I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Committee on Finance. - Central Fund Bill, 1946—All Stages.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply certain sums out of the Central Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and forty-six and one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven.— (Minister for Finance).
Agreed to take the Second Stage now.
We have had a long discussion on the Vote on Account, in the course of which attention has been devoted to the present financial and economic position of this country. Last night Deputy McGilligan referred to the large-scale emigration which has drained this country of almost the vast majority of young men and a very large number of young women. Deputy O'Sullivan also referred to that matter yesterday. The Minister, in replying this morning, resented the statement of these facts as being criticism designed to militate against the rehabilitation and economic and financial reconstruction and betterment of this country. Human nature being what it is, I suppose it is only natural that criticism of Government Ministers and Government policy should evoke resentment on their part and should spur them on to increased activity and to putting up the most effective defence they can devise for that state of affairs. I am sure that they realise that that criticism is attributable in the case of Deputy McGilligan and also, I suppose, in a lesser degree, in the case of Deputy O'Sullivan, to the fact that they are political opponents. Now I should like to draw the attention of Deputies to the opinion of a person who is not in the category of either Deputy O'Sullivan or Deputy McGilligan or myself, a person entirely removed from Party politics, a person who, so far as I am aware, at any rate some years ago, could not be described as unfriendly to Fianna Fáil. I refer Deputies to the recent pastoral of His Lordship the Bishop of Clonfert. In that pastoral, His Lordship says:—
"Emigration on a large scale is a slow bleeding to death of our nation and yet we seem resigned to it and as fatalists to await our doom."
Let us for a moment consider what bleeding to death means. I am sure most Deputies have seen an animal bleeding to death. It is not a very pleasant sight to see such a hæmorrhage. Occasionally, the animal may make a vigorous effort, the result of which very often is to increase the hæmorrhage. Let us translate that into a picture of the position of this country as envisaged by His Lordship the Bishop of Clonfert. Nobody in this country wishes emigration to continue. Nobody likes to see the youth or the old people going out of this country to seek work in Great Britain. One can see a picture of rural Ireland almost entirely denuded of labour. That applies not merely to the congested areas but to the rich tracts of land in Meath, Kildare, County Dublin and even in the Golden Valo of Tipperary. His Lordship goes on to say:—
"The last 20 years have seen wonderful political success gained for Ireland, but is it not time domestic affairs should receive more attention?"
Further down in his pastoral he says:—
"For God and country our young people must be kept at home, and they must have such a livelihood that they will be enabled to marry early and to bring up in their Catholic homes children in conditions that will meet the high standard of living in this, the 20th century of civilisation".
He goes on:—
"These wages can be had in the Ireland of to-day. Our country is largely undeveloped, and consequently there can be abundant work for all."
I think that in reading and weighing His Lordship's words the Government must realise that what some Deputies have described as the undeveloped condition of this country is largely true. I am sure nobody attributes unworthy or political motives to the Bishop of Clonfert. He says that this country is largely undeveloped. What evidence have we, in either the Book of Estimates or the Vote just passed, that the Government have any plan or are making the slightest effort to improve the agricultural industry of this country? In the course of his minority report on agriculture, Dr. Henry Kennedy, whom I think can be taken as an acknowledged expert on the agricultural position, states in paragraph 9, page 170, of the report:—
"It is generally accepted that there has been no appreciable change in the volume of agricultural production in this country in the last 60 years. In contrast with the stagnation here, progress in Denmark has been very striking".
I have no desire to draw unfavourable comparisons between this country and any other country. What I am concerned with is to see what there is in the Government policy that will improve or assist agricultural production. The Minister says they fixed prices for daily produce. That is quite true. I am sure Deputies will realise that, if you fix prices for certain commodities, you may assist the specific commodities for which the prices are fixed, but the inevitable result, unless you have a wide scale fixation of prices, is that the price of these commodities is forced up on the rest of the community. The Fianna Fáil Party, having rushed in with their inexperienced policy in earlier years, have now come to take matters slowly. But they make the mistake of only doing a bit when they only fix prices for some commodities and do not fix them for others. While that may improve, as I hope it will improve, the output of dairy produce particularly, it will inevitably result in an increase in the prices which must be paid by townspeople, or by the rural community who are unable to produce supplies of these commodities for themselves.
Then we turn to another aspect of Government policy, namely, industry. Recently the Federation of Irish Manufacturers held their annual meeting and almost the entire trend of the speeches at the meeting can be summed up from two points of view. One was that high taxation had prevented industrialists from securing new machinery, if available, and in certain cases it was available, and, on the other hand, that the large scale intervention by the State, better known as bureaucracy, militated against private enterprise and had almost got a stranglehold on the industrial arm of this country. I refer Deputies to the speech of the president of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. He says:—
"Another matter which is causing concern to the Federation is the grip that the Civil Service has now got on the trade and industry of the country. Not, indeed, that we object to civil servants as such or even to their part in the carrying out of certain functions during the emergency. Personally, I have found our civil servants to be courteous and competent within the scope of their normal duties, and I think that that is the general experience."
It is competent to inquire what is the scope of the ordinary duties of the civil servant. By their training and by their detachment from the realities of life which affect the rest of the community, civil servants are unaware, in many respects, of the needs or the interests of either industry or agriculture. Certain civil servants have a close specialised knowledge, or have, as a result of association with either agriculture or industry, a fairly extensive knowledge of the requirements of either of these essential economic factors in the life of the community. But, by and large, civil servants are not trained to, were never intended to, and cannot, owing to their preoccupation with administrative functions, devote their attention to ascertaining the requirements of business or agriculture. The president of the federation goes on to state:—
"Bureaucracy and private enterprise cannot exist simultaneously. The attributes and characteristics required for private enterprise can never function properly under the blighting influence of bureaucratic interference and control. One is the antithesis of the other."
I think that is a very fair statement of the position of bureaucracy.
Turning to taxation, which is probably a greater drag and a far greater hindrance to private incentive, one is struck by the number of addresses by chairmen of business concerns and companies in which it was stressed that, if it were not for the present high taxation, they would be in a position to purchase new materials, new machinery, and better plant and equipment. I heard yesterday from a member of a firm—I think it can be taken as an average firm: I do not want to mention the name—that that firm had paid in taxation twice the declared profits. Deputies will realise that the profit motive is essential to a firm if it is to continue in commerce or in business. If a firm is so taxed that twice the declared profits has to be paid by them in taxation before they are able to divide their profits amongst the shareholders or before they are able to put a sum aside in order to improve or extend or re-equip their business, I think this House must consider gravely the position of industry in this country in the light of the present high taxation.
I have noticed recently that at least two firms have been optimistic enough to expect in the forthcoming Budget certain reductions in taxation. I do not know whether their attention has been drawn to this Book of Estimates. If it has, their hopes will vanish like snow on a sunny morning. If agriculture is to continue in its present state, which His Lordship, the Bishop of Clonfert, so reasonably deplored in his recent pastoral, and if industrialists, on the other hand, are complaining— justifiably complaining—of the high level of taxation; if we have 30,000 civil servants at a cost of £8,000,000 and if we are to have two new Ministers, with probably a few applicants for Parliamentary Secretaryships from the benches opposite, we can realise, no matter how optimistic we may be, that the future of the country will be pretty hard. We shall hear Ministers lecture some of their followers on the effect that the efforts of Irishmen have had in America. If we live long enough, we shall have Fianna Fáil Ministers coming in and speaking of the effect the efforts of Irishmen have had in England, if emigration continues at the present high rate. At the same time, most of the Departments are less efficient than they were. The Minister for Lands has had a skeleton Department during the past few years. Yet, it was necessary to have a Ministry for it. We have a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who can talk about symphony concerts and stamp collecting while our telephone service is nearly antiquated. We have no indication that there will be any improvement.
We are to add to our Departments two new Ministries. One of them is to deal with public health, a very vital matter. We now require a Ministry to deal with fewer people. We are to have a Ministry for income and maintenance services. We did not require a Ministry for income and maintenance when we had a higher population than we have at present. Moreover, we face the future with little prospect of an increase of population. If the population does increase, the people will move out. Nevertheless, we have got to establish two new Ministries. I want the Government and Deputies opposite to consider seriously whether they have got so far from the people that they no longer realise the increased charges and taxation which the plain, working citizens have to bear. If they have still any association whatever with realities, they will realise that the country cannot indefinitely continue to bear increased burdens such as the luxury of new Ministries and the additional cost which these Ministries, particularly the income and maintenance Ministry, must inevitably involve.
Before concluding, I should like to pay a tribute to the Officers of the Department of Finance and the Statistics Branch for the paper on national income and expenditure which has been issued. It is not possible at the moment fully to appraise the merit of that work because we have not had it sufficiently long in our hands. I do not know whether the Department is responsible for failure to supply it earlier to us but one is struck by the fact that it was only made available on the day on which this Vote was to be discussed. Nevertheless, the officials and all concerned with its production deserve the thanks of Deputies.
Following on the lines of Deputy Cosgrave who, in his opening remarks, drew attention to the emigration of Ireland's physically fit young men and women, I want to ask the Minister and the whole Fianna Fáil Party what proposals they have, if any, for bringing home the 200,000 or 300,000 of our physically fit who left to get a living across the water. A large number of these young men were married and they left their wives behind. They are working overtime on the other side in order to maintain two homes. I remember hearing politicians in this House and on public platforms talking about the day when they would have to send to America to bring back those who emigrated there during the past 30 or 40 years. The strain is becoming worse and worse as the years go by. Our physically fit young men are deserting the land, the towns and the villages, leaving only the old people at home. That has the effect of reducing the marriage rate, school attendance and church attendance. The population is rapidly going down, while an Irish Government with an overwhelming majority is, apparently, asleep to what is going on all around. They are satisfied when they go up and down O'Connell Street and see the picture-house queues and the veneer of prosperity there. Even T. Ds. and Senators will not take the trouble to go to the back of the Gresham Hotel. They go out at the front door and they generally take the first turn to the left and go towards the Nelson Pillar.
The Deputy should not include all the T. Ds.
I am not including them all. I know that there are a few who are aware of the poverty that exists in the back lanes of the city. I suggest that, coming out of the Gresham, they should go down about 20 yards and turn to the right. They should have a look at Seán McDermott Street, Summerhill, Willett's Place, Corporation Street, Foley Street and those other streets and they will realise whether it is necessary or not to introduce something in the form of utility clothing. They will see people there wearing washed-out, threadbare garments which they have been using for the past five or six years. They have no money to buy clothing at the prices being charged to-day by manufacturers who are making huge profits. They will see the shares of companies engaged in the sale of those goods going up to ten times their value, bringing benefit to the shareholders who took full advantage of war conditions and, as prices went up, increased their income.
I want to know what is the Government going to do about that class in the community. Even the Deputy who interrupted me a moment ago to talk about Dublin has people in the city applying to him to get them passports to cross to the other side and in some cases he has been unable to do so. Every Deputy at least once or twice a week receives applications from young men and women in his constituency imploring him to get them passports to enable them to cross to the other side. I want to know what is the Government going to do to bring these people back and to enable them to live in comfort at home, because I do know that a young Irishman would prefer to live at home with his wife and family, even at a much lesser wage than he gets across the water. I remember hearing some of those people who study figures and economics talking about the value to a country of a young man at the age of 21. I heard some lecturers say that a young man at the age of 21 has already cost his country £1,000. That is the loss to the country represented by the emigration of each human being.
