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.