I have only a few more comments to make on this motion. In the programme issued on 31st May last in relation to Government policy, No. 6, dealing with the principal objects of Government policy, states that it is the intention of the Government to increase employment and reduce emigration; this is to be achieved by increased capital investment at home, thus providing more work for our people. As I mentioned last week, this problem of emigration is not one that can be dealt with immediately. That does not mean to say that the Government intends to put the problem and its solution on the long finger; the Government has already substantially increased employment in a manner that has created confidence among the people. I suggest that this motion is misconceived and the suggestions inherent in it are not in accord with what is possible in relation to Government policy in the immediate future.
Private Members' Business. - Emigration and Unemployment— Motion (Resumed).
This motion suggests that the Government should take immediate steps to deal with three matters of vital importance to our ultimate survival as an independent nation. The operative words are "immediate steps". I find it somewhat disappointing, having listened for approximately three-quarters of an hour to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government both last week and to-night, to hear him suggest that the words "immediate steps" are unrealistic and that the three problems mentioned in the motion are problems which cannot be dealt with immediately
It was never suggested by the mover of the motion, by myself or any other Deputy that these problems could be solved immediately. All that the motion asks is that immediate steps be taken to deal with these problems. If the steps are not taken immediately, I wonder when they will be taken. When will steps be taken to put into operation a policy, or the programme, which will help to solve the ills that beset the country?
I intend to deal with this motion without too much criticism of any Party, but I think I must be forgiven if I pass adverse comment from time to time on the contribution made to this debate by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government. To-day, in reply to a question, the House was told what the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary are, his qualifications and the dependence the Government has on his ability and his knowledge in his capacity as a trained economic adviser. I hoped when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking that he was giving purely his own personal views, but now I am inclined to think that he spoke on behalf of at least one very important section of the Government. If I am right in that conclusion, then we have little hope of seeing anything like a vigorous policy being put into operation to cure some of our present economic ills.
Immediate steps are necessary and the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is a mere quibble. Immediate steps must be taken to deal with the position even though the implementation of such a policy will take some considerable time. Nobody will deny that the formulation of a plan takes time. What we want to see is that steps are taken to formulate the plan.
The first matter mentioned in this motion is the problem of emigration. This is a subject which has been trotted out year after year in this House since I came into it in 1948. At the risk of boring Deputies, I propose to deal with certain aspects of the emigration problem. In the course of his contribution the Parliamentary Secretary referred in learned terms to the reason why people leave the country. As usual, as is the custom with all learned men, statisticians and so forth, he was inclined to deal with human beings, with the men and women who leave the country, as if they were ciphers or numbers; he dealt with them as if they were mere pawns through the medium of whose activities certain results could be adjudged and certain trends in relation to population and so forth could be calculated.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary succeeded in convincing himself that the real problem of emigration was what he described as the "pull". He commented on Deputy Maguire's contribution that the two important matters affecting emigration were the "pull" and the "push", and in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind the "pull" was the important one, not the "push".
I take it he meant to convey by that that the people who leave the country and get jobs in England or America write home and thereby attract their relatives and friends in the various parishes throughout the country to go and enjoy with them the delights of Birmingham, Liverpool and the other industrial centres in Great Britain. To me that conveys the meaning of the word "pull" in relation to emigration. I regret very much that Deputy O'Donovan, having dealt with the "pull" factor, failed significantly to mention what I believe to be the most important factor, and that is the "push". I do not suppose we could expect Deputy O'Donovan——
The Parliamentary Secretary, please.
I do not suppose we could expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be familiar with the problems confronting the people in rural areas or with the problems of those who live on uneconomic holdings, particularly in the West of Ireland. I believe that if we could eradicate the "push" factor, the "pull" factor would look after itself. Some people seem to take satisfaction or consolation from the fact that our population does not seem to have increased within the last seven or eight years, or at least decreased within the census period of 1946 to 1951. I do not think that should leave our people with easy consciences, especially politicians.
In a recent report of O.E.E.C. on the Republic of Ireland emphasis is laid in that excellent report on the evils which emigration has wrought in this country. The report states that emigration has left an abnormally high proportion of children and old people. The report goes on further to say that on the basis of emigration experienced from 1946 to 1951, it is estimated that of every three persons aged 14, one will have to emigrate before reaching the age of 50. That report can only be described as something which is very anxious to show, if possible, this country in the best light.
We have blamed the British for many of the evils which beset this country, and rightly so. I do not think that the men who were responsible for the freedom we enjoy in this part of Ireland to-day which made it possible for young Deputies like myself to be members of an Irish Parliament, ever believed, when they achieved or were responsible for achieving this amount of freedom, that more of its youth would be sent out than were ever sent out of this country under the British régime. It may be unpalatable to certain people to suggest that in the last 30 years, more of our youth were driven out of Ireland under a native Government than were driven out under the British régime in a similar period, with the exception of the famine years.
