It cannot be denied that this measure of relief constitutes a new departure so far as a Fianna Fáil Minister is concerned. It is the first time in a long number of years that there has been a reduction in the incidence of taxation. Let us be thankful in that respect but, so far as aggregate taxation is concerned, the net will sweep a further £3,000,000 into the Exchequer in the coming financial year. So far as economies are concerned, the Minister has made no effort whatever to economise or to pull down in any way the huge burden of taxation resting on this small community. We had Ministers for Finance during the emergency all pleading that emergency conditions were responsible for the very heavy burden that was there.
The Minister's predecessor promised on the last occasion that he spoke in this House that, immediately the emergency was over, it would be the responsibility of himself as Minister for Finance and of the Government to ensure that there would be substantial relief in taxation. The only relief that has accrued has accrued because the yield from taxation, under the various headings, has increased substantially, leaving the Minister with a substantial margin, and, I admit, he is just making use of that margin to give reliefs in various directions. But, so far as the burden of taxation is concerned, it is increased, and will be increased by £3,000,000. Customs, which last year yielded £12,933,000, will this year yield £15,400,000. Remember, that when we talk about customs duties they are an indirect form of taxation on consumer goods, and that they affect every individual in the State for that reason. One would expect that a Minister concerned with the cost of living and with easing the burdens on the people of this country would make some effort to ease their burdens. In the case of excise duties, there is an anticipated increase from £9,810,000 to £10,200,000, plus the £740,000 increase in the duties on spirits and wines. There is an anticipated increase as regards estate duties, stamp duties and from income-tax. Notwithstanding the reduction of 1/- in the £, it is anticipated that the yield from income-tax will be approximately the same as in the last financial year. In the case of motor duties, with more motors on the road, there is a substantial increase from £926,000 to £1,150,000.
There is no reduction whatever in the vast scale of State intervention and State control. There is no attempt, over the whole range of Government activities, at easing the very severe burdens that the people have to carry. The country has now to provide for more than 33,000 civil servants, at a cost of over £8,000,000 a year. One would expect that in the post-war period some effort would be made to provide a more efficient civil service, and to get away from the system of having files streaming up from the various departments to the bosses to give executive decisions. One would expect that a responsible Minister for the Finance and the Government would make some effort to spread executive responsibility with a view to reducing, so far as the taxpaying community is concerned, this intolerable burden of administration which is overloaded at the top. Surely, the Minister and the country ought to realise that, so far as production is concerned, it has been completely stagnant for many years, and that burdens of the type I speak of, which are piled on by the Government, are making it more difficult for production to recover.
The Minister talks about, and gives a good deal of lip service to, private enterprise, but private enterprise is hampered, to a very great extent, by the policy of the Government. When the Minister does give relief in the incidence of taxation, he makes no effort to ensure that this relief will be ploughed back into industry. I have been impressed myself by the figure relating to the yield from income-tax — that, notwithstanding the substantial reduction of 1/- in the £, income remains buoyant. I believe that is due to the fact that there is a very substantial number of people in this country who are getting away with exorbitant profits, with profits that are not justified in our circumstances. That is deliberately encouraged by the Government, and by Government policy, to ensure that there will be a substantial rake off so far as the Minister for Finance is concerned. I think the figures given in the various tables that have been circulated clearly show that it is Government policy to encourage that. As a matter of fact, the price-fixing arrangement of the Department of Industry and Commerce would lead anybody to believe that it is Government policy, because if one examines the prices that have been fixed for the essentials of life and if one makes some inquiry as to the actual cost of production, one will find that there is a very substantial margin left over and above what the manufacturer is entitled to do.
I will give one or two instances. I understand that socks can be produced here at 1/6, and yet the Government fixed price is 2/11, leaving a margin of 1/5, which is divided between the manufacturer and the Government. In that case the Government gets a rake off. Take marmalade. The fixed price is 2/6. I understand, and I am satisfied, that it can be produced at about 1/9. That is the sort of policy that is being operated in the country, in a country where only 190,000 people out of a total population of 3,000,000 people have an income of over £3 a week. These figures are taken from the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure. The Government's only concern is to get the rake-in in taxation, to ensure that it will have enough largesse to distribute again to our people in the way of subsidies and relief: boot subsidies, milk subsidies and that sort of thing. Surely, nobody can deny that it ought to be the policy of this State to ensure that the incomes of the people are sufficient to enable them to live independent of State subsidies, and not to degrade them into a situation where they will have to go begging to the State for their existence. It may be politically advantageous to pursue a policy of that sort, but it is degrading and demoralising so far as the nation is concerned.
