Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Thursday, 9 May 1946

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

Dr. O'Higgins

Before the interval I dealt with some particular features of the Budget. I had not referred to the section of the Budget giving substantial and welcome and overdue relief to agricultural land, agricultural land wholly. I welcome the substantial relief that is given to it in the Budget. At the same time, I think I am entitled to say that I would welcome far more the day when this Government and its Ministers would reach a degree of national honesty when we are dealing with public matters and public finances.

Deputy Blowick, leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party, has already referred to the way the proposals from that Party regarding derating were received by the Government. I think on half a dozen occasions this question of derating agricultural land, either wholly or to a great extent, was raised by motion in this House. On every occasion the Minister, or Ministers, with all the available figures, with all the knowledge and all the facts available only to a Government, gave us to believe that such a proposal would mean either national bankruptcy or destitution of the very poor by the weight of taxes it would be necessary to impose on the necessaries of life.

I might refer to one occasion some years ago when, speaking as the authorised mouthpiece of this Party in the City of Limerick on a Saturday afternoon, I announced that part of the plan and the programme agreed on would be the development of rural electrification, the granting of children's allowances and the derating of land up to a very substantial amount. The Tánaiste was speaking in Limerick the following night. He had the advantage of having read my speech. He referred to me as a political and financial lunatic who, if he had his way in this country, would destitute and pauperise every individual. It looks as if that form of lunacy was infectious and perhaps it should be included in the Public Health Act; it might lead to compulsory isolation and prohibition of transport facilities, because it appears to be taking.

The measure of success of the present Government in any direction can be gauged by the extent to which they have followed the programmes which they previously denounced. I begin to feel that everybody speaking on behalf of any of the Opposition Parties here is in the position of a schoolmaster, trying to teach sense to very dull, backward scholars, who take years to learn, but who are so soft-minded that, when they have learned, they believe they have made a discovery, and all these discoveries that are the result of years of hard hammering and teaching are featured as miraculous by a brilliant group of Ministers.

The one feature of this Budget that I welcome more than any other, is this concession with regard to agricultural land. In that particular concession I think there is a definite step taken towards lightening overhead charges and there is a gesture of recognition for very great efforts consistently made over the past few years. I hope never again will we hear the kind of twaddle that we heard in the past from the Minister for Finance, when reliefs for agriculture or any other industry were advocated, that if you relieve an industry like agriculture, you will be relieving the big fellow in money to a greater extent than you will be relieving the little fellow.

I could never understand why that absolutely unsound and nonsensical argument was always used when any relief for agriculture was advocated in this country, and no such argument was advanced when we were giving protection and reliefs to various industries. In the industrial field one never cared whether the owner was a millionaire or a man just beginning without capital, but in the matter of agriculture the propagandists always got up and said: "Look at what Lord so-and-so is going to get by way of financial relief under this measure." It was always twaddle, it was always dishonest, it was always insincere. I hope that régime of twaddle, dishonesty and insincerity has closed with this particular document which we have before us.

Mr. Cogan

Some time ago a distinguished citizen of this country invented a machine for the consumption of turf. I am not quite sure what the name of it was, but I think it was called the "Red-Top Stove". One of the features of this stove was that it kept the burning turf, the red turf, on the top and the fresh or raw turf was put in at the bottom. There is a striking similarity between this Budget statement and that invention. We have the desirable things, the things that appear to be popular, paraded very obviously before the public gaze, while the undesirable features are hidden away at the bottom.

The Budget statement this year differs considerably from Budget statements in the past. I am not going to join in the tributes paid to the Minister as to the manner in which he presented his Budget statement. I fear if I were to do so I would be casting an undeserved slur on the highest citizen of this State, who was the Minister's predecessor. I think that to the general public it does not matter very much what way the Budget statement is presented. What matters are the things which it contains and the things which it leaves out.

The first fundamental fact that has to be faced in regard to this Budget is that it increases the total burden of taxation which is to be collected from the taxpayers as compared with last year. Having regard to the fact that the emergency is over, and that we hope to be facing tranquil conditions, taxpayers had reason to hope that their burden would be lower. Instead of a reduction we have a substantial increase in total taxation. It is true that we have some reduction in the taxation of various items, but the net burden imposed on the community generally will, it is estimated, be higher than it was last year.

It is undesirable that the Minister and the Government should take an unfair advantage of the emergency conditions through which we have passed. These emergency conditions enabled the Government to increase income-tax and various other duties. Now that conditions and trade generally are improving the Government hopes to raise substantial revenue as a result of the increased rates of taxation that were imposed during that period. That is unfair and unjust to the general community. There is no reason for maintaining as high a burden of taxation during the coming year as was imposed during the years of the emergency when, owing to prevailing conditions, costs in Government Departments as well as the cost of national defence were substantially inflated. We know that emergency conditions seriously inflated the cost of running various Departments, and that special services had to be provided to meet the abnormal conditions. The need for such services has passed and the taxpayers had a right to hope for a much more substantial reduction in the burdens that the Budget provides.

Even if the Minister could not by any exercise of energy or imagination find a means of reducing the burden of taxation and expenditure for the coming year, there are certain services which should not be met out of current taxation. One of these services, which was very deserving, will not recur we hope, in the future. I refer to the provision of £3,000,000 for relief in Europe. That should be financed by borrowing, if we are justified in financing any service by borrowing. The taxpaper is called upon to provide a small relief for the fuel consumer, 10/- per ton on turf. With the exercise of proper supervision, or alternatively with the opening up of more facilities for competition and private enterprise it should be possible to reduce the cost of turf much more than the 10/- which the taxpayer is called upon to provide. I think the cost could have been reduced by considerably more than 10/-. Even if the taxpayers are now called upon to make up the 10/- it should be accompanied by a reasonable effort so that in the handling and hauling of turf there will be a substantial saving during the coming year.

During the emergency many things contributed to cost in the transport of turf. There was a shortage of lorries, there was a more severe shortage of petrol than now exists, and a shortage of tyres. All these were factors which added to the cost of transport. New lorries are now available, and there should be greater facilities for people to get into the transport of turf than was the case during the emergency. There is no reason why the cost of turf should not be considerably reduced without imposing any additional burden on the taxpaying community. There is provision in the Budget for a substantial reduction in the duty on petrol. Have we any assurance from the Government that the reduction will be passed on to consumers? As far as the haulage of goods is concerned we know that the transport service is in the hands of a monopoly. Have we any assurance that this monopoly will pass on any of the full reductions in the cost of petrol in order to enable ordinary citizens to get goods at cheaper rates or to provide cheaper travel than is the case now?

I do not think we should compliment the Minister on the manner in which a reduction of income-tax has been brought about. In reducing the burden of income-tax special provision should be made for poorer sections of the community which have to bear the heaviest burdens. In addition, special consideration should be given to the income-tax payer who is prepared to put the relief he obtains in the Budget into industry. The Minister for Finance should be able to devise a scheme by which additional relief should be granted in respect to those with families and dependents. He should also be able to devise a scheme under which a producer who is genuinely adding to the wealth of the country should get a greater reduction than the person who simply puts the advantage he derives into his pocket. That is the angle from which this question of relief of direct taxation should be approached.

As a member of this Farmers' Party, I must express satisfaction that the Minister has made an attempt to meet the oft-repeated demand for relief from the burden of rates on agricultural land. It is only a short time since this Party put down a motion demanding the relief of rates on agricultural land. We demanded that the first £20 of each agricultural holding should be completely derated and that a further £15 should be derated in respect of every worker or dependent employed on that holding. That demand was met with scorn and ridicule by the Minister who marshalled his braves into the Division Lobby to defeat it. He felt so strong in his opposition to the relief of rates on agricultural land at that time that he used these words, at column 550 of the Official Debates of 6th February last:—

"If I had £2,000,000, I would not give one shilling under any circumstances for the relief of rates."

It is interesting to speculate on the processes by which the Minister has been converted to the necessity for relieving rates during the past couple of months. It may be that, having reviewed the position carefully, he has come to the conclusion honestly that this Party was wise in demanding that relief last February. It may be, on the other hand, that political expendiency has influenced him. He may think perhaps that this Party is growing in strength, and, realising the result of the by-election in Mayo, he may have come to the conclusion that the farming community are revolting against the excessive burdens of direct taxation imposed upon them; but I am not going to throw my hat in the air and cheer the Minister for this relief he has given. I think I should rather sympathise with him. It is a humiliating thing for any man to have to eat his own words and then endeavour to digest them, and I am afraid the Minister must be suffering from mental indigestion at present when he remembers how strongly and vigorously he opposed our proposal for the relief of rates on agricultural land only last February.

