RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT—DEBATE RESUMED.

Motion:—"That the measures hitherto adopted by the Government for the relief of unemployment are insufficient and ought to be extended immediately." (Deputy Morrissey.) Debate resumed on amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute therefor the words—"recognising that further measures for the relief of unemployment will involve additional provision out of public funds and may consequently impose fresh charges on productive enterprise, the Dáil is of opinion that while no reasonable method of promoting further employment should be neglected, care must be exercised in the adoption of relief measures to ensure that the evil which it is sought to remedy is not aggravated by the placing of an undue strain on the resources of industry and agriculture." (Minister for Finance.)

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

It is, I believe, very desirable that a scientific examination of the causes of unemployment should be conducted, and conducted impartially, by people with a knowledge of the causes. I do not think, however, that this is a suitable place for the conduct of such an examination. I think, further, that the necessity for the relief of unemployment is too great to delay until such time as we can find a suitable atmosphere and suitable people for the examination of the problem. If there emerge from this discussion certain fundamental principles I think we will have advanced a good deal along the road towards a solution of the problem. I was very sorry to hear Deputy Cooper saying that he could not accept it as a principle that the State is responsible for finding work for its citizens, especially when that statement came from such a good constitutionalist as Deputy Cooper. I should like to refer him to some things that probably he had forgotten when he made that statement. One of the things I would refer him to particularly is Article 3 of the Constitution under which we are functioning. That Article distinctly sets out that all the citizens of the State are entitled to all the privileges of the State. I would ask any impartially-minded individual, any person who views the position in an unprejudiced light, how can it be claimed that the 50,000 or 60,000 or 80,000 people who are at present unemployed, and who are insufficiently fed and clad, whose children are not receiving all the consideration they should receive in these matters, are receiving the same advantages under the Constitution that many of the other citizens are receiving. That is a matter that Deputy Cooper overlooked when he stated that he could not accept it as fundamental that it was the duty of the State to provide employment.

I would put it to Ministers in another way. If it were possible that 20,000 or 30,000 citizens were in danger of death or serious illness, would we not consider it the duty of the State to make an immediate attempt to come to their aid? Would we not think it our duty more or less to pool all the resources of the State to try and save those people? Has it not been said in connection with the recent terrible happenings on the West Coast that it is the duty of the State to come to the aid of the dependents of those who were drowned, and to see that no further catastrophes of the kind occur? Therefore, I think it cannot be argued that it is not the duty of the State to preserve the lives of citizens when they are threatened. It must be accepted that there is as much danger to the lives of the citizens through hunger and cold, through being insufficiently clad and badly housed, as there may be from attack either from external or internal forces, or from physical violence from any quarter. That is the position of the State towards its citizens. It is the fundamental duty of the State to see that every citizen gets employment.

It is at least a consolation to know that one Party in the State has accepted that as a fundamental principle. If we can accept that, we then come to the other question: what is the extent of the present distress and unemployment? I do not propose to follow, because I confess I would not be able, the highbrow economics that have been indulged in here by Deputies on both sides of the House. I should like to remind those people who indulge in these highbrow economics that the question before us at present is: what are we going to do within the next three or four months to relieve the very acute distress prevailing? We should come down to bedrock and ask ourselves what is the number of people we have to look after and what is their condition? In normal conditions we would naturally turn to Government Departments for information as to the number of unemployed. Our experience in this matter, however, is not such as would lead us to believe that we can accept the information available to these Departments. We cannot accept it that they have sufficient figures to enable even themselves to come to a decision as to the number of unemployed. We have, therefore, to turn and see what is the number of unemployed in the various districts that we come from. We must inevitably say something about local conditions, because we have no information that we can rely upon as to the number of unemployed in the country.

It was very interesting to hear the Minister for Finance tell us that if there was sufficient distress in the country there would be no cure except by the restoration of uncovenanted benefit. One was surprised to hear another statement coming from the same benches, made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, that there was between £300,000 and £400,000 paid in home assistance. One would imagine that ought to be sufficient proof that there was sufficient necessity for the restoration of uncovenanted benefit: that there is at present paid out between £300,000 and £400,000 by way of home assistance. It would be interesting to know what the Minister for Finance meant when he said that the Government could only embark on economic schemes, and that anything given by way of relief to unemployment must necessarily put an impost or extra cost upon industry. Can we get away from the fact that we have to maintain the unemployed at the moment? Can we get away from the fact that we spent this £300,000 or £400,000 in home assistance for something that produces nothing? Yet we hear talk that everything we do in this connection must be economic.

I would like to give the Minister some information of what is happening in this matter in the County of which I have the honour to be one of the Deputies. I find that in my County £250 a week is paid out in home assistance to some 2,000 people. If we dismiss 50 per cent. of those and say they are unable to work, we have still one thousand. Is it put forward as a practicable proposition that this thousand must continue to draw home assistance until such time as we can have economic schemes on which to provide work for them? Is it suggested that this expenditure on home assistance is in itself economic? Cannot something be done to prevent the expenditure by people who can ill afford to pay it of this £250 a week on home assistance?

The suggestion seems to be that we are not inclined to indulge in productive work. On behalf of the workers of my district, and I think every Deputy will say the same on behalf of the workers of his district, I say what the workers require is work not commiseration. They do not require commiseration or anything in the shape of relief if it can be avoided. The worker wants work and is prepared to give something in return for it, but until such time as work is available we suggest to the State that inasmuch as industry will have to maintain the unemployed as it has to maintain them at the present time in some form or other, then, until productive work can be found, uncovenanted benefit should be extended and those people should not be allowed to send their children to school in a semi-starved condition and they ought not to be compelled to live themselves in semi-starvation as a good many people are living to-day.

If we accept these two principles, that it is the duty of the State to do something in this direction, to conserve and preserve its citizens from cold and hunger and distress, and that there is a very large amount of hunger and distress in the country at the present moment, then we can probably advance a further stage.

But here people will say the difficulty is: where is the money to come from? We will be told that, I am sure, from the Ministerial Benches. We have been told that the credit of the State is high and I believe it is. We are told we will be able to find money quite easily. Then what is there to prevent a larger loan being obtained than has been suggested, not from the Ministerial Benches, but from other sources—I do not know whether the information is correct or not as to a larger loan. What is to prevent a larger loan being floated to such an extent that public works would be put in motion that would increase the wealth of the nation, because, after all, it is not merely relieving distress without getting something produced. At present, I think, without indulging in highbrow economics the need of the nation is more production and increased wealth. After all we need not be afraid of applying for a larger loan. If we do so, we probably will have less fear of unemployment in the future.