In 1931, in England alone, there were 500,000 people of Irish birth. According to the British census of population taken in 1951, that number had increased from 500,000 to 722,000. In other words, emigration had gone up by 40 per cent. in 20 years. That can only be described as a phenomenal figure as far as emigration rates are concerned in any country in the world. According to a recent article based on the census of population carried out in Britain in 1951, in the Paddington area in London, in a random selection of 30 people who were interviewed, it was discovered that one was Scottish born, one Welsh born, and three were Irish born. That is in one area in London alone.
I wonder are we proud of that? Some people seem to smooth their consciences and take great pride in suggesting that we send our people to the ends of the earth, and that the Irish race acts as a leavening influence, or an influence for the spiritual rejuvenation in other countries. Let us be quite clear that our missioners carry out that function in many lands. I am sure that the people of Ireland are proud of their work, but let us not confuse the work of our missioners with the toil, slavery and hardship imposed on the remainder of our people who leave this country. If we accept the fundamental principle—and God knows most of us talk about it long enough —that it is a right of every man and woman born in Ireland to live in Ireland and work there, if we accept that, then it surely follows logically that it is the duty of whatever Government is in power to ensure that the means of livelihood are available for those who wish to stay and work here. It is the duty of whatever Government is in power to ensure that Irish boys and girls can get work here for a living wage. I wonder do we accept that principle? If we do, what steps have we taken to carry it out?
I believe, in spite of the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that the situation has improved, that the situation is worsening. It is a tragedy that many people in authority do not seem to recognise or want to recognise. The Parliamentary Secretary and other people told us that conditions were improving, and that in the last seven months the number of unemployed had been reduced by 7,000. We could not get the information from the gentleman who made that statement that the number who were emigrating have been reduced by a similar figure. There is nothing more misleading than to come into this House, whether it is a member of a Fianna Fáil Party when they were in power, or the present Government, and to suggest that because the unemployment figures decreased by 7,000 things were looking rosy. When I say that I have to throw my mind back to the period from 1948 and 1951. At that time I had to take my share of responsibility, a very small share, for supporting for three years the former inter-Party Government. I recollect during that period, when I was very raw in public life, that I was regaled each month with figures for unemployment, and we took pride in the fact that there was a reduction in the number of unemployed.
When the 1951 census return was made available, it opened my eyes because the figure for 1946-51 showed the clear picture. It showed what happened during the régime of Fianna Fáil from 1946 to 1948 and in the inter-Party period from 1948 to 1951. It cannot be denied that during that period an added impetus was given to emigration, to such an extent that in the five year period, 1946 to 1951, the figures for emigration were almost double those of the previous ten years, 1936 to 1946. Those are figures given by the experts in the Statistics Office and we must accept them. We had an idea that everything in the garden was lovely until that census of 1951 showed up what had happened. I do not intend to go into the reasons why a large number of people left the country during that period.
What period did the Deputy say? Did he say emigration between 1946 and 1951 was double?
The number who left between 1946 and 1951 was almost double the number who emigrated between 1936 and 1946. I do not want to go more deeply into that, but I have here figures for Roscommon where the position was that between 1946 and 1951 the number of emigrants was double the figure for the period 1936 to 1946.
There is no use in trying to hoodwink the public by saying things are not too bad and that things will improve. There is no use in trying to suggest, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government tried to suggest, that things are improving, that the national loan was fully subscribed, that things look healthy on the Stock Exchange and that the price of bullocks has gone up. These do not give a true idea of what things are like in rural areas. If the price of bullocks went up to twice what it is to-day it would not be worth anything like what the Parliamentary Secretary would have us believe it is worth to the unfortunate uneconomic holder living in what can be described only as rural slums.
The O.E.E.C. Report to which I have referred goes on to state:
"Emigration has also removed any feeling of urgency about developing domestic natural resources. The course of the economy in the past year, favourable as it has been, has not significantly reduced the size of the long-term problem."
I think the first sentence there—
"Emigration has also removed any feeling of urgency about developing domestic natural resources..."
is a very true statement of the conditions here in Ireland. I do not know whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary was aware of that report but, if he was not, it is a coincidence that on this motion last Wednesday night, at column 489, Volume 148 of the Official Report, he is reported as follows:
"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."
They are the words of a responsible Parliamentary Secretary to the Government—that emigration helps in the problem of creating full employment. If we are to accept that as Government policy, does not it mean that they are satisfied that emigration must go on at the rate at which it is going and that, so far as the Government is concerned, if things keep on as they are at the moment and we get rid of our surplus population, everything is all right? I hope I am not misquoting the Parliamentary Secretary.
Of course, the Deputy is misinterpreting me.
Of course he is.
Let the Parliamentary Secretary speak for himself. Deputy Dockrell was not here.
Do you really mean that you misunderstood what I have said?
I have quoted the column and the volume and if I have misquoted what the Parliamentary Secretary said I will be the first to withdraw it.