I would ask the Minister to reverse engines so far as that policy is concerned and to reduce the burdens of taxation, the burdens that have to be carried by industry and agriculture, and by so doing to encourage both agriculture and industry to pay higher wages and higher salaries to the operatives employed in both. While, as I say, enormous profits are being made, and while the Minister is giving certain reliefs, he has suggested no scheme to ensure that the reliefs that will accrue from this £1,200,000 will be ploughed back into industry. It should be his concern to see that the people generally would benefit from a scheme of that sort rather than the few individuals who will get the relief and put the profit in their own pockets. I think that he could have taken a leaf out of the book of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer who is ensuring that a substantial portion of the reliefs that he has given will be ploughed back, and that the industrialists of Great Britain are going to be induced to put more capital into industry with a view to getting greater benefits for the community as a whole.
The Minister is not very concerned about the poor or the old age pensioners. It is true that, in the non-turf counties, they are getting relief to the extent of 10/- a ton in the price of turf. That will be welcomed by them. So far as sugar is concerned, they are going to get relief to the extent of 1d. in the lb. It is not very much. In the case of the average family it will mean about 2½d., so that they will be able to buy a stamp to write to the son who was sent across to work in England.
There have been references to emigration and to some extraordinary figures which have been given by the Minister. It has been contended by certain Deputies that the figures cannot be related to figures from other sources, for instance, figures given in reply to Parliamentary questions put to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As regards the figures the Minister has given dealing with the traffic in and out, we can understand that at times early in the war a good many mothers and children were driven to seek shelter in this country. The Minister did not attempt to deny that the problem in relation to emigration was alarming. The people who prepared this very useful book on national income and expenditure made reference to it on page 46:—
"Principally on account of the safety valve of emigration this country has had a relatively favourable unemployment experience during the emergency though, in fact, this favourable position did not approach that in belligerent countries, where unemployment practically vanished. The situation has been mitigated also by recruiting in the Defence Forces."
I would like to add to this an extraordinary aspect of our unemployment problem. In our primary industry during the emergency the number of male workers employed on the land, according to statistics, fell by 11,000. That seems an extraordinary situation in a most favourable period, the war period, so far as our primary industry is concerned. It is remarkable to learn that there were 11,000 less people on the land. That is a definite indication as to stagnation in production.
The Minister referred to our capital resources. He said that the total liquid resources of the public now stand at £299.6 million, showing an increase of £148.3 million. It is rather interesting to read the observations of the people who prepared this book on national income and expenditure. On page 29 the following appears:—
"If the figure of £24,000,000 for 1938 be regarded as ‘normal' there has clearly been a considerable falling off in capital formation, as defined, during the emergency period. The average during the years 1942-1944 indicates a deficiency of £15,000,000 per annum at 1938 prices ..."
That was the deficiency of capital formation since 1942.
"... or more than £20,000,000 per annum at present day prices. The deficiency over the whole period would seem to be of the order of £100,000,000 at present day prices. No doubt, it would be possible to dispense with some of the capital goods or works as defined for the purpose of the table. It is important also to bear in mind that this figure is based on the pre-war quantum of capital formation. Any acceleration of the rate of increase will increase the figure pro tanto.”
The next paragraph is important:—
"These figures, accordingly, set in a new perspective the value of the forced savings of this State during the war. It is doubtful if these savings will suffice to make good the capital deficiency which has piled up during the war years, let alone provide for more intensive capitalisation."
We have nothing to boast about. We are worse off than before the war. When we talk about the increase in national expenditure, as explained in this book, from £154,000,000 to £252,000,000, it is simply an indication of the inflation that has occurred. So far as real wealth and real prosperity are concerned, there is no increase and, as to any accumulation of capital that has occurred, the experts who prepared this book give it as their opinion that as regards our arrears in capital formation and capital equipment in machinery for industry and for agriculture, whatever amount we have accumulated will be scarcely sufficient to make them good. We have to make good worn-out machinery for transport, for ordinary industry and for agriculture. That clearly shows that our financial position is not one that we can boast about. As a matter of fact, now that we have reached the post-war period, we are facing world competition in external markets and in the coming years we shall have to be on our toes; we shall have to be thoroughly efficient. It is necessary for Deputies to know what plans are being prepared to ensure that there will be an expansion in production. It seems extraordinary, notwithstanding the sweat and toil put into agricultural production during the emergency, that our production has remained practically stagnant. We cannot overlook the fact that there has been a substantial decrease in the fertility of the soil. There is one extraordinary feature of this book on National Income and Expenditure. Running through every page are references to stagnation in production. There is little or no resiliency and, during a very favourable period, this agricultural country has had an extraordinarily stagnant production.
