Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 38 - 13 May, 1931

Public Business. - Financial Resolution No. 13—General (Resumed).

The Dáil went into Committee on Finance and resumed consideration of Financial Resolutions.

Debate resumed on following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance. —(Minister for Finance).

The President: This Government has got perhaps greater responsibility in connection with matters of finance and its Budget than most other Governments on account of its lengthy term of administration. It is possible in that case to make examination of the various years back to 1922-3, and take an aggregate figure in connection with those matters. It would appear from statements in the House and outside that the public in certain cases are being led to believe that the Budgets have not been balanced over those years. It would, of course, relieve the time of the House to a very considerable [1111] extent and shorten my speech if it were accepted that they were balanced. However, as it is not accepted we had better take this opportunity of correcting any misapprehension that might exist in people's minds in connection with that matter. I mentioned on the last day that the dead-weight debt amounted to about fifteen and a quarter millions. The Minister for Finance gave the exact figures. He distinguished as between the dead-weight debt, the gross liabilities of the State and the various items which he had set out in order to show the assets and the balance between these left the sum of fifteen and a quarter millions that has been mentioned. The question is, what were abnormal items over a series of years back to 1922-3? The first item is the excess on the Army Vote, from 1922-3 to 1928-9, of over one and a half millions per annum. In taking a figure of that kind it must be borne in mind that the figure in the first year, if it were not for the circumstances of the period, would have been relatively smaller than one and a half millions. It is a fair figure to take. The sum there altogether is about £20,000,000. The cost in connection with commandeered premises amounts to £360,000 odd, that for compensation for property losses £1,230,000, compensation stock £1,500,000, and personal injuries £760,000, giving a total of about £21,000, or £22,000 short of £35,000,000. The difference between fifteen and a quarter millions and that sum, together with other receipts, has been met out of taxation. That is the case in connection with the balancing of the Budget over that series of years.

One thing has been fairly obvious not alone in connection with this Budget, but with previous ones—namely, it has been discussed by the Opposition after the manner and style of criticism of a British Budget. Whether that is an advisable procedure on the part of those who claim Gaelic culture is a matter for themselves. They can examine their political consciences on that. The usual procedure takes place in connection with the various [1112] items that are set out as being suitable items for the imposition of extra taxation. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned in the last couple of months a petrol tax. As if to show the very catholic tastes of their party, some members opposite criticised that as being likely to be a burden on agriculture. They took the extraordinary figure—their Leader took it on the last day—in estimating the cost in the average small farmer's household as from 15/- to 30/- a year. He has apparently benefited to some extent by the discussion which took place here, as on Sunday last he limited himself to 10/- in respect of that service, but his very worthy lieutenant took a larger figure—namely, 15/-. If that happened over here we would be told that there was a crisis in the Government. Some Deputy put down a question to-day for the purpose of ascertaining what proportion of imported sugar was used for manufacturing purposes. My information on the subject from a fairly reliable authority is that about one-sixth of the total consumption is used for manufacturing purposes. We would therefore have to take one-sixth of the £315,000, which the Minister estimated, and that would amount to a little over £50,000, leaving a sum of £265,000 to be raised this year. Assuming that the agricultural population forms half of the entire population the sum levied off agriculture for this purpose would be about £130,000 for the coming year. There would, of course, naturally fall on agriculture some of the increased tax on petrol. Assuming that it was about 20 per cent. the balance in favour of this tax towards agriculture is very considerable. On the last day Deputy de Valera stated that I had mentioned a sum of £1,000,000. Deputy Lemass permitted himself the same sort of liberty. I have no recollection of ever having mentioned such a sum. Deputy de Valera said he believed he read it. I hope it was not after dinner that he thought he read it. I never read it myself. I never mentioned such a figure, and it exists only in the imagination of the Opposition.

Mr. Lemass: And in the imagination [1113] of the political correspondent of the “Irish Independent.”

The President: Oh, I see.

Mr. Clery: An after-dinner correspondent.

The President: I do not think so. He writes as a rule very correctly. The statement was made that I committed the Government to a sum of £1,000,000. I did not. No sum was mentioned. The discussion in connection with the Budget ranged to some extent round the question of direct and indirect taxation. One of the weaknesses of the various speakers of the Opposition in this connection, is the prejudice with which they set out to attack or criticise a particular section of the community. It would appear that they wished to convey the impression here that if there were enemies of the State in this country, they were the people who were paying income tax. The number of persons paying income tax in this country is not as high a percentage of the population as it is in other countries. It falls very largely upon manufacturers, business people and so on. Whether they consider that business should bear such a burden or not, Opposition Deputies do not tell us. I do not suppose they will tell anyone. Speaking to the manufacturer they will say: “We are only speaking for political advantage; we have to keep our eyes on the people outside. We do not intend to impose any further burdens if we do get power.” That is not the way to do business. The main question here is: Is there an unequal portion of the taxation levied, taken from those who are unable to bear it? That is the real question. In 1922-23 the taxation per head of the population amounted to £8 14s., in 1923-24 it amounted to £8 10s. 4d., in 1924-25 it amounted to £7 16s. 4d., in 1925-26 it amounted to £7 5s. 4d., in 1926-27 it amounted to £7 1s. 10d., in 1927-28 it amounted to £6 17s. 2d., in 1928-29 it amounted to £7 0s. 6d., in 1929-30 it amounted to £6 18s. 7d. and last year to £7 1s. 4d. On the basis of the Estimates for this year, it will be £7 2s. 9d. In 1922-23 the percentage [1114] of indirect taxation was 72 per cent. It has been gradually decreasing and the estimate for this year is about 68 per cent. There is a difference there of 4 per cent. In other words while Deputies opposite might claim that the privileged class in this country, manufacturers, businessmen and so on, have escaped their burden, the fact is that they were bearing more than their burden in 1922-23. While it would appear that the taxation in respect of large incomes was much heavier then than now, it must be borne in mind that the 68 per cent and the £7 2s. 9d., now includes a sum of £1,350,000, £600,000 of which was imposed in 1926 and three quarters of a million this year for relief of another service very much akin to a national service. That is local taxation. It is not extra taxation in the sense that it is an extra imposition. It is an imposition upon the central taxation in relief of local taxation. To that extent allowance must be made in comparing the taxation per head of the population back to 1925-26 with any figure from 1922-23 up to 1924-25 and including that year.

In connection with the question of indirect taxation, it must be borne in mind that a considerable number of the taxes imposed were taxes which fell proportionately heavier on the class of the community better able to bear it than on those more lightly taxed. Take a case in point. A man with an income of, say, seven or eight hundred a year buys a motor-car for £200. The tax on that is very much less than on a car costing five or six hundred pounds purchased by a man with £2,000 a year. Although it is called indirect taxation, it is very much akin to a direct tax. The same applies to other commodities. The tax on wearing apparel and other things falls very much more heavily on those who are better able to pay than on the poorer classes of the community.

The Government policy has been designed during those years to fix, as far as their judgment and their wisdom might allow them, the burden of taxation on those capable of bearing it. In that connection the taxation on the agricultural community has been [1115] gradually lightened. In this year it will be very considerably helped by reason of the extra grant which amounts to practically one-third of the rates falling on agricultural lands this year. The sum in question, £750,000, has been criticised. It must be borne in mind that in addition to that sum a sum of £350,000 has been given in relief of unemployment. This £750,000 roughly works out at £30,000 per country. It is a small sum to a party which concerns itself only with the mention of millions, but it is a very considerable sum to the persons concerned, and it is well received by the agricultural community.

Dr. Ryan: Who told you that?

The President: Some agriculturists themselves, directly and indirectly, have so informed me.

Mr. Davin: The £100 valuation men.

The President: On that question I would advise the Deputy to use his apostolic zeal on the party there who went into the lobby against his proposal. Since then they have been performing penitential exercises and doing everything except giving satisfaction for what they did.

I just want to make reference to the peculiar reception afforded, not alone to the Budget and to our finances this year, but every other year, and to the criticisms that fall from the Party opposite. I have here an extract from a statement made by Deputy Lemass two or three years ago. It is reported in the “Waterford News” in its issue dated 1st February, 1929. The statement reads: “In the last Budget £1,100,000 was imposed, and it was found impossible to collect £1,000,000 of that.” Of course, there is no truth in that statement. “In the coming Budget, in order to meet the deficit, the Government would have to impose about £3,000,000 extra taxation. That would ruin the country and the Government would probably take the coward's way of throwing the burden of government on their opponents.” The Deputy has no recollection of making that speech? I say with great respect, and apart altogether from [1116] politics, how inadvisable it is to make statements of that kind. If it were true it is the concern of Deputies opposite just as much as it is ours. There are certain things that ought to be removed from the arena of party polities. One is doing damage to the good name and financial fabric of the State. I give that advice now without intending to be offensive in any way.

Mr. Clery: The President could not be offensive if he wanted to.

The President: I think I could show great form that way if I liked. Let us remember that on this question of balancing the Budget this country is in a very happy position this year. Within the last few weeks we have read in the Press that very well established countries have not been so successful. We have only to think of a country across the water where great difficulty is being experienced in making things right. In the United States there is a deficit, and in Germany, too, I think. In Italy, during the first months of the year, there was also a deficit. That is the world situation.