I shall not detain the House very long but this is one of the very rare opportunities we get to draw attention to the condition of things generally in the country. Unemployment is rapidly on the increase in the City of Dublin. Young men are leaving the Army and for every one job that is vacant, there are ten ex-Army men so that there is keen competition. Deputies are aware that such men interview them regularly asking them whether they know this or that employer or asking assistance to get employment. When the Estimates come up, there are certain matters into which I should like to go in detail. We have people in this city eking out a miserable existence, living on unemployment benefit and sometimes on a totally inadequate poor law allowance. The poor law system seems to be "taboo" in this House but the miserable allowances doled out under this system barely permit people to exist. They will get perhaps 10/- or 12/6 from a relieving officer after being subjected to a means test graded according to the cost-of-living figure, yet when the price of a pound of sugar or the loaf goes up they do not get any increase in respect of that rise in prices. I would suggest to the Minister—it may be outside his Department but it is possible for him to make representations to other Ministers—that the whole poor law system in this country is in need of an early overhaul and that those who cannot get employment and who are living on miserable allowances are entitled to better consideration from a national Government than they have been getting.
Once more the question has been addressed to the Government asking them if they have any proposals or any hope of bringing back that protion of our people who have gone out of this country for the last few years. Is it not about time that those who have been asking that question gave up looking for an answer or supplied the answer themselves? Is it not quite clear, from the point of view of Government policy, that no possible provision can be made to bring back these young men and women, within our lifetime at any rate? We are dealing with a figure variously estimated at 150,000 to 300,000. Taking the minimum figure of 150,000, I wonder will the Minister for Finance, in all sincerity leaving aside politics, say if the Government have any proposals based on their political and economic policy of the last 20 years, to bring back these 150,000 men and women? If they are to be brought back, are they to be brought back with some assurance that not only will they be able to enjoy the same standard of living in this country that they have enjoyed outside, but that their presence amongst us will not have the effect of depressing further the standard we have already? I do not think the Government can put forward such proposals. I think that from the point of view of the Government the most disastrous thing that could happen to them in the next ten or 15 years would be to have these 150,000 men and women coming back to the country. I say that having regard to the policy that has been pursued by the Fianna Fáil Government during the period they have exercised political power in this country. We can measure the results achieved by that policy over a period of 14 years and applying the results achieved, how far would that policy, or even an extension of that policy, take us towards providing employment for another 150,000 men and women, remembering that each year an additional number of boys and girls will in the normal course of development come on the labour market?
I was reading recently a report of the Committee on Juvenile Unemployment and they stated that in 1945 about 4,000 boys and girls in the City of Dublin alone left school. If we multiply that by the appropriate number for the Twenty-Six Counties, we get a picture of the problem which is presented to the Government. Never since the advent of Fianna Fáil, even in the heyday of their strength and enthusiasm, after they came into power in 1932, assured of the support, if you like, of every forward-thinking man and woman in this country, in the effort to bring about a change in the retrograde position left by the previous Government—never during that period of 14 years could they achieve results, pursuing the same policy, even if they were to speed it up, which within a reasonable period would absorb the normal increase coming on the industrial market, not to speak of absorbing the 150,000 men and women who have left this country. That seems to me the position we are facing.
Deputies in this House who ask the Government how they propose to provide possibilities for these 150,000 men and women to return to the country are, in fact, asking an impossibility from the Fianna Fáil Party. Equally there is very little possibility of the Fine Gael Party providing the opportunity, because the shades of difference are very slight now between these Parties in regard to general policy. Only if there is some fairly fundamental change in the whole economy of our country can we hope to deal not merely with those who have left the country but even with those who still remain in the country with some assurance that we shall be able to maintain existing standards and absorb the boys and girls who, year after year, will be coming out of the schools seeking employment.
It seems to me that we have to try to approach this problem, as I think the Minister for Finance rightly said, from a point of view different from that of merely creating money. It is quite true that we can have a surplus of money, and at the same time widespread poverty. The Minister referred to the fact that, at certain times, the ability and the power to purchase goods are not in the hands of those who need the goods, but of people who have no particular need for those that are available. They do, however, see an opportunity for investing their money in a profitable manner, and hence purchase those goods. That is why we have that particular deadlock. I suppose that, to some extent, a number of the measures introduced by Fianna Fáil in recent years—Ministers refer from time to time to the number of measures that have been introduced here dealing with social services, measures which provide certain forms of sustenance for different sections of the population—have, in effect, been an attempt to try to redistribute purchasing power. To some extent they may have been successful in doing that, but it is quite clear in regard to those sections of the people who are, so to speak, living on the lowest step of the social ladder — in all fairness one should say this—that their condition has not been as bad as it might have been if the previous Government were in power. It has not been as good as many of us would like to see it, but there has been that redistribution.
One of the weaknesses to be noticed in Fianna Fáil policy during the period that it has been in office is this: that while, undoubtedly, there has been a substantial development in industry, with various forms of tariffs, protection, quotas and direct subsidies, in very many cases the subsidies put into industrial development have been canalised into the hands of people already in possession of purchasing power. The point is that these people are not engaged in the distribution of that additional purchasing power. A strictly limited amount of it may have gone into some of the new industries employing youth labour at rates of wages which are not commendable to any industrial enterprise in this country. Therefore, I say that the possible improvement that we should have in our internal purchasing power as a result of the subsidies provided directly or indirectly for the development of Irish industry has not had the full effect that one might expect. The result is that our internal market, of which we speak so much especially when dealing with our agricultural problems, is not even developed to the extent necessary to meet the problems inherent in agriculture itself.
When we try to see what the future holds for us, I recall a speech made some time ago by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in which he pointed out that we had still, within the field of our general imports, quite a number of commodities which we are capable of producing and manufacturing for ourselves. He pointed out that, in consequence, the policy on which Fianna Fáil had embarked was possible of further expansion. It is quite true that there are still imported a number of commodities that we could produce here. Even if we did drive our industrial policy to the limit of producing every possible commodity that could be produced within the country in relation to its resources, the raw materials available and the technical ability available: if we could do that, in relation to the economic value of producing these commodities here as against importing them, we would still have travelled only a small distance on the road towards the goal that has to be attained.
We have at the present time an unemployment problem of 70,000 people. We have to add to that figure the number of growing boys and girls who come on the labour market each year. We also have to add—it is a matter altogether beyond our control—the hundreds of thousands of those of our people who at the present time are in employment across the water. It would not be unfair to say that our actual problem could be represented by a figure of at least 100,000. Therefore, I submit that even if we proceed along the line of pursuing the policy adopted by the present Government—the Minister for Finance to-day seemed to look forward to an expansion in that direction in the immediate future when referring to the standard of living—is it not quite clear that, even with the best will in the world, there is no possibility of seeing the day arrive when that figure of 100,000 can be absorbed on the basis of a continuation of the present industrial policy?
There has been a long and bitter argument between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It has gone on for years on the question as to how many new jobs the industrial policy of Fianna Fáil had produced for our workers. I think that even if we take it for granted that Fianna Fáil has provided say 40,000 to 50,000 new jobs—the figure has been disputed every year during the last 14 years—how long is it going to take to provide jobs for our 100,000? These, I think, are fair questions to direct to the Government, and to relate them to the policy which the Government have been pursuing. The Minister for Finance in his speech to-day hopes that, through the initiative of private enterprise, there will be developments taking place within the country. He made reference to the plans for rural electrification, turf development, etc., all of which, he knows very well, have only got an indirect effect on the application of private enterprise. It is quite clear that private enterprise is not going to invest its money in turf development or rural electrification, or in any other form of production which will not secure for it a high return on its investment. That has been one of the difficulties which the present Government had to face in putting its industrial policy into operation. When they were seeking to have new industries built up, it became clear that in many cases there was an element of risk, with the result that certain assurances were required from the controllers of private capital before they would undertake to provide the necessary capital for the development of the national economy in specified lines. At the moment, I cannot see any justification for hoping that, with a return to normal conditions and of supplies of raw materials, we need expect any wider or more national policy on the part of private enterprise than those engaged in it have shown in the past.
That is why I take issue with Deputy Cosgrave in regard to what he said about the Civil Service. I have never applied the term "bureaucracy" to the Civil Service, because I regard it as acting and operating in the name of the community. The peculiar thing is that when private enterprise breaks down, the Civil Service, acting in the name of the community, has to step in. We had many examples of that during the last six years, not only in this country but throughout the world. When critical and great problems arose private enterprise was not able to deliver the goods. I hope there will not be any reluctance on the part of the Government to learn the lesson that is to be drawn from that, because during the last six years they received many bitter doses themselves which should make them appreciate that more is required of them than merely priming the pump of private enterprise in the hope that it is going to function in the years ahead. Because of their attitude in that regard, I take exception to the Government's present policy. It seems to me that the problems that are facing us in this country are not only grave and important from the point of view of our economy, but from that of the race itself. For that reason, the Government must take a wider responsibility than that normally deemed to be that of a Government. They will have to do many of the things that they had to do during the last six years, and realise that if they do not do them nobody else will.
In connection with agriculture, some bitter statements were made in the House last week by farmer representatives because they felt that the rights of farmers in their land were being assailed. There is so much concentration on the land question in this country that we seem to fail to make any effort to understand what we are doing for our people who are living on the land. Is there any hope in this country for that mass of people who are at present engaged in agriculture and who are living on farms of from ten to 30 acres of land? What has the future to hold out for these people, or what standard of life have you in view for them? Is it true, as has been stated in this House, that the standard of living of the small working farmer is no higher than that of the ordinary agricultural labourer? If that is true, how will we get away from that state of affairs? We have been told from time to time by various important people—experts on economic matters— that it is essential that in this country we should maintain the small, peasant proprietorship because of its social and ethnological value, but should those people, living on these small farms, be compelled to live at such a low standard of life for the rest of their lives, and should their children be compelled to suffer from the same disadvantages? Is there any prospect or any hope to be held out for these people?
There are various problems in connection with agriculture that will have to be faced if we are to have a proper standard of life for these people, and it is quite clear that if we are to base our economy on farms of ten, 20 or 30 acres, then, neither for the people living on these farms nor the people working on them, can we hold out any hope of a proper standard of life, and that is bound to reflect itself on every aspect of life in this country, if the small agriculturist cannot have a proper standard of life. What hope can we hold out for this mass of the people in the future? Is there any way in which we can retain the family farm of ten, 20 or 30 acres and, at the same time, provide means for these people to improve their economy and raise their standard of life, thereby increasing the standard of life of the community, generally, because it will be to the benefit of industry that agriculture should be in a prosperous condition?
When we refer to co-operative enterprise, we are very often told that we are treading on dangerous ground, and yet co-operative enterprise has been proved to be successful, even in this country, in many cases, such as in connection with creameries, and also in other directions, as well as in the matter of the exchange of labour. I think it is clear that we have achieved what is essential, so far as ordinary industries are concerned, and that is the proper division of labour, and it seems to me that we should have the same thing in relation to agriculture.
