I move the adjournment.
Adjournment Debate—The Position of Unemployment.
On this motion I propose to take advantage to draw attention to the position of unemployment, and to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in July last it was agreed that it was the duty of the Government, if they could not find work for the unemployed, to maintain them. The Government undertook to do that on 26th June. Since that time, instead of there being a reduction in the numbers unemployed, there has been a considerable increase, and as a result of that increase there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of persons compelled to seek home assistance. The different local authorities which are charged by statute to give relief to destitute persons have had a great burden placed upon them, a burden which I submit, following the resolution passed by the House, should have been undertaken by the State.
Prior to the General Election of 1932 the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that if his Party was returned as the Government they would solve the unemployment problem in six months. The President at that time went further, and said that whilst employment was one of the greatest problems in the world to-day, and whilst other countries had not been able to deal with it effectively, the circumstances here were altogether different and to use his own words "it would be comparatively easy to solve the whole question here". Since that time there has been a very great increase in the numbers unemployed. The number of registered unemployed in March, 1932, was 29,768; the number registered on 20th March, 1933, was 83,900. I have not the actual figures before me now, but the peak point was reached in December of last year, when the number registered was something like 104,000.
Speaking in the House on the motion for the adjournment last night the Minister stated that the number of unemployed in this country had been reduced by 20,000 owing to the industrial policy pursued by the Government. He told us earlier, I think, that thousands had been absorbed into employment as a result of the factories that had been started. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that, and I hope the industrial policy of the Government will succeed in absorbing many more thousands. But I want to suggest to the Minister that while the industrial policy may have led to the employment of many men, on the other hand the Government's general policy has led to the disemployment of many more thousands throughout the country. No one will contend now that there are as many men employed on the land to-day as there were twelve months ago, and very few will contend that in any of the country towns of the Free State there are as many employed as there were twelve months ago.
With regard to the figure of 20,000— that is a reduction from 104,000 to roughly 84,000—even the Minister himself would not contend that that is due altogether to increased employment. I want to submit to the Minister and to the House—I think many members of the House, and I am sure members on the Labour benches, who are in close touch with this matter throughout the country, will agree with me—that that reduction is largely due to the fact that those who last year were induced to register for employment by the promises held out have lost all hope, and have got tired of registering for employment that they see no chance of obtaining. I think it will be found on examination that nearly all of the 20,000 mentioned by the Minister are people who have ceased to register for employment. I must confess that I was surprised that they continued to register for so long—although I agree it is the proper thing to do—in view of the fact that so far as the large majority of them was concerned they got no employment at all during that period, and so far as another substantial number was concerned they got only intermittent employment, being employed on the roads for two or three weeks, then unemployed for five or six weeks, and then perhaps getting a couple of weeks employment on relief work. I must say that in my experience, speaking only for my own constituency and the towns in it, I have never seen so much unemployment, and I am sorry to have to say that I have never seen so much destitution as there is to-day amongst the unemployed in my county.
I have given the figures regarding unemployment; I now want to give a few figures regarding those on home assistance. In February, 1932, the number was 92,432, and the average weekly cost was £12,728. In February, 1933, the figure had increased from 92,432 to 131,609, and the average cost per week had increased from £12,728 to £17,041. I think it will be admitted that this is a very substantial increase in twelve months under the administration of the Government which told us they could solve the whole problem of unemployment within six months, and that—in the words of the President—it would be comparatively easy to do it in this country.
Let me for a moment quote the figures so far as Tipperary is concerned. In March, 1932, the number of registered unemployed for the whole County of Tipperary was 889. The number in March of this year was 3,302, nearly four times the number registered twelve months ago. In the town where I myself live, the number registered in March of last year was 110, and this year it is 687. I submit to the House that the Government has failed absolutely to carry out the very definite promises which were made regarding the finding of employment for our workers in this country, the Government which definitely promised that that would be one of the first matters they would tackle. We were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he could solve the problem within so many months; we were told by the President himself that it was a comparatively easy matter. Of course, nobody but the President himself believed that. We all knew it would be a very difficult thing for any Government to do. Far from reducing the numbers of unemployed the policy pursued by the Government has led to a further substantial increase, and far from reducing the number of people destitute at the time at which they took office it has increased it very substantially. I know, and the Minister for Local Government knows quite well, that as a result of the responsibility for the maintenance of those persons there has been a very substantial increase in the rates of most public bodies throughout the country to-day. It has further resulted—coupled with the reduction of the agricultural grant—in many county councils, in order to keep the increase as small as possible, cutting down services which would have given employment. Not only, therefore, will we have increased rates, but services which in the ordinary course would absorb a great number of the unemployed will be less than they were.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer. I am sure there are many other members who are more competent to deal with the position from the point of view of the added financial responsibility which has been placed on local authorities. I do say that in this matter, even if it were only this matter alone, the Government has failed lamentably to carry out the promises given to the people before the election of 1932.
Might I ask Deputy Morrissey one question? The Deputy quoted a figure of £12,000 for home assistance as compared with a figure of £17,000. For what period did he say those figures apply? For a week?
I said that the average weekly cost——
Is the Deputy then suggesting that the total cost of home assistance for the County Tipperary is approximately three quarters of a million pounds?
The Deputy was not listening to me. I dealt first with the figures for the whole country. For the Deputy's information I did not at all deal with the outdoor relief regarding my own county, but I do want to tell the Deputy that the additional outdoor relief in South Tipperary this year has meant an increase of 2/3 in the pound.
I just wanted to make the figures clear.
I have made them clear.
I am one who is not without appreciation of the Government's difficulties in handling this problem of unemployment. We all know it is a very big question and one that is not likely to improve at a very early date. It is the duty of every member of the House, no matter to what Party he belongs, to help the Government in every effort they may make to deal with this problem. We in the City of Dublin are prepared to do our duty. It would not be right, perhaps, to say that we are doing more than our share, but some people think that we are being called upon to do more than our share and called upon to bear burdens which should be borne by a national fund. Our City Manager informs me and my colleagues of the Corporation that he has at the moment relief schemes calculated to absorb £105,000 in labour costs and £37,000 in the cost of materials. That is almost half in the cost of materials.
The City Manager and my colleagues are prepared to face the Dublin public with a demand for an additional £37,000 for materials out of the rates if the Government will help us to keep in employment the 3,000 men that we have had engaged for the past few months. I have the official figures here from our City Manager to show that the number of men employed on relief work for the week ending 11th February was 3,180; for the 18th February, 3,100; for the 25th February, 3,057; for the 4th March, 2,152. Then he goes on to say at the end of March, on the completion of the Friends' Fields (Ballybough), Kimmage and Beresford works the number of men will be reduced to 1,295. In April, on the conclusion of the Ballyboden filter beds, the Camac River and Fitzsimon's Yard works, the number for whom there will remain work will be further reduced to 982. The work on the Rivers Tolka, Dodder and Swan will be brought to an end during May, leaving work for only 212 men at the end of May, and the completion of the Dartry Road and Annamoe Road works in June will reduce this number by 138. That is to say, that within five or six weeks from now the employment given to the men who are engaged in relief work in Dublin City will be practically brought to an end. The City Manager and the Corporation are hopeful that the Government will grant us this £105,000. We will find the £37,000 ourselves. Surely there is no Deputy in the House and no man outside who will say that Dublin is not making some effort, and a big effort, to help the Government to deal with the problem. We are paying £5,000 a week to unemployed men under what is now known as the Chatham Row relief. This is the result of a Bill that was introduced in the Seanad two and a half years ago. I certainly say that the Chatham Row relief has done great work in this city. Sometimes one is tempted to use language for which one afterwards feels a little bit sorry, but I can certainly say that were it not for the Chatham Row relief, unemployed men with large families in Dublin could not have been expected to remain silent, see their children hungry and notices to quit coming from their landlords. I mention that to express the hope, at any rate, that the House will appreciate the fact that Dublin has done well for its people. Having said that, I say that it must do a little better with the assistance of the Government.
