Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 11—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Tuesday, 13 May 1947

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 11—General (Resumed).

Major de Valera

Before the adjournment on Friday last, I thought it well to draw attention to the fact that increases in the Budget are due primarily to two causes. Firstly, there has been a depreciation in the value of the money involved. That in itself must of necessity and without reference to any other cause have involved an increase in the size of the sum budgeted for.

Now, in addition to that, there has been a policy adopted and approved of here of expanding services by the State, which in itself, too, must have involved an increase. There is no use blaming the Government for that policy if you are not prepared to go out and advocate the opposite. To those members of the Opposition Parties who complain of the increase in this Budget I say this: "Very well, then; is it your considered opinion that these moneys cannot be afforded and are you prepared to be logical and to come out and say that the social services, that the increases in salaries which have been given in the past year or in the past couple of years should not be given and should be withdrawn because we cannot afford them?" Is that your attitude? If so, come out and say so. It is a fair one and, possibly, an understandable one. But what is not understandable is the attitude of too many people who have no responsibility in the matter but who will agitate up and down the country for more social services, for increasing the remuneration of certain classes and certain grades and complain because the Government are not doing enough to increase the services and to increase the remuneration. These people come along and complain that there is too much money being spent. That is an illogical attitude, an impossible attitude and, if consciously indulged in, a dishonest attitude.

Mr. O'Leary

The money has not been spent in the right way.

Major de Valera

Now, we get another attempt at an answer—it is not spent in the right way. Very well. I am confining myself to the social services that have been provided, to the salary increases which have been given, and to the expenditure involved, for instance, in the increases given to various classes who have been paid either directly or indirectly by the State. Were these not given in a correct way?

Mr. O'Leary

You are increasing the salaries of the judges and not the old age pensions.

Major de Valera

I think I am in possession.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Major de Valera

If the attitude is that the money should not be spent, I can understand it. But, again, I say that I cannot understand the advocacy for the spending of this money and for these schemes, on the one hand, and the complaint that the money has to be paid, on the other. I think that is enough on that point. But, if I can do anything to clarify that issue, to contribute my share to having us and the people of the country at large face up to these things squarely and honestly as a co-ordinated thing, I think I will be doing my duty as a Deputy. I have stressed it to the point of reiteration both previously and to-day, because, if we are to examine the problems which are before this country, we should face up to them in an honest way. We must decide what schemes we desire to have. We must inquire what schemes we can afford to pay for and then we will have to strike a balance, as a balance has to be struck in everything involved in the whole process of living, namely, a balance between what we would desire as the ideal and what we can have; in other words, what we can pay for. Therefore, I think that, in view of the pressure that must be on his Department for further increases, for further expenditure for all these things that everybody appears to be demanding, and from the way he has met the demand; the Minister for Finance has acquitted himself creditably.

With regard to the future of monetary policy, here it is obvious to everybody that, to a great extent, we must wait on the turn of affairs outside. In these matters, the actual value of our money will depend, to a great extent, on the trend of affairs outside, that is, the international situation particularly with regard to sterling. So far as I can see, or any other ordinary citizen can see merely by reading the newspapers, these are questions of some doubt. It is very difficult to see where all this is going to end. In a situation of doubt such as one is confronted with at present, I think the Minister for Finance is quite right to adopt a fairly conservative attitude. But there is this much clear for us: that we are a small country, that as a small country we cannot be a really major force in the direction of the trend with regard to values outside, and that, to that extent, we will have to bow, so to speak, to the trend of these values, that is so far as our currency is related to those outside values. Therefore, what we have to do is, like any prudent citizen in the every-day life of man to man, to plan for our own problem so far as we can see it. That means that there is one thing for us to do and that is to expand our own production.

It is for that reason that I think we all welcome the efforts of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the efforts of the Minister for Finance to facilitate him, in the establishment of a power industry here. We can get no further with our own internal development until the power problem is met. Everything depends on power so far as industry is concerned. Hence the priority of our scheme for power development. After that, I think the question of developing our resources vis-à-vis agriculture is the next important. For that reason, I was very interested in seeing in the Budget Statement that the Minister for Finance considered the question of fertilisers of sufficient importance to be included explicitly. Admittedly, the actual item in regard to peat-moss litter may not be as big as some other items, but the fact that he has recognised the importance of that I think is a good thing. I will go further and I will say this to the Minister, that when you have your power scheme in operation, when you have allowed for that and got your arrangements for power production completed or under way, the next step I would advocate would be the production here of the necessary fertilisers. Mention need only be made of nitrogenous fertilisers. These are absolutely essential. If we had such an industry in this country there is no reason why we should have to import these things and to that extent we would make our agricultural industry more self-supporting. Perhaps this is not the time to go into details, but in referring to the importance of saving our nitrate supply, to which the Minister referred, I would simply add that, when we have the necessary power, the establishment of such a scheme should be given priority on the list.

Right through the course of last year there have been sporadic and sarcastic references to the policy of self-sufficiency and one Deputy appears to me to have suggested that a policy of self-sufficiency for us was never the right thing and was becoming at the present time less appropriate to us than ever. I dislike this word "self-sufficiency", simply because it has been so distorted by people who have wished to distorted it into meaning something which was not intended. To me and to all rational people it simply means that a small country like this would be well advised to produce as much as possible of the necessaries it requires, living within its own resources and to rely as little as possible on outside sources. It does not mean any of the fanciful things some people try to pretend. I think, more than ever, such a policy is indicated for this country and our financial policy should be oriented accordingly.

Ten or 15 years ago, when our neighbour was much more prosperous than he is now, it was the best policy for us. Now that the position of that neighbour is so much worse, when there is so much less to be offered to us by a close association, when it would mean the sacrifice of our own interests, there seems to be no case at all for our departing from the idea of producing as much as we can and living as much as we can within what we can produce. At the moment it is becoming increasingly hard to get what we require from abroad. The money credits, the balances which we have are, to say the least, precarious things. We would be much better off if we can bring about a situation where we can look after ourselves, restricting ourselves merely to essential imports, leaving ourselves in the position where we can probably pay for those imports to a fair extent by what we can export. That seems to be the only logical thing to do in the present world situation. To do anything else, I submit, would invite disaster.

I am going rather a distance from the Financial Resolution; I realise that and for that reason I am not going into details. I think it well on this occasion, however, to say that if ever there was a case for the policy which we have pursued to date in that regard, that case is even stronger now than ever it was. I know there is an academic answer to this and it is probably behind the minds of some Deputies—the one in particular of whom I talk about. It is this. One of the things that has got the world, apart from the war, into its present economic circumstances, was the race between various States and peoples to control imports. One can concede that point and all the general arguments that follow from it. But the practical answer for us is this: We are a small country and we are well advised to mind ourselves. Our contribution by way of blazing a headline is not likely to be significant unless to ourselves, and that would bring disaster to us.

If the situation in the world loosens up and makes for freer trade and freer financial transactions, well and good, but we cannot be the party to take the lead. We have to mind our own business at home. Let the big world influences regulate the outside policy. It would be just madness for us to enter into a thing like that on an academic basis. It is hardly profitable to go into this matter any further.

The main point for us is that at the moment every effort, apparently, is being made to secure the plant and equipment which we need to produce the goods at home and keep our own wheels turning. Monetary considerations, apparently, are not the difficulty. Therefore, a lot of the speeches made on this Budget are really not so relevant.

If, in the coming year, we go on expanding our services, as distinct from our production, that is, we go on expanding the payments that have to be met, whether through social services or increases in salaries to State employees or people indirectly employed by the State, and if at the same time we do not increase our production of real wealth here, we shall reach a situation that may possibly lead to trouble. Every Deputy, no matter what Party he is attached to, should put his back into the task of trying to help in increasing our real wealth, and in approaching such problems as are confronting us by demands for further services and further expenditure, with a regard for the people who have to pay for them and with a regard for the actual real wealth of the country as it is.

Domhnall Ua Donnchadha

I am glad that the Minister has seen his way to increase the number of scholarships available for those students who are going to take seriously studies through the medium of Irish and that he is not confining the scholarships to those who come from the Gaeltacht, that he is sensible enough to see that if Irish is to become the living language of the country, he must extend it, not through the Gaeltacht alone, but through the Galltacht. I hope that this is a real beginning with the practice of having studies carried on in the various secondary schools, the various colleges of the National University and in Dublin University, through the medium of Irish. The Minister has allocated a certain amount of money to each of the Departments. Taking the Department of Agriculture, I think that a pressing problem during the coming winter will be the provision of cattle fodder. At least in South Kerry, there is grave danger that there will be a hay famine next winter. Because of the scarcity of grass, farmers have found it necessary to graze meadows which in the ordinary way should have been closed six weeks ago. They are being grazed up to the present day, so that meadows which should be fit to cut in July in the ordinary way, will not be fit for cutting for perhaps six weeks later, and the return must necessarily fall very much short of what it would be in normal years. It is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and the county committees to make arrangements now for cattle fodder for the coming year.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not for the Minister for Finance.

Domhnall Ua Donnchadha

It is for the Minister for Finance to provide money, a Chinn Chomhairle, if you will allow me to say so. The Minister has referred to other commitments to the extent of £251,000 for the provision of pensions and gratuities for various classes of State-paid servants. He includes civil servants, Garda pensioners, and retired pay for members of the Army. His one reference to the remaining State-paid servants, the national teachers, covers a sum of £30,000 which should never have appeared because if common sense had obtained that would have been included in the original Estimate of the Department of Education. He has made no provision for increased pensions for the ex-national teachers. They are the only body of State-paid servants not included in this Estimate.

Regarding the Transition Development Fund, the Minister states that State and semi-State organisations, are being encouraged to undertake work which otherwise might be postponed because of the abnormally high cost of materials and he refers to the fact that housing grants are promised, grants which amount on the average to £250 per house, in addition to the ordinary housing grants. I wonder if the Minister includes in that category of semi-State organisations public utility societies which cater for the building of houses for farmers with a valuation of under £25 or labourers? At the present moment, as I know because I am secretary of one of these societies, the maximum grant is £80 per house. I can assure the Minister and the House that if he treats a public utility society as a semi-State organisation and if he allows up to £250 for each new house, there will be more than 1,500 dwellings erected through these societies during the coming year. According to his Estimates, it is hoped that another 1,500 houses will be built through the local authorities. I am satisfied from the number of applications and requests for information that come to me—and I am secretary of only one society—that the public utility societies would cater for that number alone.

Reference has been made to the amount of money allocated to Bord na Móna. I have already referred in my remarks on the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Lands to the position of bog roads, which are just as essential as the drains made on bogs. No matter what care is exercised in the cutting or the saving of turf, unless the bog roads are put into a position to admit of the speedy removal of the turf from the bogs, the turf will remain for the coming winter on the bogs just as it remained during last winter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has stated that he raised this question on an Estimate. One of the rules governing debate on the Budget is that matters suitable to be raised on an Estimate are not to be raised on the Budget.

Domhnall Ua Donnchada

This is a matter which vitally affects the turf-producing districts such as I represent. I am sorry if I have contravened any of the rules of the debate but I wish to emphasise that point for the Minister. Reference has been made to what has been described as the scandal of paying dole to unemployed people. Is it not only common sense that if full employment is not available for the people, the dole, or some kind of assistance, must be provided for them? In my constituency, at least, full employment could be provided for the unemployed. There is on the Statute Book an Arterial Drainage Act which is held up for various reasons, principally because machinery is not available. I think that the preliminary work might very well be undertaken. That preliminary work would provide full employment and it would take all the able-bodied men in those districts off the dole. I have in mind, particularly, two districts. If preliminary work is not done in one of those cases a prosperous village will be wiped out. I refer to the village of Currow in South Kerry and the two river valleys, the valley of the Flesk and the Ownachree in South Kerry, which are being gradually inundated. Farmers from the districts are seeking employment in other places. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should encourage the undertaking of preliminary work under the Arterial Drainage Act.

As regards rural electrification, there are in South Kerry certain towns that have not been touched by the Electricity Supply Board principally because there are local plants in those towns. People inform me that industrial development in those towns is held up because of the lack of electric power. Negotiations should be carried out by the Electricity Supply Board immediately with a view to acquiring the right to operate in these towns and to compensate fully the owners of the local plants.

Gearoid Mac Pharthaláin

Níl le cur agam os comhair an Aire ach aon rud amháin. Ní bhaineann sé le haon Roinn faoi leith agus, mar gheall ar sin, is cosúil go bhfuil sé in ordú. Níl aon airgead ann le dlús a chur le oibreacha farraist a dhéanamh nó a dheasú, go mór mór ar na hoileain. Níl dualgas na hoibre seo ar aon Roinn nó ar aon údaras áitiúil faoi leith, agus tá mé a cheapadh gurb shin é an fáth nach bhfuil an dualgas seo comhlíonta cheana nuair nach bhfuil aon dream amháin freagarthach ina thaobh. Tá fánáin ann agus céibheanna agus ballaí cosanta farraige briste síos agus in áiteacha eile tá cinn nua ag teastáil. Agus pé ar bith fáth, ní feidir aon dul chun cinn a dhéanamh maidir leo. Chuala mé go raibh Coiste Eadar Rannach curtha ar bun le breathnú i ndiaidh an ruda seo ach níor chuala mé gur cuireadh aon tuarascáil isteach nó gur cuireadh aon obair idir láimh mar thoradh ar a chuid saothair.

Ba mhaith liom é sin a chur ar i dtuigsint don Aire i riocht is go gcuirfidh sé os comhair an Rialtais é. Tá mé féin lán-chinnte go bhfuil sé lán toilteanach gach rud is féidir leis a dhéanamh ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht. Is é seo an dara Faisnéis a thug sé isteach agus i ngach ceann acu ní dhearna sé dearmad ar an nGaeltacht. Sa gcéad cheann acu d'ardaigh sé deontas na Gaeilge ó £2 go dtí a £5. Bhí mé ag cruinniú i gConamara Dé Domhnaigh agus glacadh buíochas leis an Aire mar gheall ar a fhlaithiúlacht le muintir na Gaeltachta. Sa dara ceann seo tá ruda eile déanta aige ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht. Taispeánann sé sin go bhfuil a chroí in áit cheart maidir le muintir na Gaeltachta agus cúis na Gaeilge agus ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl dó go bhfuil muintir na Gaeltachta buíoch de i ngeall air sin.

Mr. Bennett

I do not want to criticise the Minister unduly. He has probably made as good a job of this Budget as any other Deputy could have in the circumstances and in the light of the policy pursued by the Government but I do say that the sum the taxpayers are asked to pay is a colossal sum and rather beyond the power of the people to pay. The magnitude of the sum sets one thinking seriously of the condition of this country in the years to come. Deputy Major de Valera challenged us on this side to make any suggestions which would reduce the cost. He referred to the increased salaries and social services and asked did any Deputy dare to say that any of these could be reduced. I dare to say it. Take salaries. As far as I and the majority of Deputies are concerned, we believe in a fair salary for fair work done. I do not know that any salaries paid at the moment are too big—possibly there are some that are too small —but I do say that there are far too many salaries paid in this country. Take the years 1931 to 1947 during which this Government has been in office. Consider the number of civil servants that have been added to the Civil Service in those years. I do not say that some of them were not necessary but I believe that the policy pursued by the Government has led to an increase in the Civil Service that was wholly unnecessary. There is need for retrenchment in that particular sphere. We do not need the number of officials that we have in this country.

