Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 31 - 03 July, 1929

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the President of the Executive Council.

Mr. Blythe: I move:—

“Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £7,973 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Roinn Uachtarán na hArd-Chomhairle.”

“That a sum not exceeding £7,973 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the President of the Executive Council.”

As Deputies will see, there is comparatively little change in the Estimate. There has been a small increase in the staff of the office which accounts for that.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I move:— “That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration.” I put down that amendment by way of censure on the Government, of which the President is the head, because the Government has not, in our opinion, during the year that has passed or for the coming year, made adequate provision to meet the great social evil of unemployment which is, [48] unhappily, still with us. We are not in a position to say definitely what the extent of that evil is. On several occasions we have endeavoured to obtain statistics from the Government Departments—to get definite figures about unemployment. We believe that these figures are available, but they have not been presented to us or to the public generally. They have been promised for quite a long time, but we are still without them. We can only judge by the figures from the unemployment exchanges. These figures do not represent the number of people unemployed even in the skilled trades, because we know that the people who sign the unemployment register are only those who are entitled to unemployment benefit. That is a very small proportion of the number of people unemployed. We have our own observations to help us. Any of us who go about the country, and who are especially acquainted with the conditions in Dublin, knows very well that there are very great numbers of people unemployed. The same applies to a very large extent to provincial towns.

We have had a rather remarkable statement which confirms my assertion that there are large numbers of unemployed in Dublin. That statement is borne out by the authoritative declaration made some weeks ago in the course of a discussion which took place between the Dublin County Council and the Commissioners with regard to the proposed alteration of the law in connection with outdoor relief. It has been stated that there are in Dublin no less than 5,000 families who would be entitled to obtain outdoor relief if the law in Dublin were the same as in other parts of the country. There are 5,000 families, the breadwinners of whom are able and willing to work, but they are not in the position to obtain work. They are fit subjects because of that for outdoor relief. I think that statement would be sufficient for us to say that this is a problem of such an extent that it ought to be one of the problems to engage the most serious consideration of the Government.

[49] We have the present number of unemployed, and we know that the Shannon Scheme will be completed inside the next few months—within the present financial year, at any rate. It is expected that that will involve the throwing out of employment of a very considerable number of unskilled workers. We have heard nothing from the Government, no indication whatever, of any steps being taken by them to meet the increased unemployment which will result from the completion of the Shannon Scheme. No adequate measures, in our opinion, have been taken, and we have heard of no plans and no proposals from the Government to deal with this question, which, as I say, is a question which affects our whole social and economic life. Of course, we have the statement on record from the spokesman of the Government that it is no part of the duty of the Government to provide employment for the people. I trust that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will have his attention called to the very important pronouncement regarding that particular question which was made no later than last week by a very distinguished theologian, speaking at the Maynooth Union. He referred to the pernicious doctrine which was being preached to the effect that the State had nothing to do with unemployment, and stated definitely that “it was not only the duty of the State, but the interest of the State, to deal with unemployment, for indigence and unemployment in creased not only the number of the sick, but the number of the malcontents and the criminals, who are a blot on and a source of danger to the State.”

I think it can be stated that it is as much part of the work of the Government to deal with the social evils created by unemployment as it would be their duty to deal with social evils which might arise from any other cause. If there was a danger of an epidemic of a serious, contagious disease, the State would not deny that it was its duty to take measures to protect the people from an evil of that kind. They might as [50] well deny their obligation in that case as deny their obligation to deal with what is undoubtedly and admittedly a grave social evil. We have three classes of people to consider in this matter. We have what might be regarded as the normally employed people, mainly skilled people, who suffer from occasional unemployment, due to trade depression.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Or unemployment, due to movement of trade or the completion of works here and there. That is the position that is met by our unemployment insurance. It is intended to be met by unemployment insurance. We have, in addition, what might be termed the normally unemployed, and those constitute a very large number, indeed. We have many other people who get casual employment —short periods of employment on the roads or something of that kind —but who normally are unemployed. These are mainly unskilled people. It is for these we say that the Government have not made the efforts that we think ought to have been made, and could be made. You have, in addition, a great number of people who might be described as being normally under-employed. Among these, I would class many of our small farmers, especially the uneconomic landholders and their sons. To these, I would add the fishermen and people of that kind.

Attention has already been drawn on several occasions here to the fact that when the Government set out on what they call “a policy of economy,” they effect economies by cutting down certain Estimates which provide money which normally would give employment. We have had various instances of that. We have an instance this year; there were very considerable reductions in the land improvement schemes on the Land Commission Vote. In fact, it always seems to us that whenever the Government set out on a campaign of economy of [51] that particular type, the economy is effected by cutting down sums intended mainly to provide employment. That is not “economy” that can have any other than the opposite effect to that which, apparently, the Government intends. Surely, that is not economy. Moneys are saved nationally, or apparently saved nationally, at the expense of the ratepayers; that is really what happens. If the money is not available for distribution for useful work, then the local authorities and the ratepayers must come to the relief of the unemployed, because we have these men with us, and they must be supported. They must live, and they are a burden on the community. The community must support them.

It will not be sufficient for the Government to say, and certainly they are not doing their duty when they say: “We will not provide this money; we will not provide any further money which, under this head, in the past gave employment. We will leave that to the local authorities.” That has been, as far as we can gather, the attitude taken by the Ministry on several occasions here.

What has been done by the Government in this matter? We have heard repeatedly trotted out here all the steps the Government have taken to increase industry, to revive trade, and, thereby, to create employment. I submit to the Government, without detracting in any way from what they have done in that particular connection, that these things in themselves are not sufficient to deal in an adequate way with this problem. They are too slow. Men must live while the Government schemes are being developed. We have heard in previous years of the fine things that the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts were to do.

I wonder could we get an estimate from any Minister of the actual number of people who have been employed as a result of the Trade Loans Facilities Act? I think we [52] heard a statement here a few weeks ago to the effect that people had not made the use of that Act which they might have made, or which it was thought by the Government they would have made. If that is so, it is practically what some of us prophesied when that Act was going through, that it would not be able to do all the things expected of it, in the way of creating employment, by the Government at that time. About eighteen months ago, as a result of pressure from this House, the Government set up a committee to look into the question of unemployment. That committee made certain recommendations. What has been the result? I would like, especially as the President is here, to know what has become of the special sub-committee set up for the purpose of dealing with the question of housing? Certain recommendations were made in regard to matters of housing. The committee was confined to Dublin people under the chairmanship of a Deputy of this House. Although reference was made on many occasions to that committee, we do not know exactly what it has done, or what it proposes to do. The question which I want to ask the President is: has he thrown off his own responsibility, has the Government shifted its responsibility in this matter on to that committee? Is that the position? If the committee chooses for one reason or another—I am not saying who is responsible—not to make a report, and to do nothing, does the President propose to sit down and say: “I can do no more”? Is that the attitude of the Government in regard to that matter?

We were promised early in this session that a very comprehensive housing scheme would be introduced some time during the year. The only proposal we have is the extension, if it can be called an extension, of the present Act and of the grants available. Is that the last word of the Ministry on the matter of housing? A few days ago I was looking over the Report of the [53] Gaeltacht Commission. I was looking at several recommendations which have been made. The Minister for Local Government was Chairman of the Commission, and, in the statement issued by the Government afterwards, observations were made in regard to those recommendations. In Recommendation 55, for instance, it was stated that a special system of loans and grants would be introduced for the improvement of houses in the Gaeltacht. In Recommendation 59, in regard to the question of State grants for the encouragement of land reclamation, it was stated that the Government were prepared to give effect to the recommendation and would have the matter explored with a view to the preparation of a suitable scheme. They are, however, still on that voyage of exploration, and we have had nothing tangible as a result of it.