We have 4,000 single, unemployed men in this city getting no relief of any kind from any source. These single, healthy unemployed men have not even the price of a cigarette and are not properly clothed. They are dependent upon friends. They told me within the past 48 hours that they will wait no longer. That is the kind of language one does not like using, but when one hears it it is not a matter that should be pigeon-holed. I implore the Government and the other Parties in the House to make up their minds that if we cannot provide work for these people who are willing to work, it is our duty to maintain them, to see at any rate that they are fed and that they are properly clothed.
One of the unfortunate difficulties that we are faced with in Dublin is that, as a result of the conditions in other parts of the country, numbers of men and women are coming to Dublin in the hope of finding work. What are they doing? They are making things much worse for those in the city who are similarly situated. There is no work and there is no relief for those people coming from the country. In Dublin there is no hope for them. There is no housing for them. I appeal to Deputies, when they go home during the holidays, if they hear of any person on the point of coming to the city, to make an appeal to them not to come. Residents in the country districts are known to be very kind to their own people. At least, they cannot go hungry. They help one another. There is butter, eggs, milk and potatoes and the rents of the cottages or houses are small compared with what they would have to pay in the City of Dublin. Our rotten tenements, our rotten basement kitchens are, within 24 hours of the very moment they are vacated by people who go into flats or new houses, occupied by some person or other coming from the country. Healthy children are forced by circumstances to go into these rotten kitchens paying as much as 10/- or 12/- a week in rents and not having any money coming into them except what they get from some institution.
Our sanitary and public health officers, as well as the members of the Housing Committee, are put to their wit's end to know when and how they can cope with the housing problem. Within the past few years the Corporation have built 6,000 houses. Before we built that number we were nearer to solving the housing problem than we are to-day. That is due to the huge numbers that are coming into the city from the country districts. The Housing Committee of the Corporation meets almost daily. It is doing everything possible to put up houses that can be let at a rent people can pay.
I hope all members of the House will join in an effort to secure houses and suitable employment for the people. We have to ask ourselves: what is to become of the youth of the country and what hope is there for them? In the old days farmers' sons represented the majority of those entering the professions and commercial life. What hope is there for them now? Farmers' sons are being forced into the towns and cities to compete for ordinary casual labour that rightly belongs to the people in the cities and the towns. Can nothing be done to keep the farmers' sons and daughters on the land? As a city man it would not be right for me to say that they should be forced to stay on the land and cultivate it at a loss, but still I think something might be done to encourage them to return, of their own free will, to the land. They ought too, to be given suitable wages for the work they do on it. In that way the position in the towns and cities would be relieved. Those seeking town-work and city-work can get it when those now competing against them have gone back to the land. The severe competition for work at the present time has led to a lowering of wages. No one should be allowed to take advantage of the huge numbers of unemployed to do that. The Corporation has an application in to the Government for a grant. If the Government can provide it immediately then the Corporation will be able to give employment to 2,000 or 3,000 workmen for another couple of months. Even then we shall only have touched the fringe of this important matter which I hold is a national one.
I want to join with Deputies Morrissey and Byrne in calling the serious attention of the Government to the unemployment crisis in the country to-day. There is no doubt whatever, no statistics can gainsay the fact, that the country to-day is passing through an unemployment crisis unparalleled in living memory. I am not going to say that all the blame and responsibility for this unemployment problem rests on the shoulders of the present Government. We all know—I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will scarcely deny it—that the census figures taken by the Government of which he was a member in 1926 showed that there were 78,000 people unemployed. That shows that the unemployment problem is not one of to-day or yesterday, but is of many years' growth.
Will the Deputy read the comment on that when the figure was analysed?
I remember well that the Government of which Deputy Mulcahy was a member for political reasons suppressed the publication of that report, until it was not possible politically to do it any longer. The plain fact is that the country to-day is passing through a serious unemployment crisis. The issue is not whether it is this Government or the last Government that has caused it but rather what steps are going to be taken to relieve it. The unemployed people in the country cannot afford to wait until it has been determined on the hustings whether the people believe it was caused by Cumann na nGaedheal or by Fianna Fáil. The sufferings of the unemployed are such that they have no use for that kind of inquiry as to the causes of, or the responsibility for, unemployment. Unemployed men and women do not want to know who is responsible for causing unemployment or what has been responsible for it. What they want is that steps will be taken by the Government to solve the problem in a way that will enable every unemployed man and woman to lead a decent Christian life in a Christian country.
I will concede at once that in last year's Budget the Government made very considerable financial provision in an effort to relieve this problem. As a result of the Government's action it was possible to absorb a considerable number of people into employment for a certain period. But one must not blind oneself to the extent of that assistance. I know that statistics can be produced. Possibly they will be produced in this debate to show that very many thousands of people were employed on this or that scheme, but the truth of this matter is not going to be found in statistics. The sufferings of the unemployed cannot be measured by statistics. The real truth with regard to the unemployment position can be found by Deputies going through their own constituencies. There they will find, notwithstanding any statistics which can be produced here, that there were last year and still are a very large number of unemployed persons who secured no work whatever under any of the relief schemes. Examination will show that a very considerable number of people received employment for a very short period. In a nutshell, it may be said that the financial assistance made available by the Government last year only touched, at the uttermost, the fringe of this serious problem.
The present position is extremely acute. The bulk of the money allocated for relief work has been spent already. We are now in the position in which we were 12 months ago except that it has become somewhat aggravated in the intervening 12 months. When we talk about the problem of unemployment we have got to realise that the growth of mechanisation, of scientific development, and, here in this country, the impediment to emigration, are increasing the unemployment problem for this country. Mechanisation of industry, one year after another, is throwing people on the industrial scrap heap. To-day many people who, ten years ago, secured employment in certain industries, have, as a result of mechanisation, been thrown out of employment now. At the same time, scientific development is throwing people on the industrial scrap heap in the same way, and he would be a very foolish man who would say that there is any prospect that scientific development will bring any employment.
We have a mad race of scientific development on the one hand and mechanisation on the other hand heaping up the human scrap heap and no effort being made by the Legislature to control either of these forces which are contributing to, and seriously aggravating, the problem of unemployment. The plain fact of the matter is that as each year progresses, as a result of scientific development and mechanisation and in the absence of any restriction on working hours, the unemployment problem is becoming more and more acute. I see no evidence on the part of this Government, notwithstanding the very wise headline given to it by its official organ, to do anything to control this mad race of scientific progress and mechanisation. We are allowing scientific development and mechanisation to outrun the industrial needs of the country and we are allowing them to contribute in a very great measure to the unemployment problem existing in this country to-day.
I want to put it to the President, and I am glad to see him here to-day, what does the Government propose to do to face up to this serious problem of unemployment which we have existing here to-day?
Produce a plan.
The Deputy was here for ten years and we saw no plan.
We made no promises.
The Deputy evidently is in the position now that he does not know the difference between false promises and true promises.
