Yes, on the balance sheet. It is obvious from these retorts and from the heat displayed by the Minister and the incapacity shown by the Minister that he cannot bear mention of these things. The home market has been secured by the Minister and his chief. Let us see what the value of it is. What is meant by the home market? In the first place, there is meant the consumption of agricultural products on the farms and the products sold in the markets for consumption in the country. Perhaps the worst year experienced in the whole period of the depression was the year 1931. The consumption of agricultural products both on the farms and in the homes of the other people in this country during that year amounted to £30,266,000. Not until 1937-38 was that sum exceeded, if we except a sum of probably £100,000 in 1936-37. In 1937-38 the value of the home market to the agricultural industry exceeded that for 1931 by £2,000,000.
That is the sum total of all the advantages, of the £3,500,000 a year which the Government claim they have made available for the agricultural industry over these eight years compared with 1931; in respect of which the farmers got more than they got in 1931. What did it cost the farmers and the people to provide that money? Two of the items claimed as being wonderful concessions and of great economic advantage to the farmers are sugar and flour. We consume very close on 3,000,000 sacks of flour in the year, and it would be a conservative estimate to assess the cost to the people at 13/4 a sack over and above what they have to pay in the English market, viz., £2,000,000 a year. The cost of the sugar industry is approximately £1,000,000. In order to give them the home market we taxed the people to the tune of £3,000,000, and then we are told the farmers are better off in 1939 over and above the period 1931, by £2,000,000. That is the balance sheet from their own returns, and however they may twist or wriggle, or however long the speeches may be, the fact remains that in order to increase the value of the home market, and which was only increased in 1937-38, they taxed the people to the extent of over £3,000,000 and gave the farmers £2,000,000. It is on the basis of that economic situation that we have presented to us a further series of impositions and taxes, and we are told by the Prime Minister, or by some of his able lieutenants, that that is not taxation at all, that it is merely substitute taxation.
The Minister, in his statement estimated a fall in the yield of taxation and gave certain items which he set out. The items are customs and excise, inland revenue, hydro-carbon oils, intoxicating liquor, motor cars, sugar, and various other duties. The excise, which has the least effect, will show a loss from hydro-carbon oils, betting, entertainments, tyres and tubes but that is offset by receipts from spirits and sugar. As regards inland revenue he said a decrease is probable in income tax, death duties, and corporation profits tax I never believed any of the stories we heard from the Government about being interested in the poor man. I never believed that they had any interest in anyone but in the retention of power and authority for themselves. We were told that this is merely substitution. Is there not a lot of difference between substituting taxes on motor cars, betting or entertainment and upon the sugar that the unfortunate working man is bound to purchase for his family? It is merely "substitution"! Is there not a difference between taxes on motor cars, betting and entertainment and all the other items and taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco?
The case made in respect of this Bill is that we have benefited agriculture to the extent of £3,500,000 per year, not taking into account the advantages derived from the remission of the annuities, or taking a period of eight years to show that they have got £5,500,000 in agricultural grant reliefs more than they would have got in the eight years previous to the advent of this Government. One thing they are always very careful about, and that is to compare a certain given number of years with another number. There is a marked difference between the period of peace in which this Government came into power and that of their predecessor—a very marked difference. They came into office in a country in which there were ordered conditions, in which a real attempt had been made over a period of years to reconstruct various damaged properties throughout the State, during which taxation had to be imposed in order to deal with that. It was a very different situation into which this Government came, having also the experience of ten years to guide them in respect of administration. Of course they set off like every set of theorists, practically to alter everything they came across in the State, but if they did, they altered it at enormous cost. They were not long in office when it was found necessary to increase and also to inaugurate a whole series of social services, and the sum total of the social services, over what was expended by their predecessors, does not amount to more than £4,500,000. But they collected over £7,000,000 more than their predecessors and claimed to have saved £2,000,000 which their predecessors undertook to pay to the British Government, so that there is £4,500,000 there of annual squandermania on the part of the Government, £4,500,000 spent on excessive and costly administration, and it is for that the extra taxation has to be imposed on sugar, beer and tobacco.
