With reference to the introduction last week of the Budget by the Minister for Finance, we had an atmosphere created throughout the country by Ministers and Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies which misled the farmers and the agricultural community generally into the belief that something definite and beneficial for them was going to be done in the Budget. Prior to that we had an atmosphere created by the Government Party in connection with the De-Rating Commission. During the past two years the Minister for Agriculture mentioned, time and again at meetings throughout the country, that he could not open his mouth so far as de-rating was concerned. All he could say was: "We have appointed a Commission of experts to go into that question and I am not at liberty to talk about it until they have dealt with it. They are considering their report, which is going to be a very complete one, as they have gone into all the details. When the report of the Commission is put before us we will consider it and do what is best according to the report for the farming community."
The Executive Council apparently could not think for itself during the two years that the Commission was sitting. The Commission was composed of men with a magic wand. We were led to believe that the Commission was going to bring in such a favourable report that an immediate improvement would be brought about in farming conditions. But anyone who has read the Report cannot enthuse very much over it. I am surprised that Deputies who have practical experience of farming, and of the difficulties the farmer has to contend with, should get up in this House, or in any part of the country and compliment the members of that Commission on, as they allege, the very excellent report they have turned out. In my opinion, the report is not a credit to the members of the Commission. From end to end of it there is no definite solution suggested by the members of the Commission for the improvement of agricultural conditions. The members of that Commission simply repeat a lot of platitudes. What all the members of the Commission are agreed upon is that de-rating would be bad for the farmer, that unless you put on the farmer, and keep on his shoulders, the burdens of the rest of the community he is going to become lazy; he is not going to produce more, but is going to be more or less a drag on the State. The idea that one gets from reading the Majority Report of the Commission is that if the burden of taxation was lightened on the farmer he would become careless, that he would become easy-going in his methods of farming if more money was put into his pocket through de-rating. That is the idea you get running through the report from beginning to end.
I, for one, cannot agree that the report is a credit to the members of the Commission. They were able men and had at their disposal all the evidence that could be made available as regards farming, the production and marketing of agricultural produce and so on. They got evidence from practical farmers, and had at their disposal other sources of information. In view of all that, I do not think that the report is a great credit to them. To my mind, if you put into a desk in any school a school-boy in the sixth or the seventh standard and asked him to write an essay on the difficulties of farming on the one hand, and the possibilities of successful farming on the other he would write as practical, and much nearer to the point, a report on the conditions of farming in this country as is to be found in the report of this Commission. The one idea which the members of the Commission who signed the Majority Report seem to have at the back of their heads all the time, was that whatever else they could not do, there was one thing they must not do and that was issue a report which would in any way embarrass the Government. They pooh-poohed the idea of giving the farmer relief in rates or that he would produce more if his taxation were lightened.
In twelve or thirteen points, which they set out in the Report, they suggest methods by which the farmers of this country could work more, produce more, and make the State richer. I will deal with two of these points. The first is, "encouragement of the best method of the feeding and management of livestock"; the second is "the promotion of poultry-keeping and the encouragement of the best methods of rearing and feeding poultry for egg production and table purposes." These are the two main clauses in the Report that the Commission issued. That is all that we have got from this Committee of experts, of supermen selected by the Government. That is all they have been able to produce after all the evidence that was taken and the sources of information that they had at their disposal. That is what they offer to the practical farmers of this country. I say that they need not give instructions to the farmers down the country as to how they are to feed or produce livestock. These men are quite capable of managing their own business. They can do it without any advice from the Minister for Agriculture. There is no need either to give instruction to the housewives of the country as to how they are to raise poultry or produce eggs for marketing purposes.
The idea of those who issued the Majority Report seems to be that farming must be done in a clocklike fashion. I hold that the Commission went beyond its terms of reference, and that instead of dealing with these matters they might have turned to the question of considering how economies could be effected by eliminating waste in the Civil Service to which they belong.
They might find if they went on to discuss in detail the Committee on Economy of which Deputy Heffernan was Chairman that investigations disclosed that the Service was made up of the most luxuriously paid body of loosely organised civil servants in the world. And if they wanted to eliminate waste, as they wanted to do in the case of the farmer, they would find a great deal of it to be eliminated from the Government service. But they preferred instead, and with their usual red tape, to instruct the farmer as to how he should feed his livestock, keep his poultry, and market his eggs.