There is no use in telling the unemployed people of the country that you are reeking with good intentions or that you hope to do this or hope to do that. There is an old saying that the road to a certain institution is strewn with good intentions. The road to suffering and misery for the unemployed is strewn with the same good intentions. There is no use in hoping to do this or hoping to do that. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to say very definitely in this House what they propose to do to relieve the unemployment problem existing in the country to-day. That problem clearly cannot continue. The sufferings of large numbers of unemployed, the absolutely bleak and despairing outlook before them, coupled with the inability of the Government to cope with it, is producing a spirit of defeat and despair and decay in our people which cannot last long until there will be a conflagration.
The Government ought to do something while there is still an opportunity to capture the enthusiasm of the unemployed people by giving them some tangible hope that their sufferings will be brought to an end at a comparatively early date. I shall be told that there is no need for them to suffer because they are unemployed, as there is unemployment insurance benefit available and, for those not eligible for that, there is home assistance. The Unemployment Insurance Act, originally devised to meet normal pre-war unemployment, is now hopelessly antiquated for dealing with the existing unemployment crisis. Its actuarial foundation in the limited scope of the Act makes it utterly useless in an unemployment crisis such as we have to-day. I am sure the Government can feel no consolation in recommending people to apply for and attempt to receive the miserable pittance which they receive in home assistance. Neither the unemployment insurance fund on the one hand nor home assistance on the other hand will provide any solution of the serious problem of poverty and distress which the country is facing to-day. Local authorities all over the country are crying out that their finances are swamped, that their machinery is overburdened in an effort to relieve the unemployment which ought to be a State charge. Everybody knows that the local authorities are quite incapable and ought not to be asked to face up to the expense of the central Government for the relief of unemployment. Local finances were never intended to deal with the problem. The machinery of local authorities is utterly inadequate to relieve it. I say to the Government that it is their obvious duty, pending the provision of work, to take the question of relieving unemployment into their own hands and to relieve the local authorities of the crushing burden imposed upon them to-day. The Government should make sure that the relief of unemployment in this country will not go hand in hand with the impoverishment of the finances of the local authorities by giving out home assistance in order to relieve a problem which ought to be relieved in a much more Christian and humanising way than that.
I have said before, and it has been said by other Deputies in this House, that the problem of unemployment has now reached such dimensions that it is not a normal problem; that it is not the unemployment problem which we knew in pre-war years. It has become so acute now that it ought to be dealt with as a problem of national emergency by requiring the mobilisation of all the powers of the State and all the resources of the State to relieve it. If there were an invasion of the country to-morrow all the powers and all the resources of the State would be used to repel the invader. Is there any worse kind of invader than the one which takes the form of poverty and destitution? Is not that kind of invader worse than the foreign foe? People, at least, can live under a foreign invader, undesirable though he may be. One does not desire to see our people endeavouring to fight for an existence, surrounded on all sides by want of employment, by hunger, by destitution, by an inability to get the very necessities of life. If there were an invasion of the country, this Parliament would be convened, emergency powers would be passed and taken by the Government which would claim the rights and the privilege to do this, that and the other thing in order to defend the nation against the foreign invader. What is the difficulty of taking the same emergency powers to deal with the unemployment problem? If the powers would be necessary in the case of an invasion, this problem is at least as serious, if not more serious, than a foreign invasion. The Government ought, without any more delay or without any more hesitation, to make up their minds to that. The problem cannot be solved by allowing it to drift or by dealing with it on the basis of normal methods. Only by regarding it as a problem of national emergency and bringing all the resources of the Government and the nation to bear upon it can the problem be met.
Now on purely political issues the Government have displayed quite considerable vigour. I do not quarrel with that vigour. I support any vigorous national policy designed to enable this country to get to the full height of political manhood. I only wish that the same courage and vigour served the Government in dealing with social and economic issues. If political issues can be dealt with in a vigorous and full-blooded way how is it the same vigour and robustness are not observed by the Government when dealing with industrial and social issues? There is one thing I would wish to see, and that is that the Government possessed the same vigour and courage, in dealing with social and economic issues, as they have shown when dealing with purely political issues. If they endeavoured to apply the same vigour and enthusiasm when dealing with social and economic issues, then every encouragement which they require when dealing with those issues with energy and speed will be given so far as this Party is concerned.
We had a declaration by the Government, some time ago, on a motion in this House, that it accepted the principle of work or maintenance. Does the President think that the policy pursued by this Government since then amounts to an implementation of that policy? We know perfectly well that 90,000 of our people are unemployed to-day. We do not know what the Government, which at one time accepted the policy of work or maintenance, think would be a decent maintenance for those people whom it is not possible, so far, to absorb into industry. I can hardly imagine that the President would say that the miserable pittance those people receive in the form of home assistance represents the Government's contribution to providing maintenance in the absence of employment. I would like to ask the President what are the Government's plans to give effect to that policy of work or maintenance. What are their plans and what is their policy for dealing with unemployment? We are entitled to have them after the period has elapsed since that motion was accepted by the Government; and we are entitled to know what measures the Government propose to take to implement their proposals in that direction.
If I were to offer any criticism of the industrial policy of the Government I would say, so far as we see it in operation, the Government are relying too much upon tariffs to ensure industrial prosperity. I have said before that if tariffs could make a country prosperous every country in the world would be prosperous. If the erection of high tariff walls would enable this, or any other country, to be prosperous there would be no such thing as poverty in the world to-day. We have only to look at high-tariffed countries to see how foolish is the policy of expecting that the mere imposition of tariffs will afford an automatic passport to industrial prosperity. I said before, and I say again, that the Government that relies upon the mere imposition of tariffs as a means of bringing about industrial regeneration, or industrial prosperity, is living in an industrial fool's paradise. Tariffs alone will not bring any country that measure of prosperity that patriotic men and women would desire.
I think it will hardly be denied by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that his tariff wall, high though it is, has failed to keep out of this country a very considerable amount of imported commodities which, if made here, because of their high labour content, would give considerable employment in the country. If the Government, however, imagine that purely private investors, who first and last and all the time are concerned about profits and little concerned about the industrial and social needs of the people, are going to expend their energies, in the circumstances in this country, to produce here all the commodities at present imported, the Government are, again I say, living in a fool's paradise completely unaware of the limitations, inevitable and natural limitations, financial and political, which are imposed upon private capitalists in this country. The mere reliance that is placed upon tariffs as a means of bringing about industrial prosperity will not give the country that industrial regeneration that it hopes for. I can see tariffs bringing some benefits to the industrial position in the country, but I see no evidence in this country of tariffs bringing about that industrial Dorado that the Minister for Industry and Commerce pictured on many occasions in this House.
The Government might well examine the position and take stock of what the imposition of tariffs has, so far, brought about. They may count so many new factories established. I would rather put the word "factories" in inverted commas so far as some of these institutions are concerned. I believe the fact is that after a certain period after the imposition of tariffs, and the result of those tariffs, the more the Government closely examine the position the more they will realise that the mere imposition of tariffs will not achieve the results they imagine. If we are to bring about industrial regeneration and prosperity we need to have a State plan and State organisation and State control and assistance and a scheme of producing in this country all the commodities our country is capable of producing. The mere reliance on private individuals and the mere imposition of tariffs, and waiting to see what will happen, is not going to give the country, in the future, any better industrial position than the country had in the past. The Government might, before any more time is lost, examine that position closely, and the more they examine it the less the solution they will find as a result of their tariff policy. My complaint against the Government's industrial policy is, that there is no vision and driving force behind it.