When they say in this House that they want the Opposition to show where the money is going to come from that is but another exhibition of their incompetence. It is not part of the duty of this House to take out the names of officers in any Department, or to go through each Department as if the members of the House were a county council, in which these matters could be discussed, considered and exposed to the public gaze. All we are to do is to tot up on the one hand the cost of administration, and, on the other hand, point out the increase that has been made in the personnel of the Civil Service in this State. I find that the number of civil servants has gone up almost by 5,000 since the change of office, and they are costing something like £750,000 extra over and above what they cost eight or nine years ago. What do we get for that? They pretend that they have improved agricultural production in this country, that they have got more money for the farmers, and that they have got the home market. I have exposed that humbug.
Let us take the other case. There are three methods for the disposal of our agricultural produce: consumption on the farm, sale on the home market, and export. There has been a catastrophic fall in the export of agricultural produce, during the last six or seven years. I gave a correct figure in this House some three or four months ago when dealing with the whole matter of agricultural produce. In 1931 there was a balance of exports in favour of the agricultural industry of almost £13,500,000. When I say a balance, I mean taking the gross figures of agricultural exports and I deduct from that any agricultural produce or animals that were imported. The nett figure for that in the year 1931 was £13,425,000. For the succeeding seven years there was an average drop in that figure of £6,000,000 a year, notwithstanding the fact that the Government made available for the farmers £3,500,000 a year over and above what they had six or seven years ago. I put it that, in respect of that particular industry, this measure by imposing fresh additional burdens of taxation is unreasonable, unjust, and immoral. One would expect in connection with an industry such as this, over a long period of years helped as has been claimed, by the Government, that there would have been an increase in the number of persons engaged in the agricultural industry or, at any rate, that whatever would happen there would not be a reduction.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech at the Chamber of Commerce a short time ago had to deplore the fact that the number of persons engaged in agriculture had decreased by 26,000. If we are to take the statement of the head of the Government as evidence of belief in the usefulness of the measures taken to improve agriculture, we should expect to find in the first place an increase in the number of live animals, and an extension of tillage. What are the facts? In the agricultural statistics for June published by the Department of Agriculture we find that in only two items of tillage was there an increase over the figure for 1938. In wheat, there was an increase of 27,710 acres and in mangolds an increase of 100 acres. We find that there is a decrease in the acreage under oats of 36,000, of barley 45,000, of potatoes 11,000, and of turnips 3,000. On balance, we find that there is a net reduction in the acreage under corn and green crops of 78,400. Obviously, we are spending money now to a much greater extent than was the case in 1937-8, for which I gave the figure, because flour is £1 a sack over the British price and, with 3,000,000 sacks, that amounts to £3,000,000 per annum. We can give only an estimate in respect of the cost of sugar production. That is, probably, £1,000,000 extra, so that the total is £4,000,000. At a time when all these efforts have been and are being made to increase tillage, there is a net reduction of 78,000 acres.
What is the position in regard to live stock? There is a net reduction of 4,000 head of cattle, milch cows, heifers and so forth. In pigs, there is a reduction of almost 16,000 and in sheep of 162,000. We have an increase in the case of poultry of 32,000 head. That is the agricultural picture. That is the real balance sheet of agriculture. It is quite true that all that could have happened if sales had been effected of our agricultural produce and the farmers had the money to credit in the bank as a result of the sales. But we have had no evidence of that and, if there is evidence, I should be glad to hear it. So far as stock is concerned, at a time when stock is more needed than ever it was in the history of this country, we are down on the results. This is the period selected by the Government to impose additional taxation which they describe as merely "substitute taxation".
