Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 14

Private Deputies' Business - Motion—Migration from the land.

Mr. McGovern

I move the following motion which appears on the Order Paper in the names of Deputy Nally and myself:—

That the Dáil deplores the migration of the people from the land, and, being of opinion that one of the causes of this migration is the policy in operation over a number of years which finds expression in various statutes providing for differentiation in the treatment of similar classes of the population according as to whether they are resident in rural or non-rural areas, it hereby records its conviction that it is necessary, if the exodus from the land is to be slowed down, that every such statute, that so differentiates either directly or indirectly against the rural population, be amended at once.

I think that the first part of this motion, at least, will meet with unanimous approval in the House and in the country. Everybody deplores the migration of the people from the land. They also deplore the overcrowding of the cities, and the slum problems and unemployment created in the cities by this migration. Everybody, however, may not agree with what is suggested in the motion as the cause of that. Therefore I propose to give, in as brief a manner as possible, my reasons for coming to the conclusion that the cause is due to legislation passed by this House. This is not a Party motion in any sense. Deputy Nally and myself did not put it before our Party. We do not know what the attitude of the Party to it will be. We recognise that the motion, by its very nature, cuts more or less across all Parties. It is not a motion that any Party could very well take up, but we are of opinion that it would be much better if all Parties agreed to have a free vote on it. Every member of the House should be free to vote on it as he thinks fit. After all, the people in the country would like, once in a while on a motion of this kind, to have their will expressed through their elected representatives without any undue interference by the Party Whips. In saying that, I am not speaking against the Party system. I know the advantage of the Party system to the country, but at the same time a too rigid adherence to it is not a good thing, and hence people sometimes turn against Parliamentary representation altogether. It would be a good thing if, in a case like this, the members of all Parties were left free to vote as they think best.

It is in a non-Party spirit that we, in this motion, are trying to find out some of the difficulties under which this country is labouring. We are anxious that some good should come out of it. Everybody knows that there is something radically wrong in the economic structure of this State. We maintain that is a real obstacle to any economic progress or any social progress in this State. We hold that we cannot have the sort of country that we desire to have so long as there is differentiation, especially in favour of the people in the cities. We all know how the welkin would ring in any discussion if it was some question of a minority in some part of Europe that was suffering persecution. We are not making an appeal here on behalf of any persecuted minority. I am appealing on behalf of a persecuted majority, the great majority of the people of this country: on behalf of the flower of this State who are being driven from their homes by persecution, not by a foreign Government, but by their own Government of Dáil Eireann. I am not attributing the blame to one Party or to another, but I maintain that Dáil Eireann is persecuting the majority of this State. I say that if persecution equal to it was being carried out in any part of Europe, we would hear a great deal of criticism of it in this country.

Now, I think a matter of such great importance should receive the attention that it deserves from the members of this House. I know that statistics are very dry, and will give as little of them as I can help. I must, however, refer to the population of the four county boroughs. The figures that I propose to give are taken from the latest official publication. In 1926 the population of the four county boroughs was 583,790, and in 1936, 657,682, an increase in the ten years of 12½ per cent. If we include the few urban towns that have a population of over 7,000—they are really very few—the figures are: for 1926, 706, 564, and for 1936, 792, 303, an increase of 12 per cent., practically the same as the figures for the county boroughs taken alone.

With regard to the remainder of the country, that is, the rural districts, in 1926 there were 2,265,428 people there; in 1936 the population was 2,176,117. That is to say, while the four county boroughs increased in population by 12½ per cent. over the ten years, the population of the rest of the country decreased by 5¼ per cent. That is the most deplorable part of the change. In 1926 about 31 per cent. of the population lived in the cities and towns of over 7,000 population, and 69 per cent. lived in the rural districts; in 1936 the percentage had changed to 36.5 for the cities and towns of over 7,000 population, and 63.5 for the rural areas. Since 1936 that trend has gone on—as everybody is too well aware—if not at an increasing rate, certainly at the same rate; and we may take it now as a rough estimate—I do not pretend to be accurate—at the present time that, in 1940, 40 per cent. of the people are living in cities and towns of over 7,000 population and 60 per cent. in the rural areas. Taking the figures on the last ten or 14 years and estimating a continuation of that change, it is alarming to think of the position we will be in 14 or 20 years hence. If the population of the cities increased while that of the rural areas decreased, it would not matter so much if the people in the cities were self-supporting, if we had not such a growing list of unemployed, if we had not the slums, if we had not the lately-started industries that are a burden on the rest of the community. Unfortunately, all these things have to be considered.