I do not want to be unusually complacent about it, but our position here is very fortunate. It is God's providence that it has so happened. Let us not do damage to that. Let us accept it as a dispensation of Providence, be thankful for it, admit that it is true, and thank God for the good things He has sent us. There is one rather personal matter that I would like to mention before I sit down. It is that during the last seven or eight years, if there is one Minister more than another who has been criticised in connection with administration, it is the Minister for Finance. He gets all the discredit for every imposition that has to be made. Other Ministers perhaps derive some popularity either for themselves or their Departments in virtue of the money the Minister for Finance has to make available for them. The Minister for Finance has the disadvantage of having to collect it, and as such gets more than his share of public odium. I think it is due to him that after five, six or seven years' continuous balancing of the Budget he should be personally congratulated on [1117] the soundness of the administration of his Department, and for the real success he has attained in the office of Minister for Finance.

I would give to the Deputies opposite one of the most remarkable examples that has occurred within the last few months in the world's history. His most Catholic Majesty the King of Spain has given that example. On taking his departure from the country, he said, on being reminded that he was leaving his family behind, “I am leaving them with good Spaniards.” On the question of recognising the alternative Government that was set up, he said, “I recognise that Government, that is the Government;” and then again when there was a question of making a struggle or bowing to the will of the people, he adopted the wise way. I recommend these statements not only to the Deputies opposite, but to other people in this country who, whether it is due to a lapse from ordinary wisdom or not, apparently have not yet got the conception of confidence in their fellow-countrymen that they ought to have.

Mr. Briscoe: The President reminded me, and I suppose other members of the House, in the speech that he has just made of a statement he made in 1922, one of the years to which he has just referred. He made a fairly lengthy speech on that occasion, and in conclusion he said that, “At least if I have contributed nothing to this serious debate, I have left the Dáil in better humour than I found it when I got up to speak.” In the same way, on this occasion, the President speaks and gets the Dáil into good humour. He referred to a monarch who has just resigned his kingship, and quoted him as saying that, in resigning, he was bowing to the people's will. I hope that the President and his Cabinet will bear that in mind, that if the people of this country wish to change the present form of Government, they also will bow to the people's will. With regard to taxation, it seems to me that the idea of the Executive Council and the Minister for Finance is just to shift it from one form to another. They make no [1118] suggestion as to being able to effect economies in expenditure, economies which would not need a change in the form of taxation from one commodity to another. The President referred to a change in the form of taxation, from direct to indirect, and tried to argue that was giving relief when in fact it is not. I am going to quote for the President and the members of the Executive Council the damage that continuous changing in the form of taxation is doing. It is not so long since the “talkie” pictures came into being. The result of that was that those engaged in the showing of pictures—picture-house owners—had at great expense to instal new plant, and in addition to make alterations in their premises to meet this new form of exhibiting pictures. The new machinery they had to import bore a tariff duty of 33⅓ per cent. If the Minister for Finance looks up the returns for the last few years he will find that the Exchequer benefited handsomely by that particular change.

The new tax on the “talkie” pictures will, I am reliably informed by those connected with the trade, mean the closing down of a great many of these houses. In saying that I am not arguing in favour of keeping open picture houses or that I agree with the closing down of them, but I give that case as an illustration of the difficulty there is in this country of getting down to stable conditions. That branch of the trade had, at great expense, to transform its business in order to cope with the new improvements introduced. The Government benefited by the tax imposed on the importation of machinery. Now they are going to impose a tax on films which, in the opinion of the people connected with the trade, is going to kill that particular business. That is one illustration of the fact that there is no stability. The same applies to the tariffs the Government put on. Any industry in the country which had a tradition behind it, and for which there was an agitation that it should get protection by means of a tariff, got no protection, so that in the end it was wiped out of existence. In the case of two industries protection was given much in the [1119] same manner that a schoolmaster would give promotion to a child: so long as you behave yourself and do certain things we will keep the tariff there to protect you, but if you fail to do certain things the tariff will be taken off. Any trade or industry will require more than five years' protection to nourish itself into strength. Not until the Minister realises that there will have to be some stability about the moves he makes with regard to taxation, whether it be direct or indirect, can there be any hope for industry to get on its feet.

Then we come to the 4d. on petrol, which we are told does not affect the very poor in the sense that it is the owners of cars that will have to pay more for their petrol. But it will affect the poor that use buses as a means of transport and convenience when going to and from their work, because it is very unlikely that the bus owners are going to pay that extra tax and not put up fares. If the bus proprietors have to pay higher taxation in the shape of the petrol tax, they will not continue to keep their fares at the same rate, and an increase in the rates of bus fares for people going to and from their work is going to be a big thing at the end of each week. On the other hand, take a man who owns a car. A business man who only uses his car going to and from his business, and moderately otherwise, will consume at least ten gallons of petrol a week. In the consumption of ten gallons of petrol per week this 4d. per gallon extra tax will mean an extra imposition to him of something like £12 a year. I can picture the outcry there would be if for every motor car an additional £12 of road tax per owner was imposed in this country.

The President: Did the Deputy speak of ten gallons consumption of petrol per week?

Mr. Briscoe: Yes, I said that a motor owner who would use ten gallons of petrol per week would incur an additional £12 a year by the tax.

The President: Not on a consumption of ten gallons a week.

[1120] Mr. Briscoe: Perhaps the President will correct me, and give us the exact figures?

The President: Yes, £8 13s. 4d.

Mr. Briscoe: Very well. I gave the wrong figure, and I will take the President's figure of £8 13s. 4d. Fancy the feeling of any motor car owner who would be told that he would have to pay £8 13s. 4d. more per year in the shape of road tax. I cannot quite understand why Ministers have not some vision with regard to this tax. Why does not the Minister for Finance say: “We want to make those who can best afford this extra tax bear it; we do not want to impose any extra tax on those who can least afford to bear it and we do not want to kill any industry and especially a little industry which is developing on certain lines?” We all know that the bus transport industry is progressing in this country. We can all see that. A lot of capital has been expended in building up road transport by bus.

Mr. Davin: How much?

Mr. Briscoe: I cannot say.

Mr. Davin: Foreign capital.

Mr. Briscoe: Local people have invested a lot of money in the building of bus bodies and putting them on the road for bus transport. We have asked the Ministry for Industry and Commerce to bring in a traffic Bill if for nothing else but to eliminate wasteful competition. If the Minister for Finance said that he was going to reduce the extra road tax on the buses to repay the Road Fund from the extra rates by way of taxation on petrol he would be putting no extra burden on those bus owners or if he said: “We will regulate traffic so that the buses will not be competing with the railways and both suffering,” then we would have some idea that there was going to be some stability and that bus transport was going to be allowed develop side by side with the existing traffic. Instead of that he puts an extra tax upon the buses so that apart from competition they have to face what is going to exterminate [1121] all the capital sunk in the development of the business and it is going to be thrown aside and wasted.

Now with regard to the halfpenny tax on sugar the President and the Executive Council decided to come to the relief of one section of the community for whom the relief is essential and necessary. In order to do that he has taken the money necessary out of the pockets of another section of the community. It is all very well saying that the agricultural community in the country must get this relief. We all admit that, but what about the people in the cities like Dublin and Cork where you have a working community, great numbers of whom are not working? The Minister said we were thinking about putting a tax on tea but we considered that tea was an essential commodity and one which could not bear the tax. I tell the Minister so far as I am concerned that I consider sugar a greater essential than tea. It affects far more people because it is a more essential portion of the diet of children, not to mind grown-ups, yet the Government impose this halfpenny tax on sugar which to the children of the country is an essential of their lives.

Had the Ministry considered getting this relief for the agricultural community by other means than by obtaining it from the persons who are to get the relief in part and then from the rest of the community who are going to get no relief, it might have come to the conclusion that at least a proportion could have been got by other means, such as by means of saving.

The President quoted a speech of Deputy Lemass which appeared in some Waterford paper some time ago. If I were to waste my time looking up speeches made by members of the Executive Council and members of the Government Party I could collect sheafs of speeches made by those people outside which would be very ridiculous. The Minister for Finance went on one famous occasion to a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce on the eve of the flotation of his second loan. He outlined at that meeting how he was going to use the money and he told his audience what [1122] he would do. If I brought up that speech now and the promises it contains it would be quite as ridiculous as anything that might be quoted by the President from Deputy Lemass. On the eve of the flotation of the second loan the Minister talked about the many houses that he was going to build, and about paying off the Shannon scheme and a lot of other ridiculous nonsense, none of which ever came to pass.

The President talked about meeting the agricultural community who told him that they were satisfied with the new form of relief.

The President: Not the whole of them.

Mr. Briscoe: No, but such opinion as he got he considered quite satisfactory. I suppose it was the agricultural community that met him in the fifty motor cars on the Kerry border— those small farmers in their motor cars that told him about it. The President talked about the income tax and indirect taxation. Does the President forget that industry does not suffer at all from the imposition in the shape of income tax, because that tax is only paid on profits, whereas in regard to indirect taxation people must pay whether they make a profit or not? I was reading the President's speech yesterday, although I heard him on Friday. He then stated that the reason he wished to speak was that he wanted a Press report for the week-end. Fancy the President of the Executive Council speaking on one of the most important items of the Budget telling us that he wanted a good Press report at the week-end. I had hoped the President would be a person of so much importance that he would be given a good Press any time he spoke. The sooner the Minister for Finance realises that the type of mind he wishes to express is changed the better for the country. He said that the reason he had fixed upon sugar for a tax was that the price of sugar had fallen, and therefore it could best bear the extra tax.

I say if a commodity happens to fall in price the people are entitled to get [1123] the benefit of the fall, and the Government are not entitled to keep the price up to meet their extravagant expenditure. Members of this Party have stated their point of view on all those things. The Government should give us their reply, and should not base it on a garbled misrepresentation as given in the Press. I do not attach any importance to Press reports, particularly in Dublin. I have seen where the Press reported motions as having been passed in the Corporation when they were not passed, and vice-versa, when it suited them and suited the party they supported. So far as reading extracts from the Press here is concerned, and saying these are ridiculous statements, I claim that the Government should judge the criticisms in the House and face up to them. I hope the Minister, when he is meeting the trades that are going to be affected to the point almost of extinction by his new taxes, will look at their point of view and will see that the taxes will at least be stable and not changed from one week to another. The Minister should tell us when he will give us some information about the Economy Committee and the reductions which they are going to make.

