COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE—VOTE 19 (RELIEF SCHEMES). – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Thursday, 17 Dec 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE—VOTE 19 (RELIEF SCHEMES).

The PRESIDENT

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £120,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun cabhruithe leis an bhfóirithin ar dhíomhaointeas agus ar ghátar.

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120,000, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for contributions towards the relief of unemployment and distress.

The amount of the original Estimate for the current financial year was £115,000. This sum was the estimated cost of completing schemes for which grants had been made during the financial year 1924-25, but which had not been completed during that year. It was not intended to finance any new works. A supplementary Estimate of £135,000 was taken at the end of June on account of the continued unemployment and distress. Of the total of the original and supplementary Estimates, amounting to £250,000, a sum of £228,800 has already been allocated, leaving a balance of £21,200. The present supplementary Estimate is necessary because of the continuance of unemployment and distress which are unlikely to be alleviated before the late spring.

The number of registered unemployed at the beginning of the present calendar year was 49,000; at the end of June the number was 33,000, and the number at present is 31,000. This figure would indicate unemployment to the extent of approximately 10 per cent., but it must be borne in mind that there are also large numbers unemployed who are not registered because they are not entitled to benefit. Apart, of course, from unemployment, there is also acute distress in many areas resulting from other causes, such as losses of stock, etc.

Of the grants sanctioned during the present financial year, £118,000 has been allocated to the Department of Local Government and Public Health for expenditure on roads, reclamation, drainage, water works, school meals and fuel. £86,100 was allocated to the Land Commission for general improvements to estates, £8,000 to the Department of Agriculture for forestry works, and approximately £3,450 for seed schemes. The sum of £2,000 will be spent under the supervision of the Board of Works, on Arklow Harbour, and the balance of £377 of the Government subsidy was paid to Wolfhill Collieries. A sum of £7,500 was allocated for the extension of the Tralee and Fenit Pier, but it is not known whether this work will be carried out during the present financial year.

Apart from grants from the Relief Schemes Vote, it must be borne in mind that there are in existence a number of schemes which provide a large measure of employment. There is the Shannon scheme, the Barrow drainage scheme, general drainage maintenance, the sugar beet factory, and various building operations carried out by the Board of Works.

Now I would like to hear, from the President, in what way the Government intend to try to attack this problem, if there is definite information in the possession of the Executive or the Minister for Finance, to enable them to allocate to the particular districts where serious loss of stock has taken place; definite fixed sums. I have had, heretofore, on this matter, occasion to bring before the notice of the Dáil the way in which moneys voted in this fashion have been spent, and it is not a pleasant position for any Deputy to have to take up, but we do know that this money is, at times, beyond question, spent in districts where political influence is strong; and I do not make that statement with regard to one constituency as against another, but I make it, even, with regard to one district in a constituency as against another. I want to point out to the President, in the matter of the relief of distress due to the loss of stock, that there is a very distinct difference between the distress that may be caused in a district where there has been a loss of stock and the position in a district where there is unemployment. It appears, to all intents and purposes, a poorer district where employment would be needed and the disposition would be to spend money perhaps first where there is very considerable unemployment, although on the other hand the distress might be considerably greater in a district where its existence might not be so apparent. Where the distress is due to fluke or loss of stock the conditions would be very much worse.

Now if there is any definite policy in this, if the Ministers, or whoever is responsible for the allocation to particular districts, have not grasped what the position is in particular districts, this supplementary Estimate will, instead of relieving distress, cause more discontent and dissatisfaction than the good that may be done by our voting it here. Mal-administration of this money in any way would be very bad, and by mal-administration I mean spending money in districts where influences are strong enough to get money spent regardless of whether or not the demands in another district from the point of view of distress or unemployment are really much greater than in districts where the people are able to get the money. If the President wants to make the House believe that this Vote is going in any way to relieve distress caused by loss of stock I want to say that it is not, and it will not. But even if there is a pretence that a certain amount of relief is going to be given in these districts, I want to urge that careful inquiry should be made and consideration given to the question as to whether the loss that has been was great or small. If that is not done and if political pressure is to determine the amount that is to be given in a particular constituency and a particular district, then both the Executive and other Deputies in this House will be storing up trouble for every one of us by such conduct as that.

I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the figures the President has given about the money that is being spent and the works that are in the course of operation. I think if the President said that such works may some time be carried out, perhaps next year, his statement would be more acceptable. There is no use talking of the Barrow drainage or perhaps the Shannon scheme, or growing beet or other matters he made reference to as means for relieving unemployment, or works upon which money is being spent. It is hardly a fair statement of the case as we know the conditions at the present time, in trying to make a case as to what our Government are really doing, to urge that money is being spent on particular works. I think the Minister would have been well advised to have left that part of his speech out altogether.

Mr. NAGLE

I am a bit doubtful exactly as to what is going to be done with this money. I understood from the President's remarks that the bulk of the money would be administered through local bodies such as urban councils and county councils. I am not quite sure that that is the truth. Deputy Baxter told us about some things that happened in Cavan under the scheme of the Government last year, with which he disagreed. I remember the discussions that took place here at the time. So far as I am concerned, I have some experience of money administered in the early part of this year by the Land Commission, and it was administered, I think, very satisfactorily indeed, and the work done there has turned out to be a work of a permanent nature, so very much so that recently the Cork County Council has taken over the roads that were then made under the supervision of the Land Commission when this relief work was going on and have decided to keep them in repair for the future. That work has been a benefit to the men who got employment in making the roads, and practically in all the cases it has been a benefit to the people locally, by giving them better facilities for getting from one place to another.

In one case I have in mind it gave a direct road to a creamery, a school and a church to the people of the locality and saved them at least three miles, and three miles, as anyone will understand in a country district, is a very valuable distance to save, especially during the winter. I would like myself that some of this money should be spent as it was in these relief schemes, through the Land Commission. But there is one thing I would like to say also, and it is this. If a decision is come to to spend the money through the Land Commission, or through any other department, the departments should be notified immediately this evening or to-morrow that the money will be available. I remember in June when £135,000 was voted. I approached two or three Government departments that might have the spending of the money, and I was told that they had no instructions from the Department of Finance. I approached the Department of Finance on a few occasions and I was informed that they could not allocate any money until the schemes were put up to them by the particular department, whether the Local Government Board or the Land Commission. I again came back to these departments and they said that the Finance Department — if I may use a word that has been used sometimes in this House — were only "codding," and I was told that they would ignore, completely, any scheme, whether put up or not, unless they were informed beforehand that money was available for such work.

There is really no use in our going to these departments for some of this relief money except they have been informed beforehand by the Finance Department that they are to formulate relief schemes. On the other hand, the Finance Department say that these people must formulate schemes before they can do anything on these lines. If that is the way that this £120,000 is going to be administered, we shall see the whole of the money in the Finance Department on the 31st of March next. I would like to know what are the intentions regarding it, and whether the information I got during the last few months regarding the £135,000 is true on the part of, say, the people in the Land Commission or the Local Government Department, that they must get authority beforehand from the Finance Department before they can put up schemes, or if it is true that the Finance Department gives them a free hand to put up schemes and will advance them the money.

