Vol. 7 No. 3
The question under discussion when Progress was reported last night was Financial Resolution No. 19 (Amendment of Law).
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with Finance.
I am not sure that I can add much illumination to the discussion of the subject to-day. A great deal of oratory was spent upon it yesterday, and I rather think the Deputies were getting tired of the subject. There are a few points, however, that I was anxious to speak upon last night, and I would like a few moments to deal with them to-day. The Minister for Finance pointed out that the total revenue receipt last year was £31,414,000, and he estimated for this year an expenditure of £32,412,000. Now that takes some budgeting, and those of us who have any knowledge of figures and finance must sympathise with him in the attempt he is making to get this money in. Deputy Johnson pointed out yesterday that having cut ourselves adrift from the head rents, I think he said of Park Lane, we were suffering for that at the present moment in higher taxation and higher cost of living, but I think that is only a temporary matter. Meanwhile, money must be got. We have to meet the heavy expenditure of the year, and this heavy expenditure is due in large measure to two reasons. In the first place there is an enormous amount of compensation to be paid for property losses and for personal injuries, amounting in the two years, last year and this year, to £18,000,000. The other abnormal item which I take from the estimates, was the estimate of the Army, which last year amounted to £11,000,000, and which this year, which might be treated perhaps as normal, amounts to £4,000,000. That is to say we had an expenditure of £7,000,000 on the one hand, and on the other an expenditure of £18,000,000 in the last two years, which we ought not have had to meet. That is to say we have a total of £25,000,000 which we ought not possibly to have had to meet in the last two years. My reading, therefore, on this is that the Minister would have been able to reduce taxation in every direction if it were not for these abnormal amounts that he had to meet. I am a very strong advocate where expenditure is going to exceed income, of paying attention to every detail of expenditure, and of endeavouring to effect reductions in every possible direction. I conceive it would be our duty when dealing with the estimates to very carefully examine them, and to help the Minister in every way we can by advocating reduction that seems to us to be necessary. I think the suggestion of Deputy Cooper yesterday was quite a fair one, that a Committee should be formed to go through the various Departments to carefully consider with the head of each Department each item of expenditure, making reductions as far as possible.
A great deal has been said during the course of our discussions about increasing our industry so as to give much-needed employment. Now, in my opinion, the first essential to the growth of industry is that there should be some security for the capital invested. You will not get people to invest money in industry unless they are pretty secure that they are not going to lose the money which they have perhaps saved by very great industry and care. Now, there is no question but that at the present time there is a great feeling of insecurity as regards capital, and unless this feeling of insecurity can be removed I do not think people will be got to put their money into industry, although otherwise they would be quite willing and ready to do so. There are many reasons that add to this feeling of insecurity, and perhaps not the least of them is the occurrence of strikes. It may not be the most important one.
Lock-outs?
But there is no doubt strikes occur with very great frequency, and surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a tribunal could be set up to deal with these trade disputes, and if such tribunal were suggested I think employers and employed would equally fall in with such a suggestion. With regard to the question of insecurity I hope I am not doing an injustice to Deputy Johnson, but I think that perhaps in his speech yesterday he made a suggestion which seems to me to favour the capital levy. I rather thought he suggested towards the end of his speech that if the Minister finds himself hard up for money he should take the money where he could get it, that is from those who have it. If I have done Deputy Johnson an injustice in that construction I apologise.
I have always thought it necessary to go for the thing where you can find it.
The Deputy says he always go to the place where things are to get them, but whether he means by taxation or not I do not know. I do not know whether he meant that people who had the money ought to be further taxed or whether he meant really that a capital levy was going to be issued. I think at the present moment if Deputy Johnson considers the matter he will find he was rather unwise in suggesting anything that would render capital or the holders of capital more insecure than they are at the present moment. I will go a little further and say that a suggestion like that coming from Deputy Johnson to the effect that the Minister should go where he can get the capital and take it is perhaps not very good teaching to the country. I am quite prepared to suggest that it is even leading men to take money where they can get it, and there is too much of a tendency of that kind in this country at the present time, and I do not think it should get encouragement from a Deputy in the position of Deputy Johnson.
Is the Deputy addressing himself to the Minister for Finance now?
I am giving my own ideas—I am not speaking for the Minister for Finance.
No, but I desire to know whether the Deputy is directing his remarks to the Minister for Finance as well as to me.
I am directing them to the subject, sir. Deputy Johnson comes into the subject. It was he who, in my opinion, started this question that I considered last night a very serious matter. It was on that point that I wished to speak last night. I thought, like other of the Deputies here, that I was a Free Trader, but I thank God that I have a mind to change, and if any matter of policy arises which seems to me to be a benefit either to the State or to the individual, I am capable of altering my mind and accepting a change of policy. Therefore, in that spirit, I accept the measures of Protection that have been suggested by the Minister for Finance. I am not in agreement with him as to the incidence of this new policy of Protection. I would rather that he dealt with other matters when he was starting Protection than with some of the matters I am going to refer to now. I am extremely sorry that the Minister has not been able to reduce the duty on sugar. Although some people think that sugar is only useful for destroying the teeth of children and giving work to the dentist, I must say, on the other hand, that sugar is a most essential article of food. It is especially needed in the food of children. It is one of the chief constituents of mother's milk. This sugar is absolutely needed for the production of heat and energy in the body and if a proper supply of sugar and starch, which goes along with it, be absent, the child in its growth will certainly be dwarfed and general development will not take place effectively. I fear therefore, that the continuance of this high tax or high duty upon sugar may result in some impairment of child welfare.
I come now to the question that Deputy Gorey was deeply interested in on the first day of the discussion, namely, the question of jams. As we know, a penny duty will be placed upon each pound of jam. I think this will be a most excellent tax if it brings about what some of the Deputies think it may bring about, namely, an encouragement to use the fresh fruit in our own country, and to make jam in our own country. There were suggestions made that much of the jam was made of turnips, carrots, mangolds and glucose. In this connection. I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce is here, because I would suggest to him it is an absolute necessity, in view of the statements that were made here, that jam should be labelled with a guarantee that the contents of the jams are pure fruit. I do not wish to go into abstruse matters, but fresh fruit contains an important substance called vitamines. In that way children that are not able to get fresh fruit are able to get this important vitamine which is absolutely essential to growth in certain directions. I am trying to avoid being technical. On the other hand, if the tax is not going to be followed by the production of jam in our own country, then I am sorry if it will keep from the children the jam that is necessary. Many people are unable to eat butter, and butter is the other substance with sugar that produces heat and energy. If people are unable to eat butter they must get sugar, and they take jam on their bread as well. That is the second blow, in my opinion, that the children have got. The first blow is the possibility of their not being able to get sufficient sugar. The second blow is that owing to the increased price of jam, they may not be able to get a sufficient amount of jam. But when I come to the third point, they get the knock down blow altogether, in my opinion; that is in regard to the question of boots. I am extremely sorry that the Minister has introduced such a very large and heavy tax upon the importation of boots in this country. I do not want to discourage the idea that was held out by some of the Deputies last night of a beautiful picture of tanneries and boot-making industries throughout the country. I do not know that it was suggested that we might possibly have the village boot-maker again established. In my youthful days in a village of a hundred people there were at least three families being supported by the making of boots—good hand-sewn, solid boots that stood the wear. When speaking on this subject, I should say that I have no sympathy at all with the ladies who pay three or four pounds for their shoes. I do not care if they have to pay a good many more shillings. My sympathy is entirely with the mother with a small income and a large family, because whatever else she is able to do—and a careful mother is able to do a wonderful amount—she is able to make and patch clothes, and is able to keep her family going in other directions, but as regards boots, she is not able to do anything. She is not able to keep children from kicking the soles out of their boots, and if the price of boots is to be raised in proportion to the tax that is imposed on them, it will mean a very serious increase in the household expenses of mothers with small incomes and large families.
I am going to put it from another point of view. I have thought for many years that it is better to have no boots than bad ones. It is better for children to be going about bare-footed than it is for them to be going about in leaking boots, which are very largely responsible for colds, bronchitis, rheumatism and other affections. My sympathy is with the country children who are poor, and who have to go, perhaps, three miles to school. It will be extremely difficult to keep these children in boots if the prices rise. On the other hand, if this is going to mean the starting of tanneries and boot factories, and if it means the making of boots at a cheaper rate, then I bless it.
The reduction of the tax upon tea left me quite cold. Twopence halfpenny in the lb., I think, means extremely little. I would not have cared if he had put 2½d. in the lb. on. But the making of sugar more expensive for the children while you are taking the tax off what is only a stimulant, is a very serious matter. Sugar is a food. Tea is only a stimulant; there is no food in it. There is a great deal too much tea drunk. There is a great deal of harm and mischief done by the amount of tea that is drunk. As I say, I would have been quite pleased if the Minister had tried to add a little of his revenue by putting even an additional tax upon tea, if it would have done anything to reduce its consumption.
I am almost amazed when I come to the question of preserved fruit. I understand the Minister is going to make a statement with regard to this. I would not have hesitated to praise the Minister if he had even prohibited the introduction of tinned meats and tinned fish, because these preserved meats and fish are always liable to contamination, and very frequently disastrous results accrue, such as what happened last year or the year before at Gairloch, in the North of Scotland, where six or seven people were poisoned by eating tinned or preserved meat.