As to the social services, I know it is an unpopular thing to say that our social services are too many and could be reduced but I say deliberately that we have gone too far in expanding social services or rather, I put it this way, that in providing for emergencies we have gone beyond the needs of the moment. Take, for instance, some of the legislation we passed in the last four or five years. I do not say that children's allowances were not necessary. I never said it and I am not saying it now, but I do say that a number of people who do not need them are in receipt of children's allowances. In fact it is problematical whether the majority of those in receipt of children's allowances are people who need them. By way of illustration, I will tell this little story. One of my workmen said to me when the Bill was going through: "Is it a fact, sir, that we are going to get 2/6 for the children?" I said: "I think it is. The Bill is going through and nobody is opposing it." He said: "That is good." This particular man has 11 children and he is now drawing 17/6 a week from the State. The remark that this honest man passed was: "Where is all the money coming from?" I said: "Johnny, I am paying a share of it and you are paying a share of it yourself." That is the position.

I do not say that social services and other services were not needed at the time they were introduced but I do say, definitely, that they should not have been made permanent services and I say that some other social reliefs that were passed by legislation in this House should not have been made permanent. We should provide for emergencies. If a section of the people are at the moment in necessitous circumstances and it is necessary for the State to relieve them, the State should relieve them. The State should not allow the position that we shall be continually relieving them on the same scale in the years to come, no matter what the circumstances of the country, to continue. I am afraid we have made a grave mistake in this connection. I believe we have made permanent some social services which need not have been made permanent. Deputy Major de Valera spoke in that particular vein. In the portion of his speech which I heard to-day he said that none of us could point a hand at salaries and social services and say that a reduction was possible. He ended up on a different line. As far as I was able to take them down in writing his concluding words were something like this: "If we go on expanding services in future years and at the same time do not increase the production of real wealth our position will be unenviable". The Deputy who told us that we could not make the suggestion that a reduction in salaries or social services was possible had to admit that if we continue to pay the salaries and social services our position will be unenviable and that if we cannot increase production our position will be desperate.

Are we increasing production? Has the Government, in reality, increased production at any time in the last 15 years? With an increased expenditure every year has there been any increase in real production in any one of the past 15 years? I do not believe so. Production and real wealth must come from one source only in this country— agriculture. I doubt if any Deputy in this House thinks otherwise. If we take the production of agriculture in any one year of the last 15 years and compare it with the present year we will find that there is a downward tendency in production. This whole question has been thrashed out time and again in this House. We have a reduction in the supply of butter, bacon, milk, and other items of agricultural production to which it is not necessary to allude now. They are common facts and it is well known to everybody in this country that production in all these items has gone down so seriously that where once we were able to export some of these commodities now we have not sufficient for our own supply. That is a lamentable state of affairs and not at all to the credit of the Government. Serious as the production of agriculture has been in the last 14 or 15 years, increasingly serious every year, the position is very much more so now. Not alone have we lost our trade in the export of butter, bacon and other commodities but we are in grave danger of losing our cattle export trade. If the export of cattle ceases I can foresee Deputy Major de Valera coming into this House and speaking about expanding production in a different vein than he did to-day.

Deputy Major de Valera referred to fertilisers, with special reference to peat moss litter. I think the less reference made to that particular item the better. The Minister would be very well advised to drop the sum provided for that particular item—I do not know what it is now—and use it to help agricultural production. I do not know that it is in the Minister's power to do so, even if he opened his purse, unless a different policy is pursued by his brother Minister, the Minister for Agriculture. It would, in my opinion, be well to consider the position and, if possible, persuade the people who in the last 60 or 100 years have provided the main export of this country—cattle —to continue the production of that particular commodity. The position is very serious. The rearing of calves has gone down and is going down every day. The number of calves destroyed, sold to the factories or otherwise got rid of in the last couple of years, but particularly this year, is enormous and makes one think that our future position in the live-stock industry is very doubtful. I warn the Government through the Minister for Finance, that they should look into this matter immediately if they have any regard for any possible future increase of exports from this country. We have had several references to the matter of imports and exports and to the difficulties of meeting our outside payments if we cannot export. There is a deficiency in the balance of trade. If conditions continue as they are at the moment I foresee that we will have to cease importing in the not very distant future as far as paying by export is concerned unless conditions in agriculture are changed very rapidly in a productive direction.

The last speaker mentioned the dole, with particular reference to remarks made by some Deputies that certain people should not get the dole. There are numerous people in this country on the dole, getting Government relief, who should not be getting it. Men who would not work if the house fell on them are getting sustenance from the State. I suppose that cannot be avoided. The policy pursued by the Government in the last 15 years has led to this. It is idle to say that the unfortunate man who stands at the street corner with his back to the wall is on the dole, getting 12/6 or 15/- a week. We are all on the dole. I am on the dole. The Minister is on the dole. The manufacturers are on the dole. The retailers are on the dole. The farmers are on the dole. The workers are on the dole. We are all chewing off each other's tails. We have been living in that manner for the last few years and apparently we are going to live in that manner for the next decade if this Government continues in office. I suppose we will be asked to suggest a remedy. We say that a remedy is definitely necessary, but it is the Government job to find the remedy. It is the Government's job so to ordain things that we can look forward in a few years to a position in which our production, as Deputy de Valera said, will increase so rapidly that it will be in line with our expenditure. None of us can look into the next few years and see any possibility of that unless there is a complete turn over in Government policy.

Reference was made by Deputy de Valera to self-sufficiency. He went on to give us a definition of what self-sufficiency really means. He was careful to put a different meaning on it from that put on it by Fianna Fáil speakers in the country ten or 15 years ago. I remember hearing one of the major speakers ten or 15 years ago talking about putting a wall around this country and making it almost impossible for anything to get in and only possible for a few things to get out. Deputy de Valera was not having any of that. His definition of self-sufficiency is a rather easy one for him. A small country like ours, he said, would be well advised to produce as much as possible and to rely as far as possible on its own resources. We can all sympathise with that. But that was not the definition of self-sufficiency that we had put over on us in bygone years—to rely as far as possible on our own resources. None of us advocated that we should not rely as far as possible on our own resources. I do not think that any of us ever argued that certain industries founded on the principle of manufacturing raw materials of our own production were not useful to this country, or even certain industries manufacturing on the basis of imported raw material, because in nearly every country raw materials have to be imported. But several of our factories have been founded on a different principle from that. Some of them have imported materials in a semi-manufactured state and put the finishing touches to goods partly manufactured in another country. I would nearly venture to say that it would be cheaper for us to let the country that went so far in manufacturing these articles finish the job. It would be done cheaper and better. But there are other industries here which it is a good thing to have and which we ought to hold on to as well as we can. Some of these industries were established before this Parliament was set up. Some of the greater ones and the ones that are going to last longest were established before either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil operated in this country. I wish our industries all the luck possible. I should, however, like to say that I cannot see any possibility, in the near future at any rate, of their being any great help to us so far as meeting the expenditure that will be necessary to pay for our imports.

I am not grousing about giving a poor person 2/6, 5/-, 7/6, 10/- or £1, if it is necessary, but I say that family allowances should not have been made permanent and that other items of social service expenditure should not have been made permanent; that we should have met the exigencies of the emergency as we found them at a particular time and budgeted for them, giving the relief in money or in kind where it was needed, but we should not have made the relief permanent as we have made it in certain legislation. I think that has largely been the fault of this Government. They have presented us with a Budget now of over £60,000,000 and goodness knows how it will be brought down, because I do not.

Mr. Commons

I regard the Budget as the most important matter to be discussed in this House this year, because it concerns everybody. In reality, it is the bank from which will come all the money necessary to run the State. I think it would be wrong if any Deputy who was able to criticise it or praise it let it pass without giving his honest opinion as to the amount of taxation demanded for the coming year. I think the Minister for Finance must have very little knowledge of the condition of this country at present. His supporters, who gave him such a hand-clap when he had finished his statement, reminded me of Nero of old who played his fiddle so merrily while the fire that was enveloping Rome burned so brightly. The way they clapped him after his mighty effort to wring almost £70,000,000 in taxation out of the people of this little country brought that to my mind. Being a political Party, I daresay they were told to show their enthusiasm. I expect the Minister said: "You will give me a bit of courage to put this across the House and particularly when I stand up to reply to the criticisms from the Opposition Parties."

It is indeed an extraordinary Budget. When the average man in the street found out the amount of taxation he has to bear, I can assure the Minister that he did not welcome it. In the part of the country from which I come the Budget was not by any means welcomed and the people generally have been rather outspoken. They do not see any possibility of being able to pay the amount demanded of them in the coming year. It means practically £23 per head on every man, woman and child in this country. A man with a wife and a family of four will be in this position, that £138 must be found for the year, no matter how it is obtained. No matter how the wind blows, that man will have to find £138 to meet the taxation that the Minister has decided to levy.

Nobody would begrudge payment if this country was in a state of emergency. At any rate, the people did not complain to any great extent when they were asked to pay during the war years. At that time the people decided that, whatever amount was asked from them, it had to be given because it was necessary that the State would put up as bold a face as possible. The people then were willing to pay what was demanded of them, but they were assured that when the emergency was over and when things were normal the taxation would not be so high. The Minister's predecessor gave that assurance to the people, that the taxation would definitely go down.

I do not think the people would complain about paying this mighty sum if they saw that the money was being spent in some manner that would be reproductive. They would not mind if this were regarded as an overdraft against the security of the country and if schemes were started which in time would repay with interest whatever is spent on them. In such circumstances, the people would not be dissatisfied to pay this amount. But let us look at how the money will be spent. £12.5 million, or 18 per cent. of the total amount, will be applied to social services. Several speakers from the Government Benches said this money was being spent on something that would be of value to the country. What is the position of agriculture? The Budget statement says:

"The keen interest of our people in the land and its products and its social distribution is shown by the £7.8 million we allocate for agricultural education, research, subsidies and development and for land division."

The Minister devotes £12.5 million for social services and only £7.8 million for agriculture and agricultural production. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us what we know quite well, that agriculture and agricultural produce are our main source of income. Why we should have £12.5 million spent on social services and only £7.8 million spent on agriculture and agricultural output, is something I cannot understand. There will have to be some readjustment here or this country will be wiped out of existence.

"Clearly we are living in uneasy times and have had our troubles, for we are spending £5.2 million, or 7 per cent., on defence services and the care of ex-servicemen."

The Army Estimate has been dealt with and I do not suppose it would be in order to refer to it to-day. However, I and my colleagues protested against the amount allocated to it. I say that the money is absolutely wasted and this is merely an effort on the part of the Government to create a scare. They are trying to leave the people under the impression, as they did during the past three elections, "If you have not a solid, steady Government, an Army and somebody at the head of the State who will look after its stability, you do not know where you will find yourselves." That is why the Army is being maintained. As I said on the Army Estimate, it will be required, not perhaps to keep out invaders, but to quell the riots of the people when they get hungry or when the unemployed will show their teeth, as they are entitled to show them.

There is a feeble effort made by the Minister to tell us the few things he has done to bring about something in the nature of production. The most amusing thing is the peat moss litter factory. As a practical farmer who has worked on the land until such time as I came into this House, I can assure the Minister that, so far as Mayo is concerned, the amount of peat moss litter that he can produce, 4,300 tons, would be of very little value. In fact, as has been stated here, two parishes would absorb the entire output of the factory. If that is the only contribution the Minister can make towards something in the nature of production, it will be better not to bother about it. There are various schemes for the Gaeltacht, such as glass-house and poultry-house schemes. It would be foolish to criticise those schemes. They could be made valuable in the case of uneconomic holders west of the Shannon. From a glass-house or hothouses they could produce goods 15 or 20 times the value of what could be produced in the open ground. It was suggested that if small seed schemes were allocated to the western counties, where there is not the acreage to produce wheat, oats or barley, they would be a great advantage. Therefore, I will not criticise the glass-house schemes for the Gaeltacht. There is, however, this much to be said, that glass-houses will not absorb the unemployed in the Gaeltacht or along the western seaboard. It is from there the real flight from the land takes place.

The Minister hopes that emigration will be greatly curtailed by the fact that we are spending so much in the country this year. I say that emigration will not decrease. How many of the young people who have to go to England could benefit under the glass-house scheme? I expect there would be one out of every 100. A scheme which would be of greater value eventually, though not perhaps for at least 20 years could it prove its worth, is a scheme of afforestation. Afforestation would decidedly be beneficial along the western seaboard, in the Gaeltacht areas. Governments in this country have been very slow to approach this matter. The reason, of course, is that forestry will not pay dividends overnight and the Minister for Lands or whoever is responsible for introducing a forestry scheme realises that he will never see the benefits reaped of any forestry scheme even though such a scheme will absorb more men and give more employment, acre for acre, than any other scheme which can be put into operation. When we see a miserable £40,000 allocated in this Budget for forestry for the coming year, we can only come to the conclusion that that is pure bunkum and that forestry is something which is being laughed and sneered at by the Minister.

We have a State debt of £100,000,000 and we have to provide about £5,000,000 every year to pay the interest of that debt without making any encroachment on the principal. If even at this late hour we could say that we had finished adding to this huge debt and that next year we could reduce it by £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 we might have some hope for the future but we can be assured from the various schemes that have been forecast and the various Bills introduced that another £8,000,000, £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 will be added to the total debt in the coming year and that it will be necessary to make a correspondingly larger provision for interest, all of which will have to be provided by the ordinary taxpayer. Of course a great excuse is given; it is the old excuse, the very useful one that the value of the £ has decreased and that the presentation of a Budget of £70,000,000 this year in reality represents a Budget of £35,000,000 ten years ago. That is all very fine but we must realise that the poor man's £ has depreciated in value by 100 per cent. just as much as the Minister's £ and while the poor man's income has not increased to anything like 100 per cent., he has still to pay taxation which is increased by over 100 per cent. as compared with ten years ago.

Another scheme, the expenditure on which I regard as squandering at the present moment, is rural electrification. Rural electrification would not, or should not, be opposed by any person with a progressive mind but rural electrification during the coming year is something of which the people are not in urgent need. The rural community are quite willing to carry on for three or four years more in the same manner as they have carried on for the past seven years. If the money which the Minister proposes to spend on rural electrification were spent for, some more necessary purpose, that expenditure would receive more welcome from the people at large. Nobody will complain about the Minister's proposal in regard to subsidies for turf production. The only criticism which can be made is that they are very meagre when compared with the gigantic total of the Budget but, such as they are, I think they will be supported by everybody in the House.

The proposal to spend £2,000,000 on the erection of new offices in Dublin Castle, I think, might well be postponed until we were in a more favourable financial position. We hear the cry all over the country that there is an urgent need for more housing in town and country. Yet we find that £2,000,000, which would go a long way towards financing the provision of dwelling-houses in the country, is being spent in Dublin Castle on the creation of more luxurious offices for the officials who work there. An official who has to attend his office from 9.30 or 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening does not regard that office as his home and he would much prefer, if luxuries are to be provided, that they might be forthcoming in the way of a comfortable home where he could spend his leisure hours. Similarly members of the working-class would prefer to see decent houses rather than that expenditure of this kind should be devoted to setting up luxurious offices with the carpeted floors which I understand will be laid down there.

