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 35 - 04 June, 1930

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe): I move:

“Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £8,258 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, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Roinn Uachtarán na hArd-Chomhairle.

“That a sum not exceeding £8,258 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, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the President of the Executive Council.”

The increase under sub-head A is due to increments. The increase under sub-head B is due to the fact that additional travelling expenses will be incurred this year owing to the holding of the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference. Ministers and officials who are travelling, not on the particular business of their own Departments but on general business of State, have their expenses paid out of this sub-head.

Mr. Lemass: On behalf of Deputy O'Kelly, I move: “That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.” The purpose for which we are moving the reference back of this Estimate is to give the Dáil an opportunity of expressing its view on the policy of the Government in relation to unemployment. We have had numerous discussions upon this question of unemployment, and it might be thought that no useful purpose would be served by bringing it forward for consideration again. We feel, however, that we cannot possibly endeavour too often to impress [421] upon the minds of Deputies the serious situation that exists in the country and the lack of success which has attended any effort made by the Executive Council to remedy that situation. I think it will be generally admitted that the country is perturbed, and seriously perturbed, at the obvious failure of the Government, not merely to deal with the problem of unemployment but even to appreciate its seriousness. That uneasiness is not confined to any one section or class of the community; it exists among the supporters of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party just as strongly as it exists amongst the supporters of other Parties. The Government appear to feel that their duty is met if they periodically produce estimates in the Dáil which tend to show or to imply that the problem of unemployment is diminishing in extent. Whether their failure to realise its seriousness is due to self-deception or to inadequate information, it has prevented the necessary amount of attention being given to it.

It may be held, and it probably will be argued here to-day, that the Government has no direct responsibility for the unemployed. As Deputies will remember, the attitude of the Government in this matter was expressed in the past in that form. It is held that although the Government should do whatever it can to encourage industries and the initiation of schemes that would give employment, it has no direct responsibility to provide work for those who are without it. That view is altogether at variance with the view held by Deputies on this side and by a large and growing section of the people, particularly by a number of those who are to be regarded as the most important industrialists in the State. The people maintain and pay for the maintenance of the machinery of State—the Executive Council and the Oireachtas, the Civil Service and the police force, to ensure that their social, political and economic activities will be so regulated that their welfare will be promoted.

If a large number of our people [422] are, as we know they are, destitute, the machinery of the State should be set to work in order to improve their conditions. The machinery of State is not being so worked at the moment. The State's obligation to its unemployed citizens is not discharged merely when it provides schemes for the granting of outdoor or institutional relief to those who are actually on the borderline of starvation. It may be held that the Government has no function other than to see that nobody will die for want of food. The Government has taken steps to ensure that such is the case. Nobody need starve. At the worst a person can go into the poorhouse and be provided for there or can throw a brick through a shop window and go to jail. Nobody need starve in any case. But I urge and maintain that the duty of the State is not discharged when it merely provides that there will be food available to keep persons from dying. The State should take upon itself the duty of providing work at a wage that would enable all those willing to work to maintain themselves in decent comfort.

Within this State a particular social order has evolved, and its evolution has been protected by the machinery of the State, maintained and paid for by the people. We give our resources in agricultural land, in minerals, in capital and in technical skill into the control of a number of individuals or groups of individuals to work and develop. If, as a result of their efforts, a livelihood cannot be found for all our people in their own country, the State must step in and so alter the social order that the evils of unemployment and emigration will be either modified or removed entirely. We do not know the extent of the unemployment problem here. I do not wish to renew the complaints which we made quite recently concerning the delay in the publication of the census figures. No matter how plausible the excuses produced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce may sound, we are convinced—and a very large [423] number of people in the country are convinced—that the publication of the figures relating to unemployment, ascertained by the census, was deliberately impeded because it was the view of those associated with the Party management of Cumann na nGaedheal that such publication would be detrimental to their interests. It is, in our opinion, amazing that such essential information collected in 1926 should not be available in 1930. Various estimates of the number of unemployed have been made, not merely by persons associated with the different Parties in this House, but also by persons associated with charitable organisations. These estimates very from 50,000 to 75,000. I do not intend to make any estimate, but anyone who has travelled through the country and discussed the existing situation with public men in different towns —and those men might be expected to know the truth—must be convinced that a serious unemployment problem exists here which has not been adequately attended to.

There is, of course, associated with the problem of unemployment the kindred problem of emigration. This country suffers a net loss of population through emigration every year which is four times heavier than that suffered by Great Britain, the next highest in Europe. The existence of a big unemployment problem now is only a new phase of a problem which has existed for many years and is due to the fact that emigration no longer provides an adequate outlet for those who are unable to get remunerative work in Ireland.

Other countries have unemployment problems as well, although they differ in nature and extent from the problem which exists here. In Great Britain and in the United States of America the seriousness of unemployment has aroused widespread public attention, and is, in fact, the subject-matter of important discussions in the legislatures of those countries. Unemployment in Great Britain and America, however, is due [424] to causes which we do not find operating to anything like the same extent in the Free State. In the first place, it is due to the fact that the home markets are saturated with the products of the industries of those countries to the limits of the purchasing power of the people. Various remedies for that situation have been advanced and novel suggestions are being discussed in different quarters to remedy and prevent the recurrence of such a situation. It does not exist here, however. If our markets are fully supplied with the goods we require, these goods are foreign and can be substituted by our own manufactures if we take steps to reserve the home market for them.

Unemployment in Great Britain, the United States, and similarly situated countries has also been largely aggravated by improved methods of production, improved machinery, improved labour-saving devices which have been adopted and put into operation without any necessary consequential alterations in the working hours of those engaged in the industry. We are, in fact, passing through a transition stage in industry. The invention of a machine which enables the amount of work which 500 men do in a week to be done by half that number results in 250 men being dismissed and deprived of their livelihood, instead of resulting, as common-sense would seem to suggest, in the number of hours which the 500 men formerly had to work being reduced by one-half. Under social conditions as they now exist improved methods of production generally aggravate unemployment. They certainly have had that effect in Great Britain, Germany, America, and other countries. That situation is not serious here, because our capacity to produce the goods we require is, in relation to many articles, much below our consumption of those goods.

In other countries, also, the unemployment problem has been made more serious by the fact that foreign markets are contracting, due to the efforts of foreign Governments to [425] make their nations self-contained. That contraction of the foreign market has gone on while at the same time productive capacity and population have increased at home. That aspect of the problem does not apply here. Our export trade is mainly confined to agricultural products. We have been repeatedly assured by the Minister for Agriculture—and in this matter, at any rate, he is possibly right—that our export trade in agricultural produce has by no means reached its maximum and that with improved marketing methods it would be possible greatly to extend it.

In Germany there is a serious unemployment problem due to the same causes as those operating in Great Britain and America, but aggravated by the fact that the German Government has to pay in reparations to the Allies a sum which bears the same relation to its total State revenue as 21 bears to 100. That particular situation is reproduced here and must be accounted for as one of the contributory causes of unemployment here. We are paying to Great Britain, under the Ultimate Financial Settlement which the Minister for Finance negotiated in 1926, a sum which bears to our total State revenue a higher relationship than the amount which Germany pays in reparations to the Allies has to the total revenue of the German State. Reparations are 21 per cent. of the German State revenue; our payments under the Ultimate Financial Settlement are 24 per cent. of our total State revenue. International economists of undoubted reputation and ability have met in solemn conference and decided that the payment of reparations is one of the main causes of unemployment in Germany. It is to be presumed that if these international economists met to consider the situation here they would conclude that the payments made under the Ultimate Financial Settlement form one of the main causes of the unemployment and emigration in this country.

If we are going to consider methods of solving the unemployment problem we cannot leave out [426] of account the fact that this payment is being made. I do not want to discuss now whether these payments need or need not be made. Deputies know that we urge, and a number of persons not associated with our Party whose ability to express an opinion cannot be denied also urge, that there is no international obligation existing binding us to pay the money. Deputies on the other side insist that we should pay, whether they have any argument to support their case or not. The money has been paid, and because it is being paid we have here an unemployment and an emigration problem of very considerable magnitude. Any responsible body that meets to consider the economic conditions prevailing here cannot leave out of account the Ultimate Financial Settlement payments. The only way by which that particular cause of unemployment can be removed appears to be by removing the present Government. I do not hope that this Dáil will do that; but this Dáil will not always have the sole power of deciding questions of that kind.

