Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1955

Vol. 148 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Emigration and Unemployment— Motion.

Mr. Maguire

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken by the Government to deal with the serious national problems of (a) excessive emigration of our people in recent years, (b) the movement of our people from the countryside, and (c) the endemic unemployment in parts of the country; otherwise the country's ability to maintain its present economic standing will be seriously impaired.

The motion deals with the problem of emigration and the consequences of emigration if it is allowed to continue at the present rate. It is not necessary to quote figures. Statistics are available to every Deputy and have been published in newspapers. Apart from statistics and newspaper reports, it is evident to anyone living in the country that emigration is showing its effects very forcibly. Those effects are apparent in the number of schools that are closed and which have become derelict, in the small attendance at schools, in the reduced number of teachers as compared with ten, 15, 25 or 30 years ago, in the congregations in churches, constituted in the main by older men and women. This is clear evidence which must convey to the most meagre intelligence that the question is one of serious importance. The result of a continuance of the present rate of emigration must inevitably be the upheaval of our economy. If the youth of this country continues to emigrate at the present rate, production must decline and production is the only means by which we can maintain social services. The social services which we are good enough to increase year by year must come to finality if we cannot produce the wealth to meet our commitments. In that respect our economic condition is unstable. May I ask what is the time allowed for this debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

Three hours.

Mr. Maguire

I would limit my introductory remarks if I had an idea of the number of Deputies who intend to take part. I suppose we cannot get any indication of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite unusual for Deputies to indicate their intention to participate in a debate. What the Deputy says may induce some Deputies to participate.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is giving them food for thought.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the Deputy go on the hope that a good few will participate.

Mr. Maguire

Very well. I have no desire to keep anyone out of the debate and my opening remarks would be limited by the extent to which I thought others might like to take part.

I do not introduce the motion in any spirit of animosity or condemnation of a Government present or past. I introduce it in a fair, open way in the hope that a clear discussion will take place out of which will come plans, schemes and suggestions which will have the effect of remedying a serious national position. I introduce the motion without any bias, with no intention to find fault with the efforts made by previous Governments or to lay the blame for mistakes which have created and accelerated emigration. No Government can completely wash its hands and say: "We are not responsible for this extraordinary exodus of young people from the countryside." No one can charge any Government that has been in office in this country with a sinister motive. In every Government that has been in power since this State was established there have been honest men who proved their worth, loyalty, patriotism and desire to do good. But, even those with the best intentions may find themselves committed to a plan and a policy that will produce results quite different from those that were intended. Every Government of this State has been well intentioned but, somehow, aimed at grasping too much and overestimated the resources of this country and, in doing so, injured very seriously some of the minor interests that make up the whole or the greater part of the whole.

I have many times in this House indicated that the condition of the people in the West of Ireland called for special attention. With the experience of 30 years behind me, I maintain that I was right and that the idea of accepting exclusively the advice of experts as to what it was economic to produce here and what it was uneconomic has proved a failure. Economic production is a splendid thing provided it means that we can produce commodities that can bear competition with similar commodities produced elsewhere. When the State was established it was understood that our resources and industrial experience were not equal to those of other countries with whom we had to compete. We had in mind, and it seemed very sound and sensible, that agriculture, which was the main industry, was not of itself a sound basis on which to build the State and there were writers and thinkers who advocated that agriculture should be supported by industrial undertakings.

All that met with ready acceptance by a people who were accustomed to the hardship of producing, under competitive international prices, agricultural goods at a very uneconomic price. But the trial of this thing brought us into the position that while we applied protection to encourage our home industries we found that the result was not as immediately beneficial as we had thought. In theory, it was sound and good, but in practice it had queer results. Every industry in this country, or almost every industry, meant an increased price on the consumer. To the bulk of those engaged in those industries as workers, the position was met by the demand through their unions that increased wages must follow. But this result of an increased price for the workers produced an increased price for the goods and an uneconomic wage for them. This resulted in striking at what might be called the middleman.

Our economy and our national wealth here comprised a group of farmers of moderate-sized farms whose work was done by their own family mainly. These people worked not on a wage fixed by a trade union or an economic standard of living but on a strong desire, on that home instinct, that the home was the important place and that work and time and money did not count.

As time grew on, that section of the community was being crushed out. The result to-day is shown very forcefully by the number of small farmers who are the mainstay of our country, who were in the past and are to-day if allowed to continue in existence and who will be for the time to come if they are encouraged. That was the section of the community who worked without looking at the clock and produced wealth by work and sweat, and who honoured and gloried in it. But the position was made untenable. Everywhere around them, there was every encouragement for the youth to quit that hard work, to quit the hours without count of production and to join some form of union that would enable them to find industrial employment where their hours of work were regulated and their wages were regulated in strict accordance with the cost of living. Is it any wonder that the youth began to leave? They watched in vain for some hope of encouragement to the family that remained at home. Probably at all times in the last 100 years or so in this country too many people depended on the farm, they became unambitious, they were satisfied to live, they were after coming out of the period of the Famine and even existence in a meagre way was a sort of sheltered condition that their father or grandfather could have told them did not exist so successfully when they were youths. Nevertheless, the growing development of things and the conditions offered in an adjoining country and also in America and elsewhere encouraged our youth out. And yet our young farmers, our young people, were hopeful that something would be done to improve their lot in time. They learned of the dark days when they were driven out of their farms by the landlords, ruthlessly and without prospect before them. They thought of the home Government—surely some redress must come now. In reality, their condition was—not intentionally by any Government but by the general policy of Governments—made impossible and untenable and hence they took to the ships and looked for employment elsewhere. Our emigration has grown and grown to the extent that now it has become a matter of national emergency.

