Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1949

Vol. 115 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 13—General (Resumed).

When I was unexpectedly interrupted by the adjournment of the Dáil last night in the course of my observations upon the Budget, I was trying to get the Government to face up to the urgency and seriousness of social and economic problems; to realise the ineffectiveness of the measures which they have already taken and asking them to explain their failure to proceed with certain measures which they had announced. I do not wish to repeat any observations I made last night. No Deputy here fails to realise that this Government is pledged, in so far as public utterances can be held to pledge them to anything, to the reduction of taxation and to the reduction of the cost of living. So far as taxation is concerned, the fact that this year's Budget is estimated to secure a tax revenue of £64,500,000, or almost £7,000,000 more than the tax revenue secured in 1947, makes it unnecessary to emphasise the Government's failure to carry out that specific pledge made in a most formal manner by the Minister for Finance in his first Budget statement of 1948.

I am not going to argue that a reduction of taxation in the present circumstances is either practicable or desirable. It was the Minister for Finance who believed it to be practicable and who announced his intention of achieving it. It is the same Minister for Finance who this year has confessed his failure in that aim. It is probably true that the taxation now in force in relation to the present level of national production is as much as the country can meet and that if there is to be, as the Minister for Finance pointed out, an extension of Government expenditure under existing services or an inauguration of new services, the money for that purpose has got to be secured not by increasing the burden of taxation in advance of an expansion of production but by reducing the cost of some of the existing services. I am anxious, however, to obtain information as to the outlook of the Minister for Finance in this matter. For some reason he has not appeared in the House during the course of the debate on the Budget but presumably somebody has the responsibility of telling him what has been said and that when he comes to reply he will not speak in vacuo as usual but in some relation to the observations made by Deputies.

Deputy Con Lehane, the first lieutenant in the House of that Minister who, with the compliments of the Director of the Government Information Bureau, is henceforth to be known as "Ireland's New Man of Destiny"— it took him nine pages to establish his claim to that title—said in his statement in this debate that he agreed that henceforth the word "economy" would disappear from the vocabulary of the Coalition. Whether that was a wise observation or not, it had the merit of frankness. The Minister for Finance could have said the same, but he did not. He just implied that he had examined all the possibilities for retrenchment and, as a result, had thrown in his hand. The most he could promise for the future was that he would restrict the further expansion of Government expenditure. Deputy Lehane claimed that the disappearance of the policy of economy from the Budget statement and the word "economy" from the Coalition vocabulary is due to the influence of the Clann na Poblachta Party.

I must confess that I felt some sympathy for the Minister for Finance sitting there in the humiliating position of having to listen to a representative of the smallest and most ineffective Party in this House claiming to have forced him to abandon the policy to which he, more than any other member of the Government, was definitely tied. We all know, of course, that Deputy Lehane was talking nonsense, that the change in outlook and policy of the Minister for Finance was not due to the negligible influence of the Clann na Poblachta Party but to the fact that the Minister for Finance had, during the course of the past year, been forced to deal with hard facts and that he found it a very different occupation to making speeches when he was an Opposition Deputy criticising the Fianna Fáil Government. It is possible of course that he did not have that sense of humiliation to which I have referred, when listening to Deputy Lehane making that speech. I can well understand the present Minister for Finance deciding to allow Deputy Lehane to exercise his childish conceits. I can even understand him tolerating the expenditure of taxpayers' money, providing paper, ink, machinery, postage and civil servants to prepare this eulogy of "Ireland's new man of Destiny."

Who issued that document?

It was issued with the compliments of the Government Information Bureau.

Not the Dáil Reporter?

This matter which has been raised by Deputy Lemass, on a point of procedure——

The Deputy may raise a point of order but not a point of procedure.

I will raise a point of order. Deputy Lemass has referred to a very intriguing and interesting document which I am very anxious should be available for the information of the House.

It covers nine pages. I would read it out now and give the Deputy a good laugh but it is far too long.

Publish it in the Irish Press.

I will read the preface. This is issued by the Minister for External Affairs about the Minister for External Affairs:—

"Ireland's New Man of Destiny.

What kind of man is this new champion who toppled wily old de Valera from power to proclaim the Republic of Ireland?"

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

Did somebody say "hear, hear"?

"An intimate introduction to Seán MacBride, who has replaced ancient hatreds with new hope in Erin."

Issued by the Minister for External Affairs himself; paid for out of taxpayers' money, through the instrumentality of the Government Information Bureau. Information Bureau, how are you? I can understand the Minister for Finance allowing that to happen, giving his colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, whatever pleasure it has conferred upon him and allowing Deputy Lehane this conceit of believing that he is leading the Minister by the nose, provided that when it comes down to hard facts and a vote has to be taken here the Minister for External Affairs and Deputy Lehane vote as Fine Gael want them to.