Leaving that particular aspect of the problem aside and coming down to the consideration of the immediate cause of unemployment, we find that the outstanding fact concerning unemployment in this country is that it need not exist at all. Other countries in which the unemployment problem is as great if not greater than ours are facing up to the task of dealing with it. The Ministers appear to be satisfied with suppressing information relating to its magnitude, or in so presenting that information as to delude the people concerning it. Repeatedly the Minister for Industry and Commerce has come to the Dáil and endeavoured to present the number of registered unemployed in a manner which would lead people to understand that they represent the total number of those without work. If there is a slight downward fluctuation in the number of registered unemployed the Minister and his colleagues shout loudly that the worst [427] has now passed; a way of dealing with the question has been found, and we have only to sit back with our hands in our pockets and leave the rest to Providence and everything will work out well. Not merely are we failing to face up to our unemployment problem, but we are failing to do so, although it is much easier of solution here than in any other of the countries mentioned in the course of my remarks.

From time to time we have repeatedly urged the necessity for protecting Irish industry from foreign competition and brought to the notice of Deputies the advantages that would accrue from the granting of that protection. It must be admitted that the solution of unemployment depends in the long run upon the development of industry. Whatever can be done in the short run, if we are going to abolish unemployment as we now know it permanently from our national life we must take steps to ensure the development of industry here. It cannot be done in any other way, except we reconcile ourselves to a permenent reduction in the number of people living in the country. The development of industry will require capital, managerial ability and technical skill and we have them all. There will be difficulties undoubtedly in getting them to work, but these difficulties will disappear under the pressure of the demand in the home market, if that market is reserved for Irish enterprise.

The extent of the home market can be easily estimated. Certain puny efforts at protection have already been made by the Government and the results were so good that it is amazing the Government hesitate to follow them up. The few and inadequate tariffs imposed in 1926 and since have given additional employment to just 13,000 workers in the protected industries. The number of protected industries is few, the tariffs, in nearly every case, were too low and the imports of tariffed goods are still very high. And yet, 13,000 workers, who would otherwise [428] be idle, are to-day earning good wages in consequence of the steps which the Government took under the pressure of public opinion.

There are still imported into this country £18,500,000 worth of goods which are at the present time not merely capable of being produced but are actually to-day being manufactured within the country. Leaving out of account goods capable of being manufactured here or goods capable of being substituted by our own products, there are imported into the Free State every twelve months goods to the value of £18,500,000 which are sold in competition with home products. I include in that list such commodities as bacon, hams, flour, bread, slates, motor bodies, and woollen goods, particularly wearing apparel. The net output per head of industrial workers in the Free State in 1926 was £225. Each person engaged in industry in that year was responsible for a net output of £225. The corresponding figure for Great Britain was £210. If we calculate on the Free State figure, we find that the number of workers required to produce a net output valued at £18,500,000 is 82,000. If we calculate on the British figure we get a number of 88,000. I do not believe that there are 82,000 people unemployed in the Free State at present. It is obvious, therefore, that if we can ensure the production merely of these goods which we are in fact engaged in producing, although we are not fully supplying the home market, we shall be able to abolish the unemployment problem as it now exists altogether. That can be done obviously by excluding the foreign goods. I do not think that the exclusion of these foreign goods would have any deterimental effect upon the agricultural community. It has been argued that protection increases the cost of living. The inadequate measure of protection which the Government are responsible for has not, in fact, increased the cost of living.

Since 1925, as I have had occasion to point out before, the cost of living in the Free State has fallen relatively [429] more than in Great Britain, America, France, or any country in Europe. Official statistics published by such bodies as the League of Nations, or statistics made available by journals like the “Economist,” are available to show that. Even, however, if it can be argued that the cost of living might have fallen more than it did if these tariffs had not been imposed, it cannot be argued that protection has increased the cost of living. Civil servants, who have had the cost of living bonus reduced since 1925, know that. In any case the provision of such a large additional market to the Irish farmer as would be occasioned by the absorption of 82,000 additional hands into work would have such a good effect that he could afford to bear whatever little burden, if any, would be imposed upon him for one or two years —a short period at any rate—consequent upon the adoption of a protectionist policy in relation to these goods to which I refer.

I am not talking now about industries not yet established here and capable of being established here, but of those industries which do exist, many of which are capable at present, if given a chance, of producing the full quantity of the goods required by the Irish people. It only requires the reservation of the home market to enable these industries to get on their feet and, even if there is a slight dislocation in trade following the adoption of a full protectionist policy, that dislocation will soon disappear and only the benefits of the protection policy will remain. The figures recently produced by the Department of Industry and Commerce showed clearly that one person employed in the Free State consumed a quantity of Irish agricultural produce equal to that consumed by 15 persons employed in Great Britain. It is much more important to the Irish farmer that one additional man should be given work in the Free State than that 15 should be given work in Great Britain, and if we can so extend our industrial production as to provide work for another 82,000 men, then it is a [430] crime against the Irish nation if we are not doing it.

I will admit that it would not be possible to effect that increase at once, no matter how drastically we applied the protective weapon, but we can set out to ensure that industrial production here would be increased by that amount at the end of a fixed period—say 10 years. If we set about that programme with the same vigour and enthusiasm as the Russian Government is now applying to the five-years' programme in operation in that country, we would undoubtedly be able to increase our productive capacity so as to be able to provide the whole of the requirements of the home market in these particular goods at the end of the 10-year period. In that way a permanent solution of the problem of unemployment, as we now know it, can be found.

There is, however, an immediate problem. It is of very little benefit to the unemployed worker to be told that if he sticks it out for 10 years he may get work. The particular task is to provide work for him tomorrow—to find work for him this evening, if we can. He is hungry and his wife and children are without food. Unless he goes into the workhouse or breaks a shop window he is going to continue without food. The State has a duty to ensure that each of these workers who is willing to work is given an opportunity of doing so. It cannot be argued by any responsible individual that there is a single person idle in the Free State at present because there is no work for him to do. There is work waiting to be done—important work —and there are men waiting to do it. But something is gone wrong with the machinery by which the energy of the men can be applied to the performance of the work. What has gone wrong is the collapse or the absence of organisation and leadership. It is the duty of the Executive Council to provide leadership and to erect the organisation. They have not done so; they have failed in their duty, and because they have failed. I suggest that the Dáil should reject this Estimate for the Department of [431] the President of the Executive Council and so express its dissatisfaction.

Other countries have, passed through periods of depression such as we have known. I know that it may be argued that unemployment here is due to a variety of causes for which the Government cannot be blamed. We have had post-war depression trotted out as an excuse for unemployment here. We have even been told that the Irish nation is a country cursed by Providence to remain for all time depopulated and impoverished. Do not believe it. In the United States of America within the past 12 months there was experienced a period of depression in industry as severe as any we have known here. Did the President of the United States sit idle and talk of economic forces which he could not control? Quite the contrary. In a recent speech he stated that the coordinated efforts for which he was responsible among business men, public bodies and other authorities have definitely mitigated the evils of the present slump and brought recovery nearer. He stated, the acceleration of the construction programme had resulted in contracts totalling nearly 500,000,000 dollars during the first four months of this year, or about three times the amount brought into being in the corresponding period of the great slump in 1921. Mr. Hoover stated further his belief in the possibility and indeed the necessity of controlling these occurrences. He did not accept the view that trade booms and trade depression were acts of God, inscrutable as well as inevitable. We have urged in the past and still urge that during any period of depression which now exists here in which a large number of our people are without work the State should embark upon schemes of work providing public utility services which are needed so as to relieve that depression and continue its work on these lines until the period of depression had passed. In other words when trade is booming and unemployment is not serious the [432] State should hold its hands but when trade is depressed and unemployment is serious the State should embark directly upon construction schemes so as to provide work, increase the purchasing power of the people and thus help to bring the period of depression to an end.

Take housing. It has been estimated by the Minister for Local Government that some 40,000 houses are required in the Free State at the moment. That is an underestimate in my opinion. I have made a calculation myself upon the census figures, and I put it at nearer 50,000 than 40,000. The number of houses for the construction of which the State has been responsible, or which the State has facilitated by the giving of grants, is only 17,000. The number of skilled building workers unemployed has increased by 44 per cent. between 1926 and 1929. The number of building trade workers at present insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts is 24,390. If the present rate of construction were doubled it would not provide all the houses we now require within ten years, and yet by doubling the present rate of construction we could provide direct employment on the construction of the houses for at least 12,000 or 15,000 additional workers. As Deputies know, house-building means not merely employment for those engaged on the construction of the houses, but also employment for those engaged in producing the building materials required. At present building materials are not produced to any great extent in the Free State. Yet we have the natural resources and we have everything else needed, except the market, to enable the majority of the materials required for the construction of houses to be produced here. The market is not available. For some reasons those responsible for housing programmes do not seem anxious at all to encourage the production of building materials here. We have repeatedly pointed out how the Killaloe slate quarry, for example, has been able to sell large quantities of its products [433] to the Glasgow Corporation. In fact, in a recent housing scheme, for which the Glasgow Corporation was responsible, Irish slates were definitely specified, but that same quarry has not succeeded in selling a single slate to the Dublin Corporation, which is controlled at the present time by Commissioners appointed by the Government. If we are going to deal with the housing problem properly we have got to tackle it here from the centre. We cannot possibly ensure the production of 40,000 or 50,000 houses if we are going to leave it in the hands of private enterprise or local government bodies. The existence of this problem is itself a monument to the failure of private enterprise.