I mentioned the increased cost of living due to the effort to introduce industrial undertakings here. To what extent will that improve the countryside? Strange to think, we find and we realise that, nationally, industrial undertakings here were an improvement—side by side with agriculture they were ideal—but when those industries were introduced the countryside that needed them most, where the most of our people were centred, could get none of them. They were too far away from the seaport, and the importation of the raw material essential for many of the new industries would cost more to transplant down the country than if used in a seaport town. Hence, economically, the country areas could not have industries. How many industries, of those new industries that have been established, are in the countryside? Look, if we want to maintain an economically sound country there is only one way of doing it, that is, to develop agriculture side by side with industry, to develop agriculture and use the surplus population engaged in agriculture in industry in their own area. Let them, if possible, live in their own homes, at their own firesides, in their own cottages; let them go out to do this industrial work and go home at the week-end with their wages in their pockets and thereby put that family in a sound economic condition that will be an encouragement for the youth to remain. Instead of that, we are uneconomic when it comes to industry, we have to apply protection in order to make it possible and, having done that, it is uneconomic to transplant the industries down to the countryside because it costs a few shillings more in transport in conveying the raw materials down and transporting the manufactured article back again to the large centres of population. It is inconsistent, it is not logical and it is ruinous in its results.

In the old days, we had some recognition of the poorer parts of the country under the British Government under the Balfour regime. He recognised that congested areas or slum areas were a reflection on the British Government's authority. He established what was known as the Congested Districts Board to specialise in some means of improving the conditions of living in those areas where the farms were too small to maintain the family connection. That board was subsidised by the British Government and as a result of that— and that is back now 40 or 50 years ago, I cannot give a date—this State is still drawing a subsidy from the endowments awarded by the British Government to relieve congestion in that part of the country and to help the people who are there, who live there and are confined and constrained to live there. That money is still coming into the revenue here; but by an Act of the home Government, early in its acceptance here, that money was transferred from the people for whom it was intended and now goes into the general revenue and so goes to the general benefit of the revenue of the State. That money was to encourage and to maintain the people in the poorer districts; that is on record, and you people on that bench are drawing each year a sum of money specifically set aside to give relief and to improve and make better the condition of the people in the poorer districts; it was provided by the old, bad British Government and you are drawing that and paying it into the general revenue and spending it on the millionaire as well as on the poor.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should use the third person.

Mr. Maguire

Very well. One would have thought, and we were all told, that in dealing with the division of land special consideration would be given to the smaller farmers, that migration would to a large extent mean the breaking up of the ranches, very numerous some years ago and still very numerous, to relieve the congestion in the poorer parts. But what was done? I asked a question here some short time ago, to find out how many people were taken out in the form of migration. I was led aside. The Minister told me he could not give figures for different counties as that would give rise to animosity, ill-feeling and jealousy. The figures should be available to any Deputy on that question. I cannot understand why there is reticence in giving figures for each county. There is something sinister at the bottom of it, but I will not pursue it at the moment any further than that.

When it comes to migration, the poorest parts of this country are—I will not say completely—but very seriously neglected. It is true that figures are given of a total acreage of land divided and shown as going towards the relief of congestion, but these figures in many parts of the country refer not to any improvement of the condition of the people but refer to the complete elimination of the population of that area. Wherever an acreage of land divided by the Land Commission is given, it includes not new land taken from the ranchers in the well-to-do part of the county, but farms bought off small farmers in the locality and distributed again to the adjoining holdings. That may appear in one respect as of advantage. It is, so far as it increases an area of land which a small farmer has secured and therefore makes his holding more economic, but it also reduces the population of the area by one family. There is no improvement so far as land division is concerned. No new land is being made available, but one farm is eliminated, one more home gone.