Mr. GOREY

The statement of Deputy Nagle is rather misleading. The statement of the President is also misleading. Deputy Nagle said that money was handed over to the Land Commission to do certain work — to make roads in certain districts — and that the roads made were ultimately handed over to the county council of a certain county. The first thing the Land Commission is in duty bound to do, in carrying out the Land Commission scheme, is to make roadways through the properties they divide for the convenience of the people who are to live there. They, in many cases, make approaches to the different holdings. They put up buildings and they make fences around the holdings. But their first and most important duty is to make highways through the holdings that come into their possession. The county council must, of necessity, take over those roads if they are of a certain width. This grant, administered in the way that the Deputy has instanced, is money that would have been spent by the Land Commission in any case.

Mr. T. MURPHY

May I explain to Deputy Gorey that in the cases in which this money was spent, there was no question whatever of division of land. Roads were made to accommodate people who had been agitating, and whose grandfathers had been agitating for roads. The county council were not bound to take them over. But they took them over as a result of the work done, when they saw the usefulness of it.

Mr. GOREY

If a case could be made, it was the duty of the local authority— the county council or the district council—to make those roads at the expense of the public. They may have neglected to do that. If they did, that was the fault of the local authority. It has been said that this is intended to relieve people who suffered losses in cattle. At the time that was being dealt with, it was pointed out that the better way would be to give grants for relief of distress in those districts. It was seriously put up here by Deputies Sears and Dolan that that was the better way. But I want to say that this method does not meet the situation at all. It is only a pretence at meeting the situation. In some districts it will be found that these relief schemes will serve no useful purpose. Districts like North and West Kerry, Clare, Galway, will not lend themselves to these schemes. Where the greatest losses have been suffered, drainage schemes are not necessary, and road-making schemes are not necessary. They will not reach the individuals that suffered most. In some cases, where there are young families able to work, they will be able to avail of the work provided by those schemes, but other families who have suffered losses will get no benefit by this work. Anybody who has a farm of twenty or twenty-five acres will have very little labour to spare in order to avail of public works.

I daresay those who have the spending of this money will get better value for their money. The particular party who is able to hand out the money will get better value, if the money is spent, from the political point of view. But from the public and State point of view, it is altogether wrong. It will not reach the people it is intended to reach. To say that this scheme is going to meet the situation discussed here five or six weeks ago is to say a thing that is not. Nobody believes it. I have no objection where there is distress in the country to have a scheme of this description put up to meet the situation. But I will not accept it as meeting the other situation if it is intended to meet it. I can quite realise that there are areas like Leitrim and, perhaps, Connemara, where there is acute distress and where some scheme of useful work is needed to relieve the distress. Any work of utility well done in a district where it is needed is a good investment. The Ministry seem to be quite cheerful in putting up money in this case and, if I may say so, they shut the door on the other case. It practically shuts the door on the cases of acute distress and urgency put up here a few months ago.

Mr. SEAN LYONS

I sincerely hope this Estimate has no bearing whatever on my motion. I claim the right to ask the Government to make a statement on my motion later this evening, and what I have to say on the Estimate is not to be confused in any way with the reply I will give on my motion. The £120,000 given by the Government now for the relief of distress, or as it is specified in the Estimate "by way of grants for loss," would not relieve distress in half the counties which are suffering acutely owing to the want of employment in the Saorstát. I shall be very pleased to hear some Deputies from Galway voicing their opinion on this Estimate, and to hear them explaining the condition under which their people live. If the Deputies from Galway explain the conditions under which their people live, I am sure the Dáil will credit other Deputies when they say that constituencies they represent are as bad as those of Galway. In Westmeath and Longford, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, we have week after week collections for the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

Mr. MICHAEL EGAN

So have we all.

Mr. LYONS

This is the place to speak and not at a public meeting in Cork. We have, week after week collections for the purpose of relieving the destitute in the different towns of my constituency. Something like 280 families are in receipt of benefits from the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Something like £12,500 each year is paid by way of home help. Surely, some distress must prevail in this constituency. The same thing applies to every part of the Saorstát, and we are asked here to-day to pass a supplementary estimate of £120,000, the greater part of which has already been spent. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to give some immediate relief to enable the unemployed worker to tide over Christmas. Christmas is a time which, as the old saying goes, comes only once a year. Thank Heaven, from the worker's point of view, it does not come twice a year. It is supposed to be a time of full and plenty for everyone. Yet we have thousands of homes which, coming up to the great feast we are to celebrate on the 25th of the month, have not a morsel of food. We are told that the greater portion of the £120,000 has already been spent and that the remainder is only what the Government can give.

The President spoke about relief for the loss of cattle through the fluke. How many credit societies have been formed? No relief can be given unless a credit society is formed. The people have not any money to lodge. This is not a grant but a loan, free of interest for three years. Deputy Gorey put forward a plea on behalf of the farmer. He is perfectly right in saying that a lot of small farmers will not benefit in any way from this grant. Practically by every county council a resolution has been adopted that no man will be entitled to work whose valuation is over £7, and no carter will be employed with over £15 valuation. If Deputy Gorey is correct, such people as small farmers do not come within this. I ask Deputy Gorey to make a sacrifice, as the farmers have alleged they have made sacrifices——

Mr. BAXTER

It is true, and you know it.

Mr. LYONS

I know some have made sacrifices in the past and let them make them in the future. Let them ask the Government to have this amount given to relieve unemployment distress — that is to say, labourers and artisans out of employment, in order that they may have something to tide them over the Christmas. We have thousands of workers in the Saorstát who are willing and able to work but who cannot find employment. I admit we have hundreds of people who are indifferent as to whether they get work or not. I am sure Deputy Johnson and his colleagues will admit that.

Mr. E. DOYLE

Not in the country.

Mr. LYONS

Well, in the big towns, and they are anxiously looking forward to the dole. Since I have become a member of this Dáil, I have not advocated the dole. I put it to the Government that if you cannot find employment, you must give the workers something to keep body and soul together, and I ask the President to be generous enough to have something given immediately, even through the labour exchanges, in order to relieve the distress amongst the unemployed. Do not take only into account those who are eligible to draw benefits but take into account also the agricultural labourer, who is the hardest hit. He is not eligible under the unemployment benefits scheme. He has nowhere to look to. He is probably rearing a large family and developing their intelligence and their brains in the interest of the welfare of this country. He is getting no help whatever. He is simply looked upon as a nonentity. They say to him: "You are not entitled to any unemployment insurance." You have thousands of agricultural labourers on the dole at the moment who are suffering acute distress and who will not be entitled to any portion even of this amount of £120,000, given by way of a supplementary estimate. I admit that the Government are trying to meet the case fairly well. The total estimate for 1925-26 is £370,000 for the relief of distress, by way of loans, which include housing schemes.

