I move:—
"That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration."
My reason for moving that this Estimate be referred back for further consideration is in order to focus the attention of the members of this House on the magnitude of the unemployment problem prevailing right throughout the country, and in order to draw the attention of the House to the poverty and hardship occasioned thereby. We are asked to vote a sum of £2,000. The total sum mentioned in the Vote is £32,000. I would like to point out that that is only portion of the unexpended amount which was voted by this House in the last financial year. Although the House is now being asked to vote the sum of £2,000, or in all £32,000, I would like to point out to Deputies who might be under the impression that that would go towards relieving unemployment between now and the end of this financial year that that is not the case, because the greater part of that sum, if not all, has already been expended on relief works. One could quite understand the action of the Government in refusing to increase this particular Vote provided there was no unemployment, poverty, or destitution throughout the country. But, as far as the present situation is concerned, we find that there are tens upon tens of thousands of people legitimately looking for work and unable to find it. In addition to that we find that there are thousands of farmers in a state of poverty. They are hardly able to feed and clothe their children let alone pay rents and rates or anything of that description. We also find that there are thousands of fishermen around our seaboard and on the islands off the coast who are absolutely in a state of want, many of them in a state of destitution.
As far as this particular Vote in other years is concerned, I would like to point out to the House that the attitude taken this year differs from the attitude taken in other years. Notwithstanding the fact that unemployment, poverty, and hardship are as prevalent throughout the country at the present time as they were last year or the year before, we find that the Government are not endeavouring to deal with this problem seriously.
I would like to point out to the House that in the year 1922-23 a total sum of £348,000 was voted by this House for relief schemes. Out of that amount the sum of £339,647 was expended. In the year 1923-24 we find that no money was voted for relief schemes. But that was an exceptional year, inasmuch as at that particular time the one million pounds building grant was being expended which did something at least to relieve unemployment and to help those people who were destitute and required help. In the year 1924-25 we find that there was an original estimate of £250,000. There was a Supplementary Estimate of another £250,000, making a total Vote for the year £500,000. Out of that £500,000 we find that in that financial year a sum of £380,596 was actually expended on relief schemes. In the year 1925-26, we find that there was £370,000 voted by this House for relief schemes. Out of that, a sum of £336,465 was actually expended. In the year 1926-27, £50,000 was voted by this House and out of that amount £30,447 was expended. Last year, as a result of the motion in regard to unemployment moved by this Party, the Government were compelled to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for a sum of £150,000. Out of that £150,000 £118,000 was expended up to the 31st March last.
As far as this year is concerned, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we are asked to vote £32,000. I would like to impress upon the House that practically all that £32,000 has already been expended in connection with relief work. That means that from now until the end of this financial year no money is going to be voted by this House to relieve the unemployed, the destitute and the poor.
On the 5th July last I put a question to the Minister for Finance requesting him in view of the poverty and destitution that were rampant throughout the country to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in order to relieve the situation, prior to the Summer Recess. At that time, as I pointed out, the Minister for Finance treated the whole situation with a big amount of callous indifference. He told this House that he was not prepared to introduce a Supplementary Estimate. Being dissatisfied with the reply I got from the Minister, I raised the matter on the adjournment and the Minister stated on the adjournment that while he was not prepared to introduce a Supplementary Vote in order to help the poor people in the country there would be a Housing Bill in the autumn which would be a Housing Bill for a longer period and which would contemplate a longer programme than any of the Housing Bills that had heretofore been introduced. There was a definite promise from the Minister for Finance that a Housing Bill would be introduced in the autumn which would help to relieve the situation. Although this is the month of November and this House inside three or four weeks will be asked to adjourn for the Christmas Recess, no Bill has been introduced, and we get an assurance from the Minister that he is not going to introduce a Supplementary Vote to relieve the unemployment situation and to relieve the poverty and hardship existing amongst the small farmers and the fishermen.
