Notice of the following subjects for discussion on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach has been received. From Fine Gael: (1) National Production and Standard of Living; (2) Government's attitude towards the recommendations in the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation. From Deputy McGilligan: the use of Special Criminal Courts, and the Attorney-General's letter to Deputy McGilligan re the latter's reference in the Dáil to State prosecutions. From Clann na Talmhan: The provision of full employment, and the condition of smallholders in congested areas.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach.
Tairgim:—
Go ndeontar suim na raghaidh thar £11,300 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1947, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Roinn an Taoisigh (Uimh. 16 de 1924; Uimh. 40 de 1937; agus Uimh. 38 de 1938).
That a sum not exceeding £11,300 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1947, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach (No. 16 of 1924; No. 40 of 1937; and No. 38 of 1938).
The sum of £5,700 has already been granted by means of the Vote on Account. The sum now asked for is required to complete the total of £17,000 which is the estimated expenditure for the current year. Last year, the Estimate was for a sum of £17,020 and, accordingly, there is a net decrease of £20. I do not think there is any need for me to go into the subheads. If any questions arise on them, I can deal with them and give an explanation.
Again, I want to say, as I said last year, that at this stage of our history, I am disappointed that the Taoiseach, in his opening on the Estimate, had not some review to give us of the present internal situation. Last year, just as the war had ended, we expected that he would have something to say, but in spite of the fact that there was very considerable discussion on the internal economic situation here in relation to our general trade position, the Taoiseach, even at the end of the discussion last year, had very little information to give us except to say that we were in a very difficult situation: that the difficulties were of a nature that the immediate future could not easily be foreseen, and that they were not such as planning would cure. He did attempt to say that the power to develop our industries would depend on the possibility of importing the necessary raw materials, and, at column 2084 of the Dáil Debates for the 6th July, 1945, he continued to say:—
"We cannot go on and force countries to give us those materials. Those materials will come to us when the various countries will find it to their advantage to exchange them for whatever assets we may be able to give them in return."
We have on several occasions throughout the year insisted that the securing of an export trade in those goods which we are particularly suited to export was essential both to our agricultural and industrial development. However we proceed with the development of our agricultural or industrial production or in the development of our trade, our circumstances will demand a very considerable amount of faith, courage and knowledge, not only on the part of our Parliamentary representatives but on the part of every man and woman engaged on production. The most glaring fact in the present situation is that the men and women engaged in agricultural or industrial production have no information or guidance from the Government as to what to expect in the future in regard to the use of their energies and resources to increase production. Not only have they little information as to what opportunities will lie ahead and little guidance as to how they should plan, but one of their biggest difficulties is that, even if they knew where they could get the materials necessary to increase production, they are not sure that they will be allowed freely to use their initiative in respect of their own industries. In every direction they turn, they find themselves confronted not only by direct Government interference but by a sort of planned mentality on the part of the Government to persuade everybody that the Government alone can help the country through its difficulties and that it should be left to act for them. At the same time, they do not see the Government taking any action at all. The conclusion to which we are driven is that we have a Government which does not know what is happening around it, has no outlook on the situation and is fearful of disclosing that fact. Therefore, the members keep up the pretence that they are watching the situation carefully, that they have a considerable amount of information and that, when the time comes, everything will be all right and the proper signal will be given.
When we look at other countries, we find them planning and setting up targets at which they expect their producers to aim. Where exports are concerned, we find those countries engaged in discussion with the Governments of countries in which there are available markets with a view to seeing that the best possible conditions are created for their producers. In some of the principal countries, we find that substantial long-term agreements have been made with Britain to get into the British market. We have not done anything in that direction, although the greater part of our exports in the past went to the British market. We feel that it is imperative that, if the Government have views as to the target at which producers should aim, that information should be disclosed now, so that those people who have the responsibility of producing and on whom we will be depending for production will be encouraged, by the outlook of the Government and by whatever assistance the Government may give, to go ahead with that task which is peculiarly theirs. In no country, no matter how totalitarian or dictatorial, can the Government do the work of the people. Here, the Government reiterate from time to time that they cling to the principle of private enterprise. There is no questioning that, in the economy of the day, private enterprise, on the one hand, and a certain amount of direction in production by the State, on the other hand, should be linked together in the proper development of a country's resources. Here, we cling to the theory that the greatest possible development of the productive resources of the country can come only from the freest possible exercise of private enterprise. While that is so and while the Government protest from time to time that that is so, the whole tendency of the Government is to exaggerate the importance of Governmental direction and increase in every possible way Government interference.
We had an instance of that to-day when I put a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding the imposition of a tariff of 25 per cent. on electrolytic condensers for radio purposes. People had been planning to get these for the past six months or so. On the day on which a fairly large consignment for a Cork firm is about to arrive in Dublin, on the way to Cork by sea, a tariff of 25 per cent is clapped on and the Minister indicates that that tariff is for the purpose of assisting a particular class of persons. It is no encouragement to persons who are scouring the world for raw materials, or parts of machines, if, as soon as an inkling of the matter reaches a Government Department, somebody scratches his head and says: "We may as well clap a tariff on this". The person who has been exercising his wits to get materials which the country wants and which, without his ingenuity, the country might not get, finds, when he is successful, that he has to pay a substantial customs duty. In the circumstances of to-day, we want it made perfectly clear by the Government that the farmers will be allowed to run their industry according to their own traditions, outlook and experience. We want industrialists to be given to understand that they will be encouraged to use their initiative to develop industry and that they will be freed as much as possible from interference by the Government and from Government dictation in the development of industry on which the residents of our towns and cities must depend. At present, those engaged in commercial and industrial enterprise are waiting anxiously for some recognition on the part of the Government that they have anything to do with either commerce or industry. I have been pointing out recently that the British Government has been circularising every trade and branch of commerce and every branch of labour asking them, in relation to foreign trade, what assistance and protection each branch of home industry would be likely to require, and what precautions have to be taken in relation to each branch of industry in the various international discussions that are going on at present or that will be held during the present year or at the beginning of the next. Here none of our industrialists or people engaged in commerce has been approached in any way to suggest what precautions should be taken by our Government or what assistance they can give the Government in these discussions.
On the other hand, we see that in matters of great public interest the Government is interfering to prevent people who are really skilled in the various professions and industries from taking any part in discussions that ought to be going on in relation to policies pursued here. The attitude of the Government seems to be entirely in accord with the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture when, in November last, he discussed his particular outlook on vocational organisation. In the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 20th November last, the Minister for Agriculture gave what was described as a lecture on vocational organisation to the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. Dealing with the Vocational Commission's Report he said that "as a source of information on vocationalism there was no question of its value but he must reserve the right to question some of its deductions and conclusions." As he developed his lecture he declared that: "In other countries as the movement of State ownership went on, the possibility and the necessity of vocational organisation would appear to become less."
