Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Jun 1935

Vol. 57 No. 2

Control of Imports Orders: Motions of Approval. - Finance Bill, 1935—Second Stage (Resumed).

Before moving the adjournment yesterday, Sir, I was dealing with the tariffs proposed in this Bill on building materials. I have spoken of the taxation in other directions on the profits of building, the scarcity of money and on everything tending towards restricting of building operations. I can see nothing to justify the many provisions of this Finance Bill and the proposals of the Minister except the fact of his being confronted with a desperate situation. To my mind, the Minister is confronted with a situation somewhat similar to what Britain passed through in 1931; that other countries had to pass through since, and that France to some extent is passing through now. The Minister's deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, yesterday said that he holds that a large percentage of the income from production should remain with the people and that the percentage in taxation should be a small portion of all the taxation. It is very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he holds that a large percentage of the national income should be retained by the people, and that it should not be gobbled up in taxation. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be about to develop that point, and it was becoming interesting just when he ran away from it. As the Parliamentary Secretary was about to make the point that he holds as a strong principle that the producers should have as little as possible taken from them by taxation, I thought he was going to show that even though taxation has gone up here, the national income has gone up more, and that the percentage of income taken from the producers, even with the high taxation, is less now than it was years ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not develop that because I think he got on very shaky ground. He would not have been able to develop it successfully because the national income has not kept pace with taxation. If there were any other proofs necessary but this Budget and this Finance Bill, they dispel any doubts that anybody might have as to where we stood with the national income. According to the Minister's Budget speech, only a few items of taxation came up to expectation in tax yield. He rushed at those in the coming year and in this Bill he is going to impose additional taxation on these items. I said that the position here with which the Minister is confronted is pretty like the position that the Chancellor and the British Government were confronted with in 1931. In the report of the Committee on Finance and Industry presented to the British Parliament by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in June, 1931, on page 89, paragraph 200, we find this set forth:—

In the direction of public finance also, a large fall in prices produces serious reactions affecting the equilibrium of the national Budget by its operation both on the revenue and on the expenditure of the State. We need only summarise briefly the directions in which pressure is felt:—

(i) The revenue of the State tends to be affected unfavourably in all its branches. Business depression reduces the volume of profits (including dividends distributed) liable to income tax and surtax; the valuation of estates liable to estate duties; the volume of transactions liable to stamp duties; the yield of customs and excise duties by reason not only of a reduction in the volume of goods consumed but of a fall in values. Consequently, in so far as the State must meet the charges fixed in terms of money, it must meet the situation by an increase in the level, or an extension of the field of taxation.

(ii) At the same time, the circumstances of the time tend to swell expenditure in certain directions with a view to relieving the unemployment situation or providing for the unemployed.

(iii) A high proportion of State expenditure is contractual in the form of debt interest and can only be reduced by conversions, either voluntary or on maturity under favourable circumstances. A further large block of expenditure is fixed in terms of money by Acts of Parliament (e.g., pensions allowances of many kinds, contributions to health and unemployment funds and other social services) and is not readily alterable when changes take place in the value of money.

I submit that the Minister finds trade, industry and agriculture here suffering from a depression similar to that which the British Government was confronted with as revealed by that report in 1931.

There are many recommendations made in this report. There was a recommendation for adhesion to gold, but the British found they were not able to carry out that beyond September, 1931, because they found unemployment was increasing; that they could not sell their goods in foreign markets; that they could not balance their Budget; that the revenue from income tax was declining because incomes were declining; and that in the eastern markets they were being crushed out by the Japanese. I do not want to go into details, but they were crushed out. It is only relevant in so far as it bears an analogy to our position.

We are suffering from world depression. On top of that we have another depression which I am not going to develop; a depression produced by British tariffs and the economic war. Great Britain was crushed out of eastern markets by the Japanese because the Japanese had depreciated their currency. An agreement was made by which Japan undertook to take a certain amount of raw cotton from India and in return would be allowed to sell to India a certain amount of cloth. That agreement was conditioned on her not depreciating her currency below a certain point. That was partly kept. Finally, the position was that Great Britain found herself producing goods at gold prices which she could not sell in any market. She had to go off the gold standard and produce them at prices at which she could sell in world markets. Since then, prices have gone up in Great Britain, but they are not gold prices.

The Minister should consider the position in which the producers of surplus products in this country find themselves to-day. The agricultural producers have eggs, poultry, pork, bacon, butter, beef, and cattle to sell in the British market. They are being put out of the British market by precisely the same methods that Great Britain was put out of the eastern markets four years ago—by our competitors in the British markets working on a depreciated currency. It is up to the Minister to recognise that and take steps to have something done about it.

The Deputy stated all this last night.

Was that why the Minister ran away last night? I did not draw the analogy. I was not putting anything before the Minister which had not got the serious consideration of Ministers and Cabinets in other countries. They had to take a certain line and they took it; and so far as can be seen at present they redeemed the situation. I am not asking the Minister to perform miracles; but I am pointing out what we are suffering from. I am suggesting to him that he should take the necessary precautions to handle the situation that exists and that it can be handled only by the same methods by which other countries handled it. America had to do the same; Belgium had to do the same. The Minister for Agriculture admitted here that we could send cattle to Belgium and make money on them; but the moment Belgium went off gold we could not send any more. We are tied to the lion's tail and are on a common level with the lion all the time.

It is a very serious problem indeed to find that the industry on which rests all the subsidiary industries in this country, namely, agriculture, is not paying, and that in this depression, instead of getting any relief, it is called upon to meet obligations twice. The President on the Vote for his Department admitted that it was losing in this economic strife between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 on the British market and between £2,000,00 and £3,000,000 on the home market. But it is getting no quid pro quo for that. It is nearly time that Ministers, including the President, should cease from running away from that position. They admit the position up to that point but then they run away from it.