If that is to be done, it has got to be done, not only with the encouragement of the Government, but under their leadership, and with all the assistance that can be given to those people to have their financial and economic position improved, because there can be no hope for the people in the towns, who have to sell their goods to the people engaged in agriculture, if the people engaged in agriculture have a low standard of living themselves. I think it is obvious that if their standard of living is low, our standard of living will be low also.
Deputy Cosgrave spoke of the taxation policy of the Government and, again, I felt that we were being led along the wrong lines. Not only has there been the case to which he referred, that of a particular industrial firm which paid out twice as much in taxation as they did in dividends, but there was another case reported in the papers yesterday in which an industrial firm paid three times as much in taxation as they paid in dividends. Now, why should they not do so? When we recall that many of these firms are paying out dividends, at an average rate for industrial enterprise that is much higher than many other people enjoy, and paying these dividends, generally, about twice yearly, which, I admit, is a fair way of doing it, and when we remember that in addition to the additional profits they are making, they are still allowed to retain 25 per cent. of them, I do not see that there is anything wrong in expecting them to pay more in taxation. Surely, there is nothing objectionable in that? Secondly, there is nothing objectionable in the proposal to turn over the extra amount of profits to the State. Of course, the suggestion is that these industrialists would plough these further profits back into the industry, by providing new machinery, and so on, and on that basis would expect a further dividend, but it must be remembered that that would be, not out of fresh capital that they have provided, but capital that was taken out of the pockets of the consumers. It seems to me, as a matter of fact, that the Government has been exceptionally generous to the industrialists of this country, and particularly during the last six years, and I think that the real problem that is to be met here is not so much in the matter of drawing off excess profits from these industrialists, as of reducing the amount that is paid in the form of indirect taxation which is, in fact, a levy on every section, and particularly the poorest sections, of our people.
I have touched on this matter because, while it seems to me that some of the expressions of the Minister for Finance must be taken as being fundamentally correct, there is still not that approach on the part of the Government to the basic problems facing our people at the present time that would enable us to solve these problems, and I do feel that whether the Minister for Finance or the Government feel that they have an answer to the problem of bringing back those 150,000 of our people who have left this country in search of employment abroad, and while admitting the difficulties that face them, those of us on these benches should at least realise that we are wasting our breath in expecting either a Fianna Fáil Government or a Fine Gael Government to bring back the 150,000 people who have left our shores and give them a chance of reasonable employment here, ensure that the standard of life will not go down and, on top of that, ensure the provision of employment for the almost 100,000 of our people who are registered on the labour exchange as unemployed every year. Unless we can do something to solve that problem and provide employment for our people, there is no doubt that the situation here will only tend to become worse instead of improving.
Mr. P. Burke
I have listened very carefully to the contributions of the various speakers to this debate. I must say that I am rather disappointed that some of the previous speakers were not a little more sincere when they spoke about the number of people who have left this country and the number of people who are unemployed here, and of the bad conditions in rural Ireland, generally. Of course, we were treated to the usual stuff from Deputy Alderman Byrne, who always seems to assume that there is no softhearted or kind-hearted Deputy in the House except himself, and that nobody in the House knows anything about the bad conditions in the country except himself. I am sure that the House will realise that there are still a few people left who are just as deeply interested in the welfare of the community as Deputy Byrne professes to be.
As regards some of the points that have been raised here, I shall take, for a start, the industrial revival in this country. I have heard a lot of talk here to the effect that Fianna Fáil has not done this or Fianna Fáil has not done that since they came into office, but there is no Government in any country in the world which was as badly hampered as Fianna Fáil since they came into office in 1932. First of all, they had the economic war to face, and only a few years after that the Great War came along. Yet, in spite of that, they tried to raise the standard of life of every section of the community in this country. Again, to go back to the industrial side of the matter, they tried to industrialise the country by every means in their power. The manufacturers may say now that they are taxed unduly heavily, but they should also realise that they received substantial protection from the Government when they first started in the industrial or manufacturing sphere in this country. We have heard a churchman referred to here in relation to the number of people who have left this country. There is no country in the world, no matter how wealthy, which people will not leave, and, in the case of people who left good jobs in this country, it was a question of the wander-lust coming on them and a desire to get out of it. I know that a number had to leave by reason of economic circumstances, but I think there has been undue reference to the 150,000 people who have left the country and to the possibility of bringing these people back. I should like some of the Deputies to be a little bit more sincere and to give the people some lead, to offer some constructive criticism, and some suggestion as to how this can be dealt with. I know parts of Ireland from which people, because of a tradition in the area, will emigrate, no matter what Government is in power.
Had Fianna Fáil not got a plan?
Mr. Burke
The Deputy will get his chance if he wants to speak. I would like some of the Deputies who have put forward criticisms to give us a plan for dealing with this problem. It is easy enough to offer destructive criticism, but when it becomes a matter of dealing with a problem such as this, involving the welfare of every section, we should keep away from politics. I am trying to do so at the moment. I should be only too anxious to give a subscription in the morning towards the building of a monument higher than Nelson Pillar to the man who could tell us how to keep our people in certain parts of our country. There is a tradition in certain parts of our country to which people were sent in the old days as a result of oppressive measures, according to which our people have been in the habit of emigrating.
The members of the Opposition blow hot one moment and cold the next. They talk of taxation, unemployment and various other matters. I should like to hear them going the whole road and saying that such-and-such a problem can be relieved if we put a penny on the price of sugar, 2d. on the price of butter, and so on.
You have no sugar or butter on which to put the penny.
Mr. Burke
Let me develop my point. New Zealand has been quoted to us as an example. The cost of living in that country is very high and they pay very dearly for their social services.
It is 30 per cent. lower than here.
Mr. Burke
Not altogether.
It is.
Mr. Burke
Then my information is wrong. However, I can give the Deputy the quotation later on. If the Minister for Finance or any other Minister dealing with the problem introduces into this House some measure designed to deal with it, the Opposition Deputies, who talk about taxation but who still want all these things, will criticise him and say that it cannot be done, because it means higher taxation. We should be honest on these matters. I realise that there is a lot of distress in this country, and, as public representatives, we have all a duty to face up to it and to do our best to improve the lot of every section of our people. It can only be faced up to on the basis of our discussing these matters honestly and sincerely, and not on the basis of mere politics.
With regard to agriculture, the lowest standard of living possible, I suppose, is amongst the agricultural community—not alone amongst farm labourers but amongst a very large number of small farmers who could not possibly exist were it not that they have sons or daughters in jobs or who send them money from other countries to which they have emigrated. The Government, in their own time and in their own way, have tried to improve that position by the making of agricultural grants and grants to farmers for various work, by means of the rural improvements scheme and so on. They have even tried to improve the lot of both the farming and the industrial community by giving children's allowances, widows' and orphans' pensions and such social services, and all this has been done by the Fianna Fáil Government in spite of the great difficulties with which they were faced.
I do not think any Deputy could say sincerely that the Fianna Fáil Government had not been honest with the people. By reason of the emergency, this country, as well as every other country in the world, had to face difficulties. No country escaped. A number of our people have been hard hit and wage-earners in particular have been hard hit, but the fact remains that we are very fortunate in comparison with the position of people in countries which have been devastated by war. We hear of a number of people running out of the country and they are more anxious to get away every day. I have received many letters, some even this morning, from people trying to get back from England, as they realise that, even with the high wages there, they have very little out of it on account of the taxation.
In regard to the national teachers' salaries in Northern Ireland and England, while they are definitely higher than here, the money is taken off again in high income-tax. In connection with the Civil Service, I heard one Deputy say this morning that civil servants were real bureaucrats and interfered too much with the country. But for the interference of the civil servants in the last six years of the emergency, our people would not be in the happy position they are in to-day. Any interference by civil servants was at the dictation of this Dáil and the Government responsible to the country and anything done was for the benefit, not of one section but of every section of the community, irrespective of class or creed. I cannot understand why any Deputy should refer to the Civil Service in that way. The Ministers have the responsibility for the work done in the various Departments.
There is one thing I would like to see the Minister for Finance doing, and this matter has been discussed before. There is one section of the community of which I have a good deal of experience. I would like the Minister to consider, in his own time, the possibility of doing something worth while for the old age pensioners. I feel that that section of the community has been very hard hit. We may all be old some time and I am sure we would like to know that something will be done to help us to live. Speaking of taxation, I hope that, if the Minister for Finance comes along and decides to do something for those people, the Opposition will not say anything against his making taxation higher to help along with those social amenities.
It is very interesting to sit here and listen to the various speeches from Deputies of various Parties. One is bound to wonder as to the best method to adopt, and which Deputy has put forward the best case. Generally speaking, most Deputies criticise. I have listened to a lot of criticism for the last hour and yesterday also during the Vote on Account. I must say that the criticism offered by Deputy Larkin is as near to the point as one would like to go. It has a certain amount of common sense. For almost 23 years we have had a native Government, but we find ourselves to-day in a worse position than ever we were in for a considerable time prior to the setting up of that native Government. Deputies speaking on behalf of the Government, and the Minister also, will quote what the Government has done in the past 12 or 13 years; but it is only necessary to remind the Government of the fact that our population is on the decrease. In order to maintain school averages, it is necessary to amalgamate our national schools; there is something like 60,000 decrease in the amount of children attending national schools. There is anything from 70,000 to 100,000 unemployed and roughly 100,000 more working for a very miserable wage, which cannot be considered a living wage. Notwithstanding that, something like 250,000 young men and women left the country in the past four or five years. No matter what may be said from the Government Benches or what explanation may come from the Minister about social services, the fact remains that those social services and the increase in taxation have not solved the problem. At one time, we used to hear the Taoiseach telling us——
I would like Deputies to remember that we are discussing Government policy. There have been, let us say, six elections since 1932, which might have some relevance to the problem. I do not mind a reference back, but what anybody said before he became a Minister was not Government policy. A Deputy in opposition does not express Government policy, so that what a Deputy said 20 years ago, when in opposition, cannot be taken as representing Government policy.
I accept the correction.
Twenty years is a long way back, and I wonder if, in 20 years more when the last surviving member of the civil war is here, we still will be discussing what happened in 1925 and 1922. I am not saying the Deputy would be wrong in making a reference.
The Taoiseach used to tell us that, when he would become responsible for the administration, if he failed to rectify the problem, or he found he could not remove the social ills and difficulties within the system, he would go outside the system. We find those problems still existing and greater to-day than ever but the Taoiseach is working still within the system, which has failed and will fail as long as it exists. It is a very unpopular thing to talk about nationalisation in this country and I wonder what would happen to the Deputy who would advocate nationalisation of the land. He would be termed a Communist or a Socialist. In most countries in Europe to-day, and in Great Britain, which is nearer to us still, we find them following the steps of nationalisation.
During the war, when the Governments of other countries needed increased production and wanted industries to play their part, the State intervened and, to a certain extent, took them over. In Great Britain, we have the nationalisation of coal mines and railways and, I believe, at a later date they intend to nationalise the land. To advocate nationalisation of the land here would be very unpopular, because we have a certain heritage and a certain tradition, due to the fight put up by the small tenant farmer for the land 50 years ago. That has created a tradition which would resent interference with the holding of land. So long as we have the type of peasantry or small tenant farmer as exists to-day in the west of Ireland and in many counties in Munster and Leinster, we cannot hope for much better conditions in those counties amongst the tenant farmers.