We had the President, when he was in opposition, advocating the establishment of an economic G.H.Q., which would ensure that every possible step was taken to produce in this country the commodities that it needs. We had the Minister for Industry and Commerce vehemently denouncing the idea of the imposition of tariffs from the outlook of three civil servants, who constituted the Tariff Commission. Now that the Government are in possession of power what is the position? The Government which denounced industrial development by civil servants is continuing the policy of industrial development through the minds and outlook of civil servants; the economic G.H.Q. of the President is pigeonholed and is not to be produced. I shall be told that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is taking a keen interest in industrial development, and supervising everything, and that the civil servants are merely carrying out his industrial policy. I am sure that nobody with any sense will be fooled by a statement of that kind.
Everybody knows the Minister for Industry and Commerce is unable to deal with the thousand and one matters that fall to his lot to be dealt with. Everyone knows that he is the most overworked member of the Ministry. Anyone who imagines a Minister, who stood up three whole days in this House this week looking after one branch of his Department, namely, transport, can possibly give attention to the whole industrial development of the country at the same time, could be fooled by any kind of statement made to him by any person. There is, as I said, no driving force behind the Government's industrial policy. There is nobody thinking nationally in the Government Party. Every Minister is looking after his own Department. There is no Minister thinking nationally, because there is no machinery for thinking nationally, and one Minister after another is absolutely choked up dealing with the work of his own Department or spending his time in the House. There is no national thinking-box in the Government.
What about the unofficial Minister for unemployment?
The less said about him the better. There is nobody thinking and nobody planning for the Government.
What are the Cabinet doing?
My one big complaint against the Government is that, while Ministers are thinking departmentally, no one is thinking nationally. No individual Minister can be blamed for that. The responsibility devolves upon the Executive Council for failing to establish, as advised by its own friends and its own newspaper organ, an economic general headquarters staff which would be the eyes, ears and brains of our industrial economic policy. The Government, which in opposition believed all these things, when in power sees no use for them. I suppose in replying to the debate it is likely we shall be told that there are limits to the resources of the State in the matter of relieving unemployment. That seems to be the stock argument with all Governments. I am sure its value and its significance will not be lost on this Government.
I ask the President, who, I am sure, is going to use that argument, does he consider that argument is an answer to the sufferings or the claims of the unemployed people? Everybody knows that there is no more expensive form of waste than leaving men and women, capable of working, without work. Even unemployed men must be fed and clothed to some extent, and since they produce neither food nor clothing they have to draw on the common pool of the productivity of others. The mere statement that the relief of unemployment will cost a considerable sum of money is not an answer to the human and moral needs of the unemployed. It is not an answer to their God-given rights in the matter. It is merely an excuse resorted to by a Government who have not the courage to face up to their responsibility to the unemployed, and I hope the Government will on this occasion refrain from using the argument that cost is an answer to the sufferings and needs of the unemployed.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House as the period allowed for the discussion is rather limited, but I put it to the Government that it is their responsibility and their duty to lead. In opposition and on the hustings they talked in terms of revolution. On the Government Benches they act in terms of conservatism. Let us now have some of the full-blooded revolution that we heard of during the last and previous elections. Let us have some of the action that we heard of when the Government occupied these benches. The Government have good intentions, but these intentions, so far, are only in their heads. These intentions must be translated into concrete schemes of work in all the areas throughout the country so as to ensure that work and wages will be provided for the unemployed to enable them to lead a decent Christian existence. No hoary conservatism or no mere fear of creating new precedents ought to induce the Government to shirk their responsibility to the unemployed. Human beings are the greatest asset this country has, and it is the bounden Christian duty of the Government to save our human beings from the material and moral degradation which follows in the wake of long-continued and widespread unemployment. In every effort made by the Government to relieve unemployment, and in every demand for emergency power made by the Government to deal with the problem in a big and vigorous way, this Party will give the Government every possible support.
We have had in the past plenty of sympathy from the Government Benches in the matter of the need for providing relief for the unemployed. Let us to-day hear from the Government that they have passed from the stage of sympathy to the stage of active assistance, and in every move to produce that machinery to relieve unemployment and in every effort to deal with that problem in a big and vigorous way, this Party, as I said, will be only too pleased to give the Government every assistance, and it will be willing to co-operate with this Government and with any other Party in this House in any genuine attempt to relieve the suffering of our fellow-citizens who are unemployed.
Mr. Kelly
I am sorry I came in here at all this morning, notwithstanding the warning of the Whips of our Party that we were to be here up to time on Friday morning, afraid enemies would take advantage of our absence. Had I known that we would have to listen to the two speeches we have heard I certainly would have stayed away. By nature, unfortunately, I am a pessimist. My physical condition expresses it. Anyone with a cadaverous expression is usually a pessimist. Looking sometimes at the Centre Party Benches and seeing the fine substantial figures on them——
What about the Labour Party?
Mr. Kelly
——I have often thought that I would be a very valuable asset to them. They could bring me round the country and exhibit me as a distressed farmer from Dublin. I would be a magnificent asset. I see Deputy Byrne has left the House. Did anybody ever hear from the first citizen of a great city such a doleful wail as came from him this morning? What it was for I do not know, because every man associated with Dublin knows that there is poverty there, knows that there is destitution, and tries to do all he can to relieve it in every shape and form. I speak more especially for the members of the Corporation. I do not think it is humanly possible for men and women—I should bring the women into it also—to do more than they are doing to reduce unemployment and prevent destitution. I defy contradiction of that. In 1931 there was great destitution in the City and the Cumann na nGaedheal Government gave £5,000 towards its relief. It was not very much. In 1932 the present Government, at whom the finger of scorn is being pointed, gave £120,000. All praise should be given to them for their efforts to relieve destitution in Dublin.
The Dublin Corporation are at present engaged in promoting very big housing schemes. I think eight contractors are actually engaged in building schemes to-day for the Corporation. An immense scheme that will cost at least two million pounds, and that will transform almost the whole of the north side of the city and wipe out a great many of the slums is very nearly ready as far as the plans are concerned. There are others as well. I daresay that in a very short period there will be schemes ready so far as the architects can make them, which will probably involve an expenditure of four or five million pounds in Greater Dublin for this very purpose of providing decent accommodation for the poor and the workers.
Spread over a long period.
Mr. Kelly
For goodness sake give us no more of that kind of talk to drive us into the dumps on this glorious spring day, when the sun is shining so heavenly outside.
There are others outside in the dumps who have nothing to eat.
Mr. Kelly
I am sorry the Deputy has not done much to help them. He accepted his salary of £2,500 all through.
The Deputy knows well that the Lord Mayor spends twice as much.
The Deputy accepted salary and did no work for it.
Mr. Kelly
I do not remember ever having done that.
Deputy Kelly is entitled to continue his speech without interruption.
Mr. Kelly
I should like to be informed when I did that.
When did Deputy Kelly accept the salary for work which he did not do?
We can hear no more about that now.
Mr. Kelly
So far as I am concerned, I do not care very much what a member of this Assembly likes to say about me. They are quite welcome to say it. They can say I broke all the Ten Commandments at once if they like. I cannot stop them here, but let them say it outside.
They are not privileged outside.
Mr. Kelly
I am not going to bother about the statements made here. Let them say it outside before the citizens of Dublin and I am prepared to meet them there. As Dublin has been brought prominently before the House this morning might I remind the Lord Mayor of Dublin that he supported the Government then in existence in suppressing the Dublin Corporation and never gave a single reason for so doing?
