The Farmers' Party welcome this Budget because it is as good as they expected. Perhaps, in a few particulars, it is a little better. I do not say that we welcome all its provisions. There are some provisions that we certainly welcome, but there are others that we object to. One form of taxation is maintained, and in fact extended, which we object to. The provision in this Budget that we specially welcome is the increase in the Agricultural Grant. Other Deputies appreciated the fall in the income tax, but to the agricultural community the increase in the Agricultural Grant is more acceptable. The reduction in income tax will benefit some people engaged in agriculture—not very many, comparatively speaking—but the increase in the Agricultural Grant will come home to everybody engaged in agriculture. It has been said from the benches on my right that the farmers have been the pampered pets of legislation—that they are getting everything. It might be well, therefore, to explain how this Agricultural Grant came to be given.
In 1898 legislation was introduced at Westminster, regulating the incidence of taxation in this country. Up to that time the rates on agricultural holdings were paid half and half by the landlord and the tenant. Under the Act of 1898 the whole burden was transferred to the tenant, and at the same time the provision of the Agricultural Grant was included. That was not introduced as a benefit to the tenants, but to relieve the landlords of their burden. At that time the rates in agricultural districts were about 1/10 in the £. In many counties at the present time the rates are 10/- in the £. In England in recent years the Agricultural Grant has been increased by 75 per cent That had to be done in the national interest, in order to preserve the agricultural industry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That was not done here. This is the first attempt made to increase the Grant here. In England agriculturists are not in anything like the same position as they are here. The majority of the farms in England are very large, while in this country they are very small. As a general rule farmers in Great Britain hold from 300 to 1,000 acres of land. We know what the average here is.
The proposed increase in the agricultural grant is not spoon-feeding, as some people imagine The increase does not come up to what the English Government thought was requisite in the circumstances for their agricultural population. The increase, however, will be a great boon to farmers and we welcome it. If the present conditions do not improve, we look forward in the next Budget to having the grant increased to the British level. I hope there will be no necessity for that. I hope conditions will improve—they would need to.
Comparison has been made by many Deputies between the remissions granted on certain importations and the impositions placed on others. It seemed to end there. Reference has been made to the taxation that has been taken off tea and sugar and transferred to other commodities. No reference, however, has been made to the burden of taxation which the country has to bear and its ability to carry it. Few countries in Europe are in the unenviable position of this country in respect to the taxation which we have to bear. In proportion to the population, we are in the unfortunate position probably of having to carry a greater national expenditure than any other country. Therefore, we naturally have more room for reduction in our national expenditure than those countries which are economically run and which have not to bear a large amount of non-recurrent expenditure due to disturbances or other causes. Very little comparison has been made between the weight of our burden and our ability to carry it. The time has come when everyone who takes an interest in the country must consider this question of the ability of the nation to bear the burden at present imposed on it. We are not able to carry this load of taxation. The estimated expenditure of 25 millions for the current year is more than this nation is able to bear—certainly more than it will be able to bear in future years. The best brains of the country would be well employed in finding means, consistent with efficiency, of reducing this annual burden. A committee similar to the Geddes Committee has been suggested as a means of reducing our national expenditure.
I have heard references in the Lobby and outside by Deputies on the Government benches to the 22,000 or 23,000 civil servants employed here. The number is certainly alarming. In the streets of Dublin you can hear people saying that officials are tripping over each other in many of the Government departments. I am inclined to believe there is a considerable amount of truth in that. It needs probing and sifting to the bottom. I think the time has come seriously to consider a demand that was made 6 or 12 months ago for the appointment of a committee, with a view to seeing if the national expenditure could not be reduced, and the overstaffing of the departments remedied. This country is not able to carry an annual expenditure of twentyfive millions or anything like these figures. National expenditure might very easily be reduced by from five to ten millions. Like other members of the community, our statesmen in recent years have been in the habit of thinking in very much larger terms than in pre-war years. Individuals who used to think in terms of shillings and pounds began to think in terms of "fivers" and hundreds, and have pretty well remained in that position. Even as individuals we have not curtailed our spending propensities. We are still spending more than we can afford and our statesmen seem to think in terms of millions when, perhaps, they should be thinking in terms of thousands. Our statesmen, as well as every other class in the country, have got to change that outlook. The present system of spending money indiscriminately must be remedied.
I will just mention one item which was referred to in the newspapers—the tax on tobacco. I will not make any suggestion to the Minister but call his attention to a few facts that came to my knowledge recently. I am not a smoker but I have been informed that it is a common thing for some young men to smoke cigarettes to the value of one shilling or one and sixpence in a day. That means that from 7/- to 10/- weekly is spent in that way. It is also said that some of the ladies are very little behind the men in this matter. This question is a very important one, as every penny spent on foreign-grown tobacco goes out of the country. Tobacco is not a food and it is not grown in Ireland. We manufacture, perhaps, the raw material into the finished article in a few places, but the vast proportion of the tobacco that comes into the country is unfinished and is grown in other countries. What these imports represent in money I cannot say. What does the medical profession say on this question so far as it affects the future of the race, especially if some young women smoke up to 10/- worth of cigarettes in a week? What will be the effect on the national physique? These facts deserve national attention.
