Before I come to the Estimate proper, I would like to endeavour to enlist the sympathy of the Taoiseach in a matter which I think properly applies either to his Department or to the Government as a whole. As this is probably the only convenient opportunity of raising the matter, I would like to avail of this Estimate in order to do so. Many countries have found it desirable to establish what has been described as a civil pensions scheme. I think the proposal to establish such a scheme in this country has already got some, but perhaps rather perfunctory, consideration. Where these schemes have been in existence they have, in the main, been utilised for the purpose of providing pensions for distinguished artists and writers, many of whom, because of their love of art and their love of literature, have pursued paths which never brought them any great wealth, with the result that in a number of these cases when the writer or artist died he very frequently left his dependents in dire want. In Britain, in particular, the difficulties have been provided for by the establishment of a civil pensions scheme.
I think that in our circumstances the need to examine this whole question with a view to the introduction of a similar scheme here is made real—apart from any other fact—by a case which occurred recently. I do not need to go into the details of the case. I think it is just sufficient to say that some time ago this whole nation—not merely the nation at home, but also its far-flung millions elsewhere—mourned the passing of probably the most brilliant Irish artist that we have been privileged to see. By his passing his dependents are unfortunately the poorer, and have, probably, been left in circumstances which do not make it easy for them to face life in the future. This particular artist, who was internationally known, might, if he were interested in fleshpots or if he were not concerned with doing justice and credit to Irish art on the living stage, have been induced to go for the glittering prizes which are to be found in the American or in the British film industry. But he was not. By his decision in that respect he was much the poorer financially, but we and art in this country were much the richer. Death has unfortunately claimed him. Death has left his dependents in circumstances which now necessitate some steps being taken if they are to be spared actual want and actual privation. Those of us who have been thrilled by witnessing his display of talent in the interests of Irish art would all, I feel sure, like to do whatever lies within our power to mitigate in some small way the hardships which will be inflicted in that case. One may well ask whether it would not be better in a case of that kind for the nation as a whole to pay some tribute to the dependents of that gifted Irish artist by making provision for them through the medium of a civil pensions scheme, and thus in some way express our admiration for that artist's magnificent talents and, at the same time, record, by sparing his dependents suffering, our appreciation of the fact that he lived and died as it were on the living Irish stage—rather than be attracted to the brilliant prizes which were his for the asking—if he had gone into the film industries of other countries.
It is not easy to discuss a matter of this kind on an Estimate such as this, nor perhaps would it be desirable to do so in detail. I want to try to invoke the Taoiseach's sympathy for a project of that kind, the need for which is now keener than ever, because of the rather poignant circumstances associated with the death recently of the brilliant artist I have in mind. I am satisfied to leave the matter there, knowing that in a case of this kind the Taoiseach will have the matter fully examined. I am hopeful that, on general grounds, and with particular reference to the present case, some scheme may be devised by which the nation, in such circumstances, may pay its meed in gratitude to one who was, certainly in our time, perhaps the most brilliant artist that this country ever produced. I want now to pass on to the Estimate proper.
This is the 15th Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department which has been presented to the House by the Fianna Fáil Government. They have been 15 years in office and during that period they had virtually unchallenged control over the nation's policy. I do not think that even the most carping critic would deny that during the greater portion of that period they received wide and generous support on all matters of vital social and economic policy. It is true that certain difficulties were created by the war period and I want to temper my criticism by a realisation of that fact. But even some of these difficulties ought to have stimulated us to apply ourselves more diligently than ever to a solution of many of our problems; whereas in fact we allowed these opportunities to pass unnoticed and we allowed ourselves to fall back into a position of inertia, when the circumstances, especially those created by the war from 1939 to 1945, ought to have stimulated us to greater efforts. But I do not want to consider the Government's policy or its inactivity in relation to the war period only.
The war has now been over for two years. I should think that every Deputy felt that, when the war had concluded in 1945, at least the two ensuing years would be utilised to galvanise into action all the resources of the nation with a view to ensuring that every possible step necessary would be taken as part of a comprehensive plan of national reconstruction and as part of a plan for industrial and agricultural expansion. Certainly, most Deputies, I would say, imagined that by now we should be well on the way towards implementing a vigorous policy of national planning, exemplifying itself in greater industrial production on the one hand and great agricultural production on the other and, generally, enriching the national estate and fortifying the economic, agricultural and industrial fabrics that we have.