There is only one thing in the whole report that can be commended, and there is no farmer in the whole country who could not have told the Government that one thing years ago, but they would give no heed to his advice, and that is where they state that one means of benefiting the "agricultural industry would be the extension and provision of credit at a cheap rate." That is the only one thing contained in the Majority Report that can be recommended. All the rest can be put aside as a good deal of red tape trash. There is no doubt that the report is disappointing to the people of the country, but it was not an embarrassment to the Government. It was a god-send to the Government just before the Budget time, because the farmers were expecting something definite from the report on de-rating, either full de-rating or at any rate partial de-rating, and they were disappointed. And then when the farmers were in a state of uncertainty and chaos the Government comes in, and the problem that this Commission of supermen failed to solve with their magic wand the Executive Council, which is not composed of supermen but men with feet of clay and faces of brass, found a solution, and the sum of £750,000 was to be given to the farmer as a farmer, and was to be taken back from the farmer as a taxpayer. If the Minister for Finance, in coming to his solution as to how agriculture could be assisted, fell into the error of the British tax-gatherer, and simply giving that relief of £750,000 had to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, it would not be very commendable. But the Minister for Finance is a wiser man than the old British tax-gatherer. He did not rob Peter to pay Paul, but being an erstwhile advocate of the Irish language and a bilingual constitution, instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul he robbed Peter to pay Peadar instead, and so he gave to the farmer as a farmer and took from the farmer as a taxpayer.
He went further. As far as the small farmers are concerned he takes more back from them in the taxation on sugar alone than he gives in actual relief out of the £750,000. I think Deputy Davin quoted figures to prove this here to-day. The small farmer whose valuation was from £10 downwards comprises the big majority of the people working in this country. They will only get on an average from 10/- to 14/- relief in taxation out of this grant. And the same small farmer, with an average of from five to seven members in his household, will pay in sugar taxation an average of from 11/- to 16/- I have given a margin of from 10/- to 14/- in the relief that the small farmer will get, and from 11/- to 16/- in what he will have to pay in sugar. I have left the margin so wide because I think it is the fairest way to put it. There is one very definite thing, anyway, and that is, that the small farmer with a household of from five to seven members will pay actually more in sugar taxation than he will get in relief of rates.
On the question of the sugar taxation, of course, it was interesting to know what was the President's point of view on that matter. On Friday, in his little trashy speech, he attempted to tell us why the sugar taxation was imposed. His excuse was that even with the halfpenny per lb. addition sugar would be still cheaper than it was two years ago. That was rather an illuminating point of view from the President. If that is to be followed out to its logical conclusion such articles of food as are necessary for the poorer people to use should be kept up on as high a level as they were years ago by extra taxation. That would justify putting a tax on every other commodity of life which is reduced in price owing to production and would justify it being kept at a higher figure by taxation. Even with the tax sugar is still going to be cheaper than it was two years ago, and that satisfies the President.
He did not make any mention of the fact that the income tax is 1/6 lower to-day than it was a few years ago, and that not due to any world conditions either but due to the action of the President and the members of the Executive Council. They deliberately reduced the income tax by 1/6 in the £ lower than it was a few years ago, and they deliberately increased the price of sugar to the poor simply because world conditions have favoured them to the extent that sugar was coming down. Why not if he makes that argument about sugar make it also about the income tax? If he talks about sugar being still cheaper to the poor than it was two years ago he should take into account the fact that the rates in the County Mayo, even under the administration of the super Commissioner whom they have sent down to administer the affairs of the county, have increased by 3/11 for the past three years. And part of that increase, amounting to 8d. in the £, was imposed by the Commissioner sent down by the President. I would like the President of the Executive Council, when he comes to make his trashy little statement in the House for the purpose of rallying the weak members of his own Party, that he should consider other parts of the country beside the income tax payers in Dublin.