In connection with recommendations for a comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage for the Gaeltacht we have it stated that one large scheme, which is outside the Act of 1925, for the improvement of Lough Corrib and the River Corrib was being examined. I expect that Deputy Fahy could tell us whether it has passed the stage of examination. So far as I know it has not, and the people in that area may still look forward to employment when its examination is complete. The same may be said in regard to other recommendations of that Committee. We have still to see their fruition. We have nothing but Government promises to depend on, and a comparison with the broken reed would be too good in that connection. Here we have this problem. We have work to be done. No one will deny that. There are many schemes of national development. They need not be enumerated as they are well known. Perhaps the Minister for Finance would not call them economic because they would not return five or ten per cent. on the money invested, but they are works of national importance which would add to the national well-being. As I say, the work is [54] there to be done. The men are available to do it. The Minister for Finance will not deny that it would be possible to obtain money to spend on such work. You have those three factors present. What more is required except organisation and, perhaps, imagination and a little courage on the part of the Ministry to attack this problem in the way that it ought to be attacked? It has never been made the dominant issue that it should have been made, and no genuine attempt has been made to tackle it in the way that it ought to have been tackled.

We have now, at least, examples of the steps that have been taken in a neighbouring country to deal with this problem. Not alone, however, has no special Minister been appointed here, but the Government have not set up a special committee of the Ministry to handle the problem in the way it ought to be handled. We have those schemes to which I have referred, and I have no doubt that the Minister will sing out the litany again of all the various things they are doing. The fact, however, is that we have the problem of unemployment with us, and that is the test. Has there been a steady diminution in the number of unemployed people in the country? Take the City of Dublin, for instance. I have quoted figures which show that in Dublin, in any case, the problem is such that it should not be allowed by any responsible Government to continue. The Minister for Local Government, whenever this problem is raised, has always the one remedy —namely, the local authorities are empowered to deal with any man in a state of distress owing to unemployment. As I have said, I do not desire in any way to detract from the schemes which the Government have endeavoured, in a small and piece-meal way, to set on foot with the ultimate object of creating industry and providing employment. but I say that that is not sufficient, as, in the meantime, those who are unemployed must live. Whether is it better that we should simply throw these people on to home [55] assistance or that we should provide employment for them which might not be fully economic, in the sense which the Minister for Finance would say is economic. I have no hesitation at all in saying that it would be a much better economic proposition for the country as a whole that such works should be provided, and that money should be specially provided for such work. That is why we have here repeatedly urged that money should be provided by way of special schemes, whether relief schemes or any other schemes, to give employment to men who are able and willing to work, but who are not in a position to find work, to give employment to such people until such time as they will be absorbed into other industries as a result of the Government's measures for the development of industry and for increasing trade.

The Government have deliberately taken up the attitude that they will not provide sums of that kind. Not only that, but they have gone further. They have reduced very considerably indeed the money which was available in the ordinary Estimates for employment, especially for the employment of unskilled men, who are the people normally unemployed. I do not wish to dwell on this matter in any great detail. I just want to deal with the question in a very general way, and to say that it is our belief that is the duty of any Government in power to make special provision so that people will be normally employed. It is because there is no doubt in our minds that the present Ministry have failed lamentably in their duty in that respect that I am moving to have this Vote referred back for re-consideration.

Mr. de Valera: We intend to support the amendment to refer back the Estimate. We intend voting against the Estimate as a whole, because in our opinion scarcely any of the things that one would expect an Executive that had any regard [56] for national interests to do have been done. In the first place, let us look at the Estimate itself. We have an increase in the Estimate for the Department of the President of the Executive Council. In our opinion, there is no reason for this increase at all. Some of us, at any rate, expected to see the Vote for this Department diminishing year by year to a much smaller standard than at present. The work of the Government is now thoroughly departmentalised. If all the branches of Government are departmentalised, as they are, why should we have to spend a sum, which is pretty well standardised at about £13,000 per year, on a central Department? After all, a great deal of the work of the office of that Department merely consists of sending along matters that come to them for attention by the proper Department. We think, accordingly, that a staff of these dimensions is quite unnecessary. Instead of a diminution we have an increase. The estimated expenditure on the Vote itself is increased by £668, and the expenditure on other votes in connection with it by £97. Instead of the decrease one would naturally expect, we have a total increase this year of £765. That is typical of the extravagant way in which all the Departments are run as far as we can see.

The amount estimated for this year for Central Fund Charges and Supply Services after deducting possible amounts for over-estimation, is £25,000,000. That is becoming practically a standard figure. It is pretty well stabilised now. If we look at the figure for last year and compare it with that for this year, we will see that it is pretty well stabilised at £25,000,000. If we remember that the total net product of our industry is only £20,000,000— that is the estimate given by the Department of Industry and Commerce of the new portable goods manufactured here—we see the extravagant way in which we are living. The Census returns give us £24,100,000 odd. If we deduct from that the products of industry which cannot be classed as portable goods, [57] we come to the amount given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce—£20,000,000—so that we are spending on Government one and a quarter times as much money as represents the total net products of our industry in portable goods. I think no body of representatives who are interested in the well-being of the country can be content with that. When we make an examination to see how that money is spent, we have, of course, to go back to the items we have so frequently brought to the attention of the Executive, items like the Civic Guards, which are still at the standard of over £1,500,000; the Army roughly £1,500,000, and pensions running up to £2,350,000.

I have had an attempt made to extract from the Estimates the salaries over £1,000 a year. It is very difficult to do it thoroughly, or to do it exactly, on account of the way the figures are presented in the Estimate. I have estimated that 246 individuals receive in the way of salaries from the State, a total sum of £324,945. That is an average of £1,321 each. When we know that there are people starving here in Dublin, and that this country is paying 246 persons an average of £1,321, we get another picture of the type of administration and the costliness of the administration which we have. It is in order to call attention to that fact and to the general administration that we propose in the first instance to vote against granting this money. It is not with respect to administration alone that we are dissatisfied. If you take any one of the big problems that the Executive should have tackled, we find that in every one of them it has a record of absolute futility. Deputy O'Connell has mentioned the problem of unemployment.

He has pointed out that recently it was shown that there would be about 5,000 families here in Dublin that, if the statutory conditions were the same, would be entitled to outdoor relief, and everybody who knows at all the conditions of the city knows that there are numbers [58] of families starving at present. We see no effort whatever made by the Executive to deal with the problem of unemployment. Some years ago I think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce disclaimed on the part of the State any responsibility for relieving unemployment.

Mr. McGilligan: I did not.

Mr. de Valera: And for providing work for those who are unemployed.

Mr. McGilligan: I did not even do that.

Mr. de Valera: That was a definite statement made, as far as my memory is concerned.

Mr. McGilligan: Get the quotation.

Mr. de Valera: The quotation will not affect the fact that the Minister disclaimed responsibility for finding work for the unemployed as part of the duty of the State. When that statement was made we pointed out that it was the duty of any civilised State under present conditions to see that employment was available and opportunities for work available for those willing to work. It was one of the primary duties of the State, and last year I pointed out that the present Primate of Ireland supported that view and said it was definitely part of the obligations of a modern State to see that the citizens were given an opportunity of getting work or else were given the necessary means to live. A couple of days ago from a responsible authority also you have a similar statement made. Deputy O'Connell this evening drew our attention to it, and we want to know whether the Government still keep to the attitude which was indicated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce some years ago or whether they are going to accept definitely the responsibility which should be theirs.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Is the pernicious doctrine still preached?

Mr. McGilligan: Who preaches it?

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: The Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan: Get me the quotation.

[59] Mr. O'Connell: If you want it I have it here.

Mr. de Valera: The Minister will have an opportunity of telling us what exactly is their policy, because even though he may now say he did not make that statement, so far as we can judge the actions of the Executive are in consonance with that statement, because if they took seriously the responsibility of getting employment, or giving to people out of work, work equivalent to the work they had been doing, then we would not have the conditions we have at present. If they took seriously that responsibility, they would not treat as they have treated suggestions by which employment could be given in this country. Suggestions have been made by members on this side of the House which have indicated the direction in which employment could be given to 100,000 people.