He would up his address with these words:
"The State appointed manager or the managerial system is coming— the popular demand will enforce it. As services and industries come under this system the necessity for, and the urge towards, vocationalism will become less. Vocational organisation was desirable in so far as it was useful. It had been found useful for workers to combine and for employers and professional men to combine. Hence they had trade unions, employers' associations and professional societies—the first stage of vocationalism. Employers and workers would find sometimes that their meeting together might serve a useful purpose: then they had a vocational group—the second stage. If groups came together in a cooperative capacity the final stage was reached. It should be concluded that there was no need for this step except in the case of agriculture where it was considered advisable to form the Agricultural Production Consultative Council. Reason forced them to predict that the growth of vocationalism would be measured by necessity. He was compelled to the conclusion that as time went on the necessity for vocational organisation would become less."
Now, it has been stated that there is enough in that declaration to warrant great consideration and to serve as a warning that without vocational organisation the modern State tends to become entirely bureaucratic. When, a couple of years ago, the Government set up a commission consisting of approximately 20 very representative people from various walks of life in this country to examine the position of vocational organisation in the country and to make suggestions with regard to vocational organisation here, we understood that the Government was subscribing to the fact that the maintenance of the country economically was work that could be done only by persons, trained in various vocations, pooling their knowledge and energy, organising themselves round their vocations to see that the lives of their families were made secure, that the trades and occupations they represented were made secure and a permanent part of the country's life and that, through the perfection of their professional work, they would give the greatest possible contribution to the economic building up and the orderly institutional development of the country. We understood that the Government was subscribing to that. Now, we find both in the declaration made by the Minister for Agriculture and from our experience in certain matters that the Government practically declines to recognise vocations as such in the general life of the country, at any rate as bodies whose experience might be transmitted in an orderly way to Parliament so that the decisions of Parliament here may be guided by their organised experience and their organised outlook and relationship through the various avocations in the national life here.
In two particular directions we have had occasion to challenge the Government's attitude to the recommendations of the Vocational Commission. One was when we asked that a council of education be set up and the other was when we discussed on the Public Health Bill, not only the absence of any provision in the measure for the setting up of a council of health but the fact that the organised medical fraternity in the country were not consulted in any way in the framing of a very elaborate measure intended to deal in a very broad way with the general question of public health. The report of the Vocational Organisation Commission states in paragraph 540:—
"We recommend, therefore, the establishment of a council of education as a permanent institution to act as the accredited advisory body to the Minister for Education. It should be a vocational non-political body without any executive or administrative powers."
In paragraph 543 the report states:
"We recommend therefore, that a council of health be established and constituted more or less as follows:—"
Then it gives the constitution and goes on to say:
"The function of the council should be to advise, to co-ordinate and to plan. It should serve first of all, as a consultative body, possessed of specialised knowledge, information and experience to which the Minister could look for technical advice on public health problems."
In both these matters, not only by failure to make any proposals to set up a council of education on the one-hand, or a council of health on the other, but in the actual failure in the case of the Public Health Bill to consult the authorised medical authorities in the country, and, in the general sphere of education, the insistence on the part of the Minister and the Department to pursue policies without discussion with organised bodies of teachers or the teaching profession, the Government have shown themselves entirely adverse to the proposals contained in the Report of the Vocational Commission and to be somewhat hostile to the principles upon which that report is based.
The report dealt with certain types of industrial organisations set up here, some of an emergency kind, and took exception to the Government control of certain aspects of our industrial life. I think we have a sample to-day in the difficulty we are experiencing in the City of Dublin, in connection with the transport of turf, of how wrong the approach of the Government to some of these types of commercial organisation is. Fuel Importers Ltd., is a body set up by the Government and given complete and monopolistic control over fuel, both native and imported, and any examination of the manner in which Fuel Importers Ltd., select their contractors for turf haulage and the way in which the work of those contractors is carried out will show how objectionable a system of the kind is, where political considerations of one sort or another, or personal considerations, are allowed to introduce practices which are entirely contrary to any reasonable carrying out of a commercial system.
Contractors are appointed by Fuel Importers Ltd., apparently without any consideration as to their experience or their suitability for dealing with the work entrusted to them. A contractor is appointed and he then looks for lorry owners, but there is no supervision of any kind as to the conditions he imposes on the men who do the actual work of carrying the turf by lorry. We have a system by which a number of persons, without any experience as contractors—very often, the only connection they have with transport is that they own a few petrol pumps—are given a contract to get lorry owners to haul turf. When they get these lorry owners, they impose conditions on them by which they have to take all their petrol and oil from the contractor, with the result that enormous profits are secured. There was one case in the courts about two years ago where one person who had been a contractor showed that he had made £12,000 in one year.
An examination of the figures of profits in oil and petrol and in the carrying of turf will show that the contractor system adopted by Fuel Importers Ltd., and, to my mind, adopted in a purely political spirit, has brought enormous profits into the hands of a few political followers of the Government and has substantially raised the price of turf, through transport charges, to the shocking price at which turf is sold at present. I ask the Government for a declaration of their attitude towards the principles enshrined in the Report of the Vocational Organisation Commission, not only because of the importance of education and the importance of public health, but because of the importance of those engaged in the commercial, industrial and agricultural life of the country, so that the people may understand what their relations with the Government as free and responsible men and women, carrying on productive work which is vital to the maintenance of the economic life of the nation, are to be in the carrying out of that work.
Are they to be recognised as the vital and necessary people they are and are they to be left free to use their energies and their resources to help to sustain the nation, or are they to be faced by a bureaucratic and interfering control in the same way as the Government apparently insist on showing that they intend to direct the medical services and educational services of the country? If the Government intends to stand over its professions that it stands for free enterprise and will only engage in the control or direction of any aspects of the economic life of the country in so far as the Government can best do it, it is imperative that the dividing line should be marked as clearly as possible and that the ordinary people, on whose energy and enterprise our economic well-being depends, should be allowed to see clearly that they will be allowed to work as free people carrying on very important enterprise in a country in which the general spirit of the people demands that we shall have a free society.
We have had, particularly during the emergency, a very considerable drift of our people to Britain, and recently we saw in the Press that we are likely to have a further drift of our people to France. The Irish Press announced in rather heavy type that, during a discussion which one of their correspondents had with the assistant director for foreign manpower in France, he had learned of the desire of the French Government to import skilled Irish workers for employment in France and went on to indicate that there was every likelihood that the Wild Geese were on the move again. I subsequently addressed a question to the Taoiseach, asking him whether any arrangements had been entered into with the French Government concerning the employment of Irish workers in France and whether he would make a statement on the matter. The reply I got from the Taoiseach was that “the French authorities have informed us that there are openings for employment for certain classes of workers in France,” but that no arrangements in the matter had been entered into.
That reply was given to me about three weeks ago and I take it that, in view of the fact that the French authorities have intimated that employment openings are available in France, the natural corollary is that some discussions will take place between representatives of the French departments concerned and some of our departments in connection with the immigration of Irish workers into France. I cannot, of course, say whether these discussions have taken place, nor can I say whether the Government look with favour upon the export of Irish workers to France. I think it is nationally regrettable, although perhaps, in present circumstances, inevitable, because of the way in which we organise our resources at home, that our workers leave this country. I should prefer to see a planned economy here, based on the principle of full employment, which would utilise the capacity of our people to develop our resources to the utmost limit.