I notice that the Minister has stated that the Budget has always been balanced. If I went through the financial statements for the last six or seven years, I could show the Minister several millions of abnormal revenue which were calculated as normal revenue. When the Minister talks of abnormal expenditure, he should also remember that there is such a thing as abnormal revenue. When the Minister puts sales and other receipts into normal revenue, such as the proceeds of the National Land Bank or the assets of the Haulbowline Dockyard, he may balance his Budget, but if he takes these items out, he will realise that his Budget has never been balanced.

Mr. Davin: This Budget was originally and wrongly described as a farmers' Budget. If the farmers read the official reports of the speeches made in this House by the leaders of [1124] the Government Party and the Fianna Fáil Party, they would quite clearly see that there is no difference between the proposals and promises of the Government on the one hand, and of the Fianna Fáil Party on the other hand. The only difference we can see between the present Budget proposals of the Government and the previous proposals and promises of the Fianna Fáil Party is the difference between two different political sections in this House who propose to administer the same policy, and if you like, the difference between the Minister for Finance, who is finding £750,000 and the proposal of Deputy de Valera that he would find £1,000,000.

So far as the allocation of the money is concerned, there is no difference between the present proposals of the Government and the proposals put to this House by Deputy de Valera on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is rather interesting to read extracts from some of the speeches of some of the leading members of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party in this matter. President Cosgrave read an extract from the “Waterford News” of three years ago containing a statement made then by Deputy Lemass. I am sure that Deputy Lemass will now realise that he is not the prophet that he thought he was at that time. Deputy Lemass, speaking on the hillsides of Wicklow on Sunday last with his eye on the Kildare constituency, is reported as having made the following statement:—

If the Government grant were to be limited to £750,000, then it should be so allocated that the greater part of it would go to the men with the small farms. The suggestion put forward in the Dáil by Fianna Fáil was that the men under £15 valuation should be completely de-rated, and that all others should get relief equivalent to the complete de-rating of the first £15 of their valuation.

That was a suggestion which was made after he had read the addendum to the Minority Report of the De-Rating Commission. Deputy de Valera, speaking on the same day in Carrick-on-Suir, when endeavouring to explain away the previous proposal which he put before this House, said: [1125] “Their proposal was to relieve every farmer of half the burden which he had to bear.” See the difference between Deputy Lemass at Baltinglass and Deputy de Valera at Carrick-on-Suir on the same day. I would ask the farmers in County Wicklow and elsewhere to find out if they can what in reality is the position and policy of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Lemass: The farmers read these sentences in their context.

Mr. Davin: It took Deputy Lemass nine years to find out good reasons as to why he would change his policy with regard to the Treaty; it only took him one month to change his policy on de-rating. As I said, the things that really count so far as the farming community is concerned is the extent to which they are going to get relief from the present Budget proposals of the Government. I am inclined to think that the manner in which this £750,000 is proposed to be allocated is likely to cause confusion in the minds of some of the people who are expecting relief. The Minister in his statement said: “The Government has decided that the new grant is to be allocated 50 per cent. on the old basis and as to the remaining 50 per cent on the basis of the population of the counties.” Are we to understand that it is based on the total population of the county or that there is a possibility of allocating that portion on the basis of the farming population of a particular county? If the allocation was on the basis of the farming population of the county it would in my opinion give more relief to the people who need it most at present. I would be glad to know from the Minister on what basis the allocation is being made in the second instance.

Mr. Blythe: The total population.

Mr. Davin: I think it would be far better if the Government could see their way to make that allocation on the number of farmers in a particular county. I have been endeavouring to find out even on the basis the Minister has now stated the amount of money which should go to a particular county. For instance, take Leix, [1126] where there are 8,692 occupiers of agricultural holdings. According to the method of allocation proposed by the Minister in his Budget speech 88 occupiers of holdings in that county with a valuation over £200 will receive over £2,000 while 4,112 occupiers of holdings under £10 valuation will receive only the small sum of £1,107. That clearly proves the contention put forward by Deputy O'Connell on behalf of this Party on the motion moved by Deputy de Valera that on the present basis of allocation and also on the method proposed by Deputy de Valera large holders who are not so much in need of relief as the small holders will get most of the money. I invite criticism of the figures if the Minister can criticise them as far as they apply to that county. In that county there are 5,460 farmers out of which 2,246 have holdings consisting of less than 30 acres. From personal experience of the conditions there— and I am sure that Deputies who represent similar constituencies will agree—I say that it is the small holders who are mostly in need of relief. There is nothing in the Budget proposals of the present Government nor in the proposals of the Fianna Fáil Party that would bring these people anything in the nature of real relief.

Looking at the policy of the Government and taking into consideration the statements that were made by Ministers before the Budget was introduced, there was every reason to hope after the announcements made by the President and by the Minister for Finance that the policy of the Government presumably would be largely guided by the recommendations of the Majority Report. What do we find? In his Budget speech the Minister for Finance has partly but with thanks turned down the recommendations contained in the Majority Report. He was sensible enough to realise that the majority included an unnecessarily large number of civil servants and that if their names were taken from those who signed the Majority Report in reality it would turn out to be a minority report. The Government refused to adopt that Report [1127] after all these people had spent a considerable amount of time preparing it.

Certain Deputies, and in particular I think Deputy Allen, proceeded to throw a good deal of cold water on the recommendations of the majority of the De-rating Commission. I would not be inclined to agree with them that the Report and recommendations should be entirely overlooked. The Report suggested an extension of improved marketing conditions, particularly in the direction of grading and packing and in the standardising of produce. They also recommended an extension of the provision of credit at a cheap rate. These are things which Deputies should bear in mind, and which are very important to the farming industry. As a case in point, if one wants to find support for their recommendations dealing with better marketing methods, it is only necessary to look at the present position of the dairying industry. There is no more glaring case for setting up, if necessary by compulsion, a central marketing organisation for the purpose of protecting the interests of dairy farmers, and the only thing I am sorry for—and I speak on behalf of the Labour Party—is that the Minister for Agriculture did not take his courage in his hands and before the recent collapse of the Irish Associated Creameries, bring in legislation to compel every creamery to join a central marketing organisation. That portion of the Majority Report does not go as far as I would like, but as far as it does go I think it should not be overlooked, and that attention should be paid to the recommendations. They also recommended an extension of the provision of credit at a cheap rate. I believe that without cheap money the farming community cannot build up their industry and cannot work the land to the best advantage. The present depression is due to the fact that we have not cheap money, or, more correctly speaking, we have not proper credit facilities for the farming industry. I would like to know from the Minister for Finance whether he believes that the method of making [1128] money available through the Agricultural Credit Corporation meets that part of the recommendations in the Report of the De-rating Commission. I would not say that six per cent. is cheap money for the agricultural community, and from what I know of the working of the Agricultural Credit Corporation I believe the Act might be amended in order to provide money more freely for those who want it, and certainly the rate of interest should be lowered. I would like to hear the views of Deputies interested in farming on this question. Perhaps Deputy Heffernan would oblige by telling the House if he believes that that part of the Majority Report is met by the facilities presently provided by the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Coming to the Minority Report, which many people look upon in reality as the Majority Report of the Commission, what do we find? We find them giving good reasons in the final recommendation for providing immediate relief to the extent of £1,200,000. They recommend that this sum could be met in approximately equal shares by the proceeds of a duty on imported petrol and an increase of the standard rate of income tax. The first part of the recommendation has been only partially met, as the Government are only providing £750,000 instead of the £1,200,000 recommended. It is also only partly met because the Government have only agreed to carry out the recommendations to the extent of proposing to put fourpence per gallon on petrol, and they refuse, without giving any good reason, to increase the standard rate of income tax. The policy of the Government in refusing to increase the standard rate of income tax must really be judged by the people from the point of view of the wisdom of increasing it and thereby affecting only a few hundred thousand people or whether every citizen is hit by the imposition of a proposed tax of a halfpenny per pound on sugar. In his Budget speech the Minister for Finance, referring to the reasons why the Government could not accept the recommendations in the Minority Report, seemed to think that an increase in the existing income tax rate would [1129] prevent the development of industry. I would be prepared to go so far as to say that certain new industries that have been set up and that are struggling for existence might be exempted from income tax, but that does not force a motion being brought in whereby the general community would have to carry the burden owing to the imposition of a tax of a halfpenny per pound on sugar.

Looking at the effect of the tax on sugar one could gather from the speeches made by Deputy de Valera, by the President on Friday last and here again to-day, that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the extent to which that tax will affect the general body of the people of the country, and, in particular, how it will affect the poorest section of the community. It is generally believed by those who have made a careful study of the Budget proposals that there will not be relief to any great extent, if at all, to the farming community who occupy holdings of a valuation under £10. The tax of a 1/2d. per lb. on sugar will counteract any good effect that might otherwise come from the relief in rates as a result of the Minister's proposal. It is generally estimated that a family living in a holding of £10 valuation and under would receive a relief of 13/6 this year. A family of five living in such a holding would pay on an average 15/- additional in sugar tax.