Were they unemployed?
The Deputy will get a chance later.
Mr. Kelly
They held an inquiry based probably on a letter from a member of the Council who was then alive who had a grievance for many years that the Stanley Street workshops were not giving value for the money expended on them. The Stanley Street workshops belonged to the City Council and gave employment to a large number of skilled workmen.
On a point of order, I should like to know if the observations the Deputy is now making are in order on the motion for the Adjournment or whether we are supposed to be discussing general Government policy?
References to actions of the previous Government are certainly in order but the suppression of the Dublin Corporation is not in order in this Debate.
Mr. Kelly
I submit it is, sir, on the question of unemployment. It is because the Civic Council were suppressed and Dublin held up to odium by the Government——
The suppression of the Dublin Corporation did not increase or decrease unemployment. It had very little effect on unemployment.
It increased employment.
Mr. Kelly
If I am not allowed to develop this I am not going to disobey your ruling. I hope as long as I am here I shall always be very respectful to the Chair. What I was pointing out is this, as soon as the Commissioners were appointed the first thing they did was to reduce the men's wages. You will remember that there was a strike in the City at that time. They reduced the workers' wages in the Corporation by 4/- per week and they increased their own salaries by over £200 a year. Can the Lord Mayor deny that?
What has that to do with me?
Mr. Kelly
It has to do with the causes of unemployment in the City.
I was knocked out as well as you.
Mr. Kelly
The Deputy contradicted statements I made.
What did I contradict? The Deputy should not be making wild statements.
Mr. Kelly
So far as I am concerned the Deputy was making remarks that I was not telling the truth.
I did not make any such statement.
Mr. Kelly
Very well, I am sorry. We had a very large electrical undertaking in the City in which the citizens of Dublin spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was a great success. Our wages roll in 1924 when the Dublin Corporation was suppressed was £60,000 per year. The salaries were £10,000 a year. That was a total of £70,000 a year paid in wages and salaries. Under the Shannon Scheme that undertaking was taken over and I know that as a result many of the workers formerly employed there are looking for work on relief schemes. I do not want to be introducing those things at all. As a matter of fact I did not want to speak at all. I do not like to be making these speeches concerning doleful news and doleful statements. I think we should try to visualise at any rate that the country is going to be better and I am perfectly satisfied that the present policy of the Government is going to make it better. I am afraid that political capital is being made, or that an attempt is being made to make political capital, out of the sufferings of the poor in this country at present. It looks as if members opposite were envious of the work being done here. I would appeal to their better national instincts and humbly say this to them—I never thought I would use the word "humbly" to them—that they should be glad that genuine efforts have been made by the present Government to relieve unemployment. If Deputies opposite can say nothing good for them they should at least keep their mouths shut.
Some time ago some citizen in order probably to help my memory sent me a slip from the Dublin "Evening Mail" of May 10th, 1926. It is headed "our declining trade", and goes on to moan over the big loss of trade between this country and England. It gives figures as to the exports and imports and winds up by saying:
"Nevertheless the position indicated by the drop of 15 per cent. in the value of our exports to the British market is undoubtedly serious. It shows the extent to which we have been pushed out of the world's greatest market and the necessity for our bestirring ourselves to regain the trade of our British customers before it is too late."
That was in 1926. We hear now a dreadful lot of talk to the effect that it is the policy of the present Government that has lost us the British market. Anybody who has studied the question at all knows that the British market has been declining for the last ten years.
And every other one.
Mr. Kelly
Then why blame the Government here for it? Cannot you give these men here credit for doing the best they can under extreme difficulties? Can you not say to them: "We recognise your policy may be wrong and your judgment wrong, but certainly your intentions are not wrong." They are only a month or so in office; so far as I am concerned I am only a month here and I have already made three speeches. I was firmly determined that I would not make a speech for twelve months until I had made myself acquainted with the rules of the House. I never read the Standing Orders and do not intend to. I am therefore speaking under certain difficulties. Every man's hand will be pointed against the Deputy who is out of order.
The Deputy is getting along all right.
Mr. Kelly
I am not going on well at all because the awful depression brought about this morning has affected me very much. As a matter of fact, I should have a stimulant beside me in the shape of a glass of water, or something of that description. I was given the Sunday Express to read last Sunday—I do not buy it—and it contained an article by Viscount Snowden. This will appeal to my friends whom I am looking down upon. Viscount Snowden is a famous Labour man.
Was.
Mr. Kelly
Give him credit for good intentions. He may have changed with the best possible intentions. Deputy Norton may change sometime; he may become a member of our Party—he may get elevated. Lord Snowden's article was a great cry of patriotism, and that is why I admire him. He is a patriotic Englishman, no matter whether he left the Labour ranks or not. He wound up by saying that England is to-day the soundest country in the world. After examining the figures of receipts and expenditure for the British Empire, and notwithstanding all the millions set out in the balance sheet, he mentioned one specific item, and that was that the Free State did not pay £3,000,000 for something or other for which it should pay. That looked insignificant and small taken in conjunction with the enormous sums mentioned in the article. I wonder he did not also mention that his Government had collared, by way of dues or whatever is the charge on cattle exported, a very considerable amount of money. There was not a word about that. There is a country boasting of its soundness and greatness, and at the present moment it is engaged trying to defeat our national policy. It is not the economic policy I speak of, but the national policy of our Government, the policy that has all along been adopted by patriotic Irishmen.
I am sure Deputy Kelly will agree with the suggestion I am about to make. A number of Deputies, including myself, intended to speak on this matter. I do not intend to speak now. I believe in fair play, and I think Deputy Kelly will agree that it would not be fair to the President to occupy much more of the short period at our disposal. It will leave the President with three-quarters of an hour in which to speak. Deputy Norton spoke for at least that period——
I did not.
——or near it. I do not care whether Deputy Cosgrave or President de Valera occupies the premier position in this House. In matters of this kind the President should get sufficient time to reply to criticisms of his policy in relation to unemployment. I intended to speak in relation to the position in Cork.
I hope I may be allowed five minutes before the President addresses the House.
Fifteen or 20 minutes will be quite sufficient for me.
If the speeches could be limited to five or ten minutes the concession would be appreciated.
Mr. Kelly
My speeches last usually ten minutes, but I got so gloomy this morning that I cannot help addressing the House on this subject. I will not take much longer—probably another twenty-five minutes will do me. I thought it very queer that Viscount Snowden, in his article concerning the soundness and greatness of the British Empire, should take note of the miserable little sum of £3,000,000 which he included so as to show how they had conquered the Irish Free State. They have not conquered it yet and I do not think they are going to. I do not believe all this talk about the economic war is going to have much effect on the people of this country. They gave this Government a full vote of confidence at the last election. There is no sign that that confidence is warning to any extent. On the contrary, I believe it is still staunch and firm and that it will remain so.
All I ask of Deputies who do not approve of the policy of the Government, and who may consider their judgment is wrong, is that they will give the Government credit for good intentions in trying to do their best to solve the grave difficulties that face the country. If they will do that it will lessen a great deal of the feeling that sometimes exists here. I suppose, however, politics being politics and everybody's hand being raised against the Government, it will be difficult to reach that stage. At any rate, the Government is going to be defended here very constantly from those back benches in any attitude they may adopt if the present tactics against them are going to be pursued. That will mean a very prolonged consumption of public time. We do not want to organise a corps of speakers to get up here one after the other. There are very talented young men amongst the members of this Party and we could quite easily do that, if necessary.