Well, you have.
I have quoted word for word what is to be found in the Official Report.
Read it again.
"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."
I make no comment after that.
Would the Deputy give the column, please?
Column 489, Volume 148.
The Deputy is reading more into it than the Parliamentary Secretary meant.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a very intelligent man, I understand.
Will the Deputy give us any solution for emigration? We have heard a lot of abuse about everybody. Perhaps the Deputy has some solution.
Allow me to continue. Perhaps I will throw out a few suggestions but I have very little hope that the Deputy would accept them.
That may be so. We are waiting for suggestions. None have appeared so far.
Deputies on both sides of this House who represent rural constituencies will agree with me that the problem there is the very high proportion of children and old people. I am sorry if the Parliamentary Secretary or his colleague thinks I am abusing him. I am merely quoting him. He suggests that as far as the rural areas are concerned and as far as the country in general is concerned more girls emigrate than men. At column 483, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Donovan, said:—
"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."
If the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Donovan, or any of his friends who represent city constituencies would take a trip to the rural areas and to the West of Ireland, I am sure they would be able to understand why the young men on the small uneconomic holdings there cannot get married. How could any young man afford to take unto himself a wife on a holding of £5 valuation and perhaps depend for three months of the year on work from the county council or three weeks' work in the winter time on a special employment scheme and spend the rest of his time on the dole? Conditions have become so bad in rural areas that parishes that were able to team 15 first-class footballers are put to the pin of their collar to get half a team for the G.A.A. I cannot speak for the other games because I am not familiar with them.
There are other Deputies who wish to take part in this debate and time will not permit me to dwell on the serious consequences if the unbalance in our population is allowed to continue. Where there is an excess of young or old people in a country, the burden of social services and of other aspects of the economy must be borne by the few. I maintain that 95 per cent. of the people who emigrate at the moment would stay at home if they got a chance to work in Ireland and I believe that you can cut out the pull attraction almost completely if the push problem is solved.
It is not my business as an ordinary Deputy to tell this or any other Government what to do, but I propose to make a few suggestions which, if implemented, would go some way towards solving the problem of emigration and also the unemployment problem in the rural areas. First, I believe that a vigorous inspiring policy of land distribution and afforestation should be got under way. I believe that no vested interests, no red tape and no financial difficulties should be allowed to stand in the way. I believe that revolutionary changes in Land Commission and forestry programmes are absolutely essential. Again, time will not permit me to deal in detail with the present policy, or lack of policy, in connection with land distribution or land division, but we are told time and again that the pool of land available for the relief of congestion is limited or is practically dried up.
I want to say that that is sheer nonsense. Even the recent majority report of the Commission on Emigration advocated that increased activity by the Land Commission was essential in the Midlands. That majority report was as timid a result as I have ever read, but, cautious and all as they were, they advocated as one of their recommendations to the Government the division of the large holdings and estates in the Midlands. In his minority report, Dr. Lucey who is a man of vision and courage—he did not put a tooth in it—said that "one of the big problems is the maldistribution of our rural population as between the fertile Midland counties and the poorer western counties." That is there in black and white for anybody to read on page 30. The remedy, he says, lies in the break-up of the large holdings in the Midlands into family-sized farms.
Now, let us see what the position is. Between 1931 and 1953, the Land Commission established in Ireland 13,000 new holdings of an average area of 23 acres. They made a lot of additions to other holdings, but the total of new holdings created in that 22 year period was 13,000. I want to say that, if this Government have the courage, they can establish another 50,000 holdings with a minimum area of 30 acres each, without interfering with any holding of 200 acres or less which is at present being properly utilised. If that statement is examined on the figures available of land in the country, it cannot be disputed or denied—that another 50,000 new holdings of a minimum area of 30 acres each can be established without touching any holding of 200 acres or under which at present is being properly utilised. In their 22 year period from 1931 to 1953, the Land Commission created only 30,000 new holdings and I am suggesting here and now that 50,000 new holdings can be created, if some Government has the courage to go ahead. If that is done, your problem of congestion is gone and you will be putting these people, who at present in many areas live on slum holdings, into first class holdings where they can produce for the nation.
It would be well for me at this stage to emphasise that the new holdings would be infinitely more valuable than the holdings already set up by the Land Commission. This cannot be denied either, that wherever the Land Commission in their policy have gone ahead with land distribution, they have acquired in most cases land that is the most poorly valued. The Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister for Lands or any other Minister may come in here and blind us with figures of vast distribution of land by the Land Commission. Let me make this clear, that, if we depend on the acreage figures given, we are making a very bad mistake, unless we take into account the valuation of that land. That is the one thing the Land Commission never want to disclose—the valuation—because all their efforts have been directed towards the acquisition of land that is lowly valued, and it is quite obvious from the financial point of view, so far as the purse-strings are held by the Minister for Finance, that the Land Commission want to get as much land as possible at the cheapest rate possible, with the result that they gave men 23 to 25 acres that often afterwards proved to be an uneconomic holding because the land was of poor quality.
