I think everyone here recognises that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government is an honest and intelligent member of the House. However, having listened to the attempt he has made to apologise for the inactivity of the Government in relation to the major economic problems that face the country at the present time, one is forced to conclude —because of his record of honesty and ability—that he has very little material with which to indicate any promise for the unemployed men in the future.
One of Deputy Lynch's statements was to the effect that since Fianna Fáil came into power in 1932 they did better than the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did prior to that. He said that Fianna Fáil's agricultural policy was better than that of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and that Fianna Fáil's industrial policy was so good that, even if the agricultural policy were bad, the industrial policy counterbalanced it.
The Labour Party have very little interest in whether or not Fine Gael's record is better than that of Fianna Fáil, or vice versa. Our interest is in how the country is to progress in the future. I desire to take advantage of this debate to draw attention to theserious position which many of our people—in particular, working people-find themselves faced with. Members of the Government and Deputies of this House are about to go on a prolonged holiday without any definite plans having been announced for the improvement of that serious position.
It cannot be denied that, in the past two years, prices have sky-rocketed. The prices of essential commodities such as bread, butter, tea and sugar, in addition to other foodstuffs, have increased considerably. So much have they increased that, I suggest, these commodities are almost beyond the purchasing power of the normal working man. If he is to secure sufficient for himself and his family to eat, then he must certainly go without some other necessity.
It is well known to many of us that in certain small shops throughout the country the sale of butter has fallen considerably while the sale of margarine has doubled. It is not from choice but dire necessity that a workman's wife will feed to her children not wholesome Irish butter but a poor substitute, and the only reason that is done is that the pries of our butter is beyond the means of the ordinary people.
Unemployment is stalking the land and it reminds me—Fianna Fáil will perhaps take pleasure in this fact—of the days between 1930 and 1942; but again, we in the Labour Party have no interest in the Party or political programme under which unemployment creeps in. Our interest is in seeing that all our people, in so far as is humanly possible, will be able to exercise their God-given right to secure work for themselves and their families. It is not necessary, I suggest, to go to the employment exchange and look up the records to find proof from the returns there of unemployment. Anyone passing by an exchange can see that, in the queues standing outside, and particularly in the cities, there are men and women anxious and available for work to whom work is denied. At the street corners in the small towns, there is unfortunately ample evidence of unemployment,with people parading the streets seeking work which up to now they have failed to secure.
In Dublin City, mass parades of hungry unemployed men and women have become an almost daily feature. I realise that many even in this House will say that these are led by agitators and by people of doubtful character. I am not in a position to dispute such a statement and neither am I in a position to confirm it; but I do know that, unless there were thousands upon thousands of unemployed hungry people, these agitators, if they exist, would find it difficult to persuade well-fed, satisfied employed men to parade in the name of any "ism" or cause through the streets of Dublin. It is only because the evil is there that any "ism" is in a position to exploit it, if exploited it is being, for their own purposes.
Neither do I accept that there are agitators and I regret to say that I have heard it said that at some of these meetings—it has been made a joke of in this House—one of the leaders is supposed to have remarked: "We have not got the crowd to-day, lads, because they are working." That is an implication that this is a frame-up. I remember it being said of our unemployed in 1940 and prior to that year, that they would not work in a fit, but when the bombs fell on England and when work was made available for men at the risk of their lives, our Irish unemployed men and even our women were not afraid to go across to face starvation, bombs and doodle-bugs, so that they could send home to their people who were depending on them the money necessary to keep them alive.
I label it as the same slander on the unemployed to suggest that the men who march the streets to-day are men who have come out of jobs and who are parading for political or any other reasons. I have personally spoken to them; I have addressed them. I am not on such terms of intimacy with the leaders that I can indicate the complete background of any or many of them ; but I am satisfied that 98 per cent. of the unemployed who aremarching and demonstrating in Dublin to-day are doing so to draw attention to their plight and to show that their desire is not to march the streets but to be employed in their own country at a decent wage.
While I say it is not necessary to produce figures to convince anybody who a wishful of seeing things in proper perspective in the matter of unemployment, it is desirable, in making a protest against the evil of unemployment to say that these facts can be gathered from the register of employment in Dublin, and hard facts from Government offices are difficult to disprove. In April, 1953, in the Dublin metropolitan area, there were 20,133 insurable workers unemployed; in April, 1951, in the same area, there were 12,571 insurable workers unemployed. That is an increase in, two years of 7,562 insurable workers, or an increase of 60 per cent.
