Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Employment for Adults—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
So as to give effect without further delay to the undertakings in Article 45 of the Constitution that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the citizens may, through their occupations, find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs, Dáil Eireann requests the Government immediately to formulate proposals for absorbing into useful employment at adequate remuneration all adult citizens able and willing to follow useful occupations.

When this motion was under consideration on the last occasion, we were treated to a very interesting statement by the late Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Hugo Flinn, and I think the House listened to his opening statement with very great interest. Every member of the House must feel a deep regret that he was not spared to develop the points which he appeared from his opening remarks to intend to raise. This motion raises the biggest possible issues which could be raised in this House. It deals with the duty of the State to direct its policy to securing that citizens may, through their occupations, find a means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs, and suggests that Dáil Eireann should request the Government immediately to formulate proposals for absorbing into employment at adequate remuneration all adult citizens able and willing to follow useful occupations. If it were possible to give effect to the terms of this motion, it would mean that most, if not all, of the troubles under which this country has laboured since the establishment of the State, and in fact, long before the establishment of the State, would be eliminated.

Deputy Dillon, in the course of his remarks, said that he did not know how the problem of providing permanent employment for the adult population of this State could be solved. Deputy Dillon, of course, has always been, and I suppose will always remain, a loyal adherent to the doctrine of free trade, to the Manchester School of Economics which claims that problems of this kind should be left to chance, and that, according as international circumstances raise or lower the volume of trade, so must large sections of the population of this and of other countries be thrown out of employment.

I do not think for one moment that the people of this country are prepared to go back to the easy-going, haphazard conditions which prevailed prior to the present emergency. I think that public opinion is now thoroughly aroused to the need for so planning our entire economic system as to ensure that the resources of the country will be developed to their fullest extent and that the entire population will be permanently employed.

During the past 20 years, we have had a condition of affairs in which there was permanently a volume of unemployment amounting, in round figures, to 100,000 adult citizens. In addition, we had a very large volume of emigration to other countries. During the first ten or 15 years of the life of this State, emigration was largely to the United States, but during the past five or six years, that emigration has been largely to Great Britain. To whatever country our people are going, they are certainly leaving this country, and the people who are leaving are people who would be most valuable to the nation, inasmuch as, to a very large extent, they are young men and women of high character and qualifications, both physically and mentally. The question which this motion raises for serious consideration is, how we are to prevent in the future this emigration of our people; how we are to prevent the high volume of permanent unemployment; how we are to prevent the rapid decay and decline of our population through a falling marriage rate and a late marriage rate and the other evils from which this country has suffered during the past 20 years.

I believe there is no real solution of this problem except through the intensive and extensive development of agriculture. If we look at a graph of statistics for the past 20 years showing the agricultural price index over these years we see a line that resembles a deep valley. We see a level of prices prevailing at the time this State was established which rapidly sinks until it reaches a level far below what prevailed prior to the last world war; and a level of prices which has, during the past few years, began to rise steeply. We have to ask ourselves, are we going in future to allow a similar state of affairs to develop? Are we going to compel the agricultural industry to face a rapid and steady decline such as it has had to face in the past 20 years? Are we going to allow the standard of wages in agriculture and the standard of income in that industry to sink down to what it was, say, in 1934 or 1935, when it reached its lowest level?

To-day, the agricultural labourer commands a wage of 36/- per week. That wage may appear to be low, but compared with what prevailed in 1934 or 1935, it represents a substantial increase in the standard of income. Does anybody contemplate that we should force the agricultural labourer back to the wages which prevailed in 1934 or 1935? Does anyone seriously contemplate that we should force down the standard of the rural population generally, which at any time was lower than the fixed standard of agricultural wages? By that I mean that the incomes of the farmers' sons, daughters, and other adult dependents on the farm was at all times lower than the fixed agricultural wages. If we allow that state of affairs to continue, then we are not seriously endeavouring to put into effect the terms of this motion, because, as I have said, it is only through an extension of employment on the land that we can hope to solve the unemployment problem.

Agriculture is the biggest industry. It is the industry in which the largest section of our people are engaged. It is the only industry which can, by development, solve effectively the problem of unemployment. One simple way of looking at the problem is this. Suppose every farmer was in a position to employ one additional agricultural labourer, it would mean the employment of over 300,000 workers, and that would more than solve the entire problem. Farmers have always been prepared to undertake their full obligations to the rest of the community. They have loyally and willingly accepted the Orders compelling them to till a certain percentage of their land. They have loyally accepted the Orders compelling them to pay a fixed minimum wage. The farming community are prepared to provide employment to such an extent as would solve the entire unemployment problem, provided the community would give the farmers an effective guarantee that, over a prolonged period, agricultural prices and agricultural income would remain stable. There is no insurmountable obstacle to the community or the State or the Government giving that guarantee to the farming community.

If the State here and now on behalf of the community were to assure the 300,000 farmers of this country that, for the next ten years, agricultural prices would remain stable and that, no matter what economic conditions prevailed outside this country, the farmers would be sure of such an income as would enable them to produce their various agricultural products at a reasonable profit and pay a reasonable wage, the farmers in return would have no hesitation in undertaking to provide a fixed minimum amount of employment on their holdings.

That is really the only permanent solution of the unemployment problem. It is not beyond the power of the State to give that undertaking, provided that all parties in the State are prepared to co-operate. But, as long as we have people like Deputy Dillon clinging to obsolete ideas in regard to economics, clinging to the idea that we should have in this country free importations from all parts of the world, and that imports and exports should be governed entirely by chance, or by the operations of what is known as the natural economic laws, the problem cannot be solved. But if all sections of the community and if all Parties in this House are prepared to co-operate in putting into operation a planned economy, in which the agricultural producer will be guaranteed not only a market for his produce but an economic price, I am certain that the degree to which employment in rural Ireland can be extended is almost unlimited and is certainly sufficient to solve the unemployment problem.

I ask the Taoiseach, therefore, to face this problem along those lines.

The Taoiseach may say: "I cannot— no Government can—guarantee agricultural prices over a prolonged period; no Government can guarantee markets for agricultural produce over a prolonged period because there is, of course, a certain exportable surplus." I believe that the question of the exportable surplus of our agricultural produce will have to be faced up to and that, in so far as it is necessary for this country to export goods, the farmer who produces goods for export, in the interests of the community, is as much entitled to an economic price for his goods as the farmer who produces for the home market and, if it is necessary, to supplement the external price by a direct subsidy from the State, then that consideration should not debar the Government from taking action.

The problem can be faced only along those lines because there is no source of employment, no source of development in this country sufficiently extensive to provide employment for our entire population but the land. The problem will be solved if we can get to the stage when our people will regard the land as the most valuable asset, when our young people, even in the towns, will try to get out to the land, in contrast to the present position, when the young people in the country try to get into the cities. Until we reach the stage when skilled work on the land becomes the most remunerative occupation in the country, there will be no real solution of the unemployment problem and there will be no real economic development.

From our workers' point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the organised workers in the towns, it is highly undesirable that there should be in this country a huge reservoir of unemployed people and a huge volume of people employed at such a low standard of wage that they are seeking to complete in practically every other branch of labour in the industrial and commercial life of the country. Along the lines which I have suggested, a guaranteed income for the man who really works upon the land is even more important than the reforms suggested in the Beveridge Report which guarantee a minimum of income for all persons, whether they work or not. A guarantee of income to all citizens of this country, whether they work or not, will not be effective unless there is a volume of productive work being carried on and the only way to get productive work carried on intensively and extensively is to pay the productive worker better than any other type of worker in the country.

The issues involved in the motion now before the House have been under discussion on innumerable occasions since I came into this House nearly 20 years ago. They have been discussed from every angle during the lifetime of the present Government and of the previous Government, but it appears that, even under the limited freedom which we had under the régime of the Cosgrave Government, the position was nothing better than it is to-day. I have been looking through some of the debates in this House on previous occasions, particularly the debate that took place shortly after the present Government came into office, in 1932. I am sure the Taoiseach will forgive me if I repeat, for my own purposes, some of the very significant and acceptable statements that he made shortly after his Government came into office. We had the famous statement made in this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cosgrave Government, in a debate of this kind, that it was not the duty of the Government to provide work for the unemployed. That statement was discussed, not only in the House, but on platforms throughout the country. After the present Government came into office, in 1932, we had a discussion, based on a motion similar to the one now before the House, in which the Taoiseach made very clear what his position was in regard to the duty of the State towards the unemployed. He said—column 913, Official Debates, Volume 41—on 29th April, 1932:—

"It is the duty of the State to provide work."

That is quite the opposite kind of statement to that made by Deputy McGilligan when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cosgrave Government. The Taoiseach, going into a great deal of detail which I do not want to repeat in this discussion, subsequently made some very interesting statements and admissions which are worthy of repetition either here or outside the House. He said:—

"I never regarded freedom as an end in itself, but if I were asked what statement of Irish policy was most in accord with my view as to what human beings should struggle for, I would stand side by side with James Connolly. The thing that was most heartbreaking in this Dáil since I came into it was to find the two Parties, who should have stood side by side trying to secure the freedom in order that they might have power to order their own policy, divided. I am speaking of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party. These two Parties had, naturally, the same programme, and when I differed with the Labour Party after the Treaty it was because I thought that that Party was making a mistake and that they did not see what James Connolly saw, and what he told me he saw, that to secure national freedom was the first step in order to get the workers of Ireland the living that they were entitled to in their own country, because,

—The Taoiseach was apparently quoting words used by the late James Connolly—

‘As long as a foreign Imperial Power holds this country the workers are the people who will be principally exploited."'

He then went on:—

"We wanted our freedom in order to put an end to that. When I was speaking to the people I was not so foolish as to believe or to ask the people to believe that we could suddenly, when I came to occupy the seat that was occupied by Deputy Cosgrave, change overnight a situation brought about in the course of centuries of foreign misrule and ten years of the serious misrule of those who occupy the benches opposite. I did not think anything of the kind, and I told the people of Ireland, before the election, that if there was to be any real change in the situation it should be envisaged as a whole, and gone about in an ordered manner, that haphazard methods would not do, that it would not do to have a patch here and a patch there, but that if you wanted to build you should do so on a sound foundation and build as a whole. Since we came into office that is what we have been trying to do. We have been trying to get the facts. How many people are unemployed? No one knows. We have figures and we know they are wrong. I had a map made indicating the various parts of the country where there was unemployment, and when I asked questions about the figures on which the map was based I was told that they were taken from the employment exchanges or something like that, that could not be depended upon. I asked local people who know the facts, and I was told that the figures did not represent the situation. We have to find out exactly what the situation is as a first step."

That is fair enough, but at any rate the head of the Government committed himself in that statement to a definite line of policy. He indicated quite definitely 11 years ago that, as soon as the figures and facts had been verified, a definite line of policy would be adopted for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed. The figures of the unemployed at that period were about the same as the figures now registered at the local exchanges, strange to say, although the Taoiseach and everybody else acquainted with the facts know perfectly well that between 30,000 and 40,000 persons have joined the national defence forces and over 100,000 persons have left this State to get employment in the Six Counties or in Great Britain. Supposing the people who were out of work at the beginning of the emergency had no means of finding some type of employment, either outside the State or in the national defence forces, I think it will be agreed that the situation here would now be extremely serious.