How far we are from realising that hope was manifested recently by a speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in introducing his Estimates in this House. I said then, and looking at it in retrospect my view has not been altered, that the Minister's speech was a sombre one which contained, so far as he was concerned, a rather belated recognition of the fact that as a nation we had not developed our resources to a degree which made us shock-proof against world scarcities, or which made us independent of the more violent industrial and economic shocks which were likely to come from various parts of the world. Although two years have now passed since the war concluded, I can see no evidence of real expansion in wealth production here. Indeed, if one refers to certain national activities in the field of industry or agriculture, or in the field of employment or emigration, all the facts point to a very bleak picture indeed. A reference to some of these fields of activity will serve to provide abundant evidence of the neglected conditions of our national productivity, and serve, at the same time, to give us a picture of the long road which we must yet travel if we are ever to bring into the lives of our people the economic security which the world at large is feverishly planning to provide for its people.
Let me first look at the field of agriculture, which naturally concerns the entire population of the country, because out of every 100 persons gainfully employed in this country, 55 get a living in agriculture, showing clearly the importance of agriculture in the entire national economy. Here we are in this small country, with a small population, possessed of 12,000,000 acres of arable land capable of feeding almost 12,000,000 people, if effectively and scientifically exploited. Although we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, some of which is the envy of every country in Europe, which with scientific exploitation is capable of feeding almost 12,000,000 people, we have now reached a stage in which, after 25 years of self-government, we have not sufficient energy to utilise the land to provide adequate food for 3,000,000 people. Not only can we not provide adequate food for 3,000,000 people, but although we have stopped the export of such commodities as butter and bacon, which proceeded on quite a substantial scale in other years, we have not yet been able to supply the home demand in these two commodities alone.
If you look at the general volume of agricultural production, as distinct from the value of agricultural production—and the value may be an artificial, illusory thing in present circumstances—you find that the exportable surplus in respect of agriculture is about 25 per cent. of the 1932 volume. Therefore, with all the activities in the field of agriculture between 1932 and 1939, with the artificial stimulus which agricultural production ought to have got during the emergency period, we are now in the position that our exportable surplus of agricultural products is 25 per cent. of 1932 in volume. Is it any wonder, therefore, that last year the gap between our visible imports and our visible exports was no less than £33,000,000? Somebody speaking for the Government in this debate, in the present circumstances existing in the world, the rigid control of currency, ought to tell us how long he thinks we can continue a national economy which gives us a deficit of £33,000,000 on our trade with other countries. As agriculture is our most important source of visible exports, judging by these figures it will not be long until we reach a stage when it will be extremely difficult to buy machinery and raw material unless our agricultural production can be stepped up, because any examination of our exportable surplus will disclose at once that our main exportable surplus, the goods which we must send out in order to buy the goods which come in, is composed of agricultural goods. They must finance our purchases abroad and, if we allow our agricultural surplus to deteriorate by an unplanned agricultural economy at home, then assuredly, in present circumstances especially, we will reach a position in which we will not have the goods to export which are so necessary if we are to import the things we need.
In the whole field of agriculture, I think there is presented before our eyes a classical example of the deterioration which can be caused by inertia, by want of objective, by an inability to bring to the service of agriculture the mechanical aids, the scientific devices, the credit facilities and the standard of life essential to induce workers to remain on the land. All that neglect in the field of agriculture has shown itself in the disinclination on the part of workers to remain in agriculture because they can get better wages elsewhere. A secondary consequence of that viewpoint on the part of agricultural workers, and of our own neglect of our agricultural possibilities, is that we are short of butter, bacon, bread, sugar and, in some areas, milk. All this in a country with 12,000,000 acres of arable land available to feed 3,000,000 people, if we only had the energy to apply ourselves to that task. Unfortunately I can see no feature in our agricultural policy that tends to arrest the progressive deterioration in agriculture, that tends to stop our agricultural produce being of less and less value as an exportable surplus, enabling us to buy elsewhere the goods which must be paid for if we are not to have a still greater decline in the standard of living at home.
