In looking over the items of this Bill it struck me that, now, more than half the adult population of this country are receiving money from the State in the way of pensions or salaries or payments for unproductive work. Looking at the items as they stand, it makes one ask the question, how long is it all going to last? Our expenditure has increased over £5,000,000 in a couple of years. Our trade has fallen by 50 per cent., and our adverse trade balance has increased from £12,000,000 to £18,000,000. I contend the figure of £18,000,000 is not correct and that it would be much more correct to say that our adverse trade balance is over £20,000,000. We are paying £2,500,000 in bounties and subsidies. Most of that goes to foreigners and is sent out of the country for the purpose of selling our goods. I contend that should be subtracted from the prices we receive for the goods we send out for export.
My particular reason for rising is to refer to the statement made by the Minister for Finance on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the 4th July this year. In column 1765 of the Official Reports he is reported as having said:—
"It may be quite true that the farmers are suffering. I do not deny that the farmers are suffering here as they are suffering elsewhere. At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that in counties like Mayo farmers have paid 99 per cent. of their annuities and, according to the last figures I saw, 92 per cent. of their rates. The same is true of a number of other counties."
That statement of the Minister must do away with the contention often put forward by members of the Executive Council and other representatives of Fianna Fáil that there is a conspiracy amongst the farming community not to pay their rates and annuities. I contend that 75 per cent. of the people worthy of being called farmers in Mayo are supporters of the United Ireland Party, and the fact that 99 per cent. of them have paid their annuities certainly does away with the contention that there is a conspiracy amongst them not to pay their rates or annuities. There is another question. It is easy for the farmers of Mayo, and other counties in the Gaeltacht, such as Kerry and Cork, to pay their annuities. The standard of living in these places is very low. Does the Minister want to reduce other farmers to that level? The rates or annuities of these farmers could be paid by one of their sons getting three or four weeks' work on the roads. The money thus earned would pay the annuities of a big percentage of the Mayo farmers. And therefore if the contention is right that the farmers in Mayo are able to pay their rates and annuities, are we to take it that the other farmers are in a conspiracy not to pay their rates? I would like the Minister to tell us, when he mentioned that 99 per cent. of the annuities and 92 per cent. of the rates were paid, was he referring to the year 1932/'33 or the year 1933/'34. Following up that statement, the Minister said:—
"They paid them and the fact that they paid them shows that they could pay them. I think that is an indication also that other people could pay. That is the position in a certain number of areas. In one of the areas where the collection is worse both in regard to non-payment of annuities and non-payment of rates, I happen to have personal knowledge of circumstances attaching to one farm of £50 valuation. I have been at pains to satisfy myself as to the position of these people. They tell me—I believe they are telling me the truth—that in the year 1932/'33 they were better off than they were in the year 1931."
I will accept the Minister's statement that there are exceptional cases where it is possible that the farmer could be better off in 1932-33 than in 1931, but would the Minister tell us what class of farming that man is carrying on? I can speak from personal experience. I practise all branches of farming, except growing tobacco and beet, and I can assure the House definitely that there are not 5 per cent. of the farmers capable of holding out in this country for another year and paying their rates and annuities, or paying anybody else, if things continue as they are.
I did not rise to make a contentious speech on the economic war, but I would like to bring home to Senators the fact that the country is in a bad way. The whole question of the economic war does not depend upon the retention of the land annuities, nor does the settlement of the economic dispute. We are told that the British Minister for Agriculture and the British Government are out, no matter what happens, to continue the quota on our cattle. I say there is no foundation whatever for such a statement. We have in our hands, if the Government will adopt the proper course, the greatest bargaining power with England of any country in the world. Even at the present time we are the second best customer, and upon a pound for pound basis we have a natural market in England for all the stuff we can produce. When it comes to protecting the British farmer checks are put on, but they put up a different proposition to the British Commonwealth and the Argentine. There is no quota against Canada for her live stock. Does the Minister contend that it is not a political stunt to reduce £500,000 or £550,000 of Argentine beef that comes into England by £30,000, and to reduce our little quantity which, on the whole, would not be more than £35,000, by 50 per cent.? To only reduce the imports from the Argentine which amount, as I said, to over £500,000 by the sum of £30,000 does not make the British farmer's position any better. It is now admitted that the quota system against Irish cattle is of no avail whatever to the British farmer so long as the Argentine stuff is allowed to come into England. The amount of beef imported into England from the Argentine and South America is in or about 600,000 tons. If we assume that it takes on the average three beasts to produce a ton of beef, then the amount of beef we supply to England would be 60,000 tons, and on those 60,000 tons we are cut 50 per cent. As regards the 550,000 tons which the Argentine and South America send into England, there has been a reduction of only 30,000 tons, and I want to emphasise this, that that reduction has never been enforced.
I read in this morning's newspapers a very alarming statement made in the House of Commons yesterday by the British Minister of Agriculture. If the policy outlined in that statement is going to be carried out to the full it will mean not only the complete ruination of our fat stock trade but the complete ruination of tillage, and will create in this country a welter of unemployment amongst our agricultural labourers. The policy indicated in that statement is this: that from 1st September next, and not later than the 1st March of next year, there will be a tariff of 1d. per lb. on all beef either on foot or dead going into England. The amount of money which that tariff will produce is to be given by way of subsidy to the British farmer. With the £6 per head already on our cattle going into England, that tariff is going to put another 50/- per head on them. I read in that statement also that there is to be a 50 per cent. preference for members of the British Commonwealth. That was the one little ray of hope that I saw in the statement. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will admit that we are still members of the British Commonwealth, and that he will take steps to see that we will get this 50 per cent. preference which we are entitled to receive.