It would be hard to convince them that they would be better off if they had a wage, if they went into farming in the morning and worked for a weekly wage in the same way as I or anybody here would go into an office or into an industry for a weekly wage. We would feel that in that industry we had security and that we had work for the remainder of our lives and our children and wives would be secure. We could educate them, because we knew we had security. If they could be educated to that standard, that by being workers on the land instead of proprietors they would be better off and more secure and that we could use the land for the better interests of the community, all would be well. If they could be educated to that standard we may be able to increase production and raise the standard of the small peasant or small farmer. That, I think, will take a long period of time. It will have to come in stages. I would not like to be the responsible Minister who would advocate taking the land over to-day or within the next five or six years. I can imagine what would happen. We would have a revolution, because they have that feeling of ownership and proprietorship.
Taxation has increased, and is increasing. Deputies on the Government Benches, and the Minister responsible for the Department, have given an explanation as to why the Estimate has risen since last year or the year before. The Minister pointed to increases in salaries and in the social services. If the number of men and women who are unemployed and who are a drain on our Exchequer, by reason of the need for providing certain assistance in the form of doles, unemployment assistance, outdoor assistance, free clothes, boots and shoes, were working, it would mean a smaller demand on the Exchequer and the Minister would be enabled to reduce his Estimate, as he would not have to provide for unemployment assistance, outdoor assistance and free clothes, boots and shoes.
The Government are boasting that they are prepared to provide for unfortunate people who may require assistance. They have the duty of providing employment and, if they fail to do that, they have the duty of providing a bare minimum in the form of assistance for those men and women for whom they are unable to provide employment. I hold, and I think every sensible Deputy will hold, that the Government are responsible for the conditions under which we are living to-day. We are living under a system of hand-to-mouth, so to speak, from day to day. There is no security. We have a large number of men and women calling at the employment exchanges. They have no hope for the future. They are all anxious to leave the country, if it is possible for them to get out.
Deputy Burke, who represents Dublin, tells us that there is a tradition that no matter what kind of social services you have in the country you will find men and women anxious to emigrate. I know of no man or woman from Mayo or from any other county who is anxious to leave if he or she has a wage of £3 a week. It is pure humbug to suggest that any man or woman would be prepared to leave the country for the sake of crossing the Channel to see England if he or she is enjoying security and has a wage of £3 a week, or even less—50/- a week. I do not know of any such person. Our young people leave the country for the reason that there is no security, no employment here, and no hope for the future.
That is why thousands of workers from my county and from other counties are anxious to get out. That is why, within the past 12 months, 8,000 young men have left to join the British armed forces. The hundreds of men who are leaving our Army are only too anxious to get over to Great Britain. They have no hope of employment here. A very small percentage may be excepted, because they will depend on some pull or influence on one side of the House or the other in order to get employment.
Notwithstanding all that, we find taxation is increasing. The price of every commodity that we require is increased. Look at the prices of tobacco, spirits, clothes, boots and shoes. Everything we require is at a price well above our annual or weekly income, far in excess of what we can afford.
I can suggest three or four schemes for the Government which, in my opinion, would give employment. They would be able to employ a large percentage of our young men who are unemployed at the moment. We could have a scheme of drainage, a scheme of afforestation or a scheme of land reclamation financed by the State on a large scale, not like the petty scheme of farm improvements to encourage the tenant farmer to reclaim half an acre. In many instances the small farmers avail of that scheme for the sake of the few pounds they will get out of it. They have no interest in whether the land is properly drained or reclaimed; they use the scheme for the sake of the 50/- or the £5 they will get out of it. They do not care whether the reclamation is right or wrong or whether it will be a benefit to themselves or to the community. In many instances it does not benefit to themselves or to the community. All they are out for is the money they will get out of it. In a year or two the land will be growing rushes again or will be wet and of no use for the purpose of cultivation and the production of crops.
When Mussolini took over power in Italy—I know he had many faults, but he had some good points—he started on a scheme of land reclamation on a large scale. He reclaimed millions of acres and placed thousands of Italians on the reclaimed land. That is the type of thing we need here—land reclamation which will add another 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 acres to our present quota of arable land.
A Drainage Bill has gone through the Dáil. It was passed almost two years ago. We have heard nothing more about it. It has been shoved into the shelf, and there is no explanation why it has not been put into operation, why drainage has not started. We may be told that the Government are waiting for machinery, but there are many rivers that could be cleaned with the ordinary implements at our disposal.
As regards afforestation, we are told that there are 5,000,000 acres not fit for cultivation or for grazing and they could be planted. We are told that thousands of men could be employed. If this Government or the Cumann na nGaedheal Government started tree-planting when they came into office, we would have matured timber in many places to-day, and that timber could be used for the building of houses and other purposes. Instead of that our country has been denuded of timber, and our housing schemes are held up. Any undertaking for which we require timber is held up. There is no incentive or encouragement.
The Government have no courage. They have no plans, and, even if they had, there is no scheme being put into operation except in a piecemeal manner. So long as Great Britain is the market for our labour power, and so long as our young men and women can go there, the Government are secure on their benches, because there is no danger of a revolution. If there were no such market to consume our man-power, I assert that this Government would not remain in office for 24 hours, because there would be a revolution which would remove them from office, either through the ballot-box or the gun. They have a means of solving the problem and of averting a revolution, and that is the market in Great Britain that employs our young men and women. It is time for the Government to wake up. If they cannot solve the problems confronting them, then let them tell the House they are not capable and that they are prepared to chuck in the towel and resign.
When Deputies on the other benches tell us that our people go to England, because going there is a heritage and a tradition, I say that they are deliberately misrepresenting the manhood of the country, and are deliberately trying to undo everything we thought we would be able to do when we took over control of the administration here. They are following in the footsteps of the alien Government which ran this country for 700 years. Year after year taxation is going up. Notwithstanding that fact, we notice that the ordinary working people are getting less benefit. We see such a section of the community as the teachers, by their organisation and by the pressure they can bring to bear, forcing the Government to grant them considerable increases in remuneration. These increases will be a burden on taxpayers to the extent of over £1,000,000. We notice that other sections such as civil servants and local government officials have got bonuses and increased remuneration. These sections are much better off than the ordinary working people, because they already enjoy considerable salaries. If the Government are sincere they should start by increasing the remuneration of the lowest wage earners. I am not suggesting that any group of men or women with comfortable salaries are not entitled to an increase, but I suggest that their present rate of remuneration is far more reasonable than the rate of wages of workers on the land or in any of the new industries which the Fianna Fáil Party have opened up.
We heard something about these industries from Deputy Cosgrave. He stated that high taxation had to a certain extent prevented these industries building themselves up, or the opening up of other industries. In my opinion many of these industries are a kind of slave market. They were opened up in the last 10 or 12 years. For instance, take the hat factory at Castlebar or the thread factory at Westport. What wages are paid in the hat factory in Castlebar, or in the thread factory at Westport? Many are places of sweated labour into which young men and women go to work. I agree, we should have industries, but I do not think they should be allowed to exploit the men and women employed in them. I believe that these industries, and the workers employed in them, should be considered by the Government before they start to deal with other sections of the community that are far better off.
Does the Deputy know the rates paid at Castlebar?
I suppose Deputy Moran does. He will get ample time to tell the House.
The Deputy should not misrepresent the position.
I did not mention any rates.
The Deputy mentioned sweated rates.
I am entitled to suggest that the wages paid not only in the hat factory at Castlebar and in the factory at Westport, as well as in many other industries throughout the country are those of sweated labour— slave wages. That does not suggest that I am advocating the non-development of industries. I am opposed to the idea of industrial development on the sweated labour of the workers. I would rather see no industry than to see industries developed on the sweated labour of Irish men or women. In many instances employees are taken into these places at 15 years of age, and when they reach 21 they are thrown out. Others are then taken in in their place. That is the position in many instances. The Government takes good care to see that officials, and certain sections of the community that are in a position to bring pressure to bear upon them because they are well organised will be catered for. They are listened to. But there are other sections, due to the fact that they are not organised, exploited, neglected and forgotten by the Government. It is these sections I am interested in. These are the sections I would expect Deputy Moran to defend. They are the sections that the Deputy and I have been sent here to represent, and not the sections that are capable of looking after themselves through their organisation. These sections are capable of contributing to teachers in Dublin, when they go on strike, £5 a month. I am not objecting to teachers going on strike. If they have a grievance they are entitled to ventilate it. If they are entitled to more remuneration, then they are entitled to look for more, but there are other sections in the rural areas entitled to more remuneration, such as bog workers, road workers, farm labourers, as well as small tenant farmers who have no guaranteed prices for their produce. They receive pamphlets by the dozen from the Departments encouraging them to go in for egg production but before the hens begin to cackle the price of eggs goes down.
Where is there encouragement in the Central Fund to the small tenant farmer, to the bog worker or the road worker? Why are we being asked for £16,000,000? Three or four million pounds could give assistance to farmers. The young men of this country want work, not doles, not public assistance or visits from relieving officers. We have two duties: one is to God, and the other is to provide work for the people. We are here to serve God but, as regards work, there is no security that people will get it. It may be hurtful to have to say these things to the Government. I do not deny that Deputy Moran is as sincere as I am in these matters, but the position being as it is, as public representatives we are entitled to voice our feelings.
The Deputy is not entitled to slander private firms when he does not know the rate of wages they are paying.
The Deputy will get ample time to vindicate these firms. I know for a fact that many of these firms take in young men and women and offer them anything from 5/-, 6/- to 7/- a week. I wonder is 5/-, 6/- or 7/- a week sufficient wage for any young man or woman. Would Deputy Moran agree that it is? In my opinion, it is not. It is not sufficient to give a young man or woman the necessary pocket-money for entertainment for the week-end, to go to a dance or the cinema, or, if he is a smoker, to buy sufficient cigarettes or, if he wants to take a drink, to buy a drink, apart altogether from contributing to his father or mother, if he is boarding at home, or to pay his "digs" if he is boarding with a landlady. Does Deputy Moran expect that a bog worker should live on 36/- a week and maintain his wife and family? Could you, Deputy Moran, maintain your wife and family on 36/- a week?
The Deputy will please address the Chair.
I want to know, Sir, can Deputy Moran live on 36/- a week? I want to know, Sir, does he expect the road worker to live on 36/- a week? Am I not right in vindicating these workers' rights? Why does he get so cranky when I vindicate their rights? Let him make his case when he gets the privilege of rising, after me. I hope he will tell the workers in Mayo that they are able to live on 36/-. I hope he will tell this House, and that he will stand over it when he goes to Mayo.
Will the Deputy deal with the Bill that is before us?
The Bill, Sir, is asking this House to give the Minister permission to spend £16,000,000.
And there is nothing about Deputy Moran in it.
He has already interrupted me.
I did not interrupt. I corrected the Deputy.
You did not correct me. You made no correction.
There is nothing to correct. The Deputy did not make any statement.
I did not make a statement in so far as I did not mention any specific firm.
You should, you know.