I should like to quote now some statistics to show the trend of employment and unemployment. This is also an official publication giving the trend of employment and unemployment for the years 1937 and 1938. It is a pity, of course, that we have not got them over a longer period, but we may take the period given as fairly typical of any other period—say, 1938-39 or 1939-40. These are for 1937-38, and the trend is briefly this: on the last Monday of November, 1937, the number of people on the live register for the four county boroughs was 24,920; in November, 1938, the number was 29,441 for the same four county boroughs—an increase of 18.1 per cent. For the remainder of the country, the number on the live register had decreased within the same 12 months from 69,494 to 63,792—a decrease of 8.4 per cent.

Is it not remarkable to see people moving away from that part of the country where there was least unemployment to where unemployment is increasing at a rapid rate? That is a most unhealthy condition to exist in any country—moving away from places where there might be no unemployment, where there is plenty of work to be done, where the land is overflowing with water, whin and briar, into the cities where the unemployment list is increasing, where the slum trouble, despite all that has been done for a number of years to relieve it by building—is growing worse from day to day and creating new problems for everybody who has the interest of the cities and of the country at heart. Is it not evident that there is something very wrong, that there is something behind this that is inducing the people to leave the land and come to the cities? Mind you, it is not for the grand, glaring lights, or the pictures, or anything of the sort.

The people are not fools: they are coming from the country to the cities to take advantage of the higher standard of living provided by Act of Parliament for the people in the cities. They are entitled to do it, and this Dáil has no moral right to pass legislation to prevent their coming into the cities. I do know, however, that there are organisations in the cities designed for no other purpose than to keep people from coming in from the country. I say that this country is one country—Dublin and the rest of the country—and unless people wish to have another partition, or a new Pale, the people have the right to move to any part of their own country. You cannot continue to keep this country partitioned as it is, in the way some of the organisations in the city are trying to keep it partitioned. That cannot be done except by cutting it off altogether, which would mean that the source from which the taxation comes would be cut off also. That would not do, that would not suit the city.

Something must be done, and I suggest that the thing to do is to make equal laws for equal people and let everybody find his or her proper place in the economic structure in the city or in the country. There is no other way. I know it is difficult for the Minister or anybody else with responsibility to face up to this, but it must be faced up to sooner or later, or the country is going to decay. There is hardly any responsible Minister or responsible Deputy in this House who does not know that this thing is wrong and that it cannot continue. We cannot have two standards of living in one small State for people of similar classes, on the sole test of whether they belong to the cities or to the rural parts of the country. We are building an economic Tower of Pisa, something that cannot stand. In the history of the world there never was a leaning tower built by the art of man: the leaning Tower of Pisa got a tilt after it was built. It got a tilt by Nature: I suppose Nature just wanted to show that she could deviate from her own laws and yet defy human architects to follow her example.

At any rate, I cannot think of anything else to which I might compare the economic structure which we are building here because we are building it with a lean, one side high and the other low, and the trend is such that more and more is going to the high side from the lower side. The question is: how long will it stand? We know but one thing: sooner or later a fall is due and the longer it stands the greater will be the fall. The remedy is to get to work at once, to recognise the position, to get the foundation laid correctly, and to build soundly in this State. I will come to the particular statutes that are the offending statutes, in my opinion. There is quite a number of them, and they are divided into four categories. In the first category are the statutes that provide benefits; in the second are those that fix scales of prices—those that fix the prices for different classes of commodities; in the third are those dealing with the incidence of taxation, and in the fourth are those which show a general lack of sympathy with people in rural districts. It is easy to find scores of businesses where this is noticeable. I will deal first with those providing benefits, although I do not think they are the most important. Take, for instance, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. Part III of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act deals with the payment of non-contributory pensions to widows and orphans.

Mr. Hickey

That applies to the city, too, of course.

Mr. McGovern

I will refer to Sections 16, 17 and 20, and the First Schedule. I would call particular attention to the provision of those sections. Those sections are so worded that it would take somebody like the Minister to get any meaning out of them. The average man, the ordinary Deputy. would hardly get any meaning out of them, and it would take a trained lawyer to get very much sense out of them. However, there is one way by which one may get to the bottom even of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. and that is by working out what two widows, having exactly equal means, would get, taking it that one lives in the city and one in the country. I worked this out in seven cases. They may or may not be typical, but I will just give the particular cases I took. In the case of a widow with no child, and with an income of 5/-, if she lived in a county borough she would get 7/6. If she lived in a rural district she would get 3/-. That is under the operation of Sections 16 and 20, and the third rule of the First Schedule.