I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to start relief works and if this money voted by the Dáil at the expense of the taxpayer of the country could not be utilised in any better manner than the £250,000 voted last year was used. Can we get value for the money? Are there not many firms who would be quite prepared to give employment to twenty or thirty extra hands if the Government were prepared to give even half the wages, say, a £1 or 25/- a week, to those who were formerly engaged by the firm and who are now unemployed. I may be looked upon as advocating something out of the common, but I think it is only right to say that the workers of the Twenty-six Counties do not want to receive alms. They do not look for alms. Anything brought from the Labour Exchange is paid for by the workers themselves, and we do not accept the dope that has been used here, that the worker must go with his hand out to receive alms at the hands of the Government by way of a grant to be distributed through the Labour Exchange. The Government are giving £120,000, the total amount to be spent by the 31st March. That amount could be spent in one week, if the Government intended seriously to relieve distress among the unemployed.

£120,000 is merely a drop in the ocean in comparison with the distress prevailing amongst us. I know that I would not be in order to move that this amount be increased, nor would I be in order to propose that the Government allocate immediately £100,000 to the Labour Exchanges so that every worker, whether registered or not, would be able to get work during Christmas. I appeal to the Government to have something done immediately, for I can assure the Dáil that unless something is done the workers in this country will not stand their conditions much longer. I do not advocate any destruction, but I say that if my children were hungry they would not be hungry for long, if I could get food from shop windows. It is up to the workers to see that their children do not starve. If I were to be arrested by the Minister for Justice himself, I would say that it is the right of the workers of Ireland to get food, especially when it is remembered that they did everything in their power, and made all kinds of sacrifices to achieve that freedom which we now claim to possess. If a worker, in order to satisfy his hungry children goes out and steals a loaf, he will get six months' hard labour.

There is no consideration for the loss of his children, and is a life more valuable than a loaf of bread? I want employment for my people; I do not want charity. I have advised the workers over and over again to stand loyal, as their needs would be seen to by the Government for which they fought. What is to become of the 14,000 or 15,000 ex-Service men who were demobilised? You see many of them walking the streets of Dublin hungry. Even yesterday thousands of young women could be seen asking for employment and bread. I may be told by the Government that the country cannot afford to pay more than £120,000. If we have succeeded in saving the country £179,000,000, surely we can afford to allocate some of this huge amount for the people on whose behalf we made the Agreement. If a grant of £1,000,000 was given immediately, everybody could get employment and the workers would be able to rear and educate their families.

It should be remembered that when workers are satisfied with their lot they are an asset to the country. They could be employed on useful work, even if it were only making a ditch. It would be better to have them do that than to have thousands of our best young men and girls following the emigrant ship and going to foreign countries to build them up for foreigners. If the Government is serious about wanting the country to develop they should relieve distress and enable the workers to live. There is no use in coming forward with this £120,000, of which probably two-thirds are already spent. I want either employment or bread for the workers, and one or other they are going to have. Some of them have been unemployed for eighteen months and have drawn all they are allowed to draw at the labour exchanges. Now they have no further benefit, and we are offered here £120,000, of which probably only £30,000 is available at the moment.

Mr. BLYTHE

The exact figure available to be spent between this and the 31st March is £160,000.

Mr. LYONS

You have £120,000 in the Estimates. How much of that is being spent?

Mr. BLYTHE

None.

Mr. LYONS

The President was evidently wrong in his statement. If Deputies want to realise the extent of the distress prevailing let them visit the homes of the unemployed in their constituencies, and if they return here and say that this amount is adequate to deal with the problem, they will be in a position of proving that there is no distress in the country. I would like to hear an honest farmer's opinion on this question. I want to know how many men farmers would be able to employ if the Government provided half their wages.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is really a speech on the Deputy's motion in regard to the subsidies for industries.

Mr. LYONS

I want to get some relief for the unemployed by Christmas, and there are only a few days left. I want relief either through labour exchanges or local authorities for the huge number of unemployed. Unless that relief is forthcoming I can assure the Dáil that they will be up against a greater problem in January than they have been up against in the past five years. If the Government do not come to the aid of the unemployed they must put up with the consequences.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to submit to the House that the amount of the supplementary Estimate is very inadequate to meet the position in regard to distress and unemployment. I remember on a motion similar to this last year the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that it was not the duty of the Government to provide work for the unemployed, and that it was possible that people in this country would die of hunger. I want to say that the Minister's prophecy, if I might call it such, was very true.

I am quoting these two cases, and if any member of the Ministry has any doubts about either of them I can furnish him with the name, and inquiries can be made in the hospital. Three weeks before the woman died she went into hospital, and a month before that her husband had just come out of hospital. The number of people who die because they cannot get food may not be many, but the number of people who die through lack of nutrition is considerable. If anything would go to show the extent of unemployment in this country it would be the figures which we heard yesterday from the President. He told us that hundreds of thousands of pounds had been provided for the relief of unemployment through the Board of Works, and through work on roads and other schemes but, nevertheless, he admits that there are 31,000 registered unemployed. I think it would be putting it at a very moderate figure to say that the number not registered would be in the region of from 40,000 to 50,000, because we must remember that every day the number of men entitled to unemployment benefit is reduced because they have exhausted their rights to benefit, and have exhausted their stamps and, when they are informed that there is no more benefit coming to them they do not sign on.

Of course it is well known that agricultural workers are not entitled to any unemployment benefit. I would suggest to the Government that this is not the way to meet the unemployment problem — giving £100,000, £150,000 in a few months and another £150,000 in another few months. If the position is as we have been informed by the Minister within the last couple of weeks, that unlike any other country in Europe we have no war debt, and that we have the smallest national debt, why will not the Government borrow money for works of reconstruction that require to be carried out? We were told on every occasion when the question of unemployment came up that this is a poor country and the Government could not possibly afford, or could not get, the money for relief purposes. If they could get £5,000,000 to patch up a Boundary settlement, I submit that they should be able to get money sufficient to get work for every man in this country. This subject is treated with a certain amount of levity by Deputies in this House, and speakers who deal with it are listened to in a contemptuous way by other Deputies.

We on those benches have personal experience of the matter, as we live among these people and know their sufferings. When we go home in the week-ends these stricken people come to us with their tales of woe. A woman told me that though her husband has been unemployed for three or four months the outdoor relieving officer had refused to give outdoor relief. I do not say that there are not cases which are not genuine, but such cases would be very odd ones. Most of the cases are genuine. The people are in a bad way, and when we, speaking from experience of those people, come here and put their case as temperately as we can, we are treated very often to the sneers and jibes of Ministers. I think most of the poor people of this country have great patience.

There is the case, and I am sure there are many others like it, of this man who served twelve months in the National Army and helped to save the State — as we were told by the President —and his wife died from hunger because he could not provide her with sufficient food. That man would require to possess extraordinary patience, and he could not be blamed if he took Deputy Lyons's advice and broke two, or three, windows in order to get bread for his starving children.