I realise that so long as the present Government is in power, we must look their gifts very carefully in the face. We must accept any concession made to agriculture with very grave suspicion. We know that, back in 1933, we had the halving of the annuities, and we know that that halving of the annuities was more than off-set by the very substantial increase in rates which occurred over the succeeding years. We feel certain that this relief of £1,000,000 for rates on agricultural land may be off-set during the coming year by a very substantial increase in the burdens which will be thrown on the ratepayers during the coming year. We know that legislation is going through at present which will have the effect of very considerably increasing the burden of rates, and I am not sure if, in the two Bills going through, there are not the potentialities of an increase of almost the amount being provided in the Budget in the way of relief. I believe there will be a further demand of £1,000,000 from the ratepayers during the coming year, so that this gift must be taken with a certain amount of reserve.

This whole question of the relationship between the central Exchequer and county council finances must be reviewed, because the tendency at present is to shift over additional burdens from the central Exchequer to the local authorities, and nobody has apparently endeavoured to decide what are local services and what are national services. Sooner or later, there must be some guiding principle in this respect. I think the time has come when, instead of throwing little sops of this kind to the ratepayers from time to time when agitation becomes strong, there ought to be some system by which a statutory limit would be fixed to the burden of rates which may be levied on property. Otherwise, we shall have this continual increase in the burden, because it is naturally easier for the central Government to pass burdens over to the local rates than to bear them itself, and this may become even more apparent if the in-flow of revenue into the national Exchequer becomes less than it is at present.

The Minister, while making these concessions to agriculture, went a long distance out of his way to refer to the prosperity of the agricultural industry, to the amount of wealth and profit which had accrued to the industry during the period of the emergency. It is time that Ministers gave up talking in general terms about this matter, and it is time they got down to facts and figures. Again and again in this House, demands have been made upon the Government to set up some sort of machinery for finding out accurately what are the costs of production in agriculture and thus satisfy themselves and the general community as to whether farmers are making a profit or not; but the Government have always side-stepped and evaded that demand. They know that, if they were to set up such machinery, they would find it proved beyond all question that the average profits in the agricultural industry are much lower than they claim them to be and that is why they refuse to meet this fair and reasonable demand.

It ought to be realised and clearly recognised that you cannot do justice to agriculture either in the matter of relief from the burdens of costs or overhead charges, such as rates, unless you have clearly ascertained what is the margin of profit in agriculture. There is no use in giving a concession like this and saying, at the same time, that the farmers do not deserve it, that they are prosperous and were never more prosperous. Let us get the figures. An energetic Cork professor, and Cork people are very energetic, went into the figures of costings during what is considered the last normal year and he found that the profits in agriculture were exceptionally low.

If a private individual could ascertain costings at that time, what is to prevent the State, with all the machinery at its disposal, from ascertaining the costings at present? Until you ascertain the costings accurately, you cannot definitely lay down what is a fair price for agricultural produce, or what is a fair burden of direct taxation to place on the industry. As I say, the Government have persistently evaded that demand and refused to recognise it. It is possible that, just as they have been converted to the idea of relief of rates on agricultural land, they may eventually be converted to the idea of accurately ascertaining costings in agriculture.

The Minister referred to the question of emigration. In my opinion, he gave a figure which completely underestimated the extent of this problem and the number of people who are being driven from this country to find employment in Great Britain. This matter was referred to in the British House of Commons a short time ago and the figure of 250,000 Irishmen working in Great Britain was mentioned. The Minister says that there are only 78,000 of our people so employed. I think the Minister has deliberately underestimated the number. But, whatever it is, it represents a very serious problem.

Mr. Aiken

These are not my figures; they are the figures of the Statistical Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Cogan

I hope the Minister is facing up to the gravity of this problem fully. It is very nice of the Minister, after being 14 years in office, to start out like a young crusader and say that he is going to develop industry, to reclaim land, and do this, that and the other thing. That may be good electioneering stuff. In many ways, this Budget speech was more of an election speech than a Budget statement. Possibly it may have been intended as an election speech. We do not know that. That is a secret which reposes in the brain of the Taoiseach. But I think the Minister will not deceive anybody by asserting that he is a young crusader going to open up a new prospect, to increase employment, to reduce emigration, and all these fine things. He has 14 years of office behind him. He has had 14 years in which to do all these things and he has failed. I think he is not going to impose on the public by suggesting that he can do all these things now.

Mr. Cafferky

Prosperity round the corner.

Mr. Cogan

I think the community are old enough to size up the value of such promises in the light of their experience over the past 14 years. There are not many Governments in Europe or in the world to-day that have been in office as long as the present Government here. There are not many Governments in the world at present that have such a disastrous record of failure behind them as the present Government here; failure to improve the agricultural industry, failure to provide for the development of our resources, failure to improve the area of arable land by drainage and reclamation, failure to provide for a decent national scheme of afforestation. All these failures stare the Government in the face. They ask the people to forget their record, to forget about their failures and to look upon them as a young Government starting out now after the emergency with a future before them and going to redeem the economic condition of our State. That will not deceive anybody. I think that no Government has been given a greater opportunity to deliver the goods than the present Government and that they have failed ignominiously.

If we want to have increased prosperity here, we must ensure that production is increased. What have the Government done to increase agricultural or industrial production? Very little. There have been some developments in certain lines, but they have been offset by deterioration in other lines. Some branches of the agricultural industry have improved and expanded, but other branches of the industry have declined to a disastrous extent.

The sum total of this whole matter is that this small country, with its small population and its extensive undeveloped resources, is unable to support its own population here. Now we have had it stated in the British House of Commons recently that Irish workers over there should be sent back to this country or, alternatively, sent down the mines. That position, if it materialises, is from the national point of view, a most humiliating one; and any Irish Government, worthy of those who suffered and died to make this country free, should be able to stand up and say to those Irish citizens in Britain: "We can provide you here in Ireland with a decent standard of living and there is no necessity for you to be presented with the alternative of going down to the most degrading and hardest of all manual labour." We should be able to call those citizens home and provide them with ample opportunity of earning a decent independent living here in this State. But the Government through sheer laziness, through sheer want of initiative, and through a desire for nothing else, except to hang on to office at any cost, without any regard for what is best for the country as a whole—the Government, I say, has failed to solve the economic problems which face our people and, having failed, we are in the humiliating position of having a substantial number of our people—the cream of our manhood and womanhood —dependent for a living on the opportunities offered to them in adjoining States.

I think that, just as the Minister has learned a little from this Party in regard to relief of rates on agricultural land, he ought to be able to learn a little more and to learn that the problem of providing work for our people here in Ireland is the first and most fundamental duty of the Government. It ought to be possible—and I maintain that it is possible—to provide employment for all our adult population without having to resort to either a socialistic or a nationalistic State. I think, if private enterprise is given a favourable opportunity, and if those who are honestly endeavouring to produce the very maximum, whether in field or in factory, are given reasonable opportunity and reasonable encouragement, we can have the increased production which is so desirable. In addition to that it is the duty of the Government to embark on such schemes as it may be impossible for private enterprise to undertake, such as the reclamation of land, arterial drainage, afforestation and housing. Those are things which private enterprise, alone and unaided, cannot undertake. But, in the management of agricultural industry and in the management of our manufacturing industry, the private individual, given reasonable encouragement and fair play, can deliver the goods and deliver them much more effectively than the Government. It is, therefore, time that a serious effort was made to reduce the total burden of taxation on the community. The Minister is inclined, and has from time to time, criticised this Party for demanding that there should be a closer supervision exercised over national expenditure. I think, just as he accepted the principle of our motion for the relief of rates on land, he may eventually accept the principle of the motion put down by this Party—which he rejected—demanding that there should be a closer inquiry and a closer supervision over all branches of national expenditure. I think that, since he has found it possible to eat and digest his own words in regard to derating, he may be able to eat and, possibly, digest his own words in regard to the setting up of an economy commission to ensure that no public money will be wasted.