Not necessarily. That is my right. We are accused on the one hand of criticising increased taxation to-day and that we may be looking for an increase in old age pensions to-morrow. It has been pointed out that that is not reasonable. While I criticise increased taxation. I have ways and means, and I have a case to put to the Government at a later date, when the Estimates come before the House, as to how taxation can be reduced and at the same time how the lot of the road worker, the bog worker, the old age pensioner and those people who, to my mind, are unjustly treated, can be improved. We shall have that opportunity when the Estimates are before the House, and we shall point out then to the Minister——
Let the Deputy do so, but not to-day.
Not to-day, Sir. We shall be able to point out then that our argument is reasonable in criticising increased taxation and at the same time advocating better social services. I am pointing out now that that may sound unreasonable, but we have a case, and we will be able to explain away what the Minister, this House and the Government may consider unreasonable. We can show that the case we can put up is based upon reason, and we will put up that case when the opportunity arises.
It is apparent from the course of this debate and from the very few interventions that have been made by the back benchers of the Government Party that the Government's skin and the Government Party's skin has been rather tickled by the unpalatable facts that have been thrashed out across the floor during the past few days. I notice, since I came to this House, that if you stand up to criticise the Government, the Minister resents the criticism, does not see why the criticism should be proffered, and generally tries to create the impression that the criticism is destructive rather than constructive. Back benchers occasionally intervene and strike the same note.
Quite recently the Taoiseach, on a motion moved by Deputy Byrne in relation to government by rule and Order, made it very clear to this House that he expects us as Deputies to come here and to thrash out every problem that we have, and that it is our business to come here and to make no apology to anybody for what we say, so long as we are helping in some way to bring about correct and proper decisions. But one would think from the tone of the speeches, particularly from the back benches opposite, that we have no right to criticise, that criticism is fault-finding, that it is not only fault-finding, but that it is disloyal to the State, as it were.
I want to put it to Deputies on the opposite benches that it is the very function that we have to exercise here that we are exercising and that when a Deputy, such as Deputy Cafferky or myself, or anybody else, intervenes in a debate, he does so so that the point of view which he is putting forward, whether it is his personal point of view or the point of view of his constituents, will, at least, be expressed and that the Minister cannot say he never heard it and in the hope that it will influence the Minister in his decision. If we here have any function, it is to sound a note of warning as against particular tendencies of Government policy or administration. If in doing that we happen occasionally to tread upon people's toes or ruffle their hides, they should not be over sensitive about the matter. In a recent audience given by his Holiness the Pope to British Ministry of Labour officials, he said: "The people cannot shirk responsibility for the conditions under which they live if they fail to exercise their right and duty to help to shape them." It is in that spirit that we say whatever we have to say here on these benches because, in addition, the Pope has asked every Catholic citizen as far as lies in his power to take a part in public affairs, to raise his voice in public council, to seek the suffrages of the people where he sees fit, and to come in and voice what he considers the proper Christian point of view on all public matters. I should like to see an end of this business of criticism merely for the sake of criticism, carping criticism. I should like to avoid, where possible, destructive criticism, and I should like, as far as lies in my power, in anything I say to be constructive. It is with that object that I rise to say the few things I have to say.
It is quite clear that the Minister was not pleased with the debate in relation to emigration and the declining population. I put it to him that the test of good government is whether your people are living in their own land, contented on their own soil, and that the true test of a prosperous people is that they are increasing in population. We are in a peculiar position here by reason of our past history. We cannot hope to solve this problem of emigration overnight or perhaps over a generation, but we can from time to time point out what we consider are the right roads along which Government policy should be pursued in order to end this terrible drain upon our resources.
But, quite recently, the Minister for Agriculture at a public meeting—I think it was in Cavan, speaking subject to correction—certainly it was at a meeting of a county committee of agriculture—publicly stated that he saw nothing wrong with emigration; he did not see anything wrong in emigration; he did not see anything wrong in the flight from the land. That is an extraordinary statement for the Minister to make.
He did not say that.
Words to that effect. I have not the quotation but the impression left on my mind was that he was not worried about the flight from the land. However, we can get the quotation, if necessary, later on. I do not know exactly what he had in mind when he said that. But I do wish to remind the Minister for Agriculture that once the people leave the land it will be very hard to get them back on the land. I should like to remind him that in vast areas of our country to-day our population mainly consists of old men and women and young children and that the few heads of families left in between are middle-aged or well past middle-age. I can bring him to vast areas in my own constituency where that condition of things obtains. I am not blaming the present Administration for that; it is the growth of years; but I do say that we will have to think out some new plan by which that position can be rectified.
Deputy Larkin indirectly mentioned this problem. He failed to see how the people in agriculture were to be made prosperous unless there was a complete change of system. It may be that because of our land policy in the past, because of the sub-division of our land into uneconomic holdings, we have created here a big problem for the future, and that we may, at no great distant date, have to consider whether or not we shall not impose on the present land-holding system some form of co-operation, even compulsorily, in order that these people may be able to survive in world markets in the future. Co-operation does obtain largely in agriculture. Apart altogether from organised co-operation, you have the old meitheal system in agriculture. You have the farmers helping one another at threshings and hay-drawings.
But, apart from that and such cooperative development as has taken place in the creamery industry, it is quite on the cards that we may have to consider whether we shall not have to extend that system of co-operation in order to compete with collective farming elsewhere, because collective farming is coming in. In vast areas of Europe to-day collective farming is taking shape. It has already taken shape in Russia and the development is in that direction at the moment. It might also be necessary for us to consider whether we shall not go in for selective agriculture; whether we shall not cut out certain lines of production and concentrate on what we are best fitted to produce. These are all problems which will have eventually to be decided. That development, I hope, will not be a development through State aid, through State bureaucracy, or State grants, or subsidies or anything like that. I would prefer to see the farming community take the problem into their own hands and do the job themselves rather than that we should further develop any system of State control, or intervention, or interference of any kind.
Why have we emigration? In this booklet on national income and expenditure, you will find that 70 per cent. of the national income is below the £150 minimum level. So far as these figures relating to incomes under £150 go, they are entirely speculative. It is mere conjecture because, as you know, the Revenue authorities have no proper statistics under these limits and what is included there is mere conjecture. Even on that conjecture, which the authors of this document say is a good guess, we are entitled to infer that, roughly, 70 per cent. of our people are on an income below £3 per week which, translated into pre-war cash, means £1 to 25/- per week in purchasing power. That is the problem. How that problem is to be met I cannot say, as I am not an economist or a financial authority. It is a problem that we in this House have to put our heads together about and that we have to face boldly and squarely, irrespective of any Party affiliations or political considerations, irrespective of any attempt on the part of any side of this House to secure political advantage. It is a problem which the representatives of the people will have to put their heads together about eventually and decide what is to be done about it.
There is that drain there, and, whilst we may complain about it, I do not say that it is because of the policy pursued by the present Government that the drain is there. It does exist. It has simply gone in the reverse direction. When emigration was open to the United States, the people went to the United States. The United States have been closed to us and we are going in the other direction. But it is the same problem, and, as Deputy Cafferky said, it has continued, despite the fact that we are 25 years in charge of our own affairs. Formerly we blamed an alien Administration for that condition of things. But, whatever the cause of this terrible drain is, it is still there. It is a problem, of course, of finding productive, full employment for our people at home. It is easy to stand up and give expression to that shibboleth, if you like; it is an entirely different proposition to translate it into practical politics. What I want to impress on the Minister is that, in whatever criticism we are offering or have offered, we are endeavouring to find a road towards that end, but with no intent to secure political advantage.
I have to find fault with the Minister's misrepresentation of what I said in relation to turf on the debate on the Turf Bill. When I was speaking of turf, I was comparing turf as a lower-power fuel with coal.
That was not in this debate.
The Minister misrepresented me. He did mention it. and I think I am entitled to explain what I had in mind. I was speaking of the calorific value of turf as against coal, in the first place, and what we call duff or culm, in the second place. and I was giving the comparative value of both. I went on to deal with our local problem in Kilkenny. In Kilkenny, where Irish coal has been burned for the past 300 years, the community has now been deprived of that coal.
Not one ounce of our own coal in Castlecomer, County Kilkenny, is burned locally, coal which formerly went into all the farmers' houses and the shopkeepers' and workers' houses in County Kilkenny, portion of Carlow, portion of Laoighis, and even into Tipperary. Since the emergency, we have been deprived of our natural source of supply, of that supply which we have used from time immemorial. When I did speak on this matter of the imports of coal, I did so in the hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would find some way of allowing us to burn coal which we have burned in former years and which our fathers before us burned for 300 years. I also pointed out that nothing has been done to replace that fuel. There are large areas in County Kilkenny where they have neither turf nor timber. It is a mystery to me how the people are carrying on.
The Deputy said that he wanted to deal with a misrepresentation.
I want to deal with the misrepresentation and what the Minister said.
As a matter of cold fact, the debate on this Bill should have no connection with the debate on the Turf Bill, but it has.
The Minister brought it in in relation to the policy announced from these benches.
I am not objecting to the Deputy's making a general statement.
I could go on dealing with the present coal policy of the Government. We are importing rubbish at present at three times the pre-war price. The Minister stands up and says he can do nothing about it. We had the statement of the chairman of Córas Iompair Eireann that they are paying three times the amount they paid for good coal pre-war for rubbish. The Minister also complained of the Irish Times not giving the full version of the statement made by the Minister for Education.
I have no concern with that aspect of the matter, but I would remind the Minister that his own Government organ is careful on occasion to suppress statements made by Deputies in this House when they give vent to unpalatable facts—facts which have been obtained from Government publications. On the question of suppression of facts relating to the teachers' strike, may I remind the Minister that the impression created by the statement made by the Minister for Education was that the increases offered to the teachers would cost the State an extra £1,250,000, whereas the actual figure will be about £800,000?
That was over the figure for 1938.
The Minister was careful to make no mention of the fact that the bonus of 13/- and 15/- to men and women teachers would cease to operate when the increase would become operative. That was not made clear until this morning when the teachers' organisation explained it. I endorse the remarks made by the last speaker, Deputy Cafferky. What we want in this country are not palliatives, bonuses, grants, subsidies or any form of spoon-feeding, but work. If the people get that, they will find a way of living without any of those State subventions.
Mr. Corish
In speaking in this debate, I am at a disadvantage. I should like, however, to express my personal views which are not those of a politician, an economist or an industrialist. I am inclined to agree with everything that has been said regarding the emigration which has been taking place during the past five or six years. As an ordinary individual, moving around a town with a population of 13,000 or 14,000, it is very pathetic to see all our young men and women going across, steadily from day to day, to Great Britain. That should be a source of annoyance to the Government of any Party which is in power. The best of the nation's natural wealth is being exported, as it were, to a foreign country. During the past five or six years, every country in Europe was deploring that it had not sufficient man-power. Those countries realised that man-power is the greatest asset any country can have.