Is it the Deputy's statement that the document he read was prepared by civil servants and issued through the Government Information Bureau?

Perhaps I had better confine myself to what I know. This document, nine pages of foolscap, was issued with the compliments of the Director of the Government Information Bureau from the Government Information Bureau.

The Deputy's earlier statement was that it was prepared by civil servants and paid for with taxpayers' money.

Stencilled by civil servants and written by somebody named James P. O'Donnell, whoever he is.

The Budget, to get back to it, is in my view, and despite all that Deputy Lehane has said, a typical Fine Gael production. It has been described as "an accountant's Budget". On the face of it, it is not inspired by any policy, not even a policy of economy. If any Deputy can read through the Budget statement, or examine the proposals which accompany the Budget, and find in either the slightest indication of a policy which has any relation to existing social and economic conditions, I shall be glad to be enlightened on it. I could not find it. Economy is gone. Deputy Lehane is glad it is gone, and the Minister for Finance knows it is gone. He has not yet got to the stage of repudiating his past undertakings and of announcing the end of that policy.

What about the cost of living? Here, again, we get back to this famous ten-point programme. This was number 3 on the programme—"reduction in the cost of living". It is brief and clear. The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech had this to say about the reduction in the cost of living. It is true that in the ten-point programme there was no specific indication of the extent to which the cost of living was to be reduced. It was merely to be reduced. The estimates of Coalition Deputies as to the possibility of reducing it varied considerably, but we know that some thought that a slight reduction was practicable at present, whereas the more flamboyant of them, the more optimistic of them, went so far as to forecast a 30 per cent. reduction. That has changed, too, and that policy has gone into abeyance. The Minister for Finance in his carefully prepared Budget statement said in respect of last year:—

"Import prices showed an increase of about 3 per cent., and retail prices, as already indicated, of less than 3 per cent. On the whole, it appears that the upward surge in prices has spent itself and that, if the forces making for inflation are held in check, further increases will be avoided.

The programme has become very small, from a reduction of 30 per cent. in the cost of living as it prevailed at the beginning of last year down to a reduction of undisclosed dimensions as forecast in the ten-point programme. The most that the Minister for Finance will now undertake on behalf of the Government is that, in certain eventualities, further increases may be avoided. I wonder what basis he has for his optimism? The all-items cost-of-living index number, it is true, shows no change in February, 1949, as compared with February, 1948, but that stability of the all-items index conceals certain changes which took place in relation to specific groups of commodities. There was a reduction last year in fuel prices. The ending of the fuel scarcity caused a reduction in the fuel price index, and that is the only reduction which occurred.

The scrap sale of your waste.

Perhaps, again, I had better protect myself by reading out this little bit just to remind the Deputy of it. It is the Taoiseach's undertaking with regard to the conduct of business in the Dáil:—

"The prestige of the new Government will not nor will the influence of any Minister be thrown in to stifle debate. We shall not shrink from criticism in either House of the Oireachtas or in the country."

It is true, as I have said, that the Taoiseach said nothing about heckling speakers or of trying to shout down critics. He said they would welcome criticism and that those who had it to offer would be given every opportunity of expressing it.

The cost of fuel fell last year, and that reduction in the fuel price index concealed the rise in prices that took place in the case of other commodities, particularly in the cost of clothing. The clothing price index last year showed an increase of 3 per cent. Now, that is particularly significant, first because the increase took place in clothing prices despite the opinion of all Ministers that it was in relation to clothing prices that the greatest opportunity for reductions existed, and also because there is no indication that the rise in clothing prices has ceased.

The Minister for Finance may hope that further increases may be avoided, but in the current issue of the Irish Trade Journal it is to be noted that in the wholesale price index for materials used in agricultural production, and in other industrial production, there has been an increase, in January of this year as compared with January of last year, of 23 points in one case and of 17 points in the other. That increase in the wholesale price of industrial materials in this year has probably not yet been fully reflected in the retail price of goods in the shops, so that the declared aim of the Coalition to effect an enormous reduction in the cost of clothing may not be realised at all.

Last year we know that Ministers went around the country and advised the people not to buy, and promised that if they withheld making purchases, particularly of clothing, the cost would come down. The only effect of their speeches is that the output of ready-made clothing fell in December, 1948, as compared with December, 1947, by 5.6 per cent, that the output of the boot and shoe factories fell during last year by 15.7 per cent. and that between March, 1948, and September, 1948, unemployment increased amongst workers employed in the textile industries generally, in the manufacture of ready-made apparel, and in the manufacture of leather and leather goods. In so far as Ministers thought it was good policy to advise the people to hold off buying and thereby stopped trade in the stores and in the business which the stores pass on to manufacturers, they have undoubtedly succeeded in securing a reduction in output, and a reduction in employment, but the cost of clothes, of all the items of wearing apparel, taken into account in preparing the clothing price index, has risen and not fallen as they promised.