A nation can live only on what it produces and if we are ever to provide here a decent standard of life for our people, if we are to improve the lot of the people now living within the State and help them to attain a decent competence, we will have to make a greater pool of wealth available for all the people. We can only do that by encouraging them to remain at home producing wealth for distribution amongst the population that is left at home and not by encouraging them to create wealth in other countries. Irish men producing wealth in other countries never made this country prosperous. Not even the re-export to this country of finance acquired abroad can make this country wealthy. If we are to have real wealth here, it can only be got by utilising to the fullest the creative abilities of all our people. That can be done by putting them to work in every industry which we are capable of maintaining, by putting them to work in developing our resources and in providing new industries and services, by operating on every type of raw material possible, so that the finished articles may be produced for our own use or for trade in barter relations with other countries.
Recently, we had an intimation that Irish workers could find openings in France. I would like to ascertain from the Taoiseach if the Government have entered into any negotiations with the French Government for the drafting of Irish workers to France. If they have, what are those arrangements? I know, from first-hand reports which have reached me from French citizens and from Frenchmen with whom I have discussed the position, that the general food situation in France is particularly bad. Even those privileged to have a recent trial air trip to France although they merely got a cameo picture of Paris, will have no hesitation in confirming the general food position there. Irish workers would probably have to save up for a week before they could eat dinner on Sunday, so high are prices and so scarce the commodities, if Irish workers are paid at the same rate as French workers—and I think you may take it that the French Government is not going to pay Irish workers a substantially higher rate than French workers. If arrangements have been made by the Government and if they have settled down to view our unemployment problem from the standpoint that the best way to get rid of the problem is to send the Irish workers away and just leave a small residue of our Irish at home and if they say that export to France is another way of keeping up with the employment exchanges, we ought at least make sure—and urge the Government to make sure—that Irish workers who may accept such employment as is available in France will know the conditions under which they are to be employed there. It may be a very easy thing for Irish workers to get into France but not such an easy thing to get out of France if they do not like the conditions. I am not sure that it will be a very easy matter to attune Irish workers to the French concept of life, to French methods, to the habits and customs of the French people. Nor, frankly, do I see any great vista of prosperity being opened before the eyes of Irish workers who happen to land on the soil of France.
Therefore, this whole proposal should be examined by the Taoiseach, if it has been put formally to the Government, with very considerable care and caution. The Government ought to make sure that for Irish workers who may be going to France provisions will be made to ensure that they will not arrive there as a kind of industrial flotsam and jetsam, that they will not be sent from pillar to post, unable to get adequate supplies of food and not getting a return in wages capable of sustaining them there and providing for the dependents they leave at home. I would like, therefore, that the Taoiseach, when replying on this matter, might tell us whether any direct negotiations have been entered into with any representatives of France on this matter and at what stage those negotiations now are. In present circumstances, nothing but bitterness and disillusionment could possibly follow the sending of Irish workers to France in the conditions that obtain there. That would do irreparable harm to the good relations between the two nations and I have such an abiding affection for France and its people and such an admiration for the contribution which French democracy has made to human freedom and human thought throughout the world that I should be long sorry to see a situation arise in which, by lack of foresight on our part and excess of enthusiasm on the part of the French Departments concerned, many of our workers would arrive there only to experience bitterness and disillusionment.
I think it was at the end of last year that the Taoiseach told us, in reply to a debate in this House, that he proposed to establish two new Ministries to look after the activities at present combined within the ambit of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. I understood then that those two Ministries were to deal, one with public health services and the other with social services which would include the entire income maintenance services of the Department plus, perhaps, the income maintenance services at present administered by other Departments. A decision of that character was inevitable, as the far-flund and dissimilar character of the present functions of the Department of Local Government and Public Health make a segregation of its functions highly desirable, if we are to get that close contact, that intimate direction and that continuous control which is inseparable from Ministerial direction of a Department.
I do not think that a Department administered in part by Parliamentary Secretaries has ever been a success and, if you do get occasionally a successful Parliamentary Secretary—and I do not say this in any spirit of derogation—then you probably would get in that person a much better Minister. If you are to have effective direction in a Department, with effective authority and effective control, the sooner the Parliamentary Secretary is equipped for that control and direction with the authority going with Ministerial rank, the better for the Department and the more efficiently its work will be done. I think it is essential that these two Ministries be created with the utmost expedition. If we are to keep abreast of modern thought and avoid being left behind in the race for efficiency in public health matters, then it is desirable that we should have a Department dealing exclusively with public health, one which will be charged solely with the responsibility for bringing our public health legislation and practice up to a very high standard. We can get that only by the creation of a separate Department of Public Health and the appointment to it of a person with the requisite ability and talents to ensure its effective administration.
I do not think anybody here will attempt to underestimate the urgency of a separate Department to deal with our social services. The more one examines our social services, the more one discovers how unco-ordinated and, indeed, in many respects how inadequate is their administration. You have two or three Departments to-day administering somewhat similar types of maintenance services, with the result that you lose that efficiency which goes hand in hand with co-ordinated and comprehensively administered social services. At present the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department of Local Government administer services which ought properly be combined under one Ministry.
Other types of social services which are independent are the National Health Insurance Society and Workmen's Compensation. They are entirely outside the control of any departmental administration, and are administered, in fact, by private insurance companies. I want to see— and I understand that the Taoiseach had a somewhat similar viewpoint—all these services brought together under one Ministry, so that there will be a comprehensive Ministry of social services, charged with the responsibility of surveying social services, co-ordinating those services as much as possible, avoiding the overlapping and inefficiency which goes hand in hand with separately administered Departments and, generally, building up a code of social legislation which is at present unfortunately far behind the standard which we require in our economic and social services. When one examines the whole code of national health insurance one sees at a glance, before the examination has proceeded very far, how utterly inadequate that social service is.
What we do is we provide a very small pittance for a sick man or woman, and say to them: "There is your national health insurance benefit. Get well as best you can. We will try to help you if we can in various ways medically." Only a fraction of the people get that help. In any case, we offer to a sick person in many cases approximately 25 per cent. of the wage which he found it hard enough to live on when in good health. How could you have a satisfactory national health insurance scheme if it is related to giving a sick workman, who has a wife and children, approximately 25 per cent. of the income that that person had when fully employed and in good health? That is what we have to-day under our national health insurance scheme, and so long as we continue it, we will have to pay the penalty of having a low standard of public health on the one hand, and a loss of potential wealth on the other hand, because people are not encouraged to recover from bad health by pauperising them with small payments while they are ill. Any examination of our national health insurance code ought to take cognisance of the utter inadequacy of the payments made under it. Those concerned should recognise the necessity of comprehensive national health insurance legislation, so as to provide a better scale of benefits for those stricken with illness, and to adjust the scheme to the circumstances of this country to-day.
Similarly, in relation to contributory and non-contributory widows and orphans' pensions, we find that the allowances made available to widows, particularly to persons dependent on non-contributory payments, represent hopelessly inadequate payments as far as those responsible are concerned. The amounts payable in the non-contributory section are grossly inadequage. Pensions as low as 1/- or 2/- weekly are commonplace in the administration of the non-contributory section. Quite clearly to apply the description "social service" to a scheme which provides payments of 1/- or 2/- weekly is to do violence to all intelligence. Services of that kind are not social services in the generally accepted meaning of that term. If you survey the field of unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance you find the same inadequate payments. Inadequate provision is made for those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. I think payment of unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefit is necessary where persons are unable to be provided with employment, or where the State is unable to provide employment for them. I would prefer to see these people fully employed, and to see each man and woman guaranteed a livelihood.
