I was going to pass on to that. When you allow four or five farthings per meal, and if they spend that infinitesimal sum on a meal there is no money for rent, no money for clothes, no money for furniture, no money for fuel, no money for light. There is no money for school books. There is no money to provide any of those other necessaries of life that they have a right to expect in a civilised community, and a still better right to expect from a Government which told them at one stage that the enactment of the new Constitution was going to be a passport to rescue from their past misery and poverty, and a speedy transportation to comfort and prosperity.
In a situation of that kind, with 120,000 of our people involuntarily idle, compelled to exist on such a low standard of life, the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes to-day and does not make the slightest reference to their plight or hold out the slightest hope that during the coming year there is going to be any amelioration of their desperate lot. The Minister made reference in the course of his speech to the position in the building trade. Not once did we get from the Minister any indication as to the steps which were to be taken to remedy the very serious unemployment position which exists there. In answer to a Parliamentary Question which I submitted recently I got from the Minister the information that, whereas on the 2nd January, 1939, there were 7,800 building trade operatives registered as unemployed, in December of the same year the figure had risen to 10,000. The most remarkable fact about these figures is that it is not merely the builders' labourers who are losing their employment, but there is a very substantial increase in unemployment in practically every grade of craftsmen associated with the building industry. For instance, in that period, the number of additional carpenters unemployed was 500. More than twice the number of bricklayers were idle in December than in January of last year; more than twice the number of plasterers and tilers were idle; more than twice the number of plumbers and glaziers were idle, and painters and builders' labourers contributed their quota to the growth of the unemployment problem in the building trade.
These figures cannot be explained by the existence of a strike during that period at all, but yet unemployment in the building industry has gone up by over 2,000 in a period of 11 or 12 months. We have not got any indication from the Government as to what is to happen to that large number of unemployed. The position would be rendered much more serious were it not for the fact that every day in the week building trade operatives are applying to their union for facilities to go to England to engage in work there, because they see no hope that, with the present flooded unemployment situation in respect of building trade operatives, they can possibly be absorbed into employment here. The Government, and the Minister in particular, ought to tell us what are the Government's proposals for dealing with a serious situation of that kind. It was thought, of course, at one time, that the development of our new industries would provide regular employment for a very large number of persons, and that the number of persons employed would expand considerably. I welcome every development of our industrial possibilities, every expansion of our existing industrial development, but my conception of our industrial development is that, having imposed very substantial tariffs to assist industries, having introduced schemes of licences, restrictions and quotas, the Government appear to have rested there, and not to have insisted on the fullest possible exploitation of those industries in the national interest. The result is easy to see. What we are doing now is that we have started a number of industries, and we are allowing them to carry on as they have been carrying on for years, producing probably 20, 30, 40 per cent. of the country's requirements, but doing nothing whatever to expand production, to supply the entire national requirements. The community is being robbed in a most shameless manner by being compelled to pay tariffs on the portion of those commodities which is not produced here, while the native industry is not being adequately supervised or efficiently directed to produce the entire demands of the country.
Cases have come to my notice, and I am sure to the Minister's notice, where firms which have been a long time in existence, in which there is a substantial amount of State capital, are still carrying on in a manner that I do not think could satisfy the Minister of their efficient direction and extensive exploitation of existing possibilities.
Many of these industries are producing only a fraction of the national demand for the commodity in the production of which they are engaged, and there seems to be no drive whatever by the Department to insist that if the community, on the one hand, are going to give them tariffs and are going to content themselves under restrictions and quotas, they, on the other hand, must regard that as a sacrifice by the community to enable them in the shortest possible space of time to become as efficient as possible and to produce the entire national demand. I think it is an intolerable situation if we are going to allow, with perfect equanimity, to continue here a position whereby about 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the national demand for a particular commodity is to be supplied by the home firms, while the community is salted in the payment of high tariffs on what comes in. I am all in favour of saying to a new industry: "If you get a high tariff or restrictions and quotas, you, on your part, must make a contribution towards producing the entire demand of the nation for that particular commodity", and that is probably one of the quickest ways in which the overhead costs of existing industries can be substantially reduced and a cheaper product put on the market.