The question of preserved fruit is on quite a different level, because preserved fruit is practically free from the danger of bacilli, which prove so frightfully disastrous when they happen to be included in the extracts of meat. I think someone pointed out yesterday that preserved fruit was not an industry that was carried on here, and that we were not in the least likely to have a preserved-fruit industry. During the winter months in particular a great deal of preserved fruit is used, and I think it is a very useful, though not absolutely necessary, adjunct to the fruit growing industry. Why the Minister on this occasion has placed his tax not upon the sugar contained in the preserved fruit, but upon the preserved fruit itself—the entire substance or content of the tin—is to me rather surprising. It has left the case in such a position that I think it will practically exclude the use of tinned or preserved fruits here. It is quite inexplicable to me, that he should have placed such a heavy tax upon the fruit. We hear a good deal from the farmers— and I sympathise entirely with the position of the farmers—that they are getting no protection, and they see other industries being bolstered up, for which they have to pay. That is not a pleasant position for them to be in, and everybody knows at the present time that the farming industry is at a very low ebb indeed. The fact of the matter is that the farmers are not getting anything like the prices they ought to get for their products. At the present moment we are paying in Dublin £16 a ton for potatoes. I do not know whether the farmers have any potatoes to sell at the moment, but I doubt if they are getting 50 per cent. of that price. Now, for sweet milk consumers are paying from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 8d. a gallon, and I am quite sure the farmers are not getting 1s. 4d. for that.
Tenpence.
That is the point. The farmers must become discontented when they come up to Dublin and see 8d. and 7d. a quart paid for milk for which they are only able to get about 2½d. Another thing in which I think they have a distinct grievance is that New Zealand and Danish butter—particularly New Zealand butter —can be brought in and sold at a cheaper rate here than they can supply their own butter. I am told that New Zealand butter is of the very finest quality, and is 3d. or 4d. a lb. cheaper than Irish butter. If I am wrong in that, I am quite willing and anxious to be corrected. I must say I take the view myself that some of the Deputies on the other side take, that the farmers must help themselves, that they must co-operate, and that if they do not cooperate the probability is that they will go to the wall. I am not going to lecture the farmers or tell them that they should improve their breed of cows, so that they may get a better yield of milk, though I think it would be well that they should do so. Deputy Gorey said that the farmers were the backbone of the country, and that the rest of us were all parasites. I agree that, to some extent we are parasites; but, on the other hand, we cannot call any man who is producing anything a parasite. I am a parasite because I am producing nothing——
I did not say anything of the sort.
Then, I beg the Deputy's pardon.
I talked about people who did nothing.
About parasites who did nothing. I rose with some temerity on this occasion, because on a previous occasion—this time last year —when I spoke about the tax upon motor cars, the President told me that he had some respect for my opinion when I was talking about matters that I knew something about, but that when I went outside my own subject he did not think very much of my opinion. His words were to that effect. I have been very quiet since then. I have been almost afraid to open my mouth. But I congratulate the business men that when they received a quietus from him it seemed only to stimulate their ardour.
I rise to urge the desirability of putting a tax on flour and allowing in the wheat. I am prompted to do so by reason of the fact that in my district we have four or five flour mills, each of which was giving employment to three sets of men for 24 hours. One firm owns three of these mills. Two of the mills are practically idle now, and one of them is running only three days a week. That is deplorable for the district. If the wheat was allowed in without any tax those mills would be kept going. These mills were set up at great expense, and were fitted up in accordance with all the discoveries of modern science in order that they might be able to compete with the foreign mills. They proved they were able to compete because they were sending their flour to all ends of the country until about three years ago, when the general dislocation of trade prevented the big development at which they aimed. We have five flour mills in that little district that would be capable of supplying Munster, at least. I am certain that in every county there are flour mills idle that would be set going if wheat was let in and a tariff put on the flour. I also speak for the patriotic spirit of my district. A couple of months ago the President asked that employers and labourers should co-operate for the common good of the country. In the town of Fermoy within the last week there were some cottages to be built. This, perhaps, may be outside the subject under discussion, but, with your permission, A Chinn Comhairle, I will make a few remarks on it. They could not find a contractor at the standard price, and labourers and tradesmen marched to the contractor and said: "Let you, on your part, reduce your profit and we, on our part, will reduce our wages, in order that houses may be built for our fellow men." A contractor has been found, and the Local Government Department will, no doubt, endorse that contractor's tender. It would be a grand thing to hear of all these mills going ahead again in the country. They were the staple industry in olden times—next to farming. I am afraid of the farmers, and I would not like to take that honour from them. They deserve it. This would prompt them, perhaps, to grow more wheat and get it ground in some of these mills. There are little mills throughout the country for grinding the wheat, and some of that flour could be shared with their labourers and give them more interest in the farm. It could be mixed through the good flour, and it would be good food. I do not like to say it would be good enough for the farmers, but it would be good enough for all of us. It was good enough for our fathers and grandfathers, who were better men than we are. They were bigger men.
Some of us are big enough. Deputy Gorey and myself are a good sample yet. That will show you that we must have been eating some of the old Irish wheat. In addition to that, I would like to see a tax on imported barley. And then we would get better porter. We would get better fighters from the land that produces such good fighters. If we had a tax on barley it would give more employment to the workingmen and more money to the farmers, and, perhaps, the brewers would be able to see their way to cooperate with the farmers in trying to get the barley cheaper, than they are getting it now in a lot of other countries. By lowering the prices of the porter the labouring man could afford to lower the prices of his labour, too. We, the representatives of labour, do not look upon stout as a luxury. We look upon it as a necessity more or less. It is the dinner of the workingman sometimes in the quarry. It is not champagne he takes down there, surely. For that reason it would be a benefit to the workingmen in the country if the price of porter could be reduced. Then again those brewers are giving a large amount of employment wherever they are, and they should be upheld. I am prompted to say as much as I have said, because of the mills in my district that are now running idle. I am pained when I go down to Fermoy on a Saturday to see the men who would be coming up half asleep after their night's work in the Clandullane Mills, instead, dressed up and walking up to the Labour Exchange looking for the doles, as they call them, and it is doleful to see them coming home without any dole. For that reason I would like, having the influence I have, or the influence I had three or four weeks ago, at all events, with the Minister for Finance, when he acceded to my request in the case of the old age pensioners, to ask the Minister to set the mills of this country working again. I am certain he will do so. If I have any more palaver with him, it will be a tax on soft soap that he will be putting on.
Níl mórán agam le rádh ar an gceist seo chun an Aire Airgid. I do not envy the position of our friend, the Minister for Finance, who is budgeting against a deficit. His path is a thorny one, and naturally enough, in the proposals that he put forward, he is bound to trample down upon some one or other interest, and possibly on many interests. He made a remark in the earlier stages himself that this is a poor country. I think that was rather a mistaken conclusion of the Minister for Finance. I think he assumed it was a poor country from the amount of taxes that it was able to produce, as against the financial demand. Now, I think if the incidence of taxation was rather more accommodated towards the capital of the country, that it would not show itself such a poor country, but that it would rather show itself very favourably situated in that respect. I say that, because in other countries with long experience they have been able so to accommodate the incidence of their taxation to the capital that they have, or to the wealth of the country, that they are able to show themselves to be countries of wealth. I think that is largely the reason why the conclusion is arrived at here that this is a poor country. It is rather from that point I have referred to it, but I think it would be a mistake to let it go abroad that any person here is prepared to accept the assumption that underlies this conclusion of the Minister for Finance. I think he should dissipate the absurdities that would naturally arise from such a conclusion in relation to this country. Now, we have all shed convictions fondly held, and firmly held, on this question of Protection. When this country was within the wall that confined Great Britain and Ireland, we all felt that a policy of Protection would involve consequences to this country and hardships, and that there would be no compensating benefits. This would arise from the fact that England is a manufacturing country, and the shipping interests here, in combination with agencies elsewhere, were anxious for a continuance of this state of affairs. I am not quite sure that even yet these shipping interests are quite in direct sympathy with the development of industries and manufactures. Their object was to keep this country producing stuff that had to be taken over by shippers, who would then bring back the goods manufactured across the water. Their interests were bound up in keeping this state of affairs in existence. That would mean that while the consumers would be taxed, they would get very little of the corresponding advantages that would arise from any measure of Protection. In the circumstances with which we are faced at present, the position is different. We have to think of our own country, and I think that if the consumer is to be taxed slightly, as this experimental proposal of the Minister for Finance intends, if he is to be taxed moderately, it should result in such a development of industries and of manufactures as would certainly compensate for the taxes so imposed. Protection really means that the consumer hands over a certain sum of money to the manufacturers on the undertaking or expectation that that money would be handed back in increased wages or employment. I have grave reservations and great doubts as to whether that money will come back in the way it is expected. I think some of it will pass away in other directions. It may find its way into dividends and otherwise, but I expect that such a proportion of it, seeing the state of affairs that exists under unemployment, will come back as would justify this country in giving an experimental trial to the proposals that are outlined in the Minister's Bill. Now, I think this country is right in risking the experiment, but I am not satisfied myself that it is an experiment on the proper lines. I do not feel that the Minister for Finance has gone the right road. I think that if he were to direct his attention more towards subsidising cottage industries rather than seeking to help manufacturing centres, it would be a much wiser policy.
It is not the most advisable policy to gather the people together into huge centres where a great many disadvantages may and do confront them. On the other hand, it would be better if the policy were directed towards giving the people in the congested and out-of-the-way districts such cottage industries as would keep them employed under reasonable conditions and under social circumstances that in this country would be most desirable. Whether the Minister is in this instance right or wrong, the experiment he has initiated will, at any rate, enable us to see what is the real value of giving preferences on the lines indicated in the Budget. When these have been put into operation we will know whether they were well advised or not, and we will be in a better position in future to know the direction in which to move in matters of this sort. Deputy Redmond advocated the removal of the tax on cider. I wonder he did not go a step further and advocate a reduction of the duty on alcoholic liquors, such as whiskey, beer and stout. I submit that the Minister if he did so would discover that he would be increasing his revenue. I am perfectly confident that a reduction in the duty on these commodities would mean an increase in revenue. I have scarcely any doubt on that subject. There would be an additional advantage. He would be taking away from the illicit manufacturers the margin on which they are at present operating in their efforts to completely demoralise the whole community.