There is another source, and I think it is as well we should refer to it, because the President told us that credit was shouldering national and international obligations. I suggest that the shouldering of national obligations is the primary duty for us. The people of this country, if I may say so, have the first mortgage on the resources of the country and whatever we are paying by way of yearly levies, to any outside country, might well be postponed until our own national difficulties are settled. The other country and those other people who claim that we owe a certain amount of money—£250,000 to be paid for 60 years—could wait for such time until we find ourselves able to pay. I think there will be some difference of opinion as to whether we owe that money or not but I am not going to indulge in any argument on that question at the moment. But there will be no difference of opinion as to the need of the money in this country at this moment. Probably an agreement could be arrived at with the people who claim that we owe them this large sum of money so that it could remain in this country for a number of years. They are not in such need for the money as we are. Therefore, I suggest that if Ministers set themselves to the task they could find sources from which money could be made available. I do not intend to travel further upon this subject, because I think it has been very well argued, than to lay down three propositions that should be followed by the Ministry. The first is that it is the duty of the State to save people who are in destitution, for many people are in destitution, and many people to-day accept semi-starvation as their normal conditions of existence. Semi-nudity and semi-starvation are the accepted normal condition in some districts at present and it is the duty of the State to prevent that and to save citizens imperilled by these attacks just as they would be saved if attacked by internal or external enemies. The second proposition is that there are in this country scores of thousands of people who are in immediate need of that consideration and, thirdly, that the national problem is a matter of greater concern than any other problem outside the country and that, therefore, any obligations that we are imposing upon ourselves in the discharging of international obligations should be waived in consideration of the obligations we have within the State.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Bourke)

I am very glad to note that the tone of this debate, which threatens to out-rival, in duration, at all events, the memorable debate on the Treaty, is considerably more moderate than that of similar debates on this question on previous occasions.

In these debates I think the general tendency was for Deputies on the Opposition Benches to start off with the premises that no good can come out of the Government Benches, that Deputies in Opposition have a monopoly of all the political and economic wisdom in the Dáil. As was to be expected, very little good resulted from a debate pursued on such lines. It is much better to start with the assumption—and I am glad that that seems to be the general tone in this debate—that every Deputy with a sense of responsibility is sincerely anxious to find a solution of this very difficult and complicated problem. I think if the test, cui bono, is to apply to this case it will have to be admitted that the Government party, which is primarily responsible for initiating legislation and carrying on administration, has more to lose by the aggravation or unnecessary continuation of the unemployment problem than any other party.

It is one thing to desire a solution of a problem, to leave no stone unturned to solve it, but it is another thing to find a solution and, above all, to find the best solution. Inexperienced Deputies, no doubt, find it much easier to discover solutions for such problems than those who have experience of the difficulties to be contended with and the obstacles to be overcome, before a person can achieve even a moderate amount of success in any department of governmental activity. Enthusiastic Deputies on the other side have their panaceas for all our difficulties and all our problems of to-day but the question is whether such panaceas stand the test. The principal panacea that has been brought forward to solve this problem by opposing Deputies seems to be to put into operation the policy of whole-hog protection, forgetful of the facts of history, forgetful of economics and of the fact that in the early years of the present century, when conditions were more stable, and accordingly statistics were more reliable, the United States then, as now, the greatest exemplar of whole-hog protection and having at its disposal then, as I presume it has now, all the essentials of great industrial development and a great measure of prosperity amongst the working classes went through several serious economic crises and had on several occasions periods of acute industrial depression and widespread unemployment.

There was, at the same time, in spite of the policy of protection, a similar state of affairs in Germany where unemployment was widespread and where emigration was acute. I do not state that as an argument for free trade against protection but I merely state it to show the difficulties which surround the position and that you cannot find a solution off-hand. Every case has to be considered on its merits. The Minister for Agriculture cited a case showing one of the apparent contradictions in this problem of protection versus free trade. He pointed out that it was in the tillage districts that the greatest consumption of the tillage products of other countries took place. That is only one of the anomalies that we are confronted with in dealing with the protection policy. It may also be pointed out, and it is admitted by those who have gone into the question, that by placing, for instance, a tariff on barley instead of increasing the price to the Irish farmer he would get a lower price for his products.

These are the sort of anomalies, apparent contradictions, that you are up against all the time in dealing with this very difficult problem. Deputies on the other side have made the bald proposition that this country would get on very well with a tariff wall erected around it and that in five years' time it would be self-supporting. That panacea may provide increased employment of a certain kind but it is bound to lower the standard of living and to deprive the country of the amenities of civilisation which are regarded as practically essential in all countries. It is also going to increase the emigration problem. It may have the result of increasing our population. Ireland had a much larger population a hundred years ago than it has to-day but we must remember what the standard of living was then. A great number of people lived on potatoes and salt.

A DEPUTY

They have not got even that to-day.

Mr. BOURKE

The emigration problem is very serious, but some kinds of emigration are more serious than others. When you have the most thrifty, industrious, energetic and enlightened people going away it is much more serious than if you have only the ordinary kind of emigration. You had that kind of emigration in France when the Huguenots left that country and conferred the benefit of their skill on England, France's industrial rival. You had a similar emigration after the Treaty of Limerick, and that is one of the problems which you will be up against by imposing a policy of wholesale protection. There will be another kind of emigration, namely, that of capital, which, under certain circumstances, can be almost as serious as that of manhood. That is the first solution we have been offered. The second solution is the proposal of giving increased employment by the State. If there is not sufficient employment by private enterprise why not, it is asked, the State come to the rescue and, by public works and relief schemes, carry the country over the difficulty?

It is almost an axiom that no Government in any country, at any time, has been able to deal adequately with the problem of unemployment. A Government may tide the country over an acute industrial crisis or may mitigate the hardships of unemployment for a fairly lengthy period, but no Government has ever been able to find a complete solution of the problem. There is a well-known law of taxation—I am sure every Deputy has knowledge of it—the law of diminishing returns. You can only tax a certain class of commodity or a certain class of the community up to a certain point and increase your revenue. After you pass that point, instead of increasing you diminish your revenue. That is a principle that is equally applicable to other branches of governmental activity than taxation, and it is applicable in this case. A Government can give employment up to a certain point and can relieve unemployment by doing so up to a certain point. When you pass that stage, while the amount of unemployment given by the Government is increased the amount of employment generally given in the country is diminished.