We, who could boast about our neutrality, contributed about 200,000 or 300,000 men to one of the Allied countries in its war effort. A Fianna Fáil Deputy, in his attack upon the Opposition, gave as a defence for the non-making of trade agreements between this country and other European countries that the making of such agreements would have been a breach of neutrality. I suggest, as has been suggested on many occasions in this House and in the country, that the contribution of so many hundred thousand men to Great Britain in her war effort was one of the greatest breaches of neutrality which this country could commit. It is very pathetic to have young men and young women approaching their local Deputies with a view to expediting the issue of their passports or visas so as to help them to go across and obtain employment in Great Britain.
We, of the Labour Party, have been accused of being emigration agents. This morning the Minister for Finance said, that we preached to the people that the land across the water was far more attractive than this country. I do not remember a member of our Party ever advocating that young men and women should go across to Great Britain to seek employment. What we did deplore, and still deplore, is that Ireland, with its small population, cannot provide sufficient employment to keep our young people at home. There has been no defence for the fact that between 200,000 and 300,000 men and women went across to Great Britain in recent years. The only contribution on this question which the Minister for Finance had to make to the debate was that Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan and the Labour Party encouraged these young people to go across. If I may say so, that is sheer nonsense.
Another Fianna Fáil Deputy suggested that the Labour Party wanted to cut down social services. I had made a statement previously about social services—a statement which, I believe, did not carry much weight.
From my point of view, however, it is deserving of repetition. My personal view of social services is that, in a great many cases, they are unnecessary. Certain social services should be cut down. Certain social services are but an indication that there is too much unemployment. We do not want old age pensions or widows' and orphans' pensions cut down.
What we do want cut down, and cut out altogether, are degrading social services and State charities—free footwear, public assistance, dole and every such charitable social service. Neither in this nor in the previous debate was one aspect of public administration stressed, although it is a matter of the utmost importance. I refer to the question of housing. I have no statistics about housing. I have not a great deal of experience of housing, but I do know, as an ordinary individual, that housing needs at present are very acute, indeed.
The county manager in a report to the Wexford Corporation suggests that in that town, with a population of roughly 12,000 or 13,000, 781 houses are needed. Neither from the Minister for Finance nor from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health have we had any optimistic note struck as regards the future of housing in this country. Slums are very apparent in Dublin and other cities, and in provincial towns throughout the country. We have had cases where there were 100 applicants for one house. I know one case in the town of Wexford where, in a very small corporation house of about four or five apartments, there are three or four families living, the total number of persons in these families being 21. I deplore the fact that a sufficiently important statement in regard to housing has not been made in this debate. It may be perhaps that my inexperience or my ignorance of the procedure in this House is such that I do not know whether this particular question can be dealt with at this time, but I repeat that the question of housing, which is of primary importance as regards the health of the community, should be given more attention. There is no sign that the housing position will be improved in the near future. I think everybody will admit that the question of the supply of building materials cannot be so acute as it is represented to be, when we see in cities and provincial towns so many cinemas and places of public amusement being erected regularly year after year. I suggest to the Minister concerned that if materials can be found for the building of cinemas and other places of public amusement, a bigger effort should be made to provide houses at an economic rent for the unfortunate poor people who have very bad houses, or who have to resort to lodgings for accommodation.
The national teachers have been mentioned in this debate, and the Minister for Education took the opportunity, in a reply to Deputy Martin O'Sullivan's speech, to make a statement about the position of national teachers. I should not like, and I am sure my Party should not like, to be placed in the unhappy or unfortunate position of being accused of taking up the question of the national teachers and of making representations on their behalf in a strong way as against, as Deputy Cafferky thinks, the claims of the unfortunate people like agricultural labourers and road workers who are in receipt of small wages. What I do want to say about the national teachers and their proposed strike is that the national teachers are giving a very good example in proposing to take strike action because it is an indication to other unorganised bodies of what a strike can do and how a strike can make the Government and the Minister concerned pay attention to the demands made. The Minister for Education in his speech tried to establish that there was not a majority of national teachers in favour of a strike. I do not think that is the case. There are 1,600 national teachers who are not in the I.N.T.O., but I would suggest to the Minister that from the point of view of negotiations between him and the national teachers, these 1,600 teachers who are not in the I.N.T.O. should not be considered by him and that his dealings should be directly conducted with those national teachers who are in the I.N.T.O. and who are organised.
There is one other small point which I should like to mention before I sit down. It has reference to a question raised by one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies—I cannot remember who— at the end of his speech. He appealed to the Minister for Finance to be a little more lenient towards old age pensioners and to consider giving them a little extra in their weekly allowance. While lauding the sentiments of that Deputy, I should like to point out that he was very silent last week when there was a motion from the members of my Party calling for an improvement in the rates paid to old age pensioners.
That just goes to prove again, I suppose, the evil of the Party system in this House. It would have been a contribution indeed to the debate last week if he had risen and expressed the same sentiments as he did this morning. I should like to appeal with that Fianna Fáil Deputy to the Minister for Finance seriously to consider the plight of the old age pensioners with a view to improving their condition.
I should like to end on the note on which I began in regard to emigration and to deplore the fact that so many of our young people have emigrated. Heretofore, our young men and women could go across to Britain with the utmost ease as regards travelling facilities. The Government were rather glad, I assume, that this state of affairs existed because it relieved them of a source of embarrassment. There were 200,000 or 300,000 young people who, in the ordinary course, would have been unemployed here and the Government put no obstacle in the way of the emigration. At the present time there is not such a shortage of labour in England but it is deplorable to see young men with whom one has played football or other games, with whom one has been in clubs of various kinds, young men who are very proud of the fact that Ireland gained a large measure of independence as a result of the struggle from 1916 to 1922, going across to join the Royal Air Force. That is bad for the morale of this country. It is bad for the morale of this country to see these young men going across to seek employment in Great Britain. Instead of being an asset to the country those men are going across to help Britain in her production effort. In consequence, they feel that they owe something to her in return for the employment which she provided when they needed it. At the same time they feel that they owe nothing to the country that gave them birth. This question of unemployment is a burning one. I would appeal to the Minister, to farmers and to all sections of the community to try to increase our national output and exploit to the full our national resources so that we may be in a position to bring back the hundreds of thousands who have had to go to Britain and provide a living for them at home.
Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don chaint a dhein an tAire Oideachais tráthnóna aréir mar gheall ar scéal tuarastal na múinteoirí scoile. Is truagh liom go bhfuil baol ann go gcuirfidh múinteoiri cathrach Baile Atha Cliath staile suas mar gheall ar an scéal seo. Ba mhór an suaimhneas don tír agus don phobal dá dtagadh na múinteoirí sin ar a mhalairt de thuairim mar gheall ar an stailc. Sílim féin go bhfuair na múinteoirí tairgsint cuíosach maith ón Aire, ach níor ghlacadar leis. Níltear ar aon aigne mar gheall ar chuid de na rudaí a tairgeadh dóibh ach, san iomlán, fuaireadar tairgsint fhónta agus is é mo thuairim go mba chóir dóibh athsmaoineamh a dhéanamh ar an scéal ar fad mar mhaithe leis na scoláirí, mar mhaithe leis an oideachas, agus mar mhaithe leis an dtír.
Ní maitheas a dhéanfadh stailc i gcathar Baile Atha Cliath don dream óg, do na scoláirí ar fud na cathrach. Is dócha go dtaithneodh leis na daoine óga cúpla seachtain nó cúpla mí saor a bheith acu, ach ní maitheas a dhéanfadh stailc den tsórt sin don chathair i gcoitinne, agus tá súil agam go bhfaighfar slí éigin chun teacht as an deacracht mar gheall air an stailc.
Tá a lán cainte déanta mar gheall ar na cánacha atá le bailiú ag an Aire chun cúrsaí na tíre a choimeád ar siúl agus d'fhéadfainn a rá nach bhfuil morán difríochta idir an chaint a chualamar le blianta anuas ar Bhillí den tsórt seo agus an chaint a chualamar ar an mBille seo inniu agus ar an Bhóta Cuntais aréir.
Do caitheadh cuid mhaith ama ag caint ar an imirce ón dtuaith agus an imirce go Sasana. Bhí cuid mhaith den imirce ón dtuaith ar siúl i gcomhnaí. Tá sé ann anois agus beidh sé ann, is dócha—an imirce sin ón dtalamh—agus is soléir go gcaithfidh sé bheith ann. Cuir i geás an feirmeoir go bhfuil triúr mac nó beirt mhac agus beirt iníon aige—is féidir leis an mac agus iníon a chur i gcrích as an bhfeirm, ach ní foláir don chuid eile imeacht agus obair d'fháil ar shlí éigin eile. Ní foláir dóibh obair d'fháil as baile mar ní féidir leo fanacht sa bhaile. Mar sin bíonn an imirce ón dtalamh ann i gcomhnaí.
Ansan tá an imirce eile ann—an imirce is measa i bhfad. Rud nádúrtha an imirce ón dtalamh ach scéal eile ar fad is ea an imirce go Sasana. Tá sé ar siúl le roint bliain anuas agus ní gá ar aon chor cuid mhaith dhe. Tá fhios agam gur mar sin atá an scéal.
Imíonn daoine agus ní foláir dóibh imeacht—daoine a bhí ag obair i ngaráistí, i monarchana, ceárdaithe ar nós dathadóirí, siúnéirí agus daoine eile den tsórt sin—mar ná fuil obair le fáil acu anso. Mar deirim, b'éigin dóibh imeacht ach d'imigh a lán daoine as an tír agus níor ghá dhóibh imeacht ar aon chor. Bhí arigead mór le fáil agus sin é an chúis ar chuaigh cuid mhaith acu as an tír. Tá an imirce ar siúl go fóill ach do réir mar thuig mise an scéal níl sé chomh furasta dul isteach i Sasana anois, níl sé chomh furasta cead d'fháil ó Rialtas Shasana chun dul isteach ann agus bhí sé le linn blianta an chogaidh. Is deacair aigne na ndaoine atá ag dul amach a thuigsint mar níl easba oibre chomh géar san faoin dtuaith faoi láthair agus a cheapfadh duine ón gcaint atá ar siúl anso.
Tá an obair ann ach tá an págh beag.
Tá an obair ann faoi láthair agus níl na daoine ann chun é a dhéanamh.
Níl. Dá mbeadh an Teachta ina chomhnaí thíos i dTiobrad Árann nó i Luimnigh. in ionad bheith ina chomhnaí i mBaile Atha Cliath, thuigfeadh sé an scéal níos fearr.
Tá na daoine ag dul amach mar tá an págh chomh beag san.
Sin scéal eil.
Is é an scéal céanna é.
Dúirt an tAire go raibh an obair ann ach go raibh easba daoine ann.
Nílim ag cur i gcoinne an Teachta mar gheall ar chur isteach orm. Tá sé ag cabhrú liom.
B'fhéidir go gcuirfeadh an Teachta ceist ar an gcéad duine a casfar air ag teacht ar ais ó Shasana.
Bhíos ag caint leo agus do cheistíos agus do chroscheistíos iad mar gheall ar na rudaí seo. Dúras go raibh daoine ag imtheacht go Sasana gan aon ghá, go raibh obair dóibh anso. Ach tá an pointe seo ann —ní féidir linn i dtír mar seo daoine a chur ag déanamh oibre mura dtaithnaíonn leo é dhéanamh. Ní thaithnaoíonn an obair atá le fáil leo, agus b'fhéidir nach dtaithnaíonn an págh leo ach oiread, nuair is féidir págh níos fearr d'fháil.