In case any Deputy doubts my figures, I will put it another way. We have 380,000 holdings in Ireland, according to figures given to me in reply to a parliamentary question. Of those, 280,000 have a valuation per acre of 6/6 and the total area involved is 6,000,000 acres, the total poor law valuation of these holdings being almost £2,000,000. We have 11,600 holdings of land with a valuation per acre of approximately 16/-, the total area being 2,750,000 acres and the total poor law valuation £2,250,000, so that we have 280,000 holdings in Ireland with a total poor law valuation of less than £2,000,000 and we have 11,600 holdings with a total poor law valuation of £2,250,000.
I will put it another way. These 280,000 holdings represent roughly 70 per cent. of the holdings in Ireland, and that 70 per cent. has a total poor law valuation of less than £2,000,000, while the 11,600 holdings, or 3 per cent. of the holdings in Ireland, have a total poor law valuation of £2,250,000. Is there not something wrong with the land distribution there? I have given the figures for the 280,000 holdings— an average valuation per acre of 6/6 and an average valuation in the case of the 11,000 group of 16/- per acre, so that on that basis each acre of the large holding is worth two and a half times the acre in the 280,000 holdings group. The deduction from that is that we have most of our people huddled in uneconomic holdings from which the people naturally flee in disgust.
On the large holdings in the Midlands we have the bullock as lord of all he surveys. Recently, when the price was attractive, we had the development of the wheat rancher. For years the people in the West were told it would be a crime if a plough were put in the Midlands, that that land was there for the finishing of the live stock from the West, that the Midlands should be used as finishing farms so that the cattle could go across in a prime condition to feed John Bull. We were told that tillage did not suit in the Midlands. However, it took the speculator, the alien and the chancer to show us that the best land for growing wheat was in the Midlands. Those gentlemen, in the words of the Minister for Agriculture, showed up that wheat was a very paying proposition by conacre. In other words, different Ministers in office actually prepared the trap for themselves. In their anxiety to deal with the wheat people they had to produce figures that there were speculators, aliens, limited liability companies, getting land in the Midlands. Deputy Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, came into the House and gave a list of figures, but I will not deal with them now. I counted up the figures he gave; he mentioned 105, composed of individuals and limited liability companies, who had between them 40,000 acres of wheat last year, grown on the conacre system.
Where did those aliens and companies, set up here in Dublin, get 40,000 acres of land, the finest land in Ireland, while we in the West were told there was no land available for the relief of congestion or the setting up of economic holdings? Was not that land there? Would it not be better to utilise that 40,000 acres by dividing it into 40-acre holdings and putting Irish nationals on it and letting them grow wheat? In 1950, in Galway, the commissioner at the time—he has retired now— made a statement at a Land Court that in the last few years —this was in 1950, referring back to 1945—over 100,000 acres of the finest land in Ireland had passed into the hands of aliens. That is only 140,000 that I have mentioned casually.
We have to-day a stagnant position in agriculture. After the figures I have given, I do not think it can be denied that a serious situation exists in the distribution of land. I do not think it can be denied, either, that the small farmer unit provides more employment and more output to the acre than the bigger unit. This can be borne out by an examination of reports of experts from different countries. I intended to deal with the position in my own constituency, but I do not think I will. I will refer in brief to a number of questions I had specially on the Order Paper for to-day regarding the shocking conditions under which whole townlands have to live at present. It is only in the last 12 months or two years that the Land Commission have directed their attention to some areas. There is one particular area I know where there are 350 holdings under £5 valuation, with no work for the sons or daughters in that area, no factory chimneys there—no, but once a year a train from the West takes its full quota in Castlerea of boys and girls who have reached the 17 and 18 mark, and they are good material for England, where their youth and health and intelligence will be appreciated in British factories and in British mines and in British hospitals and British domestic service.
I want to make it clear that there are hundreds of holdings in my constituency alone—to say nothing of Mayo, Donegal, Leitrim, Kerry, West Cork and elsewhere—where people find it very hard to exist at present. These people have waited patiently year after year in the expectation that the State, through the Land Commission, would come to their assistance and provide them with economic holdings. That carrot has been held out for 30 years. The only hope I have seen held out was the special employment schemes grant in wintertime, the rural improvements scheme, the bog development scheme and work on the roads; and when those were not there, the dole was there to demoralise them still further.