He would in that way eradicate to some extent the illicit manufacture of spirits; it would be impossible to effectively control its manufacture, but the reduction of duty that I have suggested would tend to reduce that manufacture considerably. A reduction of duty on whiskey, beer and stout would also ease partially a great deal of our labour difficulties. This is an important consideration, because, as the last Deputy pointed out, the price of drink is a serious matter for the labouring man. To many labouring men porter is not a luxury but a necessity. If the duty on whiskey was reduced £1 per gallon, and the duty on beer and stout was reduced by £1 per barrel, that would reduce the cost of a glass of whiskey to 1/- and the cost of a pint of stout or beer to 6d. That would be a point to start from, and I believe it would bring in more revenue. Unquestionably the present oppressive duty is preventing the revenue from increasing. The revenue would increase if the duty were lighter. There is another tax that I have advocated here and which has not gone any further. I refer to a tax on betting. I think the Minister should take that very seriously into consideration. He should appoint a Committee to inquire into the best method in which a tax of this sort could be administered. If that were done, and if the tax were administered properly, I believe we would then find ourselves in a position to reduce our postage from 2d. to 1½d. and to give better postal facilities to the country. The Minister should go into those matters critically. He should not insist on placing us in such a position as that they can have a preference on the other side of the fence while at the same time he is not serving his own revenue. The Minister should have taken those matters into careful consideration.
I rise really with the feeling that in the course of this prolonged discussion, no ingenuity of mine could discover anything fresh to lay before the Dáil. I do feel, however, as the only Free Trader apparently left in the Dáil, I must, in a way, plough my lonely furrow and make a few remarks on the subject. On a former occasion, I think, I remarked that the Minister for Finance was getting a sort of rope tied around his neck in connection with the adoption of the principle of protection in his Budget. As a matter of fact the question of protection has swallowed his Budget, because I hear little about anything else but protection, and I think that the Grand Mogul of protection—I think it was Deputy Johnson called it the whole hogger—has stampeded the Dáil on this question, so that if I might put it this way, Deputy Milroy has got the end of the rope, and he is putting a little more weight on every time, and I think the Minister will go sky high over this thing, because he will not know where he is. To put on a protective tariff on a few things seems innocent at the first going off; but it does seem to me that the accumulation of pressure in other directions is going to make it very difficult for the Minister to justify the putting on of a tax on boots, and putting no tax on matches, and the putting of a tax on jam and no tax on flour. Deputy Daly gave us a very heart-rending story about the mills of Ireland. Like the mills of God, they grind slowly. I wonder if we got them all in operation will that reduce the cost of living? I do not think the mills as a whole would employ very much labour. There is no reason why the mills in Ireland should not grind the corn of the country or the imported wheat. It is only a question of the margin of profit. The Minister in making his statement gave us a list of figures which I jotted down at the time, demonstrating the poorness of the country as regards its taxpaying resources. The comparison was made of £15 11s. per head of the population in England as against £6 15s. in Ireland. Of course, we must remember that we have got to learn things about our own country. We have gone through much travail and have emerged with a real sense of the need of obtaining a greater knowledge of ourselves and our surroundings.
On this question of capital return, I think the inference I would wish to suggest to the Minister for Finance is that the present rate of taxation on the individual is a crushing burden on industry, and the difficulty of creating capital is immensely increased by the burden of taxation. After all, we must remember that the creation of capital is the saving, both of the individual and of the industry in relation to the amount of profit or income, as against the amount of expenditure. To-day, looking round the average person and the average business, and bearing in mind the weight of taxation falling upon anyone who has anything, I say the ability of the people to save is tremendously reduced by the burden that the State is putting upon us.
I think it was Deputy Cooper who deplored the fact that we have not a fine big National Debt. It seems to me that Deputy Cooper is somewhat premature, and that his heart's desire will be achieved, perhaps, too soon, sooner than some of us even wish or expect. Let us consider the question of the raising of capital. The raising of capital can only be done on credit as basis, and the higher your credit the better terms you are going to get your loans on. In this particular case are we by our legislation giving that sense of security to the country which is going to improve our credit? That is a thing, I think, that every one of us ought to consider and weigh in relation to some of the legislation that is being put forward. Now there may be comparisons with other countries, and as it happens I was reading the "London Times" last night when I got home, and I saw a reference to a loan by New Zealand—a £5,000,000 loan floated at 4½ per cent. and at the price of 95.
For reconstruction.
Yes, but let us analyse the position. New Zealand's Budget showed a surplus, and a very substantial surplus, and part of that surplus is going to a reconstruction movement. I think, as far as I can gather, that £1,000,000 of the surplus is being taken over for reconstruction. Is that the position here? Here we have our Minister for Finance loading us with taxation and not balancing his Budget. Is our credit going to improve upon that basis? Well, I rather think not. The only measure of satisfaction that I received in connection with the discussions that have taken place on the Budget is the thought that my friend, Deputy Johnson, who started on this question of Protection as a whole-hogger yesterday repudiated it. I think he found himself in bad company, and I have great hopes in connection with this matter that when he begins to realise the pressure of the breakfast budget on the labouring man he will come round to my way of thinking. And that brings me to the point to which I look forward with the greatest satisfaction, when Deputy Johnson representing Labour, and myself as an insignificant individual representing capital, will work together in an era of prosperity for this country. Then the time will come, perhaps, when he, representing Labour, will come forward and say to me: "Will you be kind enough to reduce our wages?" and on the other hand the day may come when those I represent will be making an extra profit and I can come forward to him and say: "These men's wages are too low; we will put them up to a higher figure."
You had your chance.
There may be differences of opinion because, I suppose, he would stand for a 48 hour week and I could not agree to that. I work a 52, 54 or 56 hour week, but however we may hope to combine things of that sort its influence may have a better effect upon our enthusiastic friends on the Government benches and other parts of the House than that of the whole hoggers who want us to pay through the nose for everything we buv and who want to surround our country with a stone wall. I think once you have embarked on this stone wall of tariffs you cannot resist the attempts that will be made one after another. You cannot resist the demands of the farmers when you in crease the cost of living, especially when they tell you that they cannot eke out a living out of the land even if they got it for nothing. They will say we want Protection, we want it in the form of subsidies for agricultural colleges or other things like that, and then we may all come to be a very happy family in the future.
Deputy Hewat proclaimed he was the only Free Trader in the House. I am a Free Trader also, although I sit on the Government benches. What rather astonishes me is the rather childlike simplicity of all the T.D.'s in this House and their uneconomic outlook, particularly those on the Independent benches. Sir James Craig also is under the impression— though he seems to be still tied to his mother's apron strings—that putting an additional tax of 3s. in the £ on boots will not increase their price. How he arrived at that I do not profess to understand. It will not only increase the price, but it will increase the profits also. Labour must get its fair share—which will be about two-thirds of the increased price—and the manufacturer will get a shilling, and he will increase his profits and get rich quicker than he otherwise would. Deputy McGoldrick wants to convince us that the result of the Minister for Finance's experiment is proved right away. I do not agree. The poor man is deprived of his Californian fruit, which his family uses twice a week. He used to get a tin for 1s. Now he has to pay 1s. 7d. for the same tin, and that makes a very great difference. If he buys two tins a week that makes a difference of 1s. 4d., and he cannot possibly afford that. If he has a family of six children and he has to buy a pair of boots for each in the year at a £1 a pair, then he gives three shillings additional under this new taxation, on each pair, which goes between the manufacturer and the workman.
Deputy Daly wondered why the flour mills cannot be got under way. The reason is that the flour manufacturers in Ireland have not the proper outlook. The flour manufacturers in Germany and in England do not continue to manufacture flour in the inland towns, but they have transferred their mills to the great rivers and the ports where they are able to manufacture at a considerably cheaper rate than if they remained in the inland towns, because at the ports they have proper communication of every kind. That was not done by the flour millers in Ireland. A lot of them have mills in the country, but they cannot manufacture as cheaply there as they could manufacture in the seaport towns and on the great rivers. Then there is a certain want of combination among the Irish millers. They do not know how to combine and to erect large mills at the seaport towns to compete with the English millers. The tax on soap is very nice, but the gentleman who runs Port Sunlight will get the greater proportion of the tax which is being put upon soap, as he already owns the majority of the soap manufactures and the majority of the candle manufactures in Dublin, and, indeed, in all Ireland. Deputy McGoldrick says that this poor country is not a poor country. By all means, it is a poor country. If you go through the country as I do, you can see how the people live and have to live. There is a chronic want of money at the present moment, and there is no other conclusion possible than that this is a poor country. Then there is the question of the shipping interest, but the shipping interest is quite prepared to carry freight anywhere. It will carry it out of the country as quickly as it will carry it into the country, and for the same consideration.
I advocated the abolition of the duty upon whiskey more than twelve months ago. I advocate it still, because I know that the distillation and sale of poteen will never cease in this country until the duty on whiskey has been abolished. The manufacture of poteen and the consumption of poteen are increasing every day in the country. Heretofore these people were not very careful, on account of the conditions prevailing in the country, to keep their place of manufacture secret, for every man, woman and child in the country know where the fire-water is made, and they are glad to get it, and they keep it secret. Poteen is being made and will be made as long as the duty on whiskey remains as high as it is.
I rise to thank all parties for the splendid expression of lip-service that they have given to the agricultural industry, which is really the only industry in the country. I would not wish to see food that is imported into the country taxed. Deputy Heffernan spoke of the importation of foreign bacon, which is sold in this country practically at the same price as Irish bacon, and he thought that that ought to be taxed. It is not an advantage to the poor that such bacon should come into the country without being taxed. Canadian butter is coming into the country and it is making more money, and it costs more money to the poor in the towns than Irish butter. And it ought to be taxed. Foreign produced margarine is coming into the country and it is sold here as Irish butter. Margarine is used in restaurants and hotels as Irish butter. and it is the duty of the Minister for Home Affairs—or whoever else is responsible—to see that the Food and Drugs Act is carried out and that margarine is not sold in that manner. Then there is frozen meat. This commodity is used in hotels and sold in shops as an Irish commodity, which is most unfair. We have a number of Bills introduced here from time to time. Some of them are important, and some of them are amusing, in comparison with others. There is one Bill for the grading of butter. Some Deputy spoke yesterday about the tanning of farmers' hides. I think that the farmers' hides are sufficiently tanned to be able to take any class of abuse, and that the farming industry is sufficiently tanned to be able to stand all the abuse it is getting. I wish again to thank all parties for their lip-sympathy for the protection of this industry.
