Most Deputies who have contributed to this debate have leaned very heavily on the question of the increases in tobacco, spirits and beer. In so far as I am concerned, I am more interested in the increase of the price of tobacco than in the increase of the price of beer. While it may be argued that the average working man is entitled to his pint of beer at the end of the week, there are also many hard working men who, although perhaps they could afford it, do not bother with it. I think that the argument put up by Opposition Deputies and even by some Government Deputies in relation to the increase in the price of beer is not at all serious. It could be argued that instead of looking on this increase from the proper angle, they are to a great extent encouraging the average working man to indulge in the consumption of beer, notwithstanding the fact that I think it will be agreed that, in our cities and towns, in particular, to our regret, many working men indulge a little too much in the consumption of beer.
The consumption of tobacco is a totally different thing. While it may be termed a luxury, it has come to be regarded almost as a necessity by many people and can hardly be dispensed with. It is a well-known fact that there are many men, even young men, who would prefer to go without a meal rather than go without a smoke but I have not yet come across any man who would go without a meal in order that he might have a pint of beer and I have travelled a good deal and mixed just as much with the ordinary working class as any other Deputy who has contributed to this debate.
Much has been said by Deputy Hughes in relation to agriculture. Deputy Hughes generally speaks at length when he takes over the function of shadow Minister for Agriculture. He talks about the necessity for increased production and the effect which this new plan agreed upon in Paris is going to have on production here. Since the end of the war, we have been listening to talk about many plans but very little fruit has come from them so far and this Marshall Plan, or the Paris Plan, may have as little effect on agriculture as the previous plans. I think there is nothing to worry about in the fact that the Government have not yet made in this House a statement as to what they intend to present to the Paris Conference because, no matter what plan they devise, they can hardly make the condition of agriculture any worse than it is at present.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce here some time ago talked about the necessity for increased production. Naturally enough, he directed his references to agriculture more than to any other industry, from the point of view of obtaining increased exports to balance our imports. I can never get out of my mind the statement he made on that occasion. He said that he would like to impress on Deputies the seriousness of the situation. He quoted figures, which I cannot call to my memory at the moment, but they were very substantial figures, relating to our adverse trade balance. He said that we must increase production or reduce consumption with a view to increasing the surplus available for export. The Minister in making that statement knew well that, whatever about increasing production, there can be no hope of reducing consumption because he is unable to provide us with the meagre ration of certain essential commodities allotted to us by the Government, for example butter. That being so I can hardly see how we can reduce consumption in order to provide a surplus for export.
There is of course a way to increase production. I have advocated it here before and shall continue to do so. That is to put every man to work. We have at the moment a considerable number of men unemployed and on the dole, which is described as part of our social services. That is a nice way to describe it. It is a kind of gloss to remove the ugly appearance of this system so that it will not humiliate those who are in receipt of these allowances. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this Government hit upon the idea of doling out 10/- or 15/- a week to men who could be put to work and into remunerative employment. Our main exports are provided by agricultural produce and even though we may develop manufacturing industries here, we have no markets for the products of such industries. We may develop a surplus production of boots, shoes, machinery or other articles but to what market are we going to export them? Obviously the Minister was directing his attention to an increase in the production of agricultural products such as beef, mutton, pork, butter, cheese, milk and all its by-products. To do these things it would be natural to assume that every man available should be put to work and every inch of ground should be utilised.
In my travels through the country I saw large tracts of land undeveloped, untenanted; I saw non-residential holdings which could be taken up and divided and the men who are unemployed, many of them the sons of small farmers who now live in country towns and villages or who seek work in our cities, could be given this land. They could be financed and put to work and in that way they would increase production. Our young men who are emigrating to England to increase agricultural production and the production of other commodities there, could be put to work on this land which is now going to waste. There is the key. The more men you have upon the land the more agricultural produce you will have for consumption here and for export. Not only will you be able to supply the home market, but you will have a surplus for export and everybody will have sufficient.
I listened to Deputy Corry. It is amusing to recall that on a number of occasions Deputy Corry severely rebuked either the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance in relation to the Government's agricultural policy, but, when the acid test came, he either slipped out of the House or would not toe the line. On certain occasions the price of milk was raised here, but when it came to a division, Deputy Corry was not with us in the Division Lobby. The same applied when a motion was tabled requesting the Minister to have a costings tribunal established so as to find out the cost of production in relation to agriculture. We did not find Deputy Corry with us then although he also had a motion something similar to the one tabled by Deputies on this side of the House. The Deputy cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Deputy Corry is either sincere in his criticisms or he is not. It would be well that the County Cork farmers would know the position so that they are not led astray.