We have still the same thing going on in the way of imports into this country of unnecessary articles. If you look at the last returns and see the position, in Class II., under the heading of food, drink and tobacco, we import into this country £23,020,000 worth of goods. Remember we are an agricultural country, and this is under the heading of food, drink and tobacco, whereas our exports under the same head amount to £21,173,000. Is it not obvious to anybody that there is something fundamentally wrong with that? Side by side with this unemployment we have emigration from this country at the rate of 500 persons a week. Between the years 1924 and 1928 we have had the total number of 131,137 young people emigrating out of this country, and that is only to countries outside of Europe and not within the Mediterranean Sea, so that altogether our total emigration is much higher than that. The figure for countries out of Europe last year was 24,691. That is roughly an average of 500 a week. The fact that the Government has failed to deal with unemployment and with the emigration [60] problem is quite sufficient to condemn them.

Then, with regard to housing, something like 40,000 are needed. We pointed out here that the best way to deal with that was by giving to the local authority loans on long terms, and thus give them an opportunity of going on with their schemes. That was pooh-poohed here. We had the President and the Minister for Local Government, when that suggestion was made, saying that people with any sense of responsibility would not make suggestions of that kind.

General Mulcahy: I challenge the Deputy to show any word to that effect.

Mr. de Valera: I have just sent for the quotation. You will have it before the debate is out. It was definitely suggested that it was nonsense to talk on those lines, but when an election was on there was, a very short time afterwards, a great cry to suggest to the public that there would be loans made for houses.

General Mulcahy: Get the quotations.

Mr. de Valera: I will get them for you before the debate is finished.

General Mulcahy: It would be better for the Deputy to have seen them beforehand.

Mr. de Valera: I saw them beforehand and verified them. In any case, it is not so much that they pretended, in a time of election, to deal with this problem, but the fact that they have absolutely failed to deal with it in the past is our ground for complaint.

Then, again, we come along to the question of the treatment of agriculture. They brought in an Agricultural Credit Bill after it had been heralded for a long time as something which was going completely to change the position of the farmer and put him on his feet. We know the result of that. When it was brought in it was meant to deal with a different question altogether, practically the question of financing agriculture in normal times, and [61] there was no effort whatever made to deal with the farmers who, as a result of the depression immediately following the war and the changed conditions, were in the position that some of the very best of them were unable to carry on. Their farms were unstocked, and generally the capital which was necessary to enable them to get on with their work was not available.

Then we come to the question of putting them on something like equal terms with those with whom they would be competing in the North of Ireland and Britain, the question of derating. We are told, of course, that that cannot be thought of, simply because the Executive persists in doing a thing they should not do, and doing a thing that there is no legal obligation on them to do.

The President: King George's head.

Mr. de Valera: Yes, it is very important. Why should it not be with me a case of “King George's head”?

The President: King Charles' head, I mean.

Mr. de Valera: Be it King George or King Charles, it does not matter. It is a question of £3,000,000. and I will constantly come back to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Surely that does not arise.

Mr. de Valera: It arises in as much as the whole policy of the Executive in respect to the farming community is involved in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Yes, but the Deputy cannot advocate legislation on an estimate.

Mr. de Valera: It is a matter of what is going to be the policy of the Government. It is part of the Government policy not to deal with the present condition of the farmers, and put them on something like an equality when dealing with their rivals. I hold that is a definitely pertinent remark in the present connection.

[62] An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is a matter which is being brought before the House and is being decided on, but irrespective of that, it is not in order on this Estimate.

Mr. de Valera: May I ask what exactly is not in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The point which the Deputy has been trying to make; not only that point, but other points as well.

Mr. de Valera: Can I not point out that it is not part of the policy of the present Executive to make any attempt to derate the agricultural community and to put farmers of this part of the country on a level with the farmers with whom they are competing in the North of Ireland and Great Britain?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Not on this Estimate.

General Mulcahy: Or impose a minimum agricultural wage.

Mr. de Valera: It seems an extraordinary thing that we are not allowed to deal on this Estimate with the present policy of the Executive Council.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A question of policy is relevant, but the Deputy is not in order. He will have to accept that.

The President: It was laid down here some years ago that no question should arise on the Estimates which contemplated legislation. That was accepted.

Mr. de Valera: Recently we had the Minister for Finance making his Budget statement. That Budget statement indicated the policy of the Executive for the year. He spent a considerable time in dealing with the question of derating and in explaining why it was not possible for the Government to derate. I say that we have a right, on this Estimate, to deal with that question, and to say that it should be the policy of the Executive to derate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: What the Deputy is really claiming now is [63] a right to make a speech on the Vote for the Department of the President of the Executive Council which would be more properly made on the Budget. The Deputy simply cannot go over on this Estimate every item contained in the Estimates, the Budget and Bills which come before the House.

Mr. de Valera: If that rule is going to be acted upon as a general principle, then the whole question of unemployment would equally be ruled out. The question of housing would be ruled out, and practically every question that we want to discuss on this Vote would be ruled out. If this Vote is going to be dealt with only in the way of pounds, shillings and pence, and the number of officials the President has in his office. then the whole discussion on this Vote of the Executive Council has been out of order every year up to the present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am afraid the Deputy does not understand the position. The Deputy has an opportunity to criticise the policy of the Executive Council, but he is not at liberty to advocate legislation on an Estimate. The ruling which is now being given is the same ruling that has been given every year on this and on every other Estimate. There is no change.

Mr. de Valera: How can I or anybody else criticise the policy of the Government if we are not able to refer to the particular instances in which the Government's policy is in operation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not for me to tell the Deputy how he can deal with this. I am telling him that the line on which he is going is not in order.

Mr. de Valera: Then I must not speak of the question of derating and of the policy of the Government in respect to derating. Similarly, I must not speak of the policy of the Government with respect to housing, and I must not deal with the policy [64] or want of policy of the Government with respect to unemployment, if that ruling is to be carried out rigidly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has been allowed to deal with the question of housing; he has been allowed to refer to the policy of the Government with regard to unemployment. The Deputy will not be ruled out of order, unless he is out of order.

Mr. de Valera: I would like to point out to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot enter into an argument with the Chair. The Chair has ruled on a particular point.

Mr. de Valera: The difficulty is that if I am ruled out on this particular point, it practically means that I am going to be ruled out on everything. I took unemployment as dealing with a certain section of the community. In taking housing, I am dealing with a section of the community. We have 78,000 people, an increase of 5,000 in two or three years, without suitable houses. I intended naturally to go on to consider other sections of the community whose position is largely influenced by the policy of the Government. I was taking the farming community and asking what was the policy of the Government with regard to the farmers. I had asked what was the policy of the Government with respect to the whole question of our trade. I find it very difficult to criticise the Government policy if I cannot proceed in a natural way to look at the sections of the community who are affected. In saying that, I do not wish, in any way, to disobey the ruling of the Chair. I am simply pointing out a natural difficulty.

Similarly, there is the question of land distribution. It has been estimated that at the rate at which land has been distributed under the 1923 Act, it would take something like 63 years to complete land purchase in this country. I am dealing with the Executive Council, and looking at [65] the different Departments in their work. If we look at the Department of Fisheries, we find that the returns are diminishing yearly. We want to know, for example, what the Minister for Fisheries is doing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Would not that arise more properly on the Vote for the Department of Fisheries?

Mr. de Valera: I take it that the Executive Council have common responsibility ultimately for the policy which is carried out by any member of the Executive Council. In other words, when dealing with the Department of Fisheries, we have, in the first place, to deal with the Minister who is responsible, but we have also to deal with the Executive Council, for whom this Vote is, because they have common responsibility for all these Departments. It is the duty of the President of the Executive Council, if one of these Departments is not functioning as it ought to function, to take action with respect to the matter.

Fisheries and Lands have been put into one Department. There is a Parliamentary Secretary. I would like in passing to say that, in our opinion, most of these Parliamentary Secretaries are unnecessary. Now that the work has been departmentalised, the Ministers should do their own work directly. There may be some excuse made for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. But take other Departments, particularly the Department of Fisheries. Fisheries are particularly important as they have close reference to the economic life of the Gaeltacht.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Would not the Deputy wait and deal with that matter on the proper Estimate?