I do not want to recite a litany of all that has been done in the way of providing employment. All the Deputies, even the opposing Deputies, have it off by heart now—the Shannon scheme, etc. Suffice it to say, and it will have to be admitted, the Government has done its share in that respect, and that no previous Government in the history of this country has done so much in providing public works and relief schemes as the present Government, and it is prepared to spend more. There is, however, a limit to what the Government can do in that respect. After it passes a certain point instead of improving the situation it worsens it. A straw shows how the wind blows, and we have had some experience of the fact that we may not be so very far away from that point at the moment. When I was in the Local Government Department I remember, and Deputies on the Labour Benches may bear me out in this, that there was a decided tendency on the part of local authorities to cut down expenditure on essential services that were giving employment. That tendency was particularly marked in the case of grants made out of the Road Fund for road development in the various counties. It was very marked in certain county councils. There was an endeavour to cut down the amount they were expending on road maintenance, which would have given employment, by the amount of the Government grant. The reason for that was that local authorities, composed mainly of ratepayers, found overhead charges pressing severely on them, and they availed of every opportunity to relieve themselves of any burden, and would not impose burdens on themselves that would help to relieve unemployment. Similarly, under the Housing Acts large sums were available for local authorities and private individuals for building houses. This money has not been absorbed. Private individuals and local authorities are not prepared to face any further charges.

I have the same experience, and this is the point I particularly rose to deal with, in my present position in the Office of Works. We have an arterial drainage scheme in operation, with £50,000 available to make the Act operative. Up to the present it has not been availed of. Certain reasons have been suggested—that the Act was cumbrous, and that we had not experienced engineers, which is of course untrue, engaged in putting the Act into operation. The real reason is that under the Act three different bodies are in a position to veto any proposition. First, the Government can refuse to carry out the scheme as being hopelessly uneconomic, requiring, say, 90% of a grant out of central funds to make it economic. Secondly, the local authority can veto the scheme if they do not wish to contribute anything themselves. Thirdly, the land-owners who would benefit under the scheme have power to veto it if they do not approve of it. In a great many cases the Government is prepared to make a grant in aid up to fifty per cent. of the entire cost of the scheme, but the local authority is not prepared to contribute anything. Even in a case where it is not necessary for the local authority to contribute, and where a grant of thirty-three per cent. on the part of the Government will make the scheme economic, landowners refuse to co-operate, though the landowner is losing nothing by the drainage scheme. His land is being benefited, and the only charge put on him is one equal to the amount of annual benefit his land would receive as a result of the scheme being carried out. The reason land-owners refuse to co-operate is because of overhead charges—rates, taxes, Land Commission annuities, and cost of labour—making it, in their opinion, uneconomic to put the scheme into operation. We in the Office of Works are putting our heads together and doing what we can to get over that snag, for it is a snag, and it is not the Government that is responsible. We are at the point where the tendency is to decrease the amount of employment given by private enterprise. Everyone knows that employment given by private enterprise is much more beneficial than employment given under the State, much more economic, and in every way sounder. It is going to help the State very little if as a result of employing a man by putting money into public works, a man is taken off other work which is being carried out by private enterprise. That is the great danger. There is no use in Deputies getting up and saying it is the responsibility of the Government, the responsibility of this Party, to see that there is no unemployment in the State. This is a national problem and will have to be faced as such. In that connection, I would like to say there is no use in the Labour Party throwing the responsibility on us. I think one of the reasons we have this unemployment problem is due to the failure of the Labour Party to rise to the occasion.

A LABOUR DEPUTY

What occasion?

Mr. BOURKE

The Labour Party have been far too ready to follow the lead of their friends on the other side of the Channel——

Mr. MORRISSEY

You are speaking of your own Party.

Mr. BOURKE

—where the conditions are altogether different, and where they are laying down a policy in the heart of a very rich Empire.

A LABOUR DEPUTY

Yes, the heart of the Empire.

Mr. BOURKE

Yes, that is where some of the Labour Leaders take their policy from apparently. Conditions on the other side are different.

Mr. MORRISSEY

They are better than here.

Mr. BOURKE

They are not better. You have over there a wealthy industrial country, and the principle of the division of labour is carried out to a higher degree than ever it will be in Ireland. A different policy is required for Ireland from what is suitable for England. In this country you have scarcely any division of labour, and no class distinctions of the kind prevailing in England. It is impossible to lay down watertight compartments as required by rigid trades union regulations. The Labour Party have got plenty of brains, I am glad to say, and it is up to them to hammer out some policy for Irish labour that will keep the standard of living up to a proper level, and at the same time see that their policy will not be in any way a clog on the wheels of progress. Every class in the community will have to take off their coats and put their backs into the work. A great many people will have to make sacrifices if this problem is to be dealt with.

Mr. BRISCOE

I rise to support Deputy Morrissey's motion, and I propose to confine myself as much as possible to the wording of it. First of all I would like to state that in view of the fact that we have an expressed principle as regards policy with regard to the unemployed from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that is in absolute opposition to that which we on these benches hold, it is very difficult to see what good will arise out of the question if people lose sight of the fact that the point we hold is that it should be the duty of the Government, no matter what Government it is, whether Cumann na nGaedheal or otherwise, to look after all the citizens of the State. From that point of view I would like to deal with some points which I have taken from the debates on this question during the last few days. The Minister for Finance, in his speech, showed that he did not care whether he increased or decreased unemployment. He said: "We could build a certain number of houses in the year, and build them at existing costs, but if we try to build a large number of houses the demand for workers will be so much greater, the demand for materials will be so much greater, and the alternative opportunities for contractors will be so much more numerous that costs will tend to go up." That is one of the reasons why the Minister for Finance is not in agreement with a proper housing scheme, because he might find that there would be no unemployed in the market as a result of the schemes that the Government engaged in, and no cheap labour. The Government had admitted that they would not tackle the problem for fear they would do away with unemployment, and as a result that the unemployed would come into their own, and get decent wages as workmen.

On the question of forestry, the Minister for Finance runs counter to the Minister for Agriculture. Members on the Ministerial Benches seem to have their own private views as to how the Government should be run. They have no settled policy, and what one Minister says is contradicted right away by another. Yet we are asked to believe that they are doing everything that a Government could do to relieve unemployment, and to bring about better conditions. On this question of afforestation, the Minister for Finance stated that a great deal of the money goes in the purchase of land and in purchasing fencing materials. "It is very difficult to give a great deal of employment, especially where funds are limited, and where they want to do the work on an economic basis." Deputy Davin asked a question as to whether the funds provided were sufficient to tackle the problem in a proper manner. The Minister for Agriculture interposed, and said: "Oh, yes, splendid forestry land is bought for £3 or £4 an acre, and there is generally a good bit in hands." They have the land, but they have not got the money.