Before the Great War, when house-building was not regarded as a State matter at all, the conditions in this country were such as to earn it an unenviable reputation throughout the world, and that particularly relates to the City of Dublin. The housing problem with which we are now faced is very largely a legacy inherited from pre-war days, except that the construction programme for which the Government are responsible is not keeping up with the growth of the demand. As Deputies know, the number of families living in single rooms in tenement dwellings in Dublin has increased by five per cent. in the last eight years. If we get a national housing board established, responsible for the construction of these 40,000 houses, it will be able to organise the production of building materials within the country, because it will be able to provide a guaranteed market to those carrying on that production. In that way it will be able to provide direct employment, not only to those required in building houses, but to a large number of workers throughout the country, producing cement, bricks, slates, and the other things required in house-building.

And yet house-building is only one form of public work on which the Government could engage. I grant it is the most urgent form, apart altogether from the problem of unemployment. The bad housing conditions [434] that exist in Dublin and a number of our towns constitute a social menace which it should be the duty of the Government to remove as rapidly as possible. I have expressed my opinion and I adhere to it, that there can be very few cities of the same size as Dublin in Europe in which the housing conditions are as bad as they are here, 68,000 people living in dwellings described as unfit for human habitation and incapable of being made so fit. I wish Deputies would try to bear that figure in mind, and bearing it in mind, realise the magnitude of the Government's failure, both in relation to this question of housing and the co-related question of unemployment.

There are, however, a number of other avenues along which the Government might seek opportunities of directly providing work for the unemployed. I have pointed out here in the past that there are a large number of medium-sized and smaller towns in the Twenty-Six Counties which have got neither a proper water supply nor a proper sewerage scheme. In the case of some of these towns medical opinions have been expressed that serious epidemics of sickness, due to defective water supplies, seem only to be avoided by good luck. The absence of these works afford an opportunity to the Government of giving constructive employment at a period like the present when unemployment is particularly serious.

There are other avenue that I do not wish to enumerate, such as land reclamation, afforestation, the removal and reconstruction of dangerous bridges and similar work of that kind. Certainly there is plenty of work waiting to be done here in the Free State, sufficient to deal with the immediate problem of unemployment if the Government would only tackle it. That immediate problem can be dealt with in that way while the steps taken for the encouragement of industrial production are being put into operation. We could thus gradually emerge from the present period, dealing with that in the special manner I have indicated. At [435] the end of our 10 years' efforts the amount of work available would be so increased that unless the population substantially increased in the meantime unemployment could not exist.

I ask the Dáil to consider this matter seriously. We have in the past generally confined out discussions on unemployment to requests for the voting of money for relief schemes. Money of that kind is very largely wasted though it may be necessary to spend it to relieve cases of hardship. I want the Dáil to realise, however, that unemployment need not be here in this country of ours; we can remove it if we only can get the organisation and the leadership to direct activities along the lines I have suggested. We have at least 50,000 people unemployed in the Free State at this moment, and that is after eight years of native Government, during which time the population of the 26 Counties actually decreased by just a quarter of a million. During the same period over 300,000 of the very best of our race have been forced to emigrate to other countries to find livelihoods they cannot get at home. These facts, which cannot be controverted, constitute a condemnation of the present Government which would justify this Dáil in passing the amendment to this Estimate and thus expressing its dissatisfaction.

Mr. Good: Deputy Lemass has given us a great mass of interesting figures. I do not propose to deal with a number of the figures he has given us, though one would like to deal with them, especially in connection with the building industry. But there was one figure on which he will forgive me for stating he went hopelessly astray. I think it will be within the memory of all in the House that he stated in connection with the cost of living that there was a greater reduction during the last five years in the Free State than in Great Britain. I happen to have the figures before me for the last four years. Let us see how far these figures are true, and we can judge [436] from this particular example the truth of the other statements made by the Deputy. I find that on the 1st January, 1927, the cost of living in Great Britain was 175 over 1914. The corresponding figure in the Free State was 182, a difference of seven points in favour of Great Britain in the year 1927. On the first of January, 1928, the figure for Great Britain was 168, and for the Free State 177, a difference of nine points. In other words, in the one year the cost of living in the Free State has gone up two points on Great Britain. Take the following year, the year 1929. We find, again on the 1st January, the cost of living in Great Britain was 167, and in the Free State on the corresponding date it was 177, a difference of ten points as against nine points in the preceding year. Take the year 1930. We find, again on the 1st January, in Great Britain the cost of living figure was 166, and in the Free State 179, a difference of thirteen points. So that instead of the Free State showing a greater reduction than Great Britain the circumstances are absolutely the opposite. On the 1st January, 1927, the difference in favour of Great Britain was seven points. On the 1st January, 1930, the difference in favour of Britain was thirteen points. In other words, in the four years the cost of living has gone up in the Free State by six points in comparison with Great Britain.

Let us take these figures from another point of view. We find from 1927 to 1930 a gradual decrease in the cost of living in Great Britain— 175, 168, 167, and in January of this year 166. Let us take the corresponding figures for the Free State— 182, 177, 177, and on the 1st January of this year 179. So that no matter what way one takes the figures one cannot but come to the conclusion that the statement made by the Deputy was hopelessly inaccurate.

Mr. Lemass: Might I correct the Deputy? I do not know where the Deputy procured his figures but I was basing my argument on the index of retail prices published by “The Economist.” The figures in [437] that paper are calculated on the prices of articles of common consumption in 110 towns in the Free State and a similar number of towns in Great Britain. They show that the index figure in the Free State in 1925 was 188. In 1929 it was 174. That is a drop of 14 points. In Great Britain the figure in 1925 was 173 and in 1929 it was 163, a drop of 10 points.

Mr. Good: I have taken the index figures from returns published by our own Department and I challenge the Deputy to show me where they are inaccurate. Taking the cost of living figure on 1st January of each year the figures I have given are accurate.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: If the point about which Deputy Good is disputing is the only criticism which he has to offer of the speech of Deputy Lemass it is a comparatively small one and does not affect the issue that we are discussing very much. There is only a difference of one or two figures.

Mr. Good: That may be a small matter in the Deputy's mind.

Mr. T. O'Connell: I do not think that they make the difference to the extent which Deputy Good thinks they do. Speaking on the question introduced by Deputy Lemass, I desire to say that I am in favour of the motion he has down and I wish to congratulate him on the wholehearted adoption and advocacy of the plans, which have been suggested from these Benches on many occasions, for dealing in a radical way with the question of unemployment. Like him, we blame the Government for adopting a wait-and-see policy rather than taking positive action to deal with the problem that faces them in the country. I do not at all agree that any Government are justified in allowing things to go by default, as it were, in regard to the provision of employment because people who are unemployed are an economic and, in fact, a moral loss to the country as a whole. In some form or another, [438] provision must be made for their upkeep and maintenance. If they are idle they have to depend on home assistance and provision for such assistance must be found by the community as a whole. Even though such men cannot be economically employed, it is better that they should be employed, even though not to a full economic extent, rather than have them idle. As I say, it is not only an economic but a moral loss to have a large number of people unemployed and dependent on the efforts of other members of the community to sustain them.

One of the things about which the Government deserves censure is that they have taken no active steps to deal with the problem as a national one. They have made certain facilities available under the Trade Loans Acts and in other directions, but they have always depended and, according to recent statements, will continue to depend on private enterprise. That sacred thing known as private enterprise must not be interfered with in this country. I wonder if we waited for private enterprise to build the Shannon scheme how long we would have been waiting if the Government had not tackled the problem in the only proper way in which it could have been tackled? I wonder how long we would have waited for the facilities now available from Ardnacrusha if we waited for private enterprise? I cannot conceive that the Government who did that, and who handled it as they did, would say that a question like housing, for instance, must be dealt with by private enterprise.