Mr. LYONS

That is not Deputy Lyons's advice, but it is what Deputy Lyons would do himself if he were in that position.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It might be illegal, but, as a famous law lord once said, there are illegalities that are not crimes. It seems to me that the problem of unemployment and distress will not be solved by a sop such as this. It is totally inadequate, and it is merely trying to stem agitation for the time being in the hope that something better will happen in the next three or four months. With regard to what Deputy Gorey and Deputy Baxter said as to farmers who lost stock, in my constituency, so far as I can gather, the loss was not great, but even in Tipperary some individuals suffered much from loss of stock, and I think we have something to be thankful for in the fact that the loss was not widespread. If cattle died as a result of cold, and owing to the wetness of the year and because farmers were not able to provide them with food, what about the human beings? They had to endure the cold and the wet, and they were not able to secure sufficient food. I am not trying to take from the case the farmers made. I think they made a just case, and I believe that the people who suffered are entitled to be treated by the Government in such a way as will enable them to work their farms and earn a decent livelihood from them. The first duty of the Government is to see that the people will not die from hunger or malnutrition.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

Whether this Supplementary Estimate is sufficient or insufficient, as some of the Deputies contend, that is a matter for the Minister. If the necessity for providing employment, for providing those requirements which the farmers put forward, and for providing relief works generally, is not sufficiently met in this Estimate clearly, it is the business of the Minister to see to it. Whether the £120,000 is sufficient for the purpose I do not know, but the Minister must know that as he has all the information at his disposal. A moment ago, owing to an interruption, he stated that the actual amount that would be disposed of would be £160,000. It must be, therefore, from the grant already made that the £40,000 was in some way or other reserved or not spent. I desire to urge in regard to the western counties, where a large number of relief works, some of them small, and some of them very useful, were stopped, that these works should be completed, or otherwise the money spent on them already would be absolutely thrown away. I suggest to the Minister that in dealing with this matter he will particularly see that these works already approved of by him and put in motion should be completed. The amount required would be very small, indeed, and well within the £160,000.

Mr. M. EGAN

Judging from the statements made by Deputy Lyons and other Deputies, one would think there was no unemployment anywhere but in the particular districts they represent. At present, in Cork City, there is, and I am sorry to say it, an appalling amount of unemployment. I do not want to cavil with the amount of money that is being given for the relief of distress, but I sincerely hope, and I want to stress this point, that where there are works of utility to be carried out in the City of Cork that the money will be given for the relief of unemployment in that district, and I would be relieved if it could be done as quickly as possible. When the Cork Corporation were functioning — and I want to say that the Commissioner there is doing his work in a capable fashion—at this period of the year they used to grant an additional sum for the relief of distress. I am not certain that the Commissioner is doing it, but it is possible he may. I sincerely hope he is, because it would, to a great extent, carry the people over the Christmas period, which Deputy Lyons has spoken of as being a season of full and plenty. I am sorry for the full and plenty portion of it, but I do sincerely hope that some of that money will be sent to relieve what I have termed, and what I am sorry to have to so term, the appalling unemployment in the city which I happen to represent here.

Mr. LYONS

On a point of explanation, I did not say that the workers had full and plenty. I said I thought they should have full and plenty.

Mr. CONLAN

I want to say a word as to the position of things in the County Kildare. At the beginning of the financial year it was estimated that a sum of £17,000 would meet the claims for home assistance in that county. By the 1st of September last, a sum of £24,000 had been expended under that head, and of course we must take into account that the six months prior to the 1st of September were the best months of the year. What I mean by that is, that during that period you would be likely to have less unemployment than during the winter or early spring months. It is estimated that at the end of the financial year a sum of £42,000 will have been expended in home assistance. The question arises now — How is that to be met? It cannot be met out of the entire Estimate of the county council. I may say that this matter has been put before the Minister for Local Government by an influential deputation representing the different parties in the county. I do not know whether he has considered the position seriously, but at any rate the position is so critical that it is giving rise to very grave feelings, bordering, I may say, on consternation, on the part of the ratepayers of the county as to how they are to meet this enormous and increasing expenditure. It was pointed out previously here that the situation in Kildare is peculiarly bad because of the fact that a great number of men used to find employment in it, particularly around the Curragh. They cannot find that occupation now, and in these circumstances it is only right that the County Kildare should be accorded special consideration.

Mr. SEARS

I was very glad to hear the statement of the President that this sum of money is to be devoted for relief work. From the speeches delivered by Deputies in different parts of the House there can be no doubt left in anyone's mind that relief work is badly needed. As far as the West is concerned, we are quite satisfied that this work could not be in better hands than those of the Land Commission. They know the sort of work that is needed in these districts to improve the land from an agricultural point of view. I fear, however, that most of these districts have been neglected in the past.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

Mr. SEARS

There was no one to see that roads were made into bogs. Many of the old bogs are used up, and the new ones have to be sought out. In the case of these new bogs, roads have to be made to them. That is a very costly work, but it is work of a reproductive character. I think the Government should not hesitate to carry out large schemes of that kind, and that they should give an increase of the grant they propose now. I think the grant might be well increased in view of the general depression that exists all over the country, and particularly in the case of districts like Leitrim, Mayo, Galway, and other counties along the seaboard. We had hoped that the sum for these districts alone would be at least £120,000. When you hear of districts like Cork, Tipperary, Carlow, Kildare and other places looking for a large slice of this grant, and putting up a very good case for it, you begin to feel that the amount that will come to counties like Mayo, Galway and Leitrim will be very small. The amount would be altogether unequal to their needs. I certainly think that in these bad times a larger sum should be allocated to relieve the distress that prevails in these areas.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I agree with Deputy Morrissey that £120,000 is not going to meet the whole of the unemployment problem. It is only a palliative, as has been said. I would like to know how much money would meet the problem. The Deputy mentioned the £5,000,000 which, he said, was to be paid to England in connection with the Treaty settlement. I think if anyone examines the question he will find that it would probably take two or three millions to find work, say, for everyone looking for work within the next three or four months. That is the position, and you cannot have it both ways. There are two policies: one is to apply a palliative, and the other is to find work for everyone who wants work. Nobody pretends from this side of the House that we are doing any more in the present instance than attempting to deal with the problem by the first method, but clearly the claim put up from the other side of the House is that the Government should find work for everybody. It was that point of view that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was expressing when he said that it was not the business of a Government to find work for everybody. If the second method is put forward seriously, you find yourself at once up against very serious propositions indeed. You find yourself up against the question of borrowing three or four million pounds. I do not intend to go into the question whether that sum could be properly spent, or whether, humanly speaking, you could get value for the money, taking into account all the difficulties you would be faced with. Looking at the problem from the point of view of the State, everyone knows the difficulty that would be met with—that a very big percentage of that sum of three or four million pounds would go in superintendence, in the purchase of plant and so on. After having spent that huge sum of money annually you would have very little left even with the best possible organisation that could be put up.

Apart from that, there is another side to the question. If you are to borrow a sum of three, four or five millions, who is to repay it or pay the interest on it? The producers. The people who mainly produce the wealth of this country are our 350,000 farmers. From the wealth they produce the shopkeeper, the professional man, the worker, and, in fact, all of us get our share. They are the main producers of the wealth of this country with just the few small industries that we have. It is these 350,000 farmers, 240,000 of whom are men whose rents or annuities are £9 or £7 a year, who produce from 70 to 80 per cent. of the wealth of this country. That fact has to be remembered, and that is really the big dilemma we are up against. On one side you have the producers, comparatively poor people who, under the best possible circumstances, can only make a very moderate living for themselves and their families. They produce practically all the wealth of this country, and will continue to produce it until we have development. That can only take place over a period of five or eight years. When Deputies put forward the proposition that big sums of money should be borrowed, it ought to be remembered that the people who will have to repay that money and pay the interest on it, are people who themselves are in a state of genuine distress. On that I agree with Deputy Morrissey. Deputies ought to remember that these people find it extremely hard to live themselves. They have to work longer than the trade union hours, and for less than the trade union rate of wages.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Minister, I think, ought to realise that if the fifty or sixty thousand people who are unemployed at present were employed in works of production, that it would be much easier to meet the payment of the interest that he mentions than it would be under present circumstances.