The Minister for Finance proceeded to talk about tariffs. In talking of them the Minister forgets that he is talking of tariffs and naturally speaks of them as taxes. He is afraid to interfere in any way with a tariff measure. He does not want to help industry by putting on increased tariffs because he says it will interfere with the revenue. You put on tariffs in the case of boots and shoes which proved to be insufficient. If Deputies on the benches opposite were to approach this particular item from the viewpoint of those engaged in industry as well as from that of the unemployed, they would not concern themselves with the matter of revenue but would tackle the question on a tariff basis. If the Minister for Finance were to look at the report of the Tariff Commission, he would find that it had suggested that in the application of tariffs a reservation could be made. They recommended that where tariffs on certain commodities were put on, that where the people who are making these commodities were found to be using the tariffs as a means of enhancing their own profits, that the Minister for Finance should have a reservation in the Act whereby he could either remove the tariff clause from that particular commodity or could reduce it. The Minister for Finance, in winding up his speech, said, "We ask the Dáil in considering the matter to remember that there is another side to it and that both sides should be considered." He proceeded to advise us to take the wisest, the middle course. There is the motion that we have to decide on and there is the amendment, and the Minister, I suppose, wants us to do "Jinks" and not vote at all. That is the only construction I could put on the Minister's final words in the debate.

When we come to the Minister for Local Government, his argument is that we cannot tackle the housing problem in Dublin because the local authorities will only permit the building of a thousand houses per year. In connection with that, I would like to quote from the report of the Commission on the relief of the sick and destitute poor. In particular I would like to refer to a remark that was made by Senator Sir John Keane. In referring to the County Councils and the local authorities he says:

"In this connection I feel compelled to comment generally on the increasing tendency of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to fetter and control the local authority. There is hardly any matter, however trifling, for which his consent is not required. In one case that came to my knowledge recently, a small payment of £10 to a County Surveyor for extra work done had to be sanctioned by the Department. In the same council proposals for the reduction of rate collectors' poundage were rejected and other proposals were imposed. In the Act of 1925 the words which imply or require the consent of the Minister appear 23 times."

Yet we are told here that it is the local authorities who are hampering the Minister for Local Government in the building of houses, a work which would alleviate the unemployment problem.

The President, in the course of his speech, said that he was only going to reply to the big trout on our side and that he was going to leave the small fry aside. Even though I suppose I would be included amongst the small fry by the President, I am going to call attention to some points in his speech. I refer first to the report of the Commission on the relief of the poor. The President is quoted here as having stated on page 18, paragraph 98, that "it has been well and truly said that kindly care for the poor is the best sign of true civilisation," and again "that the condition of a Nation's poor indicated the character of the national mind." On the preceding pages of the report I find a reference to the number of unemployed people, hungry and starving, who are found travelling by night in search of work from town to town. The Guards, I presume, prepared this summary at the request of the Department. In one single night they found, in the metropolitan area alone in the month of November, 116 men and 18 women, travelling from town to town in search of work. Outside of the metropolitan area they found 248 men, 33 women and 44 children. These figures were put down definitely as relating to people travelling in search of work, not to those unwilling or unable to work. The fact at any rate is that you have roughly over 500 people looking for work. Yet the Government tell us that they have done and are doing everything that is humanly possible for the relief of the unemployed and should not be criticised. I am sorry that Deputy Morrissey's motion is not in stronger terms although I heard it said from the Government Benches that it was rather harsh.

The President happens to live in the same parish that I live in—Rathfarnham parish. I can quite understand why the President is living in a state of blissful ignorance as regards unemployment in this country. In our parish of Rathfarnham, Whitechurch and Ballyboden there are 150 unemployed. There are houses off the main street there in which people are living, and, in the words of the Parish Priest, they are not fit for animals to live in. Yet we are told that the Local Government Department can do nothing because it is hampered by the local authorities. We have been told also by Ministers and by the President that "we have not heard a cry of great distress."

The President stressed a point about the building of one thousand houses. Does that figure include the tenement houses which are not fit for human beings to live in? I asked him, if the figure did include houses that had to be demolished and decent accommodation put up in place of them, would not his total of one thousand houses be interfered with? The President tried to evade the question, but eventually he agreed that it did not interfere with that number. We have had the admission from the Minister for Local Government that there are people in the City of Dublin living in houses that have been condemned as dangerous. Mind you, these are not houses that are unfit because of insanitary conditions, but houses that have been condemned as dangerous. We have people idle in the city looking for work, and we have money available for house building operations, and yet people are allowed in these times to live in such houses. I wonder what the attitude of the Government would be if we had another storm like that of the other night, if houses were blown down and if people lost their lives. I say and emphasise that if anyone came into my constituency and saw the horrible conditions that surround it he would say that the Government must take in hand immediate measures not only to give employment immediately, but to bring about better conditions for numbers of our people. I would like to get some of the Ministers to see that not only are the houses dangerous, but unfit for people to live in.

We have in the City of Dublin numerous derelict sites on which accommodation could be built. I have had a case brought to my notice by the ratepayers of Meath Street. Two years ago a deputation, headed by Father Hayes, called to see the Commissioners and asked them to do something in that neighbourhood. Half that street is a derelict site. Yet nothing has been done since, and I suppose we will be told they are waiting until they have the whole street, or until the Shannon scheme is finished. We had an answer to a question put by Deputy Good, that there were 17,000 children for whom accommodation could not be provided in schools. Yet we have unemployed men anxious to get work. I have a report which appeared in the Press on the 26th October of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. It contained an urgent appeal on behalf of Dublin's poor. The Provost of Trinity College who, I am sure, not even the Ministers on the benches opposite can accuse of being partial, or of having any political motives in stating that Dublin is a city of contrasts, refers to the Civic Week splendour and the poverty of the big areas. These are the situations we have. The President told us that, due to the progressive measures adopted by the Government, 100 industries were established and that 10,000 persons found employment. I challenge the President or any member of his Executive to enumerate 25 industries started since they came into office. At the same time, I would like them to tell us how many industries have closed down since their administration, and how many people were thrown out of employment. These comparisons would probably be interesting. Deputy Donovan from Cork got up and quoted the fact that he was quite satisfied that the Government had done everything possible and were not deserving of censure. Yet, when I went back and read Deputy Donovan's speech in the debates of March of this year, I find that he was not so satisfied or content. Although he seemed to have forgotten that what he said then exists at present in his area, I would like to refresh his own memory. He speaks of Adrigole, and says:—

"I was out there a month or two ago. There is room for the Land Commission to do a great deal in that district. They have roads which you could not call boreens; in fact, they have no roads, and there is certainly room for the Land Commission to spend some money in that district."