Mr. Hickey

That is under the means test.

Mr. McGovern

That is under the application of the allowance for each set of widows. Then we will take the case of a widow with one child, with an estimated income of 7/6. If she lived in a county borough she would get 11/-, and if she lived in a rural district she would get 4/6. A widow with two children, with an estimated income of 10/-, gets 12/6, if she lives in a county borough, and she gets 5/- if she lives in a rural district. A widow with three children, with an estimated income of 12/6, would get 14/- if she lived in a county borough. She would get 5/6 if she lived in a rural district. To get back again to the widow with two children and an income of 12/6, if she lived in a county borough she would get 10/-, and if she lived in a rural district she would get 2/6. A widow with one child, and with an income of 12/6, would get 6/- if she lived in the city, and if she lived in a rural district she would get nothing. A widow with one child and an income of 10/- would get 8/6 if she lived in a county borough, and if she lived in a rural district she would get 2/-. On summing up the seven cases, I found that those seven widows would draw 69/6 if they happened to be living in the city, while the seven widows in the rural districts would draw 22/6, or less than one-third. It would be very interesting to see what justification there is for that. That may or may not be typical. There may be other statutes concerned with the payment of benefits that are worse than this one. Personally, I did not believe there was, but I can quote a very good authority, the Irish Press, which says there is a worse one. The Unemployment Assistance Act is a worse one according to the Irish Press. I do not want to enter into an argument. I quite accept the opinion of the Irish Press; if it says so, it must be so.

I will not waste time by giving more than one statute from the category dealing with the payment of benefits. Before I pass from it, I should like to mention that I was speaking to a very able man, an eminent lawyer, and I asked his opinion about that particular statute. He looked into it and he said: "Well, it reminds me of a case I had in court very lately. I was defending a trader down the country who was taken up by the Guards for having a measure with two bottoms."

I asked: "What sort of defence had you then?" He said: "Our defence was that the measure was made by the same tradesman that made every other measure he had, and they were all correct, and that he did not order two bottoms for this measure any more than for the others." He told me that the judge got a brain-wave and sent for the man who made the measure. When he came into court the judge asked him did he make this measure. He said: "Yes, my lord.""And were you ordered to put two bottoms in this measure?""No.""Then, why did you do it? Be careful about your answer. It depends on your answer whether you will go into the dock.""Well, I was told to make a half-gallon measure that would hold one and a-half quarts, and if your lordship can show me a better way to do it than the way I have done it, then you are a better technician than I am, and I will exchange my budget for your wig." He was not put into the dock. The lawyer turned round and said to me: "My advice to you is to take this measure back to the people that made it, that is, Dáil Eireann." Here I am. I would like to know what they have to say to that measure.

So much for the measure, but just before I get away from it I would like to know who ordered it. I have here the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Widows' and Orphans' Pensions. It seems that there was a careful investigation into the whole question before this measure was passed. I find that there were on that Committee 14 persons. Twelve of them issued a Majority Report and they favoured a flat rate. Two of them issued a First Minority Report, and one issued a Second Minority Report. Strange to say, the report of the 12 was turned down, the report of the two was turned down, and there was only one man out of the 14 whose recommendations were accepted. That, I believe, too, might require some explanation. I want to be brief. We cannot lose too much time, but this is very important. He gave some reasons here why the widows in the city should get about three times as much as those in the rural districts. He says: "To attempt to measure the farm widow's advantage over the Dublin widow, if each gets a pension of 21/- per week, I attempt a weekly budget for each as follows:— Milk, butter, potatoes, eggs and other Irish farm produce, 6/- for the Dublin widow and 2/6 for the farm widow." I would ask the House to take in the significance of this—2/6 for producing 2/6 worth of farm produce, and 3/6 added to that for selling it in Dublin, making 6/-.

