When I was listening to some of the speeches on the opposite benches an Irish phrase kept recurring constantly to my mind—"Sás a dheanta a chuimhneoch air"—which simply means that it is one who is a good hand at doing it who will think of it. It has been suggested that the purpose of postponing the election until the Budget could be introduced is in order that a false Budget might be introduced. It comes very badly indeed from the people on the opposite side to talk about that— or perhaps I should say it comes very well from them to talk about that, because in 1951 when they went to the country to avoid defeat here they introduced a Budget which was a false Budget, which did not make provision for millions of pounds of expenditure which it was easy to see would have to be incurred in accordance with their commitments.
I assure the House that we have no intention of doing anything of the kind. We believe that in politics as in other things honesty pays best, and the Budget which we will introduce will be a Budget designed, as all our Budgets up to the present have been designed, to meet current expenditure by current revenue—that and nothing more. The suggestion has been made in the past that we have some special delight in imposing taxation which was not necessary. The Leader of the Opposition came in here when the 1952 Budget was being introduced and suggested that we were imposing £10,000,000, if you please, of taxation which was unnecessary. Why any Government, any democratic Government, would seek to do that was not ever indicated, and no reason for that was given. It was simply a statement which was blown to pieces within five minutes after it was made. Nevertheless it formed the basis of a continuous propaganda by Fine Gael and their associates. When the year's accounts were closed last year it was seen that instead of imposing £10,000,000 of unnecessary taxation we had actually a deficit of £2,000,000—in other words that the revenue from taxation did not meet the expenditure. They pretended that by some wave of the wand, by doing some extraordinary thing, some hocus-pocus by means of a double Budget, as they called it, and by means of some schemes which nobody has got a definite example of, the 1952 Budget could have been balanced.
There is one way, and one way only, in which you can reduce taxation if you want to pay your way, and that way is to reduce expenditure. But whenever there is a question of the reduction of expenditure we have Deputies on the opposite benches crying out for more expenditure. We will have the Labour Party calling for more social services. But when there is a question of meeting the bill then they all run away from it and charge the Government with imposing unnecessary taxation.
Coming back to the motion, it is that we should go to the country at once. I examined that and I came to the conclusion that it was only fair to the country that those who had produced and sanctioned the Book of Estimates should show their good faith in regard to this by indicating how the revenue was to be raised. I do not know— nobody can know definitely until the end of the financial year—what the out-turn of the year will be, whether we shall have, as we had in the past, a deficit for the past year, whether we shall make ends meet or whether we shall have a surplus. I think that the chance of a surplus is very slight. I do not know whether ends will be met this year but I do know that next year's Book of Estimates, indicating certain expenditure, will require certain revenue to meet it and it is our duty to show the two sides of the account to the people.
When the Minister for Defence was speaking, he suggested that if we had said we were going to have an immediate election there would have been an outcry from Opposition Deputies. It is the privilege, some would say it is the duty, of an Opposition to oppose. It does not matter what proposition we brought in here, whether it was for an early election, an election before the Budget or an election after the Budget, there would have been reasons put forward by the Opposition to suggest that there was a political trick in it. We would have Deputies, no doubt, suggesting that I was peeved, as some of them have already suggested here, because we were beaten in Cork. I do not want to suggest for one moment that I was not disappointed with the result of the Cork election and that the election in Cork indicated, as other elections have not done, that for the purpose of safe Government here, a Government that would have full authority here in every respect, it would be desirable to go to the country and test public opinion.
In saying that I want to say also that by the Constitution and by the law, the Parliament that assembles here after a general election has a mandate to continue in office until the legal period expires if it wants to. No person is entitled to interpret public opinion. We had as many interpreters as people whose wishes and whose desires were an interpretation of their personal judgment. The position is that when the previous Government came into office we challenged them on the basis that they came into office without telling the people before the 1948 election what they were going to do. We said that a Government was formed which the people had not been expecting, and that no policy had been presented to the people by the Government that took office. They smiled at us and told us: "We are here elected by the people; it is our right to form a Government. We will form that Government and we will continue that Government until we are beaten by a vote in the Dáil." I appreciate the force of that argument.
In regard to by-elections, I do not think that by-elections under our system necessarily represent public opinion over the country as a whole. I do not know yet what real interpretation is to be given to some of the elections, but in any case there is a way— and it is going to be used—in which public opinion can definitely be tested. It is not a question now of saying whether we shall or shall not go to the country. It is the question of the proper time to do it. I have fought many elections, both general elections and by-elections, and I never remember an election being fought just about this time—never. They have taken place either before farming operations began, early in March, or they have been held after the bulk of the ordinary spring operations on the farm have been completed. The only difference there can be between a rushed election and an election at the time which I have proposed, is a matter of some weeks. The country will have to put up for five years with the Government that it gets, if that Government wants to keep in office and has a majority. Therefore, whatever Party or Parties have a majority here in this House after the election will have put into their hands the welfare of the country for five years.