Now we hear everything is bright and happy in that part.

Mr. O'DONOVAN

The Land Commission have works in progress there all the year.

Mr. BRISCOE

I understand from a Deputy who happens to be a representative of that area that there is distress there, but he happens not to be a Farmer Deputy, so I can quite understand.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If Deputy Briscoe leaves Cork to the Corkmen, he will be well advised.

Mr. BRISCOE

The Minister for Agriculture gave a very interesting explanation of the average farm. I have been reading this through, and I cannot understand it. I would like the Minister for Agriculture to read through his own suggestions and see if he omitted something, or if I am dense with regard to mathematics. He speaks of the average farm of 200 acres, and wants to prove by a demonstrative argument that our contention as to protection with regard to feeding stuffs in this country for animals is wrong, and he proceeds to tell us about this farm. He says: "The farmer getting that farm of 200 acres has at present 30 acres under tillage. He has to carry a lot of stock in the summer, and, in addition, to provide food for stock in the winter. I am speaking of the average case. In spite of his tillage he has to pay £400 for feeding stuffs. You may say: ‘Let him grow more.' Assume he can, and what do you find? To grow it he has to till 50 acres more, that is 80 acres in all." So far, I agree with the Minister. This is where I begin to disagree. Where does he get that? At first his farm was 160 acres in all. He had, say, 180 acres entirely. Twenty acres disappeared. The Minister saw in advance that his 200 acre farm was not going to work out for the purpose of his argument in accordance with his desire. The 200 acre farm decreased and is now a 180 acre farm. He says he has 120 acres left. He has perhaps 20 acres of waste land. That is another idea of getting rid of more of the surplus land. Therefore he has 100 acres grazing land for his stock in the summer. For that 100 acres he has to till 60 acres more. I cannot understand where he gets this if it has to be added to the original 80. It puzzles me to know where he gets this from the Minister's figures. I understood from the first statement the Minister made that he would have to till an extra 50 acres to give him the £400 worth of feeding stuffs that he used to import. This is the kind of argument we get put up to us which is supposed to impress us, I understand, when we speak of protection and when members on the opposite benches speak of no protection. At present men are being laid off from the Inchicore Works, because of materials which had hitherto been made here now being imported from the other side. I have here labels which were sent to me of the items coming in and the tenders as provided in the Press. I understand men have been laid off their work from week to week. I want to appeal to Deputies in this House to try and introduce a little more feeling for their fellow men. It is time we realised that the state of unemployment is critical and that something must be done. I appeal to Deputies in the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, who are not in the Ministerial ranks, or who do not hold Parliamentary Secretaryships, to vote on this matter as their conscience will dictate; to vote for Deputy Morrissey's motion, because it is essential that something should be done immediately. You cannot afford to let this go on from year to year. I appeal to Deputies, if they have any desire to see this country growing to strength and to stop emigration, to agree that everything has not been done by the Government that should have been done and to alleviate distress among the unemployed.

Mr. GOOD

After listening last week to a variety of speeches on a variety of subjects covering every aspect and department of economics it was refreshing to hear you, sir, bringing us back this afternoon to the terms of the amendment which we have been discussing. You reminded us that under the terms of the amendment two important principles had been put forward by Deputy Morrissey with which you were in sympathy. These principles were that the Government should provide work or, as an alternative, maintenance. While I have every sympathy, as I think every member in this House has, with the unemployed, I am afraid we will achieve very little in a discussion such as this if we discuss questions of tariffs and other abstract problems instead of keeping to the subject of the debate, which is the serious problem of unemployment. If we can get Deputies to concentrate on the different arguments put forward for the relief of unemployment, I think we will all agree that this debate will have achieved a useful purpose. If we discuss problems only indirectly connected with unemployment, I am afraid that we cannot say that the amount of time given to a debate such as this has been well spent. We have been told that it is the duty of the State to provide work or maintenance. I am not in agreement with those principles. I have yet to listen to any argument in support of those principles from any Deputy who subscribed to them. As far as I know the conditions in the various countries of the world to-day, I do not think there is one country amongst the lot that accepts that responsibility. Possibly I should not have said there is not one country, for there is one country which accepts, I understand, that principle and that is Russia. Russia endeavours to carry out that principle, and I am told that in Russia to-day there are ten millions of unemployed. So that is not a very strong argument in favour of the principle.

Would some of those Deputies who hold to this principle—which, I am sure, is a very popular principle to enunciate from an election platform, but a rather difficult problem when it comes to delivering the goods—and who have given utterance to those principles very freely during the last two or three months in the course of the election campaigns, tell us how we are going to carry these principles out? I will only take two particular trades. I will not refer to the building trades for fear of offending my friends on the Labour Benches. I have been already warned to keep off that subject. However, I will not take that particular trade this afternoon, but I will take two other trades, one of which is a large industry in the Saorstát—I mean the engineering industry, with a large number of unemployed in that industry, and skilled men at that. Take another industry, the shipbuilding industry, quite a big industry in the Saorstát. There are large numbers of unemployed in that particular industry, many of them skilled hands. Has any proposal been put forward that would provide employment for the skilled hands in those industries? If there has I have not heard that proposal.

You tell us that it is the duty of the Government to accept responsibility— in other words, to provide employment for the unemployed. I am only taking now a very limited view, so that there may be no difficulty about it, and I want to know if any Deputy will tell me how the Government is going to help, through its resources, the skilled hands at present unemployed in those two industries? It is all very well for the Deputies to speak from election platforms about these matters. I want to know here in the Dáil how they propose to deliver the goods.

Relief schemes that have been proposed seem to be supported by almost every Deputy who has spoken. They will only help a section of the unemployed. That is very desirable. We all agree to help them, but such schemes only touch a section. We cannot put a skilled engineer on road repairing. You cannot put a skilled shipbuilder at work of that character. I want to know from those supporting that principle how it is to be carried out? We are told that if the Government cannot provide work for those unemployed it is their duty to provide maintenance. I do not know of any State where that responsibility has been accepted by the Government. We have always to examine a problem as to its practicability. Deputy Morrissey informed us that there were something like 90,000 unemployed in this small State of ours. If the Government were to provide maintenance for those 90,000, I think there would be general agreement that we could not provide adequate maintenance at less certainly than £1 per week per head for each individual. That means £90,000 a week. If you figure that out you will find that it runs into the region of £5,000,000 a year. I think we will all agree that is an expenditure very likely to be a recurring one.