This State should organise itself in the same way as other countries during the recent war, so as to ensure that nobody was idle, that anybody declaring himself idle could be satisfied that the Department concerned would provide employment for him, or ensure that it was provided, failing which, that person would be guaranteed, at least, a decent means of livelihood during the period that he was unable to provide for himself. Our unemployment assistance and our unemployment insurance benefit is related altogether to too low a standard of living. Unless we are going deliberately to inflict very considerable hardship on those who, unfortunately, are idle, we have to step up our social services in respect to unemployment benefit, in the same way as the British Government have been compelled to recognise the necessity for stepping up their services under separate administrations.
In this House on a previous occasion we endeavoured by means of a motion to induce the Government to abolish the means test for old age pensions. I think on that occasion sympathy with the object of the motion was expressed from the Government Benches, but notwithstanding our efforts to have the means test as applied to old age pensioners abolished or modified, the Government still persists in saying that, as far as old age pensioners are concerned, they will apply a rigorous means test. We give old age pensioners to-day a sum of 10/- a week. We used to give them 10/- a week in 1916. It takes 25/6 to-day to buy what 10/- bought in 1916. We are giving the old age pensioners no increase whatever in the 10/- that they were awarded 30 years ago, and not only that, but we are still imposing a rigorous means test before they get the 10/-, which in order to equal present buying value ought to be increased to 25/6. I have never been able to understand the attitude of the Government in that matter. If we are to be fair and honest with old age pensioners, they should be given an increase appropriate to the increase in the cost of living. If we were to be fair and honest to old age pensioners we would to-day be paying them, not 7/6 or 10/- a week, but 25/6 per week. Not only can we not get another penny for old age pensioners, but the Government still insists that the present means test must be continued. I think the Taoiseach will recognise—certainly the members of his Party could tell him if they were so disposed—that there is an increasing detestation of the means test imposed under our present system of social legislation. They could also tell him that an ever-growing circle of people and an increasing volume of public opinion have come to align themselves on the side of abolishing the means test and discontinuing this iniquitous inquisition into the most intimate details of family life.
Members of the Government Party have from time to time given utterance to views condemnatory of the means test. We, on these benches, have from time to time over a long period of years sought to have these tests discontinued. The sooner we get away from these tests the better. By getting away from that type of social legislation we shall import into our legislation some of the finer attributes of care and attention for our unfortunately afflicted citizens. The present system of means test is not only detestable in its general conception but is particularly reprehensible in its operation. The sooner we get away from it the better it will be for the country as a whole.
We hope, therefore, that through the establishment of a Ministry of social services, with at the head of it a person of high integrity, competent to administer these services, we will eventually reach the stage of evolving a code of social security proposals such as has been adopted in New Zealand and Australia, and such as is now well under way in Great Britain. A hotch-potch social legislation introduced now, and amended again, covering one social abscess one day and another social abscess another day, will not in the long run provide a satisfactory code of social legislation; that fact has been recognised by these countries that I have mentioned and they are now evolving comprehensive codes of social security which are calculated to protect their citizens from that adversity which goes hand in hand with the adventure of life. I would hope that, with the establishment of a Ministry of social services here, much would be done to bring such services into line with the best thought in the world on that particular subject. I hope that the Taoiseach, when he is replying to this debate, will give us some indication as to when we may hope to see these two Ministries formally established. I hope that, not merely will he indicate an approximate date for their establishment but that he will, at the same time, indicate the desire of the Government to see our social code at last divorced from the position of being sporadic and unco-ordinated and insist that the Government's desire is to get the greatest measure of social security adequately to cover all citizens against whatever adversity may come upon them from time to time.
This Party gave notice of its intention to raise the question, in the course of this debate, of full employment and of the conditions which prevail amongst the small holders in the congested areas. To a large extent the two questions are, of course, co-related because unemployment has always been and will always remain a chronic condition of living where you have people congregated in large numbers on poor land, with very little opportunity of employment. On the broad question of solving the problem of providing full employment for our people, it is essential to remember what the objective is. If the objective is a socialised State—a State in which private ownership is to a large extent, or almost completely, abolished—in such a State the solution of the problem of providing full employment is a comparatively easy one. I have a feeling, however, that if the problem were solved in such a State the general condition of the community might be worse that it was before. We know that the problem of providing full employment for all the people was solved in Germany prior to the war, and I suppose during the war also; but I do not think that anyone will admit that that experiment was an unqualified success. We here in this country still feel that the private ownership of land and productive property is in the best interests not only of the community but of the nation. If as many as possible of the citizens of this State own their own property they can enjoy a fuller life; they can enjoy a greater measure of freedom and they are less likely to be regimented into a condition of complete enslavement and serfdom such as would obtain if all were officials of the State under one guise or another.
If we accept the ideal of private ownership of property and private enterprise generally, then we have got to try to find a solution of the unemployment problem which will fit in with that type of economy. We cannot, therefore, go out and completely regiment industry or direct workers into any particular industry in which the State thinks they ought to be employed. We must allow the largest possible measure of liberty to the industrial and agricultural employers and to the workers themselves. Our problem then is to preserve human liberty and to establish within this State such a system as will obviate the necessity for having a large section of our people degraded and destroyed by being in a chronic condition of unemployment. I think that it will be acknowledged, even by the Taoiseach, that up to the present we have failed to solve the vital problem of substantially increasing the volume of employment for our people here. The Minister for Finance has admitted that 78,000 of our people have gone to Great Britain during the last five or six years, found employment there, and are still living there. He did not, of course, make any reference to the large numbers of people who have crossed to Great Britain during the last five or six years and obtained employment there for long or short periods, returning to this country again; these people are now perhaps looking forward to crossing over to Great Britain once more. The Minister for Finance did not refer to the large numbers of seasonal migrants who go over every year. Their numbers are substantial and they represent, not perhaps a drain on the population of this country but rather a condition of instability. Such a condition is most undesirable both from the economic and the national point of view.
Some years ago a number of Irish workers were burned to death in some sort of a shack in which they were lodging in Scotland. Most people who read of that catastrophe at that time must have felt a sense of shame that our people should have to go across to another country to find employment and to live under humiliating and degrading conditions in order to save up a certain amount of money to enable them and their families to live for the winter months in this country. That national degradation ought to be ended and we ought to face the problem with realism and energy. In the congested areas of the West we know that it has been the established custom for years to migrate to Great Britain and it will require a tremendous effort on our part to bring that custom to an end. It can only be brought to an end by offering those people better conditions of employment here or, alternatively, by providing them with increased agricultural holdings. I think it will be admitted that it is humanly impossible to solve the problem of this exportable human surplus by land division alone. There is not and there never will be sufficient land to supply the needs of all who have not sufficient at present. But whatever can be done in this direction should be done speedily. The Land Commission, as we know, hold considerable areas of land which they have had in their hands for years. These are a source of grave discontent and ought to be dealt with speedily and efficiently.