That percentage of insured workers unemployed in a two years' period does away with the statement that the new benefits caused the unemployment in Dublin, because excluded from these figures are the people in agricultural employment, in fishing and in private domestic service, and it was from these sources that the vast increase came on the register when the new scheme came in. No matter how things are examined in Dublin, from the point of view of observance of the mass demonstrations or examination of the figures available, in the light of our circumstances, it can be clearly shown that unemployment is not only there, but is there to an extent that is alarming and frightening to those of us who have responsibility for examining the position.
The figures of unemployment throughout the land, plus the high cost of living, as I hope to show, have a two-fold effect upon the population. It is but to be expected that where you have the twin evils of unemployment and the high cost of living, their natural ally and support, the evil of emigration, will follow close on their heels.
I understand that this country normally exports between 20,000 and 25,000 people per year. Should the positioncontinue as it is with unemployment growing and with the cost of living ever increasing, is it not clear that the life blood of this country will be drained off within a short period by the added force that will be behind the emigration drive until the time will come when the people leaving this country, plus those dying through natural causes, will offset those being born and the population will begin to decline?
I think it can be fairly stated in this House, without fear of contradiction, that the main cause of price increases over the past two years has been the removal of the food subsidies. That was the deliberate action of the present Government and it was supported by the Independent Deputies who helped that Government. On them must be placed, be it for good or for bad, the consequences of the deliberate action committed by them. If the Government and their Independent followers have increased the price of the most essential of the workman's food—bread, butter, tea and sugar— and if the people have suffered—and I suggest they have suffered grievously— the Government or those Independents who carried out that action must not expect from the people loyalty, love or affection, but their rightful detestation and the promise of the people that, if given the opportunity, they will bring the perpetrators of that deed to justice and to the punishment they deserve.
The cost of living at the present day is 132 per cent. above that of pre-war figures. In ordinary English and in terms that the ordinary people appreciate more, that means that a £ in 1939 would buy as many commodities as 46/5 would buy at the present moment. The effect of that loss in value of money on people such as old age pensioners, widows and orphans and people on fixed incomes, irrespective of whether they receive those incomes from a private employer, investments, pensions secured in a foreign army or elsewhere, is that the purchasing power of those people between 1939 and the present day, unless they were granted increases from the sources where they secured theirincomes, has been reduced by over 50 per cent. Even the ordinary worker who has the good luck to be employed is affected by the reduced purchasing power of the £.
For the past two years prices have increased by 22 per cent. but wages, even after the fourth increase, have lagged far behind and now reach only 9 per cent. The overall effect of the reduction in the purchasing power of the old age pensioners and of the workers has been that he or she has to do with less. A Government case was made at the time of the Budget, when these alterations were effected, that they would give in, the form of increased children's allowances and increased social welfare benefits granted to the poor with one hand that which had been taken from them with the other by the reduction of the subsidies. They also stated that they hoped the workman would, through trade union activity, and the goodness of his employer, be able to secure increased wages that would make up for the increased cost of living. Even had it been true at that time that the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans and those in receipt of social benefits of all kinds got an increase that was equal to the then cost of living, must it not be clear to everyone that, if the cost of living has continuously increased since, without any further adjustments in these benefits, a further grave reduction of spending power must have taken place in their incomes?
Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll, speaking, I think, on the Budget, expressed the view that he had hoped the increase in wages would take up the slack in the increased cost of living for the workers. He expressed grave doubts that that had happened over the past two years. I would whole-heartedly agree with Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. That did not happen, and I suggest it could not happen. If we examine what really happens when the index figure increases, and if we examine its effect on the ordinary trade unionist we can see that it could never happen that wage increaseswould catch up with the increase in the cost of living. A new index figure is got every three months. That has to be published, examined and claims for wages framed. These claims have to be lodged and negotiated. Very often there are protracted negotiations lasting six months. Agreements are finally reached which give the worker something better than he has but not the whole of what he looked for.