That is the way the dice is loaded against the people on the land. That is the Dublin mentality for you every time, and that is the city against the country; why the people are flying from the land because they are persecuted and driven off. Dáil Eireann sanctioned that. I would like to know what Dáil Eireann has to say to it. Bread is another item. Bread is given at 4/- for the Dublin widow and 2/- for the woman on the land. No woman on the land can get a sack of flour at half the price obtaining here in Dublin. It is manufactured here in Dublin. We all know that the unfortunate woman on the land has to buy her flour at a dearer price and yet she is supposed to produce bread at half the price. This is here in print. This is the report of one man against 14. This is the report the Act was based upon. Other food including tea and sugar is given at 5/- for each. There is no difference. I am quoting from page 53 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Widows' and Orphans' Pensions, 1933. Rent, fuel, light, clothes, boots and other requirements are included in the estimate. Rent is given at 5/- in the city and 1/- in the rural district. It seems they can live in a hole in the ditch in the rural district. What is rent for? I would ask the House why is rent imposed upon anybody who goes into a house? Of course, one of the things is to pay for the workmanship that goes into that house, to pay for the capital over a number of years that has gone into it. Can anyone believe that a house can be built in the country at one-fifth of what it costs here in the city and if it can, why should it be so? It would be a very interesting thing to get a reply. It is very important that these items should be answered. So long as this Act was based upon the recommendation of that individual—his name is Mr. Herlihy—these things must be answered. Five shillings for rent in the city and 1/- in the country. I do not know how it can be done. Fuel and light—2/6 in the city and 1/- in the country, yet coal passes through the city and goes to the country, and coal is burnt in a good many parts of the country. I do not see how in the country they can get everything at one-half, one-third, or one-fifth of the Dublin price. Clothes and boots are given at 2/6 in each case. Other requirements, 2/-. Balance in favour of farm widow—11/-. That is the calculation.

I have cuttings here dealing with the costs in Dublin which perhaps would be interesting. They might go some part of the way to explain why bread should be twice as dear here as in the rural districts. This is a cutting from a paper. The writer signs himself "Puzzled". It is just an item which shows the different output of bread here and in other cities. There is a lower output in Dublin, and higher wages of bakers' operatives. The Dublin baker works 13 sacks per man per week as against 32 in Glasgow and 36 in London. The man that wrote this said that the whole blame should not be put on the millers for the increased price of bread. So far as the figures are concerned, that explains why things are so dear here. The other cutting is dated December 3, 1938. It is signed by "A. McCabe". It is a cutting from the Irish Independent. It deals with housing costs in the city. It is as follows:—

"Comparative figures of rents charged for certain similar types of houses here and in Belfast show the crushing nature of the handicap under which this class of people have to carry on in this dear city of ours. Here they are as taken from representative lists supplied by house agents in the two cities with the rents demanded in each case."

There follows a table showing that in Dublin a house with five apartments was let at £90, while a similar house in Belfast was let at £52. A house of six apartments was let at £104 in Dublin and £65 in Belfast. Another house of six apartments, let at £108 in Dublin, was let at £60 in Belfast, and a house with seven apartments, £80 and taxes in Dublin against £36 and taxes in Belfast. Detached villas would be £110 and taxes in Dublin, and £60 and taxes in Belfast. On the average the rent is 80 per cent. dearer in Dublin than in Belfast. What explanation is to be given for that? If people have made things dearer for themselves here in Dublin they should bear the consequences themselves, and that should not be approved by legislation in this House. If Dublin people have made the cost of living so dear for themselves, there is no reason why that should be taken as the normal condition of affairs or why it should have the sanction of this House. Dáil Eireann should not sanction it. If the Dáil were held in Athlone or in Galway, I do not suppose that the things which are being sanctioned now in Dublin would be sanctioned in either of these towns. The Dáil is too much influenced by Dublin.

With regard to bread, that is one of the items referred to by the gentleman who recommended this Bill for Widows and Orphans. That is one of the items upon which the financial provisions of the Bill are based.

I know that bread used to be brought up from Belfast and sold in my neighbourhood, bread of first-class quality, at a price cheaper than that at which it could be baked at home Yet we are told by this gentleman that it costs twice as much in Dublin. Bread baked in Belfast could be sent to my neighbourhood, carriage and all delivery expenses met, and sold at a lower price than home baked bread would cost. That was the state of affairs in that district until the Border intervened. Why should that bread be twice as dear in Dublin? Yet this House sanctions that and passed a Bill based on that report.