I will go further. There is on foot— not perhaps deliberately, I am not in a position to say that, but it is on foot and is as obvious to me as that I am speaking from this bench to-night— there is in existence as a result of general policy—again I will not say it is part of deliberate policy—a plan by which certain counties are ear-marked for complete elimination so far as population is concerned. The Land Commission is no longer interested in migrating people from a poor farm to better land but they are very interested in buying up the lands of these people and putting them under forests. Forests may be a grand thing and over long periods may contain much wealth for the State if we can wait long enough for it, but I dare any man to say that the trees, however beautiful, or attractive they may be to the incoming tourists can ever replace the shrill cry of little children. They are closing the homes, the churches and the schools. That is what the policy of Governments in the past has been. I know one half of a county which has never received a migrationary grant but where all the land is now being bought over through the Forestry Section of the Land Commission for forests. It is a national advantage, no doubt, over a long period but what award are the men getting who are being driven out? £4 a week, maximum. We are driving them out of their homes without a shilling in their pockets with which they can ever start again. Is it any wonder that our people are going? Is it any wonder that we see the homes in ruins, the churches half-populated and the schools closed? This is not general, but I am speaking of areas which contained high populations of industrious, hardy people in the past, people who were intelligent and tuned to hard work, who have since been driven out. I cannot say that the Government is not responsible—though not deliberately—by applying their general policy. The general policy did not take into consideration the special economic needs of different districts as Balfour did 50 years ago when he established the Congested Districts Board. He was prepared to provide ameliorative conditions to meet the people's needs, but his plan was swept aside. Nothing was substituted.

We established a general policy for agriculture which was a great improvement and we introduced—again it was a sound policy from the national point of view—a policy of providing our own needs in wheat and such things as we had to purchase previously from the United States and Canada and other countries at a great disadvantage in the matter of exchange. We guaranteed farmers whose land was suitable good, economic prices, fixed by arbitration between the farmers and the Government which was going to pay the subsidy. The price of wheat went up beyond what it would have gone to if we were to buy the same products from outside. But what about the poor land and what about the poor farmer whose land was not capable of growing wheat? All that happened was that he had to pay more. Similarly, in the case of beet, and this, too, was a great national asset. The farmer who was in a position to produce beet gained, and an economic price for his goods was established but the poor people with the land unsuitable for growing the beet got no benefit and had to pay more. The people had to emigrate because their conditions were so reduced that they could not stand any more.

I am mentioning these things not in any spirit of hostility. The general motive was good and from the national point of view was successful, but it lacked that individual attention, that appreciation of particular needs of each district and each section of the community which is the form of attention the people should receive from their own Government. It is the kind of attention that a father would apply to his own children. He has to look after each one, as far as he can, individually. Up to the present, Governments are completely neglecting these areas. We set out with the idea that we were going to have a grand State and that we would build industries side by side with agriculture ensuring economic conditions for everybody who produced but in doing that we made a general policy which was applicable to the biggest farmer with the largest holding in the country as it was to the poorest farmer with the smallest holding. The result was as we see it now. Look at the figures of our emigration. What type of farmers have left this county?

The farmers of under £30 valuation. They are no longer, under present conditions, able to survive here. With such high costs, and not being able to participate in the high prices that other farmers can secure for their produce, they have had to give in. They are on the run and in their stead are coming the forest trees—ideal from the national point of view of 30 to 50 years hence—but what are the people we are driving out now to do? They are being driven out without a shilling to take with them except the £4 an acre for their land, and they are coerced into accepting that because once the forests go into an area, that area is doomed so far as farming is concerned. The adjoining farmers can this year or next year have no alternative but to offer their lands to the Land Commission because for varying causes the land can no longer produce. There is now in existence a measure of coercion that is cruel, but it is the result of the general policy based on the advice of our experts. Our experts say that timber is useful to grow, that it is a great national asset, but they say this without regard to the consequences of the enforced emigration of our people and on goes this scheme.

These are some of the things which I think could be remedied and some of the things which I believe have been effective in bringing about the present flow of emigration. Perhaps a survey of these things would lead us to understand that by some form of moderate approach to the problem, this desolation could be remedied.

It must always be remembered that our chief source of wealth is agriculture and that those who are trained in agriculture, who have the heritage and the background, our agricultural workers are the real asset. There are many ways by which scientifically the production from our land can be improved. It is one production in respect of which we can be sure of a free market, without any protection, bounty or bonus in relation to it. Why not try then to develop this land of ours rather than turn it into forest land for the next 30 years? Why not utilise these resources to the full so that we can maintain our people and encourage them to remain at home? Even the poorest land can be immensely improved now through the medium of suitable soil testing and the application of manure.

In this connection, we had a magnificent scheme of land rehabilitation. That was an excellent scheme indeed, and I do not think we could spend too much money on land improvement, but, in its operation, the scheme, while it was excellent and profitable for the farmers with the good land in its application to the poor land, the land with a poor degree of soil, where the introduction of heavy drainage was of no value whatever in so far as the soil was not deep enough to absorb the moisture overhead because it was held back by the non-porous subsoil, was a complete failure. It was brought in in a few places, but after a short time the Government withdrew and the scheme is now in abeyance in these areas; but the people in these areas still have to pay for the improvement of the land and the manuring of the land of the better-off farmers and the holders of the better soils, while they themselves are left derelict, which again shows the absurdity and the criminality of applying a general principle without regard to the special needs of particular areas.

