I had hoped that the Minister would have availed himself of this opportunity to give us something more than a brief survey of the implications of the proposals in his Budget. I think the House is entitled to have something more from him by way of justification for its introduction than it has received. The Budget is something which the State must have produced for its consideration if its affairs are to be kept running smoothly. Sometimes people look forward to the introduction of the Budget with fear and trembling and frequently they breathe a sigh of relief when the document has seen the light. But I think that there were no sighs of relief on this occasion. From the contact I have had with people throughout the country I believe that no more unpopular document was ever introduced in the Oireachtas than this Supplementary Budget. Ostensibly the reason for it was the desire of the Government to reduce the cost of living. That is the cause given publicly to both Houses and to the country but I wonder if the Minister will seriously contend to-day that this additional £5,000,000 will reduce the cost of living in any home in the country. We are used to hearing the saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul", but this Budget is truly accepted as robbing Peter to pay Peter. I feel myself that there has been no justification for this Budget on the pretext of reducing the cost of living. It is not going to do it and nobody believes it will do it. I can say that there were and are other reasons influencing the decision of the Government. I would prefer that the Minister and the Government would be frank in this matter and say boldly why they have been compelled to take this step. Some of the things taxed in this Budget are now regarded as the essentials of every-day existence for the people of this country. Tobacco, the bottle of stout and the pictures are all taxed. We are being forced into conditions of austerity and asceticism due to reasons of which the Minister has not spoken but which I think should be revealed to the country. Let the country know where it stands and why it is standing where it is. It is true that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in some of the debates, gave expression to the point of view that we have reached a position when it is undesirable that we should continue to spend money on the importation of foreign pictures and spend so much on purchasing foreign tobacco. There are many people, many members of the Oireachtas who for a long period have seen this stage being reached. Many times in this House and in the other House the position of our falling production was stressed, and it was pointed out that we would face adversity as a consequence. It was urged, time and time again, that action should be taken to guard against this day when it should come. Now it has come and the Minister and his colleagues are not prepared to face the fact and to do something to rally the country because it is quite clear that we are now facing a position where our foreign purchases will have to be cut to the bone. The first indication we had of this was in the Budget. No doubt it came upon the House and the country quite unexpectedly. Whether the Minister and his colleagues anticipated it we do not know but it is rather interesting to follow the sequence of events that preceded it. It was introduced following some of the discussions that had taken place in London between the representatives of this country and the British Ministries. Was it only then revealed to the Minister that we were coming to the end of our tether? What preparations were being made to meet this situation? This piecemeal method of enforcing austerity upon us, in the blind belief that we will not appreciate the fact that we have to put up with it, is all wrong. The British fought a bloody war in which they wasted all their foreign resources and much of their internal resources and they have to accept conditions which are very unpalatable. We did not fight such a bloody war—we kept out of it. Apparently we, too, must pay the penalty of that war which was fought, but, if that be so, let us measure what the future holds for us. Let us be told about it, and let us be called upon to face it courageously and let the Government not try to put their fingers in the eyes not only of the members of the Oireachtas but of the country as a whole.
It is difficult to deal with all the implications of this Budget and I have no desire to attempt to go over the whole field, but we have some figures, given to us recently, which show the perils we have to face. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in Cork, told us that our total imports amounted to £90,000,000 and our total physical exports to £30,000,000. There was a gap of £60,000,000 to be bridged, and he asked how we were to do it. Elsewhere he has given an estimate of our exports for the present year which indicates that he anticipates a further drop of £8,000,000 in the value of our exports. I do not know what the Government hope we are to purchase from the hard currency area; I do not know what they hope to be able to pay for in that area; but, taking these figures as they have been given to us, we are expecting to bridge the gap of £60,000,000 by very peculiar processes: (1) by emigrants' remittances; (2) by the earnings on our foreign investments, and (3) by drawing on capital. Curiously enough, when the Minister came to that point, he was warning us of the dangers of drawing on capital.
It is of interest to know that we can draw on capital, and, if we can translate it into anything of value to the nation in its difficulties, it will be welcome news; but is it not an extraordinary position we find ourselves in that we are dependent for our living on the earnings of the people whom we have sent to England or who have had to leave this country to find work in England? Surely this low figure of £30,000,000 for exports must be to some extent influenced by the fact that hundreds of thousands of our people have left the country and have gone to England. The Minister may deny that that is the result of Government policy, but that is what has been going on and I have no doubt whatever that the capacity of this country to produce has been gravely influenced by the dimensions of that flow of our young people out of the country.
I want to know what policy the Government intend to pursue in future in order to bring the country up to the position in which the amount of physical goods it will be able to export will go some distance towards paying for our physical imports. How is that to be achieved? There is no light in any statement of Government policy that I can lay my hands on which will brighten our way towards that goal. I see other figures of purchases in the hard currency area for 1946, and we have also from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the statement that for 1947 up to date our total purchases amount to £65,538,000, and of that we have spent £26,379,000 in the hard currency area. How long can we go on doing that? What plans have we for developing or improving our capacity to pay for these goods which we are buying in that area?