I think it is right that the people should have before them, when they are giving a judgment of such importance for the country, all the facts. If, as Deputies on the other side say, public opinion has changed so much, what are they afraid of? Is it that the people will learn more of the different policies of the various Parties or of the different kinds of Government which might be formed? I believe that every sensible person who wants to form a judgment would like to have the facts before him. Evidently Fine Gael and those on the opposite benches do not want that. They would love to come along and say that we were running away from our obligations, that we were presenting a big bill to the country without giving any indication as to how the bill was going to be met. I think it is right, because we are coming to the end of the financial year, that we should complete the job, present completed accounts to the people, give estimates as far as we are able to arrive at them of expenditure for the coming year and, when we have done that and the figures are before the people, go to the country.
The fact is that the financial year does not end until the 31st March. It takes some time after that to examine the accounts thoroughly and form a proper estimate of the rates or projected rates of taxation and an estimate of the amount of revenue you are likely to receive. That requires a week or two so that the earliest time the Minister for Finance could introduce his Budget would be about the 21st April. Easter Sunday falls on the 18th and the Dáil obviously would not be in session the week before. The experts, whose opinions the Minister would like to have, would require some time to form their opinion on the estimates so that the earliest date at which you could have an election in which the electorate will have the two sides of the account is that which I have suggested.
Our opponents are presenting another side, one side only, to the electorate. I was listening just now to Deputy Kyne speaking about the cutting down of the subsidies in 1952. He did not tell the House that that was done because there was £15,000,000 of a deficit between the expenditure that had to be met and the revenue available to meet it. He did not suggest how that deficit could be met otherwise. We had unfortunately to introduce taxes to the extent of something like £11,000,000 but had we taken away the whole of the subsidies, amounting to £15,000,000, and given no compensatory allowances, we could have bridged the gap. We tried to lighten the burden as much as possible but some part of the burden had to be met. There is no use in the Labour Party or members of the Opposition suggesting that it was not there. It was there; it was a reality that had to be faced. We faced it in the way we have indicated. For this coming year something like £7.7 million will have to be provided for subsidies on bread and flour. Had that £7.7 million not to be provided, the total expenditure would be that number of million pounds less; but it is there and it has to be met. We are subsidising bread at present and the burden of subsidies in our case is relatively as high as in Britain. We hear talk about people not having food. I suppose there are individuals in that position and I am sorry, but the fact is that all the records show that our food prices are fourth lowest in Europe and that we are, in fact, better fed than most nations in the world. There is no use in going round all the time belying the situation, so far as this country is concerned.
Fine Gael and the inter-Party Government claim credit for things that happened about 1951. They have just as much right to claim credit for what happened at that time as they would have to claim credit for the weather. The changes which took place during that time took place as a result of world conditions, conditions which were paralleled in every other country. The Korean war meant that there was activity in every direction from the time it started until it was clear that it was not going to expand into another world war. That danger existed between 1950 and 1951, but the moment that danger disappeared, things began to change and then, instead of the boom for which Fine Gael claim credit—as I say, they had no more control over it and no more to do with it than they had with the weather—the activity of that period changed into inactivity. Manufacturers could not get rid of the goods they had just then manufactured. Raw materials had been bought at high prices and wholesalers, retailers and even private individuals had stocks to meet their needs for the coming year and longer. They had them in stock, and they did not need to buy in the coming year, and therefore, in the coming year, there was a slump which was reflected here, but a slump which was found in practically every other country.
The pretence that in this country things happened that did not happen elsewhere is all nonsense. Every figure proves quite the contrary. It has been suggested that here, and here only, was there a decrease in manufacturing production. That is not the truth. Look up the O.E.E.C. records and you will find that it is not true. You will find that of the 14 countries, including Ireland, which reported, in seven of them there was a decrease in production. It did not take place here alone. There was no over-all increase in the year 1952. As regards unemployment, of 13 countries which reported, unemployment increased in 12, and I tell the Leader of the Opposition, who has been saying the contrary on several occasions, that, in five of these 12, the increases were greater than the increase in Ireland. The same is true with regard to the cost of living. Of 17 countries which reported, only two showed a decrease in the cost of living, so that what happened here in 1952 is something which was paralleled in most of the other countries—a reduction of manufacturing production, an increase of unemployment and an increase in the cost of living.