It has been serious all the time.

I think the Taoiseach will find that I am not exaggerating.

I do not think that the figures would lead one to such conclusions as the Deputy is trying to draw from them.

Take the 130,000 people who had to go outside the State in order to get work, in addition to the thousands who joined the defence forces. I suggest that if they were added to the list of unemployed now in the country; the figure would be about 250,000.

That is where I dispute the Deputy's conclusions. His conclusions are quite unsound.

I say that, if those people had not found employment elsewhere, we would have a very serious situation to face. It is fortunate for us that during the past couple of years we had certain avenues such as the defence forces and employment outside the country to absorb our people who would be otherwise unemployed. The next discussion on the subject of finding work for the unemployed took place in 1940. I want to draw the Taoiseach's attention particularly to this discussion and to the decision taken by the House. A motion similar in its terms to the one now being discussed was tabled by the members of this Party on the 12th December, 1940. After it was fully discussed an amendment, moved by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is now Minister for Local Government, was carried by 54 votes to 32. The amendment was in the following terms:—

"Being of opinion that a commission should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the extent, cause, incidence, general character and other aspects of unemployment, and to make proposals in relation thereto. Dáil Eireann requests the Government to appoint such a commission."

On the 29th April, 1932, it is quite evident from the language used by the Taoiseach that an immediate attempt was going to be made by the Ministers concerned, with the assistance of the different departments over which they had control, to find out the facts in relation to the unemployment position. What was the result of the lengthy consideration which was given to the subject from 1932 until the facts were finally revealed? It is evident when the amendment I referred to was carried in the House in December, 1940, that no accurate version of the unemployment position—the cause, the incidence, the general character and other aspects of unemployment—was in the possession of the Government, because, if they had the information in 1940, it would have been ridiculous for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I want the Taoiseach to tell us what transpired subsequent to that amendment being carried. What was the result of the inquiry, if any, which was held into the matter? I agree that whatever blame may be attached to the Government for not carrying out their promise previous to the emergency, certainly the situation was seriously altered on the outbreak of the war. I am not going to blame the Government for everything that has happened, including their failure to deal with unemployment since the outbreak of the war, but the country is entitled to know what action was taken by the Government following the adoption of the amendment I have referred to.

We had another famous statement in the House by the Taoiseach to the effect that if he could not solve the unemployment problem within the existing system, he was prepared to go outside that system in order to find a solution. Does he believe he has given a fair trial to the present system in order to solve the unemployment problem? How much longer will he wait before he goes outside the existing system in order to solve the problem?

During the long and very interesting discussion that took place here on the Central Bank Bill, it was repeatedly stated by the Minister for Finance that there was plenty of money available for every creditworthy scheme and every creditworthy person. I do not accept that statement, and I need not go outside my own constituency for evidence to prove that. If there is plenty of money available, why is it—and this is only a small thing—that we have such a large number of bog roads in my constituency and in the turf-cutting counties generally, in such a rotten state of repair—so bad that the people are unable this year to get out the turf that was cut last year?

The statement that was made by the Minister for Finance on that matter during the discussions on the Central Bank Bill was subsequently contradicted by his Parliamentary Secretary, the late Deputy Hugo Flinn. I raised the question in the House as to why, in the existing emergency conditions, in view of the fact that there was a shortage of fuel and that it was necessary to get everything possible done to provide all the fuel required in the country, more money could not be made available for the repair of bog roads, as it was impossible to get turf from the bogs. It is still lying on the bogs in large quantities at the present time in my own area. The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary on every occasion was that there was only a limited amount of money available to be put into the pool for purposes of this kind.

We have conflicting statements—one by the Minister for Finance that there is sufficient money available for every credit-worthy scheme and the other by the Parliamentary Secretary that there is only a limited amount of money to be put into the pool. Which answer is correct? I suspect that the statement made by the late Parliamentary Secretary is the correct one. If there were a limited amount of money available for purposes of this kind, surely there is no more urgent work to be done than the repairing of bog roads, in order to get out the fuel that is lying on the bogs, and which has been lying there in the turf-cutting counties during the past year or two? I suggest that the shortage of money is the principal cause of the failure of this Government and the previous Government to find a solution for our unemployment problem.

The Taoiseach spoke here on motions of this kind on previous occasions, and gave the House his view of the reasons why more money could not be spent on forestry schemes, land reclamation and national drainage. It is all a question, as far as I can see, of too much red tape being bound around the files in the different Departments. That is the cause of the hold-up of such schemes as land reclamation, afforestation and peat development. That is the cause of the failure to put more people to work on those schemes. I mentioned in the House on previous occasions the type of schemes that might be embarked upon for the purpose of providing employment in the rural areas as well as in towns and villages.

Several statements have been made by Ministers during the past few months in connection with the postwar planning policy of the present Government. A statement was made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Supplies some time ago, in which he challenged the accuracy of a statement made on some platform in the country by Deputy Norton, to the effect that certain suggestions had been put to the Cabinet in the early period of the present emergency in connection with plans for the solution of our unemployment problem. I assert quite definitely in this House—and this is the place to make the assertion—and I think I shall be able to produce confidential minutes of the conversation that took place, that on a certain date in September, 1939, a deputation representing the Labour Party and the trade union movement waited upon the Taoiseach in connection with the question of schemes that might be taken in hand during the emergency period. The Taoiseach will remember that he made arrangements for that deputation to be introduced by the Minister for Supplies and Industry and Commerce. I can quote here from a document the items that were discussed on that particular occasion.

I repeat that quite definitely, and I assert that suggestions were made at the time for the purchase of ships in order to get raw materials from other countries to maintain in employment a large number of those who had been put into industrial employment through the operation of the Government's policy between 1932 and the outbreak of the present war. The Minister denied that any such proposals ever were submitted, but there is available a confidential minute of the matters discussed on that particular occasion, as well as a fairly detailed survey of the proposals put to the Minister. I do not mention this matter for the purpose of playing politics across the floor of the House, but in order to assert here—where I am entitled to make the statement—that we did make suggestions at different periods, in regard to proposals that might be carried out and which, carried out, would have maintained in employment a number of people who have been thrown out of employment since the emergency began. Those proposals provided for additional employment on land reclamation, peat development, afforestation, road repairs, and so on.

We have all been talking about those things for the past 15 years. Do you suggest that, if it were as easy as you seem to think, it would not have been done?

I know perfectly well that it is not easy to get these things done, and I fully accept the statement made by the Taoiseach on the 29th November, 1932. However, we are entitled to know now, after a period of 11 years, what real effort was made. What investigations were undertaken, what figures and facts were discovered, which prevented the Government from carrying out the promises which the Taoiseach made here definitely in 1932? I am referring to the proposals that were made by representatives of this Party, first to the Taoiseach and subsequently to the Minister for Supplies and Industry and Commerce, because we have been accused of having failed to make any such proposals.

Would the Deputy be good enough to give the exact date, so that I can find the reference?

I think he will find that he had a preliminary discussion with the deputation in the first few days of September, 1939. He made an appointment, I understand, for the deputation to be interviewed by the Minister, and details should be available in the Department concerned as to the items that were discussed and the proposals put forward. I am making this statement in this House, because it is a fact that, although we have been accused on many occasions of criticising without putting forward any constructive proposals, on that particular occasion— and critical occasion it was—we did put forward suggestions. If the Taoiseach speaks in this debate, I would like to hear from him the reasons why every one of those proposals was turned down, and also why the Government failed to put into operation any other or better schemes that would absorb the unemployed.

I listened on many occasions to discussions where schemes were put forward for the provision of work for the unemployed in my own part of the country. I wonder if any proposal ever reached the Taoiseach or the Minister responsible, showing how many people could be provided with employment if the main trunk roads of this country were widened and improved. I am not sure to what extent material can be found now to carry out extensive schemes of road reconstruction. I understand it is not possible to get some of the material that was available in large quantities before the emergency. However, you do not need any tar or imported materials in order to widen the main and trunk roads of many counties and to standardise them. There are different types of repair and maintenance in different counties: anyone driving around the country would notice that. I am assured by county surveyors and other people who know more about this than I do that, if the roads were widened and repair were undertaken on some national standard basis, there would be a considerable amount of employment over a long period for a large number of people. I have been assured recently, when asking questions as to why certain works were not carried out in my own area, that certain materials, which it was necessary to import, cannot be got now, and that some of the jobs must be deferred to a later date.

I am relating the position stated by the Taoiseach in this House on the 29th November, 1932, to the position of the Government when it passed this motion in the House on the 12th December, 1940. I would be very glad to hear from the Taoiseach the reasons why no real attempt has been made to find a solution for this pressing problem, which is bound to grow considerably worse as the war goes on. Everybody seems to think that the position is not going to improve immediately this war ends, whenever it will end, but if we cannot find a solution for the minor problems which confront us to-day, I do not know what is going to be the position when the war ends, and when this emergency no longer exists.

Could the Deputy not suggest something?

Before the Deputy came into the House, I mentioned proposals put by this Party, even before September, 1939, which had been turned down.

They have not been turned down. I have listened to the various proposals put forward, and they have not been turned down.

Well, the Deputy can take part in this debate afterwards, and he can put forward any suggestions that he wishes to put forward. I am sure that he has had many opportunities of putting forward suggestions in other quarters. The members of this Party, however, are not putting this motion forward for the purposes of Party, political play-acting. We are putting it forward only for the purpose of finding out from the head of the Government, at this period, which we regard as a very serious and very critical period, what proposals the Government have in mind to meet the position as we see it to-day. Of course, if I wanted to repeat many of the things that were said by other speakers from these benches, such as Deputy Murphy and Deputy Keyes, I could go on for a long time, but there is no use in repeating what they have already said, and all I wish to say is that we would be deeply interested in hearing from the head of the Government what investigations have taken place with regard to this matter, and what steps the Government are taking to deal with the situation as we now know it, or whether the problem of unemployment can be solved within the existing system or not. If it cannot be solved within the existing system, what steps does the head of the Government propose to take to deal with that problem?

This question of unemployment and the promise of the Government to solve it at various stages is a very old red-herring, but it is a problem which requires immediate attention. It is one on which I always agreed with the present head of the Government, when he said that it was capable of solution. Now, it is often said: "Oh, we could solve that problem and others if we only had the money," but when I see nations, all over the world, who are able to procure or create money for the production of weapons of destruction and death, and who seem to be able to get unlimited amounts of money to produce those weapons, it seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that it should not be possible to get money to produce assets that would be of real benefit to our country. In my opinion, there is no reason why the things that are ready to our hands should not be undertaken. It seems to me that there should be no reason why a Government should not be able to provide money for such undertakings at any time, and, particularly, at the present time, when so much is needed by our people. Take, for instance, forestry. There is no doubt that if that matter were properly undertaken, and if sufficient money were made available, it would give immediate employment to, and keep in continuous employment, a fairly considerable number of men— apart from the fact that these forests, when grown, would be a very valuable source of material for wood pulp and other things which we require very badly at the moment. I hold that wealth, thus created, would be an asset to our country. It would be far better to spend money on such things than to spend it on things that are blown to smoke in a moment or go down to the bottom of the sea. I think that the Government should undertake such developments at the earliest possible moment. For instance, we have such problems as drainage, sewerage, bog development, and so on. Money spent on each and every one of these projects would create an asset. It would be money well spent. I am not a financial expert—I only know that, if I issue a cheque, and there is no money in the bank to meet it, the bank manager will tell me all about it —but I am reliably informed that, so long as solid assets are being produced, it is always possible to get money for such purposes, and that it is good business to do so. Therefore, I hold that the establishment of plantations on our waste lands would do much to relieve the unemployment problem. Not alone would it create employment, but it would also create valuable assets for our country which, if not immediately available, would be available at some future date.