The basic weakness in our economy, I venture to suggest, is that, under this administration, we have been unable in recent years to reach the level of production that was reached in 1929 under the administration of the late Mr. Paddy Hogan. The whole future of our people, our standard of living, and the prosperity of the country, depend on our capacity to expand production. We shall have to export either of two things, goods or men. I am sure every Irishman believes it is better that we should keep our greatest asset, our man-power, at home and export the goods. I expect some effort to be made by the Government to ensure that the potential that is there for production is retained. Every effort should be made so as to ensure that production on the land will be intensified.
A peculiar feature in this country is the low output per man. There have been discussions about agricultural wages. As an agriculturist, I am most anxious to see that the people who rely on agriculture for a living should get a fair income, an income adequate to maintain a man and his wife and family on a decent living standard. Within the last week or so the British Agricultural Wages Board fixed a minimum wage of £4 per week. The wages in England range from £4 10s. to £5. Our minimum wage is £2. That substantial difference in wages between this country and Great Britain is a menace to the security of this country. Any keen, energetic young fellow who is aware that 100 per cent more in wages can be obtained on the other side will be very anxious to quit. But for the fact that there is a prohibition against travel, I believe we would be stripped of our man-power. This Parliament has to face that problem. We must solve it and we must see that the agricultural worker here has an income approximating to that paid in the country lying alongside us. It is a difficult problem, but it must be tackled. I am sure the Minister is keenly interested in this matter.
I have referred to low output. I submit that so far as man output in agriculture here is concerned, it is at least 25 per cent. lower than the output on the other side. While that is so there will be a big differentiation because farmers cannot afford to pay a wage at all approximating to that paid on the other side. These are matters which require the closest attention, and the most careful planning because, I submit, we have not attempted to organise agriculture according to modern ideas and on modern lines. The low output per man in this country is not due to laziness or inefficiency on the part of the agricultural worker, but to lack of technical knowledge on the part of the farming community, as well as lack of modern equipment and the necessary capital to ensure that agriculture is fully capitalised.
I do not think we have spent nearly enough on agricultural education, and I do not think we are giving our people the right kind of education to equip them to become efficient farmers. We have spent little or nothing on research. The Minister referred to research in industry and is providing a miserable £10,000 for mining operations and so on. What good is that? What have we provided in the way of research for the primary industry? What have we provided for soil research, for grass research, for plant biology and pathology and for animal research? We are doing nothing in that respect. What we are doing is simply adopting the results of experiments carried out in other countries and trying to apply them to our conditions, which may be completely different from those in the countries in which the experiments were carried out.
We grow Swedish wheat because Sweden and Swedish conditions are somewhat like ours, but we have provided no finance to ensure the production in this country of a wheat suited to the conditions here. In other countries, the problem with regard to wheat growing is to produce wheat under dry conditions. They want a wheat which can withstand a drought, but we want a wheat which will do well with a maximum intake of water and little or no sunshine — a completely different type of wheat. Is it not obvious to any man who has studied the problem of organising agriculture in an efficient way that we must have scientific assistance?
I ask the Minister what great advantage even the type of advisory service we have is to the average farmer, and is he now prepared, as a farmer, to provide substantial sums of money and to invest in the primary industry sufficient capital to ensure the organisation of agriculture according to modern ideas, or do we simply intend to continue to allow every individual, by a system of trial and error—and mainly error — to determine what is best for his conditions? Surely that is a matter for the State and surely it is the root cause of the fact that we have a stagnant agriculture? It is not the fault of the individual farmer; it is due to his lack of education, and his lack of technical knowledge, and to our failure to provide the necessary research to ensure that the plants we grow and the animals we rear are the best in our circumstances and the type required so far as the people who purchase these animals from us are concerned.
I have pressed the Minister since I came into the House for a proper soil service and I am pleased to say that I have made some impression. Anyone who attended the Show last week and who saw the Department's educational exhibits there, who saw the beginning that has been made in the matter of a soil service, will appreciate that my efforts have met with some success. Exhibited there were soil profiles and much useful information was being given to visitors. The people in charge of the stand were very busy answering the inquiries of all sorts of farmers. How many farmers are there who, although good husbandmen and exceptionally good tillers, can never, because of the condition of and deficiencies in their soil, hope to get good results?