The relief in rates given to farmers under £20 valuation and the relief in rates given per man employed for 12 months has been in operation here. If the Deputy knew anything at all about it he would know it did not need any motion on the Order Paper by any Deputy to get that done. As far as the complaint that has been made as to the enormity of the Budget is concerned, I have here a couple of sheets containing Private Members' motions. I go back 12 months. If Private Members' motions put down by Opposition Parties in this House for the past 12 months were put into operation by the Government our bill would not be £52,000,000, it would be £152,000,000. Were Deputies honest in their proposals or were they humbugging? Did they consider whether the people could afford to pay, or did they not? Where is the use of complaining of increased taxation and at the same time advocating schemes that would increase the bill? The majority of the proposals brought in by this Government were received here with acclamation. Every social service brought in by the Government which added millions to this bill was received here with acclamation and if we were to carry out the other proposals of Deputies, made in Private Members' motions, it would mean £100,000,000 more.

Deputy Cogan complains about the increase in local taxation and blames the Government for that increase. There were some special provisions brought in here from time to time to help out the agricultural community. One of them was the rural improvements scheme, by which any two farmers living along a boreen, by paying 25 per cent. of the cost of getting that boreen repaired could get it done by the State, the State contributing 75 per cent.

Mr. Cafferky

Another form of taxation.

Mr. Corry

And the Farmers' Party were so wise that they put down a motion under the names of two of their members, Deputies Beirne and Donnellan, that Section 25 of the Local Government Act of 1925 be amended to enable the local authorities to take over that boreen and keep it in repair, at the expense of the rates. They were not satisfied to take a Government grant of 75 per cent.; they wanted it thrown on the ratepayers. We have a complaint from a Deputy of one Party about the anxiety of the Government to increase the rates, to throw more burdens on the local authorities, and on the other hand you find two Deputies of the same Party putting down for solemn discussion in the Dáil, a motion of that description, and the Party is not so big that they would not know what their members were doing. As I have said, that is one of the very definite reasons why this Party will be here for a long time because there is nothing to take their place.

Mr. Cafferky

Maybe we will take your place, as we took your place in East Mayo.

Mr. Corry

No. The less the Deputy says about Mayo to-day, the better. I do not want to get into any more tangles with him. We will have another day for that. I shall now come to the Budget and examine it as it stands. When I first learned that the present Minister was being made Minister for Finance, I said to some of my farmer friends: "Thank God, there is somebody there who knows something about agriculture now." I think the Minister's proposals here for the relief of rates are good and sound, and at least show that he is definitely inclined to help out the agricultural community. The 10/- a ton relief on turf is also a great help. I have here a little budget made out by one farm labourer showing that he pays 6/6 a week for turf. That is a rather heavy bill. I suggest, and I am with Deputy Cogan in this, that now that turf seems to have come to stay, very definite steps should be taken to cut through the overhead charges. Some of these things were brought to my notice and I dealt with them in the Dáil some years ago, in 1942 or 1943.

As a representative of the farmer, I take it that he, like myself, has a lot in common with the man who works beside him. I had to point out to this House, when dealing with Deputy Norton's Bill, that under that Bill——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry, but if interruptions are allowed I will have to reply to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should be led away by Deputy Cafferky. Keep to the Budget now.

Mr. Corry

I can make it brief enough for the Deputy. I indicated that under Deputy Norton's Bill these men would get 12 working days in the 12 months. At present they are getting 16 days.

It is my duty to give the facts as I see and know them. I stated here that the Minister had done pretty well with the money placed at his disposal for distribution. I will deal with the position as I see it of the 495,000 workers on the land whose income is, roughly, about £2 per week. I do not care whether they are farmers, farmers' sons or farm labourers, but when I hear people talking about fixed salaries and rises in salaries for teachers, I have to think first of the people who spent the last six years working, not the number of hours a week that the teacher works, but something like 70 or 80 hours a week, endeavouring to provide food for the nation. It is a rather sad commentary that that is the farmers' present position.

We got two guarantees here. We got a guarantee that we would have fixed prices for agricultural products and, in addition to that, we got a guarantee from the Minister for Agriculture last year that a costings tribunal for fixing prices would be set up. The Minister desires us to pass on to labour the relief that he is giving in this Budget of £6 10s. 0d. per agricultural worker. We certainly will. The big reason for the flight from the land, the big reason for emigration, the big reason why you have a high unemployment figure on the one side and nobody to work the land on the other is an evil that will have to be wiped out and that will have to be dealt with immediately.

I can see no reason for any differentiation as between one industry and another. We are all Irish industrialists, whether we are working in the factory or on the land, and we demand on behalf of the agricultural community equal treatment with other industrialists—in other words, cost of production, plus profits, the same as every industrialist gets. If the present condition of affairs is allowed to continue much longer, there will not be food enough for our people. You have the man who can stop work at 12 o'clock on Saturday and go back on Monday morning. He will not work until 6 o'clock on Saturday evening and give four or five hours milking cattle and feeding them on Sunday, yet his wage is one and a half times as high as the wage of the man who has to work on Sunday.

That is why I suggested here a few weeks ago that a wage should be fixed for the agricultural labourer equal to the wage of his brother worker in the towns. I suggest a costings tribunal should be set up to fix the price of agricultural produce on this basis. We hear any amount of fine talk from professors and others about going back to the land and we hear a lot of talk about the flight from the land. Does any sane man think that anybody with common sense will settle down to the drudgery—I can call it nothing else—of ordinary farming life with the knowledge that if he gets married and has five or six children he will have to rear that family on £36 a year less than the rise that was offered to the national school teachers and that they refused to take?

It is my duty as representing a rural constituency on behalf of the agricultural community, both farmers and labourers, to put up that case and to ask that the guarantee given in this House by a previous Minister for Finance and the guarantee given by the Minister for Agriculture on the Agricultural Estimate last year be now put into full operation.

Why should we have on the one hand an industrialist able to go before a prices tribunal with his case and get the costs of production plus a profit? Why should another industrialist who produces food for this nation be refused that right? He has to accept figures which are prepared in many cases by men who never saw the outside of an office in their lifetime and know nothing whatever about agricultural conditions. I went to the show to-day; what did I see? I saw farmers tumbling over one another looking at labour-saving machinery to take the place of men on the land. I could mechanise my farm for £5,000. I wonder when I had done so and put up a case would I get 6 per cent. profit on my capital expenditure which industrialists are allowed. This rushing away from the land is a problem that will have to be tackled. There is only one way to deal with it and that is by making conditions on the land as good for the agricultural community as conditions in industry. Is there any reason why farmers should not be entitled to the cost of production plus a profit? Is there any reason why the ordinary agricultural community, taking them all in all, are not entitled to the same fair play and conditions as industrialists? I maintain that the ordinary farm worker is at least as skilled as any fitter or engineer in a factory. If he is to comply with modern farm work he has to be an engineer, he has to know all about soil and he has to be a vet. I am not going to mention all the other things he has to be. But we are faced with a condition of affairs that, on the one hand, we have lines of people signing on at the labour exchange looking for work and, on the other hand, a dearth of workers on the land. There must be a reason for that state of affairs. I am giving what I consider to be the reason and this is the time to remedy it. This is the time when we had very good hope from the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture. It is time that the agricultural community knew their position, and that we had an end to the conditions to which I referred. It is a condition of affairs with which we could not carry on or leave this country in a sound position. I should like to know from the Minister when he is concluding if the agricultural community will be put on the same basis as industrialists. Are they going to get the cost of production? They are not going to take costings or figures prepared by people who know nothing whatever about their industry.

Glad as I am to see a reduction of one penny per pound in the price of sugar I cannot help thinking that it is nearly four years since the price of beet was fixed. Since then there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent. in the cost of farm machinery and in the wearing parts of that machinery. There has been in addition a pretty steep increase in the cost of artificial manure, and an increase by law of between 7/- and 9/- per week in agricultural wages. The price that farmers get for beet despite these facts remains the same as it was four years ago, 80/- per ton. I challenge any Deputy to produce any industrialist who went before any tribunal with these figures to say that there would not be an increase in the price. I am looking for justice for the agricultural community. I am looking to the Government for the same conditions for our biggest industries, as have been given to the smaller ones. I am proud to know that my appeal will not fall upon deaf ears, that in our present Minister for Finance we have a farmer who has knowledge of the matters that I have referred to.

Mr. Roddy

I wish to refer to certain concessions which the Minister has made to mining enterprise for the purpose of encouraging the extension of mines and the undertaking of scientific research in industry. It is true that the Minister asks Deputies to await a fuller statement on the Finance Bill but I am long enough a member of the House to know very well that when a Bill takes shape it is very hard to have it amended subsequently, especially a Finance Bill. I know that, unless a case is made for adequate concessions beforehand, it is very unlikely that they will be given once the Finance Bill has taken shape. I am allowing first for the smallness of the amount that is being provided and I would be glad if the Minister would explain what he means by this statement:—

"I may say now, however, in regard to mining that sums will rank for relief which are expended on the construction of works which are likely to be worth little or nothing when the mines have ceased to operate ..."

