The country generally will be rather surprised at the introduction of this Supplementary Budget. The surprise will probably grow according as the Minister's statement, which he has just read, is perused throughout the country. The Budget of this year proposed to raise more money than had ever been collected in revenue in this country since the State was established. The Minister's case in respect of the introduction of this Budget is that of a contraction in revenue under various heads, and he proceeds then to make up for the shortage by imposing various additional taxes upon the country. Bearing in mind the Budget of this year and its general framework, and the statement that the Minister has made here this evening, it does not appear to me possible to take any other attitude in connection with this measure than to vote against it from beginning to end. Parts of the Minister's speech would appear to contradict other parts. On the occasion of the introduction of the Budget this year in May last, I pointed out on more than one occasion some 20 or 25 separate services of the State the estimates for which in the current year exceeded by over £1,000,000 what they were in 1931-32, starting with the office of the Prime Minister himself; and not one of the services that I mentioned had anything to do with the social services.
There is no other view to take than that the Government "squandermania" of May last has been still further enhanced during the succeeding six or seven months. The difficulties of the period through which we are passing— which should in the normal course have brought them down to earth—have, instead of that, made them still more extravagant. Perhaps the most unsatisfactory feature of this Budget statement—which has been read by the Minister—is that portion of it in which he refers to the Economy Committee. One would have imagined that, in a case of this sort, a very much more exhaustive examination would have been made of the whole of the State services and a really constructive effort would have been made to decrease in some way or other the charges which fall to be met by taxation or other means.
On page 10 he says: "These are the factors"—mentioning projects involving expenditure, being deferred until better times, and so on—"forming the background of the interim reports already submitted. They deal with Land Commission expenditure, unemployment assistance, employment schemes, housing expenditure and draws on the Local Loans Fund for a variety of services." Apparently, having advised everybody in the country to continue employment as far as they possibly could, to disemploy no one unless it were impossible to do otherwise, here are the various sources which are examined in order to make economies in services in which employment is afforded. The 20 separate services that I have mentioned, the estimated cost of which is £1,000,000 over what they were ten years ago, are the services which should have been examined with minute care. If we take just one other: quite recently here there has been an addition to the ranks of the Gárda Síochána; there has been no outbreak of disorder in any part of the country, no special circumstance necessitating the employment of extra men, yet that particular service is going to cost us £60,000 this year and £120,000 in a full year, over and above the normal expenditure under this head.
This economic examination does not bear on its face evidence of good faith, and these are not times when the public should be served except in the very best way possible. One is rather inclined—and it may be due to the disappointment and the disgust which arises from the presentation of such a statement as this, and the miserable efforts which have been made to deal with a situation which ought to be tackled in a much more statesmanlike manner—to look back and examine how was it that a change of Government took place in this country. Were there not years and years spent by Deputies opposite in telling the people that the country could be run much more cheaply than it was being run, that we were living on an imperial scale and that the costs of government were far beyond the resources of the people? What do we find? Either those statements were made through absolute ignorance—and I hope they were—or they were made by people standing upon political dishonesty. I would much prefer that they were made through ignorance, but whether they were made through ignorance or through dishonesty, the fact is that the statements made had not a shred of evidence to support them. In every year that they have been charged with government, the expenses and cost of government have increased. What is the situation with regard to the ability of people to bear these increased costs? In Appendix No. 10, I think, of the Banking Commission Report, furnished by Professor Duncan, he estimates the income of this country over a series of years and, in 1929, he estimated the income at £160,000,000. It has not reached that figure since in any year, and the costs of government in 1929 were very different from what they are in 1939, or in any of the years since 1932.
