The Minister, in the course of his statements, gave voice to many pious expressions. We would be inclined to give very much more credit to the sincerity behind them if, on examination of the financial policy pursued by the Government for some years past, we could see that, occasionally, there was a balanced Budget. We would have to go back a great many years to find a balanced Budget. The Minister's predecessor, two or three years ago, claimed that he had balanced one of his last Budgets, but on an examination of the dead-weight debt, and of the figures which the Minister presented to the House, it was quite clear that his Budget was not balanced.
The principal, the distinguishing, characteristic of this Budget is, of course, its size, and, also, the deficiency which the Minister admits is practically £4,000,000. When we examine the other side, and see the various deductions that are being made in respect of capital expenditure to be defrayed by borrowing, one can see that this figure can go up to almost £5,000,000. In my opinion, it would be better if an honest presentation were made: if it were honestly admitted that this Budget is unbalanced to the extent of £5,000,000. The principal consideration, not only for this House but for the country, is the very large sum of money that is being taken from the taxpayer during the current year. Although certain firms may have made excess profits, there are few people who will say that the national income has increased during the last 12 months. The country had a fairly level, an almost fixed, amount of income over a number of years, but during the period of the economic war it diminished very considerably, by some £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 a year. The Government propose, under this Budget, to extract from the pockets of the people, as well as from the rates collected by the local authorities, more than one-quarter of what the people earn. When the Government take up the line that people must behave themselves with regard to their demands and must be satisfied to receive less money than, perhaps, they would otherwise be entitled to claim, they ought to examine their own conduct of affairs, and see if they have been extravagant. Are the Government the only people in the country permitted to be extravagant? If we here take steps to ensure that people will pay their debts, are the Government to be the one exception to that? Are they not to pay their debts, but simply to go on adding to their liabilities, leaving for their successors a huge load of dead-weight debt?
In the last page of his statement the Minister, in a reference to the conclusion of the war, said he looked towards the day when the present heavy burden "can be lightened with advantage to the permanent well-being of the nation". Surely the Minister must have been serious when he made himself responsible for that statement, but how is he going to carry it out? In what way is the burden going to be lightened? It would be possible to lighten it if we could increase the productivity of the country, enhance its wealth and increase the number of taxpayers who would be in a position to bear it without it being unduly burdensome. Is that the prospect, or is it the prospect that expenditure will be decreased? So far as the Budget or any of its predecessors for the last seven or eight years is concerned, no such policy has been indicated, and no attempt has been made during those seven or eight years to encourage an increase in production in the country.
Occasionally during the course of the statement reference was made to the difficulties of the present situation. Most of those difficulties are directly due to the mishandling by the Government of its responsibilities. During the last couple of months we heard here that, when the situation of December, 1938, came under their notice the Government immediately took steps to increase stocks and to buy more goods. Where are they? When were they purchased? Not in 1938, not in 1939, not in 1940. If they had been, they would have appeared in the totals of our imports. Imports show a figure something like £44,000,000 for 1937; £44,108,000 for 1938, when we were told that they started to buy in goods for the difficult times ahead; and in 1939, in which there were four months of war, we bought £43,414,000 worth of goods. In 1940 the amount was £46,000,000, but it should be remembered that in 1940 there had been a very steep increase in the cost price of the imported goods. What is the use of telling the people of this country that steps were taken to deal with the situation and in saying now that they were powerless to do anything in the exceptional and difficult circumstances with which they were faced? Where is the tea we were told was brought in and stored in 1938? Where is the petrol, the wheat, the coal and the other items?
A very similar state of affairs is presented in connection with the terrible affliction of the foot-and-mouth disease. Its spread was really traceable to the inefficiency and incompetence of the Ministry. One single case of infection came in and spread throughout the country almost like wildfire. The cost is enormous but, perhaps, the lowest part of it is that which the Minister for Finance will have to pay. That cost is due entirely to the inefficiency, the incapacity and —one might almost say—the uselessness of the Minister responsible and of the Ministry.
If the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the future are to be put in a position to bear this burden more easily, this Budget and its predecessors give no promise as to how it is to be done. It is proposed to make certain additional allowances to recipients of unemployment assistance, to old age pensioners and so on, which will amount to about £524,000. If I gather correctly from the statement of the Minister, it is proposed to meet this particular additional service by paying traders and that recipients will get either milk or bread or rations of some sort or another. I suggest for the Minister's consideration that this allowance should be made in cash. Not alone will there be high administrative cost in connection with the working of this scheme, but there will be dissatisfaction. It has always been the desire of people who are assisted that they should get money and not goods. It would be cheaper in administration cost and would be more satisfactory to them.
One of the items which is included in expenditure to be defrayed by borrowing is afforestation. We will take that as a case in point. Last year the Minister borrowed, I think, £58,000 in respect of afforestation. The explanation given in respect of £45,000 of that was that it was land purchased during the year. In the previous year £156,000 had been spent on that service and no money was borrowed. Surely there should be some standard of expense and no sum should be borrowed unless the expenditure is in excess of that amount? There does not seem to be anything in the nature of continuous practice in connection with this matter. It is a small point, but it is disturbing. The same thing applies to unemployment schemes. If these unemployment schemes were in respect of a full week's wages and a few weeks' continuous wages in addition, we might expect to have some asset when the work had been done, but in this present form of distribution of the money it is doubtful if they will be an asset at all. In any case this Estimate is down something like £400,000 upon last year's provision for the same service. According to the information that we have had from one Minister, there are something like 15,000 persons less registered in national health insurance this year than last year. That would seem to indicate that there would be more unemployment this year and, if that were so, the Government seems to make provision for it by less unemployment relief schemes.
The last item to which I propose to refer is the Army Estimate. The Minister appeared to be very concerned in that connection. It amounts to over £8,000,000. He said:
"If their defences in the field are as strong as their defender in the Council Chamber, our soldiers need fear no foe. All my attacks were repulsed. I suppose I am revealing no secrets when I say that not even was succour forthcoming on my side from the Council of Defence."
It is the first time I heard that the Minister approached the Council of Defence in connection with this matter. I was unaware of it. I should have been glad to afford him every assistance in my power if he had made such application. In my view, that Estimate of £8,000,000 should be reduced by over £3,000,000, as it contains a negligible amount for the most important item in the Estimate. It would not balance the Budget, even if that were done, but if that were done and if it were a headline for the other services in the whole Book of Estimates it would be possible not only to bring the Estimate within the balancing period, but even to allow for a reduction in the enormous impost the Minister has found necessary this year.
Finally, there is a proposal in this series of Resolutions to bring down the excess profits tax in the charging period from £5,000 to £1,000. It may be that some firms making a profit of £1,000 have two, three or four partners. In a case of that sort if a new imposition were to be placed upon a small firm it would be unfair. In imposing additional taxation we should endeavour to ensure that no unusual hardship will be placed on anybody. Certainly in the case of limited liability companies with two, three or four partners earning only £1,000 it does appear to be a rather unusual imposition to charge them extra taxation. I do not know of any nor has any been brought to my notice. If the Minister in the course of his statement says he is not bound to follow orthodox methods, that is one of the difficulties of those of us who are examining Government policy that they are neither orthodox nor unorthodox. When they are orthodox they are moving towards inflation. When anybody else suggests inflation they say they are not orthodox but must follow orthodox methods. Nobody knows what the Government policy is in regard to finance. All we know is they are not paying their way; they are not trying to do it. They ought to do it. If they were honest men they certainly would try to do it.