Mr. de Valera: Deputy O'Connell spoke of the Gaeltacht and of the attitude of the Government towards the Gaeltacht. Have I not the right to speak of a particular Department which has close relation to the Gaeltacht? One of the reasons why some of us here take a particular interest in that Department is because [66] its work naturally impinges upon the Gaeltacht. If it is an efficient Department it will help the Gaeltacht. If it is inefficient, as it is, it is damaging to the Gaeltacht.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy O'Connell dealt with the Gaeltacht in a general way, without reference to any particular Department. There is no distinction, as far as the Chair is concerned, between Deputy O'Connell and Deputy de Valera. Deputy de Valera will get just as much opportunity in debate as any other member of this House.

Mr. de Valera: If I speak in generalities I will be attacked by Ministers on the opposite Benches for not mentioning specific instances. I am anxious to talk definitely to the point about things which can be definitely argued, but not about things which are vague or general. Let me now turn to the general financial conduct of the Ministry in their relations, for instance, with Great Britain. We have the thing exemplified in the condition of the Teachers' Pension Fund, where they took over a fund which was bankrupt, and we have to make good the deficiency—either the State has to do it or else the individual teachers will have to do it. That is typical of the way in which the present Ministry have conducted the business of the Government.

The President: Was not that in 1922?

Mr. de Valera: The President of the Executive Council is the very same President to-day as in 1922.

The President: I regret to say that is not the case, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. de Valera: As far as I know, the President became President of the Executive Council in 1922.

The President: September.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: In any case, it does not matter. It is not material to this, or relevant. This only deals with the present year.

[67] Mr. de Valera: It will be dealing with the present year when we have the policy of the Executive Council, or want of policy, in connection with that; it will be very much a present-day matter either for the teachers or the community as a whole when they have to make good that deficiency. I was pointing out on de-rating how the interests of the farming section were neglected, and I wish to point out in that connection that when we raised the question of the annuities we were told that if that had been done there were ten millions which we are not taking into account. What is the position with respect to that ten millions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Will the Deputy tell me how this arises on this Vote?

Mr. de Valera: The want of policy on the part of the Executive Council to conduct the financial business of the country properly when they are dealing with England and elsewhere. Surely, when we see the coinage question coming up this year and the deficiency in the Teachers' Pension Fund also coming up, we have a very good reason for bringing it up now and indicating why, in our opnion, the present Executive Council are not fit to continue in their present position.

The President: That is a vote of no confidence.

Mr. de Valera: The policy of the Government, as far as we can see, has been simply to run away on every occasion from the responsibilities which they undertook—the responsibilities which any body of men in the Executive Council should undertake. We had the Minister for External Affairs some time ago challenging us to deal with the question of status. I suppose that will also be regarded as not germane to this debate. Surely, when we are voting the salary of the President of the Executive Council, who ought, in general, to have a directing influence on policy as a [68] whole, we ought to be allowed to comment upon the attitude which the Executive Council take in large public matters. Take this question of status. I should like to read what the Minister said. It was a carefully-prepared statement which he read.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is this on the Minister's own Vote?

Mr. de Valera: Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It seems as if the Deputy was trying to lay down an absolutely new procedure altogether on this question of dealing with Estimates. The question of External Affairs was dealt with under the appropriate Vote. The matter was put before the House and a decision come to, and, under the Standing Orders, it cannot be reopened. The Deputy's contention apparently is that the Votes should be discussed separately, as they are at present, and that then, on this particular Vote, there should be a rehash of all that was said on the other Votes. That cannot be allowed.

Mr. de Valera: That is not my position at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is what the Deputy is proceeding to do.

Mr. de Valera: If I might explain my attitude, it is this: that on this Vote we do get an opportunity of dealing with the general policy of the Executive Council.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Within certain limits.

Mr. de Valera: Within certain limits. All we can do is to go ahead until we are pulled up by the Chair, because it is not possible for each one to define the limits. We will not come to anything like universal agreement as to what the “certain limits” are. I admit there is a difficulty; that it is better for us to say straight off that we cannot deal with the policy of the Executive Council on this particular Vote. I thought there was agreement that on this Vote the whole question of Executive [69] policy should come up for discussion. I have been dealing up to the present with the policy of the Government with respect to internal affairs. I came on to the question of external affairs in the financial relations between this country and Great Britain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I was trying to confine the Deputy relevantly to home affairs—I did not want to allow him to expand it.

Mr. de Valera: If you are going to tell us that the Executive are only to deal with internal affairs, that is all right; but I understand that the Government are to deal not only with internal affairs but are to look after the interests of the State in external matters as well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That matter was dealt with and decided upon by the House in the last couple of weeks.

Mr. de Valera: As I say, it seems to be impossible, except in vague generalities, which our opponents on the other side will not hesitate to call such, to deal with this Vote at all. Surely we would want to deal with specific instances. Apparently, I am not permitted to deal with the foreign policy—if we might call it the foreign policy—of the Executive.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Not on this Vote.

Mr. de Valera: It seems extraordinary, at any rate, that we are not allowed to deal with it on this Vote for the President of the Executive Council, whose Department ought to be primarily responsible for dealing with external affairs. Perhaps it will satisfy the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if I say that there has not been a single noble national ideal put before the representatives of the people by the Government. There has not been, as Pádraic Pearse said, a way of wisdom or a counsel of courage put up to us. In every one of our main problems they have failed. Their attitude towards former comrades has been simply that of brute force, as evidenced by the Juries Bill and Coercion Act. Their attitude towards the foreigner has been one of surrender [70] all along the line. The list of surrenders is getting longer day by day—is being added to day by day—and our contention is that an Executive whose record is of that type ought not to be voted the money asked for here.

Mr. Davin: The members of this Party decided to put down the amendment which has been moved by Deputy O'Connell for the purpose of giving the President, who is head of the Executive Council, an opportunity of defending his policy in regard to the general question of unemployment. So far as we are aware, the only indication of the Government's policy up to the present has been expressed in a statement made in this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 30th October, 1924. I hope he will come in to correct, wherever he can, the official record of that particular statement, or qualify it if he cannot correct it. On page 551 of the Official Report of the 30th October, 1924, the Minister is given as stating:—

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

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

Mr. McGilligan: That is a totally different thing. The Government has, in so far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, seen that hunger will be stopped. I do not say it goes far enough. They have started certain relief schemes to keep off hunger from other people in the country. To state broadly and definitely that this [71] Dáil ought to be able to provide work for the country is giving this Dáil functions which it has no right to take upon itself.”

Now that, as far as we know up to the present, is the policy of the Government, and has not been qualified in any respect by the President or any other Minister in this House. That policy is clearly seen and shown in the action of the Ministry in cutting down by a very large sum the Estimates that provide work and give relief to the unemployment problem from year to year. I have been looking through the Estimate for this year, and comparing it with that Estimate which provides a State grant for housing, for drainage and for land improvement services. I find that on the Board of Works Estimate, under the heading of “New Works and Alterations,” there is a decrease compared with last year of £208,110; for drainage maintenance there is a decrease of £1,000; for arterial drainage there is a decrease of £6,000, and for the Barrow Drainage there is a decrease of £55,000. In the Land Improvements Schemes, which give considerable employment in the rural areas, as the President knows, there is a decrease of £161,550, and under the heading of Posts and Telegraphs— Vote No. 62—there is a decrease in the labour charges in that particular Department of £128,565.

Now, we hear a great deal in this House and outside about the saving of the one million in expenditure this year, as compared with last year, but out of that total saving of one million no less than £560,225 is saving at the expense of unemployed people in this country. Added to that £560,225, there is a decrease in the Estimate under the head of Property Loss Compensation of £275,300, and under the condition under which the money was voted, employment to a certain extent has been given. Therefore, adding £560,225 and the £275,300, you find that the so-called saving has been at the expense of those who hitherto secured work as a result of the Votes passed by this House.

