I do not propose to dwell any longer on that subject. We will have opportunities for dealing with it again I hope. In the meantime, I still think that the sooner the people know more about it the better. It would allay their anxiety. There are complaints also down the country and keep disappointment amongst people who expected relief in this Budget. If we cast our minds bak to the time before the economic war, when the country was in a much better position and when the agricultural community was more prosperous than it is now, we will recall that at that time the Fianna Fáil Party strongly advocaed deating for farmers and it was hoped that out of the savings effected by the settlement, they would be able to implement that promise.
It is matter for regret that the Minister has not seen fit in this Budget to make this provision. He has tried to make people believe that all the saving which have been effected by the settlement, if there have been any savings, are being passed on to the farmers. In page 35 of the Minister's Budget statement he stated:—
"Deputies may wish at this stage to refer to Table 6. It sets out in a compact and convenient form that manner in which the moneys that in other circumstances might have been absorbed in payments to Great Britain have been utilised. It shows that after making the necessary adjustment for the old Local Loans capital, the total sum which the stoppage of the payments made available for disposal amounted to £4,240,273. Practically every penny of this, as may be seen, has been disposed of for the benefit of the farmers. They have secured the last remnant of gain arising out of the struggle to retain the annuities, and for them at any rate the campaign begun under the Land League has ended in indubitable victory."
I wonder was the Minister serious when the stated that practically every penny of this £4,240,273 has been disposed of for the benefit of the farmers? Dose anybody agree with the Minister? I very strongly disagree with him. He refers us to Table 6 to prove it. There is no proof of it in Table 3.
Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies have stressed the case for derating for farmers as restitution for their losses during the last five or six years. I do not proposes to cover that ground again, because it has been already dealt with better than I can do it. But I do propose to question the Minister's statement, not upon the losses of the last five or six years, but on the farmers' position at present. Suppose we never had an economic war and the farmers had not been impoverished as they have been, I am prepared to question the Minister's statement and I think I will satisfy the Minister and the House that the Minister's contention is not correct, and that the farmers are entitled to dearating now more than they were in 1932, when Fiannan Fáil promised it and claimed that the farmers were entitled to it. In the first place, in Table 6 the Minister has given amounts that he claims have been passed on for the benefit of the farmers. Nothing of the sort has occurred.
The first of these is the halving of the annuities, £1,615,000 under the earlier Land Acts, and £612,000 under the 1923 Land Act. I do not question these figures which amount to £2,227,000. The farmers have got the benefit of that. The next item is "Increase over 1931-32 in provision in the Land Commission Vote for improvement of estates—£498,050." How did that benefit the average farmer? It may go to the benefit of some individuals, but how the Minister can claim that that is any benefit to the average farmer passes my comprehension Then there is No.4: "Net increase over 1931-32 in provision under other Land Commission subheads, excepting (2) and (3) above and the excess and bonus stock contribution—£186,000." I do not think that benefits the average farmer Then we have No.5: "Increase over 1931-32 in provision under other Votes for services in connection with Land Commission—£26,500." No.6 is: "Estimated loss on sugar revenuse as compared with 1931-3 consequent upon development of beet sugar industry (adhusted in respect of beet suger subsidy paid in 1931-32—£899,610)." Will the Minister tell us what benefit that is to the farers in County Cavan or in County Donegal, County Leitrim or County Sligo, where they are 200 miles from a sugar factor and where an acre of beet has never been grown? It may be a benefit of the districts where the beet is being grown, but the people who come from these districts question that.
This really is the penalty that we pay for uneconomic production, for produsing something which cannot be produced economically. If it is a benefit to anybody, it certainly dose not benefit the farmers, because the farmers are dissatified with the price they are being paid for beet. They say it is not an economic price. I do not propose to give an opinion on that, but people who come from these districts question whether there is a proper price being paid. Even one of the Minister's own Party, Deputy Corry, stated yesterday that it is not an economic price, so that the farmers get no benefit even in the districts where beet is grown. Certainly the farmers outside the beet growing districts, which are confined to very shall areas, derive no benefit from it.