We are dealing here with a problem which is solving itself in a sad way. People have grown tired of waiting in anticipation of things to come for their betterment. They have watched the failure to produce results over the years and now they are solving the problem by taking their overcoats under their arms, as the song told of the people long ago, and making off for another country. It is an extraordinary indictment of a native Government that that is allowed to go on—that the wealth, national and economic, represented by a people trained to hard living over the years, a people accustomed to living and surviving under terrible conditions, should be driven out through the neglect of a native Government. It is really criminal that that should happen in this State.

There are representatives of districts like my own in this House who belong to different parties. Let us speak up; let us demand that the needs of our special areas be looked after as carefully as are the needs of the better off areas, the areas which can grow wheat with success and profit, to the extent that fancy salesmen in Dublin and big merchants were last year encouraged to buy land on rent down the country and engage in a business of which they knew nothing. Why not try to provide a living for those who know their business, for those who have survived hardships, for those who are industrious and hardworking and are the best people in the world? Why not give them a chance? Why not come together side by side in face of this problem in relation to these areas from which our people are going? This is all happening under our eyes and surely we ought to make an effort to save what is still left of a hardworking and energetic race. We talk about the revival of Irish. That has involved a long struggle and there was a time when Irish was not allowed to be spoken. It was only under duress and threat of terrible punishment that our people were forced to forget it and to learn another language. Irish practically disappeared, but there still remained a remnant of Irish speakers in Connemara, in parts of Donegal and parts of the South. It was back there that we had to go to get the remnants of traditional Irish speakers when we wanted to revive the language.

The same thing is happening to-day in regard to our agricultural community. We are driving them out and watching them fleeing the land. Occasionally, we say something by way of sorrowful comment, but what are we doing to stop it? While these young men are still left in the countryside—not the big farmer or the rancher, but the hardworking industrious farmer who brought up his family in very severe conditions— it would be wise to take the opportunity of keeping them here. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the position of having to hunt after them as we had to hunt after the people in a few areas in Connemara, Donegal and Kerry when we sought to revive the language.

Mr. McQuillan

I formally second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr. Moher

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but I was more or less invited or prodded by Deputy Maguire to saying something with regard to what I believe is a kind of chip which he has on his shoulder in regard to afforestation. I believe that, if, 20 years ago, the people who then had control of the destinies of this State had gone into the congested districts and had started afforestation there we would have to-day a solution of some of the problems enumerated by Deputy Maguire. We could put in there State industries based on the timber which would by now be maturing in these areas. We all know that the surface has not been scratched in dealing with this problem in the West. We now know that migation, as it has been carried on, has not scratched the surface of the problem which exists in that part of the country, and I believe that if we had the raw material to-day and if we could go into these areas and start industries based on afforestation, we would have a much readier and, I believe, a much more acceptable solution of this problem in the West.

There is, as we all know, a limit to the amount of land available for the relief of congestion anywhere and that practically every county in Ireland has, within its own boundaries, a very high percentage of uneconomic holders. Every public representative representing these counties will argue that the natives of these counties have a prior right to any land available. In justice, I think we will be forced to concede that, and, conceding that, we will considerably reduce the amount of land available for migrants. Somebody once said that the lifeblood of a nation is its young men and women. Every five years, for a number of years, something like 11 per cent. of our rural population move from the land. There are basic reasons for that and I believe that the major cause is that we have failed to develop our agricultural economy, that our position has remained, and is remaining, practically static and that the pattern of Irish agriculture has not altered within the last 50 years.

You can do anything you like with statistics but fundamentally we have got to admit that the physical volume of Irish agriculture has not increased anything more than 8 per cent. We saw recently even the present Minister for Agriculture stating that we had the highest cattle population since 1921. Then a few days later we saw a poke at that by some statistician when he said that the increase in our cattle population was something like 1.4 per cent. since 1921. You can do anything you like when you come to pounds, shillings and pence, especially with a pound whose purchasing price is varying from month to month and year to year. But, when you get back to something like physical volume, then you are up against it. Then you can produce no figures which will show any appreciable increase in our physical volume of agricultural output.

We have, unfortunately, lagged behind. If we could boast to-day something like the same proportion of an increase in agriculture as we could boast in industry, then we would be getting somewhere. If we could say that the proportion of development in agriculture over the past 20 years was as rapid as that of our industrial development, then we might be able to boast of something but agriculture has remained practically static.

There has been no revolutionary change in the pattern of Irish agriculture and the chief reason is, I think, that there has been no substantial infusion of capital into Irish agriculture. Sops have been thrown out and we know that statisticians and economists estimate that it requires something like a capital investment of £2,000 to find employment for one adult male worker. If we were to accept that figure and multiply it by the number of people employed in Irish industry we would find that in the development of Irish industry there has been a substantial infusion of capital but in Irish agriculture there has been no such infusion of capital. Sops have been thrown out and they have helped us more or less to pedal along. There has been no revolutionary change.