I wonder what reaction my constituents would have in relation to my attitude here if I made a protest which seemed to be sincere, but when it came to brass tacks and it was put up to me here, I ran away and was not prepared to shoulder my responsibilities? I can assure the House they would teach me a lesson.
With regard to increased agricultural production, it is not so much the planning that matters. I think too much planning has been done. There is too much interference. Interference by the Government for almost 20 years has had a bad effect. There has been too much jumping from one bramble to another, hoping one thing may succeed where another has failed and all the time bleeding our main industry to death. The farmer does not desire any man to plan his industry for him. He knows best how to work and develop his land. He knows best what field can grow a particular crop. He has a sound knowledge of soil fertility. Under present conditions he is directed by some gentleman, who does not know the difference, to till one field instead of another. Through years of experience the farmer knows that a particular field will not produce the crop that the gentleman who comes along in his car thinks it will, but yet he must comply with the directions.
That is what has kept production down and what has brought agriculture to the position in which we see it to-day. What the farmer wants is: (1) a sure market for his products, whether it be the home or an outside market, and (2) some guaranteed price. Down the country the farmer at certain intervals receives a pamphlet from the Department telling him how to increase egg production and poultry. As soon as the housewife starts to develop the poultry farm with a view to increasing egg production, there is immediately a reduction in the price of eggs. Where is the encouragement there?
The housewife to-day is as much disgusted with the poultry and egg industry as she has been with the pig industry because of Government interference. One moment the Government promises security and a guaranteed price, and another moment that promise does not bear any fruit. The price of eggs falls as soon as eggs become any way plentiful. The farmer has no security, no guaranteed price. He may go to bed to-night and he may have on hands 200 or 300 eggs or perhaps other produce that he intends to dispose of to-morrow morning. In the meantime the price of eggs may have fallen considerably. There is no other industry open to such dangers; there is no other industry open to such abuses; there is no other industry open to such neglect, as the agricultural industry. It is because of that you have the decline in agriculture from all angles, a decline in milk, butter, pork, poultry, eggs; every angle has completely declined, because the farmer and his housewife have lost all hope in the Government. The Government, with their plans and promises, have failed to keep their promises or implement their plans.
As I said, we want a market, a guaranteed market. We want a guaranteed price over a period of time and we want less interference. If we have a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price the farmers will react. The farmers, who have been asked to increase tillage in the various areas and whose land has deteriorated owing to the increased tillage and the lack of farmyard manure resultant on the reduction in stock, expected the Government to provide fertilisers. They naturally expected that the Government would have left aside large stores of fertilisers in view of the emergency that was pending at that time. But the Government had obviously not anticipated the emergency—that is the only conclusion that can be drawn—and they had no fertilisers left aside. As a result, the land has deteriorated to an extent that the yield of wheat per acre has failed by 40 per cent. and more in some places. Notwithstanding that the yield of wheat and beet and other crops has fallen considerably, the Government have been reluctant—and in some instances they have deliberately refused—to come to the aid of the farmer by increasing the price of wheat. At the same time that they refused to come to the aid of the farmer by increasing the price of wheat, they are importing wheat at £4. Is it any wonder, therefore, that you have a decline in every angle as far as agriculture is concerned? To arrest that, the Government must first secure for our products a market. Secondly, we need some long-term plan or policy in regard to prices. Thirdly, we need less interference. Fourthly, we want the provision of plentiful fertilisers of a good quality and at a cheap price to enable the farmers to enrich their land and to bring back to it that body which is so essential in order to produce the necessary crops.
A lot has been said about the Budget, owing to the fact that in order to bring down temporarily the prices of flour, tea and whatever else has been brought down, it was necessary to increase the price of tobacco, beer, cosmetics, entertainment tax, etc. We on this side of the House hold—and it has been put before the Minister on a number of occasions—that we could have this reduction in the prices of flour, butter, tea, etc.—these important commodities which are to a certain extent the every-day necessities of the people—not by having to place a tax on tobacco and beer, but by certain reductions in unnecessary expenditure.
We hold that one of the most costly luxuries in this State to-day is the Army. If we look round the world to-day, we notice, with the exception of a few countries in Eastern Europe, that all countries are reducing their armed forces, be they air force, navy or army. Take the British Empire, which is responsible for one-sixth of the land surface of the world. They are reducing their army by a very considerable percentage in order to relieve the people of certain burdens and taxation which they recognise that they cannot afford to carry. Here are we right up against the biggest Empire in the world to-day, but instead of reducing expenditure on the Army, we are holding it almost to war level. This small country has to spend £5,500,000 on the Army and that £5,500,000 is collected from the poor of this country in the form of taxation on their every-day necessities. I consider it a crying shame and in my opinion £2,500,000 would be an ample sum to spend on our Army. That would provide the nucleus of a well-trained and well-equipped Army which could be enlarged overnight if an emergency arose. There you could have straight off a saving of £3,000,000 which could be directed towards subsidies to reduce the price of essential commodities for the people.