Perhaps I had better conclude my observations on that aspect of the Budget with a further quotation from this famous broadcast speech which the Taoiseach made after he became head of the Government for the first time:—

"The average citizen at present is primarily concerned with the problem of making ends meet and of trying to provide his family with food, clothing and shelter, education and simple pleasures out of an income which cannot keep step with the rising cost of almost everything he needs."

I had not noticed earlier what follows, but I had better read it:—

"These economic considerations must take priority over all political and constitutional matters."

I wonder would I be in order in moving to report progress under Standing Order 91 to secure the attendance of a Minister?

I am informed that the Minister is on his way.

Let us turn to the urgent question of food prices. It was particularly in relation to food prices that Coalition Deputies were most eloquent and most emphatic in their view that there were enormous profits being taken in the distribution of foodstuffs, and in urging that reorganisation could effect a substantial lowering. The food price index, according to the official publication, remains stable over the past year. But that stability has been secured by instructing the Statistics Branch no longer to prepare the index upon the basis of the national average prices of staple foods.

It was always the practice in the past to allow the Statistics Branch to work independently of political considerations. Never, during the 16 years in which I was Minister for Industry and Commerce and in charge of that Department, did I at any time attempt to influence the manner in which the Statistics Branch worked, and I feel sure that if in my time I had attempted to give orders to the director of that branch to ignore certain obvious facts in preparing the prices index and to take into account only the prices prevailing for a proportion of the supply of commodities on offer, I would have got a refusal and, if I insisted on it, probably a resignation.

Whatever has happened since, we know now that under instructions from the Government the food prices index is prepared on the basis that the Statistics Branch takes into account only the subsidised prices of limited rations and, if there is tea, butter, sugar and flour on sale at higher than the subsidised prices, it has to ignore that fact. The food prices index, therefore, is no longer what it used to be, a reflection of the national average prices for these goods prevailing over the whole country.

The undertaking given by the Government and by members of the various Parties opposite was not merely that they would hold the prices of foodstuffs stable, but that they would reduce them substantially, and they were specific as to the manner in which they proposed to do so.

I hope Deputies will understand why I selected from the various copies of election addresses issued by Coalition Deputies, the one issued by Mr. Noel Hartnett, B.L., who has figured in the news recently, and obviously his position of influence in the Clann na Poblachta Party has been enhanced; in fact, there are even rumours that he is going to be elevated into the State service.

How has he figured in the news?

That is one of the minor mysteries that I do not propose to solve. He is here and there, but what he is doing I do not know.

But is he in the Budget?

No. In his election address he said "We"—and I take it it is not the royal "we" but that he was referring to the Party of which he is a member and for which in the election he was a candidate—"propose to take immediate steps to reduce the cost of living drastically to the British level at least and then to stabilise it. This can be achieved only by increasing food subsidies."

What has this to do with the Budget? What has Mr. Noel Hartnett's views on prices to do with the Budget?

I will invite any Deputy opposite to participate in this debate and say if he did not promise in the course of the campaign which resulted in his election to do precisely what is stated in this quotation.

Mr. Noel Hartnett is not a member of this House and his views on prices are not relevant at this stage.

I turn to the other side of the leaflet I have in my hand and I see a photograph of a member of the House there.

Mr. Noel Hartnett's views on prices may be very interesting, but they have no relevancy now.

Then I will leave him out of it. I wish I had never heard of him.

He did one thing that he promised—he put you out.

The point I want to bring out now is not with regard to something in the Budget but to something that is not in it. I wish to refer to the undertaking to reduce prices by increasing subsidies. The Minister may hold out a prospect that prices will not rise because he thinks farmers' prices have gone high enough and will not go higher, or because there is a possibility of a fall in international prices. But the specific declaration by Coalition Deputies was that they would bring down the cost of foodstuffs by increasing subsidies. Have they done that? Have they tried to do it? Have they not been moving in the opposite direction? The aim of the Minister for Finance, with the co-operation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture, is to get rid of food subsidies and, if possible, to increase the volume of unsubsidised food supplies purchased at full economic prices. Is the policy of food price reduction being abandoned?

I am trying to get Ministers and Deputies to realise the importance of frankness with the public. The public believe they are committed to a policy of reducing taxation and reducing the cost of living by increasing subsidies. We know they are not. Would it not be much better to come out and say: "When we promised these things we were ignorant of realities. We did not understand the problems of government. Now we have been in office for 16 or 18 months and we know the Fianna Fáil Government had real difficulties to meet and met them well and we cannot meet them any better than they did. We, therefore, must renounce our undertaking"?