Reference has been made during the course of the discussion on this Bill to the increase which has taken place in the taxation of this country relative to other countries. I have looked up the estimated income of other countries somewhat comparable with this country. I find that very few of them have as low an income as this country has. Take the closest approximation— Norway. The reputed income per head there is £51. The estimate here is, approximately, £50. In Norway, taxation represents about 20 per cent. of the national income. Here, according to Deputy Childers, it has been estimate at 21 per cent. of the national income. If you take these figures in the light of their effect on the individual, you find that taxation on every man in this country is £1 6s. Od. per annum more than it is in Norway— a small sum to people accustomed to dealing with large sums, but it amounts to 6d. per week on the individual. An impost of 6d. per week in the case of workers with small incomes or with unstable or irregular employment can be very severe. Taking a family of five or six paying this extra sum imposed by reason of Government policy and considering the extra cost of flour and these additional imposts on sugar and tobacco, the burden on the individual is more than he can bear. It is unreasonable and unjust in my view to impose this additional taxation. That the money can be saved I have no doubt whatsoever. But the Government will have to make up their minds to work harder than they are working. They should not have such measures as the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act and other costly measures introduced.
I find, on looking up the revenue receipts for this year, that, so far as we have gone, we have got about £500,000 more than was received last year to the same date. While we are £500,000 over the figure for last year, I find that the receipts from incometax are £200,000 lower than they were last year although the rate of incometax has been increased. On these figures, something more than a mere statement that there is likely to be a contraction in revenue should be made. We are told that the costs which have to be met in connection with the war situation, or emergency, are censorship, defence, and one or two other items which escape my memory at the moment. What is censorship costing? What is the extra cost of defence? After all, this House is responsible for imposing the taxation. It is at least entitled to know how much costs have been increased under each one of these heads. We are told that we are buying two torpedo boats. Of what use are two torpedo boats in present circumstances? Of what use is the mobilisation of 10,000 or 12,000 troops if we have not the most modern equipment in respect of them? Would it be true to say that the Army we have here would not have lasted as long before the Polish Army as the Polish Army lasted before the German Army? We would not grudge, and we do not grudge, the expenditure of money which will ensure or increase defence in this country. My view about the manner it which it has been expended is that it is mostly wasted and that, instead of endeavouring to modernise the Army, to get a particularly efficient unit and to get antiaircraft guns and aircraft, it is being used in mobilising these huge numbers of men, and it would have been better to spend the money in the way I suggest rather than in this mobilisation. However, no matter what the situation is, at least we are entitled to know what the extra cost amounts to.
In the first place, all this extravagant administration and all these efforts that have been made to improve agriculture have not resulted in bringing more money into the pockets of the agricultural industrialists in this country. They have not even maintained the numbers of persons who were employed in the agricultural industry. It is quite true, as the Ministers say, that there was emigration during the office of the last Government. There was. There was considerable emigration, and they are not absolutely free from responsibility for their own particular activities in connection with it, but one thing has to be noticed in connection with emigration during that period, and that is that it had tapered down until in the last year of the previous Government there was none, whereas under the present Government, during recent years, on a rising population, the people commenced to emigrate and we are now in the position of having perhaps as high a rate of emigration, under self-Government in this country, as anybody ever expected to see in the worst times in this country; and now we have a lower population. We have, according to the Ministry, a larger number engaged in occupations and a larger number of employed. Now, it is not by cross-road speeches that you are going to deal with those matters. It is nonsense to say here that there was a free trade policy in operation previous to the advent of the present Government. The facts speak for themselves. There were £2,000,000 collected in tariffs in the last year of the previous Government, and in the published finance accounts for the year before the present year the sum collected in tariffs on goods was £2,500,000. As I said on another occasion in this House, in order to collect that extra £500,000 the Ministry is spending £200,000 more on the Revenue Commissioners Vote. I should like to know what businessmen or board of directors would keep managers who were responsible for such an extravagant administration. It is not that there has been no case made for this measure; it is that a case has been made for a reduction in taxation rather than an increase, and in consequence we shall have to vote against this Finance Bill.
Mr. Hickey rose.