The Minister made a reference to-day to the contributions received under the National Health Insurance Acts, but I should like to say to him that the quotation of figures of increased sales of stamps can be very misleading and can give a very lop-sided view of the real economic position. It is not itself a good test to say that we sold more stamps this year than last year, or in any previous year. The most effective test is the number of stamps put on a card each year in respect of each worker engaged in industry, or in service. I asked a Parliamentary Question recently to obtain information of that nature and I got information from the Department which is disturbing in its tendency. I asked a question to ascertain the average number of contributions paid annually by (a) insured men, and (b) insured women, under the National Health Insurance Acts for each of the eight years 1931-1938. I got the information that, in 1931, 38.7 stamps were paid in respect of each man insured under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts.
That means that that person in that year had affixed to his card 38.7 stamps, whereas, in 1938, the figure had dropped to 35.8 stamps, showing that, in respect of each man in employment, there was less regularity of employment between 1931 and 1938 and that, consequently, employment is much more inconstant in 1938 than in 1931. These figures also show that the tendency from 1931 to 1938 in respect of men has been entirely downwards, whereas, in the case of women, they show that the tendency is to remain stationary and, at times, to increase. So far as male employment is concerned, however, there is less regular employment now than in 1931 and, in fact, there has been a constant decline in each of the years. These figures disclose a better picture than figures of the income from the sale of stamps of the constancy of employment in industry, which is as important as the extent to which persons are engaged in industry.
I had hoped that the Minister to-day would have told us something about the Government's intentions in respect of the Transport Tribunal's report, but we got nothing very illuminating on that subject from him. When his predecessor came to this House on the 7th December, 1938, he asked the House to pass a motion to enable him to establish a tribunal to inquire into transport, and the House gave the Minister the authority to establish such a tribunal. Pressed then as to when the report was likely to be received, the Minister said he hoped to have the report after the Recess in the following February, that is, February, 1939. I understand that the tribunal took a much longer time to complete its task than was apparently intended in the first instance, but we are now in May, 1940, which is a long time since February, 1939, and yet not a single member of the House has seen the report of that tribunal. We have not had any indication from the Government, although it has had the report for several months, as to what action it intends to take to implement either the whole or portion of that report.
I wish the Minister would have taken the trouble to have read the statement presented to the Railway Wages Board recently by the General Manager of the Great Southern Railways. I think he would realise from that statement that there is an urgent necessity for putting the railways into a position to meet the present unfair transport competition which they have to contend with to-day. Although the Minister has the report of the tribunal for a long time, although the position of the railways is serious, and will probably tend to become still more serious, we have no intimation by the Minister that he realises the urgency of the position sufficiently to ask the House to pass the necessary legislation to implement the report of the tribunal, which cannot have failed to appreciate that legislation is necessary to assist the railways in their present plight. The Minister might tell us what steps the Government propose to take in that connection. It is very urgent, from the standpoint of those who find employment in the railway industry and from the standpoint of the railways, which are a national asset and a nationwide undertaking, that some steps should be taken at once to make the House, the railways and the railway employees, aware of the intentions of the Government in respect of that industry.
The main consideration which arises from a study of this Vote is what the Government's policy is in respect to unemployment. We had no indication from the Minister that the Government has any plans and no indication that the Government has any real appreciation of the magnitude and seriousness of the situation. In fact, all the indications are that the Government, by its own actions, will tend to aggravate a serious unemployment position, because, looking at the Estimates for Public Services, for this year, we find that in all the Departments, which, by their activities, provide employment, especially in rural areas, there has been a substantial cutting down of the expenditure formerly available for this kind of work. The policy of the Department of Lands which we discussed for the past few days and which is crystallised in a decision not to acquire any further lands for division means a consequent contraction of improvement work and this will all tend to contribute its quota to the aggravation of a very serious unemployment problem.
Keen students of economics like the Minister ought to realise that there is no more criminal waste than to have people unemployed when there is so much work available for them to do. None can deny that there is an abundance of work to be done in this country. Our agricultural possibilities are indicated by the fact that we have to issue an order to compel people to till 12½ per cent. of their land, at a time when we could probably sell all the produce which this country could ever produce. Our industrial possibilities are relatively unscratched and the national estate to-day is in serious need of enrichment and the amenities of public life are seriously in need of augmentation. With all that work to be done, we have the spectacle of 120,000 people craving for an opportunity to work and yet denied that opportunity in a land which, if properly organised, is capable of giving each and everyone a decent standard of livelihood.