It is a fact that was investigated, but we will find perhaps a more appropriate opportunity on other Votes to deal with that in more detail. Interesting arguments have been put up here from time to time. They are bluffed away, but when it comes to Finance they cannot be bluffed away. The Minister has had to tax everything in this Budget. You cannot bluff away the hard facts that have come up naturally there. The Minister cannot bluff away the facts that produce was taxed so as to diminish in yield and that he has now to tax sugar and tea. I take out these two particular cases because there is no reason, in my view, why they should be taxed. Tea is an essential article. We do not produce it and cannot produce it. Sugar is essential. We produce it at a higher cost than it is produced in any other country in the world. Even at the previous cost it was very dear, and it certainly is not able to bear any further tax.

The Minister is proposing to tax imported fruit with which I agree. But he cannot have it both ways. If he taxes fruit for the development of fruit culture in this country, he must realise this fact: That there is more acid in Irish fruit than in fruit produced in hotter climates, and that it requires more sugar. So the effect of the tariff on imported fruits, and the taxing of sugar, is to diminish the consumption of fruit in this country. I doubt if the Minister desires that. When the Minister puts on these taxes he should ask himself why is it that if there is an increase in the population, and the decline in unemployment that we are told about he should have to widen the field of taxation. I suggest to the Minister on the word of a well-known authority that each additional labourer that comes into the labour market requires for equipment additional capital of £1,000. Reckoning males only, if we have had an increase of male labour of 15,000 every year for the last three or four years, we must, according to this figure, produce increased capital in expenditure of £15,000,000 to put all these people into productive employment. They may get in otherwise, but they can only get in under one of two conditions—one, that they displace somebody else or, two, that they dilute labour and reduce wages by their competition.

Will the Deputy relate that to the Finance Bill?

Yes. The new taxation required by the Minister, and the failure of the taxation last year to produce the moneys anticipated, is due, I submit, to economic conditions. The Minister has to widen the field of taxation; he has to come down to the necessaries of life and to increase the taxes on some of the necessaries of life that have been previously taxed. The large amount of money that he requires which has to go out in the shape of unemployment assistance and home assistance would not have to be paid out, if we were flourishing economically, and these people, instead of being a charge upon the State, would be a benefit and would be producing income for the State.

I have now, I think, taken up enough of the time of the House. I just want to put to the Minister that we have not been increasing our wealth annually in the last three or four years. There are no signs of that; the figures do not show it; we are not increasing employment. If we were increasing employment, and retaining our standard of living, the wages paid would be increasing. A pretty good index of the wages bill of the nation is the outstanding note-issue of the country. There has been very little variation in that for the last three or four years; it has kept at about the same level. The aggregate of wages is not increasing; otherwise the note issue would be increased.

It was claimed here last night, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, that the revenue from tariffed goods is diminishing because these goods are now being made at home. As a matter of fact, the revenue from customs last year exceeded the estimate, so that there is very little in that claim of the Parliamentary Secretary. Again, it is proposed in the Finance Bill to tax wheat. I would favour taxing wheat if it tended towards the production of wheat. But this is purely and simply a revenue tax. Sixpence per cwt. is to be put on wheat. We would want to produce 600,000 or 700,000 acres of wheat to fill our requirements. But we will only have, at the outset, the produce of 200,000 acres of wheat— about 30 per cent. at the outside of our total requirements of wheat. We will be paying a tariff of necessity. Even if it was £1 a cwt. it would have to be paid in the circumstances because we are not producing it at home. By the policy of the Government with regard to wheat, putting in a percentage, and guaranteeing a price in the Bill that will follow very soon, the question of wheat will be sufficiently catered for without any tariff. I think the Minister said that the tax he is putting on wheat is put on purely and simply for revenue. I do not think he is justified in that merely by the existing circumstances in which the Minister finds himself. He turns back to the argument of increasing population and that national income was not producing sufficient to put into employment the increasing population.

The Minister is confronted with all these things. I indicated last night the machinery that the Minister should have at his disposal. I am not going to go over it now as there will be further opportunities to do so. I just want to remind the Minister that there is nothing new in this. I am not going to infringe on the copyright of Deputy McGilligan and produce a plan. I would just remind the Minister that there is a little plan here which he and I advocated on one occasion together and the Minister ran away from it. That is a central bank for this country. The Minister ran away from it, but if he does not get that piece of mechanism into his hands, there is no use in shouting for a Republic because it is a Crown Colony that will be functioning.

Deputies opposite seem to forget that when provision is being made for matters which they ignored, and for sufferings of the people which they ignored during the ten years they were in office, the money must be found somewhere. When they walk into the Lobbies and signify their consent to the provision of houses for those who are without houses, to pensions for widows and orphans, to providing money for unemployment assistance and money for old age pensioners, and when they admit, while supporting these matters, that they were neglectful in their duties towards the poor during the period they were in office, they must not growl at the manner in which the money must be found. The money must be found, and if more money is needed for these purposes it must also be found.

Deputy MacDermot found a cure for all that last night. Here is Deputy MacDermot's cure: that we must get into exactly as good a position as the British farmer himself in regard to the admission of goods to the British market. Deputy MacDermot would scrap all this. That is the only meaning that can be read into these words, and he is the one individual in this House who puts no tooth in it. Deputy MacDermot wants to get back the United Kingdom Parliament. He wants to have no quotas, none of the disabilities under which even Commonwealth countries suffer. He wants to get rid of all that and ask us to get back to Britain. This Dáil is all a mistake according to Deputy MacDermot. Let us get back to the old home again. I cannot see any other meaning that could be read into that—"Let us get into exactly as good a position as the British farmer himself in regard to the admission of his goods to the British market." That is what Deputy MacDermot wants. Deputy MacDermot is Vice-President of the Fine Gael Party and no doubt he is expressing the views of the Fine Gael Party on that. That Party has only one object in view now, namely, to get back into the United Kingdom Parliament and to scrap this altogether. I wish Deputy MacDermot would come out into the open in Galway or somewhere else where the people could hear him say that. I am sure he would gain a lot of votes by it.