I should like to intervene for a few moments again. I do not intend to occupy the time of the Dáil for long, after the rather lengthy intervention I made yesterday. But certain remarks I heard have prompted me to make one or two observations. We heard a terrific denunciation of the increase in the cost of living. We heard nothing whatever about the possibility of an increase in the means of living, which I think is most vital to this country. What is the use of a cheap article to a man who has no money to buy it? I wish to use a simile I used before. The loaf at 4d. is cheaper to a man who has a shilling to pay for it than it is at 2d. to a man who has nothing to pay for it. Now there are certain things a tariff upon which will involve no increase in the cost of living, things which might be absolutely prohibited from importation into this country. I mention one or two. There is margarine, to which Deputy Nolan referred. The manufacturers in this country in that industry, which is not working now and is in a parlous state—almost on the brink of extinction—could, if the foreign article was prohibited, supply the whole demand of the Saorstát without increasing the cost by one single fraction, and without reducing the quality of the article.
I do not suggest that it should be taxed, but I said that it should not be allowed to be sold for butter in hotels and restaurants.
That is another question altogether. That is a matter for those concerned in the question of the adulteration of food. My contention is: Here you have an article—one of a number—which will give considerably increased employment if manufactured in this country, and one in regard to which the manufacturers can supply the whole of the demand with the home article without a fraction of additional price being placed upon it, or without its quality being reduced in any way; and that being so, you have a most unchallengeable case for putting a tariff upon it. I make the same claim for the brush manufacturing industry. I think the same might be said of the manufacture of matches and of horn products. Now we are told that Irish manufacturers cannot meet the demand, and that therefore certain importations will have of necessity to come in which will bear what the tariff involves, and thereby increase the price. I say that condition of things is the definite and direct result of free imports.
If you allow the same system to continue the industrial capacity of these industries will sink lower and lower and their chances of meeting even a less proportion of the demand in the home market will be considerably diminished. A start must be made some time. My opinion is that in the main the start should be made with those articles which can supply the home demand without an increase to the consumer. I trust there is no effort being made to so arrange the introduction of a tariff system in this country that the result will be one which will discredit the principle of Protection for native manufactures. I hope that the attempt to embark upon this policy will be an honest and straightforward one. If it is it is one that will bring nothing but advantage to this country, and when what has been called the experiment has been fully tested, I think even those who to-day denounce its introduction will have nothing but praise for those responsible for the introduction of that experiment.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
I am tempted to make just a few brief observations in connection with this matter, in spite of the fact that I have not had the privilege of listening to the Minister's statement. Neither have I had an opportunity of reading through his statement very carefully in the Official Report. However, one must feel a little surprise listening to that part of the discussion which I have listened to, at seeing many people who opposed Protection on the occasion on which Deputy Milroy moved his motion coming forward now as supporters of the Minister's statement. At any rate they are now, to a certain extent, if not fully convinced, Protectionists. I can congratulate the Minister on having converted to his line of thought people who on a previous occasion were so definitely and decidedly opposed to even any form of limited Protection. When considering a question of such huge importance as this, one is at a considerable loss in not having at his disposal a complete and accurate return of the exports and imports for a definite year, but we all realise and fully understand that owing to the things that have happened and owing to the short time that this State is in existence that such a thing is impossible. I scarcely think that even if the returns that are at the disposal of the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister were tabulated and put before the Dáil they would provide that return in the accurate form to which, I think, we are entitled. I hope that the Minister will take steps at a very early date to see that whatever statistics are being prepared under the auspices or guidance of the Revenue Commissioners will be as complete in their details as they possibly can.
Some months ago, when this House was asked to sanction reductions in salaries for civil servants, and when it was asked to agree with the Minister for Local Government in laying down certain stipulations with regard to the expenditure of State funds, Deputies were definitely and distinctly told that the reductions that were then suggested were to be put into operation on the distinct understanding that it was an attempt to balance the Budget. I think the Dáil must have been considerably misled, in view of the facts we have now before us and of the huge deficit in the Budget, by the statements that were made on that particular occasion, because the few hundred thousand pounds that may have been saved could not, even with the information at the disposal of the Minister at the time, have materially assisted in the effort to balance the Budget. I do not know if it is any satisfaction to the people who supported the statements that were made on that occasion to know now that they were far from doing the thing which they might have honestly intended to do at the time. I suggest that it would be a very bad policy, and certainly not in the interests of the supporters, known or unknown, of Deputies Hewat and Good to find that the Irish Budget was balanced at the expense of a social revolution. In a young State such as this I think it is the first duty of those who are responsible for the Government to make it quite clear to the people that the system of Government under which we live and which we have accepted as a result of the Treaty is being used to the fullest extent to develop the resources of the country and to find employment for all those who are anxious and willing to work. The name Free State, Republic, or even Workers' Republic, or any other title you may tack on to its tail has no meaning for me unless those in charge of the Government look upon it as their first responsibility to find work and a living wage for all those citizens who are anxious and willing to work. I am glad, however, to see that the Minister has taken advantage in the first Budget he has introduced in this Dáil to make it quite clear to all and sundry that we have at any rate control over our own finances and power which will enable us to use that control in the direction that is best calculated to develop our resources. I have supported in this Dáil a policy of Protection, limited though it is. I do not see how a policy of Protection can be otherwise than limited. Unless there is some special legislation we must be always guided in matters of this kind by our annual Budget, which is subject to the Dáil, to which the Minister must submit his statement. I would be very sorry in the existing circumstances in this country to give any support to Protection other than a limited amount of support, either as regards the measure of Protection that is to be given or the time limit that is to be imposed upon the Protection.
We have had reason to complain in this country, and very good reason, too, about the profiteering that has been going on here, much more so than in any other country in the world, and I would like that any measure of Protection that might be given would be of an experimental nature, so that it might be made quite clear that at the end of a certain time the industries and the people who have got this measure of Protection would not abuse the privilege they have received. If we had some Bill such as the Bill that is indicated by the President for the control and regulation of prices, then you would be faced with a clearer proposition when dealing with a matter of this kind. I trust that the industries that have received Protection on this occasion will not abuse the privilege they have received, but will use it in the best possible way. I have listened to Deputy Heffernan taunt us on the Labour Benches with the fact that Labour in England is opposed to Protection while we here in Ireland are in the opposite camp.
On a point of explanation, I did not mention such a thing at all, if my memory serves me right. I said the British Government was beaten on a protective policy. I did not say Labour.
I do not know that there is very much difference between the explanation and what I stated. However, I am not going to be guided in anything I do in this House by anything that is done by the Labour representatives in England. England is a highly developed industrial country. Ireland is quite the opposite, and to that extent we must shape our opinions. England, being a highly developed industrial country, has had all the capital that was necessary to provide the plant and machinery for the working of her industries. Ireland, with the few industries that still remain, has only a limited amount of capital and the particular industries that I have in my mind have not got the plant and machinery that would enable them to compete with the more highly developed ones in England.
I say, therefore, and this is the reason I support Protection, for these industries, that these industries must get some opportunity to get on their feet. There must be some inducement to the Irish people who have money invested in England, and who have English securities, to bring it home and put it into their own industries so that they will be able to find the machinery and plant that will enable them to compete on equal terms with their neighbours in England. Having developed their industries to that extent, I say that the time may come when Irish industries will have to compete on equal terms with stuff imported into this country. On a previous occasion I referred to an industry—I have no particular personal interest in it except that it affects one of the principal towns in my constituency. I drew the Minister's attention to the matter during the debate on Deputy Milroy's motion, and I accompanied two deputations to the trade department of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in connection with it. I refer to the furniture industry. All the facts in connection with that old Irish industry were already put as clearly as possible. The deputation I accompanied was one that represented both capital and labour, and the Deputies of the Constituency I happen to represent were present regardless of party. I felt, after I had listened to the arguments for and against, that a case had been made out for some form of protection in the case of the furniture industry. I would like the Minister, when replying at the end of the debate, to say whether or not he has gone very carefully into this particular question. If he has done so, I will be glad to hear, and I am sure those who are concerned will be delighted to hear, the reasons why he was not prepared to do anything in this case. I hope the time is not past when it will be possible for him to give assistance in some shape or form to this industry. I can say in regard to this particular town in my constituency that if something is not done in the very near future, that the whole town, which is almost altogether dependent on the existence of this old Irish industry, will have to close down, and the people will have to go to some other place to seek a living. I think that is a thing should be avoided if it is possible, and I would like to know if the Minister could give any assistance to this industry.
With regard to the date of the coming into operation of the duties, which have been imposed by the Minister in his Budget, I doubt very seriously if the Minister was well advised to name the dates, following the announcement with regard to the duties, because I have good reason to believe that a good deal of dumping has been done as a result of that decision. If the Minister at a particular time had made up his own mind and had received the support of the Executive Council for the policy he has announced to the Dáil, then I say he should have taken all reasonable precautions to see that, immediately he had announced the imposition of those duties, they would come into operation. I have been reliably informed to-day that the rush of boots to Dublin was so great that thousands of pounds worth of boots were outshipped at Holyhead last Saturday, with the result that when they arrived at Dublin later the firms wrote to the shipping companies asked that the boots be returned and refusing to pay the duty. I cannot see how they can escape paying the duty, but that is just an indication to the Minister as to what has actually happened as a result of what I have referred to.
In connection with this duty on boots I have been also told that, as a result of the announcement made by the Minister, an immediate increase of 4s. per pair was put on all boots in certain shops in Dublin. I have no doubt that increase has been put on by the "boot ring" which is manipulated from across the Channel. I have no doubt, either, that the deliberate intention was to put the Irish boot industry in a false position. I hope the Irish boot manufacturers, such as they are, will rise to the occasion and not rush into this policy, which has apparently been laid down by the "boot ring" from England.