Let me look at another aspect of Government policy as I see it. People have to work to live and we have to sell in order to be able to buy. In the last analysis, we shall have to fall back here on our agricultural production and exports. What has the Government done, right along all through its period of office, to encourage exports? I do not want to go back over the bad period, but the Minister can, like his Leader, look into his own heart and find the answer there. The fruits we are gathering now are the result of the neglect of the past. Let us look to the future and let us see what are the possibilities of an increase in agricultural production which will go any distance towards paying for our foreign imports.
Again, I suggest that the Government have a very peculiar way of implementing this policy of austerity. Our Ministers recently had discussions with British Ministers and we had in the Dáil last week an indication of the results. One examines these to see whether or not there is anything which will encourage us to believe that we can hope for greater agricultural production and export. I cannot see much hope, but I do see that, so far as I have been able to examine these proposals side by side with other things which have been happening at home, it is quite clear that our Government are implementing a policy of rationing of meat for the people of this country in order to be able to export more to Britain. Similarly, I suggest that the proposal contained in this Budget for an increase in the tax on beer has exactly the same policy and purpose behind it. If that be the fact, why not say so? It is very desirable, and in fact essential, that there shall be greater exports in respect of the products of our distilleries and breweries to the hard currency area, but why not say so? Why not tell the people that, in order to be able to buy more from abroad, they will have to buy less of these at home?
Let us consider the policy with regard to beef and the export of cattle. We have had indications of the price that has been agreed upon with the British. Apparently we have agreed to sell at a given price. One way to narrow the gap between the cost of imports and the value of our exports is to push up the price at which we sell our exports. When we apply that test to the most important commodity we have to export the impression is obtained that in that respect our Government have definitely fallen down. One way to narrow this gap is to push up the price of beef being sold abroad. In the recent discussions we have definitely pushed up the price from a very bad price paid to us all during the war, with the consent of the Government, but we have not pushed it up as far as we might or ought to push it. We have something that can be sold in any country in the world. It is the scarcest food. Why should the people representing this country agree to sell a fat beast to Britain at £4 or £5 less than the price paid for a beast of equal quality and weight out of the Six Counties? I do not understand why such a decision should be taken. The Argentinian Government does not do that. The American farmer does not do it. It is true that the Government are paying for foreign wheat more than they are paying their own farmers. It is a very strange position for the Irish farmer that he will get less for his wheat from the home Government than that Government will pay the farmers or the Government of any other country and that, when he sells his cattle, his Government will accept a price from a foreign Government lower than that Government will pay their own farmers or foreign farmers. It seems to me that we have fallen down on that. The Government had the chance of a lifetime and it is beyond me to understand why they did not avail of it.
I see that in these discussions the Government have agreed to discuss with the British the numbers of fat cattle that may be sent to the Continent. The Government, who talked so much about foreign markets, are now going to sit down with the British to limit the quantity of food they will send to foreign markets. I am all for selling all I can and sending all I can to Britain at any time, but I want some security about it, and I do not understand why the Government should limit sales to the Continent when they have no security as to how long this arrangement with Britain will last. Britain can break it in six months. Britain, apparently, is not prepared to make an arrangement with us that will last into the years when beef becomes more plentiful. She will pay us less than we can get elsewhere at the present time and, in three years' time, when it is available elsewhere, she will buy somewhere else.
I do not think there is much in that, but let us consider another aspect. I have had discussions with butchers in Cavan and I am told that from now on they will not be able to pay more than 77/-, 76/- or 78/- per cwt. for cattle. Some have told me that they have cattle bought and that when they are sold out they will not be able to compete with Britain in the market. They can buy cattle of inferior quality, but will not be able to purchase the first-grade beef that they have been accustomed to sell to the consumer. I do not know if that is a fact, but if it is, it is quite clear that in that decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce he is imposing a policy of rationing on our people and putting the home butcher in a position that he cannot compete with the foreigner and will have to buy inferior stuff, and, probably, will have to buy less of it. As a result, more will go to the foreigner and the people at home will be less well-fed.
If that has to be done, let us say it frankly and let us face it, but let us not do it in this particular peculiar way. If you want to send more to Britain, be courageous about it and say you are doing it and let the British know that you are imposing difficulties, hardships, and austerities on your own people in order that they may be better fed. Let us at least get some credit for sending them more to eat.