Mr. HOGAN

That statement contains a lot of fallacies. People can be employed, and in fact in this country people are employed, so far as labour is concerned, mainly on something that is not productive—on distribution or on relief works. Certain kinds of relief work indirectly may be termed productive, such, for instance, as drainage schemes or road works, but in the main, the normal employment that is given in this country is connected with distribution, and something which, technically, you could hardly refer to as production. That is a side of the problem that you have to look at in considering this question. While it is all very fine for Deputies on the Labour benches to put us up against the brutal fact that there are a large number of people in this country without enough to eat, if we are to face the problem as it should be faced, we must face it in the light of the fact that the main producers of wealth in the country are themselves, to a very great extent, unable to support their own wives and families even with the hardest work and the longest hours. That is the dilemma that we are placed in, and it is really a frightful dilemma. There are a great many morals to be drawn from that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

Mr. HOGAN

I will be glad to hear Deputy Johnson on this, but if it is a fact, as it is, that the producers of the wealth of this country are mainly the small farmers, and that under normal circumstances they find it hard enough to put anything by for themselves, then we have to face the problem in the light of that fact, remembering, too, that everyone must cut his cloth according to his measure. The shopkeeper, the professional man, and the labourer has to remember that.

Mr. MORRISSEY

He has no cloth to cut.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not going to take up the Deputy on debating points, but what I have stated is the fundamental fact in connection with our economics in this country, that the producers of wealth here are principally comparatively poor people who have to work extremely hard to make a living so as to enable them to put a little by even in normal times. They are at the basis of our economic system, and every other class in the country, professional, shopkeeper, worker, and everyone else must endeavour to realise that there ought to be some relationship between his or her standard of living, as the case may be, and the standard of living of the people out of whose wealth he or she may be existing.

I could put in a plea here for the 150,000 congests that we have. We have to face the fact that out of 350,000 farmers we have 150,000 congests properly so called. When I ask myself what can be done for them I have to realise that so far as they are concerned our foundations for agriculture are unsound. You have too many people trying to live out of the land. You have a larger number of people endeavouring to live out of it than the land can support. Of course that statement of mine can be twisted, and it can be said that I am preaching a policy of emigration and so on. All sorts of glosses can be put on that, but it is a hard fact, and in order to deal with a problem like this you have to face facts. I know it will be said that the farmers could make considerably more out of the land, if they were better educated, if they were better organised, if they worked harder and better. I admit it, but that has nothing to do with the point. No education and no amount of hard work will support more than one family on a £5 valuation holding with any decent standard of living. That is the real problem so far as the farmer is concerned. I am speaking of the distress so far as he is concerned at the moment. I am not clear that we are not in the same condition with regard to the distributors. We have congests among the distributors and congests, if you like, among the labourers, and when you talk of palliatives, and when you say this measure is but a palliative, and when we agree with you we have to go further and realise that there is a much bigger problem there that none of us are facing except each from his own point of view.

Another thing that must be remembered in the interest of accuracy is that the Government has spent very big sums of money in connection with this unemployment problem. In the last three years they have spent one and a quarter millions of money on unemployment; they have spent over £300,000 a year, raised mainly by taxation, and Deputies ought to remember when they are complaining from public platforms that taxation is so high that every penny spent in that direction has to come out of taxation which has to be raised in this country, and means a reduction in our borrowing potentialities. There is £120,000 to be voted now, and the Land Commission has been asked to spend a certain amount of that in relief works, and I have been asked will we complete the works begun last year, and that are now incomplete. The answer to that is that we will; that is the first thing that will be done. I am also asked what effect will this have upon the problem which the farmer Deputies have put up to us—that is, the loss caused by fluke. Let me say, first of all, it is not the duty of the Land Commission to engage in carrying out relief works, and it is not the duty of the Department of Agriculture. We have no organisation for it.

I have been taking Land Commission officials from their proper work constantly during winter time, and throwing the inspectorate and indoor staff upon this work of organising relief works and carrying them out. That is not the function of the Land Commission. The function of the Land Commission is to acquire and distribute land. When Deputies make a fuss here of the rates at which land purchase is progressing they should remember that they themselves have been pressing the Land Commission to do things that if they are to do will prevent them carrying out land purchase as expeditiously as it should be carried out. I have to go now to the Land Commission, and to get some of the best of its officials to come forward and take over the work of spending this £70,000 as soon as possible. That is interfering with the work of the Land Commission, calling upon it to do work that it was never intended to. Neither should the Department of Agriculture have to do it.

With regard to fluke, this will only relieve people who lost stock, and it will only relieve them to a very small extent, and incidentally I cannot give any undertaking that the Land Commission will pick out particular districts where there has been loss of stock, and do relief work there. We have to take a great many considerations into account. The Land Commission staff will have to work where there is poverty; and, secondly, where there is work to be done that can be usefully done. They have to take all these things into account, and face them in all the circumstances. We will spend this money mainly among the congested districts and among some of the poorer districts outside the congested districts, but principally where practical work can be usefully undertaken in these districts.

Mr. JOHNSON

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.

Mr. HOGAN

When the Deputy says that we have a right to pay the insurance premium, to whom does he refer? Does he suggest that it should be paid by the farmer?

Mr. JOHNSON

I am speaking of the community. The community have a right to ensure that the element which is unable to live unless it gets work must be kept in a condition of health and must not be allowed to starve. The Minister's proposition leads me, at any rate, to the conclusion—I think it would lead others who think seriously about it to the same conclusion—that that one-third of the population, which is not engaged in production, is enjoying the national wealth disproportionately, that there should be a redistribution of the national wealth in the form of consumption, and that the present method of securing enjoyment of the annual production is inadequate and unfair.

Mr. HOGAN

Surely the Deputy need not leave it at that. He should show how the redistribution is to take place.

Mr. JOHNSON

"Fancy then some thirty full-grown thousands of such gaunt figures, with their haggard faces in woollen jupes, with copper-studded leather girths, and high sabots, starting up to ask their washed Upper-classes, after long unreviewed centuries, virtually this question: How have ye treated us; how have you taught us, fed us, and led us, while we toiled for you? The answer can be read in flames, over the nightly summer sky. This is the feeling and leading we had of you: EMPTINESS— of pocket, of stomach, of head and of heart. Behold, there is nothing in us; nothing but what Nature gives her wild children of the desert: Ferocity and Appetite; Strength grounded on Hunger. Did ye mark amongst your Rights of Man, that man was not to die of starvation while there was bread reaped by him? It is among the Mights of Man."