I would like to hear the Minister for Finance furnish the House with some figures which could refute these statements made here repeatedly during the discussion on the Budget. There is no doubt about it that a certain minimum quantity of sugar is consumed in the house of the average farmer, and the small farmer is really carrying the biggest burden, so far as the population is concerned. That case is made by referring to the census population figures for a country like, say, Mayo, a county of small farmers with low valuations. Contrast that with a county like Meath, where you have an average valuation of £49. If there is anything at all in the statements made, these would go to show that a farmer with a valuation of £10 or under gets no benefit, and is not likely to get any benefit as a result of the Budget proposals. [1130] That is a very serious thing for the country as a whole. We have in this State at present 210,000 farmers with a valuation under £10. That is 55 per cent. of the population of the whole State.

I have heard many protests from the Fianna Fáil Benches, and I have read many of their speeches in the country protesting, and rightly so, against this unfair tax of 1/2d. per lb. on sugar. I would ask the farming community and the population generally to judge as to the real value behind those protestations by the members of that Party both in the House and in the country. When it comes to a question of carrying their protests into effect in a matter of this kind, it all comes down to the strength of the arguments put forward here; to the strength in which that Party will go into the Lobby in support of their protest or proposal. What do we find in the case of the Fianna Fáil Party? When the division was called in this House to protest against the imposition of this tax of 1/2d. per lb. on sugar, seventeen members of the Fianna Fáil Party were absent or refused to vote. That is to say, one-third of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party were absent. I would like the small farmers of the country who have been listening to the eloquent speeches of the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party to inquire as to why the full membership of that Party were not here to vote in the division lobby against the imposition of that tax.

One other matter referred to by the President in his speech on Friday and again to-day was the very favourable position of the Free State so far as borrowing in the money market of this State, or indeed in any part of the world, compared to the position which other and much longer established States enjoy. He said that we were in the position of borrowing at a more favourable rate than some countries with a much more favourable tradition and much longer established. That is quite true, but what is the use of the President getting up here and repeating his statement in parrot-like fashion and doing the same thing at all those State receptions which he holds throughout the country when he will [1131] not make use of the borrowing powers which we have for the purpose of promoting housing schemes and carrying out development schemes which would give useful employment to those people who are waiting for work?

Deputy Byrne, the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, will probably give the explanation which the President now refuses to give. There is no use in crying from the house-tops and telling the poor people, the unemployed, and people of that type the value of the borrowing powers of this State when the people who enjoy that borrowing power will not use it in the right direction or to proper advantage. I want to refer to a matter affecting the application of the petrol tax, and I would like the Minister to say whether it is his intention to apply the tax in the manner in which it is being enforced at present? If my information is correct, I am given to understand that the powers which are now being used and which will be used until the Revenue Bill becomes law, are powers handed over under the Revenue Act of 1901, Section 7. Under that particular Act, I understand that it is possible to impose duty upon various commodities which contain only a very small percentage of petrol content. I understand that hundreds of consignments of paint, boot polish, weed killer, disinfectant, ink and turpentine and articles of that kind are at present held up at the ports in this State in view of the fact that the people to whom those articles are consigned refuse to pay the excessive minimum duty demanded by the Customs authorities under the terms of the Act referred to. It seems ridiculous that a small consignment of boot polish or a can of turpentine or varnish is held up simply because the parties concerned refuse to pay this very excessive tax. Some of these parties are very poor people, some of them are painters who are depending on these articles for a living, and because they will not pay the minimum duty of 2s. 6d. demanded by the Revenue authorities at present, their business is inconvenienced. The demand of 2s. 6d. really represents the [1132] equivalent of a tax of 4d. per gallon upon 8 gallons of petrol. It is simply ridiculous to impose a minimum duty of that sort, especially when some of these consignments, not very valuable, would not contain more than a quarter gallon of petrol. I would like if the Minister would look into the matter, and let the House know whether it is possible for him to say that the tax on petrol in reality was intended for the purpose of revenue on petrol, and not for taxing these very small consignments which contain a small percentage of petrol or turpentine, or whatever it may be. At any rate, if it is intended to charge this duty upon particular articles such as I have referred to, the minimum rate should be considerably lower than what it is at the present time.

There is one other matter which I would also like to bring under the notice of the Minister. That is the concession which he has given in his Budget proposals to relieve the entertainments tax on theatres. I understand that as a result of the introduction of the talkie films into the cinemas in Dublin 300 musicians have lost their employment. I was informed as late as 3 o'clock to-day that in the cinema theatres at present there is only one full-time musician employed. I would like the Minister to consider whether it would be possible to extend the concession now proposed to be given to the theatres, to the cinema houses who may in the future give employment to musicians as against the talkie films that are being so much used just now. The professional musician has been absolutely wiped out in the City of Dublin as a result of the introduction of the talkies. I think there is a case there for the consideration of the Minister. It is of the same kind as the case to which he has already given sympathetic consideration. What I am stating applies to the cinema theatres of the city and the country as a whole.

Mr. J.X. Murphy: The President when speaking on this motion referred to the record of the Minister for Finance and to the thankless task on which he is engaged. I would like to add my humble tribute of admiration.

[1133] As regards the proposal to give £750,000 towards de-rating, I am sorry that the money is not being spent in a constructive way. I agree with many other Deputies that the small farmer is being fooled. I do not think he will say “thank you.” I have got every sympathy with the small farmer and the farming community in general. At the same time, there are other sections of the community for whom I have also got sympathy. I would like to refer to the workmen in the cities and towns who very often have to pay one-third of their wages for the privilege of living in one room in a slum. I am sorry that the Minister has not made any provision in his Budget for the relief of housing so as to get the people out of these slums. There is one other little matter that I would like to speak to the Minister about. That is the duty on spirits. The Minister I think said in his Budget speech that the revenue from spirits would be about £60,000 below his estimate. I do not know whether his estimate shows a decrease on the previous year or not, and if the Minister could at some time or other let me know what was the actual revenue derived from spirits, differentiating between home made spirits and imported spirits, for the years ended March, 1930, and 1931, I would be very much obliged.

When the Minister was introducing his Budget in 1928, my recollection is that he said if the decline in revenue from the liquor trade were to continue it would have disastrous effects, especially in regard to spirits for which relief seemed to be most urgent. The revenue from that source has decreased and will decrease unless the Minister makes some alteration in the duty. I trust that he will recollect what he said in 1928, and take steps to adjust the duty, and thus safeguard one of our oldest industries and at the same time give the ordinary man the privilege of occasionally enjoying a glass of spirits.

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Davin certainly deserves to be congratulated on his brilliant efforts on behalf of Cumann na nGaedheal.

Mr. Davin: I do not understand.

[1134] Mr. Aiken: It was one of his usual speeches. Deputy Davin is a pretty able politician. He is not at all stupid, and whether in this House or down the country he generally does his little bit to take the harm out of what Cumann na nGaedheal may do to render it unpopular.

Mr. Davin: I am sorry to say that that is not right.

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Davin, as I said, is not stupid. He was present here when we put down the motion for a million pounds for the relief of agriculture. If he were not present he should have read the Debates.

Mr. Davin: I was here.

Mr. Aiken: He was here because his name appears in the Debates frequently in interruptions and otherwise. The reasons for which we introduced the million pounds motion were given clearly by our different speakers. To-day, Deputy Davin, realising that Cumann na nGaedheal have got themselves into a hole with some of the small farmers, attempted to pull Cumann na nGaedheal out of it by trying to prove that Fianna Fáil were as bad as Cumann na nGaedheal.

Mr. Davin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken: The reason we introduced the million motion, and the reasons we gave for distributing it on a flat rate according to the rates paid, were that the Government were delaying any relief to agriculture. We wanted to see relief given at once, and the reason why we voted against the Labour amendment was, as Deputy de Valera stated, that the Labour amendment could not be put into operation at once.

Mr. Davin: 92 per cent. of it could.

Mr. Aiken: Ninety-two per cent. of it could not, because a Cumann na nGaedheal Government certainly would not agree to what would be a fair percentage in tillage and the rest of it. They were going to plead all sorts of excuses for not putting it into operation. If Deputy Davin would like to search his mind, or if he would look up column 2176 of the Debates of [1135] the 26th March, he would see that Deputy de Valera said:—

“This motion of mine is not intended to be a substitute for a considered scheme of de-rating. It is purely a temporary measure introduced to give timely assistance, because we are of opinion that immediate assistance is wanted. It does not indicate, as far as we are concerned, the lines on which we would propose a de-rating scheme if the duty of proposing such a scheme devolved upon us.”

When concluding the debate on that motion, Deputy de Valera said:—

“I want to make another point clear. It is said that I did not point out where this money was to come from. No, I did not. Deputy O'Connell did not point out where this money was to come from. He indicated that he did not want it to come by way of indirect taxation on the section of the community which is least able to bear it. With that we agree, and if there was any proposition that it would put such a burden of indirect taxation on the section Deputy O'Connell wishes to protect, we would vote against it.” (Col. 2306, Official Debates, 26th March.)

There Deputy de Valera states first of all the reasons for which we introduced the motion, and secondly, he clearly shows that we would oppose any from of de-rating that would bear hardly on the small farmers. The reason for introducing the million motion and putting it through at once on a flat rate was because any other system would have meant delay. The Government would have seized upon any scheme that we might have brought forward, and said that the De-rating Commission would have brought in their report before it could be put into operation.