We have farmed here very much in a tradition. The pattern of our industrial development has been tending seriously in a direction in which none of us would wish it to go. It has, to my mind, tended more or less to be the industrialisation of the rural population. The aim of industry here side by side with a well-developed agricultural economy should be to absorb our surplus population from the land. The position is very much this, that some of our useful workers, people who should be and could be efficiently engaged in agriculture, have been lured into industry because conditions in industry are far more attractive. Wages are better and working conditions are better. There are better social services available to those engaged in industry.

Everything tends to load the dice against agriculture. If you live, as I do, adjacent to an industrial town, you will find that there is an absolute dearth of agricultural employees. The big problem in the area from which I come is to find any worker at any price to remain on the land. That is the problem. I have always argued that if we could have basically improved the pattern of agriculture the tendency would be, if we could provide conditions on the land comparable with those in industry, that there would be a counter-pull which would to some extent arrest this inordinate flight from the land.

This movement from the land; this movement into urban areas creates, as Deputy Maguire said, a very acute problem because if you look you will find that the rural school is empty and where four teachers had been employed 30 years ago the school is now amalgamated and you have two teachers. You have a falling average and a demand for increased school accommodation in the towns when the rural school empties. You have a demand for increased church accommodation in the cities. The whole trend is the emptying at one end and the problem of trying to relieve congestion at the other.

The solution is no short-term one. We have got to seriously examine the position with regard to agriculture. There is a number of basic and inherent problems to be got over. There is the problem, of course, of the small uneconomic holder. Sixty per cent. of the farms of Ireland slide down the scale from 50 statute acres. Those of us who are old enough can cast our minds back and remember the time when families in rural areas kept together. We saw what happened. We saw them remaining there together as old bachelors and spinsters because they were never able in all the years they worked together to put by any wage.

I have always maintained that if a boy or girl remains on the land the boy is at least entitled to the minimum agricultural wage. If he could say to himself each week that he had put by the minimum agricultural wage, then he had something. If, on the other hand, the girl could say at the end of each working week that she had put by so much for her labour then she had something. We know that this small farm economy has been a great asset in one direction.

It has helped and has kept our economy from totally collapsing. The time has come when our people are better educated, and, given physical strength, they are prepared to go abroad, and are no longer content to remain at home. The more adventurous will always go, and will find remunerative employment awaiting them. We have not this old policy of helping families to remain together. We can see in the small holdings in Ireland one thing done, and that is rearing families by toil and hard work. Those small holders and small farmers can rear their children and give them an adequate education which will enable them to go out and fend for themselves. Even on the larger holdings— anyone who knows the pattern of rural Ireland is aware—there is room for two people, at least one boy and girl, and the other must go. If they cannot remain they must find an outlet. In fairness to those who remain they must go in time, but if the problem is to be solved we have got to develop and increase our output.

We know, by comparison, that we are away down the line. We know by comparison that our methods of production are in many instances stone age. This is a problem which requires the most intensive study and concentration over a long period. The solution is not a ready one, but we have got to begin and to examine the thing. If any solution is to be found it must basically be found in the development and the increased output of our farms. You can only develop industry in this country in proportion to our agricultural output. Everyone knows that 80 per cent. of our exports consists of agricultural produce. Everyone further knows that most of our materials and most of our machinery is imported, and also some tools, and in many instances some of the technical skill. Those can only be paid for in the main by our agricultural exports. There are very few, even at this stage, exporting industries. Agriculture must remain the mainstay, and we know that unless we want to pack-mule Irish agriculture we can only increase our industrial output and our industrial development pro rata to an increase in our agricultural economy.

Emigration has been for years and years a severed artery from which this nation is slowly but surely bleeding to death. Fifty years ago somebody reckoned that every able-bodied man and woman exported from the shores of Ireland meant a capital loss of something like £500. If at that time that was a reliable figure, what now would be the capital loss in our emigration with the increased social services? Every able-bodied man, or any boy or girl who has reached the age of 21 and leaves this country, goes at a time when he or she has returned nothing. There is a capital loss and there is something much more; there is a consequential loss. They go to the countries to which they have emigrated and give them their toil, brawn, muscle and brain in the building of their economy. Here we find ourselves with an ever-growing and disproportionate number of old people. I think this is a problem which should engage, over a long period, the best brains we could get to work on it. I believe that fundamentally we have to go back and find a solution in the rehabilitation, reorientation and the revitalisation of our agricultural economy.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

The proposer and the other speaker to this motion so far have said so much with which I agree that I have no difficulty in dealing with their arguments. I would like, however, to refer to the first point made by Deputy Moher the advisability of afforestation. I put it to Deputy Moher that the first inter-Party Government in this country made more progress with afforestation than any other Government since 1922. I agree with the Deputy that afforestation is one way of making long-term progress in this country. I agree also that the solution to the problem dealt with in the motion is no short-term one. I think, on the whole, it is a bit late in the day for a person representing the Party which was in power for 20 years to speak to-night on the lines of agriculture, agriculture, agriculture. To my mind, progress in agricultural methods did not occur since the year 1948. To my mind, they were reasonably apparent in the years immediately prior to the war. That is the period that the Party opposite——