Then, as I say, in a democratically-governed State in which the people enjoy freedom, it is not the function of the State to establish factories or other productive industries of that kind. It is the function of the State to encourage, as far as possible, the establishment of industries and, where it is found possible to give some form or other of State assistance to get new industries established, an effort should be made to see that such industries are established where the need is greatest, where there is grave congestion of the human population. That, again, must be done by inducement and encouragement to people engaged in the development of industries to decentralise these industries as far as possible and thus ensure that, where the population is, they will find employment.
It is acknowledged that there is not unlimited scope for increased employment in the agricultural industry. In most of the progressive agricultural countries we find that the ratio of men employed per 1,000 acres has not been increasing. It will be acknowledged, however, that the number of workers employed in agriculture in Denmark is very substantially higher than the number employed here. I think that is true, notwithstanding the fact that the agricultural population in Denmark is more equitably distributed over the entire State than it is here. Here we have a congested agricultural population in certain areas and, though they may be described in statistical tables as persons engaged in agriculture, they may to a large extent be unemployed. When these are averaged up with the thinly populated areas, I think that an untrue picture, at any rate, of the number employed in agriculture is presented. There is need and there is scope for a very large increase in the number of workers employed in agriculture. I think that an increase in the number of workers could be brought about by a condition of stability in agriculture. There has been no stability in agriculture over the last 40 or 50 years. The Great War brought about a short period of prosperity, but it was an unstable and insecure prosperity. Practically everyone in the agricultural industry realised that it would not last and it did not last. It was followed by a period of depression which was just partially relieved by the recent war. That condition of violent fluctuation, uncertainty and insecurity in the agricultural industry does not make for increased employment.
I have said that the State cannot take over either the agricultural industry or manufacturing industry and it ought not to take them over. In so far as it was sought to regiment industry and agriculture extensively during the war years it was to a large extent a failure. What is the alternative to drastic interference and control over industry and agriculture? I think that the only real alternative is intensive development of co-operative effort, particularly in the agricultural industry. We know that in the closing years of the last century there was an enthusiastic drive towards co-operation in the agricultural industry here. But in recent years co-operation has tended to decline rapidly. The number of co-operative societies has fallen very considerably during the last ten years. There is less enthusiasm for co-operative effort than there was prior to the establishment of this State. Instead of co-operative effort we have a tendency to look for complete regulation and control by the Government. I am not as enthusiastic as Deputy Norton for the establishment of new Ministries and the co-ordination of the various State services. I would be inclined to look towards devolution and unloading by the State of certain activities upon private individuals and local organisations. I think it is along those lines we will have to direct our energies in the future. There is now in this State less national idealism or economic idealism than there ever was within the past 50 years. We know that during the movement for the establishment of this State the enthusiasm and the spirit of the people were roused to the highest possible pitch. That enthusiasm and that spirit of national endeavour have to a considerable extent died. They must be revived if this nation is to progress. It is the duty of the Government to help in every possible way to revive local initiative, enterprise and co-operation. That is why we should direct our attention towards seeing how far it is possible to assist local co-operative organisations to promote increased production and increased employment.
Shortly after I was elected to this House I drew the attention of the House, during, I think, the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate, to the fact that there were considerable areas of land deteriorating, being allowed to go to waste. I pointed out that much land was overgrown with weeds and I suggested something should be done to assist in the reclamation of that land. The Taoiseach appeared to take considerable interest in the suggestion. He asked why could not the owners of the land do this work themselves, and was it not obviously the type of work which it would pay the owners of land to embark upon, inasmuch as it would improve their holdings and increase the productive capacity of those holdings, thus increasing the owners' wealth. I pointed out at that time that while work of that kind might be of great national benefit, it might not return any dividend to the owner, and that is a fundamental fact that has to be faced if we are to combine the full development of our resources and the full employment of our workers with private ownership of property.
The interests of the private individual do not always coincide with the interests of the State. A farmer might make a bigger margin of profit by refraining from capital expenditure in development and improvement work, but he would not be working his land in the best interests of the community. The question arises whether we should adopt compulsion on the private individual or resort to inducement. That is a problem which does not arise in regard to land only; it arises in regard to all property.
The problem which I set five or six years ago has been met to a very considerable extent by the Government in the provision of grants for farm improvements. There you have the State recognising that it is not always possible for or beneficial to the owner to embark upon improvement work on his land, but it is in the interests of the State and increased employment and, therefore, the State contributes portion of the cost. That principle has been accepted and the question is how far it may be desired to extend it. There may be areas of land which are poor and inferior; the land may require extensive drainage and reclamation. The owner may be unable to undertake that work; he may be unable to contribute even half or one-fourth of the cost. I do not suggest the State should reclaim that land for the owner. I suggest there are vast areas in this country which require to be reclaimed, but it is reclamation work which private enterprise cannot undertake and which private enterprise, even helped by the State, cannot undertake. The question arises whether such land should be purchased by the State and reclaimed, or whether it might be purchased by some local development organisation and improved, with State assistance. I suggest the latter is the more desirable course, because the more you can encourage people in each district to work co-operatively for the development of the district the better the foundation for a secure economic and national system.
What applies to reclamation and drainage can also be applied to afforestation. It is better that the local body should be co-operatively worked and that the local people should have some financial interest in it. If that body is assisted by the State—and in this matter it would require to be very substantially assisted—it could purchase waste land and plant in that land for future woods and groves, or have whatever type of plantation might be desirable. This would add to the wealth of the community and would add also to the beauty of the area. I think a sense of pride and enthusiasm for local amenities of that type could be encouraged.
The Taoiseach had the pleasure last Sunday of visiting my constituency and he saw there some well-developed big estates. These big estates contribute considerably to the scenic beauty of the area. It is not possible, or desirable, that such large estates can be re-established or that their number can be increased but something should be substituted for local land-owners who sought to develop their immediate districts. The only substitute that I can suggest is the formation of local co-operative organisations in which all the local public-spirited people could combine to develop and improve their localities. Such local development should receive adequate State assistance. The Taoiseach may ask what would be regarded as adequate assistance. In regard to farm improvements, a 50 per cent. grant has been found to work miracles, so to speak, and has enabled work to be carried out on a very considerable scale. The co-operative organisations which I suggest would be dealing with areas more difficult of development and improvement than an ordinary farm would be. Therefore, it would be necessary in that case to give a much higher grant than 50 per cent. The money would be well spent and the contribution made by such local effort to the general wellbeing of the community, to national productive capacity and to the maintenance of employment would be enormous. In addition, it might inspire a new effort towards building up the country.
The quotation given by Deputy Mulcahy from a statement of the Minister for Agriculture is somewhat alarming. That was an honest statement on the Minister's part of his opinion that we are drifting towards a managerial State, a State in which everything is managed and controlled by the central Government, and that there is nothing that can be done or that ought to be done about it. That is a very serious situation, if we have to face it. Before it is too late, we should seek to avoid it. If we allow human liberty and private enterprise to be completely superseded by State control and State management, it will be impossible ever to restore them. It is easier to destroy the rights of private ownership and the rights of private property and individual liberty than it is to restore them. We ought to take alarm at the steady growth of State control in human activities.