Thomas Carlyle was right, and it may be necessary to apply the lesson he hints at there in this country if we do not beware.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I rise to express my disappointment at the totally inadequate efforts of the Government to meet the situation. The Estimate, in my opinion, will only barely touch the fringe of the problem. I am satisfied that if the whole sum mentioned in this Estimate was distributed in the city of Dublin amongst the unemployed it would barely keep them from starvation between now and Christmas. I will make a suggestion to the Government because I am satisfied that this scheme brings no immediate relief, and that what you are up against to-day is how to give immediate relief to the hungry men, women and children that are at present in the city. I would suggest to the Minister that, as at emergency measure, some fund should subscribe to the Unemployment Fund, and so put every man who is out of benefit and ineligible to draw unemployment benefits into benefit, and give him at least something for Christmas week and the week after. I understand that there are many thousands in Dublin to-day who are being helped by their neighbours living in the same house. Unfortunately, most of our unemployed come from the tenements. I had an experience of the distress these people suffer when I visited a certain house. I made inquiries, and I was told by the woman in the room that I visited, that she received a little tea and a loaf of bread from a man in the next room who chanced to get one day's work that day, and that she hoped that when her man would get a day's work, and when the man in the same lobby—that is the expression she used—was not working, she would be in a position to pay back the loaf of bread and the bit of tea.

That condition of affairs is going on for the past twelve months in the city of Dublin, within a stone's throw of our handsomely illuminated streets, within a stone's throw of the Nelson Pillar. I suggest to the Government that a miserable estimate of this kind, which only touches the fringe of the question, is not dealing with the problem which they must face, and face quickly. I suggest that something must be done immediately for those who are out of benefit, who have not the necessary stamps to their credit, to give them at least one week's unemployment money for Christmas week and the week after. In that way we will bring a little relief to the unemployed in the city, and you will, yourselves, get a little further time to consider how you are going to face this problem of unemployment. I am aware of a case where a young woman gave birth to a child, and the child was stillborn. I will prove, if proof is necessary, that the woman was delicate, and that the child was stillborn because of starvation. This is a problem which the Government must make up their minds to face, and face quickly. I suggest that while the preliminaries are being arranged for the spending of this sum of money mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate, that immediate temporary relief by the method which I suggested should be granted for Christmas week and one week after.

The Farmers' Union has driven the country mad.

Mr. GOREY

It is evidence, if evidence were needed, that somebody in the country is working to supply the means to go mad, and it is also evidence, if evidence were needed, that a good many people in the community are robbed in order to enable a certain section to go mad.

Mr. DAVIN

Hear, hear. It is time that you realised that.

Mr. GOREY

The position as far as I know, in the constituency that I represent—Carlow and Kilkenny—is, that there are very large numbers of people now, at the approach of Christmas, practically without means of existence. They are willing to work but work is denied them. In his opening statement the President mentioned that in Carlow there would be work on the Barrow drainage scheme and work in the beet factory. I hope so. The beet factory will not start until next spring, but in the meantime what is to be the position of the working classes who were looking forward to getting work, especially at this season? We were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there will be work on the Barrow drainage in November. That work is not going to start now until the spring, and we were not told whether it is the spring of 1926 or 1927.

I would appeal to the President to see that some road work is given in the constituency. Work is badly needed in Carlow and Kilkenny, and the roads there are in poor condition. I admit that the ratepayers are not in a position to provide the money that is necessary to put the roads into a good condition for motor transport. I trust that these things will be taken into consideration by the Minister for Finance. It is the first time that money has been asked for relief work in this constituency. I am not given to exaggeration, but I assure the Dáil that the position of the workers in that part of the country is a very serious one, especially for agricultural labourers. That class is not registered and does not benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I would be glad if something could be done to tide these people over the Christmas season until the spring work begins, and also work on the Barrow drainage and in the beet factory.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

As the President stated, the money that remains unallocated of the sum previously voted amounts to about £20,000. In addition to that there is another £20,000 which has recently been allocated, but has not yet been spent. There is, accordingly, for expenditure between now and the 31st of March about £160,000. It is intended that the whole of that money shall be spent and all steps necessary will be taken for spending it before the end of the financial year. If it is spent nearly as much money will have been spent by way of relief grants this year as was expended last year, or very nearly as much. Not more than £380,000 of the £500,000 that was voted last year was expended within the financial year, as the schemes were not completed. The balance was expended mostly during April and May. The position is that there will be expended this year about as much as was expended last year out of distress grants. In addition, other works that the President mentioned are being done. There is the Shannon scheme, and considerable sums are also being expended on building.

Outside agricultural work building or construction work in connection with the beet project will be done. It is not possible for the Government to do more than take palliative measures in regard to the problem of unemployment. That problem cannot be disposed of by simply taking votes for sufficient money to employ everyone who is unemployed. By its reactions that procedure would breed new unemployment. Its effects on the various industries would be to throw fresh people out of employment, and I do not believe it can be dealt with otherwise than by way of palliation.

In general I am afraid it will have to be spent under the supervision of the Land Commission. We are not very anxious to have it done that way, because the Land Commission has other work to do and has been urged to expedite it. Any diversion of the Land Commission staff to relief work would tend to delay the other work. There is also the fact that there is a Department of State which has to deal with distress normally—the Department of Local Government—and the local authorities. Much greater delay, however, would probably be experienced in getting the money expended through the medium of the Department of Local Government and the local authorities than would be the case with the Land Commission. In certain instances work will even be done in rural areas, it is hoped, through the local authorities. In other cases it will be done by the Land Commission.

In some of the districts where the fluke ravages were very great there are works left uncompleted by the Land Commission since last year, and it would be appropriate to take them up, or to prepare some similar works which were considered and which were not actually commenced, but in which there were certain plans, as far as plans were required, or certain details, ready. They could be taken up forthwith. A Deputy talks about borrowing and doing work of construction. I have always said that that is putting the cart before the horse. There is no good whatever in borrowing for the purpose of simply spending. The way to approach it is, what works of construction can be done economically, what works of construction can be usefully done for the State? When they have been considered and decided upon, the money can be borrowed for them. We have always held that we should be willing and we are willing to borrow for any sort of work of construction that we think can be economically undertaken——

Mr. JOHNSON

Roads.

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes. I think there was at one time a Bill passed here for the purpose of enabling borrowing to be done for the Road Fund. For various reasons, I do not think that Act was availed of. There are things for which we will borrow, things such as the Shannon scheme and the Barrow scheme. We will borrow something like £5,000,000 for the purpose of carrying through the Shannon scheme. We will have to borrow something approaching £1,000,000 for the purpose of the Barrow drainage and for drainage works of a similar character. Works of restoration and maintenance were carried out last year. A larger number of them will be carried out next year. We are also borrowing for the purpose of making loans to individual farmers for land improvement works. Where the scheme of expenditure is a good one we are prepared to borrow for it. I suggest it is approaching it entirely from the wrong angle to go seeking money on the money market with the intention of paying it out rapidly, and without giving the matter due consideration. That would mean nothing but terrible extravagance. Unless there is long and careful preparation it is very difficult to spend money—at all events large sums of money—usefully. I believe, myself, that it will be all that can possibly be done to spend this £160,000 usefully between now and the end of March. If we tried to spend more I believe there would be very great waste of money. If you have works done by local authorities, waterworks, or works of that nature, unless the work is actually in progress at the present time you would find it difficult to spend much money between the present moment and the end of the financial year. Road work is the type of work that can be undertaken quite suddenly, and fairly rapidly, and without very much previous preparation. But other works are extremely difficult to undertake, unless you are simply trying to do the sort of work that was done in the distant past, where roads were built leading to nowhere, and clay was dug out of a hole and put into it again. We certainly cannot afford to do that sort of work now, and it would be impossible to vote any sum that a great many people would not say was inadequate.