[72] I come to the other side of the balance-sheet. In Vote 8—Local Loans Fund Grant-in-Aid—there is a large increase of £193,000 which, presumably, will give some employment and might be set aside for housing purposes in that way. There is also under the head of Local Government—Vote 40—an increase of £59,915, which Vote is for the purpose of giving State grants at a considerably reduced figure to persons and local authorities for the purpose of building houses. These are the only figures we have upon which we could give a considered judgment on the policy of the Government in the present financial year; in addition, we have it stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Government did not regard it as their duty to provide employment for the citizens of this State. Their policy seems to me to be to shift the onus for unemployment from this House and the taxpayers on to those of the ratepayers. That is clearly proved from the policy of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, which, I presume, is approved by the President, and which, I hope, he will deal with when replying to the discussion on this Vote. Compared with last year, I find there is an increase of 16 per cent. in the rates raised for road maintenance purposes, which shows that notwithstanding that there has been an increase in revenue to the Road Fund, there is a considerable additional sum to be borne by the ratepayers for the maintenance of the roads and in giving the employment which goes with ordinary normal road maintenance.

General Mulcahy: Only by certain ratepayers.

Mr. Davin: The Minister can add to my remarks or qualify them in any way he likes, but I am giving the figures he himself gave to the House in support of his own Estimate. I cannot understand why there should be an added liability to the ratepayers for road maintenance charges when we have a gradually [73] increased revenue coming into the Road Fund, but I quote it as an illustration of the policy of shifting the onus from the Ministry to the ordinary ratepayers.

We have also this supposed indication, although I do not take it as such, of the policy of the Government on the housing question—a considerable decrease in the amount of the State grant hitherto given to persons and public authorities for the building of houses throughout the State. Does the Minister really try to convince the House that that is a definite indication and prove that the Government are anxious to provide houses by way of State assistance so sadly and badly needed throughout the towns and the country districts of the State?

On the general question of housing, I am very glad that Deputy O'Connell has put a very definite question to the President, and as this is his own Vote, I hope that the President will give us a straight answer to that question. The President and the Minister, with the co-operation of other people who are interested in looking after the housing needs of the people, set up a particular committee to deal with the general problem of unemployment and that committee made certain recommendations. Arising out of the proceedings of that committee, a conference was called both of employers and operatives in the building trade as affecting the City of Dublin. As we all know, the President's outlook in regard to housing is confined entirely to Dublin.

The President: The Deputy is now wandering even beyond the limits of Deputy de Valera.

Mr. Davin: Now that the President is senior representative of the City of Cork, I hope he will take an interest in the housing question in Cork as well as in Dublin. That conference was called together under the auspices of the Ministry and, I believe, at the request of the President who, I think, knows more about the housing needs of the people in this country and the [74] finances of the housing problem than any other Deputy in this House. I give him credit for that and I hope he will, when he comes to reply on this Vote, state whether he is satisfied that that conference has failed to bring in any recommendation that would enable him and the Ministry to proceed with a national housing scheme, which seems to be as far off as when it was promised three or four years ago during some particular bye-election or general election.

Deputy O'Connell was right in stating that the responsibility for dealing with the housing problem which calls for the immediate provision of at least 40,000 houses is not a responsibility which can be delegated by the President or the Ministry to any particular conference, whether employers or representatives of the building operatives. If it has failed, let us hear from the President, whose Vote we are now discussing, the reason why it failed, and, what is far more important, let us have a statement of the Government policy arising out of the failure of that particular conference. We talk a good deal about selective protection and of building a stone wall and a steel wall about the country, and of keeping out anything that could be made or manufactured in the country, but the President must be aware that there is coming into this country cement to the amount of £500,000. My suggestion is, that if this problem is to be dealt with, it will have to be dealt with by using the raw material produced in the State and by having the brickyards that are idle opened, even if it adds an additional item to the cost of the housing scheme.

If we are in favour of selective protection let us give the benefit of that policy to the people who own the brickyards. Let us open up the brickyards and give employment rather than continue to import cement to the value of £500,000 per annum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I hope the Deputy is not going to take up the question of protection on this Vote.

[75] Mr. Davin: I am entitled to deal with the conference that was called by the President in connection with the housing problem, with the failure of that conference, and the results that have come to the State as a result of the failure of that conference.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not want the Deputy to introduce the question of tariffs.

The President: Perhaps the Deputy will give me the figures in connection with cement?

Mr. Davin: £439,000 is the last reliable figure which can be quoted.

The President: For what year?

Mr. Davin: For 1928. I am sure the President has all this upon his finger tips. He knows a great deal about this matter. He has the returns that were supplied to all Deputies, and those returns will confirm the figure that I have quoted. It may not suit the President's particular purpose to turn up that very figure and say that it is correct. I do not want to go into the question of the foreign policy of the Government, or the problem that is created by the deficiency in the Teachers' Superannuation Fund, or any of those other questions, because none of them, whether it has a bearing on the Estimate or not, has a direct bearing on the points we are raising under this amendment. We all know that a good deal of employment has been given during the past few years by the Department, which provided large sums of money for buildings by the Board of Works and for drainage and land improvement schemes. I want the President to submit any figures at his disposal which will go to show that the unemployment problem this year is less acute than last year. The very fact that there has been a reduction of £560,225 in the Estimates which make provision for drainage, housing and building schemes generally, is proof that there must be a smaller number of men employed in that work than there were last year. [76] I will wait patiently and listen with the greatest attention to any figures the President may give when he is attempting to refute the statement contained in the Estimates which he asks the House to pass.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy Davin and Deputy O'Connell informed us that the reason the Labour Party moved to refer the Estimate back for re-consideration was to enable the House to have an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government in the matter of unemployment. The raising of the question of unemployment undoubtedly gave the Labour Party an opportunity of conducting a general assault on the Government; but from the two speeches which have been delivered from the Labour Benches, we cannot conclude that Deputies there have any very clear ideas on the subject. Their conception of the manner in which the problem of unemployment appears to be dealt with would seem to be nebulous.

Mr. Davin: Is the Deputy going to vote for the amendment?

Mr. Lemass: I am, and I am trying to improve your case.

Mr. Davin: Then you must be in favour of the amendment?

Mr. Lemass: Yes, but I disapprove of the way in which the case was presented. The case is quite a good one, but it was not presented as it should be. The whole trend of the case made by Deputies Davin and O'Connell was the giving of Government grants in one form or another. It must be quite obvious that we cannot find a permanent solution of the problem on the basis of Government grants. We can tinker with the problem in that way, and we can give some temporary alleviation, but if the present unemployment evil is to disappear, it has to be tackled in some other manner.

Mr. O'Connell: Surely the Deputy is not interpreting my statement as being entirely in favour of Government grants? I made the point that a Government grant would be [77] necessary in the interval while a scheme was being prepared by the Government to provide a permanent solution. My point was that a Government grant would be essential until such time as a permanent scheme would fructify. Temporary schemes would, of course, have to be met by relief votes.

Mr. Lemass: I agree that in any scheme for the ending of unemployment which may be devised there will be a period during which temporary distress will have to be met and temporary expedients will be essential. My criticism of the Labour Party is based on the ground that they have failed to face the fact that the main difficulty in ending the unemployment problem is the attitude of the Government. They do not appear to have grasped clearly what the attitude of the Government is.

Mr. O'Connell: Have you?

Mr. Lemass: I am going to explain. The attitude of the Government is that the degree of unemployment which exists is normal. They do not think that any special circumstances exist that would call for special attention or special measures. They appear to hold that a large volume of unemployment, such as there is at the moment, is a necessary phenomenon and, therefore, they can proceed by the ordinary recognised methods adopted in other countries where there are no abnormal conditions. The problem can only be considered in relation to its size. For three years the Government has succeeded in suppressing the information ascertained by the census of production in 1926 as to the size of unemployment. We could argue for hours as to the number of unemployed in the country. A certain number there is. It may be much larger than I think, and it may be much smaller, but on no occasion since we came into this House have we or the Labour Party, or anybody else, succeeded in nailing down any Minister to the definite statement that a particular number of unemployed exist in the country. Let us [78] take a number that will not be so large as to call for the immediate contradiction of any Minister. Let us say there are 50,000. There are approximately 30,000 unemployed in insurable occupations—25,000 or 30,000. The number of occupied persons in insurable occupations probably does not exceed 30 per cent. of the whole. We know, in addition, that the particular period of depression through which we have passed has affected those engaged in uninsurable occupations just as severely as, if not more severely, than those engaged in insurable occupations. We know fairly accurately that there are some 25,000 persons unemployed in insurable occupations. The total number of persons in these not being 30 per cent. of the whole, we can safely assume there are 50,000 unemployed. That is a figure on which we can work.