Again Deputy O'Sullivan told us last night that we had lost £6,000,000 on our live stock in the last two years. I have repeatedly quoted figures for the old days, when we had a free open market in Britain. We exported more produce to that market in 1931 than we exported in 1928, yet we got £13,000,000 less in 1931 for our produce than we got in 1928. I am sure that Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, would not ask a new industry that he would establish, to sell its products less than the cost of production, but the farmers of this country had got to the point, I might say, two years before Fianna Fáil came into office, at which they were producing goods for the British market at less than the cost of production. I challenge any experienced farmer on the opposite benches to deny that. It was accounted for this evening by Deputy Bennett as world depression. The world has depressed a lot since, and I notice on reading some of the British papers that the Scotch farmers complain that they have lost £15,000,000, owing to the depressed prices they have received for their agricultural produce. We have lost £6,000,000 in two years on the live stock industry. These are Deputy O'Sullivan's figures. Against that we have preserved for the Irish farmers a market that was previously given to the Chinaman, when we were importing Chinese bacon to the value of £1,760,000.

Would not this arise more appropriately on the Estimate for the Minister for Agriculture?

Surely it is as appropriate as the Central Bank.

I am only rebutting the arguments which were put forward here last night and that were apparently quite in order. They appear in the public Press to-day. These are the arguments used against us last night. I am proving that, if the market for live stock has been depressed by £6,000,000 in two years, we have at least given our minds to that problem and found an alternative market for the farmer here at home. The whole cry here has been the depression of agriculture. Every single Deputy dealt with that. I say that we have preserved that market here at home for the Irish farmer, the market into which there was formerly imported £1,670,000 of Chinese bacon. We have, as Deputy Belton informed us, and as I am well aware, something over 200,000 acres of wheat this year. That would account for a further £2,000,000. We have a further 42,000 acres of beet, representing a further £900,000.

Surely the agricultural policy of the past year does not arise on the Finance Bill?

The agricultural policy of the Government was discussed last night and I am only rebutting the arguments put forward then. However, I do not wish to labour the subject further than to point out that as against the £3,000,000 per year drop in the value of our live-stock exports, we have created an alternative market worth £4,670,000. That market has enlarged enormously, particularly for wheat. As a matter of fact, according to one of our flour millers, 35 per cent. of our wheat requirements is now being grown at home. Then we had Deputy Mulcahy, who had a very definite objection to rural housing. Of course, that is nothing new in his career. The Deputy has a decided objection to anything being done for rural housing and to the Minister for Local Government quoting the amount of money that has been given in the way of grants for rural housing. During the last 12 months we have given to the small farmers of the country, to those whose valuations do not exceed £25, grants of £40 each to enable them to put their houses in good repair so that they may be enabled to bring up their families under decent conditions. We were able to do that in the case of a few thousand farmers and the money given was well spent. I hope that the grants given by the Government for work of that kind will be taken advantage of more fully by the small farmers of the country. During the time of the last Government the appeals that were made on their behalf for reconstruction grants under every housing Bill that was introduced were allowed to go unheeded. The last Government would do nothing for them. I made numerous such appeals when I was sitting on the benches opposite, and I got no response from the Government of that time.

Surely, on the Finance Bill which deals with the collection of revenue by taxation the policy of the last Government on housing does not arise.

I suggest that it does because these matters have been debated, and I would like to debate them.

That is what I am trying to avoid.

They have already been debated. Surely all matters that deal with the wealth produced in the country are relevant on the Finance Bill, as well as the expenditure of that wealth.

I am dealing with matters that were neglected by the previous Government. The poor were not looked after by it, but they are going to be looked after now and the money must be found to do that.

And you get it through a tax on their tea and sugar?

By every means possible.

Hear, hear! Including their bread and butter.

I am glad to hear Deputy McGilligan's "Hear, hear!"

I am hear hearing the Deputy saying it.

Deputy McGilligan made another attack last night in regard to another industry that was the Deputy's high horse in the good old days.

Deputy McGilligan did not speak on the Finance Bill yet.

One of his colleagues did.

What white horse did the Deputy mention?

The waterproof industry that you know all about. When the Deputy's Party was in power they put a tariff of 35 per cent. on the material coming in and 20 per cent. on the made article. That was the Deputy's method of fostering the waterproof industry here.

That was nearly as good as exporting butter.

It was better. We hear a lot of noise from the opposite side, but these are some of the reasons why money has now to be found in other ways. It is largely due to the policy pursued by the last Government. We have definite experience of that in the case of the Cork Harbour Commissioners. They have found that their revenue is decreasing because there is no longer the enormous import of foreign goods that went on during the time of the last Administration. The principal complaint made by Deputy McGilligan's supporters is that because of the Government's industrial policy lesser quantities of foreign manufactured articles are coming into the country, and, therefore, less revenue for the Cork Harbour Commissioners.

And less exports going out also.

Granted, but those who talked here last night on that would do well to remember some of the appeals that were made to them when they were in office. What did they do when appeals were made to them in connection with the flour mills? One of the decentest men in this country— he owned three flour mills in my constituency—closed down one altogether in 1930. On the day that our present Minister for Industry and Commerce took over office we had a gentleman down measuring the machinery in the Midleton flour mills for the purpose of having it removed and with a view to closing down the mill. During the last two years that Deputy McGilligan was in office as Minister for Industry and Commerce these mills were only working quarter time. The mills in Midleton and Mallow were only able to give employment on two days in the week. They are now working overtime. Extra employment has been found for the people in them. The unemployed, instead of eating the flour that was imported from Liverpool during that period, now find employment in the mills. I wonder did the Deputies who are so much concerned about these matters ever hear of Clondullane mills. The late Deputy John Daly often spoke in support of that mill here. I remember well the emphatic protests he made here against the closing down of Clondullane mill. It is working to-day, and no thanks for that to Deputy McGilligan. It had been closed for two years when we came into office, but to-day 57 men find employment in it. These are some matters that I would advise the Deputies opposite to consider. The waterproof factory which was closed down owing to the tariff arrangements made by the last Government is now giving employment to 120 people, and I am sure there are other similar factories in operation around Dublin. All these industries have been started by the present Government. They are giving employment to the people. All that the last Government did was to clap on tariffs for revenue purposes. These tariffs have now been wiped out, due to the policy of the present Government which has resulted in the manufacture here of the articles that were formerly imported.