I have mentioned land. I differ with my colleague here on the question of afforestation. I think that goes hand in hand with the work of land distribution. Unless we get a different approach with regard to afforestation, from the timid outlook of the present Minister and indeed his predecessor, we will not see in this country the conditions that obtain at present in New Zealand. I will not deal in detail with forestry at all. I merely quote what the position is in New Zealand to-day and what can be the position here in Ireland: The quotation is taken from the Irish Farmer's Journal of February 12th, 1955:—
"In June next, the largest manmade forests in the world will begin to yield their first big dividend, when the £28,000,000 pulp and paper mill goes into production in New Zealand. When the world economic depression was on between 1920 and 1924, New Zealand decided to plant the forest. Now, some thirty years later, the pay-off is at hand. This month felling operations began and thus was launched an enterprise which will save the country millions of dollars a year for timber and paper products previously imported from Canada and the United States. Overnight, as it were, the country's timber industry, hitherto virtually non-existent, will jump to fourth place in the nation's economy, beaten only by the meat, butter and wool producing industries."
It was men of vision who planned that afforestation programme in New Zealand, at a time when New Zealand was practically timberless, in 1920. Last year the fruits of their vision was seen. It is a tragedy that such a policy was not envisaged even 15 years ago here in Ireland. I hope Deputy O'Donovan, the Parliamentary Secretary, will forgive me when I repeat that immediate steps can be taken.
The first thing that can be set up is a separate forestry Department, taken away from the dead hand of the Land Commission. They should have power to acquire land for afforestation and pay a suitable price for it. Let us have none of this mollycoddle by suggesting that we are interfering with the rights of private individuals. If the forestry Department needs certain land, it should be taken. It is ridiculous to suggest that one individual in an area should be allowed to hold up a forestry scheme because he has a grouse or is a crank. The E.S.B. and other bodies have power to acquire land, to flood vast areas in the interest of the nation as a whole. Why should not the Government have power to build big forests in the interests of the nation, giving suitable compensation to those who may have to leave while this afforestation plan is going into operation?
What type of industrial development is taking place in this country that is based on the land? On many occasions I have mentioned in this House a product that comes direct from the land, from barley, namely whiskey. The biggest dollar earner that Britain has to-day is Scotch whiskey. The export value of Scotch whiskey last year was £39,000,000, while the export value of Irish whiskey was less than £200,000. The export value of Scotch whiskey the year before last was £37,500,000, so that the increase in 12 months, in value, was £1,500,000, or in other words more than six times the value of our total export trade. I need not paint a picture for this House of what the value to this nation could be of an export trade in whiskey of £10,000,000. I ask Deputies to think of what that would mean to our farmers, to those employed in our factories and in allied industries, to those who would be concerned with the packing and export of this commodity. The trade would be based on the land and would give employment to our people at home. But there is nothing being done because, again, we dread treading on the toes of the vested interests in the country.
Take our pig and poultry trade. What is the position in regard to it to-day? Where you have small holdings, these two branches of our agricultural economy go side by side. I am not going to bore the House by talking about the position of the poultry business. I do propose to refer to a product that we get from our pig industry. In 1949, the Dutch carried out an experiment in the case of the American market. They exported approximately £100,000 worth of canned ham and found that there was a taste for it in America. They experimented further, and made their product more attractive, so that last year the export value of canned ham from that country to America was worth over £11,000,000, while our export of ham to America was nil— from this agricultural country.
In conclusion, I want to refer briefly to one of the means by which this policy could be put into operation. I refer to the control of credit. This was referred to by Deputy O'Donovan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, when speaking on credit last night. I am not going to bore the House by reading what he said. On the matter of interest rates, as far as the agricultural community is concerned, what solvent decent farmer in the country to-day who wants to get a loan for the purchase of machinery, seed or anything else to develop his land can get a loan from a bank? I do not know of any farmer in my constituency who can go to his bank manager and get a loan. I do know that he may get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, after 40 or 50 inspections have been made behind his back and behind the scenes, on which he will be charged 6½ per cent. interest on the money. While we have that position there can be no question of expanding our agricultural output, that is, so long as the money is not being made available to the farmer.
I am asking the Government to accept this motion, not merely to accept it in the terms in which it appears on the Order Paper, but to voice their willingness to put into operation a plan that will help to solve some of those evils to which I have referred. I am sure that the Minister for Social Welfare has some ideas in his mind as to what he would like to see done in this connection. I feel certain that he can take all sides of the House into his confidence and that Deputies on all sides will be ready to combine to solve a problem that has been there during the lifetime of all the Governments that we have had since we secured the privilege of having native Government in this country.
It is hardly necessary for me to remark that there does not seem to be any difference of opinion between members of the House, no matter on what side they sit or to what Party they belong, on the fact that emigration, unemployment and what is generally described as the flight from the land are very serious national problems. The three problems mentioned in the motion are, of course, very closely associated, and to a large extent the solution of any one of them would, in fact, be a solution of the whole three. It is evident from the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House—I think I might say this in justice to the movers of the motion—that there is no quick and easy way of solving these three problems. One thing that has amazed me—whether it amazed any other member of the House I do not know —is that up to about half an hour ago there was not any mention whatever of a very important commission which sat for over six years in this country. I was very pleased to hear Deputy McQuillan mention it and to quote some of its recommendations. It did seem strange to me, however, that only one out of three or four speakers mentioned it. I do not think that we can play down the importance of that commission or the importance of its report, and neither can we ignore its report. I hope I am not misquoting Deputy Childers when I say that he described this report as a monumental work. That would seem to indicate to me that he has read the report, but I wonder how many other members of the House read it? I concede that it is not available to the public yet. The report is being printed, but I certainly think that we ought not entirely to disregard it.