I pass on to the next category. The next category refers to the prices for different classes of goods, according as to whether they are produced in the city or the country. The general classes are agricultural produce and manufactured commodities. We all know the position. Agricultural produce is sold at the world price minus certain reductions, minus, for instance, the cost of transporting it to the world market, minus 3/6 per cwt. in the case of cattle—I think that is the figure—and other deductions, such as insurance costs, middlemen's costs and all these other costs. Against that, manufactured goods are sold here in many cases at 75 per cent. over world prices, plus the cost of shipping them from other manufacturing countries to be sold in this country because our manufacturers or at least any of those who have to be propped up with tariffs are not able to send anything out of the country to compete on foreign markets against outside competitors. They are competing in the home market against foreign competitors who have to bear not alone the burden of shipping their goods to this country but have to face, in addition, a tariff of 75 per cent. in a number of cases. The average tariff, I think, would be about 50 per cent. That is the way prices are fixed in regard to one class of goods as against another. If the relative position of the two classes were worked out, it would be seen that the industrial producer receives a number of other advantages. The farmer has to sell some of his produce at 20 per cent. less than the world price, that is after allowing say 20 per cent. freight and other charges for exporting his goods to the world market in Britain. For every £100 worth of goods, based on world prices, which the farmer sends there, he receives here only £80. The manufacturer, on the other hand, receives here at home £200 for a quantity of goods that would be worth only £100 according to world market prices. As against the farmer's £80 the manufacturer receives £200—that is 50 per cent. of an advantage in the fixing of prices. I may not be putting the case very well but the figures will stand investigation. The position, as I say, is that one gets 250 per cent. of the value of his goods while the other gets only 80 per cent. That is the broad rule.

I know we shall be told that the farmers have got certain advantages, that, for instance, the annuities have been halved. I give credit for that, but since the annuities were halved, the rates have been increased to such an extent as to offset that concession. Their position, therefore, is exactly the same as it was before the annuities were halved. There are hardly any changes in that respect, so far as overhead charges are concerned. I shall take another case which explains itself. Let us take the average farmer and compare his position with that of the civil servant. Let us assume that before the last Great War each of them had an income of £100. The farmer's position at present is this: there has been an increase of 15 to 20 points in the price of farm goods as compared with 1914. On the other hand, the farmer has had to face an increase in the cost of production of more than 100 per cent. If there had been only the same increase in the cost of production as occurred in the price of agricultural goods, then the farmer would find himself enjoying about the same net income as he had in 1913 or 1914, but as matters stand, his net income is reduced by about 80 or 90 per cent. by the increased production costs.

Mr. Hickey

And he does not get a corresponding return when he sells his produce.

Mr. McGovern

No. I make it out that the net income of a farmer who had £100 pre-war would be about £45 now. Take the case of a civil servant who had the same income of £100 in 1914. He would be getting about £170 now, the addition representing bonus to cover the increased cost of living, which has gone up about 70 per cent. The position of the farmer is that if he had £100 of an income pre-war, he is only drawing £45 now, while the other man is drawing £170. The figures are not an exaggeration, and any Minister or Deputy who troubles to make a calculation will find that that is the position. In some cases the variation is even greater. There are people, other than civil servants, who are much better off now than they were in pre-war days. It is all very well for certain classes of the community to say: "We want this or we want that, or we want more generous expenditure on different schemes." When it comes to paying, the burden is shifted to other shoulders. Unfortunately, people who live on the land cannot shift the burden. When there is extravagant expenditure it is the people on the land who suffer. No attempt is made to deal with their position in a sympathetic spirit.

I am very glad that the Minister for Agriculture is in the House, because it is his duty, above that of any other Minister, to consider the position of people on the land. I hope that he will pay attention to their plight, because the people on the land are suffering severely, and are being driven from the land because of legislation passed in this House. It is about time that the situation was faced seriously. To do that requires more than the talks that are given occasionally by eminent lecturers. While it is a good thing that these lecturers call attention to the position, the Minister should not let what they say in one ear and out the other. The Minister will recall that a year ago the bishops called attention to this problem, and in the meantime we know that it has not improved. If anything, it has continued to worsen. Unless conditions are changed and not allowed to drift undoubtedly they will tend to worsen-Something must be done or else present conditions will lead to a complete economic collapse as well as social collapse.