And we will let the Fianna Fáil Government back.

You do not have to do anything about that—just give the people a chance.

We will not.

Here is a Budget, noticeable not for what it contains but for what it does not contain. It will not be denied by Deputies opposite that the reduction in taxation, the reduction in the cost of living and the introduction of a comprehensive social welfare insurance scheme were the three legs of the programme they put before the country. Not one of them appears in the Budget. There is no reduction in taxation or in the cost of living and not a penny for a comprehensive social welfare scheme.

Is it necessary to have a penny in the Budget for such a scheme as that?

No doubt the Minister for Finance is a wizard, as some Deputy called him, but if he can increase social service payments without providing any money I will vote for leaving him there as long as possible.

Is the Deputy referring to the technical introduction of the scheme?

That is not in sight. We were hoping to get the publication of a brief paper setting out in nonlegal language a preliminary statement of the Government's intentions.

We will get that.

We were promised it a year ago, but it has not reached us yet. When it is presented the Minister will have to get down to the job of drafting a Bill and long after the Bill has been drafted and has passed through an examination by the Department of Finance and other Government Departments and reaches the Dáil, there will be a further protracted period before it becomes law, and long after it becomes law there will have to be a considerable amount of work done setting up the administrative machinery to carry it into effect. That is the reason there is not a penny provided for it in the Budget.

It took the British two years to set up the administrative machinery.

That is my point—the sooner we start the sooner it will be in operation. The Minister told us on one occasion that we would have the White Paper in three months and he said in 1946 that he had a scheme prepared.

It is not fair for the Deputy to remind Ministers of those things.

Perhaps there is something in that. My main criticism of the Government is that their social and economic aims, in so far as they have any, are stated only in the vaguest terms, and so far as the Dáil or the public are aware they have no intention of doing anything about them. Reference has been made here to unemployment and emigration. The persistence of unemployment and emigration over a long number of years is evidence that the illness of Irish economy is deep-rooted and of so fundamental a character that it is quite ridiculous to talk about a short-term cure. Any real cure will be not merely difficult but long-term in its operation. As far as I am concerned an effective cure for these social evils is far more important than a reduction in the financial cost of Government.

Let me try to give Deputies some understanding of the magnitude of the task which is now their responsibility. The Taoiseach yesterday quoted from an English paper called The Economist. I hope he reads the other parts of that and not merely those which deal with legal and constitutional issues. That paper points out, for example, that there is a serious economic position in Western Germany because 10 per cent. of the manpower there is now unemployed. According to the Irish Trade Journal male workers in occupations other than agricultural—that is to say, occupations which are insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act— suffered on the second Saturday of December last from unemployment amounting to 11.1 per cent. More than 10 per cent. of the industrial male workers were unemployed on that date in this country. If 10 per cent. unemployment in Western Germany is a sufficiently serious situation to arouse concern in other countries, surely we here should be concerned with the fact that unemployment here is even higher?

Was that 10 per cent. on the general number or was it limited as the Deputy has limited it to industrial employment?

Industrial employment, yes—employment other than agricultural.

Is that in Germany?

I do not know what the German figure is.

How long did that last though?

I cannot tell you. I am working on the latest information available to me—the Irish Trade Journal of March, 1949—and I am quoting the figures published in that journal. It is published by the Department of Industry and Commerce. (Interruptions.)

Deputy S. Collins is talking about mumbling. I do not know what he means exactly. Perhaps he does.

Deputy Collins would want a rest to cure that throat of his.

This is a rather serious discussion and one would expect that a Minister would be present.

I have no control in that matter.

No, but the Dáil has the liberty to ask permission to move to report progress.

That has often been asked but it has never been granted. There is no precedent.

It seem to be a discourtesy.

Mr. Boland

We often sat here for days listening to a debate. It is just discourtesy and nothing else. It is not good enough.

Let me get back to this problem. If it is of no concern to the members of the Government perhaps there are Deputies who might be concerned about it. So far as I can gather from speeches made by Ministers their main hope of relieving the unemployment situation rests on their land reclamation project. I have no doubt if they act with efficiency and energy on any land reclamation scheme that will contribute to the relief of the situation in the rural areas.

But the problem I want them to face is that, of the increase in unemployment, last year more than two-thirds occurred in the urban areas. There is obviously no mitigation of the urban unemployment situation in the land reclamation scheme, in the development of turf production through Bord na Móna or on afforestation activities. In so far as the Government have concerned themselves with this problem of unemployment at all their plans appear to be solely confined to the rural areas, although there is in the urban areas an unemployment problem equally grave and obviously becoming more serious, if we are to rely on the statistics published in the Irish Trade Journal.