Concessions have been made in other countries to mining enterprises—in fact, concessions have been made over a long period of years to mining companies in the U.S.A. and concessions were also made last year in a Bill introduced in the British Parliament to British mining enterprise—and I am very anxious to know if the Minister is prepared in the Finance Bill to extend identical concessions to mining enterprises in this country.

I am interested in one mining enterprise in my own constituency—Ben Bulbin Barytes. It is a new enterprise which holds promise of a great future and it has succeeded in developing a big export trade. Of course, the conditions during the emergency favoured that export trade, and, now that peace has been restored, conditions have altered and it is quite possible that this company will find itself confronted with serious competition in the years to come. I assume, of course, that for perhaps a certain number of years—for five, six or even ten years there will be a market for the products of this company, but, at the end of that period, and progressively during all these years, competition will certainly and very definitely increase. I want as far as possible to respect the Minister's wish not to press him too hard until the Finance Bill is introduced, but I am most anxious to know now whether "construction works" covers exploration and development, because the company in which I am interested spent a great deal of money—in fact it lost a great deal of money—on exploration and development. Barytes apparently is a difficult mineral to mine. The seams of barytes are rather elusive, and, in order to establish contact with them, it was necessary to expend more money than it would be necessary to expend in the case of any other type of mineral, and, for that reason, the initial expenditure of this company was exceptionally heavy.

On a previous occasion—in fact, on two previous occasions—I pressed the case which this company had made on the Minister for Finance for special consideration, but the Minister's predecessor was adamant and refused to make any concession whatever. I am glad the present Minister has taken a different view and has agreed to make some concession, at all events, however small. The amount provided here for mining enterprise and scientific research is certainly very small. Considering the number of mining enterprises in the country and considering also the importance of scientific research in the present circumstances of the country, £10,000 seems a very small amount, and I assume from the amount provided that the concession to be made to mining enterprises will be very slight indeed.

In addition to the concessions the company are looking for in respect of exploration and development, they are looking for concessions in respect of the principal asset, the mine itself, which, undoubtedly, is a wasting asset. Mines in every country in the world are regarded as wasting assets and it is recognisel by the Governments of these countries in their taxation codes that these enterprises are entitled to special consideration, because of the nature and character of these enterprises. This company is looking for nothing more than similar treatment to that meted out to mining enterprises in all other countries in the world, and, in view of the fact that we have so few mining enterprises in this country and the fact that it is the desire of the Government to develop these mines to their utmost capacity, I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to make the utmost possible concessions to these enterprises for the purpose of encouraging the fullest possible development.

The pay roll of the enterprise in which I am interested amounts to £20,000 per year and they expect in a very short time to have an output of 20,000 tons per year. Of that, there is a market for only about 2,000 tons in this country, the rest being exported, and the Minister will realise perfectly well the importance and value of the money realised for the minerals sold on the export markets. I ask the Minister, therefore, if he would be good enough to give me some further explanation of the meaning of the words he used in his statement. What exactly do the words "construction works" cover? Do they include exploration and development, and is he prepared to make any concession at all to the mine itself, in the form of making provision and making allowance for wasting assets?

Deputy Corry made one very important point in connection with the difficulty of inducing people to remain on the land. It is the desire of the Minister, as it was the desire of his predecessor and as it is the desire of every member of the Government, to increase production, because he knows that, in the absence of increased production, it is impossible to continue the present scale of taxation, and that it is imperative, for the sake of the future of this country, that production not only in agriculture but in industry should be increased, and increased very substantially, that in fact there should be a progressive rate of increase in production in both industry and agriculture. But I agree with Deputy Corry, although I do not agree with very much else he said, about the difficulty of keeping people on the land at present. It is certainly a problem which the Government will have to face up to.

It is recognised by everybody who is really interested in the welfare and progress of this country that there is a desire, among our young people especially, to get away from the land. There is, admittedly, a flight from the land, especially on the part of the young people, and that tendency is becoming more and more apparent with the progress of the years. It is due to a variety of causes. Perhaps during the emergency it was due to the talk which was so general about the high wages prevailing in Great Britain. It is admitted also that it is due to high taxation and high rates prevalent in this country at the moment. It is due, perhaps, to the hard work on the land and, perhaps, to some extent, to the loneliness of country life. But whatever the real factors are, there is, admittedly, a problem there which must be tackled by the Government and which must be investigated.

I agree with Deputy Corry also that a solution of this problem must be found if we are to preserve intact the fabric of our agricultural life. We realise perfectly well that, for the sake of the country itself, for the sake of our nationality, the rural population must be preserved, because, if we lose our rural population, we lose something which is absolutely irreplaceable in the life of the country, so that I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that he should set about an investigation of this problem before the disease spreads any further. The seeds of the disease are there, and now is the time to prevent its spreading and becoming dangerously contagious.

I said a moment ago that one of the probable factors operating in this direction is the very high scale of taxation which prevails. Looking through the book issued by Government officials on national income and expenditure—and I certainly agree that the praise which the Minister has bestowed on them in his Budget statement is highly and richly deserved, because it is an admirable production which contains a lot of very useful information—I find that, between 1938 and 1945, expenditure increased by £21,000,000. In other words, in the seven years, there was a progressive increase at the rate of £3,000,000 a year in our scale of expenditure. During that period nobody can say the Government did not spend money liberally and generously—too liberally, in my opinion, and in the opinion of every member on these benches, for the future of the country, because, during those years, real income did not keep pace at all with outlay.

In 1938 the country spent £51,700,000 on central and local government, and in 1945 that expenditure had leaped to £72,600,000, an increase of £21,100,000 in the space of seven years. The amount raised in local rates increased from £6,800,000 in 1938 to £8,200,000 in 1945, an increase approximately in rates alone of £1,400,000.

In the present Budget the Minister proposes to provide £1,000,000 for the relief of agricultural rates. But that relief is offset by certain charges which ratepayers will have to meet under the new Public Health Bill. My recollection is that it is estimated that the cost of that Bill will be about £1,000,000, without taking into consideration the money which the Minister will have to provide for the relief of tuberculosis cases. So that, as a matter of fact, that grant of £1,000,000 will be offset by the cost of the Public Health Bill when it comes into operation, which I presume will be before the Summer Recess.

I think it was Deputy Cogan referred to the fact that one of the features of the Fianna Fáil Administration has been that each year, or several times a year, they add a burden which should be borne by the Exchequer on to the local rates. The result, of course, was that even before the time of the county managers it was absolutely impossible for local councils to exercise any real control over the rates because of the tendency of the Minister for Local Government to add on burdens which should be properly borne by the Exchequer on to the local rates. I do not see how that tendency can be arrested. So long as the present procedure continues, it appears to me almost inevitable that there will be an increase year by year in the rates, unless some hard and fast rule is made about what constitutes a charge on the local rates and what constitutes a charge on the Exchequer. Even county managers at present are beginning to cry out about some of the charges placed on the local rates, which they maintain are not charges which should be properly borne by local authorities.

I assume it would be the duty of the Minister for Finance to draw such a dividing line or at least to segregate these charges, and it is time the Minister for Finance did decide what moneys should be properly charged on the local rates and what moneys should be properly charged on the Exchequer. It is unfair that this practice of transferring burdens which should belong to the Exchequer on to the local rates should continue. I submit that if the practice does continue there will be an outcry in the different counties against the payment of rates altogether. An increase during a period of seven years of £1,400,000 in rate charges is abnormal, even allowing for the emergency conditions. If you analyse that increase, you will find that more than 2 per cent. of that is represented by charges which should not properly be borne by the rates at all. I therefore suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that he should look into that aspect of local rating and that he should establish some kind of list showing the charges which should be properly borne on the rates and the charges which should be properly borne on the Exchequer.

I said that the civil servants who prepared this booklet on national income and expenditure deserved great praise for their industry and for the information they have supplied to us. It is a pity, however, that the figures which they have given represent, to some extent, the inflation which took place during the war. The figures cannot be regarded as really representing bed-rock figures in respect of the different charges with which they deal. Prices have soared to an enormous extent, while production has fallen in almost every single department. When we read that the national income expanded from £154,000,000 in 1938 to £252,000,000 in 1944, we know that that increase does not represent real wealth, but reflects the increased prices which were being paid for scarce commodities. I think the Minister referred to that symptom in the course of his Budget statement, his description being, I think, that too much money is chasing too few goods. As I said, the figures bear a certain unreality. It is rather unfortunate that that is so. That is the only criticism I have to level against the figures in that book, because they do not represent the real position at all.