The third category deals with the incidence of rates, a question which has been very much debated from time to time. There are two classes of taxation, that might be termed indirect and direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxation, the bigger the family the heavier is the tax, because as a general rule the bulk of the indirect taxation is collected on the necessaries of life and accordingly the larger families pay more. While it may not be so in all cases, broadly speaking the largest families are in the rural districts. There are two classes of direct taxation, income-tax and another tax that goes under the name of rates on land. Rates on land are nothing less than a special sort of income-tax designed to fleece farmers, inasmuch as they are levied upon the estimated income arising out of land. No equivalent tax is imposed upon any other class in this State or upon farmers in any other country. In Northern Ireland and Great Britain the farmers are relieved of this heavy burden and anxiety, yet we have to compete with them in the same market. Of course they pay their rates the same as everyone else upon the valuation of their dwellings. The position there is certainly much fairer than it is here, where a tax is imposed upon a man's estimated income out of land. The farmer also pays the income-tax if his income warrants it. In the case of this tax a living allowance is exempted from taxation, but in the case of rates of a farmer no allowance is made. If a widow with a family of ten children has a valuation of 30/- on land she will have to pay on that valuation or on the estimated income from it no matter how high the rates are. There is no equity in that form of taxation.

Here again, as in every other item to which I referred, it is against the people on the land that taxation is directed. Because of that they are flying from the land. They do not come to the city to walk about and see the beautiful buildings. They come expecting to improve their position and to avail of the higher standard of living that is provided for everyone as compared with the position in the country, and they will continue to come until the position is changed. The last category that I wish to refer to concerns the general lack of sympathy with the position of people in the country. We have summer time in February. Why? Does anybody in the country want this new time now? Not at all. Of course it does not matter what people in the country want. It is people in the city who have too much time on their hands, and too much money to spend, who want this new time in order to have longer evenings and more leisure. They cannot take these evenings without having everything convenient, and every clock in the country must be moved on in order that they may get long evenings, and in order that they may deceive themselves that they are getting up a little earlier. They never do get up early. They do not open the shops so very early here, and there would be a day's work done in Derry and Belfast by the time they open the shops in Dublin.

Why do they want summer time at all? They want it so that they may get away to spend their easily earned money, the money which is being collected from the unfortunate workers down the country, and which is spent here and spent badly. That is the position, and that is why the children have to be put to bed against the laws of nature, and packed out without being able to take their breakfasts in the morning. Everything being done on the farm is against nature, and all for the accommodation of a couple of cities. If that is the position while the people still have a majority in the country, what is going to happen when, after a few years, the cities get the majority? We would all wish to see the cities growing and thriving, if they were living upon themselves, if they were self-supporting, but suppose Dublin were lifted and planted in Great Britain, in Belgium, in the United States or in Germany, what would happen? Every portion of it except those portions which stood through thick and thin and which were able to produce and carry on at all times without any aid, would melt like a snowball, and those portions which have sprung up lately and which have begun to have a little false life would fall back to their old position.

They would not have the Twenty-Six Counties as a potato garden to sustain them. No, they would completely fall away, and I ask the House to consider whether this country should give the cities this privileged position which they have enjoyed for the last few years and which is leading the country as fast as it can to ruin and disorder of every kind.

In the national schools, you will find the same lack of sympathy. There is no agricultural outlook there, and it is all a matter of educating the people for something else and trying to divert their minds from the land. Everything is done with complete disregard for the interests of agriculture and of the people who live by the land, and it is about time it was all changed.

I should like to refer to a statement by a representative of these new industries in Irish Industry, a paper which represents Irish industry. There is an article which wants to reduce even what the farmers are getting now, and I do not know whether the Minister will listen to it. I know that Ministers have listened to too much advice from this and similar sources. I will read one paragraph:—

"We notice a disposition on the part of some meetings of farmers to agitate for what they call a free market for agricultural produce. We do not know the exact meaning they may attribute to the phrase, but in the context in which it is used it carries an implication of a desire to export as much as possible, even the whole of the agricultural produce of this country. The reason for this is that in many, if not all, cases they can get a higher price now on the foreign market than on the home market. In our view, that is a position which must not be allowed to develop."

The farmer is to be deprived now, if these industries can do it, of even the reduced value of the world market price, minus the cost of shipping to Great Britain, although they are to get 75 per cent. over the world market price, plus the cost of their competitors' shipping costs to sell against them; in other words, they are to get £250 where the Irish farmer gets £80, and he is not to get even that, if they can have their way.