The next item is No.7—increase over 1931-32 in the provision in the Vote for Agriculture, £189,342. What particular benefit has been conferred on the farmer by that? That is probably spent in the payment of inspectors for harassing and tormenting farmers, Every activity of the farmer, and everybody else, is being restricted by regulation and by order. The farmers do not regard it as any benefit to their industry to have it controlled and directed from Government Buildings. They prefer to be let live and to carry on their industry in their own way. They do not regard that provision as affording any benefit to the average farmer.
The next item relates to the provision for turf development, £123,952. What benefit is that to the farmers? None whatever. If there is any benefit accruing to the country as a whole from that provision, it certainly can not be referred to the farmers. Then there is another mall item, an increase of £83,515 in the Vote for afforestation. That brings no benefit to the farmer unless afforestation is carried out in the form of schemes taht would suit farmers, namely, shelter belts. That has not been done. I referred to that on the Vote for afforestation, and I expressed a desire that schemes of that kind should be carried out so that farmers might derive some benefit, if not immediately, certainly in the future. There is, therefore, only £2,227,000 of a benefit passed on to he farmer, according to the Minister, but I am not accepting that part of the statement.
As against that, what are the offsets? Taxation has been increased by £4,5000,000 for the last six years, since that time that Fianna Fáil promised that they would derate agricultural lane. It is admitted by statisticians that the farmers pay 59 per cent. of all taxation. If we roughly estimate their shar of this £4,500,000 they certainly pay more than this £2,227,000 of which they are supposed to get the benefit, so that, going no further, things are just as they were. But there are a number of other items which must be taken into consideration. How much has that cost of production increased? Take one item alone, the recent increase in wages given to agricultural labourers. I want to say with regard to agricultural wages, that that increase was long overdue. Agricultural labourers are the worst paid workers in this State, and 27/- per week is scarcely a living wage, having regard to the increase in the cost of living. I do not suppose that they are any better off now than when they were paid 24/- per week with a lower cost of living. I doubt if they are as well off. I believe that are not. I do not question that they are entitled to that wage, but at the same time the increase granted to them counts up in the cost of production.
The cost of production has been increased, for every man engaged by a farmer, at the rate of 3/- per week, that is, £7 16s. per year. The number of agricultural labouters in this country according to the 1926 census was 125,161. We are tole that the number has increased since Fianna Fáil came into office, but for the purpose of simplifying the calculation, we will take the figure provided by the 1926 census. Assuming the number to be 125,161, and multipling that by £7 16s., we get £976,255 as the increase in the cost of production, arising out of the payment of labour alone and as a result of the increase in wages that has recently been put into operation. That is as far as the agricultural labourer alone is concerned. There are 550,172 agricultural workers altogether in the State. If the cost of living has been so increased for the agricultural labourer, as nobody doubts it has, the cost of living has been increased to the same extent for the working farmer and the members of his family so that everyone of these 550,172 workers employed on the land are entilted to the same increased allowance to meet the increased cost of living. I think the Minister, or anybody in this country, will not deny that the working farmer, and the members of his family who are working on the land, are at least entitled to the same standard of living as the agricultural labourer who is the lowest paid labourer in the land. I think it is not too much to claim that the farmers and their families are entiled to the same allowance as the agricultural labourers. That would make the allowance for all these workers, arising out of the increased cost of living, £4,291,341. Therefor, instead of the farmers being in as good a position as they were in 1931, they are over £4,250,000 worse. If they were entitled to derating in 1931-32 as the Fianna Fáil Party said they were, they are £ 4,250,000 worse now. That is proven by figures that can hardly be questioned, and yet that is not the end of it.