The tax on tobacco has given rise to a certain amount of anger, especially amongst the older people. The fact that an additional tax of 6d. is put on half a quarter of tobacco is something that is regarded as very wrong. I think that an effort should have been made to obtain more money from income-tax so that those with the higher salaries would bear more of the burden. Unfortunate old people who are in receipt of 10/- or 12/6 as old age pension, or people who have to work for small wages look upon their pipeful of tobacco as very essential and I think it is very wrong that they should be singled out to pay the largest contribution towards the increased taxes. It is starting economy at the wrong end and it is definitely a type of taxation which has raised the anger and irritation of a large percentage of the people.

The emigration figures are a source of worry to everybody. The queues of boys and girls, young and old people, who are lined up at the various emigration offices every single day of the week are something of which no Government can be proud. A Deputy has only to visit the Irish Permit Office of the United Kingdom Office for Labour in Mount Street or the Permit Office in Merrion Square to see the crowds of people continually coming and going, looking for passports and for visas. Their only desire is to get out of the country and to stay out of it. Is it not to be regretted that out of a £70,000,000 Budget, we could not provide at least £20,000,000 to put into a fund to provide work which would absorb the surplus labour we have in the country? There is something wrong. It has been suggested here as to where this money will be found and it has been suggested as to where this money will be spent. This money will go into something which will never give any return, good, bad or indifferent.

Salaries have been dealt with under this Budget and there have been substantial salary increases to all classes of persons paid in whole or in part from the public purse. We have been told that these increases must be made and that they must be made on a generous scale. I agree that there are people working for the State who are not paid sufficient salaries to enable them to live in any great degree of comfort. On the other hand, there are employees of the State who are in receipt of many times what a decent or respectable salary is or should be. We are all aware of the demand which will be made on the Exchequer in the coming year in relation to increased salaries for judges and justices. Those increases will have to be met by the taxpayers. If the Minister and his Party think that those in receipt of £3,000 a year are entitled to an increase in salary, then I tell the Minister that he should go out to the people all over the country and see what reception he will get from them when he makes that statement. When the Government goes to the country they will, of course, have some glib excuse to make to the people. They will tell them about the 2/6 which has been given to the old age pensioners and the 2/6 under the children's allowances. They will tell them about the subsidy they are giving towards turf to make it cheaper for those consumers who happen to be in poor circumstances. Those are the things which they will tell the people.

The Opposition in this House is simply wasting its time in endeavouring to persuade anyone on the Government side of the House as to what the position of the country really is. The Opposition, who really understand the situation and the people, should not waste its time here in trying to do that. The Opposition should go out into the country and tell the people. The Fianna Fáil steam roller at the present moment in all its present strength can steam roll across the floor of this House on a division or a vote and crush down all opposition. The Deputies on the Government side of the House should know the position just as well as the Opposition does. Yet, we find those Deputies standing up here and congratulating the Minister and telling him that the people all over the country, and particularly those in the poorer parts of County Mayo, are well fitted and quite willing to meet this immense burden of taxation.

The ship is listing pretty heavily now. The Minister, concluding his Budget speech, said a few words in Irish—"Go dtugadh Dia cabhair dúinn san obair seo". I hope that this immense bill of taxation will not go through. I hope that Almighty God will give the Minister no help in his efforts to sink deeper this unfortunate country. If the Minister does get any Providential assistance, then I say that there is no justice. The Minister may take courage because of the applause he received from the Deputies on his own benches, but he must realise by this that he will receive scant encouragement from the Opposition in this House. He may go out, as other members of his Party have done, and say that he has heard no constructive criticism from the Opposition which would in any way help him in his task. I do not think that he can say that in the future. I have listened very closely to everybody who has spoken in this debate and I think the Minister has now heard quite enough criticism to make him realise that the task he envisages under this Budget is something which could not be brought to a successful conclusion unless, by some stroke of fate, we were to discover oil wells or gold mines in the country. The Minister is safeguarded in this House by the support of his own Party. He does not have to worry about putting this through, but I trust that it will not be very long before the people's eyes are opened and they are made to realise what the Minister and his Government are endeavouring to do.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

They say, Sir, "variety is the spice of life". It is certainly true that in a Budget debate we get a variety of views. Even if we do not agree with every view put forward, we must all agree that they are interesting to some extent, if they are put forward with sincerity and in good faith and if they have some useful bearing on the life of the country.

I listened here to-day to Deputy Major de Valera. He made an interesting speech, as he invariably does. But in the course of his speech he spoke about self-sufficiency with reference to this side of the House. I would remind the House that self-sufficiency as such has never been impugned by this side of the House. It is now an historical fact that the sugar beet industry, the electricity supply scheme and various other industrial undertakings were really conceived by the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Such schemes certainly do not look as if this Party ever thought self-sufficiency was a policy which would not prove of ultimate benefit to the country. As in so many other big issues, the essential difference between the two Parties in this matter is mainly one of degree. I think we have now reached a phase in the life of this State when a number of those industries which, in the "first fine careless rapture" of their inception, did not give that value to the public which they might have done. But I think that there has been a good deal of improvement made in that respect and this side of the House has never impugned in any way a policy of self-sufficiency as such.

Turning now to the Budget and to the Budget speech of the Minister, it seems to me that we have not much complaint to find with the Minister in regard to his method of raising taxation for the financing of the State in the coming year. The Minister has turned to luxuries and semi-luxuries for his increases in taxation. I am sorry, however, that he did not see his way to giving some greater measure of alleviation to individual taxpayers. A man in receipt of £200, £300 or £400 will save, as a result of the increase in personal allowance, something in the region of £13 a year. I speak now from memory because I have not got the exact figure before me at the moment. The purchasing power of such a sum is not very great, whether it be to a married man or to a single man. I have not any particular quarrel with the Minister as to his method of raising taxation under this Budget but I do feel, as I think we all feel on this side of the House, that the bill which is presented to the taxpayer is unnecessarily high. I have said before that an Opposition Deputy, whether he sits on the Front Bench or a back bench, cannot have the inside knowledge of the finances of the State to show the Department of Finance, headed by the Minister, anything that they have not partly guessed long ago. In other words, if you have, as we have in this country, highly paid civil servants spending their life working out figures and presenting them to the Minister for Finance for him to frame his policy on those figures, it is very difficult for any member of the Opposition to be in a position to point to any individual item and to say, "There is where a saving can be effected." We do not know enough about the inside workings of any Department to be able to do that. The Minister has that knowledge. What we do know and what we can see is that in many instances there appears to be reckless expenditure of public money. For a long time it was impossible for anybody on this side of the House to learn the sum of money that was paid to help the turf industry, in other words, the subsidy paid by the State per ton for turf. There are many matters of that kind in respect of which we are unable to put forward a proposition for lack of exact knowledge. We see, especially in connection with many social services, what appears to be waste of public money. Children's allowances have been mentioned. That is an allowance which is given to every qualified citizen irrespective of income. There must be many people drawing that allowance who do not need the 2/6 a week a per child. In other respects also we can see signs of reckless expenditure of public money.

I am sorry that the Minister did not see his way to reduce somewhat the taxation on industry. I know it is popular in this House, which is mainly composed of rural Deputies, to refer to the profits made in industry, especially at the present time. All businesses expand and improve by their profits and by their savings. At present, owing to the very high rate of taxation, it is almost impossible for industry to lay aside an adequate sum for improvement and expansion in the future. Certainly the Minister for Industry and Commerce is well aware that the whole industrial position of this country partly depends on the efficiency of machinery, lay-out, and so on, of buildings. I say partly because, of course, there must be skilled management and skilled labour and there are other factors. No country can succeed in industrial expansion if industry has to work with obsolete plant and machinery. Speaking as a business man, I can say that it is extremely difficult for any conservatively managed business at the present moment to lay aside money to finance future expansion.

We were to get them when Fianna Fáil came into power.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary should let Deputy Burke speak.

Mr. Burke

That is the sum total of the arguments we have listened to here. I wish to state, with reference to the increases in the Budget, that I have been speaking to a good cross-section of the people about the Budget and they welcome it. They say that it is a very good Budget. Unlike Deputy O'Leary, they have taken into consideration the increased cost of living and, considering the high demands on the Exchequer at the moment, they look upon it as a very reasonable Budget. We must remember that if the Minister had not put a tax on tobacco and cigarettes he would have had to put a tax on something else, because the money must be got from somewhere. Another Deputy has referred to the £2,000,000 for the building of State offices. Surely we have not reached the time here when we are going to house our civil servants in huts of some kind or other. I look upon that money which will be spent to create central offices in the city as a step in the right direction. Scores of houses in the city at the moment are taken up by civil servants and these houses will now be free for civilians to live in. Furthermore, the provision of a central office for civil servants will be more convenient for people who wish to visit any of these particular offices, more convenient for the civil servants themselves and will make for the coordination of Government offices. I do not see how anybody can find fault with the building of central offices to house our civil servants. The attitude of some people is that you should carry on without civil servants. Some fine speeches have been made by some members of the Opposition but other members of the Opposition play to the mob all the time. If they would only be a little practical they would be worth listening to.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the Arterial Drainage Act and ask him to consider the provision of some money in that connection. In my constituency we have at the moment a rather serious problem. Normally my constituency cannot be said to suffer from grave flooding but last year, being a phenomenally bad year as far as rainfall is concerned, a lot of the land was flooded. I would like to see, if only for the purpose of creating employment, more money spent on arterial drainage. Another problem in my constituency on the solution of which money could be spent, thereby creating employment, is the problem of land reclamation.

The rural electrification scheme which has been started in County Dublin has been welcomed by the people who have had an opportunity of availing of it. One thing, however, that I cannot understand is that while the State is subsidising the rural electrification scheme as laid down by the Oireachtas yet a man who lives two or three miles away from the ordinary route of the scheme finds that the price of bringing the electric light to his house, or houses as the case may be, is almost prohibitive. I know the Electricity Supply Board is doing its best but the fact remains that that is the position. I would ask the Minister for Finance to go into this matter and see the number of villages that are just a wee bit off the beaten track and I would ask him to introduce some scheme whereby the connection could be made at a cheaper rate than at present. I know some people throughout the county who live slightly away from the beaten track who had to pay rather exorbitant fees to the Electricity Supply Board in order to get electric light. The Electricity Supply Board put up a good case. I am not debating the Electricity Supply Board —I am debating the cost. From their point of view things are all right. They have to get the money and that is all about it. I know that the cost of labour and production is high but the price is too costly for the ordinary man who wishes to get the light.

We must face up to increased production. I have dealt with this matter on other Votes before but I consider it serious and vital to the nation. I feel again that while the Minister for Finance has definitely subsidised a number of industries, including agricultural produce and various other things, the time has arrived when our agriculturists and our industrialists should be inspired by a national policy to create some employment, to try to produce more food and manufacture more goods. I feel that that matter cannot be over-stressed.

At the moment we are facing a problem with regard to turf production. The Government is doing its best but it is up to every individual, every person and every society to help in that production. The Government is often blamed because they do not interfere. Then they are blamed when they do interfere. The Government, in turf production, as in food production, needs the wholehearted cooperation of the people. Increased production is the life-blood of any country. Countries have become prosperous because of their productive capacity.

There is one other ticklish point to which I want to refer and which has been referred to already by two other Deputies. I am in whole-hearted agreement with what was said by Deputy McCarthy and Deputy Ua Donnchadha on the matter. We are giving recognition to a certain type of State servants who are on pension. I do not agree with making fish of one and flesh of another. When we give an increase to State pensioners of any kind, I think that all State pensioners and local authorities' pensioners should also get an increase. I am referring particularly to national teachers who have retired on pension and I think they are entitled to some recognition. Of course, in asking for this we are asking for more money, but I think that when we are dealing with the matter at all it would not cost a whole lot to include these pensioners. The matter is worthy of sympathetic consideration and I should like the Minister to consider the case of retired national teachers and also retired employees of local authorities, some of whom are in receipt of a very small pension. Once the Minister has agreed to deal with this matter, all these people should be put on the same footing.

Mr. Roddy

The most pregnant sentence in the Minister's Budget speech is that which stated that the total State expenditure to be met by taxation was £69,350,000. However, that is not the whole story, because I am sure the same thing will happen during this financial year as happened in every other financial year. There will be a number of Supplementary Estimates for varying amounts and the total may amount to £8,000,000, £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. If the implication contained in the statement made by the Minister's colleague on Sunday is to be taken seriously, then the probability is that there may be many other rather fanciful schemes introduced by the Government for the purpose of catching votes. These will cost money also. Therefore, we are in a position of uncertainty as to the actual amount of expenditure in the coming financial year.

But, taking the figures which the Minister mentioned in his Budget statement as a basis for discussion, we can proceed to examine them and relate them to the circumstances which exist in the country to-day. So far as I know, this is the only country in the world where taxation has not been reduced since the war ceased. Our expenditure is going up, despite the fact that we were neutral throughout the war, and the Government seem to be unable or unwilling to bring down taxation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in introducing his Estimate recently, stated that events in the world have moved in such a way as to confuse the plans he had made for meeting an abnormal situation. It is in circumstances such as these that the Minister for Finance proposes to add another £5,000,000 to the already heavy load of taxation.

Surely to goodness, when circumstances at home are so uncertain, when world circumstances are as they are to-day, when nobody knows from day to day or week to week or month to month what is going to happen, the Minister should have made provision for the future by easing the load of taxation, so that, if the worst should happen, people would be given an opportunity of surmounting the likely difficulties ahead of them. But the Minister still adds further to the load which the taxpayers are carrying at present. So far as I can see, there is no hope in the future that that load will be reduced in any way.

The Minister provides the old excuse: that there is a constantly increasing demand for an extension of social services. That argument has been used in connection with every Budget during the last ten or 12 years. Personally, I believe that too much play altogether is made of this question of social services. It is customary for Fianna Fáil Deputies to get up and ask the Opposition which social service they are prepared to do without, can they recommend a reduction in the amount of any one of them. I think that so far as these social services are concerned, we are working on wrong lines. We are trying to ape the example of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, forgetting the fact that the present Government in Great Britain were committed to a revolutionary policy of social reform. I know that there are a great many enthusiasts in this country who are anxious to see the standard of health of the people generally raised and who want us to adopt in toto the schemes in operation in Great Britain at present and the schemes which will come into operation in the years to come. I submit that we cannot afford such a scale of social services here. I suggest very seriously that an examination should be made into the type and class and kind of social services we can afford.