We here are spending money lavishly —slinging it down the drain very often —and creating a situation in which the majority of our people are dependent on State subsidies of one sort or another, instead of facing up to the situation in a courageous way and saying: "We are not going to have any more of these subsidies, except for the minimum of social services necessary". I have listened to Deputies asking for more and more social services. I do not want social services, but I want conditions in this country which will give every worker an opportunity of earning a decent income. If it can be done in other countries, we have the intelligence and the capacity to do it here. I have no doubt about that, so far as scientists are concerned. We have men here capable of dealing with these matters I refer to who are second to none. Why are they not used and why is this House not asked to provide the capital necessary to finance the brains and the organisation we could have here but for the fact that we have refused to provide the necessary capital?
The sooner the House faces up to the problems which are there, to the opportunity which is there for us, to our capacity, to our potential, in the matter of production, to our circumstances and our climatic conditions, the better. If we did so, we could expand our production by, on a moderate basis, 40 or 50 per cent. Do we intend to neglect that? Do we intend to continue to operate a servile State here, in which we have a lot of beggars seeking to feed out of the Taoiseach's hand, from whom, from a political point of view, the maximum number of votes can be got, or does Fianna Fáil intend to say: "We are going to make our people independent and to do our best to provide the organisation necessary to ensure that our people get an opportunity of earning decent incomes"?
I have noticed changes in some of our Ministers — in the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for example. For too long he stood for any sort of mushroom growth, and I am glad that he has developed a new outlook and now says that we must have efficiency. It is about time we adopted that policy. We want industry because the surplus of the people in rural Ireland, if they are to remain at home, can only be absorbed by industry. There is no primary producer in the world to-day who is prepared to produce and to take a gamble on the sale of his produce. For too long were agriculturists asked to produce and to stack up their goods on the quays in Dublin to be bought by any fellow who liked to buy at any price.
That day is gone, and it is one of the reasons for which I am pressing the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance to take part in the deliberations and the conferences on production which are taking place. There are the F.A.O. and other conferences dealing with production and trade and this is one of the few countries which has a very substantial surplus. Our potential is much greater than any other country's, but we are utterly and completely indifferent to the plans and deliberations of other countries in the matter of production, the allocation and distribution of food and ensuring that the primary producer gets a fair margin.
Anyone who has thought about this question of cut-throat competition and how it can be eliminated, and how we can prevent mankind from abusing nature and destroying fertility, as happened in the middle-western States of America and other countries, realises that it is these abuses which have driven these countries into a policy of self-sufficiency. We have adopted the policy of self-sufficiency but many experts who have thought about it have condemned it. The late Pope condemned what he termed exaggerated nationalism. He said it was obvious that God intended trade and commerce to take place and that nations should exchange their surpluses with each other, and I suggest that, if statesmen all over the world are to ensure a fair margin for the primary producers, it is an international problem. It can only be done by international collaboration.
In this country we are depending on our primary industry of agriculture. It is through the surplus production of agriculture that we can buy raw material for industry. Industry in this country is depending on agriculture to that extent. It cannot even exist except agriculture has a surplus. Through that surplus it secures its raw material. I think it is an extraordinary situation that in these circumstances, in view of our vital interest so far as the price we receive for our surplus is concerned, we have a Government who have failed and almost refused — they have not made up their minds yet about it — to attend this trade conference and the food and organisation conference especially. I feel that it is a matter that requires international action and co-operation. In the past we sold food below the cost of production in a situation of gluts and slumps that was characteristic of the years between the two wars. That can only be eliminated and dealt with by international co-operation. I want to press on the Minister the importance of acting immediately so as to show other countries that we are keenly interested. Anything that I have read in the matter from experts who have dealt with our economic position and our national income stresses that. If you take this pamphlet on national income and expenditure, it says in Chapter IX:—
"Having regard to the fact that in normal times Irish industry is dependent to a very large extent on imported materials—approximately 50 per cent. by value of industrial materials are imported—but of the remaining 50 per cent. manufactured in this country a large part in turn is produced from imported materials..."
Now we cannot get these imported materials, especially in the post-war period when there are exchange difficulties. The surest way to obtain the essential import of raw materials is by goods for goods.