I am sorry Deputy Norton struck such a gloomy note. He is usually a bit optimistic and hopeful, but this morning he blamed the Government for not doing its best to relieve unemployment. Every Deputy on these benches knows that the Government are doing their best. A lot of us here are identified very closely with the Labour people and their policy and a lot of us depend on Labour for success at our elections. I would be false to the people that I have associated with all my life, the people I was born and reared amongst, if I said otherwise. There is no phase of Dublin life that I did not go through in my time, and that is more than can be said of many people who talk about the terrible position of unemployment and destitution. I know it all, I have lived through it all, and every fibre of my body, every emotion of my soul, is directed to the relief of the poor and the impoverished people in this city. I honestly believe that the men sitting on these benches are actuated by the same feelings as I have been, in thinking how to carry their policy to success, and, please God, by this day twelve months they will have triumphed.
The debate on the adjournment so far has alternated between tragedy and farce, and in the few remarks I am going to make I shall try to steer a middle course. Deputy Norton was perfectly clear that he wished the Government to do something vigorous, but though I listened with great attention, I did not succeed in discovering what that something was to be. He stated that if tariffs were a cure for unemployment there would be no unemployment in any country. In saying that he spoke wisely. I think he might have added to that remark that if frenzied public expenditure with a view to curing unemployment was a cure there would not be unemployment anywhere. Nothing is more false than the suggestion, which is sometimes made, that the position of the poorest class in the community is due to the fact that we have been passing through a selfish era, when people are not willing to make sacrifices for poorer citizens. I do not think anyone who examines the history of the last ten or 20 years can honestly deny that there has been an eagerness on the part of communities as a whole, and the more prosperous members of the communities, to bring about fairer conditions, to relieve distress and to cure social evils. The trouble has been that just as the world war created military problems too big for generals to cope with, so it left after it economic problems on too big a scale for economists and Governments to cope with.
That leads me to mention the Economic G.H.Q. to which Deputy Norton referred. I am afraid if he builds any hopes on the Economic G.H.Q. he will be disappointed, because it is a fallacy to imagine that you can get skilled economists to agree on practical questions. You can hardly get two of them to agree when it comes to practical questions, and the results of the Economic G.H.Q. will depend entirely upon what gentlemen you put into it. They will probably be chosen on account of their affiliations with one political doctrine or another, and I do not think they would add anything to what could be accomplished by a Cabinet which is trying to work out problems honestly and laboriously and taking the best advice it can get on the subject. Deputy Norton said that there was no thinking-box in the Government. Well the thinking-box is the Cabinet. I do not know if the Deputy has any authority for saying that the Cabinet refused to consider the matter from the national point of view, and to seek a national solution, and in the absence of such authority, I do not think we should take it for granted that every Minister has a purely Departmental outlook.
There are a number of points which Deputy Norton's speech raised to which I would like to refer but time does not permit. However, I think we should be clear about this, that shock tactics are not likely to succeed when dealing with unemployment. Deputy Norton has used military metaphors and talked about mobilising the resources of the State. He gave very little indication of what strategy and tactics were to be employed by these forces when mobilised. I have yet to learn that any short cut or shock tactics have proved successful elsewhere. The truth of the matter is that Government efforts cannot take the place of private efforts to cure unemployment. In the main the cure for unemployment is to give private industry a chance by lowering taxation, as far as it can be lowered. Although we must be prepared to be heavily taxed in an emergency, generally the aim should be at lowering taxation, and at producing a feeling of peace and goodwill between all classes of the community so that men are not terrified of the time when everything they have got will be taken away, so that they have enough heart and courage and hope to take certain risks and be anxious to give employment and help on their fellow men. Unemployment is one feature of the present situation, and it is very interesting to have the admission from Deputy Norton that the Government, for whose policy he was so largely responsible, has produced a state of things worse than he ever knew.
I did not say that.
I understood Deputy Norton to say that there is a worse unemployment crisis now than ever. He did not say the Government was responsible. He stated that there was in fact a worse condition of unemployment than ever, I say that prima facie at any rate, the Government and Deputy Norton who assisted them so much in their policy must bear a share of the responsibility. Deputy Norton deprecates looking round in order to find someone to blame. That is a side issue. We do not care who is to blame so long as we can find a cure. But even to find a cure you have to look for the cause and the responsibility. From that point of view it is interesting to know that a year ago the Minister for Finance was prophesying confidently that in six or eight months' time unemployment would be enormously diminished. I remember that the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, was prophesying bankruptcy in six months —and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was also prophesying that the whole face of the country would be changed for the better. We know by the admission of Deputy Norton, and also by our own experience, that these prophecies from the Government Benches were unjustified.
Turning from unemployment to the condition of the farmers, I have really intervened in the debate to try to elicit from the Government an explanation of their attitude towards what is called the economic war and the chances of a settlement of it. I do not understand at all the attitude of the Labour Party. They took a leading part in driving this country into an economic war, and, now that we are in it their idea is not to accept any of the consequences of the state of things they have produced, not to call upon the people to make sacrifices that are inevitable if the economic war is continued. I opposed the economic war perhaps more vigorously than anyone in this House, and I stumped the whole country denouncing it. As long as we are in it, I see plainly that it must lead to more and more economies and more taxation owing to destruction of our earning capacity.
At the same time I think we ought to do our utmost to bring that state of things to an end. I do not know whether the President is satisfied with the condition of the farmers. I certainly am not. We prophesied some months ago that the President would not succeed in collecting from the farmers the overdue instalments of the land annuities of last May and June, and we were told that we were absolutely wrong, that the money would be collected. In point of fact we turned out to be right, and these moneys, when concessions were given, were added and were funded. Similarly, at the present moment, I do not want to incite anyone to disobey the law, and I do not think that I am suspected of it, but I do not believe that the rates are going to be collected in this country. I do not believe that the greater proportion of the rates will be, and when the time comes again for the annuities to be paid—that is half the annuities—I do not believe they will be paid. I do not believe these payments will be made, because I do not believe they can be made. I believe that the farmers are going downhill as fast as ever they can. Anything that is paid is paid out of capital. Even wages are paid out of capital. It is an obvious fact that agricultural wages have gone down. We listened to absolutely unreal denunciations of the figures 24/- and 21/- weekly. There are lower wages than these in plenty. A wage of 15/- is not at all enough. It is a deplorable figure, but it is quite a common figure. I maintain that the economic war is very largely responsible for such wages, and for the terrific descent of the farmers into bankruptcy. There is hardly a farmer in the country who is not up to his ears in financial embarrassment. I can see no way he has of meeting his obligations in the matter of rates and annuities—even with the best will in the world—without getting further into debt, if he can get credit, or, if he cannot get credit, without selling some of his remaining stock or spending part of the little capital that is still left to him. The country is living on capital. The Minister for Finance is using moneys that are not going to be recurring receipts; the farmer is living on capital; we are all scattering our capital as fast as we can, and any feeling of optimism that is possible at all is only possible to people who do not realise that. If a man decides to spend his capital as income, and forgets that he is doing so that enables him to feel rich for the time being, but he is actually on the verge of a precipice.