Just one last word about increased production. If the Minister desires that increase of production which is absolutely necessary for the prosperity and welfare of the country, then I submit that one of the first things he must do is to bring down taxation to a much lower level than it has reached at present. After all, it is quite conceivable that there will be a slump in prices after the war, as there has been a slump after every war which has taken place since the Napoleonic wars. If such a slump, let us say, took place this year, with our present low rate of production, we would find ourselves in a very dangerous position. It is anticipated by leading economists in America that such a slump in prices will take place perhaps in four or five years. Following the law of economics, I suppose it is almost inevitable that such a slump will take place. In fact, such a slump must take place if conditions and prices are to get back to bed-rock again. At all events, in preparation for such a slump, it seems to me plain common sense that the Minister for Finance should anticipate such a happening by scaling down taxation to a level which people will be able to bear when the slump does reach us. I sincerely hope that such a slump does not take place. But, as I said, such slumps and depressions have taken place following every war since the days of the Napoleonic wars. I do not know that the law of economics has changed since then to prevent such a slump following the recent war. However, as I say, it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to anticipate such a development and to make adequate provision now, so that, when such a day does arrive, the country will be in such a position that it will be able to meet and survive it.

The present scale of taxation is admitted on all sides to be too high. It is creating unrest, uneasiness and, to a certain extent, unhappiness in the country. It is creating unrest on the land and in industry and, until that scale of taxation is reduced to a level commensurate with the ability of the people to bear it, there will be neither real progress, real prosperity, nor real happiness in this country.

Mr. Maguire

The Budget introduced by the Minister yesterday afternoon contains some positive gestures. There is a substantial increase in the grants towards agricultural rates, farm improvements, a reduction in the price of petrol, and a reduction in income-tax. They are, surely, welcome gestures coming from the Government at this stage. The country generally anticipated some form of relief in taxation. To some extent, undoubtedly, the Minister has met them. I cannot, however, agree that the reduction in income-tax is the best indication that the Government could give of any effort or desire on its part to relieve the generally necessitous conditions of the great masses of our people. After all, the people who pay income-tax are comparatively few in numbers. Even in the form of the relief suggested— 1/- in the £ up to an income of £1,500 —I personally cannot see any justification for such a very general level as that. I think, in justice, there should be some scaling arrangement whereby the man in receipt of £600 would pay something less than the man in receipt of £1,500, and so up along the line. It is, of course, a matter for the Department to consider. I am sure it has occurred to them already. Probably they see some objection to it. But to the average man it is not an equitable form of taxation and it is not a form of taxation which is particularly favourable to the lower-paid salary man. I wonder how many men in this country are in receipt of £1,500, or over, a year. I do not think the percentage could be very high. I do not see why particularly favourable conditions should be provided for those up to, or over, the £1,000 mark rather than for those up to, or below, the £500 mark.

As regards the agricultural grant, there is no doubt about it that it is a very welcome gesture. There is no doubt about it but that the farmer will be fully appreciative of it. I do not think, however, that anybody could argue that, taking into consideration the increased cost of living and the increased cost of labour, and other items which go to form the make-up of the agricultural economy, that the grant of £1,000,000 would to-day compensate the farmers for the increased costs which they have had to bear in relation to the increased cost of living, etc. It is true that it may be argued that the farmers have got increased prices for their produce and are making more money in their agricultural business. I accept that; but I definitely assert that, while that is generally true, it is not true in regard to every section of the farming community; it is certainly not true in relation to the uneconomic holders in the congested areas in this country. Unless the Government is prepared to go somewhat further in relation to that section of the community, even to the extent of subsidising them where they insist upon compulsory tillage, in order to enable the farmers to pay a reasonable wage to their workers, I cannot see that there is any justice being done either to the agriculturists themselves or to the agricultural workers whom the farmers have to employ. Some form of assistance should apply where the farmer himself and the land which he is in occupation of are not capable of yielding sufficient profits to enable him to compensate himself reasonably for his work or pay proper wages to his workmen. That does not apply in the better areas of the country and to the farmers who are in the happy position of occupying better land and are more advantageously placed geographically in regard to the marketing of their produce. I see no provision made in the Budget for that.

I do not see any provision being made in the Budget to deal with a very necessitous class in this country. That class is referred to by the various members of the Government and by Deputies on the Opposition Benches more frequently than any other section of the population. I refer to the old age pensioners. I think that, if there is any element of injustice still outstanding on the part of the Government, it is their complete failure to deal with that very deserving class, in regard to whom every Deputy in this House, speaking his mind—as anyone would—whether at Party meetings or publicly in this chamber, has expressed the opinion that a fair deal has not been given to that section of our people. They are forced to live upon 10/- a week and they even find it harder to get that 10/- a week in the last few years than they did previously. They are forced to live on the same allowance as they had pre-1939. Could anybody, with any justice, claim that 10/- to-day is fair as compared with 10/- five years ago in regard to the purchase of food and the necessaries of life?

Now it has been established and recognised by the Government that those employed in certain services of the State should have a cost-of-living bonus added to their ordinary salaries. Why deprive the poor and the aged, who are least able to indicate or voice their grievances, except through others, of any increase? Why leave them neglected? Why leave our pensioners, retired teachers, retired civic guards, retired army men on a standard of allowance which, if fair and reasonable six years ago, is no longer fair or reasonable to-day? What justification can there be for that when the Government itself recognises that a cost-of-living bonus is applicable, and, not only applicable, but paid to certain sections of our services? To my mind this Budget cannot be described as a democratic Budget in that respect. There is admittedly a reduction in income-tax but, as I said before, the people who pay income-tax are generally regarded as a section of the community which is fairly well-to-do. That is a gesture towards them. There have been gestures in other directions in relation to agricultural grants and a reduction in the price of petrol, which many of us welcome and will enjoy.

But the vast bulk of our people do not pay income-tax. There is no provision for the poor and the aged to the extent which their needs demand. Why leave them out of consideration altogether? There is no equity or justice there in comparison with those to whom a cost-of-living bonus has been made available. I have a definite grievance in this matter. I assert that in so far as the Budget has failed to make any provision for those or any gesture towards them it cannot be said to be a truly democratic Budget or a poor man's Budget.

I can see that the Minister's and the Government's intentions are good in regard to housing. Anything which helps the provision of houses at a cheaper rent is a good national work. I compliment the Minister on his scheme by which he is providing cheaper money and making it available for that purpose. I wonder would it be possible to accord the same facilities to the private builders, apart from the local loans and county councils and such other public bodies for whom that loan is earmarked. Would the Minister do something to provide cheap money so that houses could be built by private persons for their own use and by private builders in the ordinary way all over the country? He probably has that in mind and has made some provision therefor. I suggest, however, that in the new progressive development in house building regard should be had not merely to the present demand for houses in the cities and towns but also to the possibility of future employment for those who may occupy the houses. There has been in recent years a definite trend from the rural areas, mainly to the cities but proportionately to the small towns.

To build houses for an artificial population, created in that way, is definitely a waste of public money. If it were possible, the Government should say to a number of the people who are trekking to the cities in these days: "There is no prospect of employment for you here, but there is an immense amount of work to be done down the country; there are bogs to be drained, swamps to be cleared and valuable work of reclamation to be done". It is difficult for a Government elected by our form of elections to adopt such an attitude. If we could alternate democratic government by dictatorship every five or ten years, we would probably do a great deal to reform conditions and to regulate order to the best advantage of the State. But, since we do not adopt such dictatorial powers, and since it is not expedient or wise that a Government should adopt them, even if they could, then, in providing amenities in the form of housing, strict analysis should be made as to the possibility of employment for the number of people for whom houses are built in towns or cities. Otherwise, we are spending money that ultimately will represent a national loss and instead of providing the need we all know exists for better housing conditions for the people we will be creating something that will be adverse in its effects.

The building of new houses should not be undertaken merely as a crusade. Wherever a house is built it should be done scientifically. Above all, preference should be given to the building of houses in rural areas. Higher grants and greater encouragement should be given in rural areas. That has been done to a large extent by the proposed improvement in amenities under the rural electrification scheme and sewerage schemes and things of that sort. In the housing scheme now to be undertaken on a national scale specific and particular advantages and encouragement should be given by way of State grants towards the building of houses in rural areas and towards encouraging the people to live there.