Let us examine the economic situation that exists in order to see what are the possibilities of absorbing into normal employment 50,000 persons within a specified period. In the discussion upon the Estimate of the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, certain figures were given by the Minister which will be of value to us in this connection. He pointed out that the total net value of the agricultural produce of the country during the year 1926, as ascertained in the census of production, was £53,500,000, and the total net value of the new transportable goods manufactured in this country was £20,000,000. He estimated that the net value of commodities produced by each person employed in agriculture in that year was £80, and the net value of the goods produced by each person in the manufacturing industry was £266. I have examined these figures myself and I got somewhat different results from those of the Minister, but it is not unlikely that we worked on a different basis, and I am quite prepared to accept his figures. It is quite obvious from the figures that if the existing unemployment, taken at 50,000 people, could be absorbed into agriculture the production of [79] wealth could be increased by £4,000,000 in the year, and if they were absorbed into industry the increase would be £13,300,000. The increase was in the one case of 7.4 per cent., and in the other case of 66.5 per cent.

A calculation based on these figures would seem to indicate that if we worked from the opposite direction and concentrated upon increasing agricultural production by 7.4 per cent. and industrial production by 66.5 per cent., then we would have entirely ended the unemployment evil. Judging from these figures, one would naturally concentrate upon agriculture as offering the greater prospects and ensuring quick results. However, in that matter we have to take certain other things into our calculation as well. The low value of the wealth produced per year per head by persons engaged in agriculture indicates that many of those engaged in that industry are, as Deputy O'Connell described them, under-employed. Of course under-employment is just as serious a problem for the nation as unemployment. We could check that fact by reference to the figures published by the Ministry for Industry and Commerce in relation to the agricultural industry.

We have in this country 51 permanent agriculture workers for every thousand acres under crops and pasture. There are 31 in Denmark. We plough here 225 acres for every hundred permanent workers. They plough 1,007 acres for every one hundred permanent workers in Denmark. We have here per one hundred workers 165 milch cows as against 308 in Denmark. We have here 143 pigs as against 644 in Denmark. We have here 2,378 poultry as against 3,362 in Denmark. It is only in cattle other than milch cows and sheep that we exceed Denmark, and it is in the production of these animals that the least amount of labour is required. It is quite obvious from these figures that the agricultural production in the Free State could be increased by several [80] hundred per cent. before those engaged in that industry here would be employed to the same extent as those in that industry in Denmark are at present. We could increase agricultural production by several hundred per cent. before we would have absorbed into that industry one single person mentioned as at present unemployed.

If therefore we are going to find a solution of the unemployment problem we will find it in the stimulation of some other form of production than agricultural production. I am not arguing against concentration upon increasing agricultural production, because under-employment is just as serious in agricultural production as in industry. Anything that the Minister for Agriculture, the greatest Minister for Agriculture in the world, can do to increase production of wealth in the agricultural industry will be supported by us if for no other reason than that it will result in increasing the standard of living for those at present engaged in that industry. We must, however, concentrate on industry if the 50,000 people who are without work at present are to be given work. The task will, I think, be found not as difficult as it would appear at first sight.

The figure of £266 per head given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce relates only to those engaged in the manufacturing of transportable goods and it does not include those engaged in such industries as house building, road making, electrical concerns, gas works and similar undertakings. If means were found to employ the greatest possible number in the construction and repair of what I think could fairly be described as the Nation's fixed assets, the number left to be absorbed into productive industry would be very greatly reduced. Deputy O'Connell referred to the matter of house building, and undoubtedly the construction of the houses which are at present urgently needed by our people, could be made a most hopeful avenue for the relief of the unemployment that is existing. We are aware that in embarking upon any [81] scheme for the immediate provision of the 40,000 houses required, certain dangers and difficulties will be met with but none of them will be incapable of being surmounted. We had the matter of the Local Loans Fund discussed here. During the recent by-election in Sligo the Minister for Local Government made a statement before the poll that the Local Loans Fund was to be opened to local authorities for housing purposes. I wonder how many local authorities have succeeded in getting loans from the Local Loans Fund for the purpose of building houses, or was that merely an election promise made to be broken as soon as it had served its puropse?

The President: Does the Deputy consider that it will be possible to make these loans in the short time that has since elapsed?

Mr. Lemass: Perhaps the President will inform me whether it is necessary to have the Act amended so as to enable loans to be got for that purpose?

The President: Will the Deputy understand that the local authorities will have to be ready with their plans to avail of those loans? The Deputy should know that schemes must be prepared for the acquisition of the lands, and there are the other details, and that all this takes time.

Mr. Lemass: I will put the question this way—will the President inform us the number of local authorities whose schemes have been approved but who have not yet succeeded in getting funds from the Board of Works?

The President: It would take some time to get that information.

Mr. Lemass: In any case even the provision of money from the Local Loans Fund to the local authorities is not going to solve the housing problem, but it goes a considerable step, because the provision of cheap finance is one of the main difficulties. If houses are to be constructed to meet the present requirements and to cope with unemployment it should be done as a national scheme. It cannot [82] be left entirely to the local authorities to do it. That national scheme would involve the production within this country of as much as possible of the building materials required and which are capable of being economically produced here. I am not arguing in favour of the production of materials which cannot be economically produced under present conditions. Because if they could only be bought here at uneconomic prices then we should leave that aside until a more normal situation had arisen. But I submit that it is in periods like the present that the Government should embark upon capital work, building up the credit of the nation and making the necessary funds available.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Lemass: There is not merely in the matter of housing but in a number of other matters a great deal of constructive work waiting to be done in this country, and that work, while not immediately reproductive, would, if done, increase the wealth and the wealth-producing capacity of the country to a very considerable extent. This Government has followed what has been described as a very conservative policy in the matter of finance. I think that the conservative policy of the Government in the matter of finance is as much responsible as anything else for the degree of unemployment which now exists, and for the volume of emigration which statistics disclose.

Undoubtedly, they occupy a strong position in the international markets. They can point with pride to the position which they occupy upon the American Exchange, but these advantages are very small when weighed in the balance against 50,000 people and their dependents in dire need and 500 of the best of our citizens emigrating every week. I do not know whether the President will maintain that the credit of the State is not sufficiently strong to allow more extended borrowing. It is, I submit, in a period such as the present that borrowing should [83] be embarked on to finance constructive schemes and to enable the abnormal problem of unemployment to be dealt with. If those who are at present without work can be given employment at a normal wage the whole industry of the country will be stimulated. You cannot spend £1,000 in building a bridge and merely find yourself in the end when the bridge has been built with the completed bridge and a debt for £1,000. That sum of £1,000 has been introduced and is in circulation in the country, and every form of commercial and industrial life receives the benefit of its expenditure.

Let us examine the prospects of getting constructive work going and what the nature of such work would be. There are very few towns in Ireland of any size which are provided with decent sewerage schemes or proper water supplies. The absence of such conveniences has in many cases had serious effects on public health. A very considerable amount of public good could be done, as well as a very considerable amount of unemployment relieved, if means were found available to make it possible for these towns to equip themselves with proper public facilities. It is useless to say, as the Minister will no doubt say, that the Local Loans Fund is available for that purpose. The provision of loans to local authorities will not meet the difficulty. The question of the burden on the rates, the question of the difficulty which is generally experienced in regard to the area of charge, will still remain. If we want such work to be undertaken now by local authorities it is not loans but grants that will have to be made available. It is, I submit, only a matter of book-keeping whether the money is borrowed by the local or the national authority for national work. The undertaking of schemes for the relief of unemployment is at present national work, and whether the loan has to be repaid by the taxpayer or by the ratepayer is a minor matter. The one factor that really counts is the fact that if you can absorb 50,000 people [84] into work, the capacity of the taxpayer to pay will be increased and it will not be necessary to impose new taxes because the yield of existing taxation will raise more than sufficient to repay the interest and sinking fund charges on the money borrowed for that purpose.