No doubt the Minister or the President will tell me, in reply, that a big lot has been done. No doubt the President will tell us that as far as the City of Dublin is concerned building operations have gone on to a very considerable extent, and that the situation in regard to the scarcity of houses has been relieved somewhat. But I would like to point out, especially to the President, that in the City of Dublin in the year 1913, according to the Report of the Local Government Departmental Committee, 68,100 persons were in families occupying one-room dwellings. In the year 1926 — thirteen years later according to the census taken in April of that year, the number of persons living in one-room tenements was 78,934, an increase of over 10,000. Not less than one-fourth of the population of Dublin City consists of families housed in one-room tenements. Again, take the County Borough of Cork. In April, 1926, 5,537 persons were in families occupying one-room dwellings, and 14,738 were in families occupying two-room dwellings. In the County Borough of Limerick on the same date, 4,469 were in families occupying one-room dwellings, and 9,153 persons were in families occupying two-room dwellings. I have quoted statistics in regard to Dublin City, Limerick, and Cork which should, undoubtedly, prove to Deputies that there is a great scarcity of houses. That scarcity of houses is not confined to the places I have mentioned, because in my own constituency, as I have repeatedly brought to the notice of the House, there is a great scarcity of labourers cottages. If the Government had tackled this problem of housing in the way it should, and if the Minister had introduced the Bill which he promised to introduce in the autumn, my contention is that it would have helped to relieve the situation, not alone in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, but in every one of the twenty-six counties.
No doubt the Minister for Finance or the President will tell us in reply that the Unemployment Committee dealt with this question and that certain conferences took place. No doubt he will endeavour to camouflage the issue and to whitewash his own neglect by pointing out that the workers employed in the building trades were, to a certain extent, responsible. I can give the House an assurance that the building trade unions will guarantee that labour in this country will give at least as good a return in house building as is obtained in England if the jobs are organised in a similar manner and if the general facilities for efficient production are equal. Last year, when the Labour Party moved its motion in regard to unemployment, there was a Committee set up to deal with the problem. But I put it to the Minister for Finance, and I charge the Government, that up to now no employment has been given as the result of the findings of that Committee. Again, certain recommendations were laid down in the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission. If the Government had carried out the recommendations contained in that report in the manner which they should have done, it would have helped to a very considerable extent to relieve the unemployment situation. It would have helped the small farmers and the fishermen in the Gaeltacht areas. In the year 1927 there was a conference set up to deal with the question of sea fisheries. The Sea Fisheries Conference made certain recommendations. If the Minister for Lands and Fisheries were present now, he would be able to tell the House that those recommendations have not been carried out. If they had been carried out it would have helped to relieve the unemployment situation and it would have helped to relieve the poverty which is prevalent in the country. On the 9th May last, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in replying to a question by Deputy Cooney in regard to unemployment amongst women, said: "Important aspects of the question of unemployment amongst women have already been dealt with in the Report of the Committee on Technical Education." There is the same story to be told about the Report of the Committee on Technical Education. It has not been put into operation. In addition to these recommendations made by various committees, there are at the present time a very large number of schemes in the pigeon-holes of the Land Commission which could be put into operation with beneficial results to the unemployed and to the country. If the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would make his mind known with regard to this problem, he would be able to tell us that a large number of the local authorities of the Saorstát have been endeavouring to bring pressure to bear on his Department to get funds for financing certain schemes. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health could also tell us that yesterday, or the day before, the North Dublin Rural District Council passed a resolution calling upon the Department of Local Government, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, to put into operation relief schemes, because the North Dublin Rural District Council considered that in their area such schemes were necessary in order to relieve the poverty prevailing, especially prior to Christmas. What is true of North Dublin rural area is also true of practically every other rural area in this country.