We had the Minister for Local Government a few days ago speaking at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and in the course of his statement he made it very clear that he was against the idea of even a municipality engaging in the work of house construction. He was of the opinion that something in the way of a public utility society ought to take up the work of house-building. In my opinion along those lines we shall find no solution of our housing problem. We have heard nothing of [439] that famous Commission which was set up two or three years ago, and under which we were to have a great number of houses provided. That has been allowed to die. Nothing has come of it. No further action has been taken by the Government so far as we know. The point touched on by Deputy Lemass in regard to a building programme is most important. There ought to be a definite building programme laid down, under which provision would be made for the building of a definite number of houses each year over a period of ten years. In that way those engaged in the building industry, whether engaged in the production of building materials or in the construction of houses, could plan beforehand and, knowing what they are up against, make due provision for extending their operations either in the production of materials, the construction of houses, or the employment of men. The men in that event would not be obsessed, as they are at present, with the fear of continued unemployment. They would know that a certain amount of work was available and would be available for a certain period. That would be a tremendous advantage to the country.

During the past few years a considerable amount of money has been made available by the Government but we never knew from one year to another how much will be available in the following year. It should be the business of the Government to make their plans ahead and to look forward to a definite programme. There is no fear that any such programme, if outlined by the present Government, would be interfered with or upset by any Government which would succeed them. I agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Lemass, and often made before, that there ought to be a provision whereby unemployed men would be engaged on work of public utility, especially during a period of depression in private industrial employment. The Minister will say, and has said repeatedly, that such works do not pay, that we [440] cannot engage on such works unless there is value obtained. I do not agree if he wishes to obtain full economic value because, as I have pointed out, it is better that men should be employed, even though not giving full economic value, than to be dependent on the community as a whole. When we advocated provision of relief schemes it was for no other purpose than to afford temporary relief until permanent work could be obtained.

It is, of course, evident that the development of industry will be the only permanent cure for unemployment. Here again, I think that the Government would be well advised to take more positive action in that direction than they have done. They have set up a Tariff Commission who will hear any representations put before them by industrialists who demand tariffs for their particular industries, but there is no body in this country, apparently, whose duty it is to examine into the position of industries for which a tariff might not be claimed. There are industries in this country operating in a limited way and those engaged in them do not wish for a tariff as they themselves are all right and are making a comfortable profit. They are able to sell the amount of goods they produce and they look at the matter entirely from the standpoint of their own personal interests. There is no concern for the interests of the community as a whole and there is no one to examine the question as to whether these industries might not be extended considerably in the interests of the country as a whole. We believe that there should be somebody to examine a problem of that kind.

I do not agree at all that wholesale protection, as advocated by Deputy Lemass, would entirely meet the problem. I think that if you are to have protection it ought to be intelligent protection. There is no use attempting to protect or to put a tariff on an industry which you have not got. Take the case of boots, for instance. I think that in cases like that it is not a wise course to put on [441] a flat rate tariff on boots of every kind and description, no matter whether the country is producing that kind of boot or not. We know that factories here are able to produce a certain class, or two or three classes, of boots and shoes and produce them at cheap rates, whereas there are other classes of boots and shoes which I doubt if they could produce at all. I refer to childern's and certain classes of ladies' boots and shoes. There is a 15 per cent. customs duty on all classes of boots and shoes. I think that a much better plan would be to decide what classes of boots or shoes could be made most efficiently in the country and then to give the fullest measure of protection to them, even to prohibiting the importation of those classes of boots or shoes, whereas the tariff on the boot or shoe that cannot be economically manufactured in this country should be removed altogether. I think that a flat wholesale protection policy is not sufficient to meet the problem. Any protection of that kind ought to be applied intelligently and with a view to extending a particular industry, or branch of an industry, which we have here already. Much the same might be done in the case of woollen materials.

I feel that in this matter, more than in any other, there has been a failure on the part of the present Government to understand and appreciate the problem. The Government has failed to do all that a Government should do in the matter. It is not sufficient to make certain facilities available and then to fold your arms and wait until certain things happen. It is no excuse, as has been advanced on more than one occasion here, that a similar problem exists in other countries. That does not concern us. What concerns us is the problem that exists in our own country. As Deputy Lemass has argued, and as has been argued more than once here, the problem does not present the same difficulty in this country that it does in highly industrialised countries, like Great Britain, which find their outside markets cut off. I have little hope that [442] anything we say here will encourage the present Government to change the attitude which it has consistently adopted in this matter during practically its entire lifetime. The unemployment problem is one that requires to be tackled in a national way. The community as a whole is suffering, and will continue to suffer, while this problem is allowed to exist —for the unemployed man is a danger to himself and a danger to the community as well as being an economic loss to the State.

Mr. Rice: I feel called upon to say a few words on this Estimate, having regard to the statement made by Deputy O'Connell in the course of his speech. That statement has been made on a number of occasions in this House. I passed it over on those occasions because I hoped, at the time, that some good would come from the conference to which Deputy O'Connell referred. Deputy O'Connell said a few moments ago: “We have heard nothing of that famous Commission of two or three years ago; it has been allowed to die.” The inference, of course, is that the Government is to blame because nothing came of that conference. Having regard to the fact that I acted on that conference, and on a previous conference, I felt that I was under a certain obligation to keep silence regarding its deliberations, even when imputations were made against me personally. But when this statement is repeated on the eye of a bye-election, I can only assume that it is repeated for political purposes. I must also assume —because I would not care to suggest that Deputy O'Connell would wilfully make an inaccurate statement of that kind—that the Deputy is not really in touch with the Labour Party. Deputy O'Connell knows perfectly well the genesis of that conference. But I am afraid he does not know very much of what happened at it, even though he is leader of the Labour Party. May I tell the House, as briefly as I can, what happened there?

As we know, an Unemployment Committee was set up in 1927. That Committee reported and dealt [443] particularly with the housing problem. The report was unanimous. Two distinguished members of the Labour Party—I do not mean Deputies—were members of that Committee—Mr. O'Brien and Senator Duffy. As regards those two representatives of Labour. I am perfectly satisfied that they acted with absolute sincerity and conviction and that they believed that they were right in the estimate they were putting forward as to what would happen when certain proposals were made to those engaged in the building trade. Dealing with this question of housing, the report, which these two representatives of Labour signed, stated:

If the problem is to be solved in the present generation, this can only be done by (a) a drastic reduction of building costs; and (b) the provision of housing loans for local authorities.... We have already adverted to the recognition of the moral duty of the taxpayer and the ratepayer of bearing their share of the burden. There is an equal moral duty and an equal responsibility to the nation on the part of those engaged in the building trade to make their contribution to the provision of houses for the poor. The employers can make their contribution to this project of national welfare by cutting the costs at their end of building houses for the poor to the lowest figure which will suffice to enable them to carry on their industry. In the long view, they will serve their own interests best by enabling the State to initiate and carry through a continuous programme, giving them the advantages of being able to buy ahead and of having the services of contented workers.

Having regard to Deputy O'Connell's statement I ask the attention of Deputies to the following paragraph:—

The output of the building operatives has hitherto been restricted by the very natural and human fear of unemployment, resulting from the spasmodic and [444] uncertain employment in their industry. It is asking too much from human nature if we expect men to give the best output they are capable of, when they know that by doing so they are hastening the day when they will themselves be relegated to the ranks of the unemployed. We feel assured that if this fear were removed from the minds of the building operatives by a guaranteed programme of work, spread over a sufficient period (say, ten years), their civic spirit would respond to the national call and to the need of the houseless poor. We feel assured that by such a reduction of builders' costs, and a substantially increased output from the building operatives under such conditions of continuity, a solution of the housing problem to the lasting benefit of the nation can be worked out in our day.

That report was signed by the two representatives deputed by Labour to attend that Conference. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I am perfectly satisfied as to their complete sincerity and their belief that that report would be carried out. A Conference was summoned on the head of that. I must assume that Deputy O'Connell is not aware of what happened at that Conference. The break-down at that Conference has been used again and again as a ground for sneering at the Government's policy and for the purpose of showing that the Government had not done what it should have done. The reason of the break-down was that the building operatives refused to make the slightest concession on the terms of that report.

Mr. O'Connell: I deny that.

Mr. Rice: You can deny it, but the minutes are there and they can be published. The attitude I was met with as regards the ten years' work was, “That is all very well, but we may expect to live for more than ten years.” That is the reason the Conference broke down.

Mr. Cooney: Would the Deputy [445] say what were the concessions the building operatives were asked for?

Acting-Chairman (Professor Thirft): If I may intervene for a moment, I should like to point out that I allowed Deputy Rice to reply to a statement made by Deputy O'Connell, but I cannot allow a debate on this Vote to develop into a debate on the Conference on Housing.

Mr. O'Connell: It has to do with the action of the Executive Council.

Acting-Chairman: Only indirectly.

Mr. O'Connell: To that extent it is relevant.

Mr. Rice: I submit it is relevant from this point of view: This is a debate on the Vote for the President's Department; a charge has been made against the Government by Deputy O'Connell as to things that are not being done when he is aware, or should be aware, of the reasons why these things are not being done. Deputy Cooney has interrupted to know what was the nature of the concessions that were asked for.