That unemployment situation is being eased to some extent by the increase in emigration. If emigration had not increased so considerably last year no doubt the number of unemployed would have been greater. Twelve months ago the Government tried to relieve itself of its responsibility for the emigration situation by setting up a commission. Not a peep has been heard out of that commission since. What is it doing? Are we to understand all action by the Government to check emigration and provide some alternative occupations for those who will otherwise be compelled to emigrate is suspended until such time as this commission thinks fit to produce a report? Do the members of that commission not know that last year the tide turned again? Do they not know that, whereas in 1947 there was a net inflow of population, in 1948 there was a net outflow? Did they not consider that there was an obligation on them to report that fact to the Government, or to produce an interim report containing some recommendations as to what the Government might do about it? Do the Government think they are released from responsibility in the eyes of the public because they set up such a commission?

If that commission is going to sit upon that problem for weeks and months to come, let the Government tell them to disband and that they will themselves do what it is their duty to do—that is sit down right now to examine specific measures that could be taken to ease that problem this year, even though we must recognise that a long-term solution cannot be brought into operation without some delay. If this Government has a policy for dealing with these economic and social problems, then the Budget should be the main instrument used to carry that into effect. Normally the most effective power which the Government has is that of shifting the burden of taxation so as to stimulate those activities which they desire and to check those activities that they regard as socially or economically inimical. Search this Budget for any indication that the Minister for Finance realises the potency of the weapon that is in his hand or for any indication of any intention to use that weapon for any purpose whatsoever! You will find no trace of it.

What about the increase in capital expenditure?

In so far as there is an increase in capital expenditure announced it follows entirely from the development of plans, the foundations of which were laid long ago. There is not a single one of the matters referred to by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech for which capital expenditure is being allocated this year which was not begun long before he took over responsibility. Let me not be misunderstood. I have no objection whatever to capital expenditure undertaken properly for development purposes. The only limitations which circumstances impose upon the activities of Government in that regard are the dilatoriness of Government Departments in producing specific plans upon which work can be undertaken. Do not speak to us of the land reclamation scheme, any more than any other scheme, unless you are prepared to go on with it.

Up to the present we have had nothing from the Government except an announcement of intentions of what they will do some time. Not one single specific proposal has yet come before the Dáil, the merits of which the Dáil could assess. In so far as that is an indication of what lies ahead, we are in for another wasted year. Every Deputy must realise that. In so far as the Government has responsibility for directing national progress, there is no evidence of any plan. We have wasted one year. That may have been inevitable following upon the change of Government and the elevation to sudden office of men who had little knowledge of the functioning of Departments. Now we are to have another wasted year. We should not, because of Government inactivity and incompetence, throw away the best opportunity this country has had for a quarter of a century. This is the period of time to which we were looking forward all through the years of the war and all through the period of the economic war before that, a period when we hoped world economic conditions would have changed in our favour, when this country would get a chance to reorganise and expand its production. It is this period we are wasting; these are the things that are being neglected.

I believe that this Government is a disaster. I believe that the worst thing that ever happened Ireland in our time was its election. That is my personal view. I do not believe progress will be made until we can get rid of it, but the members of that Government themselves think otherwise. If there is any sincerity in that belief, let them take the opportunity which they now have to let us know precisely what they are going to do or else let us reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are only a group of caretakers with no intention of carrying out any progressive policy and that the best they can do in the direction of affairs in this country is what is indicated in this colourless Budget statement.

I note with disappointment that there is no provision made in this Budget by the Minister for the contemplated comprehensive social service scheme in which I am very much interested. I have reason to know that there are a number of people in the country inadequately provided for because of disability in one form or another and who, unfortunately for themselves, do not happen to come under the heading of any of the existing schemes. I was all the more disappointed because of some utterances of the present Minister for External Affairs during the last election and immediately prior to it, when he made some invidious comparisons between the social services in this country and the social services obtaining or contemplated in the Six Counties. Had the Minister for External Affairs been aware at the time of what the social services in the North were going to mean to the people of the North, I think he would have been very reluctant to indulge in such comparisons. The Minister for Social Services may glean some idea of the extent of the social services obtaining in the North when I say that a small farmer there, who has, say, 16 acres of land, has to pay about £16 for which he gets in return, free medical services, which normally would cost him about £2 or £3 per year, free glasses and a free set of dentures. We must however remember that whether our social services be good or bad, the cost must eventually come out of our own pockets. Social services must be related to our productive capacity in every department of our economic lives. We must also be careful in our enthusiasm for competition in standards of social services, least that enthusiasm result in a standard of social services which could become a colossus bestriding the country. However I am eagerly looking forward to the new social services scheme. As I say, it will be welcomed by me provided it lives up to what I am expecting of it.