There are many things, covering a very wide range of human activities, which only the State can do. But whatever can be done by the individual should be done by the individual. Those things that cannot be done by the individual but that can be done by local organisation should be done by local organisation and those things that can be done by a municipality or locally elected county authority ought to be done by that authority. That is the line along which we ought to approach these problems.
The Taoiseach ought not to have any hesitation or difficulty in accepting the viewpoint which I have outlined but I can see a difficulty being created by the Party which he controls. The Taoiseach has been in office longer than the heads of many Governments in Europe have been and longer than is usual for a Government to be in office. I think there is a feeling in the country that the present Government has been too long in office and that if there is to be a general clean-up and a general improvement, there ought to be a change of Government as soon as possible. It may not be possible to effect that for a year or two but it ought to be accepted that the prolongation of control over Government Departments by one particular set of Ministers is bad from every point of view and does not make for efficiency or for improvement in the general standard of administration. I do not feel enthusiastic about the creation of new Ministers but there is one thing that the Taoiseach ought to do, and that he ought to do immediately, that is, to ensure that where Parliamentary Secretaries control Departments, they should be subject to the same restrictions as Government Ministers, that is, that a Parliamentary Secretary should not have the right to engage in ordinary commercial enterprises. Parliamentary Secretaries at present perform very much the same functions as Ministers and, in my opinion, should be subject to the same restrictions. It is inconsistent that the practice should have prevailed for so long that Parliamentary Secretaries enjoy much wider privileges in regard to private enterprise than belong to Ministers.
When the Ceann Comhairle was outlining the lines the debate was to take he mentioned a number of headings under which the Opposition wished to speak and to take the Taoiseach to task. One of these headings was national production. Deputy Mulcahy said that the Government was lax in its duty because it did not give any direction to the agricultural community, in particular, as to what line or lines of activity they should engage in in order to get a place on the export market. One would imagine, listening to Deputy Mulcahy, that the whole world position had been settled, and that we could really know what we would require and where we could get our requirements. Judging from the newspaper reports that we read, we seem to be very far away from that position.
I think the Government have done the best thing that they could possibly have done in the circumstances. This matter was gone over in the recent debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. The Government set up a commission to advise on the agricultural policy that should be pursued in the post-war period. A White Paper was issued on that to members of all Parties in the House, so that it can be said that an opportunity was afforded to them to criticise the proposals put forward in the White Paper and to make useful suggestions, if they had any to make. One of the outstanding points in that White Paper— indeed it has been the policy of the Government since it came into office— was that, in the first place, the home market should be catered for. Both the majority report and the two minority reports indicated to the people what they should do in order to step up production, to carry it on in an efficient way so that we might be able to cater for the needs of our own people. The only market which the Government, or people of this country, have any real control over is the home market. The policy of catering for that market has been pursued by the Government ever since they came into office. Everything possible has been done to make it a profitable market for our people. I believe that if it were not for the outbreak of war in 1939, as a result of that policy, all the essential commodities and all the essential requirements of our people would be produced and manufactured here at home. But, unfortunately, the war did intervene, and that has put us back a long way. I think that Deputies, when speaking, should give that matter consideration and should give credit for what has been done. The Government planned to provide our people with their requirements in flour, sugar, clothes, boots, fuel and housing. The fact that the war intervened retarded progress in certain directions, particularly in the case of housing and in the provision of adequate supplies of boots.
Deputy Norton mentioned the question of full employment for everybody, and said that he did not like to see our people drifting out of this country and going to England to create wealth there. I am well aware that nobody deplores that more than the Taoiseach and the members of the Government. I doubt if the drift would have been so great if the Party which Deputy Norton leads had taken up a different attitude: that if, instead of all the time adoring, if you like, cash, they would concentrate on what comforts mean. I fear there is too much of a tendency in that direction, and that too great a value altogether is being placed on money. There is not so much thought placed on value and on what we can get out of our endeavours here at home by way of bodily comforts. I think that if we gave the other side of that question more thought and less to the question of bank balances and deposits and all the rest of it, it would be much better for our people. It was sad, of course, that so many had to go to England, particularly those who were engaged in industries. The reason for that was the lack of raw materials and the fact that many industries had to close down or go on half time. A number of people did go to England, and undoubtedly they earned big money there, but I doubt if it was as big as it was represented to be when income-tax deductions and other charges were taken out of it. I believe that the people who had the common sense to stay at home, to work in their own country, are in a much more comfortable position to-day than those who left the country during the war years to take up what may be described as unskilled employment. It was quite possible for employers in England to give them big money during a war emergency. It was not possible for us to do that here. At the same time, of course, we felt the blow of the war just as they did in Britain though not perhaps to the same extent.
I think myself that present indications in this country and in Britain point to this, that this question of full employment is something that should be considered in a matter of fact way. I wonder if it is possible in any country in the world, where the democratic system of government is in operation, to provide full employment for all the people. I believe that before the war they succeeded in doing that in certain countries where they had a particular form of government. My opinion is that the unemployment problem in this country is, to some extent, overrated or over-estimated. It would appear to me that we have three types of unemployed here. You have first of all the unemployed man. He is unemployed, not through any fault of his own or, in my opinion, through any fault of Government policy, but for the reason that there has been a revolution in the world since the 1914 war, a very great revolution which hit this country just as it hit every other country. Since that time we have had the machine age. There has been a big development in the way of machinery and mechanisation. I remember that, before the 1914 war, you had in the various towns throughout this country coachbuilders, saddlers, and boot makers, all of whom employed a considerable number of men. It was all manual labour that you had at that time. Since then that manual labour has, to a large extent, been replaced by machinery, controlled by big concerns. The fact is that you have those men who were trained for manual labour, as well as the sons of some of them, and it is very hard to fit them at the present time into a different kind of employment. They represent one section. You also have the small farmer who is not able to find sufficient work on his own holding. At the same time, he cannot be reckoned as being fully unemployed. He is partly employed on his own holding. I do not see that more can be done for him than what is being aimed at, and that is to give him employment in his spare time at road making, drainage and afforestation. In the third category you have the physically fit person who is unemployed. I believe it is to this type that most attention should be paid. I do not think that anybody can deny that, within our circumstances, an attempt has been made by the Government to provide for that class. From time to time plans have been unfolded to the House by Ministers in their statements as to what is being done to provide employment for this class in the way of house building, road making and bog development.
Deputy Cogan spoke of rural improvement schemes and of farm improvement schemes. Both schemes give a considerable amount of employment in the rural areas. Then we have rural electrification which provides more openings for employment. It has also to be noted that great relief has been given in the recent Budget to the agricultural rate-paying community, relief which is almost tantamount to derating. The larger farmers ought to be in a position to give a considerable share of the benefit of that derating to their agricultural labourers. As I said, we are in a machine age. I believe that machinery is doing what its inventors never intended it to do. The more machinery we have, the more unemployment we shall have unless some means is found of adjusting the matter, so that machinery, instead of being the monopoly of individuals and sections and being operated for their benefit, will be used for the giving of universal comfort. I think that that is one of the big problems in the world to-day.
