The President, in his opening statement, gave certain figures and he gave a long list of projects in the course of being done or work that is projected. I want to make some inquiries about the figures, and I want also to ask what bearing this long list of moneys spent or offered to be spent or projected to be spent in the future has to do with the immediate problem. He might just as well have quoted the sums advanced by banks towards wages week by week, the amount spent in building this or that or the other, the amount paid out by private employers in the last 26 or the last 52 weeks. They would have just as much relation to the problem before us as the projects he gave us, because notwithstanding all these works he instanced, he told us there were at the present time on the list in the Labour Exchanges 31,000 work people unemployed. That is the fact the Dáil ought to direct its attention to, not to the amount of money spent last January in wages, or the number of men employed in March or April or May on wages paid by Government assistance. Notwithstanding all these works undertaken, there are still, according to the President's figures, 31,000 men in this State on the unemployed list. I want to know what is the meaning of these figures. He quoted 49,000, 33,000 and 31,000. I think that 49,000 relates to some date in January and the 33,000 to some date in June. But we know that the Ministry for Industry and Commerce told us a year ago that "unemployment figures failed to appear for some time, and that this had been deliberately done because it was found that the figures were not being properly understood. There was no distinction made in these figures published as between unemployed in insurable occupations and the unemployed generally, and the figures do not reflect a true index of the unemployment problem in the country, and as they were being misconstrued it was thought better to discontinue them." That was the Minister's statement in October. The 31,000, I presume, are the persons at present registered. The President said that that was 10 per cent., and he said that there was an indeterminate number not registered that would have to be added. If that is 10 per cent. of the workers it would represent 310,000 people. I think it is important that we should have some figures that we could rely on, because I have not the slightest doubt that these figures will be quoted in the newspapers as showing a tendency downwards and an improvement in the position of unemployment. I would very much like to be assured that that is the case. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some proof, or at least if he cannot give proof that he will give it as his deliberate opinion, after making inquiries, that there are fewer numbers unemployed to-day than there were in June or January last. I think we ought not to allow this discussion to pass with the acceptance of this bald statement of figures without having some inquiry as to what they mean. 310,000 workpeople is the basis of this Estimate of 10 per cent.
About eighteen months or two years ago we had an official statement that the insurable population of the Saorstat was 250,000. This figure of 10 per cent. would represent 310,000. Now, speaking of 10 per cent., if that is accurate, in respect of 310,000, it is inaccurate in respect of 250,000, and I think we should have some reliable data to go upon before we accept these figures for comparative purposes, because if you mention 10 per cent. it will be quoted as against 10 per cent. in Northern Ireland or in England, and unless the figures are really comparable we shall be deceived. Is it 10 per cent. of the insured persons? Is it 10 per cent. of the persons who are insurable? Or does it include agricultural labourers and domestic servants? The figures that were provided to the Commission on reconstruction, in respect of the number of wage earners in the country, were as follows: The total number of persons insurable on the existing basis if all occupations were eligible—and that would include domestic servants and agricultural labourers—the total number of persons in that category was 465,000; presently insurable 250,000, leaving 215,000 for domestic servants, agricultural and some other non-insurable occupations. Now, we ought to have some accurate statistics in regard to that.
I agree with those who said that this sum of £120,000 is utterly inadequate. I hoped, when I saw signs on the Government benches that there was an inspired question put upon the paper, that we were going to have a really generous proposition from the Ministry. I had even hoped that, in addition to sums to be voted for the purposes of works, that we would have some proposition regarding insurance, that those who are not reachable through relief works, would have some prospects, even though they had run out of unemployment benefit on the insured basis, of having their benefits extended, and that they would thereby come into receipt of something to carry them through the coming weeks during the winter. It is really a deplorable position, and it is not merely men who have been, shall I say, in their normal state of only being engaged now and again in a payable occupation, a wage-earning occupation, it is not the casual worker, who is more or less inured, to his cost, to long periods of unemployment who are affected.
I have information of a trade that Deputy Egan (Cork) will be familiar with. For some considerable time, not less than 25 per cent. of a skilled body of workmen—coach-builders—have been unemployed and 60 per cent. are on short time. That is really a very deplorable state of things. It is indicative of the conditions in quite a number of skilled trades, which men spend from five to seven years in learning, at very small reward, in the hope of something like constancy and adequate yearly earnings. That is their position. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture often reiterates the fact that the country is living upon the produce of agriculture and that the agriculturists are living at a low standard. He tells us that, roughly, two-thirds of the population are keeping the other third and that the other third are living at a higher standard than the two-thirds who are producing the wealth. He argues that the basis of our economy is unfair and lopsided. He even goes so far as to say that there are too many people living upon agriculture and that it will not afford the present population. I ask the Minister and the Dail to consider that proposition. Accepting it as a truth, what are we to draw from it? Of that one-third that is living upon agriculture, a very large proportion are living at a very high standard—in many cases, a very high standard of luxury would be the description—and not contributing anything, not even service, to the community. They are not even engaged in distribution. They are not engaged in public service of any kind, and yet they are living at a very high standard. Accepting the Minister's contention that that one-third which is living upon agriculture is living at a great variety of standards, in the case of a very large proportion of it—the working-class element—they are relying upon the spending of the other portion, to a very great extent. If you are to take that as the inevitable state of things, then we shall demand at least such a redistribution of the wealth enjoyed by that other part as will ensure that every one within that one-third will have meat and bread before anybody has any of the extras. If you are going to maintain your present method of distribution, we at least are going to demand that a man shall have bread before his neighbour has cake. For the Minister to ask us to face the basic fact, that the wealth production of the country is being done by agriculturists, is very valuable and very important. Incidentally, it emphasises the necessity of having other forms of wealth-production encouraged and developed. In the meantime, if the total wealth produced by agriculturists is being distributed unfairly, and two-thirds of the producers are enjoying only one-third or one-half of the wealth produced, then the balance is being distributed unfairly and being enjoyed disproportionately. If that is considered the inevitable consequence of your present methods of production and distribution, then you have, at least, the right to pay the insurance premium and provide your working-class population with at least sufficient to eat.