President Cosgrave worked himself up into a sort of religious fervour to day. He always succeeds in doing that whenever he has something to cover up. He always condemns anybody who decries, as he calls it, the good credit of the country. He and the Minister [1136] for Finance like to get the country in their arms, so to speak, and say: “Hit me now with the country in my arms.” The Government will have to realise that if they make a mess of things they are going to be criticised for so doing. They set up a De-rating Commission one and a half years ago. They carefully picked the members of that Commission. The majority of the Commission reported in favour of what is known as a grass policy, or as the Hogan policy. They gave the farmers a lot of advice as to what they should do. Their advice was that the farmers should carry on with the Government policy; they should engage in intensive farming, and that would be the best way to end their troubles. The height of impudence was reached when these gentlemen, the most of whom draw their salaries out of public funds—and they are pretty substantial salaries, too—said: “... but it must be recorded that it is in our view clearly desirable to induce and assist agriculturists to improve their position by their own efforts rather than encourage them to look to other sections of the community for direct monetary assistance.” There would be a great deal less need for de-rating or any other system of relief if some of the persons who signed that Majority Report could be induced to assist themselves rather than continue to look, as they are looking, to public funds for their salaries.

The Ministers waited for the report signed by these gentlemen. For the last two years, whenever any by-election was in the offing, they allowed Deputies like Deputy Connolly to mention a sum of two millions which the Government proposed to give for the relief of agriculture. Before the last by-election in County Dublin there appeared in one of the papers here, after the correspondents had their usual weekly interview with the Minister for Finance, a statement to the effect that one million was, for certain, going to be given to agriculture. President Cosgrave accused us of telling lies when we said that he mentioned a sum of one million pounds. The million was mentioned by several Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies and [1137] by inspired political correspondents after an interview with the Minister for Finance. There was no contradiction of it for a month or so after the Dublin by-election was over. Then a report came out to the effect that nothing was going to be done for the farmers. That was another inspired report from the same political correspondent. It was in those circumstances we introduced our million motion. Whatever little benefit may accrue to some of the farmers from this grant of £750,000, it will certainly be due to the pressure brought to bear by Opposition Parties upon the Government.

Deputy Murphy spoke against de-rating. I would like to make some reference to the method by which it is proposed to raise this £750,000. It is well known that the majority of the Ministers are against any relief for agriculture. They are placing their whole hopes for the future prosperity of the country on getting a few foreigners with some dividends to come here. They are encouraging a few tourists and they are turning the population of the country into lackeys to serve these people. Undoubtedly, this scheme outlined by the Minister to raise £750,000 by taking it from large numbers of people who are least able to afford it, is going to disgust the whole country with giving relief for agriculture. It is not de-rating; they are not instituting any scheme of de-rating. The 210,000 small farmers who are going to get 7.9 of the relief grant, about £90,000, will have very little to thank the Government for when they get relief to the extent of only 8s. 5d. per head.

President Cosgrave tried to make light of the amount the small farmers are going to pay. I would like the Minister to give his estimate of what the small farmer under £10 or £15 valuation is going to pay in the way of sugar tax, and also what proportion of the petrol tax he assumes the small farmer will have to pay in the coming year. The Government should have made those calculations before they announced any tax. I hope the Minister for Finance will have the figures when he is concluding this debate. I [1138] think the estimates made by Fianna Fáil, placing the figure at 10s. or 15s., are about correct. If the average small farmer with five in family, has to pay 10s. extra each year for sugar, it will not be much benefit to him to receive only 8s. 5d. by way of relief. President Cosgrave spoke on the first day about Fianna Fáil throttling the farmers in order to get the land annuities out of them. At the present time the Government are throttling the farmers and getting the land annuities out of them in order to send them to England. They are also screwing taxes out of them in order to pay the expense of sending the land annuities to England. They are throttling the people of the country in order to raise rates and taxes which will go to pay the salaries of all the friends of the Government—the people they have shoved into the different offices.

The farmer has reason to grumble under the conditions that now exist. The farmer would not have much reason to grumble if the people who owe land annuities were forced to pay them into a central fund and if the total amount so collected were devoted to relieving taxation and particularly if at least two millions of it were devoted to the de-rating of agricultural land. I hope that the Minister when concluding will give us the figure I have asked for, namely, the proportion of the sugar tax which the small farmer will have to pay.

Mr. Cassidy: It was not my intention to take part in this discussion but for the fact that since the debate opened it has been practically monopolised by Deputies from Dublin, Cork, and the South generally. Another factor which prompts me to speak is the extraordinary silence on the part of Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies from Donegal. Naturally I expected that they would take part in the debate to justify to their constituents their action in walking into the division Lobby and voting in favour of the imposition on their constituents of an additional halfpenny per pound on sugar. Before going into details as to how the Budget will affect Donegal there are a number of items touched [1139] on by the Minister which I would like to dwell upon. I believe that the Budget statement read by the Minister for Finance was remarkable for two things. In the first place it was remarkable for certain proposals which it contained and, in the second place, I think it was remarkable because of the matters with which it did not deal, matters connected with the improvement of social services.

At the outset I want to express my deep disappointment and the disappointment of the Labour Party at the absence of any proposals on the part of the Government to improve the social services in the Saorstát. One would have thought, and I certainly hoped that when the Budget was being introduced the Minister for Finance would have outlined the Government proposals in regard to that very important question, the provision of pensions for widows and orphans.

Although that question is being examined by Government Departments for the last two years no official pronouncement has been made in regard to it, consequently the widows and orphans in the Saorstát are at a disadvantage compared with those in Great Britain and the Six Counties. Another question with which I believe the Minister should have dealt is that of housing. It is recognised that so far as the rural portions of County Donegal are concerned there is great necessity for the erection of additional labourers' cottages. One would have thought that the Minister would have outlined his policy and let the House and the country know what the Government propose to do in regard to building additional labourers' cottages, to be let at rents which the slender purses of our labourers could afford to pay. Previous speakers referred to the Budget as “a rich man's Budget.” I believe that that designation was correctly applied to it. If we take the question of the remission of the tax on racecourse betting we find that the Minister for Finance said: “I propose to insert in the forthcoming Finance Bill a section remitting the tax on racecourse betting.” I do not know what [1140] prompted the Minister to remit that tax.

Mr. Shaw: Deputy Anthony and others.

Mr. Cassidy: I think that Deputy Shaw is more interested in racing and race-horses than Deputy Anthony or any other Deputy here. It may be asserted by the Minister, or even by Deputy Shaw, that the remission of the tax will be an incentive to the horse-breeding industry and that it is going to improve that industry, but the Minister stated that although he was going to give a remission of the tax on racecourse betting he was without hope of any important direct results. No doubt the book-making fraternity desire relief, but I believe that they are sufficiently sportsmanlike not to want that relief at the expense of poor people who, in order to help in the remission of that tax, will have to pay an additional halfpenny per pound for their sugar. Dealing with the question of dog-racing, the Minister said that he had not gone to the dogs. While he may not have gone to the dogs, I think there is no doubt that he succumbed to the bookmaking fraternity in regard to this particular question.

A Deputy: He has gone to the “books.”

Mr. Cassidy: Another reason why this Budget should be designated as a rich man's Budget is the statement of the Minister in regard to the question of the reduction of capital duty. He said that as a result of representations made to him by the Chambers of Commerce he had decided that the capital duty payable by companies on their formation be reduced from £1 per cent. to 5/- per cent. That represents a financial loss to the State of £5,000. Apparently again the Minister or his Department succumbed to these wealthy magnates who compose the Chambers of Commerce, but unfortunately he did not succumb to the representations made by the agricultural workers for the building of additional labourers' cottages. The question is, who is going to pay for the £5,000 which is going to be lost to the State as a result of the reduction of capital [1141] duty? It is the labourers, the small farmers, the fishermen, the agricultural workers, and the town workers.

One of the worst aspects of the Budget, in the opinion of the Labour Party, is the proposal to levy an additional duty of a halfpenny per pound on sugar. As a result of that tax the Exchequer, according to the Minister, is going to benefit to the extent of £315,000 per year. As I said in my opening remarks, I was somewhat surprised at the silence of the Government back-benchers who voted in favour of this tax. They did not attempt to justify their attitude, possibly because they could not do so. It may be said that this additional duty on sugar will not have a big effect generally on the people. I admit that it will not have a big effect on comparatively wealthy men, but it will have a big effect on the small farmer, the farm labourer, the fishermen and the under-paid worker in the town. It is recognised that sugar is a valuable food asset. The tax will mean that the poor will either have to purchase less sugar or do without some other necessary commodity. It is most unfair of the Government to levy this duty, because it really is an attack on the most helpless class of the community, the poorer sections of our people. We have been told by the President and other speakers that certain proposals have been put forward in the Budget for the relief of agriculture, but when one analyses them, one is astonished to hear the argument seriously advanced that these proposals are going to be of any benefit to the small farmer. In a frantic endeavour to make the Cumann na nGaedheal barometer rise, it is true that the Government have allocated a sum of £750,000 for the relief of agriculture.

I would like to recall to the minds of Deputies the fact, as Deputy Aiken pointed out, that a few weeks ago a motion was moved asking this House to agree to a grant of £1,000,000 for the immediate relief of agriculture. We find that the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies, the Independent Deputies and last, but by no means least, the [1142] so-called Farmers' Party Deputies voted against it. What prompted the so-called Farmers' Party to vote against the grant of £1,000,000 for the immediate relief of the agricultural community is absolutely beyond me. I suppose that those so-called Farmers' Deputies have been told by the Government in the words of Jimmy O'Dea “Leave it to us.” Yes, leave it to us and we will fix the thing up for you! They have fixed it now to such an extent that as a result of the action of the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies, the Independent Deputies and the so-called Farmers' Party Deputies on that occasion, the farming community and especially the small farmers will be at the loss of the sum of £250,000.