Deputy Cogan was critical of the Land Commission and told us what the Land Commission should do. I have criticised the Land Commission in this House on occasions, too. I have been dissatisfied with what I thought was their slowness but, recently, I took stock of what the Land Commission did in what I might term a "shoulder" of my own constituency in East Galway from 1932 to the emergency. I cannot find any great fault with that work. It was only then that I began to realise what the activities of the Land Commission were during that period; they were colossal. If the Land Commission had been able to proceed at the same pace from 1939 to 1944 as they did from 1933 to 1938, I believe that all the land available for division in that part of East Galway constituency would have been taken over and divided. I have here a list of 47 estates—and those were not all which were dealt with—with the names of the owners and the amount of land taken and divided during that period. The division of the land may, perhaps, be criticised but it was divided, in any event. Hundreds of new houses were built, relief given to numerous local congests and many new farms established. Certain landless men, of course, got holdings there and, even after all that, there is still congestion there. A number of congests have not, so far, been provided for.
The congestion problem in the west is a very acute one and it is not as easy of solution, I am sorry to say, as I or others thought at first glance. A number of congests were taken from the west to the midlands during the term of office of Fianna Fáil. Yet, I am told, that, in County Mayo, there are still about 4,000 families with holdings under £10 valuation. I suppose there are about 2,500 such families in my own county. That would be 6,500. Taking into consideration what I have seen in East Galway, where a considerable amount of congestion prevails although a great deal of land was divided there not merely during our time but after the passing of the 1903 Act, I believe land division will never solve to the full extent the congestion problem in the west of Ireland. I agree with Deputy Cogan that it should be the aim of the Government to establish industries as near as possible to the congested districts. That was about the best point he made. There, again, we know that there are difficulties in getting people with capital to invest their money in industries in places where they do not desire to place them. That is a big difficulty. Deputy Cogan spoke of the co-operative movement and the help it could be to farming. He may have an idea of the success of the co-operative movement in his own county or in Leinster but Deputies from Connacht will agree with me that it would be very difficult to establish a co-operative movement there in view of what happened in 1918 and 1919, to which I referred on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. I shall not go into that now.
The criticism I heard to-day on this Vote was not serious criticism. Deputy Cogan said that the vast majority of the people believed the Government was too long in office. The recent result of an election in a typical constituency —Cork—did not reveal that state of mind. That was a sample of the general criticism we have heard to-day. I hold that the policy being pursued by the Government, with the Taoiseach at its head, is the only sound and sane policy. It does not matter what Party occupied the Government Benches, if progress under a democratic system was to be achieved, the policy of Fianna Fáil would have to be pursued.
I should like to speak on a few aspects of national production. If we take national production in relation to agriculture, I think we ought to ask ourselves: are we getting value from our agricultural land and from the agricultural community? If we ask ourselves that, the answer, inevitably, must be that we are not working the soil of our farms to the extent to which it ought to be worked or that, if it is being so worked, it is not being as efficiently managed as, perhaps, modern scientific methods would warrant. That is where we must blame the Government. The necessary effort has not been made to teach the children. I know that we have our agricultural colleges and other methods for raising the level of agricultural education, but the matter has never been taken up with the force with which it should have been taken up by the Government. Granted, we had a general tillage policy pushed very energetically by the Government.
A tillage policy may be very admirable in certain circumstances, but I think everyone will admit that in other circumstances there is not the same argument for it. I am not going to enter into a discussion of tillage policy generally. I think that a tillage policy has been very necessary certainly during the war years. We would all like to see tillage carried on at all times in this country but, nevertheless, we have never seen a general agricultural policy pushed with the same fervour as the tillage policy. I should like to see the Government displaying the same energy in relation to agriculture generally. We are an agricultural country; practically every bit of wealth we possess springs from our agriculture. If our agriculture is in a prosperous condition, then the cities and the working people in them are prosperous also. If agriculture is not in a prosperous condition the urban population suffers equally with the agriculturists. In connection with that aspect of national production I am glad to see that during the last few years various cheeses have come on the market and that, at last, we are getting Irish cheese.
In former years it was a matter of regret that in this, one of the richest agricultural countries in the world—I do not mean rich in the sense of money but rich in the real sense of fertility of the soil and the possession of a climate that was eminently suitable for agriculture—if one wanted to buy cheese, one would have to buy French, Italian or English cheese. The situation, I am glad to say, has improved during the last few years but still it has not improved to anything like the extent we should like to see it improve. That is a field into which I think the Government should enter much more energetically than in the past.
There are other by-products of agriculture which should be pushed forward with all the force the Government has at its disposal. We have seen campaigns in relation to public health and I personally am very glad that we have had these campaigns. We have seen campaigns in connection with the Irish language and various other aspects of national life. In all seriousness, I would put it to the Taoiseach that there is an enormous field for Government encouragement and guidance of our people in relation to agriculture. I am not an agriculturist myself, as the House well knows, but there are many well-established principles of agriculture which have been put forward by scientists in the last few years, and I should like to see the Government giving more help to the Department of Agriculture in that respect and using the full force of, what I might call, the weight of the Government towards that end.
Another aspect of national production is industry and I think it is well that we should ask ourselves what position industry occupies at the present moment. It is in this position: it is short of materials; it is short of skilled labour, short of up-to-date machinery and short of money. That may seem a rather gloomy picture and I do not entirely blame the Government for some aspects of that situation but there is a point I should like to put to the Taoiseach. If it appears to be a matter that is more connected with taxation, I would say to the Taoiseach that in its wider implications it is important. Take the case of taxation of industry in this country. The war broke out in 1939 and, very rightly, from the commencement of the war, industries and firms were prevented by taxation from making profits which would have amounted to profiteering. I think that was perfectly correct and we in this Party never attempted to put forward any objection to that policy. It was right that when certain sections of the community had to suffer and run risks, the industrial community should have to bear their share of the suffering but I would like to express this viewpoint. The high taxation which was originally imposed to prevent profiteering has now had two rather different results, results which are not, in their widest sense, of any value to the community and in fact are harmful to it.
In consequence of the taking away of profits over a certain amount from industry generally, industry has not been able to put aside reserves to meet the increased cost of goods or to replace its machinery. Firms are either taxed on pre-war profits over a series of years or on a percentage basis according to the capital—I think it is 6 per cent. profit on the capital. Certain things are taken in and certain other things are excluded for the purposes of assessing the capital. Supposing a firm was selling 1,000 tons of some commodity at a cost of £1 per ton in 1938 and 1939, it needed £1,000 to finance that production. Now, when the purchase price of the raw materials of that commodity has gone up, we shall say, to £2 per ton, that firm would find itself in the position that it needs £2,000 of what I might call floating capital to produce the same volume of goods. Owing to high taxation they have not been able to put to reserve moneys which would enable them to produce the same quantity of goods at the enhanced price of to-day.