In that connection, I think it would be no harm to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in the United States millions of people were put into employment as a result of national schemes of development, and the justification for the creation of the money for such purposes was the fact that assets were being created in that country as a result of these schemes. The same thing applies here with regard to drainage. I think it is a fact which cannot be denied that much of our land is waste because of the lack of drainage. For a great number of years, many rivers have been left in their natural state—being allowed to fill in and silt up—and no matter what the local farmers may do, so long as the main artery is not able to take away the waste, all the work that is done in connection with drainage is of no use to the farmers concerned. Therefore the work done throughout the country under the farm improvement grants is to a great extent nullified.

In regard to housing, the Government has no doubt done well and I have always paid tribute to the work done by the Government in respect of the reconstruction of houses. That work has vastly improved a great number of houses, but I contend that these houses are not nearly good enough. If war came and they were all levelled, we would be able to build them again. There would be money available, astonishingly enough, but it is only when some catastrophe comes that we can rebuild. When other nations have advanced so far in respect of housing and sanitation, I hold that we should be as far advanced as the best of them, and that when the Land Commission or local authorities are building houses, they should not build them on the lines of houses built 100 years ago, without sanitary accommodation, water supplies or opportunities for the people to have baths. The houses which have been rebuilt in the country are as obsolete as an old battleship with sails. Much employment could be given in this direction. We have any amount of native timber which could be utilised in the building of these houses, and there is no reason why a much greater drive should not be made to give the people proper housing conditions. It would be at least a partial inducement to people to remain in the country and on the land.

The country at the moment is in a very depressed state. When farmers and their sons have to work, and to do this, that and the other things, and then come home after their day's work to houses in which there are no candles, no paraffin and no lights, it is no wonder that the wish and will of the young people is to run to the cities where city amenities are available. Money spent in this direction would be well spent, and I hold that the Government would not be unorthodox in their financial tactics if they borrowed, and borrowed extensively, for housing, to improve housing conditions and the type of houses built. I saw the Land Commission building houses and when I suggested to them that they should build houses a little better than the houses which the people were leaving, the reply was made by an architect that that was the type of house the people had been accustomed to. I think that was a bad philosophy and a bad outlook. There is no reason why, if a person was reared in a house with a room and kitchen, that should be the type of house he should always have and that he should get no better. I do not want to elaborate that point, but I could give a description of the position in that respect. The supplying of water and the improvement of wells would all take money, but, as I say, its expenditure would be creating assets and would do much to keep our young people in the country and prevent them from going to England and to the cities here.

Bog development is now very essential, and it is an astonishing fact that, to my knowledge, in respect of 30 to 50 relief schemes sent in from County Longford because there were not people in receipt of unemployment assistance in the district, the engineer was not allowed to employ people like farmers' sons who were unemployed.

If they are producing food on the farms, is it not better for them to be employed at that work?

In places like Longford and the west of Ireland, the amount of food which you can produce from November to March is what?

He need not be idle on the farm from November to March.

I know he need not. I have two workmen whom I pay and keep during the whole winter, so that I will have them in the spring. The Taoiseach knows thoroughly well that for two or three of a farmer's sons, there is not enough work, but you expect the farmer's son to work on the farm for nothing to produce the food required. If that farmer's son, even if he is the son of a farmer of £30 valuation, could work for a month or three weeks on a minor relief scheme and earn a few pounds for his pocket, it is an inducement to him to stay at home, but when he sees everybody else able to get money by going away to England, while he is left without a halfpenny, his inclination is to go and nothing you can do will stop him, unless you provide him with something at home from which he can get ready money.

Everybody knows that farmers in a number of cases are very hard and close-fisted with their families. It is not easy for them to provide money to enable their sons to go to dances, and if they do not give it to them, they will pack their bags and go. I hold that if they were allowed to get employment on these schemes, you would get the work done and you would be creating an asset, so that the money would be well spent. That is why it is so difficult to get the exact number of unemployed in any district. I agree with Labour that the register does not give a true picture of the number of unemployed in a district, because there are these farmers' sons who are not on the register and who, for the months of November and December, are idle. They may not be completely idle, but they are available for work that would help in keeping them in the country.

Then, there is the very important point with regard to local electrification. The Taoiseach knows Switzerland very well and he knows the huge number of local electricity schemes in that country. Switzerland of course lends itself to that type of development inasmuch as there is perpetual snow in the mountains which feeds mountain streams all the time. We have peat and any amount of water supplies in this country in connection with which small electricity schemes which would give power and light in the rural districts and brighten the home life of the people, could be put up.

Bog roads are also very important. It is almost impossible to get valuable bogs developed because of the lack of roads. I have sent in scores of proposals for the making of roads through bogs and quite a common reply is that the quota of minor relief for that particular district has already been given and that there are not enough unemployed on the register to warrant the carrying out of the work, no matter how important or valuable it is.

It is the stock reply.

Yes, and it shows that there is not that wisdom or vision in respect of such work that should exist. I assert that unemployment would be much lessened by the development of such schemes. In connection with the land improvement schemes, I think the Government should consider giving to farmers who take on an unemployed man the amount of unemployment assistance which that man is being paid by way of a grant-in-aid for paying the standard rate of wages. The number of people engaged each year on a farm can be ascertained, and if a farmer takes on a man from the labour exchange, the unemployment assistance which was being paid to that man when he was unemployed should be paid to the farmer as a kind of grant-in-aid towards paying the wages which are fixed. That would do much to relieve unemployment.

There are a number of people who are able and willing to work at certain jobs, but who are not much good for anything else. I think it is a very great hardship to expect people like that to do work for which they are unfitted. For instance, asking an unemployed tailor to cut turf is a bit of a joke. It is not reasonable either to ask an unemployed carpenter to break stones, though he might be able to do it. If an unemployed person refuses to work at a job for which he is unsuited, he is immediately cut off from unemployment assistance and his family are left starving. I have known several cases of that kind. A reasonable discretion should be allowed to the managers of labour exchanges in regard to that. Then again, if a man is ordered to take up employment six or seven miles away from his home and he has no bicycle or other means of conveyance, it is a very great hardship that he should be struck off the unemployment assistance, perhaps for five or six weeks, until he shows that he could not get to the work. He may then get back the unemployment assistance but, in the meantime, the man has nothing to live on.

With any sort of determination and organisation, I believe it is possible to solve the unemployment problem. The excuse put up by this Government, and every other Government that I know of, until some emergency arises, is that it is due to lack of money. There is no reason why the money should not be made available so long as those who are unemployed are creating assets that will be valuable to the nation. Therefore, I am in sympathy with this motion. I suggest that the Government should prepare elaborate plans for the solving of the unemployment problem and put them into effect. A few months ago the Taoiseach said that we have been talking about unemployment for the last ten or 15 years. But talking about it is very little good. One ounce of effort, one ounce of solid work towards the solution of the problem, is better than all the talk. Therefore, I support this motion.

Mr. Brodrick

I have great sympathy with this motion put down by the Labour Party. For the past 20 years in this House we have been listening to promises in connection with the solving of the unemployment problem, particularly by the present Government. We are as near to solving it to-day as we were 20 years ago. We have only really touched the fringe of the problem. The late Mr. Hugo Flinn was anxious to do what was possible in the matter, but he also only touched the fringe of the problem. In connection with forestry, some years ago we were told that the Forestry Department would not take over anything less than 300 acres of land for planting in one particular place. However, on an Estimate for Forestry at a later date we were told that they were prepared to take over plots of 50 acres. I should like to know if that has been put into operation, because, if that were put into operation, it would certainly relieve unemployment to a great extent. There are very few 300-acre plots available for planting.

Since this State was established we have been talking about developing our own industries. I do not see that we have done a great deal to develop them. We certainly tried to develop industries when raw material had to be imported from another country and then tried to export the manufactured articles back to that country. But, even when building was going on, we were not able to develop our slate quarries, of which we have seven or eight in the country. Building was held up month after month for want of Irish slates. It may be late in the day to talk about this now, but something should be done about it.

Surely there is no hold-up in housing through want of roofing material, such as slates?

Mr. Brodrick

Probably not at present, but I am talking about the past when we could have developed a very good industry. Take another industry—the woollen industry. In County Galway we have produced about one-sixth of the sheep in the whole country and at the same time we do not seem to be getting anywhere. Whether it is that the wool is rough and cannot be used in this country, or not, I do not know. Last year, we tried to get a fixed price for it but did not succeed.

There is another point I would like to mention, with regard to roads. I am not so much interested in trunk roads because there is very little motor traffic at the present time, but there are district roads which are not receiving proper attention, that is, roads leading into small villages. If they were improved it would give a good deal of employment. Galway and Mayo are expected to grow 13,000 acres of beet in 1943. I know several places where there are hundreds of acres of land but, on account of the condition of the roads, the farmers cannot bring a donkey cart into them. They are expected to sow beet and potatoes and to do the extra tillage. Tillage inspectors tell them they must do a certain amount. I have tried to travel some of these by-roads into villages and I found it impossible. As Deputy MacEoin has stated, the trouble is—it has existed for years—that if there is not a certain number of registered unemployed in the particular district, no work can be done. If they are cute enough in a district to have 12 or 14 registered as unemployed, the work can be done in that district. I think that Order should be abolished.

In connection with turbary, I suggested some years ago that the Land Commission should maintain the roads and, when the roads are improved, if it is a bog that is being opened up, they could set the bogs to the people in the district who have no turbary. People will not buy turbary where there is no way into the bog. If the Land Commission were to open up the bogs and set it in perches or roods, or whatever way they liked, to the people in the district, I firmly believe that the cost of making the road would be repaid by the receipts for the turbary. It would also give a good deal of employment in the lean part of the year, the winter time, when the farmers' sons have not very much to do.

Again, even where the local authorities are working bogs, I do not see that it will be of much use, if roads are not made that will take a horse and cart. As regards land reclamation, I find, although we are lowly valued in the west of Ireland, that the valuation is fixed too high. Anyone having a valuation of £25 or over will not get the benefit. Very often farmers with that valuation may be very poor. They may have rough land, which, if it was reclaimed, could benefit the community. I think the whole matter should be considered.