In the course of this statement the Minister says that they are going to take drastic steps to deal with those who, by reason of additional charges such as are imposed in this Budget, will be looking for either extra profits or extra wages. What exactly is meant by that? If a man has a salary of £100 a year, and, by reason of the imposition of such a Budget as we have here, it is going to cost him £2 or £3 a year more, is he not entitled to say: "The salary or the wages I have are unequal to the cost of living"? If the business man who just barely manages to get enough to live on, to pay all his expenses and to keep employed those persons who are engaged in the business, finds, by reason of this Budget, that he is short at the end of the year, in balancing his accounts, is the Minister's advice to him to follow the Government's policy, to go into debt and to borrow, or is that man going to raise the price of goods in order to meet the costs incidental to the overhead charges of his business? If a man has a very considerable income, as some people have in this country, and if he finds that, by reason of the Budget, he is not able to maintain on his establishment those who are at present employed, is the Minister going to tell him: "Do what the Government does, and borrow"? What would be the end of all that? If we go further into it, and see what has been the policy adopted here for the last three years, at any rate, of unbalanced Budgets, what would be the answer of any lender to a borrower who has not paid his way when he comes to look for money, no matter how rich he is? Is not the only answer that his credit is not good?
No serious attempt has been made here to ease the burden falling upon industry and agriculture, and upon every section of the community. There is one thing about this Budget, and it is that it is a satisfactory Budget for the teetotallers, for the non-smokers, for those who have no income-tax to pay and for those who do not use sugar, and I presume we have specimens of such ascetics in this country. They will not have to pay. If, by reason of the addition to the beer tax, consumption is going to dry up, if, by reason of the addition to the whiskey tax, consumption is going to dry up, is there not a danger that you are going to destroy a potential tax? Looking over the events of the last 15 years, one is rather surprised at the reduction which has taken place in the revenue derived from taxation from beer and spirits—if my recollection is correct it is down by £3,000,000 or £4,000,000—and in that case the day upon which the teetotaller may expect to bear some of the burden of the extravagance of this Government is probably at hand.
This is a time of national emergency, and, looking through this statement, one would imagine that the States which are neutral have a much more difficult role to play than belligerent States, that nothing is more difficult than neutrality and that belligerency is a sort of amusement compared with it. The stability of the State is just as important to this country as, if not more than, its neutrality, and if we are not able to carry on our business, to give employment to our people, to secure for them that employment which is their due, and to which they are entitled, we may talk as we wish about nationality, patriotism, neutrality, or any other of those things. We have increased, to an unusual extent, the cost of our defence proposals. One is rather surprised on reading this statement to note the Minister's statement, qualified, as nearly every statement made by a Minister is qualified, by another statement, as to the cost of the Army being very considerable. The Minister said:—
"Thus we have been obliged to place under arms a much stronger and better equipped force than the country would need in normal times; we have established a censorship for overseas correspondence; we have set up a coast watching service, and we have entered into considerable commitments in respect of air raid precautions."
I wonder in connection with, say one of the four services mentioned whether the costs of censorship are so large as to warrant their inclusion in a statement of this kind, or are they far beyond what anyone of us ever contemplated. Do they not amount to £100,000? The Minister went on:
"The Government fully realises that a State with our small population and limited resources could not successfully maintain the inviolability of its soil against attack by a great power armed with all the weapons of modern warfare. But we can make, and we are bound to make, such preparations as would convince a potential aggressor that the military and political cost of overcoming our resistance would be greater than it would be wise to incur."
That means that our propaganda must be of a much higher power than our gunnery. I should like to know what set of belligerents anyone could convince by arguments in this business of a war.
Later in this statement, we find that we are now paying more for our equipment than if it had been bought earlier. In what respect do we find any evidence of the competency of the Government in the present crisis? In the first place, there appears to be a policy of "hush-hush" with regard to matters generally. Secondly, the people are being led to believe that there is nothing more difficult than to observe neutrality and that we should be prepared to spend every penny we have to maintain it. Thirdly, we are told that we must increase our armed forces while the Government have not taken the steps necessary to equip them. We are told that they are buying now at the highest prices instead of at the lowest. Are we so wealthy that we can afford that? That is on the general question.
Let me come down now to the details in regard to the sugar question. Sugar is to be taxed at the rate of 7/- per cwt., or ¾d. per lb. In the whole list of matters which have occasioned public discussion, nothing possibly has given greater dissatisfaction to the people than this question of sugar. We were told that there was plenty of sugar in the country. Was there? If there was, there is more than 7/- per cwt. being placed in the way of taxation on the people. What did the sugar that the Sugar Company have got cost? Did they pay 8/- per cwt.? Did they pay 15/-? They did not, or anything like it.