Deputy Gorey and his colleagues have been very loud in their protests against this policy of Protection. If Protection means to Ireland assistance in the development of its industries— and I have no doubt it will if it is used in the right direction—if it means as a result of that development that farmers' sons, who used to go to America in the times gone by, will be kept at home and that employment will be found for them in the cities or towns, it will mean more consumption of the food grown in our own country. If that is the result, if there is kept in Ireland a greater amount of the wealth produced in the nation, and if that wealth comes into circulation, I suggest that the farmers, both directly and indirectly, will benefit to a considerable extent from this limited measure of Protection.
There is another industry which, perhaps, may have escaped the attention of the Minister, and I think it is a subject that might also engage his attention. I refer to the brush-making industry, and I think some measure of Protection—even a very limited measure—might save that old Irish industry from being wiped out. Even if the measure of Protection which has been announced in the Minister's statement did mean an increase in the cost of living to the farmer and everybody else, if, as a result of it, more employment was afforded, I think it would serve a very desirable purpose and a purpose which the farmers would like it to serve. We have got to recognise in this country, and in every other country, that it is the people who do the work—the people who do useful work—who are the people who must pay, either directly or indirectly, for the people who do no work—I do not care whether it is the people who play golf on the golf course all day, or who spend their time at the street corners because they are unable to find work. It is the duty of the nation, and of the Government sent here by the nation, to find work for all who are anxious and willing to work.
I think, in dealing with the question of Unemployment, the Minister is too parochial in his outlook. I do not say that he alone is responsible, but we were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it is the Minister for Finance that really counts when many of these schemes for the relief of unemployment come under consideration. I think there should be nothing to deter the Minister for Finance from agreeing to long-term loans in the case of works such as drainage works that can be carried out if the necessary money is made available. It is perhaps useless to mention here a matter, every aspect of which has been discussed for years and years and which has been the subject of many serious representations to the Minister for Finance himself. I refer to the question of the drainage of the Barrow. A proposal was put up by the people representing the taxpayers in that area that they were willing to pay half the amount of the money necessary to carry out essential and useful work. I am satisfied that if the work is taken in hands and the necessary expenditure authorised by the Minister for Finance, that every man who is out of work to-day in the Counties of Carlow, Kilkenny, Leix, Offaly and Kildare will be able to find work on the day that that expenditure is authorised.
I say if that is the position, and I believe that would be the position, there is no justification whatsoever for delaying that very necessary work any longer. I hope the Minister will find some way out of the difficulty, and that he will seriously consider without delay the proposal put up on a recent occasion. As I already indicated, I was at a disadvantage in so far as I had not listened to the Minister's statement, and I had not read it as carefully as I would like to in the Official Report. I am glad that in the Minister's first Budget statement to the Dáil he has at any rate shown to the people of Ireland that we have received a measure of freedom and an amount of control over our finances, and that the machinery of Government in the country is such as to enable him to give some encouragement to people who have always advocated and encouraged the development of Irish industries.
I presume by this time that the Minister has evidence that if he were to save himself the easiest road he could have pursued would have been to say: "I cannot reduce taxation, and we will simply reenact the old taxes." But he has been a little more courageous and he is determined to make an experiment. I do not think that the proposals for that experiment have got a fair show. In the circumstances I suggest that it was very hard for the Minister to decide whether Protection was good for the country or not, except by means of an experiment. When the case was argued here the Protectionist side remained very vague and very general. No effort was made to point out the real effect of any proposed tax. That was one of the principal objections to those who urged the general policy of Protection. Now, the Minister suggests a method by which it can be tried. I take it that being an experiment it will extend not merely for this year but over some years. At least, for some years it will be an experiment to see whether or not Protection will tend to produce the results that some of its advocates claimed for it. For that reason I think the experiment should get a fair chance. The only point is whether or not it would be wise to make that experiment on a large scale. I think the safest course is the one proposed by the Minister. To make an experiment of this kind on a very large scale would be simply a gamble with the information at present at our disposal. That being so, the only thing is whether the Minister has chosen the proper avenue. It is quite obvious the Minister could have chosen many articles for the purpose of fixing duties, but he had to limit himself to a certain number. There is no good in asking why the Minister did not do this and did not do that. If he had done what every Deputy desires this experiment would cease to be an experiment of the kind that he had in mind, and he would be embarking on a very large policy of Protection.
In the present circumstances of the country it is impossible to decrease the amount of money raised by taxation. On the other hand, it is unwise to impose new taxes—that is, to raise more money by taxes. Therefore, the Minister decides that it is necessary to raise the same amount of money, and that is what it comes to. Now, we are anxious to try this experiment in Protection, and in trying it, a certain amount of money will come into the revenue. The Minister says that as against that he is prepared to make a set-off by lowering the tax on tea. The Minister stated that as far as the amount he would raise by protective tariffs was concerned he would counter-balance it by reducing the tax on tea. Have the opponents of this experiment met that case? Have they examined the circumstances of the average farmer in the country, and have they shown that the farmer does pay more in the purchase of boots than he gets off in the reduced tax on tea? That is what the opposite argument should come to. Listening to some of the speeches, any person would be under the impression that not merely was there a slight experiment in Protection being embarked on, but there was an enormous increase in taxation being put, I will not say on the whole community, but on portion of it. I do not think that any effort has been made to meet the contention of the Minister. Have the opponents of this experiment shown that the reduction in the tax on tea would not counter-balance the tax on boots? It has been stated by one Deputy that for an average family the increase on boots would mean something like thirty or forty pounds in the year. I think those figures are shameless.
I do not think I mentioned anything of the kind. I mentioned that in any average family each member would wear two pairs of boots, and that could be put at ten pairs of boots for the year.
Did you not mention that the new taxes would mean ten shillings saved on tea and thirty shillings put on boots?
I said there would be a rebate of ten shillings on tea and an increase of thirty shillings on boots, and I maintain that those figures are more or less correct. I am not taking into account candles, soaps, jams and other matters.
The statement then was that there was a rebate of ten shillings on tea and an increase of thirty shillings on boots. If you work that out it would mean less than one pound of tea per week for an average farmer's family.
If, then, you work out the figure of thirty shillings on the wholesale price of the boots coming in you will find the retail cost will come to something over £30 in the year. I suggest that that is not a serious proposition as anyone will agree who knows the ordinary farmer both as to the tea drinking capacity of his family or their leather-wearing capacity. No serious effort has been made by opponents to prove that what the average consumer in the country loses in boots is not practically counter-balanced by what he gains in tea.
If I had an opportunity of speaking last night I would have begun "for all that we have received make us truly thankful." We were treated to a very fine lecture by some Deputies on the other Benches, particularly Deputy D'Alton, as to our shortcomings. Deputy Milroy joined in at an earlier stage and said that the farmers had no right to criticise manufacturers' inefficiency or words to that effect. As a rule, I do not wish to criticise any person's inefficiency, but unfortunately in this instance we are called on to pay, and, therefore, it is logical and right that we on these Benches should criticise. I am in theory a Protectionist, but lest I might be misunderstood I want to explain fully what I mean by Protection. I mean, first and foremost, for the Government to aid the manufacturers first by good and just government, by wise government, and above all by cheap government. That is my great idea of Protection, and under that I believe the manufacturer can flourish and prosper and turn out from his factory a suitable article and pay good wages. He can do all that if he has those advantages. I do not like the idea that the consuming public should become tributary to the manufacturers, or that the State should become a tax gatherer in order to maintain them. On the same principle I do believe the Government is bound to take cognizance of such a policy as dumping. I mean by that, countries where cheap labour and other conditions prevail which militate very much against manufacturers here. In that eventuality I think the Government should examine the position and safeguard the home manufacturer by either restricting imports or the imposition of duties to maintain solvency and maintain employment in the native industry. I have to ask in this instance are the manufacturers of this country really exposed so seriously to dumping. Are they not up against fair and ordinary competition, or are goods being dumped in this country below the cost of production in the land of origin?
Yes.
That has not been put to the Dáil or explained. I wish that Deputy Milroy or some other Deputy would have shown to what extent that is occurring. Our principal trade lies with England, and I know that manufacturers there are handicapped by high taxation and high rates of wages. I ask seriously how is it they can afford to dump in this country? Are they selling goods below factory cost? If they are making a legitimate profit on the goods they are sending here then the case for Protection of home industry is gone by the board. It is up to our manufacturers to solve their own position by the introduction of better business methods, and the introduction of such economies and such efficiency into their industries as will compel them to compete successfully with outsiders. That is my conception of Protection. It does not mean that the consuming public should be fleeced and that the State should become the tax-gatherers for the manufacturers. If the Irish manufacturers have failed to maintain their business against fair competition, then they are an unregenerate and recessive quantity and they deserve very little sympathy from the people, and I strongly object to having the consuming public taxed for their benefit. I am rather sorry Protection has been introduced in this way. I believe it should not have been introduced under cover of the Budget. A broad and definite scheme should be gravely considered, and it should have been announced for a considerable time ahead that the country was going to commit itself to Protection, so that the necessary adjustments could be made and manufacturers would have an opportunity of expanding their business and equipping themselves against the day when the tariffs would become operative.
This is an experiment in Protection. Let me say that I am against experiments, because I regard them as something in the nature of vivisection of the body social and the body politic. This experiment is bound in itself to defeat its own end, and it is not even fair to Protection. It is as unfair to Protection as it is to the consuming public. It is unfair because of its limitations, and I believe that we should go the whole hog for Protection or not at all. There is no mean. The great industries of the country must be protected; if you are to embark on a Protectionist policy you must protect your key industries. If you do not, then some industries will be labouring at a great disadvantage. We were informed last evening by Deputy D'Alton that the farmers would benefit from the boot and shoe tax. I think, on reflection, it must be realised that leather is imported freely into this country under the Budget scheme of the Minister. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a duty on the raw material. The boot manufacturer here can import freely all the leather he requires. There is no stimulus given to the tanning industry in Ireland—not the slightest stimulus given to it—and it is preposterous to suggest that the farmers are standing in their own light. If leather can be produced more cheaply abroad. and I expect the conditions are as favourable as the conditions applying to boots, then it follows logically that the boot manufacturer here will import all the leather he requires to the detriment of the tanneries at home, and by the economic process working its retrograde way the farmers will suffer. They will pay the higher price for the boots and they will be without a market for their cattle hides.