What can be done about this economic war? I still think that even from the Government's point of view a good deal can be done. I do not feel that the financial question as between us and England is the fundamental one. It is a serious question no doubt, but I think sufficient hints have been given to us in the speeches of British Ministers that the fundamental question is really our Constitutional relation with the Commonwealth and with Great Britain, and, closely bound up with that, the whole question of the sanctity of agreements. It is perfectly easy to see their point of view. As long as we say that the Treaty is not morally binding on us, because it was entered into under a threat of terrible war, what is the sense of making another agreement to end the economic war, when in another few years a Party which wishes to get into power and wants to raise a popular cry may say that that Treaty is not binding, because it was forced on us by a terrible economic war? That argument would carry you to absurd and impossible extremes. I maintain that the first thing which the Government has got to do, if it has any desire to end the economic war, is to state plainly that it accepts the Treaty as morally binding on us.
I do not suppose there is anybody in this House less enthusiastic over the Treaty than I am myself. It is a document that never appealed to me, nor did a great deal which led up to it appeal to me, but we have got to accept facts as we find them, and I suggest that the Treaty ought to be explicitly accepted by the present Government as morally binding, and that—in view of what has happened since, in view of the Statute of Westminster, in view of the new conception that has been established as to what the British Commonwealth really is—a revision of the Treaty by consent should be attempted. I promised not to speak for more than five minutes and I am afraid I have spoken for ten minutes, so I cannot develop the point, much as I should like to do so. I just wish to register my view that as a preliminary to settling the economic war, as a preliminary to good relations with England, as a preliminary to good relations among different classes of Irishmen, as a preliminary to abolishing partition, the most important thing is to recognise the sanctity of agreements as a principle, and to recognise even the sanctity of the Treaty, much as I know the Fianna Fáil members dislike the Treaty, and much as I dislike it in many respects myself. I do suggest it is essential to start with that, and that starting with that and arranging to have a friendly revision to bring the Treaty up-to-date, you could then go on to settle the financial question on a commonsense basis too. I suggest that in view of the very large claim being made upon us, and the very considerable prima facie case in favour of that claim, even in the view of those who do not agree with it, it would be very reasonable to make a cash payment and get rid of the thing. I put those suggestions before the Government in all sincerity. I hate their policy, as I think I have sufficiently proved, but although I hate their policy I have no desire to make Party capital out of it, or to see them turned out of office merely for the sake of seeing them turned out of office. Nothing would delight me more than if they would give their policy a more constructive turn in the future than they have done in the past. I think world conditions ought to be borne in mind. When all these problems are being considered it ought to be borne in mind that civilisation is imperilled, that everything which makes decent living possible is imperilled, that everything which makes art, science, and even morality possible as established institutions is imperilled, and imperilled very largely—in fact mainly—because of the spirit of strife, class hostility, international hostility, and intense and exaggerated nationalism, which has been the unfortunate outcome of the world war. I hope to Heaven that here in Ireland our contribution will be to the good and not to the bad tendencies in world politics.
Is there any time left?
I understand the President stated he wished to have a quarter of an hour.
I offered to give way to the President because I thought it only fair. I had a lot to say about the position in Cork.
We on this side have a lot to say too. Whatever time the President wants he will get, but if there is any spare time we should like to get a few minutes. I understand that in the previous Dáil what is practically the present Government adopted a resolution formulating a policy that they stood over to provide work and maintenance for the unemployed. While not saying anything for or against it, it is time that the Government started implementing that policy and solving the unemployment problem. Platitudes in this House will not give a man a day's work, and it is time that a serious attempt was made to do that. The only policy that I have seen revealed by the Government is to claim the credit of an attempt to solve unemployment by bludgeoning the local authorities into footing the bill for finding schemes to provide employment. The only way—and I was glad to hear the Minister for Finance a few days ago accepting the principle—to solve unemployment is to absorb the unemployed into agriculture and industry. There is no other way to do it. All the money that has been spent in straightening corners on the roads, and making drains where perhaps they were not wanted, reminded me of twenty or thirty years ago when I read John Mitchel's "Last Conquest of Ireland," because the apologue of the Minister for Industry and Commerce here about the relief he was giving through the Labour Exchange is probably concerned with the same policy that John Mitchel so scathingly condemned on the part of the British Government in his "Last Conquest of Ireland." The great industry which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has produced and brought to fruition here during the last 12 months is the industry of making paupers out of able-bodied, honest Irish workmen.
Be a pauper, be in receipt of home assistance, and under those relief schemes you are sure of getting employment, but you must first have the badge of pauperism on you. I have to cut short my remarks in order to give the President time to reply and I have only a few minutes more. But is it seriously expected that local authorities are to become bailiffs of the Government, to extract money to carry out work or maintain the unemployed while the Government policy is depriving the local authorities of the resources to provide even money for maintaining local services? The Government have ruined agriculture, which is the only source that the rural local authorities have for providing the local rates. It was held up to us here a few days ago by the Minister for Agriculture that the price of butter in our market as compared with the English market was most satisfactory. He gave us the figures.
I put it to the President, when replying, to contradict me in this— that it would be better and cheaper if the Minister for Agriculture and the Ministry were to say: "So much butter is required for use in the Free State and we will destroy any butter over that quantity." It would be cheaper ultimately to the nation to destroy the surplus butter than try to export it by the use of the taxpayers' money, paying £5 a cwt. in order to be able to sell butter to John Bull at 42/- a cwt., while the working man, the unemployed man, the half-employed man and the man on home assistance has to pay 1/2½ a lb. for butter—1/2½ for the same class of butter that John Bull is buying at 42/- a cwt. That is butter for which the Government here has guaranteed 117/- a cwt. The return that comes back to this country for that butter is 42/-. That is all the people who produce that butter get for it. They produce other commodities which cannot be sold. They produce corn, cattle and potatoes which cannot be sold.
But we are being told and we were told here last night by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the most truculent manner, as much as to say: "It is true, and you must believe it; this country is booming." The fact is that the statement made by the Minister here last night showed very bad taste, and a want of democratic spirit. He showed it in the short and almost indecent way in which he replied to Deputy Mulcahy, who moved here on the adjournment for information about some of the mythical factories that are springing up all round us.
Might I appeal to the Deputy to give the President time for reply?
I am prepared to sit down when the President wants to reply. I understand that the President will be able to get through his reply in fifteen minutes. I see I have just one minute more. Deputy Mulcahy asked for those particulars. Will the House just consider the nature of the reply that was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to an elected representative of this House and an ex-Minister? The Minister for Industry and Commerce did not say: "It is not in the national interest to give this information," the usual trick. He said in effect: "My officials are too busy to waste their time in getting information for you.""Hear, hear," said a Deputy opposite. I say that statement by the Minister was an insult to the House. It is time that the Minister learned something about democratic representation. Evidently the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks that an elected representative is to be brushed aside because an official's time will not be given to get the information asked for by a Deputy. The Deputy did not ask for the information for himself. He asked for the information for this House and for the country. In order to give the President an opportunity of replying I must conclude my remarks now.
I said I would require only 15 or 20 minutes to reply. That is, simply, because if we were to deal with this subject properly we would have to spend not 15 minutes but many hours, not the couple of hours at our disposal to-day. As there is no hope whatever of replying fully at the time at my disposal to-day I can only say comparatively little on the whole subject. I am not disposed to reply, for example, to the speech of Deputy Norton because I sympathise too much with the point of view that has been expressed to feel any inclination in fact to reply to him. The same is true of some other speeches made to the House on this matter. When in opposition we made speeches on this question of unemployment and I think if Deputy Norton or any other Deputy here would care to look up those speeches he would find that to a large measure they represent the views that have been expressed by those who were criticising the Government to-day. I remember taxing the former Ministry with the fact that if there were an invasion—I think these were the words that were used by Deputy Norton—that if this country were physically invaded we could get a spirit into the community and there would be a determination shown by the Government which would be very different from the spirit and the determination with which they are now facing these problems. Unfortunately that is true.