Mr. Moher

One of the things I did not do when I was speaking was to mention any Party. If the Deputy now wants to score off that he can.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is fair enough to make that point all the same. Deputy Moher made one other point when he said that there was no progress in agriculture because of the lack of proper infusion of capital. I have agreed with that view, not since I came into the House, not since I stood on this side of the House, but for a very long time; I have felt that progress in this country depended on a progressive policy of putting working capital into agriculture. I believe that during a long period we concerned ourselves with that, and it may well be that in the circumstances at the time it was right; it is very easy to pass judgment afterwards, but we have for a very long period concerned ourselves with the development of industry. That is the sort of thing anybody could agree with. We might all have differences of opinion as to the margin at which we might stop, but we would all agree that we should develop our industries, and again—to give the Party opposite their due—ensure the production at home of our requirements, as far as possible, of food, clothing and shelter. These are reasonable objects for any Government in this country. I feel, however—and I think it has considerable bearing on this motion—that there was not sufficient attention paid to the development of agriculture.

This motion is in three parts—first of all, that the Government should do something about the excessive emigration of our people in recent years. Might I say that emigration of our people from this country did not start to-day or yesterday and it is not peculiarly an economic problem which Deputy Maguire seemed to make it entirely? It is somewhat more complex than that. The social factors involved are of considerable importance. For example, it is well known that many more women emigrate than men. That is believed to be due, in part at least, to the high average age of marriage in this country. Apart from that there is a tradition of emigration. The pull aspect of emigration rather than the push aspect, which seemed to be emphasised by Deputy Maguire, has frequently been referred to. The Irish going abroad to the two main areas to which they went, to the United States until comparatively recently, had one great advantage over competing persons in those markets—they knew the language, which was English in each case. The motion says that immediate steps should be taken. Immediate steps might be taken but, in the words of Deputy Moher, the solution is no short-term one. Therefore, immediate steps would only have a marginal effect in the near future.

The second point in this motion refers to the movement of our people from the countryside. That has been a feature of Western civilisation for at least 100 years. Many people would put it further back than that but if you take the growth of the City of Belfast it is now as a city about 100 years old and you may take it that the movement of the people from the countryside in every country in the world has taken place in the last 100 years. The difference in Ireland has been that our people have tended to emigrate rather than to come into cities and towns in this country. Whether Deputies would agree with me or not that, in fact, has changed to some extent in the past 30 years because the population of this country has remained static in the past 30 years and whereas the population in the cities and towns has considerably increased, the number of the persons in the countryside has decreased. That has some bearing on the agricultural problem to which I will turn later.

The solution to this movement of our people from the countryside is not to keep them there compulsorily and I might say the same applies to the first part of the motion. After all, if we are to have individual freedom you cannot stop people emigrating. Similarly you cannot stop people moving from the rural areas into the towns and cities. Therefore, these two parts of the motion add up to a movement which is world wide. It has occurred in all other countries in the world and there is no reason why it should not occur in this country with an improved standard of living.

Mr. Maguire

Has the population fallen in every other country in the world during the period?

Mr. O'Donovan

The population of this country has not changed for 30 years.

Mr. Maguire

Has the population of all the countries the Deputy has in mind disimproved to the same extent as ours?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already spoken and he should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak now.

Mr. O'Donovan

This motion calls on the Government to take immediate steps. The Government of this country, I take it, is in existence for 30 years. The Government of this country has kept the population at the level at which it was when the Government took charge of this country.

Mr. Moher

By the Grace of God.

Mr. McQuillan

Are you suggesting it was the Government kept the population up to its present figure?

Mr. O'Donovan

The population has remained at the figure at which it was in 1922. That is all I am suggesting.

Mr. McQuillan

That is nearly as good as Deputy Dillon increasing the cattle population on his own.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will get an opportunity of making their own statements later.

Mr. O'Donovan

The third part of the motion refers to endemic unemployment in parts of the country. That is the part of the motion to which I think Deputy Maguire paid greatest attention. The Government representative of the Party of which Deputy Moher is a member, made a number of efforts, the most recent of which was the establishment of An Foras Tionscal, to create employment in any part of the country where industrialisation had least penetrated. I personally have been rather astounded at the lack of success of An Foras Tionscal in the last couple of years. It started off with a considerable flourish of trumpets and I think it is not unfair to say that on the whole it has been a comparative failure. If the population west of the Shannon is to be kept at its present level, let alone increased, the only way in which it could be done is by increased industrialisation west of the Shannon, an increase in economic activity.

Mr. McQuillan

You would want to get a lot of those this side of the Shannon first.

Mr. O'Donovan

Do you mind my saying that that is no solution although the Deputy may think it is? What the Deputy has in mind is the problem of the small-holding that is uneconomic.

Mr. McQuillan

It is only part of the solution. I did not say it was a solution.