One class of people for whom I thought some provision would have been made in this Budget is that class who use their motor cars for business purposes. I have already appealed to the Minister for a reduction of taxation on cars owned by people who use these cars exclusively for their business. It was a great disappointment to me to find that they were entirely unprovided for in the Budget. I admit it was the former Government imposed the tax but I did not think that the present Government were going to perpetuate it. I was hoping, following the precedent of remitting other taxation imposed by the previous Government, that this Government would also remit this taxation. When one considers the cost of new cars, insurance, taxation and repairs, one must realise that this section of the community are shouldering an intolorable burden and are really put to the pin of their collar to carry on their ordinary business. The section to whom I refer are the ordinary middle-class people who must of necessity use cars for their business. They are a hard-working class who find great difficulty in making ends meet. I should like to remind the Minister that they are not the type of people whom he apparently thinks they are. I am hoping that in the near future he will find occasion to give them some concessions in this regard.

In connection with the tax on petrol, I was also anxious that the Minister might see his way to remit the tax on petrol-driven tractors. When one considers that farmers who are using paraffin-driven tractors are given the privilege of this remission of taxation, one cannot see any reason whatever why similar treatment should not be extended to farmers who own petrol-driven tractors.

I notice that the Minister has doubled the tax on shotguns and has quadrupled the tax on .22 rifles. I cannot understand why the Minister should select the farming community for the imposition of this petty tax. After all, there is hardly a farmer in the country, small or big, but feels that he must keep a shotgun. There are many uses to which he puts it—the shooting of crows, rabbits and vermin generally. The same thing applies to the .22 rifle. Admitted that a number of these are carried and used by youths in their youthful enthusiasm for one form or another of sport, but I feel the Minister is trying to deprive the youth of the country of what, in one view, is an innocent relaxation.

And they are destroying all the game in the country.

Admitted they do destroy a certain amount of game and on occasion they even destroy themselves.

Is that why the Deputy calls it an innocent pleasure?

It is a puerile tax in every sense of the word. I cannot see the reason for it because it is not going to bring in the Minister a lot in the way of revenue. I think it will be resented throughout the country by small farmers generally. The question of an increase or reduction in taxation really depends on the ability of the people to pay increased taxation.

There is one item I should like to refer to. Recently, I do not know at whose behest, a certain amount of revaluation of property has been going on throughout the country. I know of a number of cases where a farmer, because of the erection of a hayshed or cowhouse or something in that line, has his place revalued to the extent of 300 per cent., whereas neighbours who had carried out similar improvements to their property were left severely alone. I do not mind revaluation, but revaluation, if it is taking place, should be uniform.

The Deputy might reserve that for the Minister's Estimate. It would be more relevant than on the Budget. It is a question of the administration of that Department.

Revaluation and increase of rates generally——

As the Deputy knows, there is an appeal to the courts.

I know that. Deputy Aiken, when referring to the lack of applause from the Labour and Clann na Poblachta Benches on this occasion as compared with the last occasion, was interrupted by me when I said that the reason for it was probably that it was a Fianna Fáil Budget. This drew a retort from Deputy Collins that it was not a Royal Navy Budget. I do not know what Deputy Collins had in mind, unless it was the fact of service in His Majesty's Navy. However, I will only say this much about it, that I hope to see the day when this House will be occupied with a Navy Budget.

Not His Majesty's one.

I hope not. As I said, I hope to see the day when we shall be occupied with a Navy Budget. In view, however, of the Government's attitude to defence generally since they came into office, I can hardly be blamed for doubting that that day will arise during the régime of the present Government.

We will make you First Lord of the Admiralty.

Thank you. However, let me say en passant regarding Deputy Collins' I would not say generous remark, that better Irishmen than Deputy Collins or I have served the British Government in some form or another, and he ought to know that.

Some of them served in their own colours.

I notice in connection with the Estimates for Defence that, strictly in accordance with this Government's policy, the Estimates are down by almost £1,000,000. Since this Government came into power, their cheese-paring attitude in the matter of defence strikes me as being entirely inconsistent and incompatible with our national aspirations. It seems to me that the more freedom we appear to achieve the less evidence we show of our preparedness to defend it. Frankly, in the present circumstances, it appears to me that, unless we are going to take this matter seriously to heart, we should give it up altogether. We should try to remember that no country can call itself a nation which is not prepared to spend to the limit of its resources on the defence of its territory and territorial waters.