Níor chualas éinne a labhairt sa díospóireacht seo, ná in aon díospóireacht eile mar gheall ar an imirce, á rá go mba cheart don Rialtas stop a chur leis. An bhfuil annso a mholfadh gur ceart é sin a dhéanamh? Is cuimhin linn an t-am, i mblian 1921, nuair a cuireadh stop leis an imirce thar lear. Bhí baint ag an dTeachta Ua Maolchatha leis sin. Eisean, is dóigh liom, a chuir an tOrdú amach.
Agus cad ina thaobh gur dheineas é?
Fuairis ordaithe ó na daoine a bhí os do chionn.
B'fhéidir gur fearr don Teachta gan aon tsuim a chur sna rudaí seo.
Agus cúrsaí míle naoi gcéad fiche a haon a léigint leis.
Lig don Teachta a óráid féin a dhéanamh.
Táim ad iarraidh sin a dhéanamh. Mar dúras, nílim ag cur i gcoinne an Teachta mar gheall ar chuir isteach orm. Tá sé ag cabhrú liom. Fágfad an scéal ain mar atá sé.
Bhí caint againn mar gheall ar na cánacha atá á mbailiú agus mar gheall ar an bille atá le n-íoc.
Níl aon bhaint ag an mBille seo le bailiúcháin cánacha ach le airgead a chaitheamh.
Ní foláir an t-airgead a bhailiú ar dtúis chun é a chaitheamh. Bhí caint ag Teachtaí áirithe mar gheall ar an méid a caithtear ar an Stát-Seirbhís. Is fíor sin ach bhí a lán Teachta ag iarraidh ar an Aire rudaí eile a dhéanamh agus ní féidir linn seirbhísí sa mbreis a chur ar siúl gan stát-sheirbhisígh sa mbreis a thógaint isteach.
Tá seirbhísí ann anois ná raibh ann deich mbliana nó dhá bhliain déag ó shoin agus, má tá níos mó seirbhísí ann, is gá níos mó stát-sheirbhiseach a bheith ann leis. Ba mhaith liom-sa, ar nos Teachtaí eile, go gcaithfí níos mó airgid ar rudaí áirithe má tá an t-airgead le fáil, ach tá bille le n-íoc anois agus caithfimíd smaoineamh feasta ar cá stadfaimíd. Ní féidir linn leanúint den bhailiúchán cánacha chun seirbhísí nua a sholáthar—tá orainn an méid cánacha a soláthrófar a bhunú ar bhun-mhaoin na tíre. Ní féidir linn seirbhísí sa mbreis a chur ar siúl ar aon tslí eile. Tá rud amháin déanta ag an Rialtas a chuir áthas orm, agus ar dhaoine eile sa Deisceart. Sin é an buanú atá déanta ar an déiríocht—an plean chúig mblian atá curtha i bhfeim mar gheall ar an déiríocht.
Sa chás sin, tá cuid mhaith de na feirmeoirí go bhfuil baint acu leis an tionscail sin agus níl siad sásta leis an méid atá curtha in áirithe dhó ag an Rialtas. Deirtear go bhfuil sé ró-bheag agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil an ceart acu. Deir siad go bhfuil an t-airgead atá le fáil ar an galún bainne ró-bheag agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil an ceart acu freisin, ach tá rud fónta déanta ag an Rialtas don déiríocht agus ba mhaith liom an Rialtas a mholadh mar gheall air.
Bhí a láu cainte sa díospóireacht seo mar gheall ar an Séalann Nua, agus na gléasanna atá i bhfeidhm ann i gcomparáid le gléasanna sa tír seo. Bhí an Teachta MacGiollagáin, go mórmhór, ag cur de mar gheall ar an scéal areir. B'fhéidir go bhfuil an scéal go hiontach ar fad sa tír sin. Níl fhios agam ach tá sean-ráite ann: "Bíonn adharca fada ar na buaibh thar lear" agus "Is glas iad na cnoic i bhfad uainn." Chun fios fátha an scéil sin a thuigsint, níorbh foláir bheith i gcomhairle le daoine ón dtir sin.
Thárla go rabhas ag caint le duine ón dtír sin roinnt bliain ó shoin—duine a tháinig ar ais anso tar éis 35 bliain a chaitheamh sa tSéalann Nua. Feirmeoir a bhí ann agus dúirt sé liom go raibh feirm naocha acra aige agus go raibh naocha ba bainne aige as an naocha acra san. Sin rud nach féidir a bheith sa tír seo. Dúirt sé liom go raibh féar ar an feirm sin ar feadh deich mí gach blian agus go raibh leasú mála le fáil go flúirseach aige agus ag muintir na Séalainne Nua in oileán gairid don tír sin. Bhí beirt acu ann—deartháracha dob ea iad. Bhí an fear eile ina Stát-Sheirbhíseach. Bhí an feirmeoir ag gearán mar gheall ar chomh deachair is bhí sé do na feirmeoirí oibritheoirí d'fháil agus mar gheall ar an Rialtas bheith go dona. Bhí an Stát-Sheirbhíseach go láidir ar an dtuairim eile. Ní hionann cás don dá thír—an tír seo agus an tSéalann Nua. Tá an tír sin ceithre huaire níos mó ná an tír seo ach tá pobal níos lú ann ná mar tá anso. Tá 2,000,000 daoine sa tSéalann Nua.
Proinnsias MacAodhagáin
Níl an méid sin ann.
1,600,000 nach ea? Tá 3,000,000 daoine anso nó gairid dó. Tá an talamh agus gléasa oibre na bhfeirmeoirí i bhfad níos fearr sa tír sin ná mar tá siad annso. Ní hionann an dá tír. Dá dtagadh fear ón Séalann Nua anso b'fhéidir go ndearfadh sé go bhfuil an scéal go hiontach againne i gcomparáid leis an scéal sa tSéalann Nua.
Tá rud eile a thugainn fé ndeara mar gheall ar an Séalann Nua. D'ainneoin an gléas breá maireachtana atá i bhfeidhm ann, do réir mar adeirtear linn anso, bhí toghadh mór ann anuiridh agus laghduigheadh an bhreis ag an Rialtas go dtí seisear. Bhí 25 sa mbreis ag Rialtas an Lucht Oibre ar gach páirte eile roimh an Toghadh Mór ach tar éis an toghadh ní raibh níos mó ná seisear sa bhreis acu.
Taisbeánann sin ná fuil muintir na tíre sin ró-shásta le cúrsaí ann. Ach ní féidir aon chomparád a dhéanamh idir an tír seo agus an tSéalanna Nua, ná idir an tír seo agus an Danmhairg. Ní hionann an dá chás. Ní mór dúinn anso seasamh ar ár mbonnaibh féin agus féachaint le feabhas a chur ar ár scéal féin.
Dúirt an Teachta O Cuagáin, ó Chill Coinnigh, go mba cheart dúinn ár gcinn a chur le chéile chun a fháil amach conas d'fhéadfaí feabhas a chur ar na lochtanna atá ar ár ngléasanna anso. Aontaím leis sin go hiomlán ach ní hé sin an rud atá á dhéanamh anso againn, ná in aon Phairlaimint sa domhain. Tá rudaí le feabhsú sa tír seo. Ní Flaitheas atá annseo— tuigmidíd go leír é sin—ach nuair a chuimhnímid ar conas atá an scéal ar fud an domhan tá an scéal maith go leor againn. Níl aon chúis gearáin againn agus le cúnamh Dé tiocfadh feabhas ar chúrsaí. Bá cheart go mbeadh obair ag na daoine óga ná fuil sásta le hobair ar an dtalamh nó sásta fánacht fén dtuaith.
Tá pleanna móra leagtha amach— pleananna i dtaobh aibhléisiú na tuaithe, tithe a thogáil, móin a sholáthar agus a lán rudaí eile ach ní féidir aon rud mar sin a dhéanamh gan airgead a chaitheamh, agus airgead a chaitheamh go flúirseach. Ní féidir aon obair a dhéanamh, ná na rudaí atá Teachtaí a phlé, gan airgead agus ní cheart do dhaoine bheith ag gearán mar gheall ar an méid mór airgead atá á chaitheamh, má tá uathu na seirbhisí seo bheith á gcur i bhfeidhm.
Deputy McGilligan said last night that since the start of the emergency 300,000 of our people have gone across to England. Deputy Larkin to-day put the figure at 150,000. In the days of Sinn Féin, Arthur Griffith and David P. Moran calculated that a young man or woman leaving the country represented a loss of £200 each. If we accept Deputy Larkin's figure, and take it that each emigrant represents a loss of £200, the total is £30,000,000, and if we say that, in view of the present cost of living, the loss is £300 each, the figure is £45,000,000. As regards the figures quoted by Deputy McGilligan, the respective losses on the same basis would be £60,000,000 and £90,000,000. Percy French, in one of his songs, used to say that Ireland's principal exports were emigrants and bullocks. I suppose we get something out of the bullocks but nothing out of the emigrants. My colleague, Deputy Cafferky, suggested three schemes which, if put into operation, would help to keep our young people at home: electrification, arterial drainage and forestry. The Arterial Drainage Act was passed a few years ago. I do not know if much has been done as regards putting it into operation. I would add to Deputy Cafferky's list another scheme, namely, one for the provision of a water supply to the 400,000 farmhouses and the equal number of labourers' houses that we have in the country. I have spoken on this many times before. There is a shocking amount of drudgery connected with the drawing of water to houses in the country.
My concern is to know where we are to get men to do work in the country. In a town with a population of 1,000 people you will find 40 or 50 young men waiting to go away. I referred before to the survey that Lord Beaverbrook made in regard to water supplies for England, Scotland and Wales. The estimate for Scotland was £8,000,000. I think we should be able to borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest and carry out this water supply scheme for rural Ireland which I have so often advocated here. We had a debate in the House on forestry the other day. It is only the tail-end of the mountains that are being planted. If a proper approach were made to that problem, it would provide plenty of employment for people. There is not a farmhouse in Leinster or Munster that could not find employment for one man more. Of course, it is impossible to get a maid at the present time. A farmer may offend his wife or daughter or son, but he dare not offend the man working for him or else he will go. The extra hour—summer time—put the finishing touch to agriculture.
Young men working on the land get unsettled when they see their companions employed on the roads knocking off on Saturdays at 12 o'clock old time. One of these lads may put his head over the ditch and say to the men on the land: "What are you doing there; why not get a decent job?" Men who work up to 7 and 7.30 old time on a Saturday night get very unsettled in a situation of that kind. Is it any wonder that we have no butter and no milk? When we travel by train the first thing we hear people talk about is the scarcity of butter. They ask why does not the farmer do this, and do that? The position is that we cannot get men to milk cows.