Somewhat the same situation arises in connection with the replacement of obsolete and worn-out machinery. Apart from the very great difficulty of getting any machinery whatever at present, there is the difficulty of financing the enormously increased new prices of machinery. That is an aspect of industry which I put forward in its relation to national production, because if certain firms and industries cannot work at full pressure, owing to the fact that they have not got the necessary capital to finance the new and very increased prices, they cannot give the employment they ought to give and cannot give the service to the community they ought to give. The same applies to the replacement of worn-out machinery, and, as I have said, it is my reason for putting this to the Taoiseach. I think that none of us realised, in the early days of the war, that a taxation policy might have such a profound effect on the productive capacity of the country.
With regard to our people leaving the country in order to get employment elsewhere, nobody likes that situation. The Government do not like it any more than we like it, but what are the Government doing? More men and women left this country during the past few years than left during any comparable period for a very long time and it is a situation which no Irishman likes to see. We all of us look to the Government to do something to help to alleviate that position. It is not very simple, but still there are many types of public works which could and ought to be carried out in order to give employment to our people and to keep them here. There is no good in our rearing and educating young people, and then sending them out of this country. Apart from the sentimental aspect and the hardship it causes to parents and relations generally, it is a position which, in the long run, will perhaps have a very dangerous effect on the country. It is in relation to it that eventually the Government will be judged and there is more unemployment to-day than there was when the Government came into power.
Finally, I want to refer to the teachers' strike. I do not wish to go into any long discussion of the matter, but I would ask the Taoiseach to consider it as if it concerned a Department of which he and he alone were head. It reflects no credit on the Government and no credit on the wisdom of the people in it that a long strike, which so vitally affects the citizens of Dublin, should have been allowed to continue. I, as a Deputy, have kept out of the technicalities of this dispute because I and many others hoped that good sense would prevail, that meetings would be held and so on, but I ask the Taoiseach to approach the matter with goodwill towards these men and women and let us see the poor children in Dublin once more attending school and getting the education which so many of them need so badly—indeed, the education which they do not get for long enough in any case. They can ill afford to lose one term out of the short period they spend at school.
I believe the Taoiseach will get off very lightly on this Estimate, judging by the attendance in the House. A colleague of mine, Deputy Beegan, made a statement which has had the effect of bringing me to my feet. He said that land division will never solve the problem with which we are confronted. That is an alarming statement, especially coming from a Deputy representing an area portion of which comprises North Galway. In my opinion, land division is the one thing which has been neglected in relation to Government policy and the manner in which the Government have dealt with land since they came into power is responsible for the unemployment and for the emigration we see to-day.
Deputy Beegan said that it looks as if Government policy is right, in view of the by-election result in Cork, but surely there is no county in Ireland in which the land problem is more pressing than South Mayo, and if the Deputy looks at the result of the election in South Mayo, he will see a vote of no confidence in the Government. I want to make it plain to the Taoiseach that the policy adopted with regard to settling our people on the land was responsible for that vote in opposition to the Government. Surely the Taoiseach must realise that, when war was all around us and when we could not import food, the Government were compelled to bring into force compulsory tillage regulations so that food would be produced for our people, and rightly so, but it is my view, and I believe I am correct in this view, that had the Government dealt with the land question as it should have been dealt with in the preceding ten years, there would have been no need for any compulsory tillage regulations.
Had the land been given to the people, to the people who were subsequently exported from this country to produce food for the people of other nations, there never would have been any need for such regulations. Where is the tenant farmer who had to be compelled to till his land? I have not met any such farmer because the tenant farmer is a man who always had to till 50 per cent. of his land in order to make ends meet and eke out an existence for himself and his family. If there is one appeal I would make to the Taoiseach on his Estimate in 1946, it is to get back to the land question. For years the Land Commission have land on their hands, not alone in Galway but in every other county and it is not being given out to the people. It is promised this year, next year and the following year, but still remains undivided. That land is set by the Land Commission in tillage, and rightly so, to produce food, but it is now worn out—and I hope the Taoiseach knows what I mean by that agricultural term—it has lost heart and has not now the value it had. Something should be done to help the uneconomic holder who may be given an addition of this worn out land. That is only putting him in a worse position than before.
I would go back to 1927—of course, I am not entitled to do so—when I remember the Taoiseach, before he became Taoiseach, making a statement down in my own town, Dunmore, that when he was coming along from Dublin on the way down he saw nothing but an odd gentleman's residence and an odd herd's house, until he came into the west of Ireland, and once he came into Galway, "if you threw your hat out of the door," he said, "it would hang on a chimney stack.""Surely something must be done to remedy all this," he said.
I do not think I would have used such picturesque language.
The Taoiseach surely did—and he got away with it. The position to-day is the same as it was that day and we have had a good many years of his Government since. The very people who were behind him that day—such as myself—have lost confidence, as we believe that the present Government is not sincere and has not the slightest intention of placing the people on the land. In what other way can one cure unemployment? There is absolutely no other way. Our industries are regarded by some people, I regret to say, with grave suspicion. That is not my view, as I believe the agricultural community must co-operate very much more with industries built up in this country, before those industries will be the success we would wish them to be. I am one of those who realise that any industry started here will provide work for more and more of our people and keep them at home, and that that is very necessary. However, it is very often pointed out to certain sections of our people that, because a certain article is manufactured here, it is costing a little more than if it were taken across the water and the minds of a lot of our people are poisoned by propaganda of that type. Our people have got to realise that, though the manufactured article may cost a little more, the industry is providing work for people who would have to leave otherwise and is also building up a home market for agricultural produce. That is an important point, as the last ten years have taught us that the home market is the principal one and is very often a better market than can be found outside. You can fix the price for the article at home, but it is outsiders who fix it on markets outside.
The statement which brought me to my feet was that by Deputy Beegan on land division, that land division would never solve the problem. I would love to debate that in any part of East Galway.
The Deputy has a grand chance now. Let him go ahead.
The Deputy should prove his statement.
What trouble would it be to prove it? There are people holding thousands of acres in East Galway and that land is left in their possession, while the children of tenant farmers have to look for permits to go across to work in England. We were told that it was Fianna Fáil policy to prevent that and were given the example of Bobbie Burns. Land in the hands of the Land Commission is not being given out to the people. The result of the Cork by-election is not the result for the Taoiseach to look at. He should look at the result in South Mayo, where, I regret to say, nearly 40 per cent. of the people have had to leave the country. That is a vote of censure on Government policy and, as the Taoiseach is the man responsible for Government policy, I ask him to see that, for the future—while there could be excuses during the war—the land will not be held any longer. I ask him to see that the land held by the Land Commission will be handed over immediately to uneconomic holders and thus be responsible for producing more food and preventing emigration.
We had a pretty long debate on land division a few months ago and at that time I went to the trouble of giving the figures of the amount of land available for division and I agree with Deputy Beegan that you cannot solve the problem on that basis. There is not enough land to satisfy the need of one-quarter of the small holders in the west, in West Kerry or West Cork. The land is not there. It cannot be done unless you create a whole lot of uneconomic holders. It is all very well for Clann na Talmhan to speak with two voices. You have Deputy Donnellan advocating more land division, more land for the people and you have his comrade, Deputy Cogan, talking about taking over big tracts of land and handing them over to co-operative societies. Which of the two plans is to be worked? I wonder which of the two policies is the policy of Clann na Talmhan.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.