There are a number of other works. There is, for instance, the matter of land reclamation. I do not know if any survey has been carried out as to the possibility of undertaking big reclamation schemes in respect of tidal lands. I think it will be found that there are many thousands of acres capable of being reclaimed from the sea at an expenditure which would be small in comparison with the wealth to be created by such schemes. If the Government have carried out such survey I would be glad to hear it, but I do not think they have. Such survey would repay itself. Then there is the matter of erecting adequate defences against coast erosion, and also the matter of speeding up affairs in regard to afforestation. On the Forestry Vote the Minister for Lands and Agriculture informed us that there are 200,000 acres capable of being planted, and that it was the policy of his Department to have them planted in forty years. I submit that it is during an abnormal period like the present, when you have an abnormal number of unemployed, that such work should be undertaken, and not when the country is prosperous, and when workers have little difficulty in finding work from private employers. It would, in my opinion, be better to double or treble the work of afforestation now and to stop it in better times than to carry out the mechanical programme of the Minister, which does not take into account the economic conditions of the country.

There is also the matter of reconstructing dangerous bridges which are unsuitable to modern traffic. There are a large number of such bridges, even on trunk roads. It would be a useful way of providing work for the unemployed if the reconstruction of these bridges were [85] undertaken. There is, in addition, the matter of the construction of decent schoolhouses. In many parts of the country the schoolhouses are a blot on our civilisation, and are altogether unsuitable for the housing of young children. A considerable amount of capital expenditure could be undertaken in that direction at present if the right policy animated the country. There is plenty of work to be done, and it is sufficient to absorb all those who are without work at present, if only some means were found to enable it to be undertaken, and if money were available. In connection with all the matters I have mentioned, there is one outstanding fact which should be noticed, namely, that they are not dependent for completion on supplies of foreign materials. The materials can be supplied within the country, and consequently there need be no export of wealth if we embark on such schemes. As I have already said, if we embarked on such schemes we would give trade and industry the necessary fillip to get them out of their post-war depression. The whole industrial body would be rejuvenated and the workers who would find temporary employment on these schemes would be gradually absorbed into permanent and normal employment in private enterprise. It would not, of course, be possible, nor would it be necessary, to absorb all of them into works of that nature, as the balance of them can and should be absorbed into industry. I am not going to deal with the question of tariffs, as the Chair objects, except in a general way, and in so far as it bears on the policy of the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think that we should have a debate on that matter, as tariffs require statutes and we cannot proceed to discuss the question of making laws on this particular Vote. I do not know how the Deputy can discuss tariffs generally.

Mr. Lemass: How can you discuss unemployment without referring to tariffs?

[86] An Ceann Comhairle: People must take the opportunity of discussing the question of unemployment in the right way. This way precludes discussion on the question of tariffs. On the Finance Bill, for instance, we had tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

Mr. Lemass: Here is a quotation from the “Motor Trader,” dated June 19th, 1929: I am not advocating tariffs, but I am reading this for the information of the House. It is entitled “Britain's Best Market,” and it goes on to say:

“Australia is maintaining its position as the principal buyer of British car chassis, having taken 4,270 valued at £491,135 of the 7,020 chassis which were exported from this country during the first five months of this year. During the same period she took 218 complete vehicles worth £65,328. The principal customer for complete cars is the Irish Free State which, by taking 2,705 vehicles valued at £435,553 in five months more than double her purchases during the same period of last year when 1,261 cars worth £228,013 were bought.”

The President: That disproves some of the statements made opposite.

Mr. Lemass: If the President will take these figures and make a simple calculation he will realise that we have paid something like 60 per cent. of £435,000 for goods that could be produced in this country and in respect of which we have established factories which are as good as any in the world, and we have workmen who were recognised all over the world as the most skilled in the trade.

An Ceann Comhairle: We should have had all this on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Lemass: We are dealing with the matter of unemployment, and I shall confine myself to the statement that 12,000 additional persons have received employment in tariffed industries since 1925. That fact, as I have said in a previous debate, constitutes [87] a sign-post which points out, or should point out, to the Government, the direction in which they must move if unemployment is to be diminished in this country. I believe we can find work for at least another 25,000 hands in existing industries in this country if the necessary steps are taken to protect them. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that 50 per cent. of the goods coming into this country were at present subject to tariffs.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has gone back to tariffs again.

Mr. Lemass: I am not arguing in favour of them or against them. I am merely stating facts.

An Ceann Comhairle: Facts in relation to tariffs are arguments, I fear.

Mr. Lemass: I want to develop this argument. From figures made available by the Minister of Industry and Commerce, he calculated that if we could increase the production of goods apart from agricultural goods in this country, by £13,300,000, we would wipe out unemployment. If the production per head remains as at present we will have to increase industrial production by that amount in order to absorb 50,000 unemployed. We are at present importing £25,000,000 worth of goods which are not tariffed and £14,300,000 worth of tariffed goods, which are not excluded by the tariffs now in operation. I submit that either if the tariffs now in operation were increased so as to exclude goods to which they relate or if the non-taxed but taxable goods were submitted to the same process as the taxed goods, we would have in a short period completely wiped out unemployment in this country. That is what all parties profess to desire, but the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, as represented on the Executive Council, which is the only Party who can give effect to their desires are deliberately ignoring the only possible avenues for reaching that end.

There are other expedients that [88] can be employed in order to deal with the matter of unemployment. I am not suggesting them here. No doubt Ministers are taking a very keen note of the proposal advocated by the Labour Government in Britain who are giving very serious consideration to this matter of unemployment, although their problem in relation to their total population is less serious than ours. We have a higher percentage of our population unemployed in relation to the number of occupied persons than they have.

The President: Is the Deputy sure of that?

Mr. Lemass: I am not sure of it. You have succeeded in suppressing the figures made available by the Census of 1926 in this matter of the total unemployed. We made a certain calculation based on the number employed in insurable occupations which we know, and related that to the number of occupied persons and we got 50,000.

The President: If the Deputy added 50 per cent. to that we would still be under the English figure.

Mr. Lemass: I do not think so. The last figure was 9.9 per cent. In Britain, for example, they have suggested that the Old Age Pension should be given at 65. That is done already in the case of certain classes of persons. They have also suggested increasing the school-leaving age and increasing the facilities given to widows and mothers. All that is to be done in order to keep them out of the employment market. By these three expedients alone, they hope to decrease the number of unemployed in England by 600,000 persons. That is a very substantial decrease, because if boys have to remain at school and if old men get pensions, vacancies will be created of which the middle-aged and other unemployed can avail. I am not suggesting that these expedients should be adopted here, because the cost would be probably prohibitive, nor do I think it is necessary. If we can do so, well and good. Quite a number [89] of such simple expedients exist which can be utilised in order to decrease the volume of unemployment.

It seems to me that the Government, like a great many people in this country, suffer from an inferiority complex in this matter. There are a number of people, for example, who seem to think that Irish goods cannot possibly be as good as British goods although, as the facts prove, they are in many cases—in nearly all cases—better. The Government do not see this country supplying its own goods at any time. They lack vision in this matter. They do not seem to contemplate the possibility of its being at any time a self-sufficing and a self-supporting country. We, on the other hand, see Ireland not merely a self-supporting country but with a possibility of developing an export trade in certain goods. There is no country in the world, as far as I can see, doing an export trade at present with advantages that so greatly surpass ours as to make it idle to hope that we will ever have such a trade. We have, or will have, we are assured, in the very near future, available a supply of cheap power. We have raw materials in adequate quantity, and they at present constitute the bulk of our exports. We have workers who are as good as any in the world. I think all foreign capitalists who have come in here to start industries have testified to the good qualities of the workers available.