As regards drainage, I would say we are starting at the wrong end. In order to make drains effective, in my opinion, you should start at the outlet. I know several rivers. I know the Corrib in Galway. The Corrib drains right into the borders of Mayo. What is really wrong there is that the Corrib is too high for the rest of the land. There are some rights—some navigation rights—on the Corrib but I do not think they are worth much. If it is a question of compensation, it is pretended that they are important but I do not think they are. There is no use draining a bog out to a river unless you have the outlet fixed first. It is throwing money away to do five or ten miles in the centre of the river, leaving the outlet too high. That only results in flooding out people's land. We are doing the same thing with the bogs. We are draining them into rivers and flooding people's land. I would like to know what is the report of the Drainage Commission and what has been done about it.

The Deputy was told it was published long ago, that the Government have accepted it in principle and that legislation was being prepared.

Mr. Brodrick

I see. How long is it in preparation?

It is a good while— months.

Mr. Brodrick

I think it is nearly time some portion of it should come into operation.

Oh, yes. It is only just a wave of the hand and all things can be done.

There was a day when the Taoiseach believed they could be done by a wave of the hand.

No, never.

Mr. Brodrick

I think when the Taoiseach was on these benches he often said they could be done with a wave of the hand.

I did not.

Mr. Brodrick

I think the Taoiseach said it in connection with the big plan in 1932, in any case.

That was quoted —or the equivalent of it was quoted —this evening and if the Deputy will read the whole speech he will see what it was.

I would not be allowed to read the whole speech to the House.

I am not objecting to the Deputy's not having done so.

Mr. Brodrick

I think the Government should take the matter seriously.

It is a good job the Government did not get the people back from America.

Mr. Brodrick

I do not know what they will do when they come back from England. I think the Government should take the question of the unemployed more seriously than they are doing because we have to look to the future, no matter who the Government may be. We should have a plan for the future and the sooner we think of that plan the better because, if we do not start a plan now, the Government and the people of the country will be in a very bad position.

I do not know in this debate how I can disentangle the thousand and one things that have been woven and interwoven in and out in it. The first thing in trying to get some line of approach is to distinguish carefully between the present circumstances and what I may call normal conditions. I do not know to which of these conditions the Labour Party and some of the others who have been speaking have been addressing themselves because, at one moment they were speaking as though they were thinking of what you may call normal conditions, and at others they were talking as if they were discussing the present exceptional circumstances.

There is no doubt that we are going to have a very serious situation when this war emergency is over, and it is our business, in so far as it is possible to see, in advance into that situation and to make plans in advance to deal with it. That is being done to the extent to which it is possible to do it whilst the other work is being attended to, but we have the serious situation at present to attend to. It might have been a great deal worse. I have some minutes here of deputations, and it is very difficult for me to identify the exact deputation which Deputy Davin refers to, but I remember that at that time, at the very outbreak of the war, there was some suggestion of seeing a deputation. I have a note of seeing a deputation and of some questions being asked. It seems to me it was a question of asking questions about the situation rather than anything else. At that time, looking forward and realising the dangers that this country was likely to be threatened with, I was prepared to find even a much worse situation than the situation we have had to face so far. But we are not out of the wood yet, and we may have to experience some of the dangers that I anticipated at that particular time.

I cannot attempt to deal with all the points that have been raised and, in the circumstances, I shall have to confine myself to one or two. I am going to assume that the main purport of the motion was not to deal with the immediate circumstances, although its terms would seem to suggest that. The suggestion would seem to be that we should have produced, as it were, out of a hat, some plan by which everybody would be put into full employment, doing useful work at fair remuneration. If it were possible for us to do that, we would be such supermen that our services would be in demand, not merely in this country, but all over the world. If we were such people as that we could, in a modern, complicated community, produce a plan by which all the unemployed would be put into useful work and given ample wages, then I certainly think we would be the types of magicians that would be very much in request. We are not such men, and we never pretended to be. It was suggested by Deputy Norton that at one time I indicated that by a wave of the hand, as it were, we could do these things. There is no record to show that I ever indicated that.

What about the famous plan to bring back all the emigrants?

Is there anything such as the Deputy suggested in my speech, portion of which was quoted by Deputy Davin? It is clear from that speech that what I said was that we, because of our undeveloped resources, had opportunities for dealing with unemployment such as were not afforded to developed countries like Britain and America, where they had big unemployment problems to face. That is a very different proposition. I went further at that time and had calculations made of the numbers that could be employed in producing boots, apparel and other things which we were paying other people to produce for us. I went into calculations based on the rate of production which was at that time obtaining in Great Britain in several industries, and I made a comparison with the rate of production which I thought was possible here. Of course, their industries were much better established, they had larger units, and they were able to get a higher rate of production per person employed than we could hope for in our newly-established industries and with less skilled operatives. We got a calculation that about 80,000 could be employed here.

The figure was 80,301—there was an odd fellow.

He is the only one who got employment.

As a timekeeper.

I am somewhat doubtful about the Deputy's figures. I do not think I went that far.

You had the odd fellow all right.

I doubt very much if I had. If the Deputy's figure is correct, there must have been some other reason why I gave it. At that time I went through the list of imports and I showed that it was possible to give employment, by producing things that were not previously produced in this country, to about 80,000 people. The remarkable thing is that there were few estimates that have been so well justified in the actual event, because, if you look at the figures, you will find that that is roughly the number put into employment in producing articles here. I was amazed at how near the estimate was to what has actually happened.

There was a grave miscalculation with regard to agriculture. You indicated that you could increase the numbers engaged in the agricultural industry.

I should like to see that. I would be glad to have my memory refreshed on these things, so long as I can be shown what I said on any particular occasion. I have had a long experience and I have rarely found, when there has been anything quoted against me, that I have had to withdraw very much of it, even though years have passed. I have no objection to anyone producing the text of what I have said, and saying: "You said that on that particular occasion."

When you were talking of the plan where the odd fellow was, you said that.

I did believe, and I still believe, that the best solution for unemployment here, the most permanent type of solution that can be got, is to put our people producing goods for themselves with Irish resources, making use of them to the utmost, instead of getting them from other countries. I know there is another type of argument against that, the argument which Deputies on the opposite benches used when they were on these benches and when I went round the country speaking to the people about doing these things for themselves. I have not changed a bit, and I am very glad to find that there are more people in the House to-day of that opinion than there were some ten or 11 years ago. It is refreshing to find that we have a great deal of unanimity to-day with regard to some of these things. Although we have taken into employment quite a large number of people, we have not solved the unemployment problem. We have not pretended to do it.

It is as bad now as it was then.

What would the position be if we did not make certain changes? A lot of people have been rendered idle through lack of raw materials. So long as these materials were there, they were working. It is quite obvious to me that if we did not have the development of industries which has taken place and the opportunities for useful work which were given in that particular way, our unemployment problem would be very much more serious than it is. It is better for us to keep to the normal situation. I do not want to be drawn into the present situation. There is a normal unemployment problem which existed here just before the war.

We will never go back to normality.

What does the Deputy want me to argue about? Is it the position before the emergency or the position now? If it is the position now, I simply cannot do it in the time allowed, and would not consider doing it. With regard to the future, no one can tell what the position will be. As the Minister for Supplies said quite recently, there is no doubt that our conditions here will be modified and may be determined largely by the conditions in the world around us. We are not an isolated people: we are in a world in which the conditions in other countries will affect us. Therefore, we must try to look ahead and see what is likely to happen and what the general conditions in the world are likely to be after the war. I do not pretend to be able to tell. Some of the difficulties which existed before in regard to unemployment are likely to remain. No one in any country will find a complete solution, and the utmost one can do is to get as near as possible to a good solution. Where it is not possible to do that, the community must provide resources to maintain the unemployed, always remembering that unemployment is in itself an evil. Everyone who has to be maintained by the efforts of the rest of the community represents a disadvantage. Everyone who can be transferred from that position to the position of doing some good work for the community represents an advantage. The aim should be, therefore, to get as many people as possible out of the position in which they have to be maintained by the rest of the community. When we try to get down to bedrock in this matter, we recognise that there are difficulties of various kinds standing in the way. It is not a question of want of will. One of the objections I have to the terms of this motion is that there is in it the suggestion that in the Constitution there is something which you can implement immediately, and that it is only a question of having the will to do it.

In this matter, the Constitution is quite clear and definite—so clear and definite, indeed, that some people said it was "eye-wash". This point was put in as a "directive", as an indication of the sort of policy that should be pursued, and not as something that was the law. If it were possible to do this, it would have been made the law, but because it was not possible, this could be put in only in the form of a general directive, indicating the aim which should be pursued. It was left as something which the courts could not take cognisance of. I am delighted that the Labour Party has at last realised that there is some value in having in the fundamental law of the State a directive of that sort.

Why does the Taoiseach say that?

It is of great value, because it holds up constantly the principle to be aimed at. I claim that the Government has had that principle constantly in mind and that it has been aiming to reach it.

But missed the target up to the present.

If we have not succeeded, it has not been for want of effort, nor for want of a serious attempt. If you take any one of the directions mentioned in this motion, as directions in which people could usefully be employed, I can show the limitations. These matters have been discussed already in connection with the Estimates for the various Departments. This problem is so wide that it takes in practically every Department of State. We put these directive principles into the Constitution because we felt that this was a fundamental problem which should be constantly before the minds of the Legislature.

And we approved of that.

My recollection is that, in most of the debates, the suggestion was made that these principles were of no value, as they were not the law.

Did not the Labour Party oppose the Constitution?

Deputy O Briain has repeated the lie that we opposed the Constitution. I repeat that that is a lie, and the Deputy should withdraw it.

It was generally opposed all right.

The Deputy should withdraw the lying statement he has made.

I do not know the facts, and I can only say——

It is a lying statement.

I have been accused of it outside by the Minister, although I publicly advised the people to vote for the Constitution.

At any rate, this principle of social policy was set down as a headline. I have noticed that, in another country, they are very anxious to have some principles like this accepted. This country has accepted these principles: there is no question about that. The Constitution says: "The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing ..." In other words, this objective should be kept in mind as being of primary importance. "...that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs." That is the basis of social policy and the aim which we have constantly kept in mind.

This problem has proved to be one of the most difficult problems which we have had to tackle. We had—and still have—many opportunities for useful employment for our people that the highly industrialised States have not. I do not think it is likely that we would reach such a highly industrialised position that we would not have those opportunities, as there are certain factors operating against that here. Otherwise, we would be faced with all the difficulties that other organised States are facing in regard to this unemployment question. We still have opportunities for further industrial development, and it is very important to employ people in the production of food and clothing, some of which we have been accustomed to get in from outside. If we have a surplus of these things, we can exchange them for other things what we need: otherwise, there would be no point in producing a surplus. Until the ordinary needs of our citizens are met, the obvious thing is to put people at employment to produce these particular requirements. This Government worked on that basis, starting with agriculture. That was at a time of agricultural depression all over the world—a thing which is often forgotten. A thing that is often forgotten is that just about the period that we came into office, and for a year or two afterwards—quite irrespective of certain controversial things that happened at that time, such as the various tariffs which were put on as a result of those happenings—there was agricultural depression all over the world, and that our country, being an agricultural country, was hit by that depression to a greater extent than other countries were hit by it. But we said, in effect: "Very well, then; if we have difficulty in getting foreign markets for our surplus products, why not create a home market for our own produce? Why bring in from other countries what we can produce for ourselves? So long as we have mills to grind the wheat, why not use them, and why not produce the wheat ourselves?" We decided that we would provide a home market for the produce of our own farms; and to the extent that that has been done—whether by giving a fixed price to the farmer for certain of the produce of his farm, or protecting him against foreign goods coming in here in competition with his produce, or giving him an opportunity of getting into tillage by preventing the importation of foreign bacon and so on, and a number of things of that sort—the income of the farmer in this country has been increased by several millions of pounds that would otherwise have gone out of the country. That policy gave the farmers an opportunity of doing useful work in providing for the immediate needs of the community, and also it was a protection for the farmer himself.