A Health Bill was introduced the other day. We do not know what that Bill will cost. It may cost £1,000,000; it may cost £2,000,000; it may cost £5,000,000, or it may cost £10,000,000. At all events, we were presented with that Bill and we were given no indication as to what the cost of the implementation of that Bill would be. The Minister did say when concluding the debate that the charges would be equally apportioned between the rate-payers and the taxpayers. At all events, it will cost the country an enormous sum. The country is entitled to the best social services it can afford, but the question is what social services we can afford and what amount we can spend on them. I seriously suggest that it is time an answer was provided to that question. We should make up our minds how far we are prepared to go in the direction of social services and how far we can afford to go. We all admit that we cannot afford to have social services on the same scale as in Great Britain. Great Britain is a wealthy country; at least she was prior to the war. She is still a wealthy country and she can afford a much more expensive scale of social services than we can afford. We are a relatively poor country and we cannot afford to ape the social services they have in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think it is foolishness for Fianna Fáil Deputies to ask that silly question: what social services are you prepared to discard? In my opinion, it is an idiotic question. I seriously suggest to the Minister that it is time for him to make up his mind positively as to what type of social service we should have and what these services ought to cost us.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that the only hope for this country is an expansion of production. We must ask ourselves this question: in what direction are we to look for that increase in production? Will industry provide that increase in production which the Minister wants or will agriculture provide that increase in production? The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in introducing his Estimate, admitted that industrialists in this country were considerably handicapped at the moment, because they could not obtain essential and necessary machinery, because they could not obtain parts for existing machinery, and because they could not obtain the material which they require for an extension of premises and so on. Therefore, at least for a year or two years and, probably, three years, the Minister cannot expect that there will be very much expansion in industrial production. Consequently, he is thrown back on agriculture.

What is the position of agriculture at the moment? According to the Minister's Budget statement, agricultural production has depreciated since 1945. We know, from figures which the Minister and his colleagues have supplied to the House on numerous occasions, that agricultural production has been stagnant for the past 20 years and there can be no real expansion in production until the Government find out the reasons why it is stagnant. Agriculture is in a most unhealthy condition at the moment and it is incumbent on the Government, if they are really concerned about the welfare and progress and prosperity of the country, to ascertain the reasons why it is stagnant. If agricultural production has remained stationary for the past 20 years there must be a cause and it is the duty of the Minister and the Government to indicate that cause. Until a remedy is found for that situation, the economic life of this country will not be in a healthy condition.

We are not able to provide our own needs in bacon, butter or eggs and our cattle exports are going down. The whole agricultural situation is in a most unhealthy state and, as long as that unhealthy state continues, the Minister cannot look to agriculture for any worth-while expansion in production. So this is the position as I understand it. We are confronted with an appalling bill of possibly £80,000,000 to meet ordinary expenditure and the cost of borrowed money. That is one side of the picture. On the other side you have a declining agriculture and it is to agriculture you must look for a real expansion in production. According to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it is not possible to have any worth-while increase in industrial production because of the lack of necessary equipment, building materials and parts for existing machinery.

That is the situation. I ask Deputies in all seriousness is that a healthy situation, is it a situation calculated to redound to the benefit of this country or enhance our reputation in the eyes of outside nations? The Minister talks glibly and eloquently about the legacy they will leave to posterity. Is that a legacy that any Government could be proud of? We agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that an expansion of production is necessary and we are prepared to do everything we can to assist in bringing that about. But we suggest that he will have to ascertain the cause of the stagnation in agriculture as speedily as he can and he will have to redress the situation in regard to industries.

The Minister has put an extra burden on smokers. It is interesting to look over the figures for a number of years. I see that the customs duty on tobacco in 1929 amounted to £3,346,285; in 1931 it amounted to £3,438,672; in 1939 it increased to £4,660,352; in 1946 there was a further increase to £10,600,265 and in 1947 the Minister further increased the load on the unfortunate smokers to £11,308,810. The smokers down the years have always received the Minister's best attention. He has added to their burden year after year. It can be argued that the circumstances on this occasion were exceptional. At any rate, it is interesting to see that the smokers have provided the Minister with a fruitful source of income year after year.

The Minister referred to emigration. He said the official figures supplied to the House were wrong and the correct figure as revealed by the census was 120,000. That figure does not include the numbers who crossed the land frontiers and emigrated from Northern Ireland. If the Minister takes those numbers into account he will find that the correct figure is nearer 250,000. The desire is still strong among our people to get away. High taxation is one of the reasons why young people want to get out of the country. The lower the scale of taxation the more money there is to be put into production. The lower the scale of taxation the more money the farmers have to increase their production, to improve their farms, and the greater inducement there will be for farmers' sons to remain on the land. Anyone who knows country conditions is aware of the desire of most farmers' sons and daughters to get out of the country. If emigration were free in the morning, if no passports or visas had to be obtained, I am afraid our emigration figures would amount possibly to 1,000,000 each year. That would be all due to the fact that living conditions here are so difficult because of the high scale of taxation, the high rates and the high cost of living.

As regards turf, the Minister apparently in the future will place production in the hands of Bord na Móna. I hope the experiment will prove a success, but I have certain doubts about it. The county councils were bringing down turf production costs considerably all over the country. Bord na Móna production costs appear to me to be exceptionally high. They have not been reduced appreciably during the past three or four years. I fear Bord na Móna will add to the costs of turf production instead of lowering them. The Minister will admit turf is dear enough despite that it is subsidised. I fear that Bord na Móna operations will mean an additional burden on fuel consumers. I sincerely hope that my prophecy will prove incorrect, but I fear the handling over of turf production to Bord na Móna will add to the cost of consumers.

The most important thing the Govvernment can do is to bring down the cost of living because a high cost of living impinges on every individual. It makes life more difficult for all classes in the community and especially for the poorer sections, who find it so hard to make ends meet. Some years ago the Government appointed an economy committee of which the late Mr. Hugo Flinn was chairman. I do not know what happened to that committee. Presumably it passed out of existence after the death of the chairman. I submit it is necessary to reconstitute that economy committee and to have an examination of the expenditure of the various Departments. That is more necessary to-day than ever before.

Reference was made to salaries. I have always believed in paying men decently. It is not a question of salaries; it is the fact that there are too many people in the Civil Service. It is my deliberate opinion that the Civil Service is over-staffed. Investigation by an expert economy committee would lead to a reorganisation of the whole Civil Service machine and a substantial saving to the taxpayer. I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister that it is time such an examination were made because whether we like it or not, circumstances in future will force us to bring down taxation in this country.

I sometimes in my mind try to envisage what the circumstances would be like if, for instance, we were confronted with a very bad depression. After all, a period of depression has succeeded every war since the Napeolonic wars. It is quite conceivable that we shall have to experience a period of depression after the recent war, perhaps not this year, or next year, but in two or three years hence. If the Minister continues piling on taxation, if he goes on making permanent all these social services, how can the people meet such a situation? How will they be in a position to pay for all these social services which the Minister is introducing and making permanent year after year? I suggest that it is time an examination were made of this whole question by a body of experts to ascertain where effective and substantial economies can be made in every single Department of the State. It is necessary in the interests and the progress of the State that taxation should be brought to the lowest possible level, for it is so heavy at present that the vast majority of the people are unable to bear it.

Mr. Butler

The public, so far as I have been able to ascertain, experienced a feeling of relief when this Budget was announced. It is a temperate, conservative Budget. No impost has been placed on any necessary of life through this Budget. Listening to, and reading in the Press, the speeches made by Opposition Deputies last week-end, only one really genuine criticism emerged and that was that the amount of the Budget was higher than that of previous Budgets, that it was the highest in our history. Now, could it be lower? Of course, it could, if you withdrew from the farmers those helps, guarantees and subsidies which not only enable them to carry on very well at the present time but to be prepared for any slump such as succeeded previous wars, and which might succeed the last war. Undoubtedly, if you withdrew all help from the farming community, you could have a lower Budget but those farmers who remember the misery and the hardship of the depression years from 1923-31 would feel very sore at that particular retrenchment.

When this Government came into office, hundreds—I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said thousands—of the national schools throughout the country were a disgrace. Very many of them were mere hovels, totally unfitted to house children during the day, totally unfitted as buildings in which children had to spend one-third of their young lives. Wonderful improvements have been carried out, but the job is not yet complete. If you held up the erection of decent schools throughout the country, you could have a lower Budget, of course, but anyone interested in the education of our children and in the health of the nation certainly would not welcome retrenchment in that direction. If, in spite of world trends, you pegged down civil servants, public servants of all sorts, the Gardaí, etc., to the salaries which they had been receiving prior to the emergency, you certainly could have a smaller Budget, but who would think that it would be just, right or fair? If you suspended road construction and road improvement, you could have a smaller Budget, but would it be a wiser Budget? I think everyone will agree that it would certainly not be a wiser Budget. In last Sunday's Independent you all read an article on sanatorium treatment. We have plans for the coming year for an improvement in that position. If we suspended improvements in that direction, we could have a smaller Budget, but again it would be a very unwise thing to do.

Take housing. If you stopped subsidies for houses and the grants-in-aid that are made, you could certainly have a smaller Budget. But the thousands and thousands of poor people who cannot get shelter in the City of Dublin, other than in over-crowded slums, would give you very little thanks for that sort of retrenchment. In the same way, if you reduce expenditure on the development of fisheries, you certainly could pull down the Budget but no reasonable person would agree that it would be a wise thing to do. Some extraordinary criticisms have been levelled at the Government during the past year. We have the cry that we are not doing enough for the people, for public servants and for every class of the community. To-day, when something concrete is about to be done through the Budget for these various classes, the very opposite is the cry.

This country can never hope to achieve very great things through force of arms or material resources. It is right and proper to keep an adequate Army, of course, but I think it is really in the educational and cultural spheres that we have most to hope for. I think it is quite right that everything that can be done to advance higher education in this country should be done but if it is done, it will have to be paid for, remembering the smallness of our nation and our population. In area it is not at all in the educational and cultural sphere as it is in the purely material sphere. The greatest contributions towards our civilisation in the purely cultural sphere came to us from a smaller State than Ireland—smaller in population and smaller in area. Volumes of criticism are thrown out here on every occasion on which any effort is made towards a small expenditure in the cultural sphere.

Having listened to the Minister's speech and examined the Budget, I think that there is just one blot on it. For me there was one big disappointment because I think some effort should have been made to meet the reasonable demands made by our pensioned teachers in this country. Teachers were admittedly underpaid in the past when they went out on pension. Those teachers have now to live on half the inadequate salary they then received as compared with two-thirds for the ordinary public servant. Those teachers received no lump sum to help them in their few remaining years. They are living at the moment in penury where they have no relatives or friends on whom to fall back. I am disappointed that something has not been done in that matter. They are a very deserving section of the community. The Minister did say that he had budgeted for a surplus. If things go according to plan perhaps something may be done for them in the very near future and I make an earnest appeal to the Minister now to make them one of the first charges upon that surplus. It is a wise thing to budget for the full amount likely to be spent and, with the present trend of affairs, to over-budget to some extent. I hope that from that surplus the Minister will see his way to doing something to ameliorate the lot of the pensioned teachers of this country.

Mr. Costello

The description given by Deputy Butler, who has just spoken, of this Budget as a temperate and conservative one may bring retrospective smiles to the faces of those people who remember some of the promises made and the policies put forward by the Party to which Deputy Butler belongs not so very many years ago. It recalls to my mind immediately the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government made quite recently in which he said that he thought the Government was pursuing a very wise course in keeping to the middle of the road. Leaving aside the fact that the middle of the road is usually the wrong place to be on the road, leaving aside the fact that there is a right and wrong side of the road, and overlooking too the fact, as fact it is, that the Government habitually wobbles from right to left and from left to right, the outstanding feature of the present Government's policy is that whatever side of the road they are travelling on they have not the remotest idea in which direction they are going.

This Budget contains no constructive proposals to deal with the present problems of our times—excessive taxation, increased Government expenditure, the soaring and ever increasing cost of living and the almost chronic disease of this State of underproduction, which is responsible—if not entirely, to a very large degree—for all the troubles with which we are faced and which challenge us to-day and which are not dealt with in any fundamental fashion in this Budget. In a country which is supposed to be predominantly agricultural the people find themselves faced with shortages of those very commodities which some years ago were so bountiful and so plentiful that there was an export market. The people find themselves short of milk, butter, poultry, cattle, bacon, and even the humble egg. All these are goods which we ought to produce and which we have failed to produce in such a conspicuous degree under the guidance of Governmental policy over the last 15 years.

I have listened to some of the speakers here giving their points of view and their criticism on this Budget. I have noted that each speaker, whatever he might say about the Budget and its general proposals and propositions, usually came in, just as the last speaker did, with a little personal grievance of his own or some particular grievance attaching to a particular class which he represents or to which he belongs. I would like to say a few words on this Budget for a section of the community which has nobody to speak for them. I listened to Deputy Davin expressing his indignation at the Leader of the Opposition Party, Deputy General Mulcahy, voting against the imposition of a 6/6 standard rate of income-tax and expressing his surprise at Deputy Mulcahy's temerity in doing so.

One of the speakers in the Clann na Talmhan Party criticised to-day the additional tax on cigarettes and tobacco, and suggested that, instead of imposing that tax on tobacco, it should be imposed on income-tax. I want to say a few words now on behalf at least of a portion of the community which does pay income-tax. We have witnessed here in this country during that period in which the present Government has been in office the emergence of a new class—the emergence of an aristocracy of wealth, of an aristocracy not having its roots or its basis either in creed, or class, or privilege, but having its basis upon the money and the fortunes raked out of the community under the policy of the present Government over the last 15 years. Looking around this city, it amazes people who have spent all their lives here as to where the wealth is coming from, as to where the money is being found to buy expensive up-to-date motor cars, as to where the money is coming from to pay these exorbitant prices for houses in the city and in the suburbs. That is a new class in our community. I will leave that class aside for the moment, because they welcome this Budget with jubilation. They are the class for whom 6/6 in the £ income-tax provides no terrors, because they are well able to bear it. Their sole fear prior to this Budget was that some of their ill-gotten gains might be taken from them to ease the burden of the harder working sections of our community. I leave those people aside and I come down to the poorest classes.

The care of the poor and the sick must always be a first charge upon our resources. Those workers who are represented by trade unions and who hold the powerful weapon of collective bargaining in their hands and, in the last resource, the weapon of the strike, have their case made for them here by their representatives in this House. They are perfectly competent to look after them and look after their interests. They have wrung, perhaps at some cost also to the community, various concessions in respect of wages in the last nine or ten months. When income-tax impacted upon their earnings we no longer heard the Labour Party clamouring to have the burden increased for those who already paid income-tax. Representatives of the trade unions waited apparently upon the Government or the Minister for Finance asking that the personal allowance should be increased in order that those sections of the working people represented by trade unions would not have to pay income-tax or be asked to bear the impact of income-tax. In my view that is the reason why there is such a small measure of relief for income-tax payers in this Budget—this conservative and temperate Budget.

The Minister in his high-powered Dodge car was riding along the centre of the road—or, perhaps, well over on the right-hand side of the road—when he was dealing with some particular aspects of his Budget. But when he came down to deal with this, he felt that the pressure of the trade unions was so strong upon him that he had to go over a bit to the left and, consequently, some small, inadequate relief was given to income-tax payers, for that reason and, in my view, for that reason alone.