We have heard many criticisms in the House not so much of the report but of the delay in its presentation. I think that, in all fairness to those who were engaged on that commission, I should say that the delay that has taken place could not be described as an undue delay. It could not be said that there was undue delay on the part of the commission in making its recommendations. From the information that I have, the general body of that commission sat about once every fortnight, while a sub-committee of the commission sat practically every week over the entire period of six years. I think it is only fair that I should pay tribute to those people who sat on the commission and gave of their time, energy and patience in assembling the evidence that is contained in that report. I think that, as regards the report itself, any delay that has taken place could not have been avoided. I am sure any one who reads the report will agree with that. The report, I think, was presented in April or May of last year. It is now in the hands of the printers and will be readily available to the members of the public in a very short time.
Deputy McQuillan, on the first part of his motion, spoke about emigration and about the population of the country. I agree with him when he says that it is no satisfaction or consolation for any of us to find that over a certain period the population of this country has remained practically static. I do not think that is anything we ought to be very proud of.
The figures indicate that so far as this country is concerned the decrease in population since 1946 has been in the region of 7,000, but when we remember that the increase in births between 1946 and 1951 was 127,000 odd and between 1936 and 1946, 173,000 odd, we must conclude that emigration has done considerable damage in the country. I should like to say to Deputy McQuillan and the other members who tabled the motion that I, and the Government of which I am a member, do not disclaim and will not disclaim responsibility for emigration.
It is true to say, of course, that we will have emigration year after year, but I trust not at the rate that we have been used to for so many years past. I do not refer to recent years, but to the past 20, 30 or 40 years. I do not think that any of us will differ either on the reasons for the emigration. I do not think that any of us will disagree on the reasons that were put forward in the majority report of the Commission on Emigration. Among the reasons they gave was lack of employment.
I think every one of us would agree that it was lack of employment that sent many of our people to Britain and other countries. There is no use talking now about where to place that responsibility. The fact is that because of the lack of employment they were forced to leave the country over a very long period.
Another reason which I think we will not take exception to—it was given in the report—was a desire for higher living standards. That is true, I think, to a large extent, but maybe not to the full extent, because in certain parts of the country particularly in certain trades in the towns and cities, standards are as high, if not higher, than in some parts of Great Britain. We cannot say that of certain other areas, particularly the rural areas. In those areas where there was a great deal of emigration, undoubtedly those two reasons could be joined together— the reason of no work and that of a relatively low standard of living.
Lack of social amenities was mentioned in the report as being a reason for emigration. On that we can agree as well. Deputy McQuillan described how drab life can be in certain of the rural areas on a small wage without the social amenities available in towns and cities here that are available in Great Britain and other countries as well. There was also the attraction of higher wages even to those who were lucky enough to have employment, and certainly an attraction not alone of higher wages but even ordinary wages to those people who could not get employment here. Generally speaking, I would say it was force of circumstances that induced, or should I say, forced, many of our people to emigrate over a long period.
With regard to the second part of the motion, which talks about the flight from the land, I suppose people fly from the land for more or less the same reasons. They could not get employment and in certain cases—I think this is important as far as the rural workers are concerned—they could not get continuous employment. I think it is one of the things which more than anything else annoys and tends to frustrate rural workers. Many of us from constituencies outside the cities have certainly an appreciation and experience of that. The unfortunate man who may get six months' employment in county council work on roads or drainage, or get seasonal work on the farm, must, indeed, feel very dissatisfied with himself and must, indeed, always tend to seek the security of 12 months' employment.
That is a reason why some of these workers tend to fly into the towns and cities. If they are lucky they get employment, but lucky as most of them are, unfortunately, they find themselves even worse off in the towns than they were in the rural areas. That attraction is there because they believe that they may get continuity of employment in the cities and towns that is denied in the country.
Another reason as a cause for emigration and in respect of the flight from the land is a lack of amenities. I do not think any of us need dwell on that. I think we have seen a slight improvement over recent years with rural electrification, with the greater initiative shown by certain people in the building of parochial halls and the establishment of cinemas. These amenities in themselves do something to make life a little more attractive on the land than what it has been.
Deputy McQuillan talked about the inadequacy of the holdings. I think that goes without saying. I do not profess to be an expert or to have any great knowledge of the Land Commission, but I do know from reading the report—and I place great faith in the report that has been presented—that the inadequacy of holdings has been responsible to a large extent for emigration generally and the flight from the land.