Now, the needs of the community that are most appreciated are the fundamental things, such as food, clothing, and housing, and things of that sort. Of course you may find people who will prefer to lie in bed in the morning and listen to the radio, if they have money enough to have a radio set, but if it were a question of getting food, or boots, or clothes, then I think these people would be up and doing because these are the fundamental things. Accordingly, the first and fundamental thing in our programme was to try to create a greater market for our farmers and agricultural workers here at home—to give them an opportunity of giving service and doing useful work for the community as a whole, and getting an adequate reward for themselves. We did that, and, as I have already said, it resulted in giving several millions of pounds to the people employed in agriculture in this country.

The next thing we set out to develop was one that had been completely undeveloped before and that was the field of industrial employment. Again, we started off with the fundamentals, such as clothing, boots and shoes, and so on, and as a result of that development of industrial activity in this country, some tens of thousands of workers were engaged in that particular way, but we have not come to the end of that yet. We could, and should, develop such fundamental industries so as to give the workers an opportunity of providing for themselves and also producing a surplus by which they could give a return which would enable the rest of the community to get other things from outside, and the more prosperous our agricultural industry is the more we can do that, and by doing that we can usefully employ a greater number of people in agriculture than at present. Two things are operating there—both in slightly different directions—because if you want efficiency, you will need a greater amount of technically qualified people, and that might tend toward less employment, but still I think it is not unfair to say that with a more scientific development of our agricultural production we can employ more people on the land than at present. It is quite possible also that if we could employ more people in that direction our problem of unemployment would be solved.

Now, another fundamental thing is the matter of shelter. Obviously, if you are trying to get employment for people, one of the fundamental things to be considered is the matter of housing. Are our people housed as they should be housed? We have undertaken a very large programme of housing, and you have only to go around the city here, or around the country, to see evidence of the results of that programme. That programme has only been made possible by the community giving considerable subsidies. Take the labour costs and the costs of materials of these houses, and the rents that had to be charged for these houses. Some of these rents are beyond what some of these people could ordinarily pay and, therefore, the community had to give subsidies to these people—and subsidies to a considerable extent—but the result of that has been the building of a very large number of houses. I do not want to complicate this matter by going into the figures, but, in fact, at one period the suggestion was made that, by the very speed of our programme, we were running up the cost: that we had not enough skill, and that, if we had not proceeded at that particular pace in our housing programme, the costs would not have gone up to such an extent. It was suggested that, as a result of the speed of our programme, the rents would be so high as to make the whole thing a very heavy burden. Well, then, if anybody starts to try to do useful work, I think it will be admitted that the best thing that could be done would be to give people an opportunity to produce food, clothing, and shelter for the citizens of the country—that these are the best things to which our activities should be directed.

Passing from that, however, we went on to what might be regarded as our less fundamental needs, but still useful work. A good deal of employment is given in the mere division of land. Now, it was a part of our programme to put as many families as possible in economic security on the land. Our belief was, and remains, that the family which has an economic holding, on which by their efforts they are able to support themselves, are the most independent people upon the earth. The person on the land who can, by his labour on that land, his own property, provide for his family, is king in his castle. No more useful work, it seems to me, could be done for the community than to put as many families as possible in that position. We set out to do that.

At times, the rate of division was such that it was suggested that the quality of the work would suffer. We had to get a national balance. We want to do good work, but we do not want to spend a lifetime doing it. To be really good, any work must be done within a reasonable time and there are imperfections in every sort of work which undoubtedly could be got rid of by spending a long time over it. I, for one, do not believe in this perfection which is to be got by spending a whole lifetime at it. There is a period of existence for the human being which is rather short, and if you want to do something which is valuable you must do it within that time. If you can work for ages to come, you can afford to spend a long time in perfecting a piece of work, but a work which is intended for the use of a living generation, for people living at the particular moment, must be done with reasonable speed to be of any value to them, and consequently we had in some cases to sacrifice what might be regarded as perfection in order to get the work done. We had to say: "We want a reasonable speed. Mistakes will be made when that reasonable speed is sought, but we shall simply have to accept that it is inevitable that certain mistakes will occur, while, of course, doing our best to avoid them."

We set out to divide the land both because of the fundamental idea and because there was a considerable amount of useful employment given in the distribution of land. My view is that in regard to housing and the development of industry, our plans should now be made for continuing that development after the war, trying to speed it up as quickly as possible and making the plans, so that when the crisis is over and anything like conditions which will enable them to be put into operation have come, it will be done, and that the plans for doing it will be there. It generally happens that when you decide on something, like the drainage schemes spoken of a few minutes ago, a certain amount of time must be taken, if you want to do your work with reasonable efficiency, to find out what is the problem and what are the facts in connection with it. Data, in respect of levels and other engineering matters, cannot be dealt with overnight. You must have a certain amount of time, if you are not to make a regular mess of what you want to do, for examining the facts, getting data and making plans, before you can put the plans into operation.

We have a sub-committee of the Cabinet dealing with this question of the post-war situation and the plans for it, and one of the things we have been examining is in what time, with our present aims, can we hope to finish the division of the land which is available for division, with the general idea of relieving congestion where congestion has to be relieved and of putting as many families as is reasonably possible in economic security on the land? That has been actively examined, and I want to say here that nothing has been more disappointing to me than to find how slowly these things are being done and how slowly they will have to be done in order to get anything like reasonable efficiency, because, unfortunately, there are such matters as inspections, and all sorts of questions that cannot be solved in a day which come up for solution and take time.

No person in the Dáil is more impatient at the time which some of these matters take than I. There was a period during which there was a very much greater distribution of land than has been the case recently. Since the war situation began, a number of new problems, which needed some of the experienced staff, arose, and we had to take the experienced staff off some of this work. We have had to take from the Land Commission inspectors to look after the tillage question for us and so on, and all this meant that to a certain extent the land division Department has been considerably upset by the fact that we had no other people whom we could put in charge of the important work of seeing that the necessary food for the community is produced. But we are trying to get back as quickly as we can for the Department of Lands its old organisation, or as much of it as possible, so that as much of the work as can be done will be done, so that after the war that division of land will continue and so that employment will be given —and there is a considerable amount of employment so given—in preparing estates for division. The work done in that way is useful work for the community. It is work of a type for which the community can afford to pay because it is going to give an ultimate return.

Forestry has been frequently referred to here, and I am sure that nobody in the House has spoken about forestry as often as I did before we came into office. I pointed out very definitely at that time, some ten or 12 years ago, that, taking the fundamental things we needed, food, clothing and shelter, timber was essential if we were to be able to carry on our ordinary building work and so on, in an emergency such as that which has come upon us. I can honestly say here that I have been pressing every Minister in the Department of Lands since we came into office to try to get more and more land planted. I have been disappointed that we have not already reached the 10,000 acres a year objective, and I have been pressing for that.

But there, again, one has to be fairly reasonable. I think that sometimes to be a little unreasonable is no harm because, if you are too reasonable, people will think that matters are all right. When there is urgent work of value to be done one can be unreasonable, and I hope that I will not be misunderstood in my use of the word. In other words, you have to be impatient about things, because the answer is put up: "We have this, that and the other difficulty to face", to which we must answer: "Difficulties are there to be overcome. You must try to get a solution for them. There is no use in saying: ‘we cannot do it because of so and so.' Go and get a remedy for it when the remedy is possible", but there is a limit to the extent to which one can be unreasonable in that way. If, for instance, after the war I have to have a programme of afforestation and I ask what is the limit to which it can reach, I may be told: "We have not enough trees in the nurseries of the types we want to plant." Some of them had to be got from outside for some reason or other in the past. That is no reason why we should comment on the wisdom or unwisdom of not having the necessary plants and seeds at this stage. But if the case is put up that that is what we have to do, it will be necessary to say: "If that is the situation, we want it to be changed with all possible speed." You cannot do any more. You cannot create the plants and the seeds simply by a wish. All you have to do is to ensure that every possible effort is being made. All I know is that I have tried to see that everything that could possibly be done to increase the amount of land that was to be laid out in forestry since we came into office was being done. I do not want to say that I am satisfied with the programme that has been put up to us as possible. If I can get the 10,000 acres, instead of the figure given, the moment we can get going on it, then I will do it and the Government and the Ministers will do it. I do not think there is anybody in the House can get more done in that matter. The advisability of doing it is accepted.

As to the extent to which we should have land under forests, the question is what we would require for all our needs. Various estimates have been made. The question is how much per year should be planted so that, when it comes in, it will be likely to meet the national needs in timber. A total of 10,000 acres has been put up a number of times as being about the amount of yearly planting which, when it came in rotation, would meet our needs. If I was fairly certain of that estimate, I would say: "Very well, go and do 12,000." If I thought 10,000 was sufficient, I would say go and do 12,000, because in 20 or 30 years' time it is better to be on the right side than on the wrong side. In regard to afforestation, as has been pointed out by one of the Ministers here a number of times, there is considerable difficulty in getting land. I do not think that that is a difficulty which should be allowed permanently to stand in the way. I think we have to educate public opinion to the extent to which we should say to people who have sheep pastures or something of that sort which have been useful to them in the past, that the community's needs will have to override their private needs. If I were doing it and I came to such a place I would say: "You have been getting a living out of grazing the land. We are sorry, but we want that land. It is land that from the point of view of the community it is better to put in forestry. We will give you a farm or we will give you employment in some of the places where afforestation is taking place." There was at the beginning a considerable amount of objection to it because some of these people had been grazing the land and their people before them had lived in this way and they did not want to be deprived of that method of existence. But now they see that there is employment being given in connection with afforestation and they are gradually coming over to the view that, taking all in all, their livelihood will not be diminished.

Land reclamation has been mentioned. The Minister for Agriculture has been trying to get farmers to reclaim their own land or portions of it. Help is being given from the State to enable that to be done. But as to land reclamation on the larger scale, there is the big question as to whether you are not putting more in the way of work into reclaiming land than the land will ever be worth. Compared with the price at which you can buy land, you may be paying very much more for every acre of land you reclaim than for a good acre of land. From a community point of view, the increasing of valuable land is an addition to the wealth, so to speak, of the community. There, again, you have the old question as to whether there is an addition in fact, or whether you are not diminishing the wealth by turning the efforts, that might otherwise be employed more usefully, to this work. Then you would not do it, of course. But I am assuming that there is no other way in which you can more usefully put the people to work than in reclaiming land. It is useful work. But its economic reaction is another question. However, that has been actively under consideration.