I am afraid the Minister will be too much inclined to listen to that, but it is time the tide was turned and that the people who are the real producers got a chance to live in their own country and got fair play. They do not deserve fair play if they are not able to insist on getting it, and I appeal to all Deputies, no matter what Party they belong to, if they come from the rural districts, to stand for justice for those rural districts irrespective of Party. It is their duty and they should not vote against a motion like this which is designed to save the unfortunate people who are the flower of this country, who are the backbone of this country and who are sustaining the country and keeping the cities going. They are the backbone of the country nationally, economically and in every other way, and they deserve to get fair play. All I ask is that fair play be given to them and that the Minister and every Deputy will give fair consideration to the matters dealt with in the motion.

Mr. Nally

I formally second the motion so ably put forward by Deputy McGovern and I reserve the right to speak later on.

Mr. Cogan

In supporting the motion, I must say that I do not entirely agree with the wording of it. I think it is not entirely legislation passed here but also the failure of this House to legislate with regard to agricultural matters which has led to the serious position of agriculture at present. I do not think Deputy McGovern strengthened the case for the motion by relying so much on the difference between the allowances paid to widows in the city and in the country. If it were only the widows who were migrating from rural Ireland to the cities, we would not have so much to complain about. The unfortunate thing is that it is the young, the boys and girls leaving the national schools, who are crowding into the cities and it is the loss of those young people to rural Ireland which is turning this nation into a nation of tombs and desolation at present. I happened to be in the national school where I was educated, or supposed to be educated, a short time ago, and I could not help noticing the number of children on the roll. When I first started to go to school the number on the roll was 166. The number on the roll to-day in that rural parish is 38. That is a remarkable decline. There may not be as great a decline in every country parish, but there is no doubt that there is a very serious decline in population and in the number of children attending schools in the rural areas. Unless something is done and done quickly to remedy that state of affairs there is absolutely no future before this country because, of course, as every Deputy realises, the entire strength and life of the nation depends on its rural population.

It may be asked, what would this House do to remedy the situation, what is really wrong with the economic position of this country? If we compare the conditions which prevailed in 1914 with those of the present day, we find that the condition of the rural population has deteriorated to an enormous extent. We know that for every £100 that a farmer got for his produce in 1914 he was getting less than £100 in the average year since 1931—the price of his produce was less than in 1914. At the same time, we know that the cost of production in rural Ireland, in common with the cost of living everywhere in Ireland, has increased at least 100 per cent. What, therefore, is the position? The farmer has to exist on the margin between what he gets for his produce and what it costs to produce it. The cost of production has increased by 100 per cent. The price of agricultural produce during the past ten years has been practically the same as in 1914, if we take the average year. Therefore, it means that the farmer is working definitely at a loss. Farmers' sons and daughters after leaving the national school, realising the position that lies before them if they take up work on the land and the hopeless position in which their parents are trying to exist, realising the impossibility of making ends meet, see no prospect before them but to crowd into the cities and towns or to emigrate.

I do not agree that the average standard of living in the towns or in the cities is very much higher than in rural Ireland. But I do hold that a boy or a girl coming from a rural district into a city or town can always earn a much higher income than in rural Ireland. That is, of course, due to the fact that boys and girls reared in the country are usually physically strong and healthy and active in mind and, therefore, are able to compete with the workers in the city, and as a result very often crowd these workers out of employment, so that many of the city-born workers are left on the dole enduring a low standard of living. That position can only be remedied by removing the threat of poverty which hangs over the entire rural population.

The wages of agricultural workers have been fixed at a fairly reasonable standard. But the position at present is that the average farmer is unable to pay that wage, with the result that an increasing number of agricultural workers are finding themselves unemployed. They are finding themselves on the unemployed register, drawing the dole, or performing the menial tasks offered to them by the labour exchanges. That is a hopeless prospect both for the sons and daughters of the farmers and for the agricultural workers. As long as there is no other prospect, we cannot hope that there will be any stay put to the migration of the rural populations to the cities.

It may be asked, how is the position to be remedied? First of all, we must seek to improve the position of the agricultural industry by ensuring those engaged in the industry a reasonable price for their produce, and by reducing the overhead charges upon the industry. The overhead charges include direct and indirect taxation and the prices which the agricultural producer has to pay for the manufactured goods which he requires. The cost of these requirements must be reduced. In one way it has been clearly demonstrated that there is a certain hostility among the ruling classes of this country to agriculture and that is in regard to the attitude taken up on the question of the abolition of rates on agricultural land.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be speaking to a motion such as he would desire. He must, however, address himself to the motion before the House, and he must keep within the terms of that motion. The effective portion of that motion is that any statute "that differentiates either directly or indirectly against the rural population" should be amended. A debate on derating would be quite out of order.