How then does the Deputy account for the adverse trade balance?

There was even an adverse trade balance in the time of Columbcille when Deputy McGovern was born. We had Deputy Belton's complaint about the fruit tax to which he gave a kind of left-handed blessing. He suggested that it was a good thing, but that there was too much acid in the fruit.

It will require more sugar, and because the Budget proposes to tax sugar I disagree with it.

We have set up three more factories for the manufacture of sugar. The factories are providing employment for our people as well as an alternative market for our farmers. I am prepared to support anything that will do that. Deputy Belton should be the last man to growl about it. I am sure that when he fully considers the matter he will not disagree with it. If there is more acid in Irish fruit, well, that is all to the good, because more sugar will be required and, that being so, our farmers will be able to find a market for an increased acreage of beet. We will sweeten it for him. The more fruit you grow, the more beet we will grow to help you out. I cannot help thinking that there is an acid in your rhubarb. I cannot see for the life of me what complaints Deputies opposite have. The only person who put up a right, good remedy here was Deputy MacDermot. Deputy MacDermot said that we should scrap even this idea of a Commonwealth, into the support of which he inveigled his unfortunate comrades at the recent convention. He is in favour of scrapping that now. I shall quote again what the Deputy wants us to do, because it is worth quoting: "to get into exactly as good a position as the English farmer himself with regard to the admission of his goods to the British market." That is Deputy MacDermot's cure. Deputy MacDermot knows that none of these little nations in the Commonwealth he is so fond of talking about is in exactly as good a position in the British market as the British farmer is. There are such things as quotas that interfere with the arrangements. Deputy MacDermot's idea is that we must scrap all this. It is all a dream and should not be thought of at all. We should get down to sanity and get back into the United Kingdom Parliament. That is Deputy McDermot's cure, if his speech has any meaning. Sometimes a little portion of his meaning creeps out in his speeches.

Has Deputy Corry not been in this House on any of the numerous occasions on which not only I, but colleagues of mine, have pointed out that we have got better assets for bargaining with than any other nation in the Commonwealth and that we could, consequently, escape the British quotas on the strength of these bargaining assets without the sacrifice of one iota of political independence?

I quite remember Deputy MacDermot putting up that argument, and I remember dealing with it. I remember asking Deputy MacDermot questions which he was unable to answer. I hope he has thought them over since. If, after our bargaining, we still have 100,000 bullocks left, is Deputy MacDermot going to close down our flour mills and throw the people out on the streets, as his late Minister did, so that we may have the bargaining power of "English flour for Irish bullocks"? Is he going to do away with the other industries this Government has started and fostered, in order that we may have bargaining power for the rancher's bullock against a British-made article? Is that the policy?

Of course it is not, and never has been the policy.

Let Deputy MacDermot get back to sanity. He knows very little of this country. I quoted his colleagues' description of him before. Deputy McGilligan could give a very good description of him at any time. I wish, for the sake of this country, that the Vice-President of the Opposition, had some moorings in the country, had some stake, some little farm, some little piece of ground, or some little house that would give him responsibility in this House instead of a carpet bag, which he can pack and leave. That is the trouble. I hope Deputy MacDermot is now satisfied with the answer but, of course, he is never satisfied. He is one of those Deputies who permit a little portion of what is in the back of their minds to creep out in their speeches occasionally. We get some little portion of the truth, and we can find out what he is aiming at. The only way I know of by which we can get into exactly the same position as the British farmer is in is to join the north of Ireland again in the United Kingdom Parliament.

I was working for Irish self-government a good many years before Deputy Corry was.

I doubt very much whether you were or not. I was fighting for this country when the Deputy was fighting for the enemy.

That does not arise on this Bill.

I regret that Deputy MacDermot has drawn that. I was doing my duty for this country when the Deputy was in khaki fighting for Britain. If Deputies on the other side want to get back to the United Kingdom Parliament, let them say so. We have people growling here about the position of the farmers and about the poverty of the small farmers. There are a lot of small farmers in Galway whose valuations are under £25 and a lot more whose valuations are under £10. These are the people who have been poverty-stricken and broken. They had ten years of Cumann na nGaedheal rule. These small farmers will have a voice next Wednesday. Deputies on the opposite side should go down and see if they can persuade them to go back into the British Empire and into the United Kingdom Parliament, instead of standing for all this country suffered and bled for. I am sure that when the ballot boxes are opened in Galway, we will have the self-same verdict as we had in 1932 and 1933.

Do you believe a word of that?

I will take a bet of £100 on the result of the Galway election.

Deputy Corry has already spoken, and, when he sits down, he ought to allow another Deputy to speak.

This Bill, which implements the Budget, gives one cause for reflection. Casting one's mind back to last year when the Budget was presented, a great many people gave a sigh of relief that things were not as bad as they had expected, and that we could go on with some assurance that we would get through. As was remarked, from the last Budget until the introduction of this one, we had every week a fresh Budget—a fresh import duty. Somebody put the number at 365. We had all these import duties to make up the amount of money needed for the country. Coming to this Budget, it is time to take stock and to see what is the Government's outlook in the admittedly serious position, that the country is in. What is the outlook for the future? What fresh ground are we going to explore so that the country may once again look forward to reaching reasonable prosperity? When we look at the Budget and the details enumerated in the Finance Bill we find that no new ground has been broken. Nothing fresh has been introduced into the economy of the State; nothing by which the principal industry could look forward hopefully for salvation. Week by week and month by month we see a wastage of the principal industry. What is going to build it up? In any other country that one reads about, at a time of crisis the Government would take the people into its confidence, and would bring forward some proposals, in the way of economies, that would help. As far as we can see there is no such thing here, because this Government is concentrating on making us believe that all is well, that it is really a delusion on our part to think that the country is not in the position it should be in.