I also want to read this passage from the First Minority Report of the Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy. The reason I select the First Minority Report is that it was made by two civil servants. I do not want to reflect on them in any way, but they were in a rather dangerous position. I do not think it was fair to ask a civil servant to act on that commission, because he was not a free agent. He was afraid to offend the powers that be.
That First Minority Report of the commission is Fianna Fáil policy, a restrictionist policy catering for the home market and nothing else. That policy has been elaborated in the minority report, but, strange to say, you find thrown into that minority report this passage:—
"Lastly, agriculture provides the exports which enable this country to import commodities which cannot be produced at home, and which are required (a) to supplement home-produced human foods, (b) to provide much of the raw materials for both industrial and agricultural production, and (c) to enable our people to maintain a reasonably high standard of living. Prior to the present war agricultural commodities formed 83 per cent. of our commodity exports, so that the economic life of the community, which depended so much on imports, was carried chiefly on the back of the agricultural industry. The country's economic stability will, in post-emergency years, continue to depend to a large degree on the export of agricultural commodities, the production of which must, therefore, be developed to the limit of the availability of profitable markets."
I asked the Minister for Agriculture a couple of questions to-day. If the Minister attended the market here occasionally he might make very useful contacts and come up against a number of English farmers and members of the cattle trade who are pressing for the removal of the differential in the price of Irish cattle against British cattle. I submit that now is the opportunity. We are selling in a sellers' market and the time to get a favourable adjustment is when you are selling in sellers' market. Yet no effort is being made to deal with this matter.
So far as agricultural development and industrial development are concerned, I believe that we cannot hope to develop industry efficiently until we have a prosperous and expanding agriculture. The moment you have a prosperous expanding agriculture in this country it will demand industrial services. It will absorb our surplus population. It will require more transport, more production and more raw materials and it will require industry to manufacture the raw materials and machinery for agricultural production. That is what our aim ought to be. Whatever differences we have politically in this House, in the treatment of agriculture and the policy that we should aim at so far as agricultural development is concerned, we ought to be in agreement on that in the future. There can scarcely be two minds on it. The years of the emergency have proved that more than anything else. While the world's economy and trade are still in the fluid condition, surely now is the opportunity and we should be pressing forward to ensure that we get our fair share of the market that is there. I think that the Government are particularly slow in dealing with this matter, about which many thinking people are deeply concerned. I feel that if the opportunities are availed of we can look forward with hope and confidence to the future.
As regards the provisions of the Budget, I want to congratulate the Minister on his complete change of front in the last few weeks so far as the agricultural grant is concerned. He was rather critical of the attitude of the people who advocated relief by way of agricultural grant. I think we will have to go much further. I believe that we will have completely to derate agricultural land. The land of this country is our raw material for agriculture and I do not see why any raw material should be taxed. Dealing with the big problem, and I think the Minister will freely admit it is a big problem, of keeping our people at home, of making home more attractive for our people and taking their eyes away from the higher wage level on the other side, I think you should completely derate agricultural land and insist on the farmers passing on the relief to the agricultural workers. I certainly would congratulate the Minister if he had the courage to do that. He had the courage to reverse engines in the last three or four weeks because he steadfastly refused to give a concession on the motion introduced here a few weeks ago. Now he has added £1,000,000 to the agricultural grant. The present Government, before the war, increased local rates by £1,000,000 and during the emergency the rates have been further increased by another £1,000,000. Therefore, so far as the ratepayer in this country is concerned, he is not getting very much; and the load has already been piled up upon him. Judging by recent legislation in this House — I refer to the Government's new Public Health Bill which is passing through this House at the present time—I think we may anticipate a substantial increase in our local rates. I want to say to the Minister that if we are going to deal with this problem of wages and income — and we have a problem when we compare the position here with the position as it exists on the other side—one way in which we can deal with it is by means of complete derating of agricultural land and another way, as I have already stated, is by education, research, the provision of capital equipment and modern machinery, and an intensive drive to secure the best results we can from every provision we make in that direction.
I think we must all agree that every effort should be made to keep our people at home. The greatest asset that any nation has is its manpower. When we talk about production, whether it is production in the field or in the factory, the first essential in that production is manpower. We cannot afford to export our manpower. In our circumstances here, and taking our geographical position into account, we must make every effort to ensure that the situation at home will be sufficiently attractive to keep our people at home. If we do that there will be no necessity for travel bans, or perproduce mits, or anything like that. No man should be anxious to go abroad. At all events only very, very few should be anxious to go abroad. Our situation here to-day is such that everybody is anxious to go abroad.