The price of feeding stuffs has been increased and the cost of these feeding stuffs adds still further to the cost of production. The cost of machinery has also been increased. The price of implements and everything connected with production has been increased. The position of the farmers, therefore, if there never had been an economic war, is much worse now than it was in 1931-32. As other Deputies have pointed out, the economic war has robbed the people of their savings. It has left the average farmer who had not sufficient savings to carry him through the depression, swamped in banks or with shopkeepers, unable to pay his debts. It has left him with reduced stocks. With all those disadvabtages, we are now starting off with an additional disadvantage of £4,250,000 as compared with 1931-32. How, then, can the Minister hope to claim that the agricultural community are in a position to get any advantage out of the settlement? Everyone in the State should give careful consideration to that question. After all, the farming community are the backbone of the State, and unless they are in the position to live independently and to pay theur debts where is taxation to come from? Who is to pay salaries and to buy the products of factories? Agriculture is our basic industry, and those who claim that it is entitled to a fair deal are speaking in the best interests of the country. Everybody, whether he belongs to the cities or the rural parts, deplores the exodus of the people from the land. They are fleeing from it into the cities and the towns because they do not want to stay on the lane. Has not the policy of the present Government been responsible for the exodus? After a few years, if the people continue to leave the land, how are they to be replaced? Even if people later returned for the cities and towns would they be of any use on the land? If they once leave the land it is very difficult to get them to return to it.
Agriculture is our main industry, and the only one that could stand by itself if it got a chance. It has not got a chance, because burdens have been placed on it for the past few years, as high in some cases as 50 per cent., in order to encourage new industries. The agricultural people are most anxious to help these new insutries to the best of their ability, but there is a limt beyond which they cannot go. If they are expected to contribute towards the building up of these new industries their own industry is also entitled to some consideration, because we cannot continue taking form that industry without putting something back into it. I strongly urge the Minister to consider the claims of agriculture and to look at both sides of this question. The Minister can make up a very plausible story and juggle with figures in such a way as to give the impression that millions of money have been given to agriculture. He should look at the other side of the account. The figures then will shoe that farmers are now in a very show that farmers are now in a very much worse position than they were before the start of the economic war because of the sacrifices they made and of the debts they incurred.
Another matter on which I think the Minister was not well advised was in increasing the duty on hawkers' licences. The amount of the duty has been doubled. I do not think any Minister should double taxation in an off-hand way without inquiry. O know that there has been a clamour by some merchants who were afraid of competition and who were afraid that these hawkers would take away their trade. These traders would not stir from behind their counters to improve their trade and that gave the hawkers, as they are called, their chance. Hawkers are not a lazy class of people, and were serving the people in he country districts. The Minister should consider the position of persons living five or six mils from a town who wanted to sell eggs a couple of times in the week. In the past the women had to take baskets of eggs to the towns. In the past they sometimes had an ass and car or a horse and car, but the roads are made in such a way now that these people are in danger of being run down by other traffic. In addition, the roads are so slippery they ar afraid to being animals on them. If they cannot dispose of their eggs people in the country will not be able to get the household necessaries that these hawkers supplied when they called. If hawkers are comelled to pay the extra licence duty it is the people in the country will eventually have to pay it by getting less for their eggs and other produce. In the last resort it is another tax on the land and another incentive to people to et away from the lane.
This was a necessary service that sprang up naturally to meet the changed condidtions that have been brought about. The hawkers are as necessary to the country people to-day as the towns were ten years age. The country does not exist for the benefit of the towns—I always understood that the towns existed for the benefit of the country. If people can do their business with hawkers why should they not continue to do so? If traders find that hawkers are geetings inside their business let them send out supplies to the country. If a man can sent out a lorry and serve 40 people, is not that better than having 40 people quitting work and shutting up their houses in order to go into the towns for supplies? Only that the people found it was a benefit they would not have encouraged the hawkers to come around. I think the Minister might reconsider the position, or if he cannot fo so this year, he might restore the duty in the next Budget to what it was. The Minister should mot listen to any story without having both side concerned heard.