Let us turn from agriculture to the sphere of emigration and here again a picture, bleaker if it were possible than the picture which confronts us in respect of agriculture, presents itself. An examination of the census of population for the years 1936 to 1946 shows that during that period the emigration from this country was 190,000 persons. That means that 19,000 per annum were exported, mainly to Britain, in those ten years. Of course, the rate of exportation was greater during the war years but altogether we sent 190,000 persons, according to the official statistics—my memory or my guess are not in question in this matter. According to the official statistics, 190,000 persons went away—not aged people, not mentally defective people, not people unskilled in industry or unversed in hard work, but persons who satisfied the tests which Britain imposed in order to admit them, namely, for admission to the British Army, the British Navy, into British agriculture, into the mines, into the machine shops and factories, where brawn and brain were called for on a scale that would test the physical endurance of the hardiest amongst us.
These were the years when we should have been building up a national economy here, capable of providing for our people a decent standard of living, but we were satisfied to allow tens of thousands of our people to find employment in Britain as we had no plan for providing them with employment at home. In the inter-censal years, from 1936 to 1946, the statistics show that births exceeded deaths by 175,000, yet at the end of the ten years our population was 19,000 less. Is there any country in the world, populated by white people, even remotely circumstanced as we are, that can point to as bleak and as miserable a picture of the export of human beings as can be seen by reference to the movement of our population?
Many years ago, long before prices had risen to their present level, it was estimated that every adult citizen cost the nation approximately £1,000 to bring him to the stage bordering on adolescence and manhood. Suppose we assume the cost to the nation has not increased since that calculation was made, we were engaged within the last ten years exporting, not agricultural produce in exchange for other commodities, but approximately £200,000 in flesh and blood that should have been retained here for employment; human flesh and blood that every other country is looking for; human flesh and blood for which we are not willing to provide employment at home. Apparently, we are quite satisfied to do that, because the question which I asked recently in connection with emigration shows that the emigrant ship is sailing with all its old-time vigour, that there are now more women going to Britain than at any time during the war period, and that the number of men going to Britain in the first three months of this year was greater than during the war years.
One has only to look at Dún Laoghaire or Holyhead to see masses of Irish men and women, who ought to be the pride of their nation striving for a better standard of living, leaving the country because they cannot get here the employment they were once promised by the Government. One has only to look at the papers to see the numbers of advertisements looking for Irish men and women. Miners, agricultural labourers, nurses, typists and all classes of craftsmen are wanted. Does anybody imagine that the British people insert these advertisements merely for the sake of having an advertisement in an Irish paper?
Does not everybody know that these advertisements are inserted and paid for, for one reason only and that is that they yield good dividends to those inserting them? They are paid for only because they bring a good response in the export of tens of thousands of our people. While production continues to fall, our vigorous manhood and womanhood are leaving the country. Not only are vigorous men and women leaving the country, but I have noticed recently a considerable movement of children and wives, after the fathers to Britain where the fathers are compelled because of economic circumstances at home to seek employment. Some time ago I had a letter from a constituent of mine in connection with her husband who was anxious to get a permit to enable him to seek employment in Great Britain. He finally got the permit and got employment there which he could not get at home. In any rationally governed country, populated by a rational people one would regard the separation of a father from his wife and five children as something undesirable in the national and social interest. But in this particular case, privations and poverty had driven this woman to such a state that instead of expressing the normal viewpoint of horror in circumstances of that kind, she wrote me a letter, because I was associated with the case, thanking me because her husband was able to go to England that morning. Could anybody find a more warped sense of human values than that children now are glad when their father goes to England and that a wife is glad that the husband is gone to England? That privilege may mean the keeping of two homes but at least these two homes have an assured income, because the husband has regular employment. It should be necessary to keep only one home and that man here at home would be creating wealth for the country, wealth which could be diffused amongst all our people in a higher and a better standard of life. The thing that worries me in this whole business is that, notwithstanding occasional expressions of mild regret, speaking more perhaps out of courtesy than of any real feeling in the matter, the Government generally looks on this whole problem with complacency, notwithstanding the fact that the continuation of emigration is denuding the country of the flower of its manhood and its womanhood.