Intermediate between those two sections of the Irish community—I am avoiding the use of the word "class" in case it may be regarded as snobbish—there is a section of the community who have suffered in silence greater hardships than some even of the very poor. They have undergone sufferings relatively as great as those of some of the poorest people in this country but they have nobody to speak for them. They are ground between the new aristocracy of wealth and the necessary demands for wages by the trade unions having regard to the increase in the cost of living. Very many of them are in a position of not being able to secure increased remuneration from their professions, from their salaries, from their various callings in any way commensurate with the demands that are made upon them by reason of the increase in the cost of living. We have in every commodity, certainly in every essential commodity, a startling increase in price with no apparent end to it. That is not going to mean that that section of the community for whom I am now primarily speaking are going to have to pay more for those essential commodities; they are going to have to do with less of those essential commodities and there is going to be, consequently, greater suffering, less nutrition and certainly a lower standard of living for those professional and clerical classes for whom I am speaking.

Mostly those people for whom I am speaking here are dependent entirely upon their own personal effort to earn their living. The man who has a business, the farmer who has his farm, can get somebody to carry on his business or to operate his holding for him in times of illness. The businessman can have his business conducted by an efficient manager when misfortune overtakes him in the way of illness. The farmer can have somebody, neighbours, even, at the last resort, to give him a helping hand, but those professional and clerical classes are depending entirely on their own efforts, on their own health and on their own brains to make their living. If any misfortune overtakes them then there is nothing facing them but the bankruptcy court and if they die their families are left merely with whatever meagre pittance that the particular individual has been able to save over the years by his effort and his labour and even that is subjected to tax, a tax which, in the particular circumstances to which I am alluding, is an unjust tax, the tax comprehensively known as death duties.

Here we have then, I submit to you, Sir, a section of the community which deserves some consideration and which has got none in this Budget. I would urge upon the Minister the desirability of considering in the case of people whose livelihoods depend entirely upon their own personal effort, who have no business to fall back upon, who have nothing but their health and their brains with which to sustain themselves and their families, that some preferential treatment ought to be given to them in the matter of taxation and in existing circumstances.

I have every sympathy for the worker who demanded an increase in the personal allowance. He was brought within the net of the income-tax code by the fall in the purchasing power of his wages and by the necessary increase which he demanded and which he got, but I think that some measure of consideration is due to the people and the class or the section of the community on whose behalf I am speaking. The businessman is allowed for his business wear and tear. The professional man or the clerk or the civil servant or the superintendent of the Guards, or any of the so-called white collar brigade, get no allowance for the wear and tear of their brains, their bodies and their health. They have to make provision for their old age, and for their family in the event of their death. The normal, and in almost every case, the only method, by which such provision can adequately be made is by means of life insurance and possibly by a little saving. What is the position with which they are faced now? They paid over the years, possibly at great sacrifice to their families and themselves, the premiums on their life insurance at a time when a £ was in purchasing value equivalent to a £. These policies will mature in terms of money the purchasing value of which is halved and on their deaths—in the normal case policies mature for the benefit of their children and their families—estate duty will have to be paid even on that particular decreased value of their policies.

I do urge upon the Minister some consideration for that class. They are an important section of the community. I would hesitate to say that any section of the community is the most important section of the community. I suppose each section considers itself the corner-stone of the whole social fabric, but on behalf of that class it should be said that those people maintain the existing voluntary charitable organisations by their own voluntary effort. They are normally the people who, to a large extent, if not entirely, contribute to the maintenance of cultural organisations and they are a section of the community which, in my view at all events, have suffered in a way that nobody has so far given them any credit for. On their behalf I claim some relief and some allowance at the earliest possible date. I see no reason why increased personal allowances in lieu of wear and tear should not be given to them. I see no justification in justice for the extraction from their inadequate savings on the termination of their lives—savings set aside for the benefit of their wives and children—death duties at the same rate and to the same extent as death duties are extracted from the profiteer, the person who has by means of Government and privileged monopolies been able to extract a very large fortune in the last 15 years.

It was for the purpose of raising my voice on behalf of that section of the community principally that I intervened in this Budget debate. I hope on subsequent occasions to refer to it again and again with a view to seeing, so far as I can achieve it while I am in public life, that their claims and their just demands will at least be heard if not heeded.

Speaking on some general aspects of this Budget, I think, as I said at the very outset, the outstanding feature of the Budget is its failure to make any constructive proposals or to give any practical encouragement to the solution of the pressing problems of our times. I find in no part of that Budget any suggestion as to how the increased and soaring cost of living is to be dealt with or met. There are no proposals for the control of prices. There are no suggestions as to how the problem of under-production is to be met. The Minister says that under-production is something to be dealt with and he appeals for various sections of the community to deal with it. In no part of this Budget is there any contribution by the Government to that very urgent problem. The Government themselves rank high in the black list of profiteers.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Costello

There is no doubt that the high rate of taxation is very largely responsible for the under-production we are faced with here. There is no doubt that the under-production in industry, and in agriculture particularly, is due to the particular policy pursued by the Government in the last 15 years. At the end of 15 years of present Government policy we find in an agricultural community the condition of affairs to which I have alluded. We are told we ought to have industries in this country. Well, we have here legitimate industries in each and every farm throughout the country. We find that those industries are practically brought to a position where they are unproductive and where the community is not able to meet any of its legitimate demands. We have not enough food in a country that could produce food in plenty. There is not enough for our own people. In that set of facts, how can the Minister have the effrontery to appeal to the workers to put their faith in increased expansion rather than in the restrictive policies which have been the cross-current of trade union activity in recent years? How can he achieve what must be achieved—the lightening and the lessening of those restrictive practices on trade union principles—unless some lead is given both by the Government first and then by the other sections of the community who are making large fortunes out of Government policies? It is useless and must appear nothing but sheer hypocrisy to the workers to ask them to produce more goods in order that the wealth of the community may be increased unless, side by side with that exhortation from the Government, there are some practical steps taken by the Government themselves to put their own house in order.

Soaring prices and high cost of living are due mainly again to the fact that particular individuals who are associated with the Government and with Government policy are given monopolies, licences, concessions and privileges which enable them to exploit the people and the people's needs. There should be an end to that and there should be equal opportunities for all. There is no doubt that there is a widespread belief, well founded, that there exists a close entente between certain sections of the business community of this country and the Fianna Fáil Party. There is no doubt that through that association and through the subscriptions given by those particular people to the Fianna Fáil Party's funds vast fortunes have been enabled to be made. If the Government is to give any lead to the workers, either in industry or agriculture, if other sections of the community are to be exhorted and to take that exhortation as being sincere, then an end must be put to those particular practices. There is no use in denying that they exist. Everybody knows that they exist and visible evidence of it exists before our eyes every day. Where is the money coming from to buy all these big houses in the suburbs? Why is it that that particular section of the community to which I referred a short time ago is unable to get any house either to purchase or to let at any reasonable figure? Because there is too much free money going in the hands of people who have exploited the wants of the people here in the last few years or who have been given opportunities of making fortunes at the expense of the community which they never should have been given by Government policy or Government practice or Government administration.

If ever a temperate conservative Budget lived up to its name in certain sections, this does, because in some sections of the Budget speech the Minister enunciated conservative economic principles which the most conservative economist would not dare to disagree with. In one portion of his speech he decided that he would lecture all sections of the people and tell them that Government expenditure for which there had been such clamant demands from various sections merely made the problem worse, the problem that existed from too much money and too few goods. He lectured people in this section of his speech. I quote:—

"It is too seldom realised that the spending by the State of money borrowed from the public tends to add to the amount of active purchasing power almost as surely as an increase of loans by the banks or a fiduciary issue of notes by the State; for, when the State spends money borrowed from those who are inclined to save, it often reaches those who are inclined to spend, and the lenders are left in possession of State securities which can be sold to the banks or to foreigners or pledged with the banks as securities for fresh advances."

I suppose that paragraph could have been taken from a text-book written by the most conservative political economist. When he proceeds however to elaborate that principle and to say how the Government and the Minister for Finance put it into practice in their own case he says:—

"In the present abnormal situation when supplies are scarce in relation to the volume of money and prices are tending to rise too high, it would be positively harmful for the State to intervene to increase the total volume of expenditure, as distinct from diverting expenditure from consumption to capital development."

Another very correct and very conservative economic statement! Again, I suppose, in the middle of the road or very far over to the right of the road, and he proceeds:—

"Indeed, in this situation it is desirable that the State should sweep some of the surplus money into the Exchequer through taxation."

I can imagine the delight of the Departmental officials when penning that particular sentence—

"sweep some of the surplus money into the Exchequer through taxation !"

Again, I understand that that is a direct conservative economic principle. In abnormal times, in circumstances where there is too much money and too few goods, it is perhaps correct to prevent too much purchasing by the people with too much money of the too few goods. But for the State to justify raking all that into the Exchequer it must be shown that something productive has emerged from that raking. What surplus has emerged in the last six or seven years of raking in the taxpayers' money at the high rate of taxation that the people have to undergo? Unless these principles are mere eyewash to give an air of verisimilitude to the simile of the Dodge cars of the Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government going along the middle of the roads, it is sheer hypocrisy. If those principles are sound, how are they applied? There is no surplus available either for reduction of taxation, the purchase of capital goods, the encouragement of increased production in any industry or on the land, or expenditure upon capital works of a reproductive kind as the result of the millions of money which have been raked into the Exchequer through high taxation.

Has the conservative economist who penned those sentences for the Minister adverted to the inflationary tendency of high taxation itself? Has he ever adverted to the fact that high taxation in itself takes money from those who would have saved it, thereby creating an asset in building up the economy of the State, or from those who are unable really to pay it, thereby creating a hardship for some section of the community? All that has happened as a result of the statement of those conservative high economic principles is that no surplus is shown. The financial debt has not been reduced in any way. No capital assets have been purchased. No works of a reproductive nature have been achieved. The sole achievement accorded in this Budget speech is that certain items which normally would have been met last year by borrowing were met out of taxation to the extent of £642,000. That is the sole result of the application of those conservative economic principles.

Instead of allowing the money that would be available, if these items had been discharged out of borrowing, to be applied to the reduction of taxation this year a conservative principle was applied because it suited the Department of Finance. But there is no proposal from the Minister. Here he wobbles from the conservative right to the radical left of the economic thoroughfare. Here we have him spending away. There is no proposal for the reduction of Government expenditure or for economy. It is not even envisaged that there shall be any restriction in Government activities. He is on the left of the economic thoroughfare there, because, as has been said by speaker after speaker on the opposite benches, the money is wanted for social services. That is the justification for all the extravagances that have been perpetrated and inflicted upon this country by Government profligacy in the last six or seven years. Spending on social services is the excuse for everything. The existence of social services is an indication of ill-health in the body politic. In any case, as has been said, they are nothing more than a row of medicine bottles showing disease in the household. The sounder your economic fabric is, the less need there is for social services. But, because of the policy of the Government, who have reduced agricultural production, caused the cost of living to rise to the soaring heights it has arisen, and because of the malnutrition which people are suffering from, we require these additional social services.

It is all very fine to say they will cost millions of money. But when you find an old age pensioner, with all these millions of money being spent and being used as a justification for Government extravagance, being presented with the price of seven and a half packets of cigarettes on which to live every week, I think the argument of social services will have little appeal for those people who have been looking and are still looking for some indication of the Government's intention to control prices, to reduce expenditure, and do their part in controlling the cost of living.

I said that the Government took a high place in the list of profiteers. They propose in this Budget to raise £17,500,000 in customs duties. That is one of the great factors operating to increase the cost of living and to maintain the profits of the profiters. The value of an article worth £100 pre-war with a tariff of 50 per cent. has now gone up to £200, and £100 in revenue is raked in by the Government. That is the Government's contribution to this spending and to the increase in the cost of living. The tariff has gone up 50 per cent. on £200, not £100, and, accordingly, we find that the importer of these goods pays a tariff of £100 on goods on which he formerly paid £50. Prior to this increase he measured his profit on a percentage basis, directed possibly by the Department of Industry and Commerce, on the £50. He now rakes in a profit on the same percentage basis on £100. He makes his profit on the £200 article and he makes his profit on the £100 tariff. Is it any wonder that prices have gone up to the prohibitive height to which they have gone? That is where Government policy is contributing to inflation and the high cost of living.

I find no proposals in this Budget to deal with that situation. I find no proposals in it to encourage that production which the Government demands from all sections of the community. Everybody is agreed on the necessity for increased production. For many years speakers from this bench have been preaching that. They have been preaching the policy that agricultural production is the real source of wealth, and the source on which ultimately will depend our industrial expansion. It is not to-day or yesterday that policy was preached from the Fine Gael benches.

What encouragement are the Government giving to agriculture or industry in order to increase production? There is not a proposal in this Budget to assist agriculture or industry beyond these palliatives, political palliatives I would prefer to dub them, of the tomatoes in the Gaeltacht and the peat moss for the farmers. I suggest the Minister should reconsider the position in reference to agriculture. My colleague, Deputy Hughes, and other farmers in this Party, are more competent to speak on the subject of agricultural production than I, and they have spoken of it through the country and in this House, and have given our views upon it. I do not propose to trespass upon their political sphere of activity. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the £1,000,000 he has given towards the reduction of rates on agricultural land. He should reconsider the manner in which that has been given to the farmers. I understand that close on £1,000,000 was given last year for the relief of agricultural rates. It was given to the good farmer and the bad farmer indiscriminately. Whether you were working well, intending to improve your farm and increase production, you got the same as the farmer who allowed his land to remain idle.

As a constructive proposal, I suggest the Minister should consider that instead of giving money for the relief of agricultural rates indiscriminately in the way I have indicated, instead of giving the relief that he does give where employment is given to agricultural labourers, the test should be, not whether you are an employing farmer or whether the land is used for agricultural purposes, but whether you have improved the land and made it capable of increased production; whether what you have done on the land in previous years has added to the nation's wealth. That is one proposal that will help to increase production.

I will give another one, one that is applicable both to industry and agriculture. If a farmer improves his outbuildings or his farm-house, he is in the same position as a city dweller who improves his house—up goes the valuation and up go the rates. What is urgently desired in connection with agriculture is the improvement of the land and the fertility of the land. There should be encouragement for the farmers so that they will spend whatever surplus they may have in these good years on the improvement and development of their factories and farms, because their farms are their factories.

What encouragement is given to industry? Deputy Maurice Dockrell, speaking as a businessman, drew attention to that aspect of this Budget. There are many ways in which industry can be helped, not at the expense of the consumer or the taxpayer, but in such a ay as will in turn assist in the reduction of the cost of living and the price of articles by increasing the efficiency of industry and improving the business. We have had exhortations by various Ministers to industrialists to use modern methods, to consider their costings, to plough back more of their profits into their businesses. It is essential that more of the profits earned by industry should be ploughed back into business. What encouragement is the Minister giving industrialists to whom his colleagues, and perhaps himself, from time to time, make these verbal exhortations? What encouragement do they get to put their money into their own business, rather than invest it in other concerns? What encouragement is there to industrialists and businessmen to get away from the old and vicious principle of making maximum profits and maximum dividends, rather than build up their concerns in the fashion in which the great industries of Great Britain were built up, and to strengthen their business by putting back profits to improve it, making the improvement of their industry their first concern, and not allowing profit-making and dividend distributing to be their chief aim?