We had some of these things brought into the debate which possibly in ordinary circumstances would hardly be relevant to a Finance Bill. For instance, we had a contribution from the Parliamentary Secretary last evening, three-fourths of which was distorted blather. He started by saying that the Deputy who spoke before him had set out to prove something and had proved nothing. He then started an examination of a proposition put forward regarding the allegation that we are paying both the export duties that the British put on, and the import duties that we put on, having special regard to the coal-cattle pact. After labouring that question for a considerable time he left it. He ridiculed it but did not come to any conclusion about it. Seeing that that question was raised by three Deputies I ask leave to give a personal experience, and to leave it there, in regard to the question of who pays the export duty on cattle and the import duty on coal. Here is an instance. I attended a fair in Monaghan last Monday week. I also attended the Belfast market the next day. A fat bullock was bought at £1 per cwt. That was not the maximum or the minimum price. The animal was exported to Belfast. He cost £10 in Monaghan but £6 had to be paid on the Border, £1 of which will ultimately come back in the form of a bounty. The bullock was sold in the Belfast market at 32/- per cwt, making the cost £16. The person who fed the bullock got £10. The person who bought it paid £6 at the Border and sold it for £16 in Belfast. Who paid the duty? I submit that it was the man who exported the animal, because the bullock was sold exactly at the same price as cattle from Northern Ireland. Then take a wagon of coal. It costs 35/- a ton at Monaghan but the importer pays 5/- duty, making it 41/-. Who pays that? I submit that I pay it and that the British people do not come into this at all. They are not paying either of the duties. The duty in the latter case was specially imposed here. I do not want to pursue the line Deputy Corry took, but what he said had a little bearing on this. The only way he was relevant at all was regarding our capacity to bear the impositions in this Finance Bill. Deputy Corry said that from 1928 to 1931 we were producing cattle at a loss. I admit that we were not making a fortune; that the margin was very small. If we were producing at a loss from 1928 to 1931 what are we producing at now, when we are paying on an average £4 a head on exports since July, 1932?

Will the Deputy answer a question?

I will hear it first.

Was the Deputy prepared to continue producing at a loss, as he says he was from 1928 to 1931? Surely, he is aware that there has been further depression on the British market since?

I did not say we were producing at a loss. I said that the margin was very small.

Was there a margin?

There was a good one.

Deputy MacDermot's point was ridiculed when he said that we should get into the same position, of putting our produce into the British market, as the British people themselves. I submit that there is nothing inconsistent in that. When the present Government took office we were in exactly the same position as the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain for putting goods in the British market, except for the cost of transport. That is all we want now. I submit that it is not inconsistent with nationality, or with any idea of independence, that we should have access to that most desirable market on the same terms as our neighbours.

Are there not quotas since?

Yes, but what brought them about?

On all sides.

Coming to the Budget, we must concede that the Government has now produced the most honest Budget since it came into office, in this respect, that never before has a Government asked its supporters to contribute, in the same proportion, to what they took out of the resources of the country. We know that it is the goal of all politicians and of all Governments to make some one else pay for what they enjoy. This Budget reminds one of a certain firm in this city, which occasionally sends out advertisements stating that they are having a clean-up sale. This Budget is a cleaning-up. Every avenue where money could be got and every department of national life, both public and private, is searched with a flashlight. We have in this Budget, along with the impositions on the very necessities of life which have been referred to by several Deputies, the fact that now we are driven from the big taxable commodities of this country back to the small commodities such as tea, sugar, bread and flour. It is an object lesson for us and shows that the resources of the Government must be precarious indeed when we have to come back to our ordinary table necessities in order to find the money to finance our Government.

I have no particular animus against any Party in this House. I rejoice when any piece of legislation, no matter from what quarter it comes, is put forward for the good of our country, and which we can back up substantially; but if I might borrow a phrase which has been used, I refuse to join in congratulation on the disgrace to this country that such a Budget should be presented to us. There are many other things in this Budget which will bring alarm and dismay to the hearts of many of our fellow-countrymen. From our very earliest recollection it was always a bugbear to families when they lost the head of the home to find that they were then faced with the problem of finding the death duties on their property. What is it now? I ask the House to try to visualise the farming community and ask themselves what they see now? For the last few years we have been going through a very precarious time. The resources of the farming community have been wasted, and to-day they are finding it very hard to make ends meet. When the head of the house goes at the present time, his family are faced not alone with finding enough money for ordinary expenditure but for the extra death duties which this Budget will impose. This Budget has gone even into the realm where a small sum of money was placed on deposit receipt in two or more names. Even that small sum will not escape. It also presses on to the small wants of the agricultural community. We have enumerated in this Budget certain things such as machinery parts, holdfasts, spoutings, and all the little things required about a yard and home.

Deputy Professor O'Sullivan made an estimate last night of what our so-called economic war has cost us, and he put it down at £6,000,000. I suggest, Sir, that the Government has paid £6,000,000 or very near it in that way alone, and if we take into consideration the loss we have had on our exports and the loss on our capital account in relation to what the valuation of what our property would be to-day, it is nearer £9,000,000 since July, 1932, than the figure Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned. There are a great many other aspects of the Budget which one might speak of, but I have no desire to detain the House. I merely say that it does not inspire hope and confidence in those of us who are facing the future in agriccultural industry. If we could somehow, through this Budget, find out where our salvation lies, it would lift a load from our minds and let us see that there was some hope at least. It is all very well to ask us to carry on an economic war. It is all very well to ask privates to march when the officers are on horseback. It is all very well for certain parts of the community to seek leisure and comfort for themselves, but what about the rest of us who are left in the front line trenches to try to carry on as best we can? I submit that this Budget, and this Finance Bill which implements it, is not one which will give us relief but rather one under which we will plunge blindly on through the period until the next Budget.