Mr. O'Donovan

If you say that any alleviation of the problem is a help, I would be bound to agree with you. This is mainly a problem in so far as this country is concerned, if one considers an increasing population, of providing employment here. How can employment be provided? It can only be provided in two ways, by the development of our natural resources, the point that Deputy Moher makes, and by the development of new projects in industry and commerce.

These are really the only methods. Take, for example, agriculture. There seems to me to be in recent years, as for the past five or six years, a development in the direction that Deputy Moher and I would desire, that is, a greater amount of working capital available on the farms. This has taken, in the main, the form of an improved supply of mechanical implements, and so forth. I am emphasising entirely the private enterprise end of it. I was very glad to see recently a reference to the importation of 250 combine harvesters of a particular make and the difficulty of storing them at the moment. Is it not clear to everybody that this past year's harvest, in the circumstances which now exist in this country, could not possibly have been saved to the extent it was without these mechanical implements? Is that not quite clear? That is only a partial proof of the point on which we both agree.

On the industrial side, I think other Deputies might disagree with me that the restriction of credit which we had in this country for a period had definitely deleterious effects. It held up development for a period of time. I would hope that that particular period of the restriction of credit is over.

Mr. Moher

Unfortunately, no.

Mr. O'Donovan

If the Deputy would like me to develop that particular part of the discussion, I would not have any objection at all.

Mr. Moher

The Parliamentary Secretary did not go looking for a loan anywhere recently, did he?

Mr. O'Donovan

Might I say that during the past four or five months I became interested in this problem. Just before Christmas, I noticed that 3½ per cent. British War Loan has declined from 92 to 85½ or 86—a drop of six points. During that period, our most recent loan has gone up four points, from 96 to par. That is an improvement in the credit rating of this country of ten points relative to the British credit rate—and that is a considerable achievement.

Mr. McQuillan

Will a farmer get a loan to-morrow morning from the banks?

Mr. Desmond

That is a fair question.

Mr. McQuillan

Can the Parliamentary Secretary guarantee that a sound farmer will get a loan from the banks to improve his land or to buy stock? Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me one bank manager in Ireland who will give him credit?

Mr. O'Donovan

The only thing I regret about agricultural credit is the fact that the Agricultural Credit Corporation has so tied itself up in land mortgages that, a few years ago, very nearly 50 per cent. of the applications were rejected on first examination on the grounds that the title was not in order. We all know what title questions are in this country. I am not saying that that is the position at the moment. I have reason to believe that, about this time last year, a change was made to some extent—I do not know the extent——

Mr. McQuillan

And 6 per cent. is the rate of interest. That is a nice term for the farmer.

Mr. O'Donovan

That, also, I hope is a matter which might be attended to. To come back to the problem that Deputy Moher posed as regards the immediate future, it seems to me that it is fairly obvious that sterling as a currency is running into a difficult period again. The increase in the bank rate is now admitted in Britain to be mainly in defence of sterling. There was a suggestion that it was to prevent an increase in hire purchase, and so forth, and it will have effects in that direction but, on the whole, this change in the atmosphere——

Mr. Moher

If the Parliamentary Secretary could only divest himself of the political cloak and talk as an economist it might be easier for those of us who are listening.

Mr. O'Donovan

I am speaking for myself in this matter. If, in fact, the bank rate should continue to increase in Britain, I would hope that in this country we would not see a similar increase. Moreover, if sterling is running into a comparatively difficult period, surely—following a year in which, contrary to expectations at one time during the year our balance of payments more than balanced— that is a period during which this country as a whole should go in for capital investment?

Deputy Maguire said that the early Governments of this country overestimated the resources of the country. I do not agree with that. I feel—and it is easy to be wise after the event— that the early Governments of this country—and I am not condemning them—underestimated the resources of the country. We have the means to continue developing this country no matter what temporary difficulties may occur in any other part of the world, particularly when we are aware that there is a public opinion in this country which desires that we should bring back for investment here the assets invested abroad. At least, if we are not going to run down the assets invested previously abroad, we should certainly not have a balance in the current years.

I know that certain figures will be produced by statisticians showing that we had a slight credit last year, or something like that. I feel, because the payments outwards are much easier to trace than the payments inwards and can be tracked down more accurately, that, in fact, the balance in our favour is a good deal more than is normally shown in the figures. Therefore, I think that this country— in relation to this motion and particularly in relation to this endemic unemployment in parts of the country —should make a particular effort during the coming years. Might I say that there is some evidence of improvement at the moment? The number of persons unemployed at the moment is 7,500 lower than it was this time last year. The figure varies slightly up and down, but that is the information we have at the moment. In addition, I appear to notice in recent weeks a better position in the employment market in so far as I am in a position to know it. I think there is more activity and, of course, that is all part of what we would hope for.

If I might return for a moment to a theoretical point, might I say that in the past it was frequently urged that "society progresses on the backs of the unemployed". When that was stated, what did it mean? It meant that at certain periods the unemployed were the people who suffered because there was unemployment due to the introduction of machinery, or that kind of thing.