It is easy for all of us to talk about the three different problems we have—that of unemployment, emigration and the flight from the land—but I think all of us have agreed to-night that the remedy is a difficult matter. The commission did make certain recommendations and for the benefit of the House I should like to mention some of the recommendations that were contained in the majority report.
One of the recommendations was the expansion of provincial urban areas. Another recommendation was the granting of old age pensions to farmers at 65. I suppose that was an effort to induce them to make over the land to their sons, their daughters or to other members of their families. One of the important recommendations that I see which is something that may appeal to the movers of the motion—it was mentioned favourably in this debate—is the establishment of a land utilisation body and a Ministry for land utilisation policies. Another recommendation contained in the majority report was the establishment of a board in the congested areas.
Hear, hear!
Again, I must confess a certain amount of ignorance in respect of the Congested Districts Board, or the C.D.B. as I think it is usually described. I have no experience of the West. I think I have a certain knowledge of its problems from listening to the debates in the House over the last nine or ten years. I think that universally there has been a certain amount of praise for this old Congested Districts Board. I am not in a position to say whether or not that board could be re-established, but I think it is important that practically every member of this House, especially those from the West, have sung its praises. That, in any case, is one of the recommendations contained in the majority report. Another recommendation was the establishment of an Investments Advisory Council which I think should appeal. According to the speeches, apparently it has appealed to the movers of the motion and the other people who spoke.
As against that, there were a number of minority reports. I do not intend to deal with the different minority reports except merely to refer to some of the things that were mentioned in some of them. Most Reverend Dr. Lucey complained about the size of Dublin. I think Deputy Maguire and he would be at one in that respect, and he recommends the decentralisation of certain—he did not mention which—Government Departments, generally, the idea being to have some of them, or sections of them, located north, south, east or west, but in any case outside Dublin. Mr. Meenan, who presented a minority report, was totally opposed to old age pensions at 65 years of age. In mentioning these I merely want to demonstrate the differences there have been even between the members of the commission.
The report that was presented was, as I have said before, an excellent report but I do not think it would be fair at this particular time—that is, approximately six months since the report was presented—to ask the Government to take action on it. It was indicated here shortly after the report was circulated to Deputies that it had been circulated to the different Government Departments for their views on the actual report and for their views with regard to the suggestions that had been made in the majority and in the minority reports. I want to assure the House that that examination of the commission's report is engaging the attention of all Government Departments and as soon as it is done, the combined opinions will be presented to the Government and they will then decide whether to accept the whole or part of the report as presented to them.
Deputy McQuillan has quite fairly here to-night suggested or said that he does not believe that there can be an immediate solution of these three evils, such as pressing a button to-morrow morning and taking some decision whereby 70,000 unemployed people would be given employment or whereby emigration would be stopped completely. It is gratifying for all of us to know that unemployment as compared with last year has been reduced by something over 7,000, but it is not wholly gratifying, and my attitude has always been—and I think I can repeat this—that so long as there are unemployed in this country I will consider, not alone as a Minister in this Government, but also as a Deputy in Dáil Éireann, that I have a responsibility for them and so long as men or women are willing to work and are available and suitable for work, I believe it is the Government's duty to take all such steps as will give them that work.
The development of our natural resources has always been bandied about in debates such as this and everybody suggests we should develop our natural resources. I would like to pose this question: what exactly are our natural resources? To what extent do they exist? For that reason I say that there ought to be a new survey of our natural resources and that that survey should be conducted on a permanent basis. I think we should have some sort of survey which would be able to tell us exactly what this country is capable of producing in agriculture, what it is capable of doing in afforestation, what it is capable of doing in the development of mineral resources, and when we have that report we can decide, or at least we will be in a better position to decide, exactly how our money could be best invested, whether in land, afforestation or mineral development.
There is no doubt, of course, that Governments since this State was established in 1922 have been concerned about unemployment and emigration, but a solution seems to have eluded most of them inasmuch as emigration has gone on at a pretty steady rate. Unemployment has not shown spectacular decreases though there have been big decreases at certain periods for various reasons but, generally speaking, I do not think we have ever reached a situation where we could have said that unemployment was at the lowest figure that it could be got down to, or that, on the other hand, we had as many people employed as could be employed or wanted employment. The Government's policy is directed towards reducing unemployment, and in its 12-point programme. as the Parliamentary Secretary here mentioned, it has declared to the people that it is committed to certain things, things which in themselves will create more employment and so bring about greater production in the country.
Land reclamation and drainage, which was initiated by the present Minister for Agriculture, has been accelerated over the years and will, we hope, be further accelerated. That in itself is not merely going to provide employment, but will provide more land and better land for the farmers of this country to work. There is the encouragement of the fertilisation of the land and that in itself, coupled with the land reclamation, will make the land much more productive for the Irish people and give much more employment.
Afforestation has been mentioned here and I do not suppose it is a very big point between the mover and the seconder of the motion, but I suspect there are differences of opinion between the two of them. I think I would fall in favour of Deputy McQuillan's suggestion—that is, that afforestation should be and could be the solution of many of our problems, not alone for the employment it would give but for the use that the matured forests would be to this country in years to come.