Some of the previous speakers have ranged over a very wide field, and I do not wish to follow them. At the same time, some remarks have been made which, I think, deserve the attention of the Minister. Deputy Belton, to my mind, seemed to advocate the inflation of currency. Well, now, we have insecurity in other things, but if we are going to add insecurity in finance to our present position, I am afraid we will find that we are out of the frying-pan into the fire. I do not know if the Minister had any occasion to see some of the countries that did go in for currency inflation. I happened to visit Germany during the post-war inflation period, and certainly I only hope that this country will be spared the misery that was inflicted on the ordinary population there. I do not know if anybody in this House would like to see us giving a £10 note for a box of matches. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter in his reply.

When one examines this Finance Bill, it is hard to find any principle in it except that of getting as much as you can and anywhere you can. The first item that strikes one is the addition to Schedule A, namely, making it five-fourths. Now, in this country, and especially in this part of it, there is a very real need for housing, and really the Government and the resources of the country are strained in an effort to catch up and to pay for the housing of those people who are in need of houses. One way that the Government can hope for some relief is by encouraging people to own their own houses. A very large number of houses have been disposed of in and around Dublin, and, in fact, considering our population, I think we are always in the position of only having money available for a few months to finance such purchases. I suggest to the Minister that that is a very desirable way of easing the present housing shortage.

Everybody who purchases a new house and moves into it takes a strain off the Government, if he is of the working class, of providing him with a house. These people form a thrifty and industrious section of the population and I would suggest to the Minister that he is penalising the people who have gone into this class of investment, especially when one considers that it is only a very short time ago since he withdrew the one-sixth allowance that one had for repairs to a house which one owns. He should tell us why this class of investor, because that is what he really is, in houses should be singled out for special taxes. One must consider that that householder has to stand the ordinary expenses and the very special rates which have been levied in some parts of the country during this year. The Minister should tell us if there is any reason why this class of desirable investor should be penalised.

Turning to the other items of the Budget, I think it was Deputy Corry who mentioned somebody who would put 35 per cent. on the raw materials for waterproofs and 20 per cent. on waterproofs coming in. One would think that when Deputy Corry held that individual up to odium, the Government had learned something and that they would not do that in this present Budget. I put it to the Minister, and I think it was Deputy Corry's idea, although he did not mention it, that the first article on which the tax should be put would be the finished product. If you are driven then to putting further duties on, you could put them on parts coming in for assembly. The third and least desirable articles to put a duty on are the raw materials for industry. As I say, when you consider the present Budget, and when you look around for some instances, you find that, under the Second Schedule, any article of linoleum is subject to a duty of 6d. per yard. Any article of oilcloth—I am merely quoting the headings-is subject to a duty of 2d. per square yard. Felt base floor coverings come in free. Under the First Schedule, felting and felting substitutes are subject to 50 per cent., and I think that parallels anything that Deputy Corry can bring forward.

Under the First Schedule, surrounds, hearths and curbs are subject to 33? per cent. That is the finished article, and I have nothing to say about putting a duty on it when it is required, but, under the Second Schedule, tiles and slabs of all kinds are subject to 5/- per cwt. They are the raw materials for surrounds, hearths and curbs, so that, to my mind, seems to be getting to Deputy Corry's objection, namely, putting a duty on the finished article and also on the raw material. Another item of that kind is in the First Schedule. Roller blinds made mainly of textile materials and component parts made of any material are subject to 40 per cent. Roller blinds are not a gigantic article, but, at the same time, that duty shows the mentality of the people who imposed the taxes in this Budget. They put a tax on the finished article, and they put the same tax on the component parts coming in.

The manner in which these smaller industries start is that somebody commences to assemble foreign component parts into the finished article, and, when the assembly has become sufficiently important, manufacturers of the component parts spring up. I suggest that that is the very opposite of the policy the Government ought to pursue and I think they found it out in relation to a much bigger industry, namely, the motor car industry. What would we think of their putting one duty on motor cars coming in here assembled and the same duty on the parts coming in here for assembly? I merely mention these few items to call the Minister's attention to what I suggest is a lack of the coherent policy that Deputy Corry suggested was actuating the present Government which has profited by the faults of their predecessors. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer in this Budget. The Government have put on a number of taxes, and we may have our own ideas as to whether they are all necessary or whether they are imposed on articles with which we agree.

I suggest to the Minister that to collect those taxes in the easiest and simplest manner, and with the least expense and trouble to the commercial community, is for the benefit of everybody in this country. I will give the Minister an illustration. Take, for instance, the cement duty of 5/- per ton. A public company has to seal an application for a licence to import cement, and forward the schedule of prices. I should not like to suggest to the Minister that he should do anything which would decrease the revenue of the country by one halfpenny. But what is the object of that? Certainly, if a businessman were in charge of that collection he would say: "If you send down your cheque it really does not matter what you make the application on. You can send it in on the back of an envelope if it is accompanied by your cheque." The Minister may suggest: "Oh, but we have to watch them very carefully to see that they will not import too much cement." I do not know what is the earliest time at which the Minister thinks a cement factory can be got going in this country, but I suggest that it will be two years at the very least. If anybody thinks he can bring in cement and store it for two years, I would advise the Minister to take his money for the duty, and let him do it. He will hear all about it when he sends out cement which is two years old.

There is also another matter to which I should like to call attention. When you send down your sealed application you have to send a cheque guaranteed by the bank. I should not like to suggest that everybody in the cement importing industry is a millionaire, or that you could not get a dud cheque from a merchant, but many of them are importing cement twice a week, and if the Minister gets a dud cheque one week he can put the person out of business next week by refusing to give him his licence. I submit to the Minister that there is no use in keeping on the merchantile community a number of conditions which, having regard to the amount of risk involved, are unnecessary.