I would like to refer to the manner in which this £750,000 is going to affect the agricultural community in thickly populated and congested districts such as County Donegal, according to figures which I propose to give and which I challenge the Minister for Finance or any other Deputy to refute. I propose to point out that, instead of being a benefit to small farmers the proposal contained in the Budget will act detrimentally against the interests of small farmers in Donegal and other congested areas. I would even go further and say that under the proposals made in the Budget practically no small farmer will benefit. I do not think I could give a better illustration than to quote some figures as far as Donegal is concerned. Before doing so I might say these figures were compiled by Government Departments. The number of persons in rural houses in Donegal according to the statistics is 146,552. The number of houses in rural areas in Donegal is 30,893 which makes an average of 4.74 persons per house.

The share of the grant coming to Donegal according to the statement made by the President to-day would be £30,000 but according to the figures which I have compiled that share would be approximately £34,000. The cost of the additional sugar duty to rural residents in Co. Donegal will be approximately £21,096 which leaves a [1143] balance to credit of Donegal under the Minister's Budget of £13,000. Out of the 26,896 holdings in Donegal, 80 per cent. of them or 19,177 of them do not exceed £7 valuation. The estimated remission as far as that county is concerned under the Budget proposals will work out at 2/7 in the £ which would mean that a farmer of £5 valuation will get the benefit of 12/11 per year. While that is so, the person with such a holding will be obliged to pay 15/- additional for his sugar. Where then do the benefits of the proposal contained in the Minister's Budget come in? Take the small farmer whose valuation is £2 10s. He is going to benefit by the Minister's proposals by 6/6 per annum but if he has a family of five he is going to pay 15/- more for his sugar.

In County Donegal there are 24,548 holdings with a valuation not exceeding £20. They will receive for remission of rates £15,500 or 12/3d. each. In County Donegal there are 701 persons with valuations exceeding £50 each. They will receive under the Minister's proposals £8,960 or £12 15s. each. That means that while the small farmer with the £5 valuation is going to receive approximately 12/11d. he will have to pay 15/- additional for the sugar he uses, whereas, the larger farmer with the valuation in excess of £50 will receive £12 15s. I do not think that even this £12 15s. is enough for even the large farmer. Not alone the small farmer but the large farmer has been very badly treated in County Donegal. Deputies are aware that Donegal is surrounded by Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. Let us compare for one moment the position obtaining in these counties as regards the farming community as compared with the position obtaining in Donegal or any other county in the Saorstát. According to a statement made in the Six County Parliament on the 20th October, 1930, under the Local Government Rating and Finance Act for the year 1930-31, the farming community in Co. Antrim will receive a sum of £197,854, in County Armagh they will receive £108,338, in County Down they will receive £202,648, in [1144] County Fermanagh £79,936, in County Derry £134,445 and in County Tyrone £179,617 while the farmers in Donegal, large and small put together, will only receive approximately after the deduction that is made for the tax on sugar £13,000. How does that compare with the position of the farmers in Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh?

A few weeks ago the Minister for Agriculture spoke in Ballybofey, Donegal, and in the course of his remarks he referred to the question of the unity of Ireland. He said that he believed there would be unity in this country when the material conditions in the Free State were as good as elsewhere. Did he tell the people in Donegal that the farmers in Derry, Tyrone or Fermanagh, which surround Donegal, were in a much better position than were the farmers in Donegal, due to the fact that the Government, in which he was Minister for Agriculture, was withholding benefits from Donegal which had been given to the other places to which I have referred? I believe that any benefits that are going to accrue to the farming community as a result of the Minister's proposals will only accrue to any appreciable extent to the grass ranchers in Tipperary, Meath and Limerick. I notice that on Sunday last the Minister for Finance addressed a meeting in his own constituency (Monaghan), and that the Chairman of it used some very straight talk to the Minister. Senator Toal, who, I understand, was the Chairman of the meeting, in the course of his remarks dealing with the Minister's Budget, is reported in the Press as having stated:

Senator Toal, who presided, spoke of the advantages of de-rating and said that as Mr. Blythe put a tax on sugar the benefit of de-rating would therefore be lost to the people who are least able to bear taxation.

In other words, the Chairman of the meeting which the Minister addressed in his own constituency realised that any benefits that were going to be derived as a result of the so-called relief to be given to the farmers would be nullified by the Minister's proposal to tax sugar. I now turn to the Report of the De-rating Commission, where we find it stated on page 69:

[1145] It must obviously be a cardinal feature of any scheme for the relief of the agriculturist by de-rating agricultural land and farm buildings that the taxation imposed to provide the cost of relief should not prove as burdensome to him as the rates from which he is to be relieved. Otherwise, the relief would be quite illusory.

Even that statement of the Commission proved the contention that I have made, that as far as the small farmers are concerned they are going to be put in a worse position than they were in prior to these proposals being made. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, said: “Our present economic position is good,” while the President in his speech to-day said that “the country is in a very happy position.” I wish that either the President or the Minister for Finance would take a trip to the congested areas of Donegal and see the poverty that exists amongst the small farmers there. If they did so, they might possibly change their minds. No doubt for some time past they had been fraternising with comparatively wealthy people, such as “Lord Do Little” and “Lady Do Less” at Cumann na nGaedheal banquets, and when they say that the country is in a happy position, that the economic conditions are good, I can state without fear of contradiction that that is not true so far as the small farmer, the fishermen and the unemployed people of County Donegal are concerned.

It has been stated by the Minister that, as far as this country is concerned, there is no economic crisis. I say there is, and that it has been there ever since the Government took up office. There is a financial crisis in existence so far as the poor people of this country are concerned, the people who, I hoped and believed, would have got some relief as a result of the Budget. As far as the Minister's Budget statement goes, it has come as a disappointment not alone to the town and city dwellers but as a staggering blow to the farming community, and more especially to the small farmers.

Mr. Clery: With reference to the introduction last week of the Budget by [1146] the Minister for Finance, we had an atmosphere created throughout the country by Ministers and Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies which misled the farmers and the agricultural community generally into the belief that something definite and beneficial for them was going to be done in the Budget. Prior to that we had an atmosphere created by the Government Party in connection with the De-Rating Commission. During the past two years the Minister for Agriculture mentioned, time and again at meetings throughout the country, that he could not open his mouth so far as de-rating was concerned. All he could say was: “We have appointed a Commission of experts to go into that question and I am not at liberty to talk about it until they have dealt with it. They are considering their report, which is going to be a very complete one, as they have gone into all the details. When the report of the Commission is put before us we will consider it and do what is best according to the report for the farming community.”

The Executive Council apparently could not think for itself during the two years that the Commission was sitting. The Commission was composed of men with a magic wand. We were led to believe that the Commission was going to bring in such a favourable report that an immediate improvement would be brought about in farming conditions. But anyone who has read the Report cannot enthuse very much over it. I am surprised that Deputies who have practical experience of farming, and of the difficulties the farmer has to contend with, should get up in this House, or in any part of the country and compliment the members of that Commission on, as they allege, the very excellent report they have turned out. In my opinion, the report is not a credit to the members of the Commission. From end to end of it there is no definite solution suggested by the members of the Commission for the improvement of agricultural conditions. The members of that Commission simply repeat a lot of platitudes. What all the members of the Commission are agreed upon is that [1147] de-rating would be bad for the farmer, that unless you put on the farmer, and keep on his shoulders, the burdens of the rest of the community he is going to become lazy; he is not going to produce more, but is going to be more or less a drag on the State. The idea that one gets from reading the Majority Report of the Commission is that if the burden of taxation was lightened on the farmer he would become careless, that he would become easy-going in his methods of farming if more money was put into his pocket through de-rating. That is the idea you get running through the report from beginning to end.

I, for one, cannot agree that the report is a credit to the members of the Commission. They were able men and had at their disposal all the evidence that could be made available as regards farming, the production and marketing of agricultural produce and so on. They got evidence from practical farmers, and had at their disposal other sources of information. In view of all that, I do not think that the report is a great credit to them. To my mind, if you put into a desk in any school a school-boy in the sixth or the seventh standard and asked him to write an essay on the difficulties of farming on the one hand, and the possibilities of successful farming on the other he would write as practical, and much nearer to the point, a report on the conditions of farming in this country as is to be found in the report of this Commission. The one idea which the members of the Commission who signed the Majority Report seem to have at the back of their heads all the time, was that whatever else they could not do, there was one thing they must not do and that was issue a report which would in any way embarrass the Government. They pooh-poohed the idea of giving the farmer relief in rates or that he would produce more if his taxation were lightened.

In twelve or thirteen points, which they set out in the Report, they suggest methods by which the farmers of [1148] this country could work more, produce more, and make the State richer. I will deal with two of these points. The first is, “encouragement of the best method of the feeding and management of livestock”; the second is “the promotion of poultry-keeping and the encouragement of the best methods of rearing and feeding poultry for egg production and table purposes.” These are the two main clauses in the Report that the Commission issued. That is all that we have got from this Committee of experts, of supermen selected by the Government. That is all they have been able to produce after all the evidence that was taken and the sources of information that they had at their disposal. That is what they offer to the practical farmers of this country. I say that they need not give instructions to the farmers down the country as to how they are to feed or produce livestock. These men are quite capable of managing their own business. They can do it without any advice from the Minister for Agriculture. There is no need either to give instruction to the housewives of the country as to how they are to raise poultry or produce eggs for marketing purposes.

The idea of those who issued the Majority Report seems to be that farming must be done in a clocklike fashion. I hold that the Commission went beyond its terms of reference, and that instead of dealing with these matters they might have turned to the question of considering how economies could be effected by eliminating waste in the Civil Service to which they belong.