The Commission on Emigration incidently did talk about turf development. It went so far in one of its reports as to suggest that coal imports should be reduced. I shall not say whether I would agree with that particular suggestion or not, but I would merely say this: that turf, in my opinion as an Easterner, got off to a very bad start in the emergency period and it would be very difficult in any case to induce certain people in the eastern counties and towns to substitute turf for coal. I know that——
It would be a lot better than some of the coal that is going at the present time.
I know that in recent years since the emergency the production and processing of turf has improved to a considerable extent and I merely mention the fact that turf was unlucky in that it did get off to a very bad start in certain portions of the country during the emergency.
Does the House agree that Deputy Maguire should get ten minutes to reply?
Some others want to get in, too.
The debate concludes at 10.30.
I would like, in the first place——
Standing Orders do not give Deputy Maguire any right to ten minutes to reply.
But it is customary.
It is customary, if the House agrees.
I must accept that.
Has the Minister concluded?
I do not mind giving Deputy Maguire ten minutes.
I thank the Minister.
I think Deputy Maguire understands that the Standing Orders do not give him any right to ten minutes to reply, in view of the fact that the seconder has already spoken.
Yes, the Chair has stated that, and that is understood. I thank the Minister for giving way. Could I assume at this stage that the Government is accepting the motion? No? Well, that makes a difference, because I thought the Government would.
What I was going to suggest, I said at the beginning of my speech. I did not see any difference of opinion, and I think what I said was pretty fair inasmuch as the commission had presented its report to the Government and the Government was now examining it. The only comment I would make is that I thought the motion was rather premature. I would not, and I do not think anybody could, take exception to the remarks that were made by the proposer and the seconder, but since the Government had not had time to examine this report fully the motion is rather premature and I do not think I can accept it.
The Minister's statement is quite reasonable as far as it goes, but I submit that while this procrastination is going on, and while we are dealing with statistics and reports of one commission and another and it is always not convenient to start immediately to put into operation the various suggestions submitted from different sources, valuable time is being taken up. If you were living in a district such as the one I represent you would understand what you might consider unreasonableness on my part in speaking here to-night. I know the difficulties, but we must treat as a matter of urgency the hardships which these people are undergoing. This commission was set up some years ago and made its report only six months ago. After that long and exhaustive process of dealing with suggestions and examining the question in an endeavour to solve the problem, the report is now before the Government for further examination.
Figures generally bear out what I am saying. I will deal with just a few areas. Do not think these are specially selected in order to impress you, they belong to my county of Leitrim. I will give you an example from six schools in one parish in the best part of the county, in South Leitrim. In 1935 the average attendance at one school there was 93; in 1945 it was 77; in 1955 it was 53, a decrease of 43 per cent. At another school during the same period there was a decrease of 61 per cent.; in the next school—it is lucky—there was a decrease of only 23 per cent.; in another it is 51 per cent.; in another still it is 61 per cent.
Here are further statistics. This is only part of a parish. There were 402 families living there in the period beginning 1945 up to 1955 and approximately 700 people have emigrated; 90 homesteads have become vacant. The figures I have here indicate the extent of the exodus of the youth from the countryside. In another ten years the whole area will be completely vacated if something is not done about it. Unless we are murderers in our souls these figures should arouse indignation and lead to nothing short of immediate action. It is no use for the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, in the comfort and security of his office, to tell me in the face of these figures, showing the destruction of human lives, lives that will never be brought back, that we must wait. The commission sat for many years, the report was submitted six months ago and it will be another six or 12 years before anything would be prepared to remedy the situation.
With a full sense of responsibility I say that those who govern the country at the present day are watching the depopulation of the whole of the West of Ireland. There is really no difficulty in solving the problem if it is gone into seriously. I mentioned in an earlier speech that our whole policy here for the past 30 years was to subordinate the poorer parts of the country. We passed legislation to deal with the best part of the country, therefore eliminating the poorer parts. Those with ranches, those with good land, have got preferential treatment, first of all, by nature in the land they possess and, secondly, by legislation which has been passed in globo and which was considered in the best interests of the nation. But that was done without consideration for the people living in other more backward areas.
There are other ways in which the farmers have been hindered. They would not be allowed to rear cattle according to their own experience and knowledge and suitable to their individual requirements. They were forced to introduce a type of cattle their land is not capable of feeding. The whole policy of successive Governments has been the total annihilation of the most industrious, hard-working people on earth, the diligent farmers who have provided a family with their needs over generations. They are now being forced to turn the key in the door and many of them must go over to England to earn a living, and leave the grand heritage we have here since we achieved our independence and control of our own affairs 30 years ago. I want immediate action in this matter.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moher, John W.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Collins, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Glynn, Brendan M.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Connor, John.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.