Every unemployed man and woman who contributes nothing to the pool of national productivity is sustained by the income of that pool. They can contribute nothing to the pool, but it is necessary, in the national interest, to sustain them from the produce of that pool and they can be sustained only at the price of making less available for other people who have to draw from that pool. If we had the economic good sense to organise the nation in such a manner as to provide them with regular employment, the pool would become bigger, productivity would increase and the standard of life for them and for the masses of the people would rise considerably. The Government, and especially the Taoiseach, believed at one time that that was the way to solve our unemployment problem.
The Taoiseach believed at one time that all you had to do with the unemployment problem was to apply the Fianna Fáil wand to it and that all difficulties would disappear. It is worth quoting now some of the Taoiseach's speeches, or portions of the speeches, he delivered in the House on 29th April, 1932, a couple of months after he had come into office, and to compare his high hopes, as then expressed, with the sad lack of performance to-day. Referring to unemployment, the Taoiseach said:—
"I am quite willing to admit that one of the principal things we were elected to do was to try to deal with the unemployment problem. We are quite willing to do it, and we stand or fall by our ability to do that work or not to do it."
The Taoiseach must have been picked up a number of times since, if he stood or fell by his ability to solve the unemployment problem, because we had about 90,000 people registered at employment exchanges at that time, and we now have a very substantial human interest on that investment in idleness in that we have 120,000 unemployed people registered or deprived of registration to-day. The Taoiseach went on:—
"I want to repeat what I said outside. I said that, looking around the world and trying to understand what were the causes of unemployment in different countries, I came to the conclusion that there was less reason for unemployment in this country than in any country of which I know."
We had then 90,000 unemployed, and now we have 120,000, although the Taoiseach did not know in 1932 why we had 90,000. He stood aghast at the fact that we had 90,000 unemployed, and he has less remedy now for the 120,000 unemployed than he had for the smaller problem eight years ago. The Taoiseach then went on to examine the country's resources and said:—
"Let us look around at the circumstances in this country. What do we see? We see a country capable of producing food for far more people than are in the country. We see resources of various kinds, all the resources necessary to provide for the material needs of the human beings in this country; we see the hands that could be put to these resources for the purpose of working them up and making them available for the material comforts of our people; we see that those resources which could be so readily utilised have not received any attention."
All these factors are present to-day as much as they were eight years ago, but, having diagnosed the economic complaint in 1932, the Taoiseach did nothing whatever to apply a remedy. Referring to the wealth of the country, he said:
"I say that we are a solvent community. We have a potential capacity to produce wealth. We have the capacity to meet all our needs. All we want is to begin properly."
If eight years is not sufficient time to prepare for a beginning, I do not know what is, because there has been no attempt to begin since then, and no apparent indication that the Government intends to do it now. Referring, then, to the possibility that he might not be able to do it within the existing system, he said:
"It may be that under the present system we cannot do the full work we would like to do, but we are going to try. I am going to say this, that if I try within the system as it stands and fail, then I will try to go outside the system, and I will go to the country and ask them to support me to go outside the system."
That was eight years ago. The Taoiseach is still going outside the system, in theory, at all events, but, in practice, he is still within the system, and a greater victim of the system than he dreamt he ever would be in his life. Then, we had a reference to burdens and the Taoiseach told us:
"Our purpose as a Government is to see that these burdens rest heaviest on the shoulders of people who are best able to bear them."
The highlight of the speech was in the end when he referred to hair shirts. He said:
"Members on the opposite benches said that I went into the hair shirt policy. My answer was that theirs was the silk shirt policy for some and the hair shirt policy for others. If there are to be hair shirts at all it will be hair shirts all round."
However much the unemployed man may have to content himself with a hair shirt or a porcupine shirt, there is one thing certain, and it is that the millers and bacon curers of this country have not hair shirts, but silk shirts on them, and expensive silk shirts, provided for them by those who cannot buy hair shirts and provided for them with the full approbation of the Government.