Before the Supplementary Budget was introduced, we had Bills presented to this House giving power to the Government to increase the salaries of higher executive officers, to increase the President's allowance and to increase the Ministerial allowances and the salaries of members of this House. There may be reasonable arguments put up to justify these increases, but it is the duty of the Government to take into consideration the disparity which exists between the workmen's wages and their own incomes. While, as I have said, a case could be established for giving an extra £600 to Chief Justices and an extra couple of hundred to T.D.s, Ministers and higher executive officers, I suggest that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance, as custodian of the public purse, to take cognisance of, and to look very carefully into, the unequal distribution of wealth and the disparity between their own incomes and the wages of the workers. Another result of this is that it produces strikes, and sows the seeds of foreign ideologies and philosophies in this country. It gives to those people who advocate those ideologies and philosophies a sound and solid platform to work on. In my opinion there sits the Party and there sit the gentlemen responsible for that situation. They are responsible for that situation after 15 years of office, because they have become divorced from the ordinary man in the street.
As I have said at the outset, production can only be increased and can only be brought about by the employment of manpower. If we are going to bring down the cost of living and if we are going to increase production, we must give more employment. That, in itself, will help to stop emigration. Some people may be concerned about the influx of people into this country at the moment, not only the tourists, but those who may be described as coming in here not with a view to seeing the beauties of our country, but merely to satisfy their appetites, as was mentioned by some of the Government Deputies. I would like to suggest that sight-seeing was not the main reason for their coming here. A very small percentage of those who came here may have come with that viewpoint, but I would suggest that food was the main reason why they packed their bags and paid their fares to this country. Most of the people who have come here in the past two or three years since the end of the war have been our own kith and kin in one way or another. Those who were not our own kith and kin were very few indeed. My opinion is that if we start off now by insulting them we cannot hope to develop the tourist industry when things become more normal.
I object to a particular type of person coming in here. I refer to the speculator. I would be prepared to prevent that type of person coming in here, if necessary by legislation. However, while he may be considered dangerous, something far more dangerous is happening to the State at the moment. I refer to the outward flow of the thousands of men and women who are leaving this country. They are leaving this country because there is no security for them here—there does not exist for them in this country that type of employment in which they can feel secure. There is a scarcity of domestic servants in this country. In fact, there is a scarcity of almost every kind of servant in this country at the moment. I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is prepared to facilitate and to assist aliens to come in here to take up domestic duties. Already a thousand applicants have come before his Department, I understand. That is a regrettable factor. Young men and women are leaving this country every day in their hundreds and leaving this country not so much to gain as to lose, because they lose more than they gain in the long run. They would not be so anxious to leave if the employer were more reasonable with his employee. In large cities such as this there are many instances in which the domestic servant, in particular, is not treated properly. Arising out of that, they have taken a disgust to the idea of taking up employment in their own land. Of course there are exceptional cases where the employer is everything that an employer should be and where he treats his staff well and gives them all the respect which is due to them. I may say, however, that these are exceptional cases. If any Deputy were to talk to the domestic servants he would find that they have three grievances. Firstly, the long hours, secondly, the small rate of wage and, thirdly, the disrespect held for them in the household. They are looked down upon. That state of affairs does not apply across the water and because that is so the domestic servant prefers to go where respect does exist. She goes to a better type of employment and for a better wage although at the same time she is running into difficulties and she is confronted with dangers from the moral and the religious point of view. So much so is that the case that to-day every important citizen is focussing the attention of the Government upon the dangers that confront the young women, in particular, who are going to England from this country. Yet we hear of nothing being done by the Government to alleviate or to remove these dangers by providing suitable employment for these people in their own country and by seeing that these ladies who could be given employment here and who would take up employment here if they were properly treated would get it.
Quite a number of things could be said in regard to this Supplementary Budget. We could go on talking about how employment could be provided. We could go on talking about how the manpower of this country could be employed—in forestry, drainage, land reclamation and the many other schemes which would engage every possible man. One thing which often puzzles me is that nine out of every ten labourers in this city have a knowledge of agriculture. They are not so divorced from rural Ireland that nine out of every ten professional men have a knowledge of agriculture—not to talk of the labourers. When I say "agriculture" I mean everything in relation to the development of land—the sowing, the tilling, the ploughing, the fencing, the drainage and so forth. There is an enormous amount of work to be done in connection with the schemes I have just named. I know that the Minister, in connection with land reclamation, will point out to me the millions of pounds that are being spent on land reclamation in relation to private enterprise. I hold that land reclamation should be tackled on a State basis, similar to that which was done by the Government under Mussolini when he first went into office.