Turning from emigration to unemployment it is still not a consoling picture that presents itself. How weak our industrial and economic fabric is, may be measured by the fact that we have exported 190,000 persons as emigrants within the past ten years but we still had 61,000 persons registered as unemployed on the 17th May. It is true, of course, that the number fell from 61,000 on the 17th May to 46,000 on the 1st June, but the figure did not fall because we had provided work for those knocked off the register in the meantime. It fell by the very simple device of the Department of Industry and Commerce issuing what is known as an Employment Period Order. When that is issued, it has the effect of denying employment benefit to unmarried persons who are registered up to the date of the issue of the Order. The effect of the issue of the Order in this particular case was that there were 15,000 fewer registered at the employment exchanges on the 1st June as compared with the 17th May. We reduce our number of unemployed, at least so far as statistical returns are concerned, not by providing more work, but merely by issuing a blanketing Employment Period Order, the effect of which is to give a statistical return which does not fully represent the unemployment position in the country.
If this country suffers from one evil more than another, it is the evil of the low standard of production. Here as everywhere else, the volume of production must determine the standard of life of the people. A nation can live only on what it produces for the very simple reason that there is nothing else on which it can live. On acceptance of the fact that production determines the standard of life for our people, we are driven unquestioningly to the conclusion that our standard of life is declining and declining rapidly and will continue to decline unless we can arrest the fall in production, and unless we can gear the whole nation up to a recognition of the fact that it is only by intensifying our production that we can ever hope to give our people a decent standard of living. If we are going to arrest the fall in production we can only do so by developing a policy of full employment at home, not full employment in Britain —a policy of full employment at home associated with a better wage structure, and with a deliberate and planned attempt to endeavour to raise the standard of life particularly in the agricultural industry. It can be done by the payment of better agricultural wages, by the fixation of minimum guaranteed prices for agricultural produce and by the exploitation of the land to the fullest extent that modern research makes possible.
I remember the Taoiseach speaking in this House on the 29th April, 1932, when he was asked to address himself to the question of unemployment and the steps to be taken to relieve the unemployment position at that time. Speaking here on that occasion the Taoiseach said:—
"It may be that with the present system, we cannot do the full work we would like to do but we are going to try. I am going to say this, that if I try within the system as it stands and fail, then I will go outside the system and I will go to the country and ask them to support me to go outside the system."
Clearly the Taoiseach has failed to get rid of unemployment, of poverty and destitution, but the Taoiseach maintains the system. Although we have had five general elections since 1932, in not one of them can I recollect the Taoiseach asking authority to go outside the system which prevented him dealing effectively with the unemployment problem. The Taoiseach has found another way out of his difficulties —to open the harbours and let 190,000 of our young men and women leave the country in ten years. We have still got another 61,000 unemployed at home. I wonder whether, having given the system since April, 1932, some consideration the Taoiseach is now satisfied that the system is all right, and if he is, will he explain to us why he has not found it possible, through the activities of his Government, to provide here for the tens of thousands of people who have been driven from this country because, under the system, and under the Government, they found it necessary to seek employment elsewhere?
If there was any evidence of economic regeneration at home, it ought to show itself unmistakably in two special fields, the field of expanding employment and the field of a better standard of living. Does anybody believe that there is expanding employment in this country? The only expanding employment we are providing is the expanding employment in Britain to-day, made more so by the ease with which large numbers of young girls can get to Britain and by the relaxation of the export of men for the mining industry in that country, so that, so far as expanding employment is concerned, there is no evidence of it here, and all the statistics in the world produced to prove the contrary convince nobody seeing Dún Laoghaire or Holyhead that our people are finding a greater measure of employment here than they formerly did.
A better standard of living for our people? Does anybody see that on the horizon? Does anybody find it easier to live to-day than ten years ago or does anybody find it easier to live to-day than even 25 years ago? All the indications are that so far as the masses of our people are concerned, the struggle for life is keener than it has been for a quarter of a century. All that is happening at home is that the standards of living of our people are being reduced day by day. Take the recent increases in the prices of tea, butter and sugar. These increases show that the ceiling of high prices has not been reached even yet, and that the public will have to prepare themselves for further shocks in the realm of high prices, because this Government is apparently unable or unwilling to control prices effectively or to deal in another way with the case of price increases which are outside their control.
Can anybody in this country, with its 12,000,000 acres of arable land, explain the circumstances in which it is almost impossible now to find a vegetable, except potatoes, in a working class household? I would invite some member of the Government to send representatives into working class areas to ask them when they were able to buy vegetables other than potatoes. You would not see a head of cabbage because of the scandalously high prices charged for cabbage. Cabbage to-day in a working-man's house is as rare as champagne in a workhouse. If anybody wants to find out the prices of vegetables, let somebody on the Government side——