The Minister could very easily, and with benefit to the consumer and taxpayer, give some relief to business which would have the effect of enabling industrialists to plough back more of their profits into the business and so bring about increased production, increased efficiency and decreased costs. There is no incentive to do that; there is no incentive to work, because the more profits that are made the more the taxes that are taken off. If the Minister could devise a scheme by which the incidence of local and national taxation could be more fairly distributed, something could be achieved along the lines to which I have adverted. The businessman who keeps the profits, who keeps them in the form of liquid cash, is in a different position from the man who puts his profits or portion of them into improving his business methods and his capital goods, replacing worn-out machinery and thereby increasing the efficiency of his concern and lessening the cost of his goods. There is the type of man who will not bother about increasing efficiency with a view to greater production and decreased costs, with consequent benefit to the community in general.

I suggest to the Minister that industry could be very readily helped, and assistance given to industrial production, with a fall in the cost of living and, incidentally, by the increase of wealth, a fall in taxation, if the Minister would consider preferential treatment for those parts of profits which are ploughed back into industry and used for its development—used for the more efficient development and the creation of better and cheaper goods for the community.

There is a very small amount of money spent on industrial research in this country. There is no plan or project envisaged in the Budget by which the Government can assist industrialists and businessmen to train their workers, to get expert managers to apply the discoveries of modern science to business methods and to existing conditions in this country. That is another suggestion of a constructive kind that I present to the Minister. Again, it would be a benefit to the community.

There has been a lot of talk about profiteering, and there has been gross profiteering in this country, particularly in the past six or seven years. I wish to make it clear that we on this side of the House are in favour of private enterprise. We have no objection to industrialists and businessmen making profits, and even large profits, provided they do not do so at the expense of the community, or by exploiting the wants of the community in stringent times. We think that businessmen and industrialists are entitled to the fruits of their industry, their intelligence, their foresight and initiative and the risks they took and that limited profits of that kind are proper and should be encouraged, provided always that it is made clear that they are making these profits through their own enterprise, intelligence and initiative and that they are not doing it, and will not be allowed to do it, at the expense of the community or at the expense of the people employed. If they are given encouragement along the lines I suggest—a rebate or preferential treatment which will allow them to plough their profits back into industry instead of being given a mere allowance for wear and tear—they can do their part and should be called on to do their part.

If workers are prepared to give up restrictive provisions regarding apprenticeship, working hours and conditions of employment, then it should be made clear that if they are called upon to do their part for the benefit of the community, they will not be made to feel that they are being exploited for the benefit of profiteers, for the benefit of those who want expensive luxuries or who want to pay exorbitant prices for country mansions. If they give up these restrictive practices, which must be given up some time for the benefit of the community, they should feel that they are getting something in return. When businessmen and industrialists ask trade unions to give up their restrictive rules, to allow a greater flow of apprentices into the various crafts and trades, industrialists who get the benefit of State assistance should be asked themselves to do their part in connection with the abolition of these combines and trusts of protective associations which exist for the purpose of restricting entry into particular classes of trade, industry and commerce and also for the purpose of keeping up prices.

There are many aspects of the Budget upon which it would be desirable to speak. I have touched barely upon the fringe of the problems presented by it. I make the contribution I have made, not in any spirit of mere carping criticism, but to show that as far as we are concerned, we have constructive suggestions which are absent from the Minister's proposals in this Budget.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Childers)

I have sat and listened to speeches by Deputies on the Opposition Benches for a number of days, and it would seem to me that we are living in a completely unreal atmosphere in this House. The principal increases in expenditure which form the subject of this Budget are due to a decrease in the value of money, to increases in the salaries and wages paid to civil servants, increases in social services to offset the increases that have taken place in the cost of living. In fact, if the Government had given way to the clamour of the Opposition during the whole of the emergency, these increases would have taken place a number of years ago. In so far as measures designed in some way to correct decreases in the way of the value of money are concerned, we have postponed that day, postponed it because we are aware, like every Government in the world, that attempts to overcome difficulties arising from the war, through increasing salaries and wages, increasing prices and social services, inevitably have adverse reactions. If we had an ideal community in this country willing to carry out a completely co-operative campaign to try to prevent inflation, it would be very much better if many of these increases both in prices charged by retailers and manufacturers and salaries paid to workers or money paid to employers in the form of dividends were maintained at the lowest possible level so that when the inevitable reaction comes in four or five years or perhaps earlier and there is an excess of goods instead of a deficiency, the effect in this country will not be so serious. The Government, therefore, like all other Governments, has had to compromise in its effort to prevent inflation, because of circumstances over which we have no control. For better or for worse we are inevitably linked with sterling currency. Our neighbour, Great Britain, has gone through a disastrous war, has borrowed far more than we have. Her currency has depreciated to a far greater extent and she is paying far greater sums in subsidies to keep down the cost of living than we do. It is impossible for us, linked as we are with the world at large and with the sterling countries in particular, to adopt entirely measures which might have made it possible to conserve the figure of expenditure in this financial year.

If we had, however, listened to members of the Opposition all through the war, if we had increased wages and salaries, increased Government expenditure, increased social services, every time they were demanded, by this time the £ would be worth practically nothing and by this time the Opposition, instead of making unreal proposals for reduction in taxation, would be even in a far more sorry plight than they are at present. I do not know whether it is because the members of the Opposition are unable to agree to Deputy O'Higgins' proposals that there would be more unity amongst them or whether it is because they find it difficult to discover anything disastrous in Government policy, but I find that the bitterness, the exaggeration and the wild talk to which we have listened in this House are not reflected among the ordinary people of the country. I have been down the country since the Budget was announced. I have talked with small farmers and cottiers in my constituency. I have discussed with them, as I often do, the political and economic events of the day. They seem to understand the Government's difficulties. They complain of the increases in the cost of cigarettes and they suggest that perhaps we might have foreseen one particular phase of policy or that we might have taken more care in connection with some other aspect of economic development, but on the whole they understand the situation very well. At least they have shown a sufficient realisation of the situation to appreciate the fact that the Government is not responsible for shortages of commodities occasioned by blasts of wind and snow for which we have only Providence to thank.

It amazes small farmers down the country, looking at the frayed carpet of grass which is supposed to provide feeding for their cattle, and which is due almost entirely to weather, to hear that the Government is supposed to be responsible for the low butter ration, that, in some way, the Government is supposed to be responsible for there not being a plenitude of good spring grass for our cattle to eat. Therefore, coming back into the House, we, on this side of the House, must, I think, be particularly careful to speak calmly and wisely on these matters. My own belief is that if the Opposition were faced with a general election at the moment they would find themselves "hoist with their own petard"—that they would find a people who, however great their criticism of the Government might be, appreciated the realities of the times.

Deputy Blowick said the Government had nothing but stop-gap legislation to enable the country to face the future. What country on the face of the earth has anything but stop-gap legislation to enable it to face the future? There is no certainty in the future for this or any other country. The great Powers who control economic destinies and the military destinies of the world have no certainty as to the future. They are not even able to make up their minds on either their offensive or defensive economic or military policy. Certain preliminary agreements were signed by Great Britain and America in relation to imperial preferences and tariffs and in relation, in turn, to the Anglo-American Loan. No final decision has been reached in this matter. The British have said that they are not prepared to abolish their rates of preferences unless at the same time America is willing to enter into an economic agreement satisfactory to the British nation as a whole.

There is no certainty in so far as the future of Europe is concerned. It might seem absurd and exaggerated to say that this country is not affected by the German Peace Treaty. Of course it is affected, because in Germany, before the war, we bought a great deal of our equipment designed to help our electrical and industrial production. Unless we know what the import of these two items is going to be in the future we can have no conception of our industrial and agricultural production levels.

Take another example. We suffer from a deficiency of housing materials and the housing programme envisaged by the Government cannot continue at the rate at which we would like to proceed unless we import a greater volume of timber. This in turn depends partly on the completely unknown terms of any Anglo-Russian or American-Russian trade agreements. Until the pool of timber available for the whole world can be directed in an intelligent manner and until the Four Great Powers come to agreement on the matter it is not possible for us to carry out a housing programme at the level which we would like to achieve.

The same applies to shipping. Shipping is to a considerable degree controlled all over the world by other Governments. There is a certain amount of shipping free but the ships we could purchase we cannot buy because of currency or other reasons. Whenever shipping becomes free we shall supply our own needs but until shipping is free we shall suffer from shortage of such things as fuel, oil, petrol and paraffin and it is impossible for us at the moment to overcome existing difficulties.

The same argument applies to our tariff policy. We are told that we have no plans for our future relations with Great Britain. On every occasion on which it was desirable we have negotiated with Ministers of the British Government responsible for various Departments, but the Ministers of these same Departments are not always prepared to come and discuss with us long-term trade agreements, because they themselves are not aware of what their future plans will be.

The whole world is living in an atmosphere of post-war emergency. A certain Deputy this evening said that we made a promise to the people of this country that as soon as the war was over things would revert to normal. We never did anything of the kind. I spent the entire elections of 1943 and 1944 warning my constituents that nothing would be normal after the war, and that, if anything, things would be more abnormal than they were during the war. I told the people that each group and each section would start to make demands more and more upon the common pool for wages and salaries — demands which they had deferred because of the exigencies of war and that they would make such demands when circumstances were such that they could only achieve their object at someone else's expense. I warned the people that we would go through the same phase in our own internal economy. I warned them we would have to meet certain increases in wages and salaries and I warned them that we would have to make available money which would be limited in its scope, because there were not sufficient commodities on which to spend that money and that until goods became available in proper measure adverse reactions were bound to ensue. The results of all these conditions are high prices and the necessity for stringent controls—controls that are irksome to everyone in the community. Increases in wages are followed inevitably by increases in prices because of the insufficiency of commodities instead of an excess. What we are going through because of lack of materials prevents us from giving the volume of employment which we have planned and makes it still more impossible for us to tell the country to go ahead at full steam in carrying out our programme of reconstruction.

We have heard a good deal since this Budget was introduced about unemployment. I would suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the time is now opportune for his ceasing to publish the bare figures of unemployment in this country and giving us more detail about them in the public Press. Quite obviously Deputies of the Opposition do not read the Irish Trade Journal published quarterly and are incapable of appreciating the true aspects of unemployment in this country. There is no such thing as serious unemployment. There is very serious emigration. When Deputies get up on the Labour Benches and talk about 70,000 unemployed they are not giving the House the real truth in regard to this matter.

Mr. McMenamin

Are the official figures then inaccurate?

Mr. Childers

If the Deputy will bear with me for a moment and permit me to make my speech he will have the truth. Of the 70,000 unemployed about 35,000 are registered unemployed in the rural districts in the winter months. The bulk of these are small farmers' sons in the West of Ireland. They are not unemployed in the ordinary sense of the word wherein industrial production is a matter of primary importance. Of the 70,000 unemployed 20,000 are temporarily unemployed, leaving a balance of 50,000 receiving unemployment assistance who are genuinely in need of employment or who have had not employment for some years. In the boroughs and in the urban districts of this country there were only 7,000 to 9,000 people under 40 years of age receiving unemployment in September, 1944 and 1945. I have no reason to suppose that the number has increased to any great extent. Those are the people who constitute the major unemployment problem in this country— the young man in the towns, both married and unmarried. That is a problem which we have not solved.

The other problem which we have failed to solve in dealing with unemployment in this country, apart from the emergency and shortage of materials, is the problem of those people who become unemployed in the winter months. We have a shortage of labour in the right place at the right time to do the right kind of work from March to October in every year and we have an excess from October to March. We have an excess of men available for employment. Yet in comparison with other countries and with Lord Beveridge's figure of 10 per cent. of total unemployed out of the working population as being inevitable, our principal problem is to deal with this 7,000 to 9,000 persons in the towns and boroughs under 40 years of age who are now receiving unemployment assistance.

There is another figure which might be of interest to the House. It is a figure published in 1945. I should explain that the 1945 figures are the most recent that I can find and I have been given to understand that no radical change has taken place in the last two years. There were 17,000 receiving unemployment assistance in the summer months of the year in towns. Of those 20 per cent. had no work for a period of a year and 12 per cent. had worked for six months to nine months. Those figures indicate that when you break down the actual statistics for unemployment the problem is a complex one and cannot be dismissed simply with an airy gesture. The question arises as to what we are going to do for our young unemployed.

As I have said, the principal difficulty is that of seasonal unemployment. We would not have the men, either with or without the emigration that has taken place in the last five years, to carry out all the fancy, large-scale grandiose schemes of afforestation and drainage on an impossible and exaggerated scale proposed by Deputies of the Opposition, in the summer months. We would not have enough men with or without the emigration that has taken place in the last five years to carry out all these schemes in the climatic period for which they are suitable. On the other hand, we have an excess of persons in the winter months, when work is extremely hard to find, without either directing them to work to which they are not accustomed, directing them to live in a town where they do not want to live or paying wages which they are not prepared to take.

These are the facts and anybody who studies the history of unemployment in this country will realise the position. I am not saying the Government has solved the problem, although at the moment it is less acute than it has been because there is the safety value of emigration.

I next want to speak about emigration. There is more hypocrisy talked in this House about the Government's responsibility for emigration to England than there is on any other matter which we are discussing to-day. The suggestion is made that the Government is largely and completely responsible for the emigration of persons to Great Britain that has taken place in the last five years. That is a completely untrue and unfounded statement. In every country of the world where it is possible for people to move from one country to another there are vast movements of labour occasioned by war. It is very lucky for us, it was very lucky for our people that we were one of the few countries in Europe adjacent to another country indulging in enormous inflated expenditure, bankrupting itself in order to win a war, where emigration was free and not forced, that our people could go voluntarily to work in England if they so desired. It was very lucky that we, unlike other countries in Europe, did not have to exchange men as a hard bargain for materials.

Let us assume that the Government had the extraordinary power, even in the middle of a war, even with shortages of materials, even with all the difficulties associated with war, to increase the real family income of the people in the western districts, in the Gaeltacht districts, by 25 per cent. I defy any Deputy of the Opposition to tell me that there would not have been emigration. When war takes place, when there are shortages of materials and when there are unusual and in many cases non-recurrent opportunities for employment in a neighbouring country, and in an industrial community, I defy anyone in the Opposition to say that there would not have been emigration even if the real income of all the people in the western districts had been very largely increased.

We are an adventurous people. We have been forced to emigrate in all our history and it has become a habit amongst us. The English community is going through a particular phase in its economy which will not last for ever. Whether they bankrupt themselves in the process or not, they have got to rebuild their community, they have to rebuild their destroyed houses, they have got to restore their industries, they have got to go on assisting America to police the world and there are opportunities for employment in England which simply could not exist in this country, no matter how ideal the Government in office. There is a temptation to people of adventurous spirit in this country, regardless of income, and naturally the people with great intelligence from the poor areas will want to venture forth into the world and, finding acceptable employment available to them on a scale never before, certainly not in the last 20 years, they will go to that employment.