Acting-Chairman: I intervened at that point so that the debate would not develop on those lines.

Mr. Rice: If Deputy Cooney had listened to the paragraphs of the Report which I read he would have understood what the concessions were and he would not have indulged in that interruption. These charges should not be made in this House or elsewhere by persons who, if not aware of the facts, should be aware of them. The builders' side in that conference offered to produce the books of a number of firms —any firms selected by the building operatives—and have these books examined by auditors appointed by the Labour representatives, and then consider what concession could be made by them on the basis of those figures. The building operatives, on their side, refused to make the slightest concession. For that reason the conference was adjourned and has not been reassembled; no proposition [446] has since been put forward which would give any hope of a solution being reached if the conference were reassembled.

Deputy Lemass, in the course of his observations on this question in the House, suggested that twelve or fifteen thousand workers could be absorbed in the building trade. It is perfectly obvious that Deputy Lemass has given no consideration or study to this matter. If he had he would be aware that no arrangement is possible whereby the absorption could take place of any such number of workers in the building trade. The difficulty would be met at once that 90 per cent of the people seeking employment are unskilled. You cannot have adulteration of labour, and you cannot get the necessary number of skilled men to absorb the number of unskilled workers which the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. Lemass: Will the Deputy explain how Irish unskilled workers when they cross to America can engage in these operations? Is it crossing the Atlantic that gives them the ability which they have not in their own country?

Mr. Rice: I am not finding any fault with the attitude of Labour when I say that they will not allow adulteration of labour in this country. They will not allow any man to take any part in skilled work if he is not a skilled man.

Mr. O'Connell: I think you are making a statement on a matter which you know little about.

Mr. Rice: I know perfectly well. That was the evidence that was given at the Committee and there was no disagreement on the part of the Labour Party. I think Deputy Good will probably bear me out in that—that Labour will not allow adulteration of labour here. I find no fault with Labour on that head and I am not criticising it on that account. I am merely stating the fact. We have, in fact, castes in the Labour world——

Mr. O'Connell: As in the legal profession.

[447] Mr. Rice: No. As a matter of fact I am not the son of a lawyer but I am a lawyer myself. I could not become a plasterer if I desired to do so because my father was not a plasterer.

Mr. O'Connell: You could not act as solicitor.

Mr. Rice: I could become a solicitor or barrister without having had any connection with those professions, hereditary or otherwise. I have assumed that Deputy O'Connell was not aware of the circumstances under which this Committee ceased to operate. I do hope that before he makes any further statement, here or elsewhere, on that subject he will inform himself of the facts if he is not satisfied with the statement I have made here. If he does so, I am sure he will not repeat the statements he made in this House to-day.

Mr. O'Connell: It is not the first time I have stated the facts in this House as I knew them and as I know them. The fact remains that, for whatever reason, the Government has not acted on this Report of the Conference. It has taken no action on the recommendations that were made to it in regard to the provision of houses. As to the breakdown of this Conference, I stated in this House before, and it has not been contradicted, that the position was that a certain demand was made from the two sides to this Conference—the builders, on the one side, and the building operatives, on the other side. I agree with the recommendation of the Committee and the members of the Committee themselves admitted that the action of the operatives hitherto was due to the uncertainty that attached to their occupation. I think the way to remove those difficulties would be to give them certainly of employment. We hear that the offer of the employers was to open their books for inspection. They did not suggest that there was any possibility—in fact they suggested the opposite—of reducing building costs.

[448] Mr. Good: That is not true.

Mr. O'Connell: In any case we had it from Deputy Rice that the positive offer of the employers was, we will leave our books before you for examination. The building operatives did submit a well-thought out and well-considered memorandum setting out what they considered would give them certainty of employment for a period of ten years or more.

Mr. Good: Three months after the conference had closed.

Mr. O'Connell: Deputy Good is quite wrong. The conference was not officially closed at all at the time this memorandum was submitted.

Mr. Rice: It was.

Mr. O'Connell: It contained the plans that Deputy Lemass has outlined to-day in connection with national housing.

Mr. Good: Three months after the conference had closed this statement was submitted.

Mr. Rice: The conference was adjourned sine die. I believe it was three months, at all events it was a considerable period, after its last meeting when the memorandum was sent to me as to the proposals of the Labour Party. I did not consider the memorandum was worth wasting postage stamps in calling the conference together.

Mr. O'Connell: Exactly. That is the complaint of the Labour Party, that although the memorandum was submitted there was no official meeting of the conference. The Labour Party took it that the conference was adjourned to see what offers they would get towards carrying out the intentions of the report of the conference. A constructive programme in black and white was put before the chairman, and the chairman now publicly admits here that he took it upon himself to say: “This is not worth considering and therefore I will not call the conference together, even for the opportunity of considering the memorandum.” Now that is [449] certainly where I think the chairman of the conference is open to blame.

Acting Chairman: We are not discussing the chairman of the conference.

Mr. O'Connell: He was appointed by the Government to do a certain work, and he took it upon himself to say that a particular memorandum that was put before him was not worthy of a moment's consideration. He did not call the conference together, and, therefore, we have heard nothing whatever about the matter.

Mr. Rice: On a point of personal explanation, the memorandum contained a suggestion that by buying materials in bulk there would be a reduction in the cost of living. That was not a concession of the Labour Party or the building operatives and that was the main thing in their proposal. The memorandum was not worth the waste of stamps in calling the conference together.

Mr. O'Connell: Surely they would want to know what certainty of employment they would get before they knew where they were.

Mr. Derrig: I agree with Deputy O'Connell that Deputy Rice, in spite of his position as the official apologist for the Government in their inactivity in the matter of providing employment, has not given an explanation which would satisfy any person who is intelligent enough to believe that the labourers of Dublin have as much interest in the settlement of this question as the builders. According to Deputy Rice, the builders opened their books but no co-operation was forthcoming from the operatives.

Mr. Rice: They offered to do so.

Mr. Derrig: I know that a considerable number of the building operatives in Dublin are unemployed. I know also that some of them—I do not know whether all or not—have taken a considerable interest in this matter, and if Deputy [450] Rice, instead of wasting our time here apologising for having anything to do with this Unemployment Commission which never resulted in anything, had turned his attention seriously, as the House and the people who elected him in North Dublin thought he was going to do, to try and bring the different interests involved in this dispute together; we might listen to him, but time after time he, like the Minister for Local Government, in his closing remarks on the Estimate for local government recently, has told the Opposition parties “You are shirking the question of building costs.” We are not. We are prepared, and I hope the Labour Party are prepared, to discuss this matter in a common-sense manner and in regard to the circumstances, but it is quite wrong and it shows utter futility and an utter negation of Government policy that at this hour of the day all they can do is blame the building operatives.

I do not think any Government can be justified no matter what the excuse may be. I do not agree that the building operatives are as black as Deputy Rice wants to make them out. I believe there are common-sense men amongst them who have studied this question of building costs and probably quite sincerely prepared this memorandum. If Deputy Rice had the interest of the unemployed at heart he should have taken advantage of any circumstances to get these rival interests together until something would be hammered out. He stresses one point, the question of building costs. He says nothing whatever about the question of loans. It has been proved over and over again that, whether you effect economics in building costs or not under the present facilities the Government are able to give, the rent that will be fixed on these dwellings will be such that it will be absolutely impossible for the tenant to pay, and until a serious effort is made to provide credit facilities and to enable local authorities to bring the rental within some relation to the income of the ordinary labourer or ordinary artisan [451] it will be quite impossible to go ahead. In my opinion both matters must be taken up.

The whole question of building I think is one which would come aptly under the functions of the economic or development commission which we have several times urged from this side of the House should be set up. Here you have a question where people who are not acquainted with the technicalities of the industry would find it absolutely impossible to reach a solution. You must have engineers, architects and men who will not be satisfied with looking at the books of the builders which show that they are not deriving a profit. You must have men with initiative and organising power to whom, I hope, the Government would say, “We give you authority to go ahead with a five years, ten years or three years' programme provided you can show some result and get these different interests to co-operate.” If the matter were dealt with in that way and independent technical experts were brought in as well as the Government representatives I feel that some benefits would have accrued and some results would have appeared.