In the County Mayo under the Government scheme 13,364 holdings not exceeding £4 valuation will receive an aggregate share of the grant amounting to £7,100, which works out at 10/7 per holding. 7,639 holdings of a valuation exceeding £4 and not exceeding £7 will receive in the aggregate £8,800 or £1 3s. 0d. per holding. As against these two figures 12 landowners with holdings the valuation of which exceeds £300 will receive between them £1,310 or £109 3s. 4d. each; and 28 landowners with holdings exceeding £200 and not exceeding £300 in valuation will receive £1,420 or £50 14s. 0d. each. The average area of the small holdings in Mayo which do not exceed £4 in valuation works out at just over 15 acres, while the average area of the holdings between £4 and £7 valuation is about 24 acres.
The method in which he takes money out of one pocket of the farmer in order to put it into another by imposing a tax on sugar, is deplorable. There is also the very unfair method of distribution. The farmer who is worse off, who has to keep a large family, such as the small farmer in Mayo, and who is hardest hit by emigration being stopped is the man who is hardest hit by extra taxation. He has to cater for his family despite the obstacles put up by the Government, while the big farmer, who is not hit by the stoppage of emigration and who, as a rule, has a small family, is facilitated by the Minister in his Budget.
You have the very questionable attitude of the Minister in remitting the tax on betting. I would not mind the tax on racecourses being abolished, provided it would be some definite good for horse-breeding, but on the Minister's own admission it is going to do no good whatever to the horse trade or to the race meetings in this country. The Minister in his statement dealing with the remission of the betting tax, said: "I am quite satisfied that the tax did not do any serious direct injury to Irish racing, and that in itself it had only an inconsiderable psychological effect." Those are the Minister's own words. If it is not going to do any injury to horse racing why this remission of tax amounting to £25,000? If any other members of the community came to the Minister and put up arguments about a certain tax being remitted, and if the Minister thought it was of no use, does anyone think he would remit it? There is something sinister behind the Minister's attitude in this matter. It is not that I object to the remission of this tax, if I thought it would do any good to horse breeding in this country, but the Minister says it will not. It is quite all right to give relief to the farming community, and it is quite all right to put on extra taxes, but we find that for this £750,000 which is to be given to the farmers, the farmers have got to pay an additional price. It is rather interesting from a Government point of view that when they want £300,000 extra in order to give this £750,000 to the farmers they must immediately go and tax the commodity which the poor use, sugar. They could not provide the money except by extra taxation. But we find that the Government, in the last financial year, provided £216,000 for army officers in gratuities and salaries without extra taxation. Not alone that, but they provided £216,000 for army officers without coming to this House at all for the money. Now they have immediately to go and tax the farmers' breakfast table to provide £300,000.
Here is an interesting sidelight on the policy of Cumann na nGaedheal. Not alone are they taxing the farmer for the relief they are giving him, but the farmer has to sacrifice his local authority. Whatever little power the farmers or the agricultural community had in local councils, they have got to give up those powers. Those councils have got to be scrapped. They have to pay this as an additional price for the relief of the agricultural community. It was no surprise to us that the Government policy was to quench out the local authorities and prevent their having any voice in the taxation of this State or in running this country economically. The Minister for Local Government has been doing that quite successfully for a long time, but not as successfully as the Government would wish. He was leaving a bad odour behind him. Now the Minister for Finance is going to quench out those local authorities and throw in at the same time the bribe of a little relief in rates. I do not believe the country will accept that. Members of this Party are not going to allow the Minister to pass off the bribe in that way. If local authorities are going to be abolished, if whatever little power farmers have is to be taken from them, it is not going to be taken without every possible opposition we can give in this House.
There was one undignified remark in the Minister for Finance's statement. He referred to members of the local bodies as a pack of wind-bags. It is quite all right for the Minister for Finance to say that. If he were a wise man he would realise that some of those whom he calls "windbags" have come into his own Party from local bodies. He would look at Deputy Sheehy, one of the local wind-bags down in Cork, and he would look at Deputy Davis, the ex-chairman of the Mayo County Council, who has come into his Party and is chairman of it. I do not like those slighting remarks about wind-bags on country councils. The members of the county councils might have their faults, but they have worked very hard and unselfishly. They have worked without remuneration. There was a time when the Minister for Finance and his Party depended very much on the wind-bags of the local councils. It is adding insult to injury now to address them as a pack of wind-bags. I think the Minister, in his closing statement, would be doing good to himself, his Party, and the country as a whole if he withdrew that statement.