They might find if they went on to discuss in detail the Committee on Economy of which Deputy Heffernan was Chairman that investigations disclosed that the Service was made up of the most luxuriously paid body of loosely organised civil servants in the world. And if they wanted to eliminate waste, as they wanted to do in the case of the farmer, they would find a great deal of it to be eliminated from the Government service. But they preferred instead, and with their usual red tape, to instruct the farmer as to how he [1149] should feed his livestock, keep his poultry, and market his eggs.

There is only one thing in the whole report that can be commended, and there is no farmer in the whole country who could not have told the Government that one thing years ago, but they would give no heed to his advice, and that is where they state that one means of benefiting the “agricultural industry would be the extension and provision of credit at a cheap rate.” That is the only one thing contained in the Majority Report that can be recommended. All the rest can be put aside as a good deal of red tape trash. There is no doubt that the report is disappointing to the people of the country, but it was not an embarrassment to the Government. It was a god-send to the Government just before the Budget time, because the farmers were expecting something definite from the report on de-rating, either full de-rating or at any rate partial de-rating, and they were disappointed. And then when the farmers were in a state of uncertainty and chaos the Government comes in, and the problem that this Commission of supermen failed to solve with their magic wand the Executive Council, which is not composed of supermen but men with feet of clay and faces of brass, found a solution, and the sum of £750,000 was to be given to the farmer as a farmer, and was to be taken back from the farmer as a taxpayer. If the Minister for Finance, in coming to his solution as to how agriculture could be assisted, fell into the error of the British tax-gatherer, and simply giving that relief of £750,000 had to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, it would not be very commendable. But the Minister for Finance is a wiser man than the old British tax-gatherer. He did not rob Peter to pay Paul, but being an erstwhile advocate of the Irish language and a bilingual constitution, instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul he robbed Peter to pay Peadar instead, and so he gave to the farmer as a farmer and took from the farmer as a taxpayer.

He went further. As far as the small farmers are concerned he takes [1150] more back from them in the taxation on sugar alone than he gives in actual relief out of the £750,000. I think Deputy Davin quoted figures to prove this here to-day. The small farmer whose valuation was from £10 downwards comprises the big majority of the people working in this country. They will only get on an average from 10/- to 14/- relief in taxation out of this grant. And the same small farmer, with an average of from five to seven members in his household, will pay in sugar taxation an average of from 11/- to 16/- I have given a margin of from 10/- to 14/- in the relief that the small farmer will get, and from 11/- to 16/- in what he will have to pay in sugar. I have left the margin so wide because I think it is the fairest way to put it. There is one very definite thing, anyway, and that is, that the small farmer with a household of from five to seven members will pay actually more in sugar taxation than he will get in relief of rates.

On the question of the sugar taxation, of course, it was interesting to know what was the President's point of view on that matter. On Friday, in his little trashy speech, he attempted to tell us why the sugar taxation was imposed. His excuse was that even with the halfpenny per lb. addition sugar would be still cheaper than it was two years ago. That was rather an illuminating point of view from the President. If that is to be followed out to its logical conclusion such articles of food as are necessary for the poorer people to use should be kept up on as high a level as they were years ago by extra taxation. That would justify putting a tax on every other commodity of life which is reduced in price owing to production and would justify it being kept at a higher figure by taxation. Even with the tax sugar is still going to be cheaper than it was two years ago, and that satisfies the President.

He did not make any mention of the fact that the income tax is 1/6 lower to-day than it was a few years ago, and that not due to any world conditions either but due to the action of the President and the members of the Executive Council. They deliberately reduced [1151] the income tax by 1/6 in the £ lower than it was a few years ago, and they deliberately increased the price of sugar to the poor simply because world conditions have favoured them to the extent that sugar was coming down. Why not if he makes that argument about sugar make it also about the income tax? If he talks about sugar being still cheaper to the poor than it was two years ago he should take into account the fact that the rates in the County Mayo, even under the administration of the super Commissioner whom they have sent down to administer the affairs of the county, have increased by 3/11 for the past three years. And part of that increase, amounting to 8d. in the £, was imposed by the Commissioner sent down by the President. I would like the President of the Executive Council, when he comes to make his trashy little statement in the House for the purpose of rallying the weak members of his own Party, that he should consider other parts of the country beside the income tax payers in Dublin.

In the County Mayo under the Government scheme 13,364 holdings not exceeding £4 valuation will receive an aggregate share of the grant amounting to £7,100, which works out at 10/7 per holding. 7,639 holdings of a valuation exceeding £4 and not exceeding £7 will receive in the aggregate £8,800 or £1 3s. 0d. per holding. As against these two figures 12 landowners with holdings the valuation of which exceeds £300 will receive between them £1,310 or £109 3s. 4d. each; and 28 landowners with holdings exceeding £200 and not exceeding £300 in valuation will receive £1,420 or £50 14s. 0d. each. The average area of the small holdings in Mayo which do not exceed £4 in valuation works out at just over 15 acres, while the average area of the holdings between £4 and £7 valuation is about 24 acres.

The method in which he takes money out of one pocket of the farmer in order to put it into another by imposing a tax on sugar, is deplorable. [1152] There is also the very unfair method of distribution. The farmer who is worse off, who has to keep a large family, such as the small farmer in Mayo, and who is hardest hit by emigration being stopped is the man who is hardest hit by extra taxation. He has to cater for his family despite the obstacles put up by the Government, while the big farmer, who is not hit by the stoppage of emigration and who, as a rule, has a small family, is facilitated by the Minister in his Budget.

You have the very questionable attitude of the Minister in remitting the tax on betting. I would not mind the tax on racecourses being abolished, provided it would be some definite good for horse-breeding, but on the Minister's own admission it is going to do no good whatever to the horse trade or to the race meetings in this country. The Minister in his statement dealing with the remission of the betting tax, said: “I am quite satisfied that the tax did not do any serious direct injury to Irish racing, and that in itself it had only an inconsiderable psychological effect.” Those are the Minister's own words. If it is not going to do any injury to horse racing why this remission of tax amounting to £25,000? If any other members of the community came to the Minister and put up arguments about a certain tax being remitted, and if the Minister thought it was of no use, does anyone think he would remit it? There is something sinister behind the Minister's attitude in this matter. It is not that I object to the remission of this tax, if I thought it would do any good to horse breeding in this country, but the Minister says it will not. It is quite all right to give relief to the farming community, and it is quite all right to put on extra taxes, but we find that for this £750,000 which is to be given to the farmers, the farmers have got to pay an additional price. It is rather interesting from a Government point of view that when they want £300,000 extra in order to give this £750,000 to the farmers they must immediately go and tax the commodity which the poor use, sugar. They could not provide the money except by extra taxation. [1153] But we find that the Government, in the last financial year, provided £216,000 for army officers in gratuities and salaries without extra taxation. Not alone that, but they provided £216,000 for army officers without coming to this House at all for the money. Now they have immediately to go and tax the farmers' breakfast table to provide £300,000.

Here is an interesting sidelight on the policy of Cumann na nGaedheal. Not alone are they taxing the farmer for the relief they are giving him, but the farmer has to sacrifice his local authority. Whatever little power the farmers or the agricultural community had in local councils, they have got to give up those powers. Those councils have got to be scrapped. They have to pay this as an additional price for the relief of the agricultural community. It was no surprise to us that the Government policy was to quench out the local authorities and prevent their having any voice in the taxation of this State or in running this country economically. The Minister for Local Government has been doing that quite successfully for a long time, but not as successfully as the Government would wish. He was leaving a bad odour behind him. Now the Minister for Finance is going to quench out those local authorities and throw in at the same time the bribe of a little relief in rates. I do not believe the country will accept that. Members of this Party are not going to allow the Minister to pass off the bribe in that way. If local authorities are going to be abolished, if whatever little power farmers have is to be taken from them, it is not going to be taken without every possible opposition we can give in this House.

There was one undignified remark in the Minister for Finance's statement. He referred to members of the local bodies as a pack of wind-bags. It is quite all right for the Minister for Finance to say that. If he were a wise man he would realise that some of those whom he calls “windbags” have come into his own Party from local bodies. He would look at Deputy Sheehy, one of the local wind-bags down in Cork, and he would look at Deputy Davis, the ex-chairman [1154] of the Mayo County Council, who has come into his Party and is chairman of it. I do not like those slighting remarks about wind-bags on country councils. The members of the county councils might have their faults, but they have worked very hard and unselfishly. They have worked without remuneration. There was a time when the Minister for Finance and his Party depended very much on the wind-bags of the local councils. It is adding insult to injury now to address them as a pack of wind-bags. I think the Minister, in his closing statement, would be doing good to himself, his Party, and the country as a whole if he withdrew that statement.

Of course we are asked to pay a tribute to the Minister for Finance because of the wonderful work done in balancing the Budget. The President in his closing statement on Friday and again to-day paid that tribute and said that all of us, apart from politics, should be all good sheep for one day and go down on our knees to the Minister. On Friday he said “I should like to say, however, before closing now that Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Anthony and Deputy Nolan all paid a well-deserved tribute to the Minister for Finance in connection with his long and favourable record as Minister for Finance. Deputy Redmond was the first to notice it and he has perhaps this advantage over Deputies opposite that he has had experience of two representative institutions.” As to Deputy O'Connell's, Deputy Anthony's or Deputy Nolan's opinion of Mr. Blythe we do not mind. As to Deputy Redmond's opinion of Mr. Blythe or the President's opinion of Deputy Redmond we do not mind much either.

