The statement just read by the Minister is divided into two parts and, so far, I have been unable to disentangle them sufficiently to be in a position to say which of the two was the more remarkable, the Budget question or the political question. I have a very strong suspicion that the political question was the one that was dominant throughout the whole of the Minister's statement. We had a résumé of the case for the retention of the land annuities and we had a reference to what was called the Secret Agreement. I have already stated in this House and out through the country that anything which affected this country in connection with that agreement was stated quite publicly in the Dáil. The Dáil knew what it was doing. If it did not know, it was told, and it was only a person of remarkable stupidity who would be unable to appreciate what was contained in that agreement or in what way it affected the country.
We are told now we have got rid of a debt of something like £92,000,000. The State has got rid of it; that is quite true. The State has got rid of it, but, like all people who act in a questionable manner in a case of that kind, it has put it over on the shoulders of somebody else. The people have not got rid of it; the people are paying it and the goods of this country are taxed in order to ensure that the people of the country pay it. When you are setting out a balance sheet such as the Minister attempts in connection with one portion of his speech, showing that the State has escaped a liability of £92,000,000, there should be put down on the other side what somebody else has to shoulder in connection with the State's escape from its liability. As we are talking about secret agreements, perhaps the Ministry would give us some information as to any negotiations they have had during the last two years in connection with the settlement of this matter.
Dealing with the subject-matter before us, one or two things stand out prominently. The first is the size of this Budget. It is the largest we have had yet. The Estimates of receipts and expenditure for the last two years have not been very close approximations of the results. We have received, according to the Minister, much more money than was anticipated. He spent much less than he estimated. According to the White Paper, we have not spent within £1,750,000 of the sum which was asked by the Government and voted by the House. The net result of the whole thing is that we are presented by the Minister with new imposts amounting to £200,000 and a remission of £562,000. The net result of that is that the taxpayer is better off after this remarkable year to the extent of about £360,000. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct me on those figures.
One or two things stand out in connection with the Budget as it is before us and last year's Budget. We were told by the Minister last year that he proposed to borrow half the cost of the bounties, which were estimated at a sum of £2,450,000. They cost £1,812,000. In the course of the Budget he said it was not necessary to borrow in connection with them. He now proposes to borrow three-quarters of the £2,450,000. He is going to borrow £1,500,000. It looks as if that particular finance in connection with the funded arrears is most haphazard. The Government does not owe the money, but it imposes the debt on the Land Commission annuitants throughout the country. It then proceeds to provide bounties and subsidies for agricultural produce. Having provided them, it borrows money on the strength of the debt it has imposed on the land annuitants and we are all happy afterwards. It was not necessary last year, but it is necessary this year.
During the few years the Minister was in Opposition he criticised his predecessor in office for certain deductions that he made for non-spending in respect of estimated expenditure. The Minister usually deducted the sum of £600,000 which he anticipated would not be spent. Last year in a fit of piety the Minister exclaimed: "I will not follow that bad example in respect of this expenditure; I will reduce it by half." He took off £338,000—a rate of 1½ per cent. This year a larger sum is required and he arbitrarily fixes 4 per cent. Having regard to the overestimation of last year, if the same policy be adopted this year that amount is not an overestimate.
Now we come to consider how it was the Budget of last year was so satisfactory from the Minister's point of view. There was £450,000 included last year for unemployment insurance and it was not spent. There was £200,000 for relief schemes and it was not spent and there was £638,000 for bounties and subsidies which the Minister did not spend. These are very considerable sums. This year we have a whole accumulation of figures running into hundreds of thousands. Is it intended to spend them?
Last year, when they were introducing the Unemployment Insurance Bill, it was to function in the earlier part of the year. It came in about the 1st January. As a matter of fact, it did not come into operation until very late in April, and in some places it may not have commenced to operate yet. In one case to-day, in answer to a member from Cork, where, owing to the delay the Cork local authorities had to provide the money for the relief of unemployment, the Minister had no funds at his disposal to provide for a refund of that money. It is not much use in providing Estimates here which people do not intend to spend. It is not fair to taxpayers if it is not intended to spend the money derived from such taxation, and from the Minister's happy statement in connection with last year's results, to give relief to the extent of £562,000 while imposing about £200,000. That does not bear out all the magnificent things he told us about.
The Minister had one note running all through his speech, and I should advise him to get rid of it. It betrays an inferiority complex. With regard to everything he does, he is like the schoolboy explaining to the schoolmaster that "somebody else did it before I came in this morning." The Minister should get rid of that. As I say, it is an inferiority complex. He should get rid of that schoolboy attitude and grow up and face his duties like a man. Let him stand for whatever he is doing, and when he is examining others and finding out what they did before they came into office, let him take the whole of the circumstances into account. The Minister will recollect that he entered into possession of a considerable sum for land annuities. He does not mention it. He entered into possession of a considerable sum of money in the Exchequer. He does not mention it. He also entered into possession of Estimates which taxed the country £2,000,000 for pensions and so on. He uses that for his own purposes. If anybody uses other people's money they can afford to appear to be very princely in their spending, but I should not advise the Minister to practise that principle in private life.
The Budget, in my opinion, is too big. It is putting too great a cost on the community. The present condition of our main industry in this country does not warrant and will not be able to bear such heavy expenditure, and I think that some consideration, some extra consideration, ought to have been given to the needs and requirements of that main industry. Even if the Minister was only able to spend £1,812,000 last year on subsidies and bounties—if he considers that they are the best way to help the situation— does he really mean to spend £2,225,000 this year, or is it simply an inducement to the farmers to smile on this Budget? The Minister would be well advised, before he again concerns himself with a balance sheet, to take into account all the capital items that were liquidated by his predecessors, and the capital liabilities that were left behind, and he should remember that many of these capital liabilities might not have been laid upon the shoulders of this country if it were not for the Minister's comrades. He should remember that.