Last winter was got through with the help of the works that were done. This year, as I say, we will spend actually out of the distress grant as much money, and in addition to that we have other works going on, notably the Shannon scheme and these reconstruction works, for instance, in Dublin for the Post Office, the Four Courts and the Custom House. Now with the additional 10 per cent. to the compensation awards, there will be really rapid progress made in the matter of reconstruction. I think that, as compared with last year, we are doing as much as the State could well be expected to do. Somebody asked how much of this money would be advanced by way of grant and how much by way of loan. Probably there will not be any of it advanced by way of loan. However, we would take power to advance it by way of loan if any suitable proposal is put up to us.

Mr. CORISH

Like the other Deputies who have spoken, I consider that this grant is not adequate at all, even as a palliative, to relieve unemployment. I would have thought that the Government would have before now realised the position of the people in the country, and that they would do something which would tide them over the Christmas festival. I think everybody will admit that it is a pitiable state of affairs to find people starving at Christmas, a time when we are supposed to have peace and goodwill for all. The President in his statement laid it down, or at least suggested, that the Minister for Finance was going to lay down expressly that before the local authorities would get any grant out of this £160,000 it would be necessary for them to put up a certain amount themselves. To my mind, that is an impossible proposition, because at the moment the relations that exist between the banks and the various local authorities are such that the banks will not advance any money to local authorities, especially for works of this kind. Works of this kind have got a bad name in the country, and the banks, being keen business concerns, will not advance money for such schemes. I would like to know from the Minister for Finance if that is an express condition that the local authorities will have to put up a certain amount of money to warrant their getting any portion of this grant at all? If that is the case, so far as I can see, it will be impossible, apart altogether from the fact of getting money, even if they were to get it, to have any scheme going on between this and 31st March next. The Minister is aware of all the red-tape that surrounds the getting of a loan and all the correspondence and representations that have to be made before a loan is advanced. When the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was speaking, he stated that the Land Commission, under his jurisdiction, would be called upon to spend £70,000 or £80,000. I have no objection to the rural population getting £70,000 or £80,000, but I would like to know from the Minister for Finance or from the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, how he hopes to relieve distress in the towns and cities of Ireland on what is left after the Land Commission has spent £70,000 or £80,000?

Some people object to the local authorities having anything to do with this money. So far as my experience goes, I think the local authorities are the people who know where distress exists, and they are able to deal with it more promptly than other people. I am prepared to admit that it is impossible at the moment for the Government to deal effectively with the unemployment problem. I have suggested time and time again here that the people who are responsible for industry from both sides should be called together. I do not see that the Government have made any move in that direction yet. I do not observe any sign of their intention to do so. Until this is done, and until everybody tries to realise the state of affairs that prevails, and gets down to rock-bottom, I do not believe we are going to be a bit better off.

The Minister for Finance has stated that it would be very hard to get back to that position, and that works of this kind are not remunerative. I would suggest to him that to give some sort of stabilisation to employment in the country his Department should bring in again a Local Loans Bill which will enable local authorities to get money for a long term of years. That will serve the twofold purpose of providing houses for the workers and giving employment in the towns and cities of the Saorstát. All over the country local authorities, no matter how remote the district, are calling on the Government to re-establish the Local Loans Fund. I believe that would be a very desirable thing to do, and I think the Executive Council might seriously consider the suggestion, because it would serve the twofold purpose I have indicated.

I would suggest to the Government that they would put up, say, the difference between £160,000 and £200,000, and pay some money through the Labour Exchanges during the coming week in order to help the workers over Christmas time. Everybody knows the plight many workers are in. It will be some time after Christmas before these schemes are got into operation, and they will not relieve the poor to the extent we expected they would be relieved at this time of Christmas. I do not believe it is necessary to say any more on that point.

I think everybody is familiar with the position that confronts us. The Government should seriously consider doing something for the unemployed during next week. I would like to know on what lines are the Government going to work in so far as this £160,000 is concerned. What information will they work upon? Immediately before the adjournment last July the Minister for Industry and Commerce admitted that Wexford and Kildare Counties were the worst-off in Ireland so far as unemployment was concerned. He said there were more people unemployed in those counties, because of certain circumstances, than in any other county in Ireland. Although that was admitted here, Wexford county, out of the last grant, got merely £2,000, and Deputy Colohan states that his constituency got nothing at all. The Dáil is entitled to know where that £135,000 went, under whose direction it was given out, under whose direction this is going to be given out, and what facts are to be taken into consideration before any grant is given to any county. We are entitled to know this, and I would ask the Minister for Finance or the President, when replying, to let us know it definitely. Wexford and Kildare were looked upon as two of the worst counties so far as unemployment was concerned, last July, yet one got only £2,000 and the other got nothing. We are entitled to know where the rest of the money went.

So far as the towns and cities are concerned, everybody knows the position; but the rural population are also very badly hit. Conditions there are not so apparent as in the cities, for the reason that the agricultural labourers are spread over a large area and they do not come under the public eye so much. Agricultural labourers are certainly deserving of consideration by the Minister. Agricultural industry at the moment is at a very low ebb and in consequence of that the agricultural labourers are in a bad way. They have not received any unemployment benefit; they are not entitled to any under the Act. I am of opinion they are deserving of special consideration.

I consider that £160,000 is inadequate. I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here now. I would like to mention that representations were made both to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Finance by the Enniscorthy Urban Council for a grant to relieve the distress which is very apparent there. I put the question to the Minister about a month ago asking had he received such representation and was he aware of the distress existing there. He admitted he was aware of the distress but he said there was no money available. Now he comes forward and tells us that £40,000 were available all the time. I do not think that is treating the House fairly. I hope something will be done for the unemployed during the coming week and not have them waiting until those schemes are put into operation.

Mr. GOOD

I wanted to ask the Minister for Finance a question, but as he is not in the House at the moment, perhaps I had better defer it until he returns.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have been challenged by Deputy Morrissey, who is not here now, to say in the House what I have said outside. I speak as a worker, and as a worker, I am sure, who has lost more sweat at his work than any of the Labour representatives who sit on the opposite benches.

Mr. E. DOYLE

It is a question.

Mr. JOHNSON

How will you measure it? What a silly thing to say.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have listened calmly, night after night, while I sat on those benches, to Labour representatives speaking, and I have never obstructed them. I hope they will listen to me now.

Mr. DAVIN

Hear, hear. We are anxious to hear what you have to say.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have been challenged to say in this House what I have been saying outside. I speak as a friend of the workers, and I say tonight that Labour must be protected from itself. Why is there unemployment in Ireland? I say it is because the cost of production is too high. Why will an Irishman, who goes from Ireland to America or England, work three times harder there than he will work in Ireland? Why is there not a demand for Irish production at home? It is because in the market the prices for the Irish articles will not compete favourably with the prices for articles produced on the other side. There is a lack of employment in Ireland to-day. I admit that, and there is also a cause for it. There is also an answer as to why there is not a demand for Irish production. The answer is because the price for the Irish article is not a marketable price. I ask my friends on the other side: Why will an Irishman work three times harder in England or America than he will at home?