A good deal in the same way might be said about sugar. We were told we could cultivate beet and that we could make the growth of beet an economic proposition. There is one fallacy to which I wish to draw attention, and that is that the Minister should remit the duty on sugar. If all the sugar required in this country was produced here, where would the Minister get the two million that accrues from the importation of sugar? He cannot do very well without these two millions. He is then told to put the tax on the home-produced article or to tax some other commodities, either in customs or excise, or to increase income tax. I am sure many Deputies must smile at the rather grim humour of tanning the farmer's hide. I rather imagine that some Deputies must have been reading ancient history. I have a recollection of some Persian conquerer who flayed his captives alive, Surely Deputies on the other side have no intention of reverting here to such barbarism. It was a crude, gross statement. There is one point which has not been touched on, and that is that we must regard this State as a peasant State, with a very low standard of living, an average low standard of living. Consequently, it follows that the services maintained by the State must be poor and on a low scale. It is futile to contend or to act as if we were industrial England. I believe that we must effect even more drastic economies than have been effected in this country already. Otherwise there is no possibility of carrying on, and there is not the least chance of restoring solvency in the country. I believe the Minister has made a fatal mistake in maintaining income tax at so high a level. It will, I believe, have the effect of crippling industry and of compelling capital to leave the country, not alone capital that might be invested here, but people of the leisured class with fixed incomes. A good many of these people have left already, and I am afraid that raising the cost of living in this country will induce more to go. The question, I say, is a very serious one. If the Minister had taken his courage in both hands and reduced income tax in this country to the British level, he would, in my opinion, have acted more wisely. He should have attempted to have made more economies internally in Government Departments and applied the axe once more. If he tried to reduce expenditure in that way, I think it would have been much better than to maintain the income tax at the present high level. The income tax rate in this country is so high at present that it is exercising a deterrent effect on the industrial revival, and the sooner that is faced the better. I am sure that many of us must have smiled when we heard the conjurers get on their legs here and create, as it were, by waving a wand, an industrial State, and that by the introduction of the eternal "if." That sort of thing is all very well outside, but in a legislative assembly and here in the Dáil surely to goodness we ought to have facts and realities.
By reducing the income tax, for instance?
That, I suggest, could be done, too. The Minister, I repeat, has made a fatal mistake by not reducing the income tax in this country to the British level. By not making the reduction, he has inflicted grave damage, almost irretrievable damage, on the future of this country. The protection that the Minister has given to some industries is bound to increase the cost of living in this country. It is all very well for Deputies to say that these taxes will not fall on the consuming public and will not put up the cost of living. I maintain that they will, and that they will put it up to a great deal more than the 15 per cent. tax which is to be imposed on imported boots. The importer will pay 15 per cent. on the boots that come into him in this country. He will sell to the wholesaler, and will calculate his profits on a pair of boots which under the new regulations may cost £1 3s., that is to say, with the 15 per cent. duty on a pound pair of boots. The retailer then will have to get his price and his profits, so that in the end the boot will cost a good deal more than 15 per cent. when sold to the consumer over the counter.
Did you say "consumer"?
It is a figure of speech to say "consumer." I am sorry for the Budget.
So is the Minister for Finance.
I am sincerely sorry for it, because in my opinion it will give an incentive to profiteering, and as a matter of fact, if I wanted to be downright cynical I would say that it was a Gombeen Man's Budget.
I am really at a loss to know whether the last speaker is a Protectionist or a Free Trader. As far as I can see, the tenor of all the statements that have come from the Farmers' benches has been, that unless you are able to do something for agriculture you have no right to help any other industry in the country. To my mind the Minister for Finance has done pretty well considering that this country has just emerged from a revolution, and I think the country was surprised that he did so well. There are many things which we could complain about, but in view of the circumstances he has not, as I said before, given us a bad Budget. So far as Protection is concerned, jibes have been made at the Deputies on these benches because we differ from Deputies on the other side. I think everyone will agree that the state of affairs that prevails in this country and the state of affairs that prevails in England are entirely different. Here we have a country that has been harassed, kept in check and enslaved by a foreign Government for 700 years. Its industries have never had a chance to develop. I think we ought to congratulate the Minister for Finance for what he is doing in order to afford a little protection to one or two particular industries so that the country may settle down and so that we may be able to do something for our unemployed. The last speaker made some very peculiar statements. One particular statement he made was that the English boot manufacturers are making a legitimate profit and that they ought to be allowed to continue to dump their boots into this country.
Then they are not dumping?
I think these were the Deputy's exact words. At least that was the inference that I, and I think every Deputy in the House, drew from them. I want to know from him and others who are against this particular policy of the Minister for Finance, if. this country goes on as it is now, where the unemployed are growing day after day, will there be any necessity to dump anything into it, and will the people have any money at all to buy boots or anything else? I think by a slip of his tongue the Deputy talked about boots being consumed. There are some people so badly off in this country that before very long, I think, they will have to consume boots or something like boots, because they will not be able to provide food for themselves. Some Deputies have spoken about this country being poor. Nobody realises as much as the Deputies on these benches that the people in this country are poor. I want to make this point, that we got very little support from any Party in the Dáil when we made representations to the Government on behalf of these poor people with a view to the Government doing something to relieve unemployment. From time to time we have brought forward motions in this House with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the Government to do something to relieve these unfortunate people, and in doing so we got no support outside of our own Party. Yet, when it suits individual Deputies to use the poor as a medium to convey their own particular arguments to the Government, they do not hesitate to use them or to play on the feelings of the people. There is a vast difference between boot manufacture in England and in the Saorstát. Deputy Hogan, who spoke last, talked about the Irish manufacturer having no initiative. I think he called them a set of lazy men, or used words to that effect, and said that before now they should have installed in their factories certain kinds of machinery. I think he ought to be the first to admit, and I submit it would come better from him than from me, on account of the point of view that he holds, that owing to the unsettled state of this country for the last ten or eleven years, there was very little encouragement given to anybody, such as boot manufacturers, to instal machinery in any part of this country, and I think he ought to be aware that the British boot manufacturer is in a far stronger position than the Irish boot manufacturer, because he has been helped by the British Government to instal a certain kind of machinery. That was due to the fact that during the war the boot industry in England was controlled by the Government, and hence that particular industry is in a far better position by reason of being controlled by the Government to put in a certain type of machinery than the Irish boot industry can ever hope to be in.
I congratulate the Minister for bringing in this particular Protection so far as the boot industry is concerned, and I hope that the Irish manufacturers will help him and will appreciate what he is doing for them. I do not believe in Protection to the fullest extent, but as I said before, this is an undeveloped country, a country where industry must, of necessity, be developed, and I say in this connection that something ought to be done in some way or another for the agricultural industry. There is no question at all about that. Everybody must admit that the agricultural industry is the beginning of everything in this country and that the farmers are right to ask that something should be done for their particular industry. Deputy Hogan dealt with a lot of things before he spoke on what I consider he got up to address the Dáil on principally, and that is, the question of income tax. I thought, from all I heard from the Farmers' benches for the past few weeks here, that the farmers had no income at all, and if one had no income at all I began to wonder how they could have to pay income tax.
You have to pay income tax on your valuation.
But you can get a remission.
If you are assessed on your valuation and if you cannot afford to pay, or at least if you are making no money, there are ways of getting the income tax back. Surely no one will argue that you will have to pay income tax if you have no income? The Deputy cannot have the argument both ways. I am quite prepared to admit that when income tax is high it reacts on the country as a whole. Anybody who studies the question must admit that, but at the same time I think everybody will also admit that where, as I said before, we have a country just emerging from a revolution, that the Minister for Finance has done fairly well.
I would like at the outset to congratulate the Minister for Finance on the courageous attempt he has made to balance his Budget. We all hope and pray that his efforts for the coming year may meet with the success which he hopes for. The wisdom of protective duties for some industries has been very fully discussed in all its parts by all Parties in the Dáil, and my colleagues on these benches have spoken very strongly and I hope effectively from the standpoint of the agriculturalists of the country. I would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that from the trend of the speeches made by some Deputies there seems to be an idea prevalent in the minds of a good many people, both Deputies and people outside who are interested in this protectionist association, that the official representatives of the farmers of the country are a lot of Die-hard Free Traders. This idea is entirely erroneous. The Farmers' Party consider that the proposals contained in the statement of the Minister for Finance regarding Protection constitute such a great and extensive change that before being introduced they should have been submitted to the judgment of the country. That was done in England a few months ago, and we all saw the result. The farmers know as well as any other Party in the Dáil that the nascent industries of this country were strangled one by one by the British Parliament in the interest of British producers and manufacturers. We know that that was a very harsh and cruel policy, and we would be wanting in our duty as public representatives and as Irishmen if we did not co-operate with all sections of the community to restore and replace these industries. We must come forward with unanimity. The four Parties represented in this House must form fours and march together in one solid phalanx. There is no use in expecting that one section of the community can bear all the burdens of taxation which is being imposed.