In the case of practically every application that came before the Tariff Commission the same testimonial was given to those engaged in industry here. We have a large amount of surplus capital available for investment which at present is invested abroad because of the unsatisfactory conditions and the lack of suitable opportunities here. The only thing we require is to have the co-ordinating influence of the Government brought into play so that all these various factors will be brought into line and welded together in support of a general forward movement to develop our industries. [90] The Government have treated this whole matter in such an indifferent and casual manner that we can only conclude that they have no desire to foster industry in this country or that they are utterly incapable of undertaking the task. The latter is the true explanation, I believe. I hope that Deputies will support Deputy O'Connell's amendment to refer the Vote back for reconsideration, such action being, as the President said, a vote of no confidence in the Executive Council.

Mr. T.J. Murphy: I suppose it would be too much to expect even in a debate of this kind, that we should escape the lecture with which Deputy Lemass commenced his statement here. We have been accustomed to lectures of this kind, and considering the line he has taken previously I suppose we may be thankful for the mildness of his statement this evening. I remember, before we had the advantage of having Deputy Lemass here to lecture us, reading a speech made by him in which he described the members of this Party as political mendicants. That was at a time when members of this Party, at least, were asking questions that now appear every day on the Order Paper from members of his Party in connection with roads, improvement works, and with the general line that should be taken in the matter of having better services extended to the people of the country generally. I am not going to refer at all to the fact that the mendicancy of that Party in another direction was going on outside this country, and is still going on. However, that, I suppose, is a side issue.

In case there should be any difficulty or doubt as to the policy of this Department in connection with unemployment, although I think it has been made sufficiently clear already, it is, perhaps, no harm to state again for the information of people who complain about the vagueness of the Labour policy in the matter of unemployment, that we have complained over and over again and felt that the responsibility for dealing with unemployment should [91] rest with the Government. We have pressed, time and again, for the solution of this question on national lines. We have made the claim repeatedly, which has been running through Deputy Lemass's speech this evening, that until that question is dealt with the interval should be occupied with producing the temporary methods to tide people over the situation that they would be confronted with in that interval. We have reaffirmed repeatedly that it is the duty of the Government to take up that position.

Dealing with a matter dealt with this evening, the question of housing, not many months ago the operatives engaged in the housing industry presented a concrete housing policy whereby for a certain number of years they would be prepared to deliver the goods. In the face of all that, a debate of this kind is made the lever for charges that have been lightly, and with very little foundation, made time and again. It was doubly strange, coming after the statement of the official leader of the Opposition. That, in my opinion, was the most vague and disjointed series of generalities I have ever listened to in this House. I want to congratulate Deputy Davin on bringing back this debate to something like reality by pointing out where the failure has come in, and where we can point, on the present Estimates, to the very things that have been done, not to help the question of unemployment but to make it worse in this country.

On the Land Improvement Vote, a tremendous reduction was made in the sum available for improvement works. In the Office of Public Works a tremendous reduction was made in the moneys available for work in the country. We complain with very great reason, that instead of any contribution towards improving the situation, in the financial provisions that have been made, the situation has been considerably aggravated. I would echo what has been said in this debate, that the real failure of the Government in this [92] matter is their failure to make unemployment a dominant issue in the country. The people in England who are entrusted with the responsibility of Government have declared that they intend to make this a dominant question, and that as this question is dealt with other matters of smaller importance will right themselves in the ordinary way. We want to urge that even now, after continuous neglect, an attempt should be made to give this question the place it is entitled to in the consideration national problems should get in this House from the Government responsible.

I want to urge that the whole policy in connection with improvement work and marine works should be reviewed. Even at the risk of being accused of continuously looking for doles here, we ought to point out the practical needs of large sections of the community and urge that a connected and national policy should be evolved, taking into account the whole question nationally and the many factors locally applicable to this question.

I saw within the last few days a paragraph in an English newspaper referring to prosperity in Cork. I am not enabled to speak on behalf of the citizens of Cork City but I did notice a paragraph referring to alleged prosperity amongst farm labourers in Cork County. If it does exist, it exists in some portion of Cork County I never heard of. In the rural areas of Cork County which I know anything about, there is no such thing as prosperity but there is acute poverty in the homes of the rural labourers and we, who have something to do with local authorities in that part of the country, are faced month after month with the task of trying to decide cases where able bodied men with families who, I am perfectly satisfied, are willing to work, come before the Boards making applications for assistance. I want to ask the Government again the question asked by Deputy O'Connell this evening as to what their attitude on the question of unemployment measures is—for instance, the question of home assistance. Is it suggested [93] that it is really reproductive or economic to pay home assistance to unfortunate people with no means of employment? The Local Authorities are bound to make provision under the Local Government Act of 1925 for destitute people but is that the remedy or the proper way of dealing with it? It has been pointed out, time and again, that there is danger in embarking on uneconomic schemes. Could anything be more uneconomic than paying relief to people and compelling them to live in a state of semi-starvation with the few shillings they get from a local authority and denying them the right to live as decent citizens by giving them work that would enable them to do something for their homes and their children. That seems to be the issue. We have no doubts whatever as to how it should be solved or how we would attempt to solve it if we had the responsibility entrusted to us. We have complete decay not alone in the rural areas, but in a good many of the towns in the constituency I come from. I regret that year after year, during the four or five years some of us have been here, we should have to argue this question and point out complete failure to do anything in connection with it. There is no substantial employment that I know of in any of the rural areas.

I was discussing a matter with a constituent of mine within the last week. He pointed out a tract of country extending over several miles and said that in that large tract of country not one farmer employed a labourer. Either they were too poor to employ a labourer or they were able to do the work with the labour of their own families. I do not know whether the paragraphs that have appeared in English newspapers are inspired or not, but I do know that they do not represent the facts. People who believe that things are prosperous in the rural areas are simply living in a fools' paradise.

I want to urge again that something should be done in connection with the different matters mentioned here in connection with housing, and [94] greater facilities to local authorities to embark on schemes benefiting the public health and relieving unemployment. All that work should be encouraged, financed and developed, and we should have from the Executive Council a statement showing that they are willing to reconsider the whole position in regard to the moneys which they refused to make available this year in the Estimates for improvement works, and that as an alternative an estimate to deal with this particular matter should be introduced into this House. The example has been set in another country of appointing a Minister specially to deal with this problem. Perhaps we are not able to do that, but we might do something in showing that we consider this matter seriously and in showing that we realise the responsibility that is and ought to be cast on the Government of dealing with it, not in a tinkering fashion but on a national basis, and on lines that are the only sound lines on which it can be tackled if there is a real desire to settle it.

Mr. Little: This debate has taken the turn of dealing with a subject which is perhaps the most serious subject that could have arisen in this house. Naturally it arises on the Vote for the President, because he has responsibility for the policy, not merely of this year but of last year and of the whole period during which emigration has been so great and unemployment has been a continuing evil. The quarrel which we have with him in this matter is based on his failure to strike out a national line, a line which would break away from conditions in England which are affecting Ireland. He has been appealed to from time to time to find a common policy which would be a national policy. If he found a really national policy in economics to-morrow he would find people throughout the whole country to back him up. If he could cast aside his mere party timidities and look at the thing from a purely Irish point of view, and apply the principles of Wolfe Tone in the region of economies, the principle of complete [95] separation economically, he would not find many critics from this side of the House. The atmosphere for which he is responsible in this country is an atmosphere of cynical reaction. I ask him to compare it with the atmosphere which was in the country between the years 1918 and 1920 when we had succeeded in joining the ideals of James Connolly with those preached by Arthur Griffith, the ideals of a democratic advance with the ideals of Sinn Féin. If we had got the Republic in the year 1919 we would have gone ahead with a set of principles of a progressive kind second to none in Europe.