There are other problems that concern us arising out of these discussions. I notice that the Government have made undertakings with regard to the export of seed potatoes. The Minister will recall that months ago, on another debate here, I pointed to what I regarded as the serious situation which would confront us when the potato crop of this year was gathered. I have no reason to change my view. Personal experience and information that I have obtained have confirmed me in that view. I think we are humbugging the British when we tell them we will export seed potatoes to them this year at all or, if we do export them, we will leave ourselves short. That is something on which I would like the opinion of other members of the House who come from country districts. How is our production of potatoes to be increased next year as it ought to be unless we ensure supplies of seed for our farmers this year? The prices as fixed here, if the price be the determinant, mean that there will not be any seed potatoes exported to Britain because the prices listed are not equal to the prices that people are paying at present throughout the country for potatoes. In the markets in Cavan the price paid in any week is higher than the price fixed with the British. I do suggest that some effort should be made to get some estimate of home requirements and stocks available for export before one cwt. leaves the country. The whole position in regard to our foodstuffs requires further elucidation and much more information than has been vouchsafed so far.
In the 1946 expenditure in the dollar area, you have £3,625,000 in the Argentine. I would like to hear from the Minister what contribution that is going to make towards our export policy. The production of more pigs and poultry is essential to the balancing of our Budget, both at home and abroad. Some months ago, we had a statement from some member of Grain Importers, Limited, or Irish Shipping, Limited, whom we sent to the Argentine, that hundreds of thousands of tons of maize were purchased in that country. We have not seen very much maize since, but it is a matter of considerable concern to the farmer producers, and especially small farmers, and it is something on which we should have full information. What has been spent on the purchase of maize or wheat, or where is it held? Is it in the Argentine or in this country? What are the stocks we can draw on for the future? This can considerably influence pig and poultry production. You cannot produce pigs out of a hat, and men will not produce pigs unless they feel there is a possibility of the pigs being fed when produced. We have not been given information on this point, though it is a very important one.
The price at which we sell is a determining factor in our capacity to purchase. I see that the price at which it is proposed to sell flax as agreed in these discussions, is fixed for the 1948 crop at a considerably higher figure than for 1947. May I ask if no effort was made to get that price for the 1947 crop, two-thirds of which is still in the hands of the producers? If it be value for that in 1948, why is it not possible to secure that price for 1947? These are the problems that confront the producers and the considerations that influence their line of conduct. Farmers are under a great disability when none of us know what type of agriculture we are to pursue in the future.
Figures were made available to the committee which sat in Paris on the Marshall Plan which have never been revealed or discussed in this country at all, as far as I know. These figures indicate a complete change of Government policy in regard to wheat production. I have not got the figures here, but the Minister must have them somewhere. They show a reduction from 600,000 to 250,000 acres of wheat. Is not that a complete reversal of Government policy? If that be the view of the Government, why is it not stated publicly, even though it be a change of policy, even though it be an acceptance on their part now, rather belatedly, that there is a better scheme to pursue and that there are ways by which our land can be utilised more fruitfully and more productively than the method which they regarded as most successful in the past? If that be so, why do they not tell us and let us be prepared? We get this from Paris, in an international document, never revealed to us here at all, never discussed with any group of farmers, not even introduced to the Oireachtas. That sort of thing makes it impossible for intelligent farming to be carried on here, as intelligent organisation of our industry is beyound us when we do not know for what we are to organise. Is it not clear now that there has to be a considerable adjustment from the Government's angle of the things which they have stood for and preached and practised in the past?
I asked the Minister about the possible imports of maize meal. Does he recall the days when he would not let a sack of maize into the country and was a great antagonist of the policy of maize importation? He played more than a man's part in the propagation of the policy and doctrine that played the dickens with pig production. His Leader and himself now subscribe to the thing for which we stood when we argued that, in order to have a balanced economy, these imports were essential. I did not—because there was a new Minister for Agriculture— attempt before to demand from the Government some indication of what reorganisation was to take place in our industry that would make us better prepared to meet these commitments by way of payment for imports in the future than we were in the past. The day is past when we should have had a statement of Government policy on that point.
The Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, ought to know. He had some farming experience and must have views of his own, and he should be in a position to enlighten the House and the country. The position is grave and is made more grave because the facts are not revealed by the Government. It comes in in this oblique way in this Budget, introduced, mar dheadh, to reduce the cost of living, when, in fact, the whole purpose is to increase the conditions of austerity arising out of discussion with Britain which apparently only then revealed our dependence on her economy.
From every angle, the Budget is unpopular. The burdens it imposes on every section are unwelcome and hit the poor people hardest, many of whom go out of their cheerless homes to the warmth of a picture house. It will be much more expensive for them to have that little bit of comfort in future. The man who takes a bottle of stout will be badly hit. The poor fellow out in the hills in my county, perhaps to-day, in his potato furrow, with his spade, trying to get out the last of his potato crop, finds that his pipe is put practically beyond his means. This is all done to reduce the cost of living. It really is robbing Peter to pay Peter— and Peter is not grateful for it.