The prosperity of the country is bound up with the agricultural industry. Yet we find that the agricultural industry has been neglected more than any other industry, when it should receive the greatest attention and consideration from the Government. In the past the farmers of this country had a bad name for making a "poor mouth"—"the farmers are always complaining; they are only a lot of whingers." That was the common topic. Whether that was true in the past or not, I know, and I am sure every Deputy here knows, that the position of agriculture at the present time in this country is very deplorable. The question that is troubling the Irish farmer most to-day is what he can sell and what he can do with his land with any chance of making a profit. The acreage under tillage is rapidly diminishing. We had under British control during the war period compulsory tillage. Go to the country now and see those vast lands that had been cultivated. What has become of them? They are all back again into grass. Unless agriculture is placed on a sound footing in a short time the position will be that no labour will be wanted on the land, because there will be no money for the farmer to pay for it. The country will go back again into cattle and sheep runs. There is a matter that I would like to mention; that is, the question of profiteering that is going on by the retailers and which is yet unchecked by the Government. I must say, as representing the farmers, that it is abominable to have it going on so long. The farmers are not able to make ends meet. We certainly are in a more difficult position, especially the small farmers, than our fathers were in the 'eighties. If this is the thin end of the wedge of a big policy of Protection, we will not stand it, if we have to bear the whole cost. We are not going to have everything that we buy protected, while having to sell everything we produce in an unprotected market. If we are going to build up industries in this country, let there be some protection for agriculture. Let us all have Protection, as somebody suggested here. I am as much entitled, representing the people I do represent, to go to the Minister for Finance and say that I want a subsidy for the bacon-curing industry, as others are to claim Protection for other industries. The price of pigs in southern Ireland to-day is 76s. per cwt., while in Northern Ireland the price is 96s. per cwt. It is an appalling state of affairs that that should obtain in the same country—that one farmer should get a pound a hundredweight less for his pigs than another farmer gets in another part of the country.
How do you explain that?
I can only explain it by saying that we want more bacon factories and more co-operation. In England they are crying out for co-operation, and the Labour Government have given them a loan of £200,000 at a small rate of interest to develop the bacon-curing industry. No matter what way we look at the situation it is very serious for the farmers. One day we have a strike on the farm, the next day we have a strike on the roads or at the ports, and we have the bacon-curers coming in and taking advantage of those strikes.
May I ask the Deputy whether these prices are both for dead weight.
Both dead weight. It is 76s. per cwt. in Southern Ireland, and 96s. per cwt. in Northern Ireland; that is the information I got before I came into the House to-day. I do not want to say that I am not a Protectionist. I am neither a doctrinaire Freetrader nor a doctrinaire Protectionist. I would like to see our industries reviving, but I would not like to see it done altogether at the expense of the agricultural community. There are roughly 600,000 householders in the Saorstát. Of those, 420,000 are engaged in agriculture. It is plain, therefore, that the farmers are paying the bulk of the taxation, and it is only fair, if other industries are going to be protected, that we should look for Protection for our own industry. There is another matter that I would like to refer to, though it is a matter that will come up for discussion under the Railway Bill. I would like to show you what protection the farmers in England have got from the Railway Amalgamation scheme that took place there. Railway rates in this country are killing farming. How can we compete with Continental countries in face of the cheap rates they have got? Here is a statement from an English paper. It says:—
"Cuts in goods rates to the extent of nine millions a year have been decided on by the railway companies. The new rates will become effective on May 1st"—that is twelve months ago—"the only notable exceptions to the reduction being coal and iron. Agriculture is the chief beneficiary, the concessions amounting practically to 25s. per cent. of the existing rates."
Here we are in Ireland to-day paying the same railway rates as we paid during the war. Contrast the position with the price we were receiving during the war and see how we stand. The price of pigs was as high as £11 10s. or £12 per cwt., while to-day it is 76/- per cwt. in Southern Ireland and 96/- in Northern Ireland. We are paying the same freights as we paid when we were receiving the high prices. The same conditions apply to the cattle trade. I do not want to labour this question too much. The feeling is that we do not object in any bitter sense to this experiment that the Minister is trying; our standpoint rather is that we consider it unfair that we have to pay practically the whole of the expense of this experiment. I think the Minister must be a close student of John Stewart Mill. I wish to read some remarks of that great exponent of political economy. As I read them some nights ago it struck me that the Minister when framing these proposals took a leaf out of his book. He says:
"The only case in which, on mere principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in the hopes of naturalising a foreign industry in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage on one part or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those that were earlier in the field; and, besides, it is a just remark of Mr. Rae that nothing has a greater tendency to promote improvements in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals should at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture and bear the burthen of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will, after a time, be able to dispense with it, nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond the time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing."
We have certainly a good test in this experiment the Minister is trying. I wish the experiment success, but if our people, getting the chance they are getting now, are not able to compete with other countries, and if our people are so foolish as to continue those strikes and troubles and not settle down to develop the industrial resources of our country, I, like Deputy Hewat, have no hope for the future of the country. I think we ought to march forward, animated by the same spirit and determined that we shall uplift the social conditions and stimulate the industrial revival.
May I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to circulate, before the next stage of these resolutions, a statement similar to that which he circulated last year, giving the estimated receipts from Customs and Excise on the various items on which Customs and Excise duties are levied.
I will certainly give any statement that is possible. In the case of some of those new duties, I am afraid it would be very difficult to give an estimate that would be of any value. I took a great number of notes in the course of this debate, but I do not think that Deputies desire that I should try to refer in detail to points, many of which would be worthy of reference but which, perhaps, have been answered to some extent by different speakers in the course of the debate. One matter I would like to refer to at the beginning is with reference to the taking off of the duties imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It seems to me that there is no reason why those duties should not come off at once, and I would propose that they should come off—that is, that the provisions of the Finance Bill should be that they should not be collectable after 12th May. People who import goods after 12th May, and before the coming into force of the Finance Act, will be required to give undertakings that if the proposal of the Ministry is not accepted or if the date is altered by the Dáil, they will pay any duty that may be payable.
In regard to tinned fruit, the position is that fruit in syrup imported into this country consists of bottled fruit and tinned fruit. Bottled fruit, to some extent, is manufactured or prepared in this country, but a great deal of bottled fruit comes in from Great Britain. It seems to me that there is no particular reason why any bottling that may be required for the consumption that takes place in this country should not be carried on here, and it is desirable that that particular industry should be stimulated. The effect will ultimately be to stimulate the growing of fruit here as well as the industry of bottling. This particular duty on confectionery was imposed, as I said, for two purposes. One was from the point of view of Protection and the stimulation of the industry. The other was to simplify administration. I pointed out that the duty on confectionery heretofore has been levied on the sugar content. The number of brands and the varieties of confectionery and even of fruit in syrup coming in has been very great. Great numbers of analyses have had to be carried out in order that the sugar content might be determined, and we felt it desirable in the case of fruit in syrup, no less than in the case of confectionery, that we should have a flat rate, so that the duty might be collected. It seems to me that in the case of tinned fruit the duty would be much too steep and I propose in the case of tinned fruit, which cannot be produced here, but not in the case of bottled fruit, that the amount of duty should be reduced by, say, two-thirds, but that it should still be a flat rate duty, and not duty on the sugar content. That would make the duty per lb. about 1 1-5d., which would not be too severe, and which, I think, would safeguard the revenue, even in the case of fruits which might be imported in syrups containing a good deal more sugar than usual. The amount of sugar contained in syrup varies very considerably, and it is necessary, from the revenue point of view, that if you fix a flat rate of duty, you should fix a duty that will meet even the case of the highest dutiable variety. I think that would meet the difficulty which arises there. As I say, the duty may be a little steep in the beginning on bottled fruit, but I see no reason at all why bottling should not be carried on here.
It is very desirable that tinned fruit should not be unduly taxed. It is a very valuable food product. I do not think it is a food product that the very poorest people are able to afford to any great extent. But it is nevertheless a product on which the duty should not be unnecessarily high. Reference was made to the question of sugar factories. There is no Excise duty on sugar. There is only a Customs duty on sugar. If anybody can put up a factory here and produce sugar, he is welcome to do it, and he will not be liable to any tax. I should say that it would be unlikely that any Government would re-impose the import tax on sugar unless the sugar production became very large, so that a serious revenue problem was created.
Does the Minister mean Excise duty?
Yes. There is a factory in the South of England, and I have no doubt the results obtained there are being watched, and that advantage will be taken of them.
In this matter of an experiment in Protection, I have had criticism from two sides—those who said we were not doing half enough, that we were not doing anything worth while, and those who said we were letting the country in irrevocably for a policy of Protection. It seems to me that neither criticism is justified. We are entering on this experiment hopefully. We are entering on this experiment with every desire and hope that it may be successful. Any reference to the hidden hand that wants to make the experiment with the idea of its failing may be simply dismissed as ridiculous. We are, I think, in all fairness, if we impose these duties, committed to their continuance for a fair period of years until the experiment gets a fair chance. I would not like to mention any period of years, because the progress of the experiment will be watched, and this Dáil next year or the year after, or the Dáil that may succeed it, will be entitled to make up its mind on whether the experiment has gone far enough and should be stopped, or whether it has been eminently successful and should be extended.
I do not think it will be any use in mentioning any period; there must be a reasonable period if the Dáil expects these proposals to encourage people to put in boot machinery—it must, in all fairness, give them a series of years in which they can be given a full and fair trial as to what they can accomplish. We are, therefore, committed to these duties. No Dáil could lightly or rightly, until a reasonable period had elapsed, turn down these duties or strike them off. On the other hand, we are not committed to additional duties. Every sort of industry applies for protection; it is the easiest way for the manufacturer, if he can get it. If he finds that business is not going well with him, he will ask to put a tax on competing products from abroad, and you will have all sorts of people applying for protection. That is no reason why these should be extended unless all concerned in responsibility, both on the Government benches and on the other side of the Dáil, are satisfied that it is desirable to extend it. If the results are eminently satisfactory, if these results show that we can carry on in this way, that we can extend industry and increase productivity in this country, that will be a matter that will weigh with those concerned. But, on the other hand, if the undesirable results some people anticipate are not to be found, or are to be found in only a very minor degree, then presumably the Dáil will presumably say: "Very well, see in what you can extend these." If undesirable results are found, then no matter what clamour is raised, though the Dáil may extend it for a year or two in the hope that it may turn out better, and if they are not turning out well, presumably when a proposal comes up for an extension of this experiment, and for the putting on of other duties, the Dáil will say— like Bernard Shaw—"not bloody likely." I have said all that it is necessary to say in that regard. This is an experiment which, I think, is a fairly good and a fairly reasonable experiment. The experiment has not been prejudiced by this question of duties. As regards the two main items concerned, confectionery and boots, in the case of one of them the duty was imposed immediately; in the case of the other, the duty was imposed after a delay which prevented forestalling. The forestalling was for all purposes negligible. A lot of people were anxious to get in goods, but they did not seem to get them in.