Once you start to provide free maintenance for a large body of your people those who are working, and working hard, at low wages will commence to consider as to whether it is desirable that they should continue working when so many are getting ample to live, or, at all events, sufficient to live, on without doing any work. In that way we may look upon that £5,000,000 per annum as, in all probability, a recurring expenditure.

Take it for one year, if it is not to be agreed that it is to be a recurring expenditure. How is it proposed to provide the money? The 4/- income tax during last year brought in an income of slightly over £5,000,000. The Government has no fund at its disposal with which to provide moneys for this or any other purpose but what it gets from the taxpayers. Will any Deputy stand up here in support of this principle and tell us that 4/- in the £ must be put on to the income tax? If you do not do it in that way, how are you to get the money? Where is the money to come from? It is all very well to enunciate those problems, but I want to know how you are to deliver the goods. Assuming that you put another 4/- in the £ on the income tax, what becomes of your industry? Is there any industry in the country to-day that can carry a burden of 8/- in the £ in income tax?

If you are not going to put it on your income tax, from what other source are you going to get the money? The Government has not got a bottomless well from which it can draw unlimited sums at will. The money provided by the State has got to be given to them by the taxpayers. How are they to get it? It is all very well to argue this question from an election platform, but we want to know from those who advance these different theories how they are to be carried out

You remind us also, sir, that much good could be achieved by such a discussion as we have had during the last few days if Deputies would devote themselves to the various problems that underline unemployment. I think we all agree—any of us who have considered the subject in any detail will agree—that unemployment is an effect, not a cause. It arises from a series of causes and if we could consider and come to some conclusion on some of these causes we could probably in some measure reduce the burden. One of the principal causes, to my mind, of so much unemployment in this City and State is the low standard of education possessed by the people generally and by the boys and girls leaving our National Schools to-day. I want to make myself quite clear on this particular point. We will all agree that in every department of industry, in view of the conditions surrounding that industry, particularly if it be a competitive industry, those we employ must be educationally and intellectually, as the result of education, the equal of those they have to meet in competition. If the boys and girls in our industries are not the equal of those found in the industries of our competitors, we are not competing on fair terms.

It may surprise many of the Deputies here, it certainly was a surprise to me when I got the information, to know that the standard of education possessed by the boys and girls leaving our primary schools actually at the moment is very low. Over sixty per cent. of the boys who left our primary schools during the last four months had not got beyond the Fifth Standard. The Fifth Standard of education, as most of you know, means that a boy can barely read and write. He cannot take advantage of a technical school with a standard of education as low as the fifth. Yet only 60 per cent. of the boys leaving our schools to-day have reached the Fifth Standard. That means that the vast majority of them, by reason of their low educational standard, can only follow occupations that are already congested. The result is that our educational system is a manufactory for unemployment. That is a matter for which the Government cannot avoid accepting responsibility. Those of us who are engaged in industries—I do not mind whether as farmers or in what department of industry—have been calling for years for a higher standard of education among those we employ in order that we may hold the various markets in which we compete. But the position to-day is that 60 per cent. of the boys leaving our National Schools have not got beyond the Fifth Standard.

As long as those conditions prevail, we will have this problem of unemployment coming up year by year with increasing force, with larger numbers behind it, and I say to you—because we are all responsible in this matter—that it is our duty to see that this particular cause will not remain a cause a moment longer than is necessary. I do not want to dwell too long on these points, because a number of Deputies are anxious to speak on them, but there is one other factor to which I would like to refer that is a large contributing cause of unemployment. I mean the unrest that has prevailed in industry in this poor country of ours. Whether it is correct to say it or not I am not in a position to judge, as there are no statistics to show, but I have been told by industrialists outside it that far more strikes, in view of the numbers engaged in industry, have taken place in this country than in any other country.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Mr. GOOD

I am giving the statement that has been made.

Mr. DAVIN

Has the Deputy any facts to support it?

Mr. BOLAND

What was the reason for it?

Mr. GOOD

Deputies can make their speeches when I am done. I will extend to them exactly the same courtesy that I hope they will extend to me. It is just as well that we who are engaged in industry should occasionally hear what others say of us, and I am only speaking of a statement that has been made to me. We are anxious to get capital in order to develop our industries, and we are met with the answer, over and over again, that strikes are very prevalent. As long as they are so prevalent Ireland will not be a happy hunting ground for capital for its industries.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Would the Deputy tell the House when we had the last strike in industry in this country?

Mr. LITTLE

Marino.

Mr. GOOD

I know that some of the things I have to say are unpleasant to Deputies on the Labour Benches——

Mr. MORRISSEY

Answer the question.

Mr. GOOD

—but I always try to say them in a courteous manner, and I hope that this occasion will not be any exception. I might remind the Deputy of a case in point. In this city some years ago we established, after a great deal of trouble, what promised to be a large shipbuilding industry; we have not got to carry our minds back so many years to remember it. That industry was established very largely with the support of capital from the city. It went on very prosperously for a few years on the basis that the rates of wages paid would be the rates paid on the Clyde. As the cost of living fell the rates on the Clyde fell. When those engaged in the industry here attempted to get a corresponding reduction in the rates it was refused, with the result that the industry was closed down. That industry gave employment to many thousand people in this city. After it had been closed down for twelve months, when the capitalists engaged in it had decided to leave the industry, when its trade had gone, labour decided that it would agree to the terms.

Mr. MORRISSEY

They were starved out.

Mr. GOOD

After twelve months. Those engaged in industry had sufficient of it, and they sold it to an English concern. It is being carried on to-day by that combine on the other side in a limited way. To-day in this city there are hundreds who were employed in that industry walking about unemployed, who would still be employed at high wages in a prosperous industry but for the action of labour. These are things that must be carefully considered when we come to deal with unemployment. Nobody will doubt that the illustration I have given has led, during the past three or four years, to a very large amount of unemployment here in the city. I am very sorry to have to say it. If there is a country in Europe to-day more than another that needs peace in industry it is this country. Since I came into the Dáil I have preached that doctrine. I am not one who supports strikes as a means of settling labour troubles. I would rather support the attitude that has been taken up in recent years in the labour movement on the other side, where employers and workmen sit down at a table together and discuss and settle the problems arising in their industry. The shipbuilding industry to which I have referred was in an exceedingly bad condition in England and Scotland some five years ago as a result of European competition. The masters and men engaged in the different departments of that industry sat down together, considered the economic problems attached to the industry, and arrived at solutions satisfactory to both, with the result that it is now in a prosperous state. Leaders in the labour movement on the other side are urging on their supporters the desirability of extending the principles which have led to prosperity in that industry to various other industries, and we have a cry going out for peace in industry. I would like to hear that cry in this country to-day.

