it, no matter at what price, in order that we may sell our cattle, on which there is a burden of £5,000,000. That burden exists to-day and is paid by the agricultural community. They have to bear that burden whether they like it or not. It is the law of the land; it has been decided by the State. That is part of the problem which you have to face. I can understand the condition of mind that must exist among Deputies opposite when they have to face those people who are bearing that burden, and who are protesting loudly against the increased cost of living. That certainly is a thing which they will have to face if they go to the country within a short time.
The local authority of which I am a member, as well as every local authority throughout the country, has to face demands made for increased wages and salaries, due entirely to the increased cost of living. The members of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture will be able to tell you that there is a huge cost-of-living bonus presented monthly to officials, due to the ever-increasing index figure. That is the burden which the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country have to bear. We were informed by Deputy Norton that, according to the statistical statement issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the number of unemployed at the present moment is about 100,000, in spite of the enormous emigration that has taken place. From the parish in which I reside, within the past six months a number of families have emigrated, and about 100 children have gone over with them to England. Although they were employed here they have gone over to England to get a better wage and a lower cost of living. The population in the rural areas is decreasing, and unless something is done we can only expect a still further depletion in those areas. The impositions on the agricultural community must add very largely to the cost of living. Taxes are imposed on agricultural implements. Taxes are imposed on manures. Taxes are imposed on foodstuffs. The agricultural community has to bear all those taxes, in addition to the burden of £5,000,000 on the cattle that they export.
Rates have gone up enormously. It is only a few years ago since a mandamus was brought by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health against the members of the Cork County Council to compel them to strike a rate which he considered adequate, although they wished to strike only a rate equal to that which was struck in the previous year. The costs of that were imposed upon those councillors. The officials of the Cork County Council have to have their salaries increased every quarter, due entirely to the increased cost of living. That is not contradicted by any Party in this House. Unless some relief is given, as this motion suggests, then emigration will have to go on. The agricultural grant, which was raised by the Government from £750,000 to £1,000,000, gave some relief with regard to rates, but it was speedily reduced by £448,000, and it has been reduced still further. That is what the agricultural community have to bear, and it is from that point of view that I should like Deputies opposite to consider this matter. Many of them are farmers.
We are told that we can grow wheat and beet, and emphasis have been laid on the production of those crops as an alternative to the cattle trade, but nothing can make up for the lost cattle trade, and unless relief is given the agriculturists are going out of action. The agricultural community cannot possibly get a fair price for their produce, and their costs of production are so great that they cannot carry on. Must not the blame for that condition of affairs be placed at the door of the Minister for Agriculture, whose special duty it is to protect the interests of the agricultural community? He has neglected that duty. Every Deputy realises that any tax on raw material is going seriously to impede production in industry, but in that regard no protection has been given to agriculture. Taxes have been imposed upon everything which the farmer needs for the cultivation of his land. Those impositions are sufficient to drive the farmer out of production, and, therefore, they will have to be taken off it there is to be any attempt to reduce the cost of living. I move the adjournment of the debate.