In regard to the other articles, there may be a little forestalling, which will not be so serious even in the case of bottles. My information is that up-to-date there has been no forestalling. It may be that there were such large stocks already in hand that that was discounted. At any rate, the big items in this experiment are confectionery and boots. And neither of these is an experiment that has been prejudiced in any way by the fixing of the dates. The opposition that the Government had to face was, I think, practically that stated here by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, that with a deficit we could not rightly reduce taxation. It is all right to borrow for constructive work if you are not borrowing to an outrageous extent, and if the money is being well and properly spent, but it is no doubt a bad and unsound thing to borrow for the purposes of meeting ordinary current expenses. It would have been wrong for us to have reduced taxation in view of the considerable deficit that faces us. As I indicated already, I made a slight slip in my statement on the Budget, as Deputy Wilson has already pointed out. If we take into account the Compensation Charge and the abnormal expenditure on the Army we would have a deficit of something like a half a million, but even that deficit does not allow for an increased capital expenditure in regard to borrowing to meet interest on capital. We have that deficit. I said here last year that the Army should come down this year to £4,000,000 a year, and to £2,000,000 next year or the year after. I have no belief at the moment that we can bring it down to £2,000,000 next year, but I hope that we can in due time bring it down to £2,000,000. But suppose we were able to reduce the Army to that extent we would have this deficit of half a million, and substantially more than a half million, to meet. We could not, under these circumstances, propose a reduction of taxation. On the other hand, I do not think it is a desirable thing, in view of the poorness of this country, that we should have increased taxation to meet our full expenditure. It seemed to me that the real thing to do was to continue to aim at a reduction so that our expenditure should be brought down to the level of our revenue without any increase in taxation. We decided to make this proposal as an experiment, but we did not intend under cover of this experiment to increase to any substantial extent the revenue.
Deputy Johnson asked, I think, why we did not choose clothes instead of boots, for instance, for this experiment. One of the reasons we chose boots was that we were able to estimate the effect pretty well. We knew what the revenue tax on boots would give us; and we were able, knowing the revenue we would get from the boots, to propose a reduction in the tea tax, roughly, equivalent to the tax that would be put on boots, so that as far as we could manage it we would be able to carry out this experiment without increasing the cost of living. This experiment, in spite of the things that have been said from the Farmers' Benches, will not lead to any appreciable increase in the cost of living. I do not say that the amount may not be one or two points up, but there will be no appreciable increase. If we had chosen some article where we could not see what revenue we would get, where we could not estimate the effect of putting on a tax, then we might find ourselves forcing up the cost of living, because we did not dare to remit taxation corresponding to the yield which we would actually get or we might find ourselves remitting a yield which would not be realised and remitting taxation which should not be remitted, and we might find ourselves faced with a very largely increased deficit at the end of the year. That was really the principal reason why we chose boots rather than cloth when we were making a choice between these two categories. But now it has been suggested that we should take a certain amount of taxation off sugar. I explained in my original statement why that was not done. The amount that we could have taken off sugar would amount only to a ¼d. in the lb. We felt that there was very little likelihood of that reaching the consumer, and we, therefore, decided that 2½d. or 3d. should be taken off tea when there was a prospect of its reaching the consumer. The suggestion has been talked about of reducing the duty on beer or spirits. Well, that was considered. A Deputy suggested that we should have considered it. Strange as it may seem, we did consider it. We could not reduce the estimate in view of the evidence that was put before us that there was no likelihood of an increase in consumption—if that were desirable—which would lead to as good a yield being got from the lower tax.
Our estimate was that if £1 per standard barrel were taken off porter that it would mean a loss in revenue, allowing for any increase that might occur, and there would be no increase. It would mean a loss of three-quarter of a million pounds in revenue. A decrease in the spirit duty would have practically the same effect. It is impossible really to remit taxation and get an increased yield. You could by suitable remissions of taxation improve the condition of the country so much that the yield would be equal, if you could wait some years for your results. I have no doubt if we were able to drop our income tax 1s. 6d. in the £, that the effect of that would be a great stimulation to industry, and that we would ultimately get the full 1s. 6d. back in improved yield. But not this year or next year or the year after. Any good effect of such a remission would be neutralised by the bad effect on our credit generally and on our whole financial position of an increased deficit on the ordinary current expenditure. I would have liked to make a remission with regard to income tax, but I could not feel it would be justified in the present circumstances. I could not get any responsible opinion that we could accept that after a considerable interval, we would get as much yield from the reduced rate of taxes as we would from the present taxes.
It would be possible if you were dealing with a few firms to admit sugar for manufacturing purposes free of duty or at a decreased rate of duty. But those special regulations are troublesome, and they do generally lead to fraud on the revenue, and they are impossible. It becomes a question of giving a great number of exemptions and special considerations. It would be impossible to do what Deputy Gorey suggested yesterday—allow sugar in at a reduced rate for the purpose of jam-making——
Would the Minister consider the possibility of licensing the manufacturers on a certain scale for such remissions?
If it is going to be a big thing we are up against the question that we cannot remit the taxation at the present moment. It comes to that. If it is going to be a small thing there is no great benefit in it. If it is going to be a big thing, then we cannot afford it, and from the point of view of taxation we have very little choice open in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
In the matter of the jam factories has the Minister considered the incidence of these new taxes upon the social life? After all, that is the great consideration.
As I have said repeatedly, I do not think that this particular tax on jam, whatever it may be in a month or two, is going to lead to any great increase in the cost of jam. Deputy Baxter said that agriculture was entitled to first consideration. I agree. And it is because I felt that, that Deputy Milroy in his fulmination was able to charge me with being under the influence of the hidden hand. The hand of agriculture apparently. That is one of the factors that nobody can leave out of consideration in this country. It is one of the things that to my mind rules out anything like a general tariff. Because a general tariff, apart from the stimulation of selected industries, would amount to a very considerable increase in the cost of living, and we know that whatever the farmer may benefit by an increased home market his condition is going largely to be ruled by an outside market in which he disposes of a surplus. That is one of the great reasons why it is necessary in any fiscal changes, that the greatest possible caution must be exercised. I can quite well conceive that we might put a certain number of people into employment in industries in the town, by a fiscal measure, and put twice as many out of employment in agriculture in the country by the same fiscal measure. Sir James Craig mentioned that the compensation had cost us £18,000,000 in these two years. He arrived at that figure by adding the estimates for the two years. Of course, the estimate last year was in no way like the expenditure. You might take this £6,000,000 off that to arrive at the right figure. I think that there are practically none of the other points which were raised which I need take up any of your time in dealing with. Because in a great many cases they were dealt with quite sufficiently by the speakers who followed. I would just say that we are now with our own fiscal system for a year in operation, getting to the position where we can really estimate our own needs and the possibilities of this country much more accurately than we could in the past. Some of us may have had ideas that were incorrect. But there can be no doubt that if we use the powers we have with all reasonable care, and with some small degree of wisdom, that we can get results in this country which were not got in the past. Heretofore the scale of Government establishment in this country had no relation at all to the ability of the country to pay or the requirements of the country. We have inherited establishments and services and a system of administration.
We have inherited along with that, certain obligations under the Treaty which make it extremely difficult for us to economise with anything like lightning rapidity. It has been suggested that a Committee would be of great help. It may be that in certain circumstances and at a certain stage a Committee may be of great help, but my opinion is that at the present moment and at the present stage a Committee would not add anything to the progress which we are able to make ourselves. We cannot operate in this matter as easily as we could operate if, for instance, it were not for the Treaty obligations and the general position that arose out of them. I, for one, have never believed that we would be able in any case to carry out the administrative reforms and economies necessary in one year. Anybody who thinks over these matters will realise that you must be prepared to keep your pressure up for two or three years. The campaign of economy which was undertaken in England did not achieve its results in a month or two. A very considerable period elapsed before the effects were anything like fully felt. I think the full effects have not yet been felt, but, if they have, it has only been very recently. The position of the Government is that it will continue to effect every economy that it can possibly effect, that it will keep down the scale of expenditure, and that it will reduce it, where it can be reduced, but you cannot have an all-round reduction. There may be things in which expenditure must and should be increased. For instance, you may want to carry out certain agricultural reforms. You may want to introduce a scheme for the grading of Irish butter. You must be prepared to incur new expenditure for an object such as that from time to time. You cannot have anything like sawing off a certain proportion of the expenditure, but you can, by eliminating any unnecessary expenditure that you can eliminate, by refusing new services or increases in expenditure which can be reasonably refused, gradually, month by month, bring down the total cost of administration. We feel that that must be done, and we believe that can be done.
We believe that by economic administration alone it will be possible to balance our Budget. I do not see, unless there is some increase in prosperity and productivity in the country, that we can hope to go very much further than that within any reasonable time. I know a reduction in taxation will bring about an improvement in the condition of agriculture and industry. But there seems to be something of a vicious circle there, and it is only by improvement in the condition of agriculture—if any measures can be introduced that will improve the condition of agriculture—and by the revival of industry, we can have hope of the country going forward. While members made speeches here which provoked a certain amount of merriment, I think it is necessary that all classes in the country should realise that if things are going to be better here, if we are to be able to afford the social legislation that some people would like, then there has got to be a sort of realisation of national and patriotic responsibility in matters of economy and industry. If there is not a disposition to be reasonable and to co-operate in a way with people even with conflicting interests, then I think any progress in this country will be slow indeed. I believe it is work and efficiency in work that will carry us out of the sort of hard circumstances in which we are.