If I were to choose between a reduced tax on drink and a reduced tax on tobacco, I would unquestionably favour drink. It may be said that drink, to some extent at least, is an article of food when taken in moderation. I do not think the same can be said of tobacco. Making a comparison of these two important items in the incidence of our taxation, I would certainly favour drink as against tobacco. To my mind taxation should favour drink rather than tobacco. It is regrettable to have to say that, but under the circumstances I think that even Deputy Johnson will agree it is justified.
The Farmers' Party object to the retention of the duties that were imposed last year, especially those on boots and on some other articles. We opposed these duties last year and called for divisions on them. Some of the Deputies who spoke against these duties walked out when it came to a division. I hope they will not leave this year when these proposals are challenged. We strongly object to the new duties, especially those it is proposed to impose on ready made clothing. Deputy Daly and Deputy MacBride referred to the fact that there is to be no duty on some tweeds that come into this country. Is it the policy of the Government; to allow in foreign "shoddy" and to tax the finished article? The better class of material used in this country is largely manufactured in Ireland. Of course, some of this class of material comes in, especially for ladies clothing, and there will be no tax on it, although it will be worn by better class people who can afford to pay a tax. On the other hand, the ready-made clothing that is largely used by the poorer people will be taxed.
It is said it is going to give us increased employment. Deputy Johnson gave us some figures yesterday which he confesses to-day are not quite right, but at the same time he made a case, if anyone has made a case, for the imposition of those new duties. It has not convinced us. I think still that in principle and practice this is a bad imposition. I think it will work out badly. The principle, first of all, is bad. The classes of people it is going to hit mostly in this country, the people who, without any doubt, are being asked to subsidise this imposition, are those who can least afford it. As I said, our opposition to this imposition of new duties is largely on principle. The more I can get in touch with labour here in connection with things that matter, the more I am losing confidence. I have very little confidence in the response we are going to get to this gesture, which aims at helping industry.
Nothing would please on these benches, and please me in particular, more than to see an honest response to the gesture that has been made to the industrial community. Nothing would please us more than an honest and whole-hearted response to this test that has been put up to the nation, and put up principally to those engaged in the subsidised industries. I hope that the latter realise it, and that the people engaged in industry of every description in this country, and especially those in the subsidised industries, are going to respond by doing their duty, as the people of this country are going to do their duty in paying for the subsidy. Manufacturers are expected to do their duty, and I hope they realise their responsibility, and realise that what is going to happen is a test. It is a test for the future, and I hope the response will be what is expected. Any duty like this is derived from public money, whether it be in the shape of taxes or otherwise, and the public is entitled to make a strict examination into what is being done, and what return is being given for the people's money. They are going to pay for it, and those who are paying for it are entitled to see that the return they get is equal to the return that would be given in any of the other countries engaged in industry. Output should be insisted on according to the world's standard of output. I should not like to see any other attitude than that, or to see any Party or any individual in the State taking any other attitude, because it would mean a confession of race inferiority, race degradation, and race dishonesty. It is up to every element of the nation to respond. We oppose this tariff, but as we have it we will insist, as far as we can, that a proper response is given to this gesture. This is a really great test, but if it fails, let those responsible for its failure bear the blame. I hope our opposition to this impost will improve the atmosphere and the attitude of those to be engaged in those industries, and that it will bring them to a right frame of mind, as compared with other people in the world engaged in the same industry. We must all live on a common standard, or, owing to the survival of the fittest, we will be supplanted by another race. If our opposition to this impost will bring men to realise what is expected from those who are going to be engaged in the industries, then our opposition will not be in vain.
I think, too, in discussing this Budget Deputy Figgis touched on a subject which might well deserve a great deal of consideration. He referred to a flat rate reduction in income tax, and he referred also to the different schedules. I think anybody who will compare the position now with that of seven, eight, or ten years ago, when the War was on and big profits were being made, must look at the question now from a different stand-point. Those schedules were framed then, and the same system has obtained since. I think we should have a revision of those schedules. An income then may mean a loss now to a good many people. The purchasing power of that income may be less but the same income is there. Especially in the schedules relating to agricultural land, what would be income then is loss now. I ask the Minister to pay attention to that, and I think Deputy Figgis has done a service in referring to those schedules.
Now, with reference to this subsidy to beet-root growing, the Government have treated this question very generously, for the subsidy is granted not in a declining ratio but at a rate which is maintained right through the ten years. I do not think the best advisers of the Government have their minds made up as to what is or what is not in beet-growing. Certainly a good many of us who have given this a lot of thought, are very doubtful, indeed, as to whether beet-root-growing is a boon to our agriculture or not. With the huge subsidy the Government has given for this factory the factory is able to pay a tonnage price of 54/-.