Deputy O'Connell quarrelled with Deputy Lemass because it seemed to Deputy O'Connell that it has been suggested from this side of the House that we want to protect industries we have not got. We want to provide industries we have not got. Millions were expended in the hydroelectric or Shannon scheme which we were told was to provide power. We want to see industries started which will absorb that power. We want to see them going on with a system of technical education. We realise we cannot have workshop practice or that familiarity with modern industrial technique unless an attempt is made to set up industries, for example, in connection with engineering and the motor business. Unless we have these industries here it would be impossible to give our operatives the training they require. He also said that he wants to know [452] whether Fianna Fáil stands for a policy of producing and protecting commodities which perhaps cannot be economically manufactured in this country. What does he mean by economically? Does he mean the same as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who praises up the efficiency of the port mills in Birkenhead? Does he want the efficiency of Deputy Good? Is he deceived by these figures Deputy Good read out and which have no bearing directly on the situation in this country with reference to the difference in the cost of living between Great Britain and here? Deputy Good may not be aware that 60 per cent. of the ordinary worker's income or perhaps the ordinary citizen's income in England is spent on food. Furthermore, Deputy Good has not shown us that the calculations which go to make up this index are not the same as in this country. It is not necessarily the same commodities that are selected. Furthermore, everyone knows that distribution in this country is more wasteful and expensive than in England. Whether we have protection or not or the whole hog free trade Deputy Good wants or not, we would not buy our tomatoes a penny cheaper in Dublin. We would not buy the food imported into this country cheaper. All these things are coming in through a wasteful system of distribution. There are a great many other factors which make it absolutely impossible to make a comparison between the two figures.

If Deputy Good says that the tendency of protecting small industries in this country, which are necessarily limited in their output, has caused an increase in the cost of living, well and good. We admit that may happen. We have no proof it has happened. Although Ministers have gone out of their way to say that protection has effected an increase in the cost of living they have not proved that, and until it is proved, while the tendency may be there, we are simply beating the air when we say that protection has caused a change in the cost of living. Deputy Good and those associated with him will have to show us that [453] those extra points which denote a higher cost of living in the Free State than in Great Britain are directly attributable to the protection accorded to industry.

Mr. Good: Would the Deputy say if the protection accorded to boots has not increased the cost to the consumer?

Mr. Derrig: It has not increased the cost to the consumer.

Mr. Good: Will he apply to the consumer for an answer to that question?

Mr. Derrig: It has been stated again and again that that is not so.

Mr. McGilligan: Who stated that?

Mr. Derrig: Deputy Flinn has stated that. You contradict it.

Mr. McGilligan: We know now.

Mr. Derrig: You contend that it has.

Mr. McGilligan: I will answer in my own time. I want to know where the information came from.

Mr. Derrig: I hope you will give us something definite on the point as you are taking it up. We say in order to tackle this question in a national manner a development commission should be set up. The Minister for Finance to-day in defending the Tariff Commission said that it would be impossible to have two Commissions working. The Tariff Commission simply examines applications for tariffs. It never examines how the industries are proceeding, how exactly their working and costings are going ahead. It never seems to go back upon its work and readjust it. It is doing that to a certain extent now, but in the question of boots and shoes referred to, it has not gone back on the tariff and examined whether the tariff was sufficient or insufficient, whether there was in fact a change in the cost of living or not. We have said, and still contend, that if the terms of reference of the Tariff Commission are extended to include that, it will be welcomed on this side of the House.

[454] We want to have the full facts placed before us. We do not want to have the protection programme prejudiced in the way it has been by loose statements from not proceed with protection because it would mean an increase in the cost of living. There might be a tendency for that to happen in the beginning, but it is no satisfaction to the idle workers in the towns, it is no satisfaction, as I said in the debate on the flour motion, to the operatives who are thrown out of employment in the different inland mills throughout the country, to say that a tariff on flour would increase the cost, and the same holds true of the other commodities with which protection under a progressive policy should deal. All these other articles which are at present being imported are a dead loss to the country and are creating an adverse trade balance. No doubt they provide employment for a number of distributors and importers, but they are of no advantage to the ordinary worker who cannot find work on the land, who is being driven into the town, and who is existing there on home assistance, and it is no advantage to the ratepayer who is maintaining him to say that it would affect the cost of living to give that man employment. It might increase the cost of living in the beginning, but if a start were made in the proper manner, if the necessary technical advice were called in to try to develop our industries to produce the things we are at present importing, I have no doubt but that all sections of the population would rise to the occasion, and that if the manufacturers saw a secure policy in front of them which meant the building up and the consolidation of industry, they would lend a hand, and that the labourers, if they saw a continuity of employment before them, steady employment and some security of living in the country, would give better value, would give the best that is in them, as they have to give in other countries when they leave this.

Deputy Lemass has referred to [455] the number of articles which are being unnecessarily imported. At the risk of wearying the House. I will again go through that list. Wheat and flour, £5,500,000; corn offals, £450,000—that is nearly £6,000,000 between wheat, flour and offals—apparel, £4,315,000; boots and shoes, £1,746,000; woollens, £1,557,000; paper, etc., £1,161,000; motor bodies, £816,000; fertilisers, £760,000; bread and buns, £225,000; furniture, £119,000, and slates, £83,000. Does any Deputy suggest that with reasonable organisation and reasonable efficiency all these commodities which are being imported to the tune of millions of pounds every year could not be dispensed with? Does anybody seriously suggest that producing these commodities in this country and giving employment here would not tend to remedy the present emigration, would not tend to better conditions generally? Is the policy simply to be that this country is to go on as a grass ranch until it ultimately declines to a couple of million people, or is the policy of the Government to be to try to preserve the population here? If it is the latter it would be much better for them to tackle this question in a big national manner and to get the co-operation of all parties than to deal with it in a piecemeal fashion, as they have been doing up to the present.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce was the first to scoff at this idea of a development Commission. What has happened? A Tariff Commission has been set up to deal with the question of tariffs, a Grain Tribunal had to be set up, a Gaeltacht Commission had to be set up, a Ports and Harbours Tribunal had to be set up, and a Fisheries Committee had to be set up. In each industry for which Commissions were set up you will find that as the question looms large and as the demand of the industry for assistance comes before this House, you will have to take steps to reorganise it, that ultimately you will [456] have to provide assistance in one way or another, either financial assistance or technical assistance.

In any case you will have to take steps to build up these industries. What is the objection, therefore, to the setting up of a Commission which would survey the whole field, which would examine existing industries carefully and find out what their potentialities were, which would find out whether their output could be increased, find out whether branches of them could be founded in some other towns that are at present rotting into decay, and side by side with that, examine the possibilities of new industries and take up the question of our mineral resources, which was taken up by the old Dáil but which has not been touched since? Then there was the fisheries scheme, which we talk about so much and for which we are waiting so long and so patiently. In 1921 the old Dáil Commission proposed that a Commission should be set up to develop the fishing industry in almost the same way as is now being suggested. But nine years have been lost, and the cause of that loss was that there was no body to carry on the work in the meantime; there has been no body working constantly at this problem, and till the Government have some body on which to shift responsibilities—not the building operatives, not the Labour people, but some body like the Tariff Commission—they will have these constant discussions on unemployment coming up here.

Another matter that has been frequently brought before the attention of the Government is the question of sewerage and water supplies in small towns. That is very important. In connection with the relief schemes that have been given in the work of the Land Commission and in the work of drainage the Government made a claim that it has done a certain amount to provide employment rurally, and that it has also done a certain amount on the roads. But there is an urgent demand for work in the small towns, and even in some of the big towns, but the [457] Commission for which Deputy Rice had some responsibility simply left that question in the air, a question that will have to be tackled some time, and it is better that it should be tackled when it can do the maximum amount of good than that it should be done later. That Commission left the whole question in the air by piously suggesting that the Government should take steps to show to the local authorities the advantages that these schemes would mean to them and the necessity for having them.

There is a crux in this matter. I have three fairly important small towns in my own constituency—Tullow, Bagenalstown and Callan— where there is unemployment and where the sanitary conditions are extremely primitive. In two of these towns there are town commissioners but in the third there are none. It is absolutely impossible for the town commissioners to raise the necessary finances to do what is required. There is no use asking the county board of health to do it; the farming community believe that they have enough burdens already in the upkeep of the roads and so on. The Government will simply have to deal with this matter, and I think they ought to make a big national effort to deal with it.

The question of the roads is another matter. Perhaps too much attention has been given to the construction of main and trunk roads for tourists. The farmers are paying £1,114,000 this year in rates for the upkeep of the roads, according to the Minister, much of which is being spent on the upkeep of roads that are actually of benefit to a very small percentage of farmers, if any. The Government ought to change that policy. They ought to give some inducement to the local bodies to enable them to proceed with road making that would be of utility to the people of the countryside and that are really necessary.

In the case of drainage, the present policy of the Government, of which everybody has so much hope, has been almost a complete failure. [458] Out of 500 schemes prepared only about half, I think, have been fully examined. The Parliamentary Secretary informed us recently that the most he could expect under the Act would be fifty schemes, costing about £100,000, but now at the end of the five or six years during which the Act has been in operation we find that only eighteen schemes out of the 500 which had been suggested have been begun. The difficulties are there and they are tremendous difficulties, but we must hope to meet them if we really want to get the work done. We should try to provide employment and at the same time to give work which we believe will be useful. What I submit is that we have a right to expect more from the Board of Works than eighteen schemes after five or six years.