Fundamental in that is the question of drainage. Everybody knows there is a considerable amount of land in this country which is flooded periodically. I have been down the country recently and on a few trips I have seen a considerable amount of land under water. Nobody can see that and be satisfied as long as a remedy is possible. As the last speaker wisely said, there is no use in trying to do that in a haphazard way, because you may do more harm than good if you do not do it properly. The whole thing has been carefully examined to get the planning of the measure expedited. We went outside the ordinary routine and got the heads of the Bill drafted by the Chairman of the Commission. Quite a number of Departments were involved and, when these were examined, there were a number of matters which had to be adjusted. Unfortunately, it has taken a very long time to adjust all these problems which arise for adjustment in connection with a matter like drainage. But we have accepted in principle the commission's report that this should be undertaken. We have decided, in general, upon the areas where a beginning is to be made. I have given orders that, even while we are waiting for the necessary legislation, the engineering and other plans should be gone ahead with so that there will be no delay about them. Therefore, so far as the suggestion of trying to find useful work on drainage is concerned, that has been undertaken and is being done.

Now let me take the other suggestions which have been made. I am taking the ones which occurred to me as they have been mentioned. If we take any of these we will find the same thing, because all these suggestions have been exactly the suggestions that were made by the Government and which are being followed up, just as our industrial policy has been followed up. One of the early things we did after we came into office was to get a report—I have got a large volume—from the various Departments, of the useful schemes which had been suggested and which were put aside for one reason or another. We got these to see if there was anything in addition to the general schemes that we had suggested to the people in our programme before we were elected. We went through them to find what was the labour content of the various schemes, what was the respective value of them, and anything that was of value has been followed up. But, when all these things are done, there is still unemployment.

What about the bog roads? There is a very high labour content there.

The Deputy suggests to me a matter I have spoken about. Long before the present emergency arose, the question of utilising our bogs was considered. We did not wait until the emergency, when we were getting no coal and when we had, willynilly, to try to get alternative fuel. We did not wait until that time to consider the utilisation of that natural resource—turf. I do not know if there was any accurate way of estimating it, but the general estimate just before the war was that 3,500,000 tons of turf was produced normally for our needs and that we were importing 2,500,000 tons of coal. Long before the war, we wanted to try to get turf used instead of coal, particularly in the areas where turf was near the towns. We wanted to try to develop the use of turf. We had regard to the labour that would be involved in producing it for the community. We had a problem, of course, around Dublin. Everybody knows the problem that existed. First of all, there was the problem that appears now, namely, transport costs. There are certain transport costs about carting a relatively light, bulky commodity, such as turf. If you have to transport it from the bogs of Mayo or Donegal to Dublin, it is going to add considerably to the costs. It is a different thing if the turf is used as fuel for the people in the neighbourhood of the bogs. But we had, all the time, a very difficult question with regard to the use of turf in this very large consuming area of Dublin.

There was a question of briquetting. There was a question of getting machine-won turf, and so on. The Turf Development Board was set up with a view to developing turf, to do its best to make it reasonably competitive with coal to the greatest extent possible. We also had actively under consideration the question of utilising turf to produce electricity so as to add to the water power resources we have already. It has not been possible to get some of the equipment, owing to the emergency, but that is one of the things that we have been developing and, undoubtedly, that is the line on which we should go to try to get useful employment.

In regard to bog roads, I think the late Parliamentary Secretary had power to make bog roads wherever they were necessary for the development he required. You will not put a road necessarily into every bog. There are certain bogs that are not going to be developed but, if you are going to cut turf in a certain bog, you naturally want some means of bringing it out.

Quite, and, as far as I know, the building of roads for the purpose of bringing turf out from bogs that were being developed was actively being done. Again, the thing cannot be done in a week or a month or even in a year.

But there is only a limited sum for each year for each area.

With regard to turf, I do not think if any question had been asked at any time, there would have been any limit to the amount made available in order to make fuel available. Naturally, we were very anxious about the costs of fuel because we know that, ultimately, if turf is to be continued to be used as a fuel in this country, we have to produce it reasonably efficiently. Otherwise, it will not be continued as such.

May I ask the Taoiseach, what is the use of cutting turf and leaving it on a bog simply because the road is impassable?

There is no use in doing it. The point is that, if it was done, it was done with a view to building the road later. You cannot cut turf at every season of the year. I do not know if you can make a road at every season of the year, but you can possibly make a road at a time when you could not cut turf, and if you say to me: "I want turf next year and I see a bog conveniently situated but into which there is no road," I would say: "Cut the turf during the period in which it can be cut and let us try to get the means by which it can be taken out afterwards."

Now that the turf is rotting?

Even so. That is one of those things we have occasionally to face. There can be no such thing as perfection. I would rather see turf rotting and know that we have sufficient turf for people in Dublin rather than that it should not be cut at all.

Twenty thousand tons in Cork is a nice thing.

I do not know whether that is true or not.

Ask some of the Deputies.

I am not in a position to say whether it is true or not, but I say if, in order to get in necessary fuel, it was necessary to do it on such a wide scale that every portion of it could not be availed of, it was wise to do it. I do not know that there is 20,000 tons of it anywhere rotting, but it may very well happen that all of the turf that was cut could not be transported.

Bog road-making has an 80 per cent. labour content.

The Deputy need not tell me about it. I say that there has never been in principle any objection to making roads as a part of producing turf and, in fact, it was never put up to us and never turned down. There never has been put up to us a proposition, "Here is a bog road which is necessary in order to get turf that is required for the community out of that bog" that was turned down on account of money. We would put up the money and say that that would have to be brought back, either immediately or later, from the price of turf. I do not know of any case. If ever there has been a case it may have been turned down on the basis that we have a number of other bogs which give us all we can get at the present time, or all that we can transport. If, for instance, we had calculated on getting 1,000,000 tons of turf which we could transport, and if the transport facilities suddenly diminished and we were not able to get the 1,000,000 tons in, and could only take 500,000 tons, I would say, "Transport all you can get. Do not make roads for the whole 1,000,000 tons when you cannot get it out." I do not know what the position is, but, as far as I am aware, there has never been a turning down of a bog road on the basis, "That is the quota; you can get no more."

I will give the Taoiseach cases of that kind.

If the Deputy does give me them, I would like to examine them home.

The Taoiseach should ask the Board of Works for a return.

I would like to know that and I say it is fundamentally not a fact, no matter where it appears. I can say, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Government are concerned—and I think I have been at every meeting at which the thing has taken place—that there never has been, to my knowledge, a case where a bog road or any other facility was needed in order to get fuel which was turned down simply on the basis that the quota for the year was so much. It might have been turned down for a variety of other reasons that I can easily see, but certainly not on that basis.

They have a stock letter in the Board of Works on that basis.

The Deputy can say a lot of things. If I were in charge of the Estimate, all that would be immediately to the point, but I want to say that I doubt that it appears anywhere—during the emergency particularly—that any bog road that was needed for the transport of turf which was cut and required for the community was turned down on the basis that there was some definite sum allocated and no more would be given. I think it is altogether so much at variance with our whole attitude towards the crisis and the way of dealing with it that I cannot conceive it happening. I have gone into land reclamation. We next come down the scale to things that are less productive because, obviously, the more productive an enterprise is, the more it gives back to the community, the better. There are yet some of the useful services; or even the amenities. Surely, there is some limit to the extent to which we can go in for amenities. We will have to produce things that are necessary and useful for the life of the community and, until we are able to get out of these enough to enable us to have further amenities, we cannot have these amenities.

I will repeat what has been said here so often, that the question of money has never prevented us from going ahead with any scheme that was shown to be productive, or even reasonably useful for the community. That does not mean to say that we think that money, or its equivalent, does not matter. It is quite obvious that no community can go on using more than it produces. There is surely a limit to that and, therefore, when people talk as if the accounting of what you lose and what you get back is not of value, and that you can go on constantly having one side of that account in debit, that is so much nonsense. Therefore, accounting is important, and if you go on paying no attention to things—it is suggested in some quarters that we should not pay such attention—you are going to get into an extraordinary position.

We are asked to look at the war position, and we are asked why Britain and other countries seem to have no end to their resources when it is a question of war. Their point is that during war the people are prepared to make efforts and to face sacrifices that they would not even consider in peace time. Some people consider that the conditions that operate in a country in time of war—that is, so far as the spending of money is concerned —should continue to operate in time of peace. Certain conditions are made possible in time of war because the individual citizen is prepared to make sacrifices during a war that he would not dream of making in peace time. He is prepared to allow himself to be regimented, to offer his life for the community, to work hours that he would not dream of working in normal times; he is prepared to leave home, to leave his wife and family and to suffer hardships that he would never suffer in time of peace.

During war the people are rationed, they have to subsist on far less food and to use less apparel. The people experience what would ordinarily be regarded as a depressed standard of existence. They lead a depressed life and live in what would be regarded in ordinary times as a slave state. People are prepared to do these things in war time, but do you think that in peace time they would suffer such conditions? Under war conditions the people have to work and they are given what I might describe as vouchers for which they will be allowed to purchase a certain amount of goods. The real purchasing value of these vouchers afterwards will depend on the conditions in which the community find themselves when the emergency has passed. You could have a lot of these things, no doubt, if you were prepared to accept, as your normal existence, that you should be regimented as people in other countries are in modern war, that your family life should be broken up and that your labour should be regulated. If you do not want those conditions, what is the use of asking why certain things cannot be done in peace time just as in a time of war?

Is that argument related to our own defence costs?

To a certain extent, but to the extent to which any individual in the community has his efforts deflected from production, from giving services which would be necessary in order to convey to the members of the community the things they most require—to that extent, from an economic point of view, that individual's efforts would be a loss. But the safeguarding of the community is more important still and, in so far as the soldiers are giving that service, they have not been deflected from more important to less important duties; as a matter of fact, they have been deflected from less important to more important work when we consider the safeguarding of the community. But somebody will have to pay for it, and in that connection we have the people who are producing and making available the requirements of the nation. These have to be produced, in one form or another, by the efforts of the rest of the community. Those engaged in military work are not able to produce them, and the rest of the community is satisfied to do it, recognising the supreme service which the army is giving.

Money intervenes as a means of doing that, but it is only as a medium. The money that we have to our credit abroad represents goods received from or services done by other nations. We can draw on that credit or we can export some of our surplus agricultural produce in exchange for the commodities we require. If you put people to do work that is not of a productive character, all the food and clothing they require—as represented by their wages or salaries—must be produced by the efforts of the rest of the community. There is a limit to the burden which can be borne, and if it were put on a small section of the community, it would easily be seen that they could not bear it. That proves that there is a limit to the distance you can go in monetary methods in providing amenities for the community. It has been our policy, not merely to build houses but also to provide towns with sanitary accommodation and water services and generally to improve the conditions of life.