On this question of the cost of living, the suggestion that it was altogether due to deliberate action on the part of the Government is sheer nonsense. It had begun to increase long before we came into office and the index reached 109 points before we took office. From February of 1951 to last November, it increased by 22 points and, of these 22 points, seven were attributable to the fact that the food subsidies were reduced. No credit appears in these figures in respect of the increase in children's allowances or other compensatory increases given to offset the burden imposed by the reduction of the food subsidies. There is a continuing expenditure of about £3,750,000 due to the fact that there was that offset, but of course you never hear of that expenditure with the money—which offsets and lightens the burden on the weaker sections of the community. You never hear of that and you never hear of the benefits which the expenditure confers.
We cannot have it both ways—even Labour cannot have it both ways. If you want to have social services, if you want to have health services and these other social welfare benefits, you have to pay for them and you have to get the money somewhere. You can, of course, behave as the prodigal and waste your substance and get a lot of people to advise you to do it while you are wasting it, but the day of reckoning comes some time or other. We are not a very wealthy country, but we have certain resources and we can be reasonably comfortable. We have not, however, got huge material resources. If we want to continue to have a decent living for our people with these resources, we must be careful to conserve the assets we have. If we squander them, if we use them for purposes that will not give us any direct return to enable us to build up other reserves, the day of reckoning surely will come.
It was coming fast so far as we could see when we came into office. There was a £15,000,000 budget deficit in the ordinary current account. We had to meet that and we also had to meet a deficit in our balance of payments of practically £62,000,000. A wave of the wand of the Leader of the Opposition and those with him and that £15,000,000 disappeared, just as he had only to wave a wand and he gave us a surplus of £10,000,000 on the basis of our taxation ! When you undertake the responsibilities of government, you have to deal with, not one side of the account, and not one side to-day and the other to-morrow, as if they had no relation to each other. You must deal with the two of them together, and we have done that during the whole time.
We did balance the Budget relatively, and, when I say "relatively," I mean that it was not as well balanced as I would have liked it to be, but it was balanced up to a deficit of £2,000,000 compared with £15,000,000. I should have preferred had we been able to strike the balance hoped for when the Budget was produced, but we did it to that extent. I hope we will do better this year. As regards the deficit in the balance of payments, we met that, and that deficit has been reduced to a level that can be tolerated, but, had the £62,000,000 level continued for a couple of more years, we would have changed our position from that of being a creditor country to that of being a debtor country. Of course, the ordinary person in the street who has not been considering these things does not see the full effect these large extreme deficits would ultimately have on his standard of living. The woman who goes to the shop to buy bread or butter does not think of the larger issues that are involved. That is precisely why a Government is formed and that is why a representative assembly like this is formed in order that people who give attention to these things should consider the bearing of these matters on the welfare of the community as a whole. We did that. We settled the finances and put them on a proper basis. Then the slump year of 1952 passed and we had the recovery in the year 1953. I do not say that we ought to take all the credit for that, just as the Government should not be blamed for things outside their control.
The year 1953 was a year of recovery. The year 1952 is always pointed to by those on the Opposition Benches but they ignore the recovery which took place in the year 1953. To start with, there are grounds for believing that it was a year in which our national income and savings increased. The output of manufacturing industries increased; in fact, during the first three quarters it was the highest on record. Industrial employment at the present time is nearing the record, if it has not already passed it. A figure was given just a day or two ago which seemed to indicate that the record was passed—that we are reaching the highest figure that has ever been reached. Employment has gone up and unemployment has gone down. The difference between unemployment this year and the early part of 1953 is about 12,600. Of course, there are people who want to compare 1953 with 1951 and 1950 and so forth, but the fact is that as a result of the Social Welfare Act the figures for those years are not comparable with the current figures. There are 12,600 fewer people unemployed this year than last year. Output in agriculture has increased. We have increased tillage, increased output of wheat and beet. We have a greater number of cattle than at any time since 1921. We have an increase in the milk supplies to the creameries; they have reached the highest figure since 1936. We have an increase in external trade. Our external trade position has improved tremendously, not merely because the terms of trade moved in our favour, but also because there was an increased volume of exports. The year 1953 was a year of obvious recovery and the graph is upwards. If the country is governed properly, the burden of taxation will be automatically lightened by the increase in production. We hope that that will be the case.
It has been suggested, of course, that we broke the promise we gave when we said that the food subsidies would be maintained. When we said that, we did not expect to have £15,000,000 of a deficit to meet. We were not then faced with the alternative of either reducing subsidies or putting on £15,000,000 extra taxation. We issued that statement not before the election but before the formation of a Government here. If any Deputies felt that they had been deceived by that they were in a position to turn out the Government.
With regard to retail prices, the index is now about 231, the index of industrial wage earnings has gone up to 249, and that is all on a pre-war base of 100. A comparable figure for agricultural wages, which have also gone up, is 299. These figures indicate that if there has been an increase in prices, there has also been a compensating increase both in regard to industrial and agricultural wages.