When the Ministers are dealing with this problem they will, no doubt, say that it is all right for Deputies on the Labour Benches to get up and put forward suggestions to the Minister for Finance to introduce a supplementary vote to relieve unemployment. They will probably charge the Deputies on these benches with omitting to deal with the financial aspect of the situation. In reply to the remarks from these benches we will probably be asked: where is the money to come from? In answer to that, I would refer the Minister for Finance to a statement which he made on the 25th April last in reference to the Budget. He said: "Our credit is now such that we can borrow in the international money market on terms of which no country need be ashamed." When that is put to the Minister for Finance he will probably say that it is not advisable that we should borrow, that it would increase taxation. But on the same day that he made that speech the Minister also said: "I am not arguing that lower taxation is necessarily the goal that should always be aimed at. Increased taxation well spent may even give better results." Surely the Minister for Finance, the Deputies on the Government Benches, and in fact all the Deputies in the House admit that money spent on schemes to relieve poverty would be money well spent— that the money is well spent if it goes to feed hungry men, women and children. I would like the Government to understand that I am not contending that relief schemes generally are going to cure the unemployment situation. I believe they are not going to cure the unemployment situation, but, at the same time, I believe that half a loaf is better than no bread. I believe the Government have not faced up to their responsibility in regard to this question of unemployment. I believe they have not tackled it in the serious manner in which they should. I believe they have endeavoured to fix it up in a sort of piece-meal fashion. That is not going to relieve the unemployment situation throughout the country. At the same time I believe that relief votes do some little good. If they are able to do something to alleviate the situation in any way prior to Christmas, I hope, irrespective of what replies the Ministers give to this amendment, Deputies on the Government Benches will remember the promises they made during the last election campaign to their constituents. They told their constituents that if they were elected to this House they would do their best to relieve the unemployment situation. They told the small farmers and the fishermen in the constituencies in which these classes were represented that they would do their best to relieve the hardships and the poverty existing. Deputies on the Government Benches are now faced with the acid test, irrespective of any camouflage that may be indulged in by the Minister for Finance in reply to this amendment. They are either going to carry out their promises to their constituents or they are going back to the country to tell their constituents that they refused to vote for an amendment referring this Estimate back, in order that the Minister for Finance might be relieved of the responsibility of moving for more money in this House to relieve destitution.
It will, no doubt, be said that the country cannot afford money for the relief of unemployment or for relief schemes. I would put the matter to the House from another angle altogether. Can this House afford not to vote money for the relief of unemployment and to keep people from starving? Deputies on the Government Benches are aware that approximately 30,000 young men and women emigrate on an average from this country every year. If they weigh up in their own minds the cause of this emigration, they will find that these people do not go out to see their friends in America, and that they do not go out owing to the spirit of adventure. They go out to America and to other foreign countries from the land of their birth because they are not able to eke out an existence at home, because they are not able to keep body and soul together. It would be well if the Government would tackle this problem and have regard to it as it actually exists. There is no use in our camouflaging the issue. There is no use in telling the people that the country has turned the corner, or that there is an upward curve so far as the trade of the country is concerned. Statistics speak for themselves. Emigration statistics speak for themselves. The poverty existing in the country speaks for itself; and it is with the idea of focussing attention on this problem that I move that this Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
I maintain that at the present time unemployment—more especially in the rural districts in the west and northwest of Ireland—is even more acute than it was last year, because of the fact that labourers going across to Britain this year found there was not as much employment as formerly, and many of them had to come back without employment. Again, many of them who went in former years did not go this year because of the poor prospects of employment. It will probably be urged by the Government that they do not want to borrow money in connection with this matter. I would submit that if the Government had been anxious to deal with this problem in the manner in which it should have been dealt with, there were ways in which other Estimates could have been reduced in order to allow of a Supplementary Estimate for relief schemes. We had a discussion yesterday in regard to the Governor-General's establishment. We had a discussion in regard to the salary of the Governor-General. The statement was made that the salary of the Governor-General was statutory and could not be altered. I would point out to the House that at the time it was decided that the Governor-General should get a certain salary the Free State was composed of 32 counties and not 26. Therefore, I maintain that the salary of £10,000 is not statutory. Again, we find that there is £18,845 voted for the upkeep of the Governor-General's establishment.