The Minister in his speech last night stated that he was adverse to the policy of borrowing money on a large scale as it had a tendency to increase the demand for goods which at present were limited. There is no doubt that he is right. The Minister, of course, is aware of the fact that if he puts his hand into his pocket from time to time and takes out the money he has there, he will usually find that not less than one-third of the coins are foreign coins. Foreign coinage is in circulation here in a very definite way. It is money that has been carried into this country in the pockets of persons and passed over the counter, demanding goods and services. One-third of the coinage in circulation here is foreign money. It is money for which return has already been given in the form of goods or service. Is not that a form, and a dangerous form, of inflation? Is there any provision being made to deal with that? Should there not be some means by which that money should be controlled and not allowed to be circulated here in addition to our own currency, making demand on the limited supply of purchasable goods? I assert, definitely, that that money is largely the medium by which black-marketing is encouraged here. Steps should be taken by the Minister for Finance to ensure that some control is exercised upon that reckless circulation of money, which represents an increased demand on a limited supply of goods. These goods are supplied, not to the people of this country, but to people from outside and when these coins are handed back to the country of origin, we having rendered service and given goods for them here, we are told: "We can give you no goods in return; you can hold our coins and some day we will probably pay."

I suggest that the circulation of that vast volume of foreign money here is an indication of serious want in this country. We are told that the quantity of goods our people are buying is based upon our purchases of 1939-40. Quite a number of our people cannot buy their quota of goods. Otherwise, the supply of goods would not be sufficient to meet to the large extent it is meeting the demands of people outside this country. These goods are being paid for in foreign currency, for which there is no return in the form of supplying us with goods when we demand and want them.

Generally speaking, there should be a closer examination of our economic affairs. I assert that a great number of the people of this country are living under conditions that are not just or fair. I refer to the attitude adopted towards our old age pensioners, our pensioned teachers and pensioners of various kinds, who are compelled to live upon an allowance that the Government admit is no longer just because they have allowed an increase in the cost-of-living bonus to active servants of the State. Why should they compel those who are no longer active, who are no longer able to defend themselves or to fight for their rights, to live on a pittance that is no longer admitted to be right or equitable? Look at the money paid to our agricultural workers, to our road workers and to our bog workers. I ask any man to examine the cost of living and then ask himself can anyone provide for himself and his family on 37/- or 38/- a week. Unless the situation is faced up to, one of the most dangerous positions that was ever created will be created in this country. The soil is being tilled to perfection for the sowing of the seeds of revolution and communism and it is the Government's duty to ensure that the lower paid standards of workers will get sufficient to enable them to live in moderate decency. They are not receiving that at the moment. This Budget does not make adequate provision in that respect and, accordingly, I cannot regard it as a good Budget.

Mr. Moran

I welcome this Budget. It will be welcomed particularly by the rural community in constituencies such as the one I represent. I welcome especially the provisions for the relief of rates on small farms. There has been, over many years, a lot of loose talk in connection with the derating of land. Some of the Opposition Parties wanted total derating. I am very glad to see that in this Budget we have relief to the extent of three-fifths of the rates on agricultural land under £20 valuation. That will be of considerable benefit to the small farmers in the area I represent. The reduction of 1d. in the lb. of sugar and the grant of £5 to families in the Gaeltacht, for the purpose of promoting the Irish language, will be welcomed very much in my constituency. It is a step in the right direction and I think it will be much appreciated throughout the State.

It is rather amusing to listen to the attacks which have been made on this Budget by some members of the Opposition. Deputy McGilligan talked about acrobatics. The greatest acrobatic performance I have seen in this House, since the speeches on this Budget began, were the attempts of the gentlemen on the Opposition Benches to create arguments against the Budget. They have done everything they could do to find fault with the Budget. No matter what these gentlemen say, it is a Budget that will be nationally popular. They have endeavoured to create artificial grievances and they pushed forward certain arguments here on the ground that the Minister has disregarded a number of things. We have heard some criticisms about matters that have not been included.

It is interesting to see Deputy McGilligan shedding tears about our external assets. It is difficult to reconcile his attitude about our external assets in Britain with the policy his Party has enunciated over a number of years. What has become of the wonderful British Empire during the last 12 months? That is the country that has been held up to us by the main Opposition as the one with which we should act in close collaboration. It is the country in respect of which the Opposition has demanded, through its Leader, that we should go so far as to have an offensive and defensive alliance. Is this British Empire a goodly apple, rotten at the core? Is it just now that Deputy McGilligan has discovered that our external assets in the British Empire constitute a grave national danger? Does Deputy Mulcahy agree with Deputy McGilligan in this matter, or has Deputy McGilligan suddenly discovered that Deputy Mulcahy was wrong in advocating, for a number of years, and more especially in recent times, much closer collaboration with Britain?

According to Deputy McGilligan, any external assets we hold there are a national menace, a national danger. When Deputy McGilligan talks about acrobatics, I think that, on behalf of his Party, he has performed some very peculiar political acrobatics when dealing with the question of our external assets. It is true that these assets arose, as one might say, through no fault of our own. It is true that over the emergency there were many articles, various types of goods, which we could not get from them, and, therefore, these external balances accumulated. It is equally true to say that there were many of us who would prefer to see these assets accumulating in that way, because we have a greater hope, a better chance, of getting a return for those assets when normal trade starts to flow throughout the world.

I welcome particularly the provision of £5,000,000 to be applied, among other things, to farm improvements. The farm improvements scheme has proved very popular through the country and there is a genuine demand in rural areas for more money to be spent under that heading.

I might suggest to the Minister that he should consider another expenditure for the benefit of the rural community. I refer to fertilisers, which have been extremely scarce during the emergency. There is a demand for more and cheaper fertilisers. I suggest that if there is more of this money available, the Minister should encourage farmers to put greater quantities of fertilisers on the land in order to increase productivity. I suggest more money should be made available to encourage the farmers, not alone to put out normal amounts of fertilisers, but to induce them to double and even treble the quantity of artificials that they put on the land. That would be a good capital expenditure for the farmers. From the point of view of the State, it would be a good investment and I believe it would bring results. There is one matter upon which most agricultural experts will agree and that is that the secret of successful farming is, above all other things, intensive manuring. I would like to see an intensive manuring campaign and if there is any money left out of the £5,000,000 provided for useful schemes, I would like the Minister to consider the suggestion I have made.

I heard Deputy Cogan and some other members of the House suggesting that the farmers are down and out. That has been the continual cry of certain sections of this House. I do not believe that industrious farmers want to be so described. I do not believe that the working farmer who is making a success of his farm and who always has made a success of farming wants to be described as an individual who is useless or incapable of fending for himself. Every indication goes to show the contrary. The expansion of farming income, the fact that to-day, according to the Budget Statement, the total savings of the public have increased by £148,000,000 over the figure in 1939, are things that give a definite indication. I believe that sum has been accumulated largely by the savings of farmers and it is not an indication that the farmers are down and out. Anybody who has anything to do with land is aware that the price of land has increased by over 100 per cent. during the war period. That is not an indication that the farmers are down and out.

The farmers are as hard and efficient workers as will be found in any country. Given a reasonable chance, the farmers here will show as good results on the land available to them as any agricultural community in the world.

It amuses me to hear some Deputies talking about the flight from the land. If they were familiar with a constituency like mine they might change their views about the flight from the land. There is no flight from the land in the County Mayo. On the contrary, wherever there is land to be divided, wherever a small farmer can get the capital together, he and his sons want to acquire more land.

It is true that we have migration to a large extent in County Mayo. We have migration for the simple reason that we have over 8,000 families in the county living on uneconomic holdings, with valuations under £10. When you have families on uneconomic holdings in which there are six or eight children there is nothing for them but to get out, unless some employment or land is made available elsewhere. I am glad to see that the Minister takes a serious view of migration in this Budget. I am also glad that the Budget, at least, provides some remedy for migration and that some provision is made to deal with the problem. It is a national problem.

If I may put it this way, it is confined in a large degree to congested areas. We cannot take the migration figures during the recent war as being reliable because migration was then on a completely artificial standard. The position was that the English people were at war and they wanted workers for war industries. The wages paid were also on a completely artificial scale. We had migration from this country during the war that would not occur in a normal period.