Mr. CASSIDY

Amongst the Irish railway managers.

Mr. GOOD

I would like to hear it started by the Labour Party. If we could have started such a movement as that we would have gone a long way towards solving the problem of unemployment.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Until Deputy Good rose it looked as if this debate was not going to wander over all the Departments of the State, but now that that little lacuna has been filled up, everybody is on a more equal footing. The Deputy has just stated that he holds that our system of education is responsible for unemployment. Later, I confess, he modified that somewhat by saying that there was another large contributory cause. I suggest that there are several contributory causes for unemployment at present. I do not pretend that this Government or that my Department has solved the education problem. If I did I would feel that I was not fit to be in the position I am now in. Deputy Good suggested that Deputies might be surprised to hear that 60 per cent. of those leaving the primary schools had not gone beyond the Fifth Standard. Only those Deputies who are new to the House will be surprised to hear that. I think we have had that complaint from Deputy Good before. I do not say that that gets rid of the complaint; far from it. But it was suggested to him, when he originally based the argument on the information that he had got, that the fact on which he was basing his argument did not support the argument, that is, the fact that 60 per cent. leave school before they have got beyond the Fifth Standard is not a criticism of what ought to be the normal standard attained by those who leave school. He has pointed out that the most obvious explanation for that state of affairs was irregular attendance. He speaks about conditions at the moment. However, with the School Attendance Act in force, one might say that argument no longer holds good.

Might I point out that if you make the School Attendance Act more rigid, or at least more efficient, you cannot achieve the desired results all at once on pupils who have reached the age of twelve or fourteen years. For instance, if pupils have been irregular in their attendance between the ages of eight to twelve years, undoubtedly when they reach twelve or fourteen that irregularity of attendance will be shown. Therefore, even if those who are now approaching the age of fourteen are made to attend school regularly, still the previous irregularity will be, to a large extent, responsible for the failure of many pupils to attain a proper standard of education before they leave school. However, that refers only to the precise point that Deputy Good raised. I realise perfectly well that a great deal of the success with which our young people can hope to compete with people from other countries will depend upon the training that they get and on the use that they make of that training. I think that that ought to be obvious to anybody. But let us remember, when we hear, as we do occasionally, a jeremiad from Deputy Good, that, as I had to point out to him before, exactly the same criticism is levelled and the same faults are found with the systems of education in nearly every country with which I am acquainted or of which I have read.

Coming to the general debate, I think you, sir, will admit that it has developed into an extraordinary debate. It is almost unique, certainly in my experience of the Dáil. You know that I have a great desire always in matters of debate to be strictly relevant, and if I criticise in a general way some of the statements that have come from the other side, you will agree, sir, that it will be in order to foster that good will that ought to prevail and to pay that Party the subtle compliment of saying that we were hoping that the speeches were relevant to the subject under discussion. As Deputy Hogan put it, we were undoubtedly treated to a good deal of highbrow economics; in fact, the contrast in the methods by which the two Parties are supporting this motion and opposing the amendment is very striking. We had—at least from the leaders; my remarks do not apply to the ordinary members of the Fianna Fáil Party so closely as to the leaders— undoubtedly a very different method of approach to this problem than we had from the Labour Benches. It could be described as a highbrow method of approaching it, certainly showing a dislike to get into grips with anything concrete. I will say for the Deputies of the Labour Party, whether I agree or disagree with some of the proposals they put forward, or some of the arguments that they use, that they certainly did try and did succeed in getting to the very definite problems with which they in their constituencies are familiar.

There is an extraordinary contrast between the two parties who for the moment are in temporary alliance against the Government on this particular motion. I know the danger of keeping to the subject too strictly. Deputy Colohan, who kept very rigidly to the subject, ran the risk of being called to order. Although he kept to the subject, he was certainly out of tune with a great deal of the debate, and the result, was that it seemed to have struck you, sir, for a moment that he was irrelevant because he happened to keep to the subject on the paper. I will refer to his speech in another context. Not only did he limit himself to the subject strictly— an extraordinary thing in the circumstances—but he also dealt with the problem of unemployment in his own particular county of Kildare. If Deputies will read that speech they will see the enormous task that is to be thrown upon the Government if they are asked to provide work for all. Remember that the demand made for County Kildare can also be made for the other counties of the Saorstát. That aspect of the matter, however, I may be able to return to in a few moments.

There is a distinction I should like to make—it has been made already, largely to stress it to the disadvantage of the Government, at least to stress it so as to throw further burdens on the Government—that is the distinction between public money and public power, as represented by the central authority, and public money and public power, as represented by the local authority. I suggest that both classes of governments, the central government and the local government, ought really to be taken into account in dealing with a problem of this kind. There is undoubtedly the tendency— and it is a tendency that our Government has certainly fallen in with on the whole—for years past, as far as possible, to relieve the local authority, and to put the burden on the central authority. I have often pointed out that charges that in other countries— nearly every country—fall on the local authority, have to be borne here almost entirely, or a large part at all events, by the central authority. The two most outstanding examples of this kind, perhaps, are education and the police force. There are some countries, such as Denmark, where fifty per cent. of the old age pensions is borne by the local authority. That means, of course, that the central authority must bear the unpopularity of levying the taxes necessary to meet the charges. I am not saying that is not right—that in the particular circumstances of the country that is not inevitable to a certain extent, and that, on the whole, taking all things into account, it is not better that the local authority should, as far as possible, be relieved of these burdens, and that they should be put on the central authority. May I suggest that if Deputies look at some of the speeches made here, in which it was pleaded very strongly that this task should be borne by the State, and not by the local authority, they will find the explanation of that in the fact that Deputies know perfectly well that if borne out of the rates the charges for the various works proposed would be immediately felt, and there would be an immediate outcry. There would be a more obvious balancing, if I might so put it, between the works proposed on the one hand and the cost of these works on the other hand. It would be pointed out—I do not say not rightly—but certainly it would be pointed out, and I fear successfully pointed out, that the rates, contributed largely by the agricultural community as well as by the towns, could not bear the charges for the works now suggested to be undertaken by some public authority. When it is a matter of putting these things on the taxes they are a little more concealed, and each county is under the impression that it is shifting the burden on to its neighbour. Therefore, all Deputies are nearly in accordance with the view that whatever is done for unemployment should be done by the central authority. I suggest that that is possibly not altogether quite fair— that there are local obligations as well as the obligations of the central government.