In the case of agriculture the Ministerial policy is well known. The policy is to concentrate upon the production of articles over the ultimate price of which it is admitted we have no control. It is said that we have some control at least over our own home markets, and that small as that is it is of importance. If we could produce at home the £360,000 worth of butter which we are importing, it would at least relieve the situation to some extent in the present oppressed position of the butter industry. The same applies to oats, barley and barley products, and maize products. Bacon and hams alone come to £1,627,000 annually, and whether or not the Minister for Agriculture and his colleagues believe that it would be good policy to prevent these agricultural products coming into this country, they ought at least to take some steps to discourage them. It was suggested at one time that they would at least compel the branding of Chinese bacon, so that when the Irish people were eating it they would at least know that it was not a home product, but even that has not been done; even the step of compelling foreign merchandise to be marked has not been taken by the Government.

[459] If we are going to solve the problem of unemployment we are not going to do it solely by protecting and building up industries. There is a limit to our industrial capacity and to our resources. But we have land, the most fertile land in Europe, land which is as fertile as the land in England or any other country. There is no reason why that land should not be made to maintain a much larger population than it does at present. There is no reason why that land should not produce more food, why there should not be more intensive work put into it, and in that way, perhaps the best way of all, reduce food prices, and thereby bring about an easing of the circle which would ultimately reduce the cost of production.

The Ministerial policy is that the country must remain a cattle ranch. There is not a word about the people in the congested areas who think that better land should be given to them, about the landless people who must get land to live upon if they cannot get work in the towns, about those farmers who complain that they cannot make ends meet, or about the tillage farmers, who ought to be the backbone of the country; let them go into the bankruptcy court, let their farms become derelict, let their children leave the country, but do not interfere with the policy of free trade. So long as the free trade policy, which was ruthlessly forced upon us without our people having any opportunity of fighting it, continues to hold sway, so long as men who talk about Griffith and Griffith's policy continue that policy of free trade, then unemployment will continue. If they at least take steps to inquire into these matters; if they realise that there is another point of view as well as the point of view of free imports; that there is a point of view as well as that of the cost of living of the unemployed labour; if they take into consideration the common-sense factor that whether the loaf of bread is a farthing more [460] or less does not matter to any man who has no loaf, then we may expect some policy from the Government in the future.

Mr. Byrne: I did not intend to take any part in this debate but being, like most members, interested in anything that will provide employment for the people of this country, I listened with some amazement to the statements that have come from the opposite benches. One would imagine, listening to the statements made on unemployment, that there was no unemployment in any part of the universe except the Irish Free State.

Mr. Flinn: What is the condition in Mars?

Mr. Byrne: The condition in Mars would, no doubt, be very much better if Deputy Flinn could be transferred there.

Mr. McGilligan: And better here.

Mr. MacEntee: The condition in Mars might be very much worse if Deputy Byrne were transferred there.

Mr. Byrne: As the Minister for Industry and Commerce has remarked, conditions might be much better here if Deputy Flinn were elsewhere. It may be of interest to the House to realise that there are more unemployed in the City of Liverpool or in the City of Glasgow than in the whole Free State. It may be of interest to remind the House that in the great, wealthy United States of America there are something like three millions unemployed and at the present time one can see hundreds of thousands of workless walking the streets of New York. In England there are over two millions unemployed. The Unemployment Insurance Fund there is bankrupt while ours is approaching a state of solvency.

Mr. Everett: Because you are not giving any money out.

Mr. Byrne: If one compares the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland with the Free State. what does one find? The figures [461] speak for themselves. There are 25,000 registered unemployed in the Irish Free State and 60,000 registered unemployed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Everett: How many are unregistered?

Mr. Byrne: It appears most extraordinary that the Irish Free State is the only country with all the miseries and there are no unemployed anywhere else. I ask the Opposition to face realities.

Mr. Fahy: What about emigration?

Mr. Byrne: It would be well if people in this country would look at what is going on outside as well as what is going on inside. If we spent reproductively the sum we spent on the Civil War, amounting to something like £30,000,000, there would not be a single unemployed man in the country to-day.

Mr. Flinn: How about the incendiary bombs, J.J.?

Mr. Byrne: The House ought to bear all these things in mind, the Opposition more especially, when they start hurling at the Government the things the Government ought to have done. We are told that the sovereign remedy for unemployment is protection. I think that I stand as strongly for protection as any member on the opposite benches.

Mr. Fahy: In the evening papers.

Mr. Flinn: Except in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. McGilligan: Shut up!

Mr. Flinn: Why “shut up”? Are we not helping him?

An Ceann Comhairle: Why cannot Deputy Byrne get a hearing as well as Deputies on the other side? The Deputy should be permitted to continue his speech without further interruption.

Mr. Cooney: Is it fitting——

[462] An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Byrne must be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Cooney: On a point of order, is it fitting——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will hear no point of order. It is quite fitting to listen now to Deputy Byrne.

Mr. Little: The expression “Shut up” was used, and the Minister apparently can always “shut up” everybody.

Mr. Cooney: The expression that was used——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will hear only Deputy Byrne now.

Mr. Byrne: The intervention on the part of Deputy Cooney will not help to solve the unemployment problem anyhow. Perhaps if the Deputy transferred his activities to Russia, on which he appears to be an authority, he might be of a little more service than he is to this State.

Mr. Cooney: That is brilliant.

Mr. Byrne: One aspect dealt with by the Opposition is the question of protection. I stand as strongly for protection as any member of the House, but when I am told that protection is going to solve all the economic ills of the country I have to rebut such an absurd statement, If one glances at the effects of protection in Australia and compares the economic condition of Australia with the economic condition of this country, what does one find? Which of the two countries is the more prosperous? The national debt of Australia to-day is £1,095,000,000, and the national debt of the Irish Free State is £20,000,000. The Irish Free State can borrow money at 4½ per cent.; the Commonwealth of Australia can scarcely borrow money at all. In Australia everything is protected. Even labour is protected, and what has been the result? Has it benefited the country? The financial condition of Australia is an ample reply to that. The condition of Australia financially can only be described as deplorable. [463] If one reads the papers intelligently one can see that in Australia they are now in the position of rationing the imports. Perhaps I should say not rationing the imports, but the actual necessities of the country. Tobacco is rationed and whiskey is rationed. I can see that in the present year in Australia there will be the same panic looking for a package of cigarettes as there was here during the Great War. And protection is to be the sovereign remedy for all our economic ills!

The only man I heard dealing with the subject in anything like a reasonable way was Deputy Derrig. Deputy Derrig rightly said that protection is only one means for the building up of a country. If we were to proceed upon the protective lines advocated by the Opposition there could be only one end to it and that is the end that has been brought about in Australia—practically bankrupt. Let us analyse the position closely. If all the prosperity springs, as we are told it does, from protection, how is it that 18/- of our money can buy an Australian sovereign? The Opposition emphasises the importance of protection, but how can that particular thing be explained? I was down at Kilbeggan on Sunday and I heard Deputy Lemass delivering a speech on protection. I asked him to explain——

An Ceann Comhairle: No. The Deputy must deal with Deputy Lemass's speech here to-day. Kilbeggan is out of bounds.

Mr. Byrne: If protection brings the prosperity that we are told by the Opposition it does bring, can they explain how it is, with this much despised State of ours, that 18/- of our currency is worth 20/- of Australian currency? It must be remembered that there is no more highly protected country, if I may except the United States, than Australia. The farmers of the country have something to say about the cost of living. A statement was made here to the effect that the imposition of a tariff on boots did not [464] increase the price of boots. If you had half-a-dozen children to buy boots for you would know very quickly whether or not boots are increased in price. Anyone who has to buy boots for a family knows that the price has gone up by 10 to 20 per cent. Ordinary boots are at least 2/6 to 5/- a pair dearer, and there is no gainsaying that. The woman who runs the house will tell you, and we need not go into economics to find that out, because it is a matter of common sense.

Another aspect of the question is the wonderful part that Labour is going to play in the new housing programme that the Opposition intend to set up. I am sorry there is only one Labour member present, because I was anxious to ask Labour Deputies to explain why it is that when labourers are receiving over 300 per cent. of an increase in wages they are giving a lower output to-day than in pre-war days. I happen to have some knowledge of the matter about which I am speaking.