Every Deputy will agree with that. If we go back over the position for a number of years we find that migration has been in the main confined to congested areas. In the report of a committee on seasonal migration to Great Britain that was set up in 1937 figures dealing with districts from which the migrants came are given. We find that from Connaught in 1911, 6,848 persons migrated; in 1912, 6,867; in 1913, 6,547; in 1914, 5,438, and in 1915, 5,258. From Ulster in 1911, 1,824 migrated; in the peak year of 1912, 2,097, and in 1915, 1,845. From Munster in 1911, 168 left; in 1912, 230; in 1913, 136; in 1914, 145, and in 1915, 204. From the province of Leinster the figures ranged from 38 in 1911 to 47 in 1915. From the province of Connaught for these five years you had the largest number migrating. These migrants were all landholders, but they came from uneconomic holdings. Of the 7,354 migrants enumerated in 1915, 6,388 were landholders or the sons and daughters of landholders. An examination of the figures for the year 1915 shows that of the 5,258 enumerated as having migrated from Connaught, 4,274 were from County Mayo. These figures in normal years go to show that the main volume of migration is from the congested areas.

Government policy considers migration to be a national problem. I suggest to the Minister that Government policy should be directed towards alleviating the position where there are these great land slums like those in congested areas. These are the areas out of which the main body of migrants come. They are the areas out of which the main body of migrants must get, because they have not economic holdings on which to exist. I do not know whether it will be Government policy to do what was done in the black areas in Wales, to concentrate industries in these areas to absorb the natural surface population, or to encourage industries on small farms that are peculiar to these areas. That is where I suggest a start must be made.

It is true that the main energies of this State from 1932 to 1938, from the Government point of view, were directed to the fighting of an economic war, with an outside power, and during those years the nation had to concentrate on winning that fight. No sooner was that war over than the world war started, and again the energies of the nation were concentrated on seeing that the people were put into the position of being able to keep out of that war. We have now what I call our first post-war Budget and the main energies of this State can be directed towards dealing with internal national problems of which migration is one of the most serious.

Therefore, I doubly welcome such a scheme as the Farm Improvement Scheme, the provision for which has been increased in this Budget. I go further and suggest that from the point of view of providing more work in these areas, the other schemes announced by the Minister, such as national drainage, rural electrification, and turf development should be concentrated as far as possible in congested areas, so as to provide at the source employment to stem the national sore of migration. While concentrating their energies during the war period on safeguarding the food situation, the Government were not able to deal with the problem, but immediately that war ended we have proof in this Budget of what they propose to do. We have these schemes announced by the Minister and to those who complain about higher expenditure forecast in the Budget I say that I am very glad of that higher expenditure. I am very glad to see that the Minister for Finance has agreed to face this national problem. "Peace hath its victories no less renowned than war." If money could be found for purposes of destruction, there is no reason why we, as a nation, should not endeavour to find as much money as possible to cure the ills from which this nation suffers. An examination of the figures in the Budget shows that a great part of the increased expenditure is due to the extended social services that are now being provided.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I was wondering when the Deputy would come to that I thought he had forgotten it.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy may not like to hear that, nevertheless it is true. It is all very well for Deputy Morrissey and his friends to talk about increased expenditure, but when the Deputy and his friends had control of the national purse, there was no provision made for widows and orphans. There was no provision for social services except in a skeleton form and the Deputy knows that very well. The Minister, like his predecessors, is making increased provision for coping with the national housing shortage, as well as increased provision for social services. Increased provision is also being made for public health services. National problems such as the ravages of tuberculosis are being tackled, as well as the ravages of rheumatism, which are to a large degree even greater than those of tuberculosis.

It is all very fine for the people opposite to talk about the increased amount of money involved. I do not mind Deputy O'Higgins or the vitriolic comments which he made here and which he usually makes here. The trouble with Deputy O'Higgins is that, unlike those of some of his friends, his blue shirt, instead of fading out, faded in, poisoning his whole system, so that he takes a cock-eyed view of any propositions emanating from these benches. Simply because they come from the Fianna Fáil Benches, they are bound to be wrong, according to Deputy O'Higgins. The people of this country have proved to Deputy O'Higgins and his Party that Ireland no longer needs them and we are consequently not very much concerned with what Deputy O'Higgins may say about this Budget or any legislation which is introduced here for the benefit of the people.

I again wish to congratulate the Minister on this, his first, Budget. I think it was Deputy Cogan who said that the Budget was like an election speech. I think that no greater tribute could be paid by any member of the Opposition to this Budget. It is a Budget on which any Party or any Government could be proud to go to the country. I have no doubt as to what the verdict of the people would be, if it were a matter of judging the policy of the Government on this Budget. The Budget is, to my mind, a declaration of war on emigration, a declaration of war on the drudgery in rural Ireland and a declaration of war on disease.

Mr. Corish

And on the old age pensioners.

Mr. Moran

I hope that every Budget the Minister will have to introduce will be as popularly received throughout the country as this.

Mr. Coogan

The last speaker started out to convince the House that there was no flight from the land and then proceeded to inform the House that there was a flight from the land, and that the greatest incidence of that flight was to be found on the western seaboard and in the congested districts. His whole discourse was as illogical as his opening remarks. I do not want to pursue the Deputy through every avenue and boreen of the County Mayo, but I should like to quote for the Deputy the words of a Western Bishop, the Bishop of Galway, in 1938. He said:—

"The real strength and wealth of this country, human beings, is disappearing at such a rapid rate that if it be not changed, the next century will see the extinction of the Irish people on the land of Ireland."

I submit that it is immaterial whether we worry about our connection with the British Commonwealth of Nations, whether we worry about the phantom Irish Republic we have to-day, or whether we worry about a 32-county republic for the whole country, because, in the next 100 years, there will be no Irish people here to defend this territory and nothing is being done by the Government to stop that trend.

I said before in this House, and I say it again, that I do not propose to lay the blame on the present Government for the emigration which has taken place—emigration has been with us since 1847—but I do blame the Government for this, that, since they came into office, they have done nothing to stem the tide of emigration; that they have merely turned the tide from the west, from America, towards the east, towards Great Britain, and that their policy is a policy of palliatives and temporary expedients calculated to cause a temporary relief here and there, but, in the ultimate, to allow the drift of our people, of the brawn and the brain of our people, to continue indefinitely. That is the kernel of our entire position here.

Deputy Corry, a member of the Government Party—I do not know whether the last speaker was in the House at the time—deplored this position and put it to the Government that something would have to be done, and drastically done, in order to cure it. Deputy Moran says that there is no flight from the land. In 1936, we had 633,000 males employed upon the land; in 1938, we had 537,000 employed on the land; and in 1939, we had 531,000 employed on the land. There was an increase in 1940 and 1941, when we had, respectively, 544,000 and 556,000 employed on the land, but since then, we have had a progressive reduction in the number of people so employed. In 1942, we had 541,000; in 1943, 536,000; and in 1944, 526,000. I quote from the document "National Income and Expenditure" issued by the Minister's Department in March of this year.

That is the position we face here and, in addition, our population is declining. In 1943 as compared with 1941, there was a diminution in our population of 42,321, and, in 1944, as compared with 1941, that diminution had increased to 48,034. I am not going to say that I have a cure-all for this position, nor am I going to say that I have a plan to solve unemployment, as Fianna Fáil said before they came into office; but I will say this, that despite all the temporary reliefs and schemes which Fianna Fáil has tried upon the country, that is the result.

The Minister to-day questioned a statement made from this side of the House as to the numbers of our people who left this country in the war years and he conveniently quoted the most favourable years for this purpose. He included, so far as I can see, the year 1939 in the figures by which he arrived at the figure for our net emigration of 78,600. I submit that the year 1939 should not have been included, and that, if that year were excluded, we would get an entirely different figure, a figure which would be something over 90,000. I want to put it to the Minister that we have no statistical record that I am aware of by which we can calculate with any degree of accuracy the number of our people who crossed the land frontier to join the British Army, the British Navy and the Air Force. It is only since 1942 that we have any record of the passenger movements between Northern Ireland and ourselves.

If the Minister will consult the Registrar-General's figures for 1943 and compare them with the figures for 1944, he will find an extraordinary position. I have not the documents before me, but I went through them to-day and I found extraordinary errors. I want to know from the Minister what figures are we to rely upon. I would ask his advisers to check the two reports and they will find that there is an extraordinary discrepancy in the figures given for these war years in the 1943 report as compared with the 1944 report. There is a complete hash of figures there. I mention this matter because I feel that one of the essential problems which we have to face in this country is the settlement of our people on the land. The first question before this House and the Government is to find some solution for providing for the old people on the land, so that the sons and daughters of these old people may settle on the land before they reach middle life and at a time when they will be in a position to rear families. That is one of our crucial problems.