The Minister for Supplies recently thought that he would contribute something to the discussion of the unemployment problem. He went to a meeting at the Red Bank Restaurant in Dublin and he delivered himself, according to the Irish Press, of this speech:—
"It was necessary to stress the urgency of the problems arising out of unemployment. If it persisted, their economic system could not survive. If unemployment persisted, it did not deserve to survive. There were obviously major defects in their methods of commercial organisation and their financial system, if they were unable to provide an adequate livelihood for every man willing to work. If, within the limits of the present system, they could not cope with unemployment, then the system should be changed."
The Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for our unemployment and economic problems. He ought to be able to tell us when the change is likely to take place which was foreshadowed by the Taoiseach and foreshadowed again a few months ago by his colleague, the Minister for Supplies. Will the Minister tell us to-day what steps he has taken to make the change, what steps he has taken in the manner indicated by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Supplies, when the change is going to take place, and what is going to be its outcome, whether it will be for better or for worse, and when it can be expected? These are questions which obviously need to be answered, if speeches of the kind made by the Minister for Supplies are not made for the purpose of deceiving a credulous audience.
I see no aspect of Government policy to-day calculated to make any impression whatever on our serious unemployment position. If the Government has one policy it is the policy of Micawber—waiting in a tired and indifferent manner "for something to turn up," having no plan of its own, no proposals of its own, no scheme of its own to make any serious contribution to the unemployment problem. Recently, we had passed through this House a Bill dealing with town planning. It would be much better if the time had been spent in dealing with national planning. Our towns could be left alone; they could have been planned afterwards, when the people had been rescued from the slums and from the destitution which they are enduring in the towns and cities.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister even now. Whole countries in Europe are uprooting their whole economy, uprooting their whole financial system, all for the insane purpose of war. Is it not possible for us, in our circumstances, with a problem within our shores as serious as war— the ruin and demoralisation of tens of thousands of our people through continued idleness—to uproot our existing economy in the interests of peace and prosperity? Even now—now more than ever—it is necessary to think nationally, and I would urge on the Minister that he has goodwill in this House and outside it for a serious effort to plan our national requirements and to work on a co-ordinated scheme for the elimination, as far as is possible to do it, of unemployment and the misery and destitution which inevitably follow in its wake. It seems to me that considerable progress might be made on those lines with goodwill, and progress must be made unless we are going to witness a continuance and an aggravation of a very serious situation which, if it gets worse, may well cut deeper into our national independence than it happens to be cutting to-day.
I do not wish to see a serious aggravation of our unemployment problem, and to see our unemployed people compelled by sheer poverty and starvation to come out in the streets and demonstrate in a manner calculated to create disorder throughout the country. I would say to the Government that it would be much wiser for them at this stage to realise the drift of our economic life, and to take steps at this stage to make a plan to meet the developments which I fear will arise unless a serious effort is made to grapple with the existing circumstances.
The Government might well establish some kind of economic council—a thing which the Taoiseach used to believe in at one time—to survey the country's requirements, to ascertain its needs, to mobilise its manhood and use the undoubted credit-creating possibilities of the State to finance schemes of national endeavour and create permanent national assets for the country. Of course, I know that—being new— advocacy of a line of policy such as that will probably beget all the hostility of conservative minds throughout the country, and of all those who have not yet felt the pangs of hunger and of destitution. If, however, hunger were an infectious disease instead of being a mere impersonal economic malady, many of those now sitting quietly by, while tens of thousands of our own people suffer the pangs of hunger, would be compelled to take much more energetic action than they are taking to-day.
I would say to the Minister, who has indicated the grave national consequences which are likely to ensue from the present international events that I share his view, to a considerable extent, but I think that he is making a grave mistake when he is not drawing from those great international happenings of to-day a remedy—or an attempted remedy—for many of the problems at present with us and which will be aggravated by a continuance of these international complications. I would plead with the Minister to think along those lines, as it seems to me that there is hope along those lines. By pursuing the present policy we will still have all the unemployment we have at present—and probably more—and probably a greater measure of poverty and destitution that we have to-day.
Mr. Fred Crowley rose.