To get on to another phase of the same matter, I should like to say that the Government have piled on taxes so quickly that there is a tremendous amount of confusion as to what certain items are, and what category they come under. I shall quote one instance in that regard. A certain firm engaged in the printing trade bought from the other side two gallons of wash-out-ink. Wash-out-ink is a liquid which is used for washing out ink. If they wanted to wash the ink off their machines they naturally wanted to do it quickly. The invoice was dated April 12th. On the 25th April, they got a letter from the shipping company stating that wash-out-ink was liable to duty as ink.

That is like thinking a wash-out Minister is a Minister.

There is a washed-out one over there.

On the 26th April they replied that it was a wash-out solution containing 75 per cent. hydro-carbon— correct duty 8d. per gallon. On the 1st May, delivery was requested. On the 7th May, the Customs people telephoned to say that, owing to the controversy about this matter, the article had been sent to the State laboratory for testing. On the 13th May, the printers again wrote to the shipping company asking for delivery of their goods. Remember that the firm could not get on to the State analyst; they have to work all those things through the shipping company, and the shipping company has to pass the kick up along. On the 15th May, the shipping company stated that they offered a deposit to obtain release of the consignment, but were informed that the goods could not be released until the result of the test was known. On the 21st May the shipping company wrote to say that the consignment was liable to duty as paint—a duty of 50 per cent. under the recent Budget. On the 23rd May, the printers wrote to inform them that it was not paint; that they must have the goods, as they were urgently required; and that they were prepared to pay the 50 per cent. under protest. On the 25th the shipping company wrote that: "As consignment was entered on the 19th of April, previous to the Budget, not liable to pay 50 per cent. and are clearing the goods at 20 per cent," and the goods are delivered that day.

The correspondence has taken a month and the goods were in transit a fortnight, making a total of six weeks. That is on a consignment valued 33/-. I would like to suggest that the postage on the letters that have passed over that transaction would bear no inconsiderable proportion to the total cost of the article. I do not mean to suggest that every consignment is treated like that, but I would like to point out to the Minister that there are a number of items that seem to get off the track, out of the beaten path, and when they get there people never know when they will get them. I would like to suggest that there is a small number of, possibly, unimportant articles in so far as the money value is concerned, but when they are unduly delayed and the trading community are left without them, they reach proportions that are gigantic compared with the original cost of those items. I ask the Minister how far he can facilitate the delivery of those items in connection with which some controversy may have arisen.

Deputy Dockrell referred to some wash-out solution that was in a difficulty from the point of view of taxation. I am almost compelled to describe this Finance Bill as a wash-out solution for the financial difficulties that we are in at the moment.

You are likely to wash-out the next quarter of an hour, apparently.

I will not wash-out more than ten minutes, to be precise. The necessity for this increased taxation has arisen mainly because the Ministry have arranged an economic revolution in this country and at the same time have created an economic war with another country. We have had Deputy Corry speaking largely on the development of industry and last night the Parliamentary Secretary spent the greater portion of his time on the same subject. He seemed to have a garden of his own. He told us it was necessary that the young delicate plants of new industries should be protected even from the mildest breeze. To protect them the Government was forced to coerce the starving farmers and the consuming public— they have to shelter the fragile industries from the winds. We are presented with the spectacle of a suffering human fence barricading the particularly fragile industries the Minister has established. I hope the Minister takes care that the fence does not collapse and that there will not be such a break in it that these industries—that is, what is left of them, those of them that have not suffered already from the frosts and breezes—will not be swept away in a blizzard, because I expect that is what is going to happen.

Like the butter.

Perhaps. The Minister should take care that those industries will not be swept away in the blizzard, because if the farmers who are protecting those industries and the consuming public are going to be reduced to the position that they will not be able any longer to provide protection, then the industries will inevitably collapse. They are in a fair way towards that end. Portion of the money which will be provided under this Finance Bill will be used for the payment of bounties and a large part of it will go to subsidise industries. If the bounties offered some quid pro quo to the farmers it would be all right, but most of the bounties do not offer anything like that; indeed, some of them were absurd and a definite waste of money.

We had a sum of £113,000 here yesterday for bounties on calf skins. It is the most absurd expenditure that ever could be conceived by any Parliament. Calf skins evidently are worth nothing. The Ministry are giving 12/6 each for exported calf skins. We have buyers going round the country buying whole calves, lock, stock and barrel—legs, head, body and skin—from 10/- to 12/- and the Minister is paying them 12/6 to export the skin, so the skin must be of no value and they are subsidising the export of an article of no commercial value. Apart from its absurdity, it is a revolting business, an absolutely revolting exhibition. It would open the Minister's eyes to go down the country and see the appalling conditions, which have created horror in the minds of the people who have witnessed them. Buyers buy calves and, in order to conserve space, so that they may take a bigger number in their filthy lorries, the animals are struck on the head, thrown into the lorries and in many instances they do not survive.

Has the Deputy seen that?

Not personally.

You have not seen it personally?

So you are merely repeating the sort of canard that was published in the English Press and out of which Deputy Rice got some fees. Say it outside now.

I can get the permission of the persons who are my informants to indicate where it took place.

While reference to a particular Act of the Oireachtas may be in order, certainly the method of administration and that kind of thing does not arise on a Bill of this sort. Some other time may be found for a discussion of it.

Will the Deputy repeat what he said outside?

I certainly will. Not alone is it revolting in that manner, but it has created a new form of crime. In the Deputy's constituency, and in mine also, thieves walk in on farmers' lands and steal the calves in order to sell the skin for a measly 12/6. That was in the Public Press, and the Minister can read it. That is not hearsay.

The Deputy is a real carrion crow.

The Minister must be a good judge of carrion crows.

He is. He knows one when he sees one.