I have knowledge of the conditions amongst labourers for many years. I remember the time when a skilled labouring man was paid from 8d. to 10d., whereas now he is receiving from 1/10½ to 2/2. That represents 300 per cent. more money, while the index figure of the cost of living is only 100 per cent. above pre-war. The labouring men want to get things at pre-war, but when they are asked to pull their weight in the building of houses for the country their reply is the impossible scheme referred to by Deputy Rice. If the workers would only give an increased output I would not ask to have a single penny taken off their wages, because I realise that lowpaid labourers are one of the worst calamities that any country could have. I know that no section of the community spends its money more freely than the labouring section. The least they should do, in view of the wages they are getting, is to pull their weight. As far as the building of houses is concerned, the labourers are not pulling their weight. If one looks at the papers one can see that there is a strike threatened in Cork [465] for an increase of wages notwithstanding that they are already getting 300 per cent. over pre-war and the prices of commodities are only 100 per cent. over pre-war. I have known men to get 2/2½ per hour, and when they are asked a price scarcely 100 per cent. over pre-war for an article they walk out rather than pay it. That is Labour for you! If this scheme that Labour has set forth of a ten years' programme with cooperative buying is put into operation the least that might be expected is that the labourers themselves should pull their weight. It appears to be the Opposition Party's scheme as well. I would like to ask the Front Bench of the Opposition if they ever got a job done by time and material?

Dr. Ryan: Often.

Mr. MacEntee: We are getting one done now with time and poor material.

Mr. Byrne: If you got it done once you would not get it done a second time. These are the facts that the Opposition are closing their eyes to. This country is steadily progressing. We are told that the tillage of the country is declining. If anybody looks at the figures for the last three years the position will be made quite clear. The statement about a decline was made freely in this election. One can see from the figures that far from there being a decline in tillage there is a steady increase. Take the trade returns for the country during the last three or four years. Speaking from memory, in 1926 the amount was £103,000,000; in 1927 £105,000,000, and in 1928 £107,000,000.

Mr. MacEntee: Is this the speech the Deputy delivered last Sunday, or is it the speech he intends to deliver next Sunday?

Mr. Byrne: I have no doubt I would have a more attentive audience listening to my speech than would the Deputy. Let us get down to the bedrock of common sense. The country at the present moment is steadily progressing and the rate of [466] progress would be considerably accelerated but for the political uncertainly existing. Does any man here think that any capitalist is going to put money into Irish industries in view of the statements made by the second biggest Party in the State? Would any sane man invest money in an industry—anybody who knows anything—

Mr. MacEntee: What about Henry Ford?

Mr. Byrne: Ford was brought back to this country by the genius of one man who sits on that Bench there. If it was not for the genius of that man Henry Ford would have left the country bag and baggage. The Opposition knows that but they will not own up to the truth. And Henry Ford has no protection. This industry with its huge output has no protection. It is able to send its products to all parts of the world without protection. Protection is an important factor in the programme of Fianna Fáil. If we want Irish industry to stand upon its feet we want Labour to pull its weight, we want the Opposition to pull their weight and we want those sitting on this side of the House to pull their weight. Only those who are standing behind President Cosgrave are endeavouring to do something to build up this State. Let us take the case of the beet sugar industry. What was the criticism upon it from these benches? We were told that it was a waste of three millions of the Irish rate-payers' money. Yet there is no industry in which protection plays a greater part than it does in the Irish beet sugar industry. The Shannon scheme was organised to give cheap power to manufacturers to enable them to compete with foreign rivals. The money could not be spent in a better way; but no matter what the Government does there is no word of appreciation from those who prate about Irish industry but never do anything to bring it about. If the different parties in this State would only pull together quite a lot could be done. We would have the Labour Party reducing the [467] cost of labour and giving a reasonable output. We might have the Opposition doing its bit and putting an end to political uncertainty. Then we would have the Party on this side of the House that has all along been doing its bit to pull the country out of the rut. If all Parties did their share, this country of ours would be as prosperous as any other country in Europe.

Mr. Everett: Deputy O'Connell, replying to Deputy Rice, stated that the Labour representatives at the Housing Conference asked for certain particulars, and Deputy Rice's explanation was that he did not think it worth spending a twopenny stamp to summon the other members of the Conference to consider the question. We have heard a lot about housing. We in Wicklow have been endeavouring to do our part in providing houses, and the chief opposition we have received is from the Local Government Department. On the 11th April last the Wicklow Urban Council sent plans to the Local Government Department, and up to the present no word has been received from the Department by way of approval or otherwise. The treatment accorded to the Board of Health in connection with the Greystones houses is known to the public. The Wicklow Board of Health is spending £16,000 per year on home assistance, and seventy per cent. of that goes to the relief of unemployed persons at an average rate of 5s. per week for a man and his family. The County Council has provided in the rates for the relief of unemployment by road work. In connection with road work a regulation of the Government has been in operation for some years that ex-National Army men must get preference. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw that regulation, because I hold that if a man is unemployed and able to work he should get work, no matter what army he has been in. Under that regulation, as at present worked, if twenty men are to be employed, about seventeen married ex-National Army men and [468] three single men are employed. The result is that the ex-National Army men get all the work on the national roads. If that is to be continued, there will be no alternative but for the county council to withdraw their officials from the work, because the county rates contribute 60 per cent. of the amount spent on road work. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw that regulation, because it is going to lead to endless trouble. In our county we want every man who is unemployed to get work. When it was not popular we always gave work to ex-National Army men.

I agree with other Deputies that the Government should come to the assistance of public bodies. Sewerage and waterworks schemes are required in the rural areas, and public bodies are faced with the position that they are unable to provide proper sanitation and water schemes unless they receive assistance from the State. Labour Deputies have never tried to decry the credit of the State, and the credit of the State now being so high there is nothing to prevent the Executive Council from assisting and encouraging public bodies that are desirous of doing work of public utility, as well as relieving the rates, by reducing the number in receipt of home assistance. Deputy Byrne has stated that there are more unemployed in Liverpool than in the whole of the Free State and that there are more people registered in the North of Ireland as unemployed than in the Free State. The reply to that is that there is no use registering in the Free State when you have exhausted your benefit, because you get nothing for it.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan): What about the vacancies which are being filled?

Mr. Everett: A large number of men who went to the Arklow Exchange to register were told that there was no use in registering as they would not get work on the roads except they were ex-National Army men.

[469] Mr. McGilligan: An average of 16,000 vacancies are filled every year from the Labour Exchanges.

Mr. Everett: If the men are to get the information that they got in the Exchange I mentioned, there is no use in their wasting their time registering. The men go to the home assistance officers looking for home assistance, and if you want a proper return of those unemployed at present it can be got from the home assistance officers. Deputy Byrne stated that the workers in Dublin are in receipt of wages which are 300 per cent. higher than they were pre-war. Those who are employed may be in receipt of these wages, but there are thousands of men willing to work at the recognised rate of wages and not at 300 per cent. over pre-war who are unable to get work. The wages allowed to be paid by the Government in the various areas for road work, drainage, and work of public utility is from 27/- to 30/- per week. That is not 300 per cent. over pre-war.

There is a large amount of tillage done in my constituency, and if the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is to continue we shall have even a larger number unemployed after the next harvest. A small farmer in Wicklow has not a lot of stock to feed, and he does not agree with the policy of the Minister for Agriculture. The merchants there who buy the oats from the farmers have over three thousand barrels of oats in stock for which they are unable to get a market owing to the German oats coming into the country. The result is that they have notified the farmers that they will require no oats next season. That will mean that the farmers will have to dispense with the labourers they employ. The small farmer wants to sell his oats to the merchant so that he may be able to pay off the bank and pay his rates and annuity. The prospect is, therefore, a very gloomy one for the people in my constituency if the Minister for Agriculture continues the policy which he announced last week.

I would appeal to the Executive Council to give some assistance to [470] public bodies who are prepared to do work of public utility. There is no use in having county medical officers and looking after people suffering from tuberculosis if the houses which are condemned by the county medical officers cannot be replaced by others. The boards of health appealed to the Government to give them long-term loans and a subsidy to enable them to provide houses for agricultural labourers. The Minister for Local Government pointed out that agricultural labourers should pay something like 5/- per week for a house, which would be impossible out of the small wages they receive; therefore; the Minister refused to extend the long-term loans to the boards of health. In Nenagh the boards of health have secured far better terms from an English insurance company than they would get under the Local Loans Fund. They have secured a loan repayable in 60 years. If something like that could be given to boards of health and urban councils it would go a long way towards solving unemployment and the housing problem in the rural areas. Public boards are receiving deputations from the unemployed at meeting after meeting appealing for work, and resolution have been passed and sent to the Government, but without any result.

Deputy Byrne said that the Government were solving the unemployment problem. While we give credit to the Government for certain things they have done, we say that they have not given the attention that is necessary to this matter, and that it is the duty of the Governm