Rural electrification has been suggested and has been under active consideration for a long time past by the Electricity Supply Board. Any reasonable scheme for rural electrification would be welcomed by the Government. We have said "Go ahead" in general terms to the Board. A certain amount of the cost would be repaid by those who would use the electric power. Any further water resources that we have should be, and are being, developed. This is an amenity of great value in the countryside, but its development would be fairly expensive. However, it is of such importance that I think it should be undertaken. I have been wondering whether the smaller rivers could not be developed by means of smaller units, but I have not gone into that from a purely economic viewpoint. Although it would not be as economic, perhaps, as the larger schemes, I always have hoped that science and engineering would develop the small machine which would be used instead of the present mass production methods. I believe in the development of electric power and its extension to all parts of the country, and in the decentralisation of industry as well as in the use of smaller units and smaller machines. The whole trend of our policy has been towards decentralisation, although we have had to depart from that in some particular instances. In that way, we have tried to provide more employment in various parts of the country, instead of attracting people to the larger centres.

With regard to our coal reserves, before we came into office there were claims made for various parts of the country which, unfortunately, proved to be incorrect. I had hoped at one time that Leitrim—which had not advantages in other directions—might be worked as an industrial centre, as the data we had at that time seemed to indicate that coal and iron would be available. After careful examination, we find that some of the resources we have are not as valuable or as attractive as they appeared to be at first, but to the extent to which they are reasonably economic we must develop them. I might even say, in the strange use of the word, we might proceed even when they appear to be "unreasonably" economic, rather than proceed with too much caution. There are, however, limits to the amenities which can be provided and to the resources which can be developed. Our attitude has been to put the social policy in the fundamental position and to try to make it possible for our country to support, economically, the largest population it can support, and to provide for the people the highest standard of living that can be provided by our own efforts and from our own resources.

It is a question of how quickly you can go. There is a suggestion that the Government has not gone quickly enough. I will not be sorry to have behind me the support of the Dáil in urging the Government to go faster in dealing with these matters. I am glad to know that the Dáil wants to go in the direction we are going and to go more rapidly than we have gone. There is no use in people saying that we have not been working along these lines, as the records show that we have been doing so. I did not say I am satisfied with the pace we have been able to set. If you look back on the period that this Government has been in office, you will see that during five or six years of it we had a day-to-day contest with Britain, which absorbed a good deal of the energy and activity of the members of the Government. That was the whole economic situation from 1932 to 1938, until the settlement with Britain. It was a substantial period—six years almost—and now the world war has been in progress for three and a-half years; so a good deal of our time and energy has been taken away from the work that we would like very much to have been doing. I have not changed, as far as I am concerned, and I do not think any member of the Government has changed. We have not changed in the slightest.

You are more pessimistic than you were.

No; I do not think so. I would not say so.

When will you stop aiming, and achieve something?

We have achieved very much more than the Deputy is likely to achieve. If I wanted to go on that particular line, I could point to a whole list of achievements. The Deputy will not get away with that. We can point to many achievements.

The Six Counties.

Do not forget the ports.

I suppose the Deputy will get the Six Counties by talk. I suppose he will tell us how he will plan for the removal of unemployment. Let us hear him on that. I have looked over this proposed plan, and I have no doubt that there is not a single thing in it that is not being done.

After a few years of this Government there are 100,000 unemployed, and 100,000 emigrants in two years.

And the Deputy is going to stop that by talk?

You are still aiming.

We are still achieving. At this moment we have achieved more than the Deputy has achieved or is likely to achieve. The point is that whether I am, as has been suggested, more or less pessimistic or not—and I am not pessimistic—I do say that it is a very difficult problem to secure that nobody will be unemployed. It cannot be done even by pursuing and completing the programme that we have outlined, and is certainly not going to be done by anything the Labour Party has suggested.

A nice solution for the starving and shivering people in the capital!

There are no starving people. The Deputy thinks he can get away with that, but he cannot.

Not in Merrion or Ballsbridge.

Nor anywhere. If the Deputy would cease playing politics and get down to the realities of this problem, it would be better.

Look at the report of the St. Vincent de Paul Society for last year.

I know more about the St. Vincent de Paul Society than the Deputy does. I have been trying to conduct the debate properly and in an orderly manner——

Twice in this debate there was an embarrassing pause. The Deputy who is now interrupting did not rise on either of these occasions to give a reasoned statement on points which he is now trying to express by disorderly interruptions. The Taoiseach is entitled to be heard and will be heard.

Might I respectfully point out——

No; the Taoiseach is in possession.

Take your medicine, Doctor!

The Taoiseach has taken approximately an hour and a quarter of our time.

The Deputy did not intervene when he had the opportunity.

I waited for a very long time for somebody to rise. The position is that this problem of unemployment is a very difficult one. I do not believe that there is definitely a solution to give full employment to everybody anywhere except you are going to have such a regimentation as our people, at any rate, are not prepared to accept. We can try to solve the problem in a variety of ways. I have indicated the natural lines upon which to go, but, even when these are completed, for a variety of reasons, there is still going to be a certain element of our people unemployed. When you have done your best in various directions—the Minister for Supplies has indicated some of the directions in which you have to move in order to deal with the problem—I doubt whether it will be possible for the State to plan so that every person will be, so to speak, usefully employed. What the State has got to do is to move in the direction where the greatest possible amount of employment will be got for all the citizens, and to keep that as its constant aim, and if, while that is being done, people are unemployed temporarily or for fairly prolonged periods, then the point is whether the community, or certain sections of the community, if organised in a particular way, will see that such people are reasonably maintained.

When we had this, beginning a good while ago, a motion was brought in here on the question that there should be work or maintenance. That was a reasonable approach because it indicated that there was likely to be a reasonable time before your best efforts were made, and even then it was necessary to provide, naturally, that the whole effort should be directed towards diminishing unemployment to the greatest possible extent and that there should be maintenance for those who failed to secure employment— always regarding maintenance as an evil to the extent that it showed that your efforts to secure employment for all were not successful. That was a reasonable approach, and if it were being made now, I would stand over it, but when we are asked now to produce a plan to implement something which is already being implemented in the fullest sense, and that the State should direct its efforts towards doing a certain thing that is already being done, then I think there is nothing to do except to vote against the motion, because the motion does not indicate a serious consideration of the matter.

I was watching this matter because, naturally, one would welcome any suggestions to indicate how this problem would be met, and I certainly would welcome any suggestions to meet it, but to pretend that this is a thing that can be done by simply wishing, is a thing, I think, that should not be indulged in by responsible people. I think that in a matter of this sort the people in the Dáil should not be content to say merely that it is desirable. There is, certainly, unanimity, as far as the members of the House are concerned, as to what the aim should be, and if there are any better suggestions as to how that aim can be achieved, we shall certainly keep an open mind in regard to them.

We have listened to a very long statement from the Taoiseach as to the activities of his Government and the efforts to secure employment for our people in the past 11 years. The speech of the Taoiseach seemed to me to be notoriously incomplete because he ought to have added a postscript: "Now, boys, having tinkered with the whole problem of unemployment for 11 years, I can do nothing with it. It is just as bad to-day as it was, and in fact it tends to get worse," and he might have added: "Boys, I can do no more now than to give the idle people permits to go to Britain and the Six Counties, because I have given up completely any hope of being able to solve the problem." That was the only thing lacking in the speech of the Taoiseach.

There was a time when the members of the Government were much younger, much more buoyant and apparently much more enthusiastic than they are now. A morgue-like mantle has fallen over the whole Government on the question of unemployment. The star performer in respect of the problem was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was the wizard who had a plan not merely to put every unemployed man and woman into work, but who at one time confessed that it might be necessary to comb the cities of America to bring back the emigrants. Now we cannot stop the emigrants from going out— not to America, but to bombed and "blitzed" Britain. Somebody told the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures in Dundalk in 1932 that there were 80,000 unemployed people in the country, and his reply was: "Ah, well, shouldn't we be glad to have them to do all the work that Fianna Fáil is going to make available for them?" These were the balmy days when the Government believed they could cure unemployment; these were the days of plans; these were the days of organisation of a type of which Deputy Harris talked in the 1931 by-election in Kildare to which I shall refer later, quoting from his poster.

Here is what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said in the Dáil on 20th April, 1932:

"I agree with what has been said that unemployment need not exist here. I always held the opinion that unemployment in this country was due mainly to misdirection, bad industrial organisation, or some such man-made cause. The additional information which it has been possible to acquire, with the assistance of Government Departments at our disposal, has only convinced me in that view. It is true that the world depression has produced its reactions here to some extent. The increase in the volume of unemployment has been due to that world depression, but despite all that may be said in that connection, I am more than satisfied that unemployment, as we now know it in this country, can be remedied, and it is the intention of the Government, in so far as its ability will permit it to do it, to find that remedy and to give effect to it."

These were brave words. The Taoiseach, in the same debate, said:

"I do not say that any situation ought to be allowed to stand in the way of meeting the needs of the unemployed, I say that we are a solvent community. We have a potential capacity to produce wealth. We have the capacity to meet all our needs. All we want is to begin properly. We do not want to go off without a general idea of the direction in which we are going. We want to examine the situation, and I promise, just as I am firm, when I think we are right, in dealing with England or anyone else, I am going, as long as I occupy this position, to be firm that the people who are entitled to get a living in this country will get it."

Cheers from all the people leaving every night on the mail boat! Here are two positive declarations by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce made in 1932. If the language used means anything at all, it means convenanting with the people that, during the régime of this Government, the problem of unemployment would be solved, and that not merely would it be solved in respect of the unemployed in this country, but that even emigrants would have to be brought back to do all the work that was to be made available.

That was the false promise on which the Government crept into office—the promise that they could solve the unemployment problem. The Taoiseach says now that he is not a magician and that the Government are not magicians in dealing with unemployment, and he says that, if they were, their services would be in great demand everywhere. This Government would not get a job dealing with unemployment in any cocoanut republic in the Pacific because of the way they handled the problem here. I was looking through some interesting documents the other evening and I came across a leaflet issued by Deputy Harris in connection with the 1931 by-election in Kildare. It made very cheerful reading then, and in case the Deputy has not got a copy, I will send him one as a souvenir, and I am sure he will value it as a most interesting document. In that leaflet, he said there was no reason why unemployment should exist in this country.

It does not exist in Kildare in any case.

That is why the people are going to the employment exchanges —to see how things are going on there or to look at the tapestries in the buildings. The Deputy said that unemployment need not exist in this country and that, if it did exist, it was due to bad organisation at the top, but that when Fianna Fail got into office, all that bad top-storey organisation would be altered and altered in such a way that there would be no unemployment in the country. He said, too, that the Cosgrave Government at that time was so concerned with drawing salaries of £33 per week that they did not care what the unemployed suffered. There has not been much reduction in the £33 since and, in fact, the cost of salaries is greater now than it was then, but that is what Fianna Fáil apparently believed in 1931 and 1932. The people can take their choice. They have had Deputy Harris's view on it and the view of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the substance of the promise made by the Government was that this Government would solve the problem of unemployment.