I was at a dairy congress in Thurles about a month ago, and a suggestion was mooted there by a lady delegate that some bounty would have to be given to milkers, as above other agricultural workers. Now, it must be remembered that if you are to avoid certain diseases in cows, such as mastitis, the cows must be milked at an equal time. The Minister spoke about improving the milking strains, the breed, and all that kind of thing. I understand that he is a farmer himself. He is a gentleman that I have a great regard for; I heard him addressing an agricultural meeting some years ago in my part of the country, and I was impressed by what he said, but with regard to this matter of improving milking strains and so on, like the Scotsman, "I hae ma doots." We have listened to a lot of that kind of talk to-day. I can remember two generations in my family. My family runs to nonagenarians, and I am blessed or cursed, as the case may be, with a long memory, as the majority of Irish people are, but I can definitely say that the great cause of mastitis in Irish cattle is due to the unequal hours of milking. Everybody remembers that in certain months of the year in the old days you had to milk the cows at 5 o'clock in the morning and again in the evening at a certain time; and you had to keep strictly to those milking hours or, otherwise, you had what we used to call in those days a bad dug, or mastitis as it is now called.
But you will get nobody to work at 5 o'clock now, and on Sunday evenings it is impossible to get men to come back to do the milking. According to the Agricultural Labourers Act, a man now works eight hours a day. I am sure Deputy Ó Briain will understand this well, as he comes from the heart of the Golden Vale; I come from just outside it. I am sure that he realises that half of the cows now are suffering from a bad teat as a result of the uneven hours of milking. You cannot interfere with the hours of milking without doing serious damage. Where there is a large family, of course, the members of it can go out and milk the cows on a Sunday evening, but it is practically an utter impossibility now to get milking done on a Sunday evening, because the young men go out to football matches, ten or 15 miles away, and do not come back.
I am afraid that the Deputy is now going down very much to details which might be of more interest on the Agricultural Vote later on.
You are quite right, Sir. Now, we heard a lot here about the stale egg, and the one dried egg a month, and, indeed, the hen that laid that egg would not know it. Deputy Cafferky stated here that he did not know of anyone who had left the country to go abroad who would not have stayed here except that they had to go. I agree. Of course, there are always some adventurous spirits that will go abroad in any case, but the majority of our young people do not want to go away at all; they want to live at home. A very interesting question was raised here last evening—it was practically over when I came in— and that was in connection with the celebration of the centenary of Michael Davitt.
I do not think that Michael Davitt has anything to do with the Central Fund Bill.
No, but without the exertions of Michael Davitt you would still have the mud cabins and all the rest of it in this country. He was one of the greatest men this country produced.
No one is disputing that, but the Chair is disputing the Deputy's right to bring in Michael Davitt on the Central Fund Bill.
Yes, Sir, but we would not have to export these emigrants to-day if we had Michael Davitt here. However, that, as you say, Sir, is beside the question.
Are we not printing a stamp for him?
It has no bearing on the matter, Sir, I agree.
But we are printing a stamp for Davitt's commemoration.
I think that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and myself are probably the only two members here who can remember going down with Michael Davitt on a certain occasion——
The Chair is not disputing that what the Deputy says is quite right, but the Chair would like him to come down to this Bill. This is the Central Fund Bill, and has nothing to do with Michael Davitt.
That is right, Sir; come down to mother earth. Well, I had practically finished, but with all this business of people leaving the country and so on, we cannot get people to work, and among those who remain here nobody seems to want to work, and they are costing the State two or three hundred pounds each. I am only dealing with the problem as I see it, but how to remedy it I cannot suggest. The only thing I suggest is that you must make employment more attractive, and I do say that when you introduced the eight-hour or nine-hour day you killed agriculture.
There were a number of speeches on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think that very little was said that had not been said on the Vote on Account. I was glad to see that Deputy Donnchadh O Briain did something towards clearing up the frustration that Deputy McGilligan said he felt when he viewed the prosperity which he outlined in New Zealand as compared with the dire poverty which he alleged the big proportion of our people were suffering from here. I have nothing to say against the New Zealand Government. As far as one can see, I think they have done a good job of work for their country, but the fact of the matter is that in New Zealand, as Deputy O Briain pointed out, you have very much more than twice—in fact, three times—the amount of land available that we have here, and less than half the population that we have here. I calculate that they have about 26 acres of arable land per head of the population as against four acres of arable land here, and the average holding in New Zealand is about 500 acres, while here it is not much over 30 acres. Now, we could provide a very much higher standard of life for our people if we were to get rid of three-quarters of them off the land, give them machinery to work the land, or a dog and a stick with which to drive bullocks.
We could give them a much higher standard of living, even with higher standards of output. I do not believe that is the way to tackle the situation. We should try to help the existing farmers, in so far as we can, through the Land Commission, to bring the uneconomic holdings up to an economic level. Where that can be done, and even where it is done, we must make sure that all assistance possible is given to the farmers to increase their efficiency, to get a higher standard of output per man hour and per acre. I do not think that, in order to get either a higher production per man hour or a higher output per acre, we should use the battering ram to get rid of three-quarters of the population on the land, to bring it down to the same density of population as on the holdings in New Zealand.
During the last ten or 15 years, and even during the last 5 years, there has been a very big increase in production efficiency, both on the land and in the factory, all over the world. That has increased more rapidly where farmers and industrialists had available to them resources of machines. We here were cut off pretty well from the resources of supply of agricultural machinery on account of the war and we had to make do almost with what we had within the country. Not more than a few hundred tractors came in altogether and we had to work the land with the horses and with the agricultural machinery already there. Seeing that our farmers were constrained to do that, I think they did a reasonable job, by giving us practically all the wheat and beet we required. It must be remembered that we had probably the highest standard of sugar ration in the world and all the milk, butter and eggs and some of the bacon we required. In New Zealand and America, and even in England, farm production efficiency went up owing to the application of mechanisation to farming.
One of the reasons why the New Zealand standard of living is high and the cost of living is low is that the production efficiency is good and is improving. Factory production increased from a100 point basis per person employed in 1938 to 109 in 1939-40, to 113 in 1940-41, and it was 113 again in 1941-42, which is the last year for which I have the figures. The volume of farm production there went up also from the 100 basis in 1938-39 to 110 in 1941-42. As Deputy Ó Briain pointed out, they had a fair amount of mechanised equipment and also they have an island adjacent to them from which they can get artificial manures. Deputy Ó Briain described his talk to a civil servant and a farmer from New Zealand recently. I happened to be talking to another New Zealander recently and he was complaining that the farmers were not content with their price per barrel for wheat, which I calculated to be about 30/-. As Deputies know, we are paying 50/- to 55/- per barrel here, and there is 2/6 in deferred payment for manures. While people may talk from this distance about the great prosperity of the farming community in New Zealand, I am sure if you were over there you would hear the same complaints about the Government grinding down the farmers as we hear in this Dáil at present.
One other aspect of the New Zealand economy is their National Debt. A man can have a good time if he has a large amount of land and has somebody to give him permanent loans. A nation can have a good time if it has a fair amount of resources per head of the population and if it can increase its loans ad lib. In New Zealand, the National Debt grew from £303,000,000 in 1939 to £526,000,000 in 1944. Those are New Zealand pounds, of course, which are slightly less than the British £ sterling, but they are not very far apart and we can take them as roughly equivalent. From those figures, we find that the growth of the National Debt per head of the population was from £178 in 1938-39 to £307 in March, 1944. If you take our population as, roughly, twice theirs and calculate what our debt would be at the same rate per head as in New Zealand, you will find it would be, roughly, twice that figure, or practically £1,000,000,000. Instead of being £1,000,000,000, our debt, as far as the Central Fund is concerned, is, as Deputies are aware, well under £100,000,000. Of that, not half is anything like a dead-weight debt.
I am not contesting the policy of the New Zealand Government in their increase in the National Debt. Lest anybody might think it is altogether a free Central Bank creation of credit, I looked up the figures, and it seems to me that very little of it can have been issued by the interest-free credits from the Central Bank. All but about £60,000,000 of it is bearing interest at 2½ per cent. or upwards. Less than £60,000,000, as far as I remember, is bearing 1½ per cent., and there is another number of millions at less than 1½ per cent. Those are some of the facts, so far as I can gather them, of the New Zealand economy.
There is one other interesting figure, and it is that they had, in 1938, a volume of exports representing about £36 per head—that is, in New Zealand pounds—and here we had an export of about £8 per head. Their imports were £34 per head, and here they were £14 per head. Therefore, the basis of the New Zealand high standard of living, as far as I can make it out, is that they have six times as much land per head as we have, and they have, as Deputy Ó Briain pointed out, a growing season for grass in some of the islands extending to ten months. They have also coal mines—they export coal instead of being an importer of it, as we have been. They export some gold as well.
They have the virgin soil there, too, and we have had 6,000 years of scratching it.
I do not think our soil has been very much disimproved during the last 6,000 years. There is no reason why it should be. If we take any care of it at all, I do not see why it should disimprove. There are other civilisations that took good care of their land, and they are on that land for 3,000 or 4,000 years, and I do not see why we could not do the same thing.
When you utilise the land for years, it is bound to lose some of its fertility. The decayed humus over 6,000 years has been of great advantage for our old, worn-out land.
It is not worn out, and the sooner the misrepresentatives of the farming community in this country would stop all this sort of talk, and going around with doleful expressions, the better. This country is not worn out. The land is not worn out, nor are the people.
To whom are you telling it?
It is not as worn out perhaps as some of the representatives of the Farmers' Party.
All belonging to me have sprung from the land and I am giving you generations of tradition.
I do not want to tell the Deputy to go back to the land.
Tell that to the marines.
Answering Deputy Larkin's question, we can here, in my belief, if we apply ourselves to the development of the resources of our country, offer a reasonable standard of life to our people. I have no feeling of hopelessness at all about the future, or about giving an opportunity to those who want to work in this country and who want a reasonable standard of living. It is true, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, that in the years prior to the war, from 1932 to 1939, we provided fresh employment in factories for something like 80,000 people. We did our utmost to do more, but that is what we succeeded in doing. We succeeded also in putting 14,000 people into the building of houses. In those years we succeeded in building and reconstructing about 120,000 houses; we rehoused about 20 per cent. of our people and we were going only at half-cock, I am prepared to admit, because the Deputy must remember that we had to teach our people that it was possible to build houses, even though the price of materials and the cost of the labour going into house construction meant that the cost of the houses was higher than the normal working man could give a rent for.
Deputy Mulcahy has advanced from the time when he was on these benches, when I heard him say that we would have to give up house building until the price of materials and wages went down, so that houses could be let at an economic rent.
That is again, I suppose, the Minister's interpretation of what I said.
I will bet the Deputy £10 to £1 that he said that when he was on these benches.
The Minister is going to the races now.
I am not going to the races. I repeat that the Deputy, when he was Minister for Local Government, said he regretted that we could not go on with house building on any scale until the price of materials and wages fell, so that houses could be let at an economic rent.
If the Minister could only remember some of the things that he will need to do in the future, as easily as he remembers the things that are behind——
I am dealing with Deputy Larkin's question as to the future, and my belief is that we have got the greatest obstacle to progress in this country out of our way. That obstacle was the shortsightedness, the lack of belief in ourselves, that was evidenced in the Fine Gael Party and in people like those in Clann na Talmhan.
The Minister completely misjudges the obstacle.
On what grounds does the Minister accuse Clann na Talmhan of being a reactionary Party?
Betting is not a wise man's argument; it is a fool's argument.
I think I have dealt with all the points that were raised in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Sections 1, 2, 3 and the Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th March, 1946.