As the Minister for Finance indicated in connection with a considerable number of industries, wages here have been adjusted so that, allowing for taxation and allowing for their purchasing power in certain respects, they are equal to if not higher than similar wages in Great Britain. There should be, I think, a slight modification of that statement, namely, that there are industries in England where the normal wages are about equal to ours allowing for taxation, but it is true also that in these industries the amount of overtime is greater so that the actual weekly wage may be considerably higher than it is in this country.

If, in fact, we had adopted the policy of the Labour Party and, in order to prevent emigration, we encouraged an enormous increase of wages during the war, without being able to increase the supply of materials, we should merely have increased the cost of living still more than it has increased and it would have done nothing to deter workers who want to go abroad from so doing. The fact remains that the statement that this Government has caused emigration is ludicrous. We would like to have these people stay at home. There is work for a great many of them. There is a dire need of people in skilled occupations, in the agricultural industry. The Government leaves to the Agricultural Wages Board the determination of what wages shall be but when a real debate commences on that matter we notice that there is very little opposition to the dictate of the wages board and to their decisions; but there is a demand at this time for skilled agricultural workers, for road workers, for turf workers, a demand that is not filled in spite of the restriction we placed on emigration. There is a demand for workers in the building industry. We can only ask these people to have faith in the future here and I do admit the difficulty, as I have said before, that a great deal of work is seasonal in this country which is not seasonal in England. That is a problem that has never yet been solved by this or any other Government—how to maintain full employment throughout the year in rural districts. It can only be a matter of long-term policy relating to a very great increase in agricultural output. Anyway, I can say this definitely, so far as my constituency is concerned, that I know that if the income of the people were very largely increased in Roscommon, Longford or Westmeath, there would still be a tendency for them to go abroad and I know that there are people who, if their incomes were increased, might want to go abroad even more than before. You will see a family suddenly leaving a temporary increase in prosperity, either because they cut turf or have taken part in some industry or because some member of the family has joined the professional world in Dublin and this has opened their eyes to a larger horizon and they, in turn, get an adventurous feeling and they want to go forth. It is an unfortunate thing and it is very bad for this country that the population should have decreased by some thousands in the last ten years, largely due to emigration. We can only hope that when there are no longer shortages of materials and when money has come to have a stable value and when people can have a fairly certain idea of what a given income would bring them in the way of benefits, materials, consumption goods, capital goods over a period of some five years, they will want to stay in this country and to assist us in our programme of reconstruction.

The Opposition Deputies, of course, differ entirely in regard to the level of taxation for industry, the level of taxation applied to companies. We have every contrasting suggestion made, even by Deputies of Fine Gael. We have suggestions that taxation is excessive and prevents the securing of new plant and the ploughing back of industrial profits into industry. We have had equally the proposal made, without any specific indications, that there is some foul corruption attending the relations of big businessmen and the Fianna Fáil Party. That statement makes me laugh. It was made by Deputy Costello. I and other people have been members of the Fianna Fáil finance committee or the Fianna Fáil Executive for years, and we know that if there was any Party in history in this country which for the last 50 years has lived on the sixpences and three-pences of the ordinary Irish people, it is the Fianna Fáil Party and that the proportion of revenue obtained from industrialists, businessmen, big or small, is negligible in comparison with the large sums of money which we obtain in sixpences and shillings from the ordinary Irish people. The suggestion made by Deputy Costello I entirely renounce. It was despicable because it was made without illustration and without specific indication.

So far as we know, the level of taxation has not prevented industrialists from placing orders worth millions of pounds for new equipment. The difficulty is again shortage of materials, shortages of capital goods. I know one man who, the day the war ended, ordered plant worth some £50,000. He has been promised delivery in 1950. While that is an exaggerated case, anyone in touch with the industrial world knows that the industrialists have not found taxation so excessive that they are unable to place orders on a very considerable scale for machinery which should at some time in the future afford an increase in our industrial production.

I do not know whether or not to deal with the strictures and the exaggerated wild talk of Deputy Dillon. He is the only free trader in the Opposition. All the others opposed the tariffs when they were imposed and now very few of them would dare to recommend the specific removal of a particular tariff if it came up for consideration because they have learned that our industrial policy has been justified, justified by the war, justified by the increase in employment it has given. They have learned that we did not intend to impose high tariffs simply for the sake of increasing the cost of living to the community. They have learned, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated, that as soon as the world becomes normal and as soon as trade becomes competitive and as soon as values can be compared he intends to examine the efficiency of every industry in this country where there is a monopoly, where there is not free competition. He intends that the high standard of efficiency should be maintained if that industry is to receive any protection whatsoever.

We have had a great deal of talk about present shortages occasioned by the weather and by no other circumstance. We have had a whinging, dreary, tremulous bleat from the members of the Opposition, who continue to say that there is no butter, no bread, no turf and that it is all the Government's fault. As I have already said, the Irish people have learned a great deal of sense in the last 20 years, and most of them struggling in their flooded bogs and looking at the frayed carpet of their pasture will know how much reliance to place on the Opposition when they read these statements about shortages.

One of the best ways of increasing the Budget at the present time and I think fully justified in present circumstances would be for the Minister for Finance to have a special Vote to enable members of the Opposition to travel throughout the world. I would like to see the farmer Deputies visit Spain and examine agricultural conditions there and learn what the farmers have gone through there, after 18 months' drought with one inch of rain falling from April to November. I would like to send members of the Opposition concerned with economics and finance to the Allied Control Commission in Germany. I would like to send working Deputies to Eastern Italy, to French towns and to Portugal and perhaps when they came back they would not go on telling the Irish people that they are the poorest people in Europe, that there is some peculiar evil spirit working here for which this Government is responsible, that we should be living in the land of milk and honey even if no other country in the world is, that we should be unaffected by war and able to maintain supplies of all essential commodities, without reference to weather or war effects. I consider that it would be one of the best ways of spending money and I am sorry the Minister for Finance cannot do it.

It is time we in this country gave up that "poor-mouth" talk. It reminds me of the old Irish Party when they were always begging the English Government for grants. No Deputy can come into this House and say that we are down to the very bottom of the list amongst the small nations. The actual fact is that there are a small number of very under-nourished people in this country of which we are all ashamed and which constitute the main economic problem in this country. There are a considerable number of persons living here in extremely frugal circumstances and who have not money for many of the pleasures of life but who have at least enough to live on and enough money to clothe themselves and there is a very large number of people in this country who make out for themselves a fairly decent existence. For anybody to talk in any other way is only blinding the people and trying to make them believe that some ideal system of economics would save them.

Statistics are dangerous, particularly in regard to such matters as the nation's prosperity. However, on that matter we can well defy the Opposition to study statistics, to compare the consumption of ordinary commodities at the present time although it would be more equitable to choose a period during which there were no special shortages. Let them examine the consumption of milk and butter, the consumption of shirts, potatoes, trade per head per person, foreign trade per head, per person. All the figures are available in the Book on National Income and Expenditure and they can examine the corresponding reports in the International Labour Office tables. They will find that we are a nation in the second grade of wealth. You can put us eighth to twelfth among all the nations of the world but you cannot put us any lower. No one in this country can drive us any lower in the list no matter what form of statistics they use. The consumption of butter has not varied very largely since 1939.

I venture to say that there is nothing the Government can do at present in the way of a change of economic policy that will have anything but a marginal effect. We can only hope for a good harvest and an increase in the raw materials imported in order to bring about any very remarkable change in our conditions. We have had all sorts of proposals for helping the situation. In certain cases Opposition Deputies did not state whether they were long-term or short-term proposals. For example, we had a Clann na Talmhan Deputy suggesting an enormous increase in afforestation. Before the war and during the war we found it difficult to acquire land for forestry purposes. We found it impossible to pay the price asked for it in many instances. We found that a great deal of land which we thought was suitable for forestry was not suitable. I wonder whether a rapid increase in the acquisition of grazing land or sub-grazing land for forestry would be a particularly good temporary solution or whether it should be regarded as a long-term policy.

We had a suggestion from Deputy Cafferky, whose speech I did not entirely follow, that, in addition to the farm improvements scheme, we should in some way carry out drainage on farms on a large-scale basis financed by the State. I wonder what would happen to turf production and agricultural production if, in addition to offering the present 50 per cent. labour content value of land improvement works, the State suddenly started to employ an army of people going in to people's farms and draining them and reclaiming land. The proposal seemed to me to be preposterous—something very akin to left-wing socialism.

We had proposals from the Opposition both to increase and to reduce social services. I think it is time that certain Fine Gael members should reconsider the whole question of social services. We had Deputy Morrissey on the one hand suggesting that the increase of 2/6 was a miserable one so far as old age pensioners were concerned. Deputy McGilligan, whenever he speaks on this matter, talks somewhat along the lines of Major Douglas and his proposals would result in the most violent inflation probably, if they were taken up by the Government. We had the suggestion made constantly through this debate that large social services are in some way connected with an impoverished community. That is absolute nonsense. Fine Gael Deputies should acquaint themselves with the International Labour Organisation's statistics on the development of social services in Europe. By a strange and melancholy irony they will find that it is the richest and most prosperous nations who started to devise social services and to increase them largely and not the poverty-stricken wretched nations, the Balkan nations with Governments associated with revolutions and disturbances. With one exception, the South American Republics, with their long history of anarchy, were not the countries that started social services. The Governments that started social services were the Governments in countries where there were economic depressions but where there was prosperity. Social services have come to be a permanent feature of the national economy, a method of asking people to save voluntarily part of their income for redistribution amongst persons in need. Social services are not a symptom of pauperisation. They may be administered in a way which leads to pauperisation. They are designed to maintain the income of the community through certain difficult circumstances during widowhood and old age. They do not discourage private savings. So far as I know from the International Labour Organisation's statistics there is no country which increased social services where insurance companies ever complained that the level of private insurance premiums decreased. Social services merely provide a modicum of saving, not a maximum, not the saving required to produce the necessary income for a reasonably frugal existence, but the minimum of saving to tide everyone in the community who has a low income over difficult circumstances.

The real argument that the Opposition could start with very great usefulness would be whether social services are to too great an extent on a noncontributory basis. I suppose they are waiting for the Minister for Social Welfare to announce his plan and that is why they have not adverted to the matter. That would provide a much more interesting debate, though of course it would not be supposed to have the same effect on the people down in the country if they indicated whether we should increase the contributory social services so that a person could feel that he had made a special personal contribution to the pension he received later in life.

We have had the usual demands for increased prices for farmers, increased wages for the workers, increased social services and for a reduction in prices generally. I should like to see Labour Deputies and Fine Gael Deputies get together in an attempt to find unity as to how they would work for an increase in farmers' prices, an increase in wages and an increase in social services and then a decrease in prices generally. There would be a bill for subsidies which would stagger the Labour taxpayers, as I think it would stagger the land-owning taxpayers.

We have had a great many complaints about the cost of living. The Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated on many occasions that the increase in the cost of living is largely due to the fact that imported materials, already scarce and at very high prices during the war, have gone up in price since the war. We are not responsible for the price. We have to get the materials when and where we can. That is one of the largest factors in the increase in the cost of living. We have had no practical proposals whereby the cost of living could be reduced. The Opposition know that the prices of most food products are controlled and are published at frequent intervals. They know that the manufacturing profits of many companies are controlled. They know that the rates of profits in retail clothing shops are controlled. Yet they go on saying that we are responsible for profiteering. They make no positive proposals as to what we are to do about it. We are not to give subsidies because they would increase taxation still more. We obviously can hardly go on increasing wages and salaries indefinitely and the price of farmers' produce, because that would increase the cost of living still more. Perhaps they would like us to increase the number of Government inspectors.

The Opposition have done nothing towards encouraging a greater volume of public opinion in favour of refusing to buy goods at black market prices. We heard nothing about that from the Opposition. We heard complaints about the number of inspectors and the increase in the Civil Service. The number of civil servants has gone up by 4,000 since 1939. I do not think that is an excessive number in relation to the enormous number of Emergency Powers Orders we have had in reference to rationing and controlling supplies, etc. We would require a good many more inspectors if we were to prevent black marketing. The people have learned greater respect for the law, but very few people like to give information to the Government as to excessive prices being charged. If I remember the figures rightly, the Minister for Supplies when he was closing his Department said that in England during the war some 70 per cent. of the complaints against excessive prices and black marketing were made by individuals and 30 per cent. by inspectors, and that the position was exactly the opposite here. I am not sure whether the figures were 70 and 30 per cent. or 90 and 10 per cent. He said, however, that the vast majority of the cases here were brought as a result of work done by inspectors and not as a result of complaints by the people.

The fact is that until this post-war inflation ceases only co-operation by the people can prevent flagrant abuses of Control of Prices Orders. There is no other way unless we have an army of inspectors, which would be undesirable. We have another suggestion made by members of the Opposition, the suggestion that one section of the community is profiteering and taking a large sum from another section. Nothing could be more dangerous to this community in the next two or three years so long as these shortages last than to encourage a feeling of fundamental suspicion by one section of the community that the other is in some way secretly profiteering. There are some Opposition speakers who, quite unconsciously, are repeating the sort of propaganda which led to Fascism, Nazism and Communism.

I do not want to suggest they do it deliberately, but this encouragement of suspicion, this vague suggestion of corruption on a gigantic scale, the vague suggestion of people rolling about in enormously luxurious cars, the vague suggestion that one section has enormously swollen incomes in contrast with other sections—these are the methods used by Fascists, Nazis, and Communists in order to establish their power. Figures are available for members of the Opposition, if they wish to study them, in regard to the amount of income drawn away by taxation and the steps taken to see that the wealthier sections pay a greater proportion of the burden of taxation than the remainder. Members of the Opposition should tell their constituents that there are only 7,000 people in this country with gross incomes assessable at £1,500 a year and over. I told the people about that in my constituency and it surprised them. You get the impression from speeches in the Dáil that there must be some 200,000 rich profiteers making enormous incomes at the expense of the workers. In fact, that is one problem that we do not face here. We have the problem of seasonal employment, of congestion and the problem of gross poverty still remains, but we have not the problem of dealing with an enormously wealthy community and an enormously poverty-stricken community. It is well for people to remember that there are only 7,000 persons who have incomes of £1,500 and over, and there are only 106 persons with incomes of over £10,000.

Whatever we do for the people, a great part of the taxation is paid by the people as a whole, even though the rich may pay more than the less well-off. There is an equitable distribution of taxation for the purpose of providing the various services which benefit the community as a whole.

Deputy Commons made some extraordinary observations. He said it was wrong that £12,000,000 should be spent on social services and that only £7,800,000 should be spent on agriculture. The Deputy did not refer to the fact that the £12,000,000 covers the whole of the community, of which the agricultural portion forms half. He did not advert to the fact that the £7,800,000 spent for agricultural purposes is spent on a gross output of some £100,000,000. It seems to me it is a reasonable amount, the amount necessary to stimulate agriculture in every direction and to enable agricultural schemes to be carried out.

I would like to see an increase in the farm improvement schemes Vote and in its applicability. We have been told by the Minister for Agriculture that an extension of the farm improvement scheme for the building of outhouses is under consideration. I look forward more to that than to any other feature of our agricultural policy. In my constituency a great many of the farm-houses have been reconstructed, the farm improvements grant is taken advantage of to a very great degree, hundreds of miles of drains are being repaired, land reclamation is making progress, concrete wheat stands have been erected and farmyards have been concreted. A great deal of work in that way is being done, but the outhouses are in very poor shape. I feel some stimulation is required.