Of course we are asked to pay a tribute to the Minister for Finance because of the wonderful work done in balancing the Budget. The President in his closing statement on Friday and again to-day paid that tribute and said that all of us, apart from politics, should be all good sheep for one day and go down on our knees to the Minister. On Friday he said "I should like to say, however, before closing now that Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Anthony and Deputy Nolan all paid a well-deserved tribute to the Minister for Finance in connection with his long and favourable record as Minister for Finance. Deputy Redmond was the first to notice it and he has perhaps this advantage over Deputies opposite that he has had experience of two representative institutions." As to Deputy O'Connell's, Deputy Anthony's or Deputy Nolan's opinion of Mr. Blythe we do not mind. As to Deputy Redmond's opinion of Mr. Blythe or the President's opinion of Deputy Redmond we do not mind much either.
There was a time in the recent history of this House when any statement low, mean, or scornful was not bad enough for the President to address to Deputy Redmond. I read in the records of this House certain statements addressed by the President to Deputy Redmond not so many years ago. Evidenty Deputy Redmond has distingushed himself sufficiently of late years to become an object of the President's admiration. Because of Deputy Redmond's experience in two representative institutions his opinion is to be valued higher than the opinion of any other Deputy. We present the Deputy and his opinions to the President. I must say that the President is very often as much at error in his choice of company as he is mean in his choice of words. Deputy Nolan talked about the President of course and also about the Vice-President, who is Minister for Finance, and stated that if the Budget was introduced in any other Parliament there would be applause from every side of the House. The Deputy remarked that the Minister had balanced his Budget, that there was no deficit, and that the country was not bankrupt. Might I ask what did Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies expect?
Have the members on the Front Benches and the Minister for Finance been taking these Deputies into their counsels during the past year, telling them that the country is going bankrupt, and that we were "down and out," or was it that Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies were realising that since the Government took office they have succeeded in piling up a debt of two millions every year? Is that what was troubling Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies? Were they troubled because the Government, since they came into office, have handed over to England, in round figures, £40,000,000, or were they perturbed that that could not go on or that the country would go bankrupt? Were these the worries that so troubled Deputy Nolan and other Deputies that they were terribly surprised to find that the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, has shown that the State is not yet gone bankrupt? While our opinion of the Minister for Finance is not a good one, we realise that the country is not gone bankrupt, and that it is quite possible to introduce a Budget which is, to a certain extent, a balanced Budget, we realise that despite the financial bungling of the Minister for Finance the farmers through all these years have worked hard and have paid up.
If this country is not bankrupt, if the Budget is balanced, and if our credit is good at home and abroad, that is due to the men who carried the burden of taxation, the farmers, the workers and the income tax payers, and it is not due to the Minister for Finance or to the policy of the Government. This country could not go bankrupt while there is in it such an industrious community. The country could only go bankrupt if the farmers refused to do what the Minister for Agriculture asked them to do, to tighten their belts. They tightened their belts and paid up every penny demanded of them. The income tax producers also paid up when the thumb-screw was put on. For those reasons the country did not go bankrupt. We pay no tribute to the Minister for Finance, but we pay tribute to the workers, the farmers and others. We should not pay tributes to those who do not deserve them and neglect those who do. I think Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches should not be carried away with this Budget. They know as well as I do that whatever taxation is imposed, in the long run, is going to fall on the community as a whole.
One other matter might be worthy of mention. In last year's Budget the Minister enforced a tax of £10 on travelling shops. There was a clamour amongst residents of towns a few years ago about this matter, and the Minister for Finance was urged to tax these travelling shops out of existence. As a result of that clamour a tax of £10 was imposed. During the past year there are a greater number of travelling shops than ever on the road. That has proved that the people who carry on these travelling shops are making them pay despite the tax. The amount of the tax is thus passed on to the consumer. The Minister should take some cognisance of that. It is the breakfast table of the poorest that is being taxed. If the Minister wants to collect an easy tax it is all right to continue the present arrangement, but if he wants to take the extra burden off the poor he should either increase the £10 tax to an amount that will put these shops out of existence or remit it altogether. The consumer is paying the present tax of £10, and that is an unfair burden. There has been general disappointment at the Budget, and nothing that the President, or even Deputy J.J. Byrne can say in its favour is going to fool the people.