Undoubtedly it is a serious problem —it is a problem made very pressing by the general decline of prices that has followed the tremendous work of destruction in the late war. Deputy Morrissey has admitted—I think Deputy Davin also more or less reechoed him—that the Government has done a good deal to try and relieve it. They have given a good deal towards relief, but they have not gone far enough. There were eloquent appeals that this matter should be approached from a strictly non-party point of view. So far as the speeches are concerned— I do not say so far as the voting is concerned, the distinction will be so clear —I can at least say that the non-party method of attack was more obvious in the case of Labour Deputies—perhaps I am wrong, but it was to me more obvious—than in the case of the Deputies opposite. The State has helped in a variety of ways. The more obvious way —possibly in the long run the best way —would be if people with capital would be induced to set up industries here. One of the primary contributions that the State has made in that respect —and it is a contribution that cannot be forgotten, and that ought not to be forgotten—is that it has made it possible for people to put capital into industries without having to lie awake at night in the fear that the factories they built might go up in smoke in the morning. That is the first essential in the development of industry, and, consequently, the first essential in any attempt to deal with unemployment. We can claim that, with the resources at our disposal, the Government has done very considerable work in that respect. They have also imposed tariffs where a case has been made out, and where they thought they would help or lead to the setting up of industries.

May I point out to Deputies opposite that when the Government was putting on a tariff they considered it from one point of view, and from one point of view only, and that is to help the industry which was to be protected. It did follow that if a tariff was put on for the purpose of protection it also acted as a tax-raising method. That was inevitable from the fact that it was a tariff. I do not know whether the Deputies opposite want us to shut our eyes to that particular fact, namely, that a tariff brings in taxes. Are we to revolt against all facts which, even from some point of view, to a Government looking for money, must be not altogether unpleasant? But the only purpose that the Government had in view in imposing any protective tariff was to protect the industry. It was inevitable that the tariff proposed should, for many years to come, also bring in money to the Exchequer. If Deputies troubled to follow the Minister for Finance the other day, or if not to follow him to read his speech afterwards, they would see that when he was referring to the tariff on boots as a tax, for the moment he was considering the revenues of the State. Was he to shut his eyes to the fact that the tariff on boots, for instance, brought in revenue? He was accused by the leader of the Opposition last Wednesday, and to-day by Deputy Briscoe, of looking upon these things merely as taxes. At the precise moment when he referred to it as a tax, was he not doing this? He asked where was the money to come from. He had gone through the main sources from which the State derives its revenue. This was one of them. Was he to shut his eyes to that fact? That is an example of the kind of criticism to which Ministers have been subjected.

Another method by which we try to help industry is by the operation of the Trades Loans Facilities Act—I shall return to that in a moment for a different purpose—and by what I may call, if I am not likely to be misunderstood by the Labour Party—a policy of direct action. We have taken direct action of various kinds. We have undertaken big works which many people in this State and out of it think should have been left to private enterprise. We are being criticised and severely criticised for that. Still we have undertaken them. We have undertaken works that perhaps in other times and in other States would have been left to private individuals to undertake. This State has undertaken them here, and in that way has helped to deal with portion of the immediate problem of unemployment. It has also helped to provide some solution for the recurring problem of unemployment, only of course to some extent. Now, these matters are so familiar to Deputies that I need not mention them in detail. The fact that we have occasionally to remind Deputies of these things is not in itself any proof that they are not real. The fact that in answer to the criticisms levelled against the Government we have to reel off, so to speak, some of the services the Government rendered, and the fact that that has to be done again and again, is not proof that these services were not rendered to the nation by the Government.

So far as some of the works we have undertaken are concerned, as far as I can see other Deputies are anxious to follow in our wake and to give us, a couple of years after the event, a kind of half-hearted approval, with the suggestion that of course these things naturally would have been done better if they were there. It is a pity that they were not in a position to criticise those schemes, or did not take an opportunity of being in a position to criticise those schemes, when they were going through the Dáil.

We have made, also, time and again, permanent provision and occasional provision from year to year to deal with this question of unemployment by our road and drainage policies. So far as I know, if it is a question of immediate relief of unemployment and if there is a certain limited sum at the disposal of, say, a Government Department and the idea is to get work done, not necessarily fully economic work, but good work, and at the same time to secure that most of the money voted goes to the relief of unemployment and in the payment for work, then it is not easy to see what better way there can be adopted for doing this than the work on the roads and on drainage.

Let me refer to the drainage question for a moment. Not only do we provide a very large grant, in many cases up to fifty per cent., but we do more than that. For instance, if we provide fifty per cent., and the County Council provides seventeen or eighteen per cent., that leaves something like thirty-two per cent. to be borne by the person whose lands may be improved. One would imagine from a speech I heard one day here in this Dáil that we insisted upon immediate payment of that sum from the tenant whose land is improved; that we were offering him half a loaf if he would put up another half a loaf. There is no limit to what the County Councils can give in the way of a grant, but even if they limit themselves to the mere seventeen per cent., it is really possible for public money to be put in to the extent of sixty-seven or seventy per cent. in favour of the drainage scheme. Not only is it possible, but the County Councils in some cases are willing to go even further than that. If it is said that the farmer cannot put up his share, it is pointed out that the work would benefit his farm and make it worth several shillings additional per acre more. Deputy Davin will remember that they put it at several pounds per annum, but that was only when they were interviewing Ministers. The farmer is not asked to pay that; it is given to him on long loan. Money to the County Council is also given on long loan, and the payment of capital and interest is spread over a period of thirty-five or forty years. It is not fair to describe that as a policy of asking half a loaf from a man who has no bread.

We have done a great deal of work. We are asked to do more, and not only to do more, but to accept certain principles, such as that it is the duty of the State to provide work for every citizen who is willing to work. In that connection the Minister for Industry and Commerce has come in for a lot of adverse comment, because, it is said he said more or less that it was not the duty of the State to prevent people from starving. These are the actual words that he used in October, 1924:—

"It is not any function of this Dáil to provide work, and the sooner that is realised the better. I do not refer to the point referred to by later speakers; that in critical moments where there is an abnormally large unemployment problem, there should be immediate approach made to it by the Government. That is actually occurring at the moment. That is actually taking place, and there will be some approach to it, but the Government or this Dáil should not be held responsible for the provision of work in the country. It is not its business.

"Mr. MORRISSEY: Does the Minister say it is not the business of this Dáil to see that people do not die of hunger in the country?

"Mr. McGILLIGAN: That is a totally different thing,"

and he goes on to say—

Mr. MORRISSEY

Read on.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, he went on to deal with the question of uncovenanted benefit.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Read on.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I am going to do so.