Deputy Commons referred to the Government's plan for the western areas and he spoke as though the peat moss litter scheme was the only one the Government had devised to help the people of the Gaeltacht. That is a typical political trick, because he left out all the other schemes available for the Gaeltacht. As regards the land improvement scheme, his constituency is, I think, the greatest benefactor. He omitted to mention the rural improvements scheme and the special employment schemes available in winter, in reference to which Mayo is one of the two largest benefactors. He left out the turf scheme. Mayo is the largest producer of turf amongst the county councils. Turf is an ancillary creator of wealth which should hardly have been ignored by the Deputy. He left out the special schemes for house building in the Gaeltacht and he did not mention land division. In spite of all the complaints that have been made, a very large number of Mayo families have been resettled in County Mayo or elsewhere.

Deputy Commons also suggested that we had not any definite plan for the future and, on the other hand, he said we might postpone rural electrification; we might postpone an examination of the matter and leave over whatever work has been done in connection with it. I hope the Government will not listen to Deputy Commons. I think there is nothing that will help to improve and encourage agricultural production and the domestic life of the people in the country more than the rural electrification scheme.

Deputy Costello said that I had made an unfortunate comparison in a recent speech when I said that we were steering down the middle of the road. I think he was right. I should have said we were steering straight down the middle of a river with very dangerous rocks on either side. That is the fact so far as this Government is concerned. We faced from five to nine years of acute crisis occasioned by the emergency. We have one alternative of allowing free enterprise, with the hope that all the evils accruing from free enterprise can be mitigated. We have a second alternative of State supervision, with all its attendant difficulties, and we have to steer our way between these two shoals of rock. So far as the Opposition are concerned, any proposals they make tend to drive us on the rocks to the right or to the left. They content themselves with excessive, vague criticism of our policy, knowing full well that any proposal they may make would be likely to drive our ship on to the rocks one side or another, and knowing full well that no matter how they may disagree with Government policy none of them would dare to go too far to the left or to the right. They know, for instance, that the people who love free enterprise would refuse to be driven like sheep into any scheme of Socialist reorganisation or reconstruction.

Deputy Costello said that we had wobbled in our policies. So does every Government at the present time. There is no Government that can move with absolute certainty. There is no Government that has a pre-determined plan to deal with the immediate future. There is no Government on this earth which is at the present time facing the difficulties which we face—facing insecurity, inevitable shortages and facing treaties of unknown dimensions— which can move absolutely straight. We shall be measured in history, not by the degree we wobbled but by the degree we corrected the wobble when we made one. When our ship shifted its course and before it could go on the rocks, did we manage to avert disaster?

The real problem that affects this country is the stagnancy of agricultural production. It would be much better for the people if we could have a real debate on that subject rather than the feeble attempts made here to try to blame the Government for the weather because that is a problem which we have not solved. The fact as mentioned by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and as indicated by other Deputies is that the volume of agricultural production has hardly altered since 1912. It did not alter during the inflated conditions of the first war or of the latest war. We had one form of production replaced by another in certain cases, leaving the total volume about the same. It did not alter during the inflated conditions from 1918 to 1920 under the British Government. It did not alter during the long period of the continual downward tendency in prices under the Cosgrave Government. It altered very little during the worst part of the economic war when calves were sold for a few shillings and cattle for a few pounds. The actual volume altered hardly at all.

There was not any great change even for the first two years after the economic war was over when it might reasonably have been expected the farmers could look forward to a better future when they could have made certain changes in their system which would have beneficial results. It can be said almost with certainty that no plan suggested by the Opposition in this debate could have any great or permanent effect in regard to this problem. Even if we remove all the tariffs and left the position as it was in 1931, even if we reduced taxation, no matter what we did it would not have any great effect. There might be a marginal effect one way or the other but the general situation would remain unchanged. It is quite obvious that what is really needed is a more extensive use of scientific methods in connection with the farm. It is quite obvious that the largest problem we have is the difficulty of getting farmers, particularly small farmers, to adopt modern methods. It would be easy enough to bring about increased production on the medium-sized farm, and there has been an increase in production on such farms in my constituency in the last five or six years. When, however, you come to the small farmers there are obvious difficulties. How to enable the small farmer to adopt more scientific methods, in the production of crops, how to apply modern science to grass cultivation on a small farm and to do that with no greater physical effort so that costs will be less and profits greater is the fundamental problem.

The problem we have to face cannot be solved by Communism or by the destruction of small farms. In my opinion, it can be solved only by cooperation. It will not be solved this year nor the next year but it is the most important problem which faces us because, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated, we need not only to expand production for home consumption but we also need to export in order to provide the people with essential raw materials and to provide capital goods for our industrial programme. If we could have a debate on that subject it would be more valuable than all the criticism in the world because we would be then getting down to fundamentals. However, at the present time, when we are faced with difficulties of the harvest, the difficulties occasioned by the bad weather, such a discussion is not one involving our immediate future. It would be a matter for consideration if we were discussing agricultural policy for the next five years and it would arise more suitably in a debate on the Department of Agriculture. I have tried to indicate the fallacy underlying the foolish statements made by the Opposition. I suggest that what we need at the present time is a little less wailing and a little harder work. What the Government need at present is the support of the people generally in trying to produce as much turf and food as possible, and trying to induce the workers to produce the maximum of these essentials. We have only a few months left before it will be too late to cut turf and before the harvest comes in. The bitterness occasioned in this debate can lead nowhere. Incitements to workers to go slow because they have been victimised by a cruel Government are utterly absurd in the present circumstances. Our circumstances are temporarily adverse but there is nothing we can do until the effects of wind and weather have passed away.

Mr. Browne

I want to voice my protest against the additional taxes imposed by this new Budget. Deputies who have spoken from the Government Benches have referred to a depression between 1923 and 1934. The only real depression that took place so far as I can remember occurred between 1934 and 1938 and the fact that such a depression took place is proved by the fact that when the last war broke out supplies became shorter than ever they were. Even to-day there is a growing scarcity of all commodities. We have a shortage of bacon, a shortage of eggs and a shortage of butter and now we are going to have a shortage of cattle. According to the published figures our exports of cattle are down while we find that there is a shortage of beef at home. There is not enough beef to supply the ordinary demands of our people. That in itself is proof that if a depression or something wrong did take place it happened between 1934 and 1938. Prior to 1934 we exported huge quantities of eggs throughout the whole year. For the last six years we have had barely sufficient eggs to supply our own needs for six months out of the 12. Eggs supply an important part of the revenue for a large section of our people. It is upon those people the Minister is now placing the burden of additional taxation under this Budget. They are the people who are being asked to pay an additional 3d. per ounce for their tobacco and 3d. per packet for their cigarettes. Other sections of the community have been completely overlooked. The Minister has not asked them to share in this burden of additional taxation. He has given the old age pensioner an additional 2/6 within the last fortnight and he has now taken the greater part of that increase back in taxation. There are many other commodities which could bear a tax much more equitably than can tobacco. Six or eight years ago a tax was put on petrol. No increase has been made in that tax since though the man with the private motor-car could well afford to pay extra.

Mr. Allen

You have 1/4 a gallon on petrol.

Mr. Browne

Even if there is 1/4 on petrol, I think it could well afford an increased tax at the present time. It is the combines which largely use petrol. It is the railway and the railway has a monopoly of the road. Why should the railway have cheap petrol? Why should the private motor car owner have cheap petrol? Petrol could bear a small portion of the taxation which the Minister requires under this Budget. I think that beer, whiskey and wines could also bear a small portion of the tax. I think if the added taxation were more equitably divided over petrol, wine, whiskey and beer the Minister would go a long way in finding the extra money necessary for essential services; and, if in the end there was still some small residue to be met, then he could put a small tax on tobacco.

With regard to turf I understand that Bord na Móna will have complete control of turf production next year. I think that the effect of this in Mayo will be adverse and that it will make no improvement to the income of the people who work on turf production in that area. The present scheme is an eminently satisfactory one from the point of view of control, the quality of the turf, the way in which it is handled and the quantity exported from the county for the city. As far as the price of turf is concerned, I do not think the price counts for a whole lot. There is no reason why the Government would not give a decent subsidy to encourage the people in the poorer areas to work at turf production as well as giving them an opportunity of earning back the contributions they have made in taxation. I think that under the control of Bord na Móna there will be less manual labour required, and the incomes of the people will accordingly be reduced.

Taking the Budget as it stands and adding to it the burden of the rates, I think that the time has now come when the people have reached the limits of their endurance as far as taxation is concerned. Sooner or later the Minister will have to make up his mind that no further increase is possible. During the emergency people were prepared to foot the bill because of abnormal conditions but it was understood that as soon as the country reverted to normal, reductions would be made in taxation. I think the time is fast approaching when the people must cry out: "We cannot afford to pay."

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

Deputy Childers dealt very fully with the number of inconsistencies raised by the Opposition Party in criticising this Budget. He exposed the two faces of the Opposition so well that I do not think there is any necessity for me to deal with that aspect of the matter. Even the last speaker complained about the great weight of taxation and wondered how the country could bear it. The one suggestion he made was that we should give a further subsidy to turf, and he coupled that with the illuminating statement that the price does not matter.

One very important question raised in this debate was as to whether or not we could afford social services on the scale on which we are endeavouring to provide them at the moment. The social services which the State provides are one means of effecting a redistribution of portion of the national income. When the question is asked as to whether we can afford our social services the answer is that we at the moment are accepting the burden of the existing level of social services. As a people we are accepting that burden and if we want to increase social services still further, without increasing output at the same time, then the rest of the community must be prepared to forgo to some extent their own consumption in order that our social services may thereby be increased. In my own opinion the level of social services should reflect what is now possible at the present level of production and not what is ultimately desirable. It might very well be that a level of social service higher than that warranted by the level of production would lead not to that social security which the Deputies regard as so desirable but to social and economic chaos.

Last year in my Budget speech I dealt with the necessity of producing more both on our farms and in our factories. I dealt with that matter again in my Budget speech this year, and I pointed out the importance of increasing production in order that the standard of living of the community may be increased, including the standard of those who are in receipt of allowances out of the social service funds.

In order to speed up production the Government agreed last year to the setting up of the Transition Development Fund. We did succeed in getting local authorities and the Electricity Supply Board to commence production under circumstances that were completely unfavourable either to rural electrification or to the building of houses. The fact that we were able to promise out of the Transition Development Fund the difference between the abnormally high cost of materials at the present time and what the tenants or the electricity consumers could afford, got a fairly large number of houses built last year and got the Electricity Supply Board to start development work in rural electrification and will result in very many more houses this year and in a much bigger mileage of rural electric lines than would have been possible under ordinary circumstances.

Deputies have criticised some of the development work that we have undertaken, like rural electrification. Clann na Talmhan seemed to be all on the one note, that afforestation is an immediate solution for all our difficulties. I could understand and fully sympathise with those who say that everything that is possible should be done in order to increase the area under trees, but it is not an economic panacea for our present difficulties. Putting young trees into the ground will not put more food on the plate.

It will eventually make more timber available for use by our children and it is a desirable activity provided that we employ enough of our time and energy in producing food for the plate at the present time. It is always a big question under all circumstances for a Government or a people to decide what portion of their energy they will use in building up capital equipment and what they will use in adding to their store of consumable goods. There is always the conflict between the guns and butter, the economic guns of the future or butter of the present time, whether, if we have only a certain limited amount of material and manpower at our disposal, we will put them to improve the land in that year to produce wheat for us or whether we will put them to afforestation to produce trees for our children.

The Government in this particular Budget has kept the balance. We have, as I pointed out, food subsidies of one kind or another, agricultural subsidies, all designed to induce the farmers to give us the production that is required to provide our people with a fair quantity of butter, wheat and other commodities that we want for immediate consumption. We have at the same time provided for capital development works. A certain amount of the work which will be engaged on in the coming year will not be immediately productive of consumable goods, but there are certain of those capital works that we would be very unwise to avoid because we will have such dire need of their products within a short time. Take, for instance, turf production. We are certainly spending a lot of capital wealth on turf. We propose to do it in the coming year also in respect of electricity. But it is absolutely vital for our community that, within the shortest possible space of time, we should have a reasonable, native supply of fuel, electricity, and turf, turf to burn directly or in a steam electricity plant, plus the Erne scheme and the Liffey scheme when fully developed.

I just want to pass one remark on Clann na Talmhan. I wish to goodness that, instead of making so many speeches down the country, they would pay some attention to reading the Book of Estimates and, if they will not listen to a Budget speech, that they will read it. One after the other they got up and said that all the provision we are making this year for afforestation was a miserable sum of £40,000. Surely they could understand if they heard the Budget speech or if they read it that that £40,000 was related to the amount of money I propose to borrow for afforestation, not the total amount that is spent on afforestation. The Book of Estimates will show that it is not £40,000 but £340,000 that is being spent on forestry. In regard to afforestation, I challenge Clann na Talmhan or the other people who are talking about forestry, to get us the land and we will plant it.

Mr. Commons

By golly, then we will, Sir.

——but if the Government attempted to put those compulsory powers into operation we would find Deputy Davin defending the freedom of the individual against the tyrannical State which is taking his good land to plant trees for something that would not come into operation for 50 years hence, whereas the land now used for grazing the sheep could add to the food supply at the present time. To all these people who want afforestation and who want to see it done quickly I say give us the land.

Mr. Fagan

At how much an acre? £6 an acre. That is the secret.

Mr. Commons

Good land!

Mr. Aiken

I only asked a simple question and the Minister need not have turned on me.

Mr. Aiken

Mr. O'Leary

What about the labour exchanges? Where is the work?

Mr. Aiken

The level of taxation here is very much less than in most countries in the world. Deputy Dillon was complaining the other day that, instead of budgeting for a small surplus, I did not budget for £5,000,000 or £8,000,000 of a surplus. I think we did reasonably well last year in meeting practically all our capital commitments as well as our current expenditure out of taxation. I believe that we will be doing reasonably well in the coming year if we meet our current liabilities out of taxation and if we borrow to meet the capital items outlined, amounting to £7,500,000 or £8,000,000. I think we can afford at present to spend this amount of money and that we cannot afford not to spend it. We have to do all in our power to sustain our people in the present circumstances. We cannot cut down on our social services, we cannot cut down on the amounts we have given for agriculture, we would be unwise to cut down on the amounts we are providing for houses and for public works. I think it is a good thing for the country that we should develop our industries and put behind the development of industry and transport the amounts of money we have made available.

When all is said and done, our people here have come through the last seven years reasonably well and, in spite of the jeremiads of certain Opposition groups, they face the future with confidence. The fact that we came through such severe years, when the people of very much larger and more powerful countries than we are were badly hit, has strengthened the confidence of the Irish people in themselves and in their own destiny. In spite of anything the Opposition groups may say to discourage them, my belief is that the Irish people will go ahead during the next year and that they will pull through.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions 1 to 11, inclusive, reported and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 13 May 1947