Some Deputies have suggested that we should deal with the facts of life. Unfortunately we are not ruling America from this House; we are dealing with the conditions of life and labour in Ireland to-day. I think it is well when Deputies are talking about the effect of labour cost on prices that they should have a little regard to the proportion of the retail price of any commodity sold in Ireland with the wages cost of Irish labour involved.

It is good to hear in respect to bread that the portion of the labour charges —the transport of the wheat, milling the wheat, carting it, milling and baking the flour, carting and distributing the bread—was something like 27 per cent. of the retail price of the bread. So it is with most other commodities. Even in the case of big engineering schemes, the labour costs in Ireland are not going to be more than 36 per cent., so that the labour costs of the total price is a comparatively small proportion.

The Minister in bringing forward this very low Estimate for £120,000 proceeded on the assumption which. I think, is a wrong one, that the conditions in the country to-day are as good, and perhaps better, than they were when he put forward a similar sum in the last financial year. I do not agree. I would not care to exaggerate in the wrong direction the condition of things in the constituency that I represent, but I do emphatically state that the conditions are worse there to-day than they were twelve months ago. I had myself hoped and believed that as a result of the good harvest and the fair prices likely to come to the people for their farm produce, conditions would have been much better? I asked, on the last occasion, when an Estimate of this kind was put forward by the Minister, that he should state quite clearly, and specifically, for what particular purpose, and for what kind of works, grants under this head would be available. He stated, to-day, as he did on a previous occasion, that portion of this amount, something like £40,000, will be spent under the supervision of the Land Commission by fulltime officials of the Government. That, I think, is a very undesirable thing if it could be avoided. My own view is that where the taxpayers' money is spent on schemes of this kind it would be much more desirable to have it spent by the local authorities with the sanction of the Minister responsible.

I recognise that a good deal of red tape exists between the Ministry of Local Government and the local authorities, and that a good deal of delay might elapse between the time when the works were sanctioned, and the approval of the Minister obtained. My general experience is, and it is the experience of other Deputies in this House, that we are continually receiving resolutions from local bodies pointing out the distress and unemployment that exists in particular areas, county or rural, and asking us to approach the Minister responsible to secure a grant for the relief of such distress and unemployment. Deputies in that unfortunate position on this side of the House very often are unable to advise the local authorities or local councils as to what kind of scheme is likely to receive the approval of the Minister. I think it is up to the Minister to make the position clear and to state the kind of works that this money is to be spent on in endeavouring to relieve unemployment. I know of schemes of road and drainage work that had been put up to the Minister and turned down. I am in the position of not being able to find out the mentality of the Minister or his officials as to what general idea is in their minds as to the most useful kind of work that money voted for this purpose should be allocated to. I hope the Minister will make clear the kind of works that are likely to meet with his approval and sanction in the future. I am not going to follow Deputies Good and O'Connor on the question of bricks and mortar. I will only say that to the inexperienced the lecture we have listened to was certainly valuable. I sincerely hope that the proposal Deputy Good has made, without conditions, will be accepted. If that proposal is to serve any useful purpose, the conference suggested must be brought about through the agency of the Government. I understood that a similar proposal, put forward before, was put forward on conditions, and I think the President said on that occasion that it was not the business of the Government to bring parties representing Labour and Capital into conference. If the Department of Industry and Commerce has any useful duty to discharge, it is their duty to bring about such a conference as has been suggested, without conditions of any kind attached.

The PRESIDENT

May I interrupt for a moment to say that Deputy Johnson was wrong when he said that conditions were imposed by Deputy Good in regard to the previous proposal. There were Press comments which practically suggested that a certain suggestion by one side should be agreed to before going into conference. On the last occasion, what I said was that the Government was not going to take the initiative in that matter, that it was a matter that should be approached with goodwill on both sides, that it should not be brought about at the instance of the Government, but that it should be brought about on the responsibility of the two parties. I stated that any assistance or co-operation that could be afforded by the Government would be willingly given, but that the real effort ought to come from the two parties, rather than from anything done by the Government.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I intervene for a moment. This question of conference has been several times raised. It has been raised here and it has been accepted here, but it has become a proposition with a pre-condition which emanated from the assertion that nothing could be done except wages were reduced.

The PRESIDENT

Not here.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am not quite clear as to the exact intention with regard to these schemes. Must all the schemes originate with the local authority in the first instance, or will any schemes originate from the Department of the Minister itself?

Mr. BLYTHE

Schemes will not originate from the Government, except in so far as they originate from the Land Commission. It may be that the Local Government Department will see something that they wish to be done, but normally the schemes will originate with the Land Commission, with the local authority or with some committee or body of local origin.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I want to call the Minister's attention to the fact that there are districts in certain counties to which his attention has not been drawn although attention may be drawn to other counties where distress is chronic or at least, from which Deputies are chronically complaining of distress. I want to call his attention in case the local authority may not take the matter up, to the state of affairs existing in my own county.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think the Deputy had better draw the attention of the local authority to it. I find that local authorities, although they may be slow in some respects, are generally fairly spry in looking after grants for their districts.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I think the attention of the local authority has been called to it. I refer to the distress existing in a place known as The Commons, Ballingarry. It received a good deal of publicity at one time. I am sorry Deputy Morrissey is not here, as he would know all about it. The Minister probably knows that this is an old coal-mining district. The mines have been abandoned, and a lot of people who formerly worked in the mines are out of work and in distress in consequence. They cannot be absorbed in agricultural work. They are not suited to it, nor is the work in existence for them. A very distressing report was made by the local Home Assistance Officer in regard to that district. There is a bad state of affairs existing. I want simply to call the Minister's attention to it in case the local authority should not move because the burden on the local rates is more than they can bear. The burden of giving Home Assistance to the people concerned is more than the ratepayers can bear. I do not want to enlarge on this matter now, but I will be ready to put any information I can get at the disposal of the Minister if he will consider the advisability of giving a grant or a loan for some form of relief. We might be able to devise some useful relief.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

The Minister for Finance has said that local authorities were usually spry in these matters. I want to ask where a local authority has already made application and where it has informed the Local Government Department of the existence of distress in a particular district, will that be taken note of by the Department of Finance or will specific application have to be made under this Vote? Will cognisance be taken of the knowledge already in the possession of Departments as to the existence of distress in particular districts?

Mr. BLYTHE

Most of the money will be allocated as a result of an examination of the claims which are actually in the Department at present.

Mr. LYONS

I want to ask a question, concerning the counties of Westmeath and Longford. Both of the counties have agreed to borrow a certain amount of money for the relief of distress on condition that they will get a grant. Do these counties come within this estimate?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid I do not know really. I have not details of the schemes there, but any claims already made will be examined and the Department of Local Government will be able to arrange for the allocation of a big portion of this money forthwith as a result of the schemes which they have already in hands.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Resolution reported. Report agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 17 Dec 1925