Unfortunately when we or the average citizen of the country are talking about unemployment and the miseries of those who are not able to win their daily bread, we are not prepared to face the logical consequences by trying to remedy it. We are not prepared to make sacrifices. Unfortunately the community as a whole has not got the will to make the sacrifices necessary to deal with this problem. It might be said and there might be truth in it if we could show that there was any line of action by which we were definitely to cure unemployment then we would have the will. But the great difficulty is that nobody is able to point out, definitely, any line of action on the part of the community which will cure unemployment. Deputy MacDermot put the opposite point of view to that of Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton thinks that we ought not to count the cost as if there was an illimitable source from which we could get material which would enable us to give employment and to give the necessary wages to those who need them.
Deputy MacDermot pointed out that, officially, that money has to come from the taxpayer or else from the community's capital. It has to come directly and immediately from the taxpayer or from the capital of the people, and he pointed out that whilst you are trying by that way at one end of the scale to relieve unemployment you are creating unemployment at the other end of the scale. Therefore, the position we really are in is that nobody is able to show definitely in a convincing way to the community as a whole such a line of action as will induce the community to make the kind of sacrifices that we think are necessary. Of one thing I am certain, and it is true to say that we have thought nationally. The Cabinet as a whole has time after time come back to this question of unemployment, and I for one, at any rate, have come to the conclusion that if we are to make an effort to deal with unemployment we will have to deal with it in the spirit of crusaders. We have to get every member of the community definitely to satisfy himself that he will bear whatever hardships may be incurred in order that unemployment will once and for all be ended.
Deputy Morrissey, of course, talked about a plan. We have got all that old misrepresentation from Deputy Morrissey in this House practically every time he has spoken. I say, and I hold to it, that there is a better opportunity in this country for curing unemployment than there is in any one of the industrial countries. I stand by that, and I believe it. A year or two ago I said that we were importing millions of pounds worth of articles, manufactured goods and so on, that we could produce here. I said, and proved it by statistics, that in the producing of these things there was employment for more people than we had on the unemployed list at that time.
I would like to ask the President where I misrepresented him, because I would not wish deliberately to misrepresent the President.
The Deputy pretended that I said I regarded this as easy.
No.
I took down the Deputy's words.
On a point of personal explanation, what I said was that the President said it was comparatively easy.
Comparatively easy? If the Deputy means what I did when I said comparatively easy, then I accept that: that as compared with other countries it is easier in this country, and we are making greater headway here in dealing with unemployment considering the fact that we have here a new source of unemployment that we did not have before, namely, the fact that owing to the condition to which this country had been reduced by alien exploitation in the past the only way we were dealing with unemployment was by emigration. Emigration has stopped now. It had stopped almost at the time we came into power. The full effects of that were beginning to be felt at that time. I hold that we have made and are making progress in dealing with unemployment in this country, progress that has not been made in any other country that I know of, and that certainly has not been made in any of the big industrialised countries: We are making progress because there is a certain line of action to which we can put our citizens—to give service in return for other services of the community. In other words, we are putting them at work to provide for other members of the community the things formerly provided by outside workers.
Have a look at the figures.
The figures prove that. The Deputy very well knows that in connection with the unemployment figures to-day the method of registering them is quite different from the method employed under the previous regime.
I admit that.
Even if it could be proved that the figures had not increased by 20,000 we are still cutting in on unemployment. The extra people employed in industry are permanently employed. That is the permanent cure for unemployment so far as we are concerned—this exchange of services. The standard of living will depend on our ability to do that, exchanging our services one for another instead of getting those exchanges from outside. I believe that in our circumstances there is no other way of attacking it. I never said at any time that that was going to be done overnight, that we were going to produce something out of a hat or perform some miracle. I have always said—I said it before the election in 1932 and again in 1933— that the task of conquering unemployment was a difficult task anywhere. I said that the only difference in our case was that we had a virgin soil so far as industrial products are concerned, that there is a vast field here in which to put our people at work in producing the manufactured goods that we used to get formerly from outside. But again, factories do not start up overnight, and when Deputy Belton talks about straightening corners of roads and doing things of that sort I want to tell him that a certain time must elapse before the fruits of the policy of fostering home industry are seen.
Might I remind the President——
The Deputy has reminded me of quite enough.
Would it be in order to move that the debate might be continued until a quarter past two?
Not now.
If a motion is unopposed could not the debate continue until half past two?
We do not want to stop here any longer.
Perhaps we had better keep to the arrangement decided on. The real point is that we have got to take stock of all our resources: to ask ourselves in any line of policy which we are going to pursue for relieving unemployment whether, in fact, it is going to relieve unemployment, and whether by putting too big a burden in one direction we may not create unemployment in another direction. With reference to the criticisms that there has been no headquarters' staff work, so to speak, done I will admit that there is not as much as I would like being done. One of the faults of our parliamentary institution, as it stands, is that we have to spend a great deal of time dealing with comparatively trifling things, things that in a time of emergency would not be considered at all and that we would not waste our time on. If the Executive Council is really to do good work in connection with this it will have to be given more time away from the parliamentary duties it has to attend to here.
Scrap the Parliament.
Hitler!
It would be a very good thing for the country to give, say, a six months' holiday to get that work done, and I say and I believe that I am a better democrat than the Deputy who is talking.
Since 1932.
At any time. When you want to get constructive work done, it is very much better that you should not have to deal with the petty things brought up here from day to day.
A democrat since 1932.
I was a democrat when the Deputy was a militarist and nothing else.
A dictator—at that a tin pot one.
I have always stood for the rights of the people of this country. I know the Deputy too well not to know what his mentality is like.
Scrap the Parliament.
If you want to get headquarters work done by the Executive Council you cannot expect the members of the Executive Council to spend their time here listening to lengthy speeches. I saw one of the Ministers, whose time is most important, being kept here in the House for hours listening to repetition after repetition in order to get something into the Press. If we do things in a businesslike way, then we can get through our work, but there is no attempt made by some Deputies to do things in a businesslike way.
Why did not the President settle the matter with England ten years ago, instead of upsetting the country?
Deputy Belton would not settle it ten years ago, now, or at any time.
The President preferred to break up the country.
Deputy Belton has got his answer from the country. At any rate, I am not going to waste time talking about this. I say that we realise our obligations in regard to unemployment. I have the figures here. There is no need to read them. Deputies are familiar with them. If we go back on them we can show that we have done a considerable amount during the past year, that we have made a fair attempt to deal with a very pressing problem. I do not say that it has been met, or that it is anything like being met. I am satisfied, looking at it closely for a year, that we will all have to be prepared—we will put you to the test——
Hair shirts!
——if we want to ettle unemployment then we will have to make the sacrifices that are necessary.
Produce the plan.
Produce the Budget.
The House, on a former occasion here, voted that there was an obligation either to maintain the unemployed or give them work. On that occasion I was glad to see members of the Opposition supporting that motion. We, on this side, mean it.
Give effect to it, if so.
And, when we do come to the House demanding sacrifices such as should be made in a national emergency, we hope the Deputies on the other side, will support it.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, 26th April, 1933, at 3 p.m.