Mr. Cogan

I am simply pointing out that there is a certain hostility to any viewpoint put up by the rural population and that that hostility amongst the ruling classes has resulted in a failure to meet the reasonable demands of the agricultural community. It has been suggested, and it may be a wise suggestion, that the Parliament should be moved out into the heart of the country with the result that all the civil servants would be living there. To a certain extent that might lead to a stay in the migration of the rural population to the city. It might lead to a position in which there would not be such an enormous expenditure of public money within the city and a correspondingly greater expenditure of public money in rural areas My chief objection to the legislation that has been passed is not so much the difference between the allowances and payments to people in the cities as compared with the country, but to the ever-increasing burden of taxation which is being raised mainly from the rural population and spent mainly in the cities and large towns. Take any particular statute that has been passed since the establishment of this State, and we find that while its intention may be to develop the tourist industry or to develop the agricultural industry or any other branch of industry, its main feature is found in the fact that it costs a considerable amount of money and necessitates a considerable number of civil servants to administer it. As these civil servants have their headquarters here in the City of Dublin, the expenditure incurred is mainly spent within this city. The result is that the rural community is being drained of a certain amount of money—indeed of an ever-increasing amount of money to maintain the ever-increasing army of civil servants within the city.

I think that is the first question that will have to be tackled—the question of amending legislation in such a way as will reduce the expenses of implementing and administering such legislation. Then, having improved the condition of the agricultural industry so as to provide a proper living for those engaged in that industry and to provide also increased employment for the workers in rural Ireland, it would also be necessary to amend the various statutes with regard to education so as to provide that the rural population shall receive an education which will qualify them to live in the country. A few years ago we had legislation setting up vocational schools throughout the length and breadth of this country. Now we find that the result of these vocational educational schools has been to draw the young people more than ever from the land. We find the country girls, the daughters of farmers and the daughters of agricultural labourers learning shorthand and typewriting at the expense of the taxpayers. This is going on in the rural towns and villages. What will be the result of such education? The plain result will be to force these girls to seek employment in Government offices or in commercial firms in the cities. That is not the kind of education that is needed for rural Ireland. If we are to have public money spent on vocational education in rural Ireland it should be spent upon such vocational education as will encourage and enable the young boys and girls to become efficient workers on the land.

It may be asked how can this be done in vocational schools? I believe there is only a limited scope in the ordinary educational school for the carrying out of this work. I believe another type of school will be necessary in order to provide the sort of agricultural education necessary—and that is residential agricultural schools which will be nothing more or less than model farms where boys would be taught the most modern and efficient methods of farming. Such schools should not cost an enormous amount of money to the taxpayers. The first aim of the promoters of such education should be to make the schools, as far as possible, self-supporting, and to insure that the boys educated in them are trained in the art of farming. It should be possible to make these schools to a great extent almost completely economic. That can be done. Unfortunately it is not being done.

We have the same position with regard to the girls. There should be a greater effort made to teach domestic economy and subjects suitable for people who are going to live in rural Ireland rather than teaching those purely commercial subjects which will only have the effect of giving the young people a bias towards leaving the land. These are just a few of the ways in which legislation can be amended to stop, or at least to curb to some extent the migration of our young people from the land. If we had taxation reduced, the terrible drain upon the population in the rural areas would be lessened. Remember that the farmer and the agricultural workers are just the one section of the community who cannot pass on the burden of taxation to any other section. If a business man in a city or town is heavily taxed, he can always pass the burden on to his customers. If the farmer were free to pay whatever wages he liked, he might be able to pass some of his burden on to the agricultural labourer. But that would hardly be a fair attitude to take up. However, his position at present is that there is absolutely no one to whom he can pass on this burden. He has to bear that burden completely himself. He is unable to pass it on to his customers, because the price which he obtains for his produce is controlled by world prices in the fixing of which the farmer has no voice whatever. It should, therefore, be our duty to see that the burden of direct and indirect taxation is reduced so that the strain on the agricultural community may be lightened. Incidentally, it is also our duty to see that legislation is amended in such a way as to ensure that the burden of taxation will be distributed fairly over all sections of the community and not piled up crushingly on the weaker and poorer sections of the people—that is the rural population. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned to Friday, 1st March.

The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 29th February.