With the time factor of the delay in the negotiations, plus the fact that the worker did not secure the full amount of what he was looking for, on each occasion when the index figure is published and shows an increase, the employed worker is some little bit worse off until he finds it practically impossible to keep himself or his family without gradually eating into any savings that may be there or going deeper and deeper into debt.
It may be said to me: what can the Government do in regard to price control, or what can the Government do in regard to the cost of living? There are factors outside the control of the Government that have a part in prices and because of that the Government may claim that they have no responsibility. I would suggest that, by the deliberate action of the Government itself, it broke down the control established, at the request of Deputy Norton in the last year of the inter-Party Government, over a whole range of commodities in this country, and while it kept up the appearance of keeping in force the Prices Advisory Body, by non-reference to that body of certain important applications for price increases, it permitted in a deliberate manner private enterprise to satisfy itself as to the prices at which they would sell their goods. I am aware that the Tánaiste has expressed the belief and hope that private competition would fix a ceiling and eventually a reduction, if left to itself, but I am afraid that the Tánaiste has forgotten the fact that the employers have now learned that organisation pays dividends, and by their rings and combinations they see to it that their prices will not only be fair but generous.
The effect of the high cost of living and reduced purchasing power of ordinary consumers in this country has had a terrific effect on employment content. It is a well-known fact that three-quarters of the money spent each year in this country—and for goods mainly to make up employment content in the country—is personal consumption buying. In 1951, £360,000,000 out of a total of £483,000,000 was personal consumption buying. That is practically three-quarters. The effect of a reduced figure for personal consumption buying will naturally mean reduced trade for the traders. This in effect will go on to the factories and right on to the source of production leaving in its trail unemployed men and women. The vicious circle will continue and the falling-off of employment of those thousands of men and women will in itself add to the depression and, if permitted, as apparently it is going to be permitted, we will have nothing to face but economic ruin, unemployed men with no solution but the emigrant ship.
In May, 1953, 76,200 unemployed men and women, boys and girls, were in this country. I suggest that at the very lowest you could double that figure because of the fact that on each of those unemployed to some greater or lesser extent, depends either a wife, a child, a brother, or sister or some other relative. Last week the figure was 62,400. Unemployment is dropping, but let us not get any false opinions from that fact. It is a well-known fact that January each year is the peak period of unemployment, and that the valley period is July. That has been so over the last 20 years. It is a seasonal change. If the indications give any clue as to the events that are to come, we have very little to look forward to from the month of August up to next January.
The winter period when more food is necessary, better clothing is necessary and more heating, will, if things follow the usual trend, mean that more unemployment is to come until we reach again the peak in the bitter month of January next. And all this time this House proposes to go on holidays. Aswell as the seasonal drop in the valley period being reached at the present moment there is the fact that the second Employment Period Order is in being. Were it not for that, and were it the month of January, I would suggest that the indications are there and clearly there of the highest record figure of unemployment unless something drastic is done by the Government. There are certain indications that not only are we not providing employment, but that certain major industries of this country carrying the highest labour content are on the verge of wholesale dismissals of workers. Should that happen, added to the present unemployment position, it will be a miracle if the workers of this country do not in their anger and in their bafflement forget there is local government and endeavour to force from us what it is our duty to provide for them by good government.
I suggest to this Government that there is an emergency on at the present moment just as serious and just as dangerous for this country as during the 1940-1945 period. At that time almost overnight we had built up an army. We had put into operation the darkening of lights, the obliteration of street signs and cross-road indications. Everything was treated as if we were on a war footing. Is there anything wrong with having the same attitude now when over 100,000 people in this country are starved for want of the necessities of life, because they cannot secure work in the country. I appeal to the Government to give to every local authority complete autonomy, to go ahead with any of the schemes they have planned without requiring sanction from the Department of Local Government. Give them that autonomy for a period of 12 months. I can assure the Government, from my knowledge of local authorities, that they will not squander either Government or local authority money; that they will put into operation emergency schemes carrying big labour content that will be of some use to every local authority and will absorb the majority of unemployed people in the rural area.
How the matter can be dealt with in Dublin and the bigger cities I am notin a position to advise, but I am quite satisfied that if that autonomy, that automatic sanction for large schemes is given by the Minister for Local Government and if his partner, the Minister for Health, will co-operate, within a month, instead of seeing queues at the labour exchange, you will see returning from work happy and contented workmen.