He evidently is. He should see the filthy condition of things, with the bodies of beasts polluting the rivers of the country. I saw dead calves in the rivers polluting the countryside. One could speak for hours on this particular Bill and on the Budget, but the main raison d'être is that the Ministry have made a hash of the economic affairs of this country. They are trying to create industries artifically at a time when the people who are supposed to bear the burden of starting these industries are totally unable to do so and at a time when agriculture, through the fault of the Ministry, is at such a low ebb that the people are not able to make sufficient to provide for their own maintenance. There might be a way out. We had the coal-cattle pact debated to-day at length. Whether as a business proposition that pact was wise or otherwise is another question. But it was a pact, and I would suggest as a final solution of these difficulties that as one pact has been arranged — trading one set of articles that we can produce against another set of things that the British can produce—that another would be arranged whereby other articles that we produce would be traded against articles that the British produce; that the Minister would trade with the British for the lowering of the taxes on our exports to them so that we would be able to send a larger amount of our live stock and live-stock products to England. In that way the State would be in a better position to provide for the subsidising of other industries in this country.

We would trade Deputy Bennett for nothing.

Deputy Corry's attempt to-night to sing "Always Merry and Bright" and to persuade the House that everything was in a flourishing state, did not indicate the plight to which that particular Deputy has been brought by the action of the Ministry whom he follows. Deputy Corry presents the appearance of a man who is going along a pleasant lane, and suddenly he finds he is on the edge of a precipice; then he gropes his way back and tries to make out that everything is grand, and that he was not near a collapse at all. I gather, however, from the ejaculations the Deputy emitted that he was very near a collapse. At any rate he attempted to prove that the farmers now are better off than ever before, and that there are more industries in the country than ever before. Farming and industries are two of the ways in which the people of this country can make money. Both these industries are now making more money. Will Deputy Corry tell us if that is so? Well, the Deputy is not quite so sure of it, I see. Two and two make four, but Fianna Fáil economists can make 2,000,000 of that. Farmers are better off than ever before! Is that so?

They are.

Now we have it from the Deputy that that is undisputed. Does the Deputy still adhere to that? Well, the Deputy seems to have gone back on himself. There are more industries than ever before.

The Deputy gave us a grand picture of people running around in the rain wearing waterproofs. "Everything," said the Deputy, "is rosy in Cork because there has been a new waterproof business established and the mills are working." Is not that so? The Deputy nods acquiescence. He has not lost the power of speech, I take it. If the farmers are better off than ever before, and if there are more industries in the country, why are the taxes yielding less than before?

I will tell you why——

The Deputy will not.

The Deputy resented being called a notorious political economist. I should like to get his answer to that question. Maybe he will give that answer in another debate. It is something to have from him that the farmers are better off than ever before and that there are more industries now. Between industries and farming, the country appears to the Deputy to be more prosperous. If there is more prosperity and more wealth, why are not the taxes yielding more?

Because the foreign stuff is not coming in.

Because the foreign stuff is not coming in! That is the answer. I am sure if he is a student of economics the Deputy has read Financial Farming. Does the Deputy realise that the receipts from customs from 1924 to 1931-32, never crossed the £8,000,000 mark, and that under the present Administration they crossed it by £1,500,000? Does he realise that since 1931-32 they were estimated to bring in more than ever before? The figures are there. Possibly the figures are wrong, but these are the figures the Minister used when making his Budget. Let me sum up for Deputy Corry again. The Deputy informs us that there is more wealth in farming and in industries than ever before. There is more money to be collected this year than last year, and next year than this year. Then, if that is so, why has the Government found it necessary to tax tea, sugar, bread, tobacco and butter?

Because the people outside will not die of starvation now.

Deputy Corry must not interrupt.

So that the people outside will not die of starvation now we are deciding to tax the things that keep them from starvation. Is that the position? We can argue this in a friendly fashion if the Deputy will be friendly about it.

Who could be friendly with you?

I was hoping when I got the Deputy to agree with me on four points that we could produce agreement on two or three other points.

The Deputy has as many points as a porcupine and as little behind them.

Deputy Corry has impaled himself on some of them. He tells us that there is more wealth in farming, that there is more wealth in industries; that the customs are bringing in more than in the Cumann na nGaedheal time and then he tells us that it is necessary to tax sugar, bread, butter and tea. These are all things that people will not do without, and therefore you can get money from them. Why are we not getting money from industry? Why are we not getting money from incomes, and from the consumption of beer and spirits in the country? Why are these things fading out? The Deputy cannot give an answer now but possibly he can on some other occasion. If there is more wealth why is the income tax yielding £1,250,000 less than it used to yield? Why is the revenue from beer and spirits declining?

Ye have not so much money to spend now as ye had when you were a Minister.

The Deputy has been called to order for interrupting, but interruptions should not be invited. I should like to remind Deputy Corry that the period of the suspension of a Deputy might not be limited to one day's session.

I apologise for causing the Deputy to interrupt. Now on this matter the argument of nationality has been used and there has been an appeal to national sentiment. We have been told by Deputies that there is only one alternative to what we are suggesting now—getting back to the British markets—there is only one alternative and that is our becoming part of England. Surely members of this House should know that entering into agreements with Britain is possible without becoming part of Britain. We discussed this evening the Coal-Cattle Pact under which we certainly entered into an agreement with England whereby we were to take from her a certain tonnage of her coal and she was to take from us a certain number of our cattle. For this coal that we are getting from England we are taxing ourselves and the whole House here with the exception of five Deputies voted for that. Does that mean that we became British? Nobody here says that we have gone back and become part of England because we agreed to that pact. You can make your agreement with England without necessarily becoming part of that country. The argument we are putting forward is that the advantages of our economic position and the economic value of this country to England are not being fully exploited. If these advantages were fully exploited, the Minister for Finance would not be under the necessity of getting taxes from the things that the people of this country must eat. I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14th June, 1935.

Barr
Roinn