As we know, all western countries nowadays believe in full employment. If we have not got full employment in this country since it is a country from which there is considerable emigration, surely it should be the objective of every Government—and it certainly is the major objective of the present Government—to create as far as possible full employment. After all, we have what has been called the safety valve of emigration. Whether or not you call it a safety valve does not matter a great deal, but at least it does help in the problem of creating full employment. In addition, we have considerable assets abroad. We have, moreover, the advantage which has developed recently again of a favourable balance of payments.

These factors suggest—perhaps I am glossing over the technical difficulties which may arise about methods of finance—that for the moment we should concentrate on the real point of the problem. Once we have these factors, I cannot see why it should not be possible within a reasonable time to create a situation in this country in which there would be no unemployment in the sense mentioned in this motion —that is to say, endemic unemployment in parts of the country. Conditions here should be such that any person who is unemployed in one part of the country could move into work in some other part of the country.

Mr. Maguire

What is the actual position? We know there is endemic unemployment. What about the unemployment you are creating?

Mr. O'Donovan

I should like to suggest that the fact that you are paying something in one part of the country does not necessarily prove that there is endemic unemployment there. After all, even in countries with full employment, there is always some movement from one job into another.

Mr. Maguire

People are changing from one part of the country to some other part. That is in practice what has been happening.

Mr. O'Donovan

Perhaps the Deputy misunderstands me. I said that we should be able to create conditions——

Mr. Maguire

Why not do it?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already made his speech.

Mr. O'Donovan

Deputy Maguire made a point which on the whole I do not think is true any longer. I think it was true at one time but on the evidence at present and for some years back, I do not think that it is true any longer. The Deputy made the point that the increased cost of living in this country was due to industrialisation.

Mr. Maguire

Partly, not entirely.

Mr. O'Donovan

Of course, it is in a large part due to inflation, if we are thinking in monetary terms.

Mr. Maguire

I know that. I know elementary economics all right.

Mr. O'Donovan

Well, I do not mean it in that sense. I meant to convey that it is due to some influences outside the country. Since our currency is on a par with sterling, if sterling depreciates in value our currency depreciates in value also, and the cost of living goes up in monetary terms. The main point I would make is that on the whole, since the outbreak of war in Korea in the middle of 1950, any increase in the cost of living or the main parts of the increases we have had in this country have been due to outside influences. There was also, of course, as far as the cost-of-living index goes and so far as it impinged on the people in the towns and cities the abolition of food subsidies. That is something with which I did not agree personally.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Why were they not restored when you got the chance?

Mr. O'Donovan

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an Teachta Ó Brian chó simplí sin.

Mr. Moher

You are a small cog in a big wheel.

Mr. O'Donovan

One other point raised in the course of the debate was the difficulties of farmers with a valuation under £30.

Mr. Maguire

Farmers under 30 acres, I said. There is a slight difference.

Mr. O'Donovan

There is a difference, because in this country 60 acres of average land would have a valuation of about £30. Mind you, I would have little sympathy to-day, from the point of view of making a living, with a farmer who has 60 acres of land provided he had——

Mr. Maguire

On a point of correction, the Parliamentary Secretary has quoted me as giving a valuation of £30 as the standard below which emigration took place amongst farmers. I did not mention £30 valuation. What I said was 30 acres, which, in many cases, might represent a valuation of £5.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Or even as low as £2.

Mr. O'Donovan

If I misinterpreted the Deputy, I am quite prepared to withdraw, but I made a note of it at the time.

Mr. Cunningham

Why not go up to £50, the fellows with the Chrysler cars?

Mr. O'Donovan

One other suggestion made during the course of the debate was that the land rehabilitation programme was an excellent scheme and that it had been left in abeyance. I cannot see how Deputy Maguire made that statement because a bigger sum has been voted in the last couple of years for the land rehabilitation project than was voted in previous years. I have no doubt that any Government in this country will continue with that project.

Mr. Maguire

Again on a point of correction, the statement I made was that the land rehabilitation scheme, useful though it is in many respects and a scheme which it is desirable to continue, did have a repercussion in the smaller areas in which the Government found it uneconomic to continue it and accordingly withdrew it, in that the people living in these poorer parts of the country have still to contribute in taxation towards that scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is like a postscript to the Deputy's speech.

Mr. O'Donovan

May I say that any of the experts to whom I spoke about the land rehabilitation, at one time were more inclined to criticise it on the grounds that too much work was being done on land of poor quality rather than on land of better quality? That on the whole was the criticism made in the earlier years. The Deputy suggests that that is changed, that the emphasis is on the other type of land.

Mr. Maguire

No, but——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Maguire got a fairly good innings and he should give the same opportunity to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. O'Donovan

I cannot help feeling that the suggestion in this motion that immediate steps should be taken is not intended seriously in that sense. "Immediate steps" would suggest a problem which could be solved to-day or to-morrow. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.