As I have said, we have a question to ask: what is going to be the alternative policy? I do not think that the people will let the Leader of the Opposition get away with the hocus-pocus sort of statement he has made about a double Budget and that through such a Budget they are going to get a new heaven on earth. It is natural enough to try to have good times always but very few of us can have good times unless we strive to earn them. If we are going to have good times continuing in this country, we will have to make the efforts necessary to maintain them.
Are we going to set out to live here on our reserves, on what has been accumulated in the past? It is not easy to accumulate reserves and most of our foreign reserves have been built up in times of war. I do not think that we add to our reserves in ordinary times. These external reserves are not to be wasted. They should be used for capital purposes and productive purposes at home. That has always been our policy.
As regards this double Budget, what is meant? Nothing new whatsoever except the formal segregation of those items that are regarded as capital. That has always been done. It is true that we did not have large capital items in the past, "above the line" as it is called. Most of the capital expenditure was what is called "below the line" expenditure. There is more of that to-day than there was in the days of the Coalition Government. Even to-day, the amount of the "above the line" capital expenditure is not much more than half of that "below the line", that is, the moneys provided for the E.S.B. and other services of that kind.
We have not unlimited resources in this country. We all can have unlimited desires. There are very few of us who could not in a short time indicate desires that would require many millions to satisfy but we just have not got the means. We have to limit our desires to our means. There is no use holding out to our people ideals and ideas which are incapable of achievement. The Coalition Government were fortunate to be in office in the year 1950-51. We were unfortunate in the time we came into office because we had to meet the slump that followed the boom. The country's economy is on a rising tide. I use the word "rising" in a different sense from that in which it was used on the opposite benches. If we act sensibly and properly and do not start in a competition of expenditure, one Party against another, this country can have a continuing future of reasonable prosperity, and that is what we are aiming at.
I want to say now that we are not in the market any more than we were at any time. Whether in 1932 or on any of the other two or three occasions on which for a short time we did not have a complete majority of our own in this House, we took up the position that we were going to proceed with our own programme. If that programme commended itself to other members of the House who were not members of our Party and that gave us a majority, well and good; but we were not going to depart from our fundamental policy in order to win the votes of any Party.
We also make this challenge to the Opposition, a challenge I have put to them many a time. We have heard the chairman of the Labour Party expressing sentiments from the Labour point of view just before I began to speak. It is quite within his right and that of his Party to join with Fine Gael, with Clann na Talmhan or with any other group, but I think it is their duty to their own supporters and to the people in general in this country to indicate what is going to be the common programme. Are they going to add to the food subsidies and what amount are they going to add to the food subsidies? The economic price of the two-pound loaf, which costs the householder 9¼d. at present, is 1/-. It will be almost 1/0¾d. probably in the coming year. Therefore, for every loaf of bread the State is contributing 2¾d. at present and will contribute more than 3d. in the coming year. How much more are you going to add to that subsidy, if you are going to add to it? Are you going to subsidise butter, for instance, and, if so, how are you going to get the money? Are you going to reduce the price the farmer is getting for his milk or are you going to subsidies butter from the Exchequer? If you are going to subsidise it from the Exchequer where are you going to get the money? What tax are you going to impose?
In our Supplementary Budget of 1947 we introduced food subsidies on a large scale. What was the attitude of the Labour Party at that particular time? Did they say that this was essential, that bread and butter, for instance, were essential foods and that it was a good thing on the part of the Government to have these reliefs in the case of these foods? Oh, no! Their attack was that it was only a fake, that the subsidies were altogether false and that the household was not getting any real benefit. They went out against the tax which was necessary to provide this money. As I said before, even Labour cannot have it both ways. If you want to give these benefits, year in and year out, as part of your State housekeeping, you will have to find the money.
We propose, at any rate, to present to the people for their judgment the completed accounts. We hope they will have before them with the Budget an indication of how the money is to be provided so that they can form a judgement. We are going to present the two sides of the account to them and we are going to have the election on the new register. If we held the election a few days before the publication of the register, we would be told we did not want to have the young vote.
We would have been told also that we were running away from our obligations as far as the Budget was concerned, that we were having a rushed election and all the rest of the things the Opposition would conjure up before the people as a consequence of it. I have no doubt whatever that the right course in the public interest is the course I have indicated in the statement which I made here in the Dáil and which I issued earlier to the Press, the statement that the Dáil should be dissolved after giving reasonable time for discussion of the Budget. Two or three days would be sufficient. I do not know whether any financial resolutions will have to be passed, but at any rate the people when they come to judge will have all the facts before them, and I hope they will have sufficient time to see through some of the tactics of the Opposition.