There was a time in the recent history of this House when any statement low, mean, or scornful was not bad enough for the President to address to Deputy Redmond. I read in the records of this House certain statements addressed by the President to Deputy Redmond not so many years ago. Evidenty Deputy Redmond has distingushed himself sufficiently of late years to become an object of [1155] the President's admiration. Because of Deputy Redmond's experience in two representative institutions his opinion is to be valued higher than the opinion of any other Deputy. We present the Deputy and his opinions to the President. I must say that the President is very often as much at error in his choice of company as he is mean in his choice of words. Deputy Nolan talked about the President of course and also about the Vice-President, who is Minister for Finance, and stated that if the Budget was introduced in any other Parliament there would be applause from every side of the House. The Deputy remarked that the Minister had balanced his Budget, that there was no deficit, and that the country was not bankrupt. Might I ask what did Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies expect?

Have the members on the Front Benches and the Minister for Finance been taking these Deputies into their counsels during the past year, telling them that the country is going bankrupt, and that we were “down and out,” or was it that Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies were realising that since the Government took office they have succeeded in piling up a debt of two millions every year? Is that what was troubling Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies? Were they troubled because the Government, since they came into office, have handed over to England, in round figures, £40,000,000, or were they perturbed that that could not go on or that the country would go bankrupt? Were these the worries that so troubled Deputy Nolan and other Deputies that they were terribly surprised to find that the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, has shown that the State is not yet gone bankrupt? While our opinion of the Minister for Finance is not a good one, we realise that the country is not gone bankrupt, and that it is quite possible to introduce a Budget which is, to a certain extent, a balanced Budget, we realise that despite the financial bungling of [1156] the Minister for Finance the farmers through all these years have worked hard and have paid up.

If this country is not bankrupt, if the Budget is balanced, and if our credit is good at home and abroad, that is due to the men who carried the burden of taxation, the farmers, the workers and the income tax payers, and it is not due to the Minister for Finance or to the policy of the Government. This country could not go bankrupt while there is in it such an industrious community. The country could only go bankrupt if the farmers refused to do what the Minister for Agriculture asked them to do, to tighten their belts. They tightened their belts and paid up every penny demanded of them. The income tax producers also paid up when the thumb-screw was put on. For those reasons the country did not go bankrupt. We pay no tribute to the Minister for Finance, but we pay tribute to the workers, the farmers and others. We should not pay tributes to those who do not deserve them and neglect those who do. I think Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches should not be carried away with this Budget. They know as well as I do that whatever taxation is imposed, in the long run, is going to fall on the community as a whole.

One other matter might be worthy of mention. In last year's Budget the Minister enforced a tax of £10 on travelling shops. There was a clamour amongst residents of towns a few years ago about this matter, and the Minister for Finance was urged to tax these travelling shops out of existence. As a result of that clamour a tax of £10 was imposed. During the past year there are a greater number of travelling shops than ever on the road. That has proved that the people who carry on these travelling shops are making them pay despite the tax. The amount of the tax is thus passed on to the consumer. The Minister should take some cognisance of that. It is the breakfast table of the poorest that is being taxed. If the Minister wants [1157] to collect an easy tax it is all right to continue the present arrangement, but if he wants to take the extra burden off the poor he should either increase the £10 tax to an amount that will put these shops out of existence or remit it altogether. The consumer is paying the present tax of £10, and that is an unfair burden. There has been general disappointment at the Budget, and nothing that the President, or even Deputy J.J. Byrne can say in its favour is going to fool the people.

Mr. Byrne: I wonder if there was ever such a scurrilous speech made in this House as the one that has been made by the Deputy who has just sat down? The Deputy adopted the unprecedented method of singling out particular Deputies, mentioning them by name and terming them windbags.

Mr. Clery: On a point of personal explanation. I quoted the Minister for Finance, who described members of local bodies as windbags, and I instanced members of local bodies on the opposite benches, and asked if the Minister specially referred to them. I did not call Deputies windbags, but if I had accidentally thought of the Deputy who has just spoken I might have done so.

Mr. Byrne: My opinion of the Deputy is not very high. He is an inexperienced man, and he is presuming on his inexperience. He has presumed to attack men in this House who are old enough to be his father, and who were in politics before he was born. These attacks will only react on the Party sitting on the opposite benches. Speaking on behalf of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, we have the greatest respect for the Chairman of our Party, Deputy Davis, and for the father of the House, Deputy T. Sheehy. Anyone who listened to the speech of Deputy Clery could only come to one conclusion, that if there was an authority in the House on what constituted a windbag that authority rested in the person of Deputy Clery.

Deputy Clery told us here about the dead-weight debt of the country. He told us about it being £15,000,000. He did not tell the House what caused [1158] that dead-weight debt. He did not refer to the statement that the President made in his opening speech today when he dealt with the abnormal items in the Budget. Will the Deputy deny that there would be no dead-weight debt only for the action of the Party to which he belongs? They were responsible for £35,000,000 of a dead-weight debt. That dead-weight debt is due to no other cause whatever but to the action of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Clery: Will the Deputy say where he got his figures?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Byrne should be allowed to make his speech. Deputy Clery was not interrupted.

Mr. Byrne: I listened to the Deputy without a single interruption, but when he is touched on the raw himself he cannot bear to listen to the facts. We all know what Deputy Clery is. He is one of the most scurrilous members of this House, and he is the most scurrilous Deputy on any public platform. He is a man who is no acquisition whatever to his Party nor to the country. Was there ever such nonsense uttered in the House as the nonsense to which we have just listened from Deputy Clery? The Deputy told us that the Government was giving a grant of £750,000 to the farmers in relief of rates, but that they were taking it all back again by way of an indirect tax. To quote his own words, “It is quite all right for the Government to give £750,000 in relief of the farmers and for the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to take it away again by way of taxation.” The Deputy belongs, I understand, to the teaching profession, but I never knew of a boy at school who would say that deducting £265,000 from a grant of £750,000 given by the Government wiped out the £750,000 grant. Why will not the man talk common sense? We are here to listen to commonsense and to talk commonsense and not nonsense. That is what Deputy Clery has been talking for the past half-hour, and we on these benches were sick and weary sitting listening to him talking nonsense.

[1159] Mr. Jordan: The same here.

Mr. Byrne: He told us that the Minister for Finance could provide £260,000 for removing Army officers last year. He did not tell the House that the provision of that money saved the taxpayers thousands of pounds. Why does not the Deputy look into facts as they exist? If that is the sort of tripe that he talks to his constituents I hope we will not have his presence here in the next Dáil.

Dr. Ryan: Deputy Byrne will not be here to listen to him.

Mr. Byrne: We, representing city constituencies, are beginning to get tired of hearing this doleful story that we hear so often about the farmers. Is there any nation in the world that has done more for the farming community than the Government Party in this House? Does Deputy Clery realise what the Government Party have done for the farmers?

Mr. Allen: The Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. Byrne: Yes, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party has done it. I do not want you to accept me as an authority on the question. I will quote an authority that will be accepted by this House, despite the jeers of the Party on the opposite benches. In the second interim report of the Banking Commission here is the statement that was made as to what had been done for the farmers in this country: “In our opinion no country in the world, so far as we are aware, has made better provision for the farming community than the Government in the matter of direct assistance and indirect assistance to agriculture.” That is a statement made by an authority that this House will accept before the authority of the Deputy who has just sat down. If the Deputy looks at the Estimates for the coming year he will see what is revealed there. I represent a city constituency, and I am aware that the Vote for Industry and Commerce in this year is £110,000. That is the Vote [1160] which is dealing with matters which give employment to over 15,000 hands extra in the last few years. What is being given to the agricultural community in the Estimates for this year? Over one-sixth of the available income of this State has gone to the relief of agriculture. Here are the figures. Annual grants: £1,364,000 to the farming community; beet sugar subsidy, £162,000; forestry, £69,000; Land Commission, £697,000; Department of Agriculture, £596,000—making a grand total of £2,888,000 for the farming community in this country. In addition to this £2,888,000 the Government are finding £750,000 this year in relief of rates, so that in this year the Government are finding the sum of £3,638,000 for relief for agriculture for the farming community.

We have been told that the farming community are the largest contributors to taxes in this State; that they form 60 per cent. of the population of the country. What, in fact, are the returns received from the agricultural community by way of taxation? It may be news to Deputy Clery, who spilled this long, doleful story, this pitiful story, that the farmers contributed £8,000,000 and the rest of the community contributed the balance to the Exchequer. This 60 per cent. of the population got by way of return practically £15,000,000.

Speaking as one who represents the City of Dublin, I stand wholly behind the Government on this Vote. We in the cities and towns know very well the value of farming to this country. We know very well that if the agricultural community goes down the rest of the country goes down with it, but we in the cities get tired of listening to the long story that is being daily pitched by the Fianna Fáil Party. We are tired listening to their story, and especially from the particular point of view as to the distribution of the money that has been granted. The Government have taken two methods of distributing this grant; 50 per cent. in the usual way and 50 per cent. on the basis of population. I see men on the benches behind Deputy Clery who represent the agricultural community, men who know more [1161] about this question than he does, and these men really appreciate what the Government has done in passing this Vote. If Deputy Clery were honest enough to admit the fact, he knows very well that any inequality in the distribution of this money that may arise is due entirely to the basis of taxation as it exists, and no matter what Party deals with de-rating, inequalities of distribution are bound to arise.

We had a clear instance of this amongst the business community in Dublin. When we required money to forward the interests of the city the money was raised upon the rateable valuation of the business men, and every man had to contribute according to the basis of his valuation. Some had contributed £50, and others £1. What is the real logical basis upon which this money can be paid? The amount of rates for which a man is liable. I suppose Deputy Clery would want to come down to the man with the £7 15s. valuation and say to him: “We will give you £20,” because there are people receiving £20 whose valuation is greater. The Deputy referred to various places in the country an