When the Minister decided to introduce this Budget he apparently decided not to be wildly spectacular or sensational. The Budget is a prudent and reasonable one, having regard to all the circumstances. I must compliment the Minister on his decision to give some relief to rural cinemas. I happened to be one of the deputation which went to the Minister some time ago to impress on him the strength of the case for some such relief and I was very much impressed by the difficulties which the Minister had to surmount. I am glad that he has found it possible to do something to provide that the rural community shall have the amenity of a cinema, which is certainly desirable if we are to keep our people in rural Ireland.

I do not think I can compliment the Minister on increasing the tax on firearms. There was always a small tax on firearms, and I think it was accepted generally as being necessary, inasmuch as it is necessary that firearms should be registered and therefore some small fee should be charged for registration. I do not think, however, it is desirable to seek revenue from this particular source. So far as sporting rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes are concerned I have no objection to an increase in connection with those weapons. But the farmer's shotgun is an agricultural implement and, if you can justify the collection of revenue on the farmer's shotgun, you can justify the imposition of a tax upon the harrow or the plough or any other agricultural implement. However, I am not making any very serious complaint about this matter because the tax is not of sufficient magnitude to justify any serious agitation or excitement.

I am glad that the Minister is at present in the House and also that the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary is in the House, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in the course of a brief but very eloquent intervention in this debate declared in regard to the ten-point programme of the present Government Parties that No. 1 was to put Fianna Fáil out, and No. 2 was to keep them out. As one of those who voted for the election of the present Government, I want to repudiate that assertion. I am one of those Deputies, and I think there is a substantial number in the House, who have no vendetta against any particular group of men in this House. When I voted for the election of the present Government, I voted in the hope that there would be an improvement in Governmental policy. I voted for a reform in the laws and in the government of this country, and I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the only way in which Fianna Fáil can be kept out and the present Government kept in power is by reforming the laws of the country and improving the administration of the country. That is the purpose for which the Government have been elected and that is the purpose which the majority of their electors would insist that they adhere to. During the past year, and it is emphasised in the Minister's Budget statement, there has been a persistent attempt to misrepresent the farming community in the eyes of the general community. It is time that that campaign was brought to an end. It is time that it was realised that those who are engaged in the agricultural industry, in proportion to the amount of effort and the amount of work which they contribute to the national effort, are the lowest paid of the entire community.

Some time ago I asked the Minister what was the average income of those engaged in the agricultural industry. His reply was that the average income of each person fully employed in agriculture was £165 per year; that is, little more than £3 a week. That is the average income of each farmer, farmer's son and employee engaged in agriculture. Can anyone seriously suggest that that represents an exceptionally high proportion of the national income? Some time ago the Minister, in reply to a question put by Deputy Larkin, stated that £10,000,000 per year is being expended in subsidies and various other aids to agriculture. When he was asked by me how much money is expended in subsidies and various aids to the non-agricultural section of the community he was unable to reply. He could not find the necessary figure. I think it is essential that that figure should be produced unless the agricultural community generally are to be misrepresented in the eyes of the general community.

I asked the Minister also that, since the farming community are receiving £10,000,000 per year out of the general expenditure, what contribution do they make in respect of rates, land annuities, indirect taxation and direct taxation. Here again the Minister could not give me the necessary figure. It is a strange thing that we can always get the information that seems to reflect upon the agricultural community but we can never get from any Government the figures which would show that the farming community are pulling their full weight in the general community and in the general national effort. I shall continue to press the Minister for those figures because I think it will be truly shown that the agricultural community do contribute their fair share to the general taxation of this country.

I think it will be shown, also, that the agricultural community do not receive from the national Exchequer anything over and above what they are justly entitled to in expenditure. The mere fact that the general income of those engaged in agriculture is little more than £3 a week per person is ample evidence that the farming community are not being over generously treated. I think it is necessary to emphasise this matter because only last week in the Sunday Independent I read a special article contributed, I suppose, by that paper's special correspondent. It was in the course of a comment upon the Minister's Budget statement:—

"Rightly or wrongly, the feeling exists in the ordinary community that agriculture does not, under existing circumstances, make its full contribution to those tax receipts and has not responded as fully as it could to the various measures of State aid and encouragement which seem to have more than corrected its previous depressed condition."