The second problem, as Deputy Corry quite rightly pointed out, is to provide amenities in the country that will compare favourably, and more than favourably, with the urban amenities. That will, I hope, come in due time as a result of rural electrification and other projects at present under way.

In addition to that, we have to face up to the problem of our industrial position here and definitely decide how far we can go towards a policy of full employment in industry. At the present time a considerable percentage of our national income is going abroad in foreign investments, something perhaps in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 per year. Certain experts calculate that no less than 10 per cent. of our national income is going abroad in investments. I put it to the Minister that here is a fund which can be utilised for the development of Irish industry and also of Irish agriculture. I do not want to see the State becoming the fairy godmother for every service and need and want in this country. I do want to see the State giving a directive so that Irish investors will realise that it is as remunerative and certainly less risky to put their money into Irish enterprise as to send it to the far-flung corners of the earth.

So far as I can make out, the amount of investment in Irish industry would be in the neighbourhood of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 per year. I submit that the amount going abroad in investments is in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 per year. I suggest that, given a proper directive by the Government and by the policy of the Government to ensure that stable productive industries and enterprises were started, there would be a possibility of checking that flow of investment abroad and directing it home. I am not suggesting that the Minister should intervene to control investment, as has been done in other countries, but I would go so far as to say that he should take steps to ensure that our investors appreciate the problems that are here, and that our Government, if necessary, should go even so far as to engage in propaganda on behalf of Irish industry, not on behalf of a particular firm or industry, but on behalf of industry as a whole. If these two matters were tackled, we could get somewhere towards solving our unemployment problem and keeping our people at home. But I submit that a drastic surgical operation is needed and that these temporary palliatives of social sops will lead us nowhere. They are not leading us anywhere. Our population is still going despite all these sops.

Now, I want to fit this Budget into its proper perspective as against the background of the social and economic position as visualised by this document published by the Minister in March of this year. Apart from the fact that we have a declining population and that we have, in addition, considerable emigration to Great Britain, anybody studying this document will discover that our cost of living has increased in the war years by 70 per cent., that wages in industry—I am taking the table as a whole—in non-agricultural employment have, as a result of Government policy, increased only to the extent of between 20 and 25 per cent. In other words, these people employed in industry have to tighten their belts to make up for the difference between a 70 per cent. increase in the cost of living and a 25 per cent. increase in salaries and wages.

You will find that this works out in a very peculiar way. For example, taking food, you will find that, despite all the talk we have here about feeding ourselves, putting our food prices on the same level as 1938, we are spending on food £2,000,000 odd per annum less than we spent in 1938. What does that mean? It does not mean that the gentleman who pays surtax or excess profits tax or the gentleman who can afford to pay the extra 2/7 per bottle on champagne or the 2d. extra for a glass of whiskey is pulling in his belt. It means that those below the £150 limit who do not come under the survey of the Revenue Commissioners at all have to pull in their belts and do with less food to-day than they had in 1938. That is one aspect of it.

The other aspect of it is that these same people, whom I shall call the poor, for want of a better term, are spending less to-day on clothing than they spent in 1938 to the extent of £7.9 millions. Again, I say it is not the gentleman who can afford to pay 2/7 extra on champagne who is not buying the suit of clothes, or the shirt, or the pair of socks, or the pair of boots, but the unfortunate people below this level who do not come under the Revenue Commissoners' surveillance at all. Again, you will find that they are paying £5.7 millions less than in 1938 on fuel and light, so that we get this position—they are underfed; they are underclothed; they have no heat; and they have very little light. That is the position as I see it. That is the position that we have to put into its proper perspective when we consider this Budget. Seventy-two per cent. of our people earn less than £250 per year. We have something like—I am quoting all the time from this document—198,301 people above the limit of £3 per week, and it is these people who will have to find the money for this Budget. That is the position in this country to-day.

Now the Minister for Finance very suavely says to the farmers: "You are prosperous—so prosperous that you have money in the bank; not only have you sufficient money in the bank to put your farms into a properly serviced condition and to improve your capital equipment, to buy machinery and fertilisers and all that sort of thing, but you are able to provide for future prosperity and hand down prosperous farms to your sons and daughters; and, in addition, you have enough money to pay the £470,000 odd that you owe by way of arrears of annuity." I submit to the Minister that again his own figures are against him. During the five or six years of this war, it is stated in this document, capital development suffered to the extent of £15,000,000 per year in 1938, and in the current figures to the extent of £20,000,000 per year; and that, applied to the farmer, means that he was working his farm with his capital during this war, that he was working the land without fertilisers and manures, and that he was sowing and reaping his crops with out-of-date and battered machinery, and that, whatever he did put into the bank, as a result of any increased prices during this war, he will have to outlay that immediately fertilisers and machinery become available. Therefore, instead of having any money in the bank, when this job has to be done now, or as soon as materials become available, he will have to outlay more than he has put into the banks. It is no good our priding ourselves on the fact that we have increased deposits in the banks, and post office savings, and so forth. The position is that we require a gross capital development in this State, according to this report, needing £100,000,000; and the experts who prepared this report say that they are very doubtful if that £100,000,000 will meet the bill. I will quote from the document itself as regards this:—

"If the figure of £24,000,000 for 1938 be regarded as ‘normal' there has clearly been a considerable falling off in capital formation, as defined, during the emergency period The average during the years 1942-44, indicates a deficiency of £15,000,000 per annum at 1938 prices, or more than £20,000,000 per annum at present day prices. The deficiency over the whole period would seem to be of the order of £100,000,000 at present day prices. No doubt, it would be possible to dispense with some of the capital goods on works as defined for the purpose."

Now, in addition, they say that:—

"These figures, accordingly, set in a new perspective the value of the forced savings of this State during the war. It is doubtful if these savings will suffice to make good the capital deficiency which has piled up during the war years, let alone provide for more intensive capitalisation."

Now, what I have said with regard to agriculture applies with a greater degree of intensity to industry. There the job, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not painting too rosy a picture, will be that the industrialist will have to capitalise within the reserves which he was forced to put by during the war period; and, again, I submit that, whatever reserves were put by by industry during the war period with a view to eventually investing in industry here, they will not be sufficient to do the job. So much for the savings and the prosperous conditions of the farmer, the industrialist and the worker.

Now, what are we asked to do in this Budget? We are asked as taxpayers in this country to find an extra £3,000,000, less £5,000. That is £2,995,000 more this year than we had to put up last year and that, mind you, despite a reduction of 1/- in the £ in income-tax, and despite the fact that there is 1d. off sugar and 10/- off the turf. We in this country have in Central Fund services to meet an extra £313,000 and in Supply Services an extra £263,000; and on the entire Budget an extra £2,995,000. Despite a reduction of 1/- in income-tax the Minister is estimating an increased yield of £1,250,000, or thereabouts, from income-tax this year, according to the paper he has supplied to us. He is also expecting an increased yield of something like £2,000,000 from customs. Now, who is going to pay the customs —the ordinary householder, the ordinary worker, and the ordinary housewife.

This is a spurious Budget. It has a false front. When you get behind it, you will find that the social and economic condition of this country is very far from the rosy picture that this Budget would suggest. May I put it to you this way: if Atlas were relieved of the burden of carrying the world on his back he would certainly give a great sigh of relief, but Cathleen Ní Houlihán has been carrying almost as heavy a burden as Atlas did, and because Cathleen Ní Houlihán's back has been eased slightly of this grievous burden that was breaking her back until now, we are expected to throw up our hands in a pæan of praise, and song, and glory, and say: "Thanks be to God, or thanks to the Minister for Finance, or thanks to this great Fianna Fáil Administration for giving us those reliefs." We have got very, very little relief in this Budget. As far as I remember, the Budget of 1939 was about the £33,000,000 figure and it was regarded as a phenomenal Budget, calculated to break the back of the country. Here we are getting a £53,000,000 Budget and the war has been over for more than a year. Let us not delude ourselves that because we were asked to carry an almost impossible burden during the war that this is any considerable relief now. This is no great relief to industry. I admit there is some relief in it, but I respectfully submit that the relief is nothing like what industry expected and what industry needs if the programme visualised for us by the Minister for Industry and Commerce is ever to reach the practical stage. As to the farmer's relief, again I say, let the farmer not be deceived by this. There is considerable temporary relief given in this £1,000,000 by way of derating to the farmer but it lasts only for two years. It stops at the end of two years and the farmer is told quite bluntly: "Set your house in order within these two years." That is the only inference to be taken from the Minister's statement.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 9 May 1946

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

Mr. Corish

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1946