I am not going to be impetuous and to expect quick results, least of all from this Government, but it has been 11 years in office now and one cannot be accused of any excessive impetuosity if, after 11 years of the government, we say: "What have you really done to solve the problem of unemployment confronting this country to-day?" What have they done? We have approximately 60,000 people registered as unemployed, as well as thousands of others who do not register because they can get nothing, owing to the application of niggardly means tests by the employment exchange. Notwithstanding that we have that large number of unemployed, we have to remember that, during the past three years, approximately 30,000 people have joined the Army, have been artificially taken off the unemployment market, and that, during the past two years, 100,000 of the best of our men and women have been driven out of this country to get employment in the Six Counties and Great Britain. Although we exported 100,000 able-bodied men and women and although approximately 30,000 additional people have joined the Army, we still have approximately 60,000 people registered as unemployed, and tens of thousands unregistered because it is not worth while going to the labour exchange for the miserable pittances they get there.

That is the net result of 11 years of this Government's operating on the problem. That is the net result of 11 years of activity by this Government, based upon a plan designed to eliminate unemployment. Does not every Deputy on the Government Benches, every Deputy in the House, know that the biggest trade in this country is the export of human beings? Does not every Deputy know perfectly well that, every day in the week and every week in the year, he gets letters from constituents asking him to try to get them exit permits to go to Britain? The letters I get from the place where Deputy Harris says no unemployment exists are heartrending. They are letters from men who are trying to get work and who cannot get it, who are trying to get exit permits to go to Britain, leaving behind their wives and children, to work under the conditions which prevail there, and prepared to do that rather than to put up with the unending poverty and daily grind for the miserable pittanees masquerading as wages which they receive in this country to-day.

If there is so much employment and poverty in Kildare, will the Deputy tell us why the Government had to send 3,000 men from counties like Donegal and Mayo to Kildare?

Will the Deputy tell me why they could not half fill the turf camps there? They offered the people from Donegal such a low wage that they would not go there. They could only get some to go there by threatening to deprive them of unemployment benefit.

There are 3,000 there.

Will the Deputy come down there with me and he will hear what their views are on the question of wages?

Mr. Brady

That is not the question I am asking.

Will the Deputy come down there with me and hear their views? He will not accept that invitation?

The Deputy did not answer the question I put to him.

The Taoiseach told us about Article 45 of the Constitution, which declares that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens may, through their occupations, find a means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs. If that Article of the Constitution meant anything, if it were not mere verbiage, it surely meant that some State action was contemplated.

And the State action so far as Government policy has determined it, has been constantly directed in that way.

That is the Taoiseach's view, that the State has been moving in that direction.

That is definitely its aim.

A few moments ago we saw what the State's activities on that line have given us—100,000 people exported in the last two years, 60,000 still unemployed, nearly 100,000 in receipt of home assistance, and tens of thousands not registered at the exchanges because they did not think it worth while. Yet, the State is moving along the line of enabling the citizen to make reasonable provision for his domestic needs through following a particular occupation. If the State does contemplate action of that kind, that clearly shows, as the Taoiseach is bound to admit, that the State was not going fast enough. But this Article of the Constitution clearly implied some positive State action.

It implies what it says: that the State should direct its policy in that way, and I say that the State has constantly directed its policy in that way.

I say that it is doing it in a way which does not indicate any possibility of achieving its objective; that the State is simply giving the unemployed people injections of State charity, rather than enabling them to make provision for their domestic needs through their occupations.

The Kildare men do not want to work. The Kildare men run away from work.

I shall be glad to convey to the people of Kildare that the Deputy made an observation of that kind in Deputy Harris's presence.

Deputy Harris is not here.

That is good politics, no doubt. It is a great help towards solving the problem of unemployment. It is good electioneering politics.

If you will listen, you will hear what it is. It is sufficient to have interruptions from other members of the House without having them from the leader of the House; but I will not have them from either of them.

The Deputy can get on without interruptions.

If I want any advice on electioneering, I shall consult the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach could walk on the edge of a razor and still say that he had plenty of room.

The Deputy may continue.

I am much obliged to the Taoiseach and his friends. In any case, we heard a lot of lyrical nonsense from the Taoiseach about Article 45 of the Constitution, but it has no meaning whatever so far as the unemployed man or woman is concerned. Not a single person who goes to the labour exchange at Gardiner Street would give a ½d. for a dozen copies of Article 45 of the Constitution. They know it is a sham and a mockery. They know that it will not pay any grocer's bill; that it will not enable them to buy fuel or commodities which are in short supply through Government mismanagement.

You should take Article 45 over to the destitute people at Chatham Row. Not even the Taoiseach would have the brazen audacity to trot out Article 45 to the people either in Gardiner Street or Chatham Row. These people suffer from want and hunger every day in the week. This Constitution has meant no change for them. Article 45 has made no difference to them. They still suffer from hunger, want and destitution, notwithstanding the promises of the Government to solve the problem of unemployment and to provide maintenance for the unemployed people. The Taoiseach does not believe that people in Dublin are suffering from destitution.

I did not say that.

That they are suffering from hunger.

I said they were not starving.

Here is a leaflet sent out by the St. Vincent de Paul Society in 1942. That society is not an adjunct of the Labour Party. Here is what it said:—

"Poverty and destitution are rife in Dublin. Many of our men and women are so weak from undernourishment that, even if employment were offered to them, they could not undertake any kind of work. Thousands of people are without sufficient personal and bedclothing. The never-ending struggle to provide food and clothing often results in non-payment of rent, and the constant fear of eviction. The poor have no reserves of food and fuel for the winter."

That is a description of the conditions in Dublin by the St. Vincent de Paul Society when making an appeal for money. The plain fact of the matter is, and the Taoiseach has been compelled to admit it in the course of his speech, that the Government cannot provide work for the idle men and women. Any effort to do so has been long since abandoned. The best thing therefore to do for the idle men and women is to get rid of them by exporting them to Great Britain; the kind of genteel forced labour which is talked so much of on the Continent. If any of them survive the exportation process, the thing is to give them rotational employment for three or four days per week, to give them a miserable pittance slightly more than they would get in unemployment assistance benefit. That represents the high-water mark of this Government's policy for dealing with the unemployment problem.

I am wondering what the Government hope to do when the war is over. When the war is over we will not have to send for the emigrants as we threatened to do in 1931 and 1932. Those emigrants may not wait until they are sent for. We may not have to send ships to take them back. We may not have to advertise and to comb the cities of America to get them back. They may be sent back to us whether we like it or not. Some may express a desire to come back. But, whether we like it or not, they may be sent back here. Perhaps 250,000 may be sent back and we may be told to provide for them as Great Britain has enough of her own unemployed to provide work for. We may very well be told: "You can look after your own people." What are we going to do then? We cannot solve the problem of unemployment by spraying Britain with our manhood to-day. What are we going to do when the war is over, when these people either insist on coming back or are sent back? The Taoiseach told us that somebody was planning for the post-war period, that that matter was being attended to, with, I suppose, the same efficiency as the whole supply position was attended to in 1938 and 1939. It was so efficiently attended to that, when the war broke out, we had stocks of nothing except nonsense.

I do not believe the Government realises the problem that is going to confront it when the war is over. I do not believe it is budgeting in the slightest degree for the possibility that we may have to deal with an army of 200,000 or 250,000 people who will be drafted back here then, who will not be very patient when they are drafted back, and will not wait too long for a remedy to be applied to their economic difficulties. I do not believe the Government has given a single constructive thought to the necessity for dealing with that problem. Even if it has done so, I have no faith whatever in the Government's ability to solve that problem or to apply any effective remedy to it because, dealing with the much lesser problem at home, it has completely failed.

The magnitude of its failure to deal with such a problem has only to be thought of to be realised. Without purporting to be able to survey the post-war world, everybody knows that there will be sufficient disorganisation, sufficient eruption, sufficient social disorder and commercial chaos to make the task of finding employment for people after the war a more severe task than the problem of finding employment for people to-day. In circumstances such as these, we have in office a Government which cannot deal with a relatively small unemployment problem at home and who then tell us that they are thinking of making such provision for the position of this country after the war.

The Labour Party's motion on this question of unemployment has been put down in a desire to test the Government's policy with respect to unemployment, to ascertain what proposals the Government have for dealing with the problem of unemployment. We take the view that involuntary idleness is criminal, economic waste. Every idle man and woman has to be supplied with food and clothing and has to be provided with shelter. Unless some external authority will give them the food, clothing and the shelter, they must, obviously, get it out of the pockets of those who are employed in this country to-day. The effect of their being sustained in that way means that those who work must yield up a portion of their income in order to maintain an involuntarily idle army within the State. We want to try to eliminate the involuntarily idle army within the State, to enable it, not merely to provide food, clothing and shelter for itself but, at the same time, to produce wealth which it will share with the whole community. In short, to enable the whole community to free itself of the liability to provide for those who are kept out of employment to-day.

There is an abundance of work to be done. The Taoiseach has told us of the various efforts which the Government have made in different directions. My answer to that is that the Government have not gone far enough and have not gone fast enough, that the tempo of Governmental activity in these spheres should be much accelerated. In afforestation, drainage, land reclamation, the production of fuel, the demolition of slums, mineral development, the building of schools and hospitals and in the intensification of agricultural production, to mention but a few items, there is an abundance of work to be done in this country. There is an abundance of idle men and women to do it and the State to-day, according to the Taoiseach, is a solvent community, capable of sustaining the activities of our people on the raw materials of the nation. If that is so, if we have idle men and women, if we have work to be done, then State credits ought to be released in order to harness the idle man-power to the work to be done and, in that way, enable these people to create a standard of living for themselves and to enrich the whole community by multiplying its wealth-producing capacity.

A nation can live only on what it produces. The most criminal waste in this country to-day is to have tens of thousands of idle men and women and to export others when the roll of the unemployed becomes inconveniently large. Our view is that, with work to be done, with men and women to do it, they should be put to work to create wealth. If we cannot put our men and women to work, to create wealth in their own land, and if we cannot pay them a decent rate of wage for creating wealth for the nation, then, Article 45 of the Constitution notwithstanding, what we ought to do is to give every idle man and woman and every low-paid worker in this country a passport and let them go wherever they like in the world to try to find the standard of living and the employment which we cannot give them. I refuse to believe that this country is so devoid of agricultural and industrial wealth that it must spray its mankind and womankind all over the world. I believe there is agricultural and industrial wealth here which, if properly organised, is capable of providing a decent standard of living for every man and woman born into this country. But that requires organisation. We have witnessed the Government's attempts over 11 years to deal with the question of unemployment in this country. We have witnessed its efforts over 11 years to organise the community so as to make it self-contained.

The Taoiseach, by his speech this evening, has clearly acknowledged that the Government has no remedy for the problem of unemployment in this country beyond the exportation of our manhood. We refuse to believe that that bleak outlook is the only thing that confronts this country. The Labour Party believes that, given proper organisation, given enthusiasm for the work, the Government, with the help of every other element within the community, can yet organise a mass crusade in regard to this vital problem of unemployment. It might then, by the exercise of energetic and courageous methods, show that what it forecast in 1932—and in which I believe it was right when it forecast— could at least be implemented in 1944.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 52.

Tá.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brain.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Smith and Harris.
Motion declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 18th February.
Top
Share