That, I think, is a serious indictment of the farming community. Just as it has been said that you cannot frame an indictment against a nation, it can in equal force be said that you cannot frame an indictment against a class. However, there is no sentiment as strong in any community as the sentiment of class prejudice and because of the fact that those who write for the Press do not belong to the farming community—journalists are professional people, politicians, in the main, are professional people, and most of the members of the Government are professional people—we have had, over the whole 25 years since this State was established, an undercurrent of prejudice against the agricultural community generally. This, in the main, has been responsible for the lack of progress in agriculture, for the stagnation in agricultural production and for the general depression in the industry which have been so widely deplored. In this Budget statement there is no suggestion of any attempt being made to assist agriculture in the way that it is necessary in order to expand production. No industry, whether it be a manufacturing industry, a mining industry, or any other industry, can increase its output by 1 per cent. unless there is, first of all, increased capital expenditure within that industry. If a capitalist wants to go into the business of producing boots, say, he must first of all spend money on the erection of a factory and the purchase of plant. If a manufacturer wants to increase the output of his factory he must spend money on the enlargement of that factory or the purchase of additional plant. The farmer, however, is called upon, is threatened, and is almost intimidated to increase production without any provision being made by the State or by anybody else towards additional capital for the industry. The banks have not been set up for the purpose of providing finance for agriculture. We know that the Agricultural Credit Corporation is a fiasco. Every member of the Government has from time to time admitted that it does not serve the purpose for which it has been established. The Minister for Agriculture changes his views so often that it is very hard to know from day to day what his policy is in regard to this matter or any other, but from time to time he has expressed the view that the Agricultural Credit Corporation does not fulfil the purpose for which it was established, its resources are too limited, the price it has to pay for money is too high and in every way it is inadequate to fulfil the functions of financing agricultural expansion.

Something must be done about it, but there is nothing in the Budget to indicate that the Government have any intention of doing anything to enable agriculture to expand production.

The Minister does deplore the fact that the volume of agricultural output, compared even with pre-war times, is lower. I think he admitted that it was somewhat lower than pre-war. In that connection, I think he was speaking of the gross output of agriculture. I think that if he had referred to the net output he would have found that there was an even greater reduction in output. When considering the question of output, it is the figure of net output that is the more important. You can always increase gross output by using an increased amount of raw materials, but it is to be borne in mind that it does not always follow that, by doing so, you get a corresponding increase in net output. It is only by stepping up the net output of agriculture that we can ensure a better income for the agricultural community and a sounder national economy.

I hope the Minister will put his foot down on the attempts which have been made so persistently over the past couple of years to misrepresent the farming community. I hope he will not allow the suggestion to be repeated ad nauseam, until it is believed by a large section of the community, that agriculture is exceptionally prosperous. Agriculture is not prosperous, and the Minister's figures prove it. The fact that agriculture is not able to expand production proves it also. In order to expand production, farmers need capital to provide themselves with better equipment and better stock. It is because they have not the capital that agriculture still languishes, as it has done over the past 25 years, and so there is no real increase in output.

That is the most serious feature of our economic policy. It is the one on which the Government must concentrate more than on any other. The Minister referred to our unsatisfactory position in regard to the balance of external payments. We can rectify that to a considerable extent by increasing the output of industrial goods, by developing the tourist industry, but the only sure way of keeping the position of the nation in regard to external trade sound and solvent is by getting from the agricultural industry the maximum output that it is capable of. We have not even begun yet to make any headway towards a solution of that problem.

While Ministers, from time to time, have strongly urged farmers and industrialists to increase their efficiency, to increase the output of field and factory per man hour, we have no indication that any step is being taken by the Government to increase the efficiency of the business that is under its own direct control, namely, the administration of the country. The Government is one of the largest employers in the State. It employs a vast army of civil servants and of employees generally. Has any attempt yet been made to ensure that every servant of the State is producing the maximum output per man hour? I am not going to make any reflections on the public servants of the State. The system under which our Civil Service generally is improving is, as far as I can judge, an ideal one. It draws from our schools and colleges the best of our people, but surely it is time that some special investigation was carried out to ensure that every servant of the State is contributing the maximum output that it is possible for him to contribute. It is essential to ensure that every Department is so organised that there is no waste, no overlapping and no unnecessary expenditure.

Some years ago I was one of those who promoted in the Dáil a motion which sought to set up a committee to inquire into the manner in which Government Departments were administered with a view to ensuring that such economies as might suggest themselves would be carried into effect. I believe that the need for having a committee to make such an inquiry is as great to-day as it was when that motion was tabled. I believe the Government would be doing a useful service if it held a comprehensive investigation into the administration of all Government Departments. These Departments have grown and expanded to a very large extent since this State was established. The number of civil servants to-day is immeasurably greater than it was 25 years ago, but the population of the State is no greater than it was then, and the wealth of the country is no more than it was when the State was established. It is not only in the interests of economy and of keeping down national expenditure and of reducing taxation that such an investigation should be carried out, but it is also necessary that we should have efficiency in public administration as an example to the general community, to industrialists, employers and business people generally. The Government should set a headline in Departmental efficiency. I think that no harm would be done by having such an investigation. Indeed, I believe that great good would result from it.

Would the Deputy move to report progress?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.
Top
Share