When the debate was interrupted, I was referring to the increase in taxation which was found to be unavoidable when the then Government were framing the Budget for the year 1952-53. I pointed out that, due to the fact that we had inherited a continuing deficit of almost £7,000,000 from the Coalition Government which went out of office in June, 1951, and the additional commitments in relation to expanded social services and the need to maintain all the other public services at the level left by the Coalition, a sum of £98,000,000 had to be provided by the Exchequer. Now, I am leaving out of the question in that context the self-balancing items of the Road Fund on the one hand and the motor vehicle duties on the other hand. As against this £98,000,000, we had an anticipated revenue from the then existing tax structure of £83,000,000. Nobody who can do a simple sum in subtraction can deny that in these circumstances an increase in tax rates was inevitable. Accordingly, because the then Fianna Fáil Government did not shirk their responsibilities in these matters, did not shirk their duty to the country, we hoped to provide, by increasing the rates in taxation, the sums which were necessary to close the gap after we had made certain economies in the public services. The taxation at the new rates, that is, the increase in the tax rates for which we took responsibility, brought in an additional revenue of £10,346,000 in 1952-53. This additional revenue, together with certain economies and other savings, reduced the actual deficit from £15,000,000 to around £2,000,000.
I want again to refer to the fact that in 1952-53 the new tax rates gave us an increase of £10,346,000 over the tax revenue collected in 1951-52—over the revenue left to us by the Coalition Government. I want to refer to it again and to stress it for the reason that, this year, these 1952 rates of taxation will give the Coalition Minister for Finance £18,300,000 more than I got from the Coalition Budget of 1951. We collected £10,346,000 in 1952 from an increase in taxation. From that same increase in taxation, this year the Coalition Minister for Finance proposes to collect £18,300,000. What does that mean to the taxpayer? It means simply that the Coalition propose to collect £8,000,000 more in taxation than was done in the 1952 Budget.
I must again hark back a bit. According to column 1442 of Volume 131 of the Official Report, the present Taoiseach, when he was over on this side of the House as Leader of the Opposition, declared in the debate on the 1952 Budget that he would resign rather than proceed with any single provision of that Budget. To-day, the Taoiseach, who was going to resign in 1952 because I was taking £10,000,000 more from the Irish taxpayer, is himself about to take £18,000,000 more from the Irish taxpayer. In other words, he is taking 80 per cent. more than the 1952 increase I was able to obtain. But I gather he does not intend to resign. Instead of resigning, it is quite clear he intends to brazen it out.
So also does the Minister for Education who, in May, 1952—the reference is column 1439 of Volume 131 of the Official Report—assured the country that Deputy Costello, now Taoiseach, would remove £10,000,000 in ten minutes if, instead of being Leader of the Opposition, he were Head of the Government. Soon after Deputy Mulcahy, as he then was, made that speech, they were referring to him down in County Tipperary as "million-a-minute Mulcahy". I do not know what they are calling him now because now the million-a-minute Minister for Education has the temerity to ask his followers to believe that the present Budget has halted the rising trend in taxation.
I shall now interrupt my speech for a news flash. I have here a report of a speech made by the Minister for Lands at a Clann na Talmhan meeting. The report appeared in this morning's newspapers. The Minister for Lands, according to the report, has also asked his followers to be gratified because, he says, the Budget was a vast relief. The Minister for Lands said it was a vast relief to many to learn that no new taxes were imposed by the Budget. The Parties who were telling the country in 1952 that if they were in office they would reduce taxation by £10,000,000, the Parties who, on the eve of the election, told the people who were likely to vote for them that if they were in office they would reduce taxation by many millions without effort, are now offering to their disappointed followers a crumb of consolation that there has been no increase in taxation in this Budget.
As I have said, the Minister for Education has had the temerity to ask his followers to believe that the present Budget is halting the rising trend in taxation. But what is the record of actual fact? Far from the Coalition having prevented an increase in taxation, all they have done is to prevent a reduction in taxation. That is all they are responsible for. The money which, if we were in office, would have come back this year to the taxpayers has not come back. It is not that the Coalition Government have prevented an increase in taxation. They have not prevented an increase in expenditure which is the first step towards reducing taxation. Last year, Fianna Fáil were able to reduce taxation substantially and, as I have said, we would have done much better this year. The very fact that the 1952 increases in taxation did yield £18,000,000 more than the 1951 rates, shows it would have been possible to have an even greater reduction in taxation this year than last year on one condition—provided expenditure had been kept within bounds. That, of course, is the essential thing if taxation were to be reduced.
Let me say at once that I do not want to decry the achievement of the Minister for Finance this year. At least, he has given us a balanced Budget and that is better than the situation we had to face from the heritage left behind by the last Coalition Government. Provided expenditure had been kept within bounds, £3,000,000 could have been returned to the taxpayer in this year's Budget; in fact, the amount might easily have been as high as £5,000,000. I believe that a substantial reduction in taxation is the country's most urgent need. But the country has not been given what it wants. The people have been denied the reliefs which they so urgently required. They have been denied them simply because the members of the Government who pledged themselves to the electors to reduce taxation have not kept their pledges. That is the only reason why the taxpayers of this country have not £3,000,000 in their pockets this year to spend as they themselves want to spend it.
While we know and believe this, we also know what the imperfections in this Budget are. I do not think we are entitled to judge the Minister for Finance too harshly on this Budget for this reason. Unless responsible Deputies on both sides of this House are prepared to stand fast on the principle that our economy is overburdened by the existing public expenditure, no Minister for Finance, I do not care to what Party he may belong, can reduce taxation and, at the same time, balance his Budget. That is the merit, the sole merit of this Budget, and it is a poor thing from the point of view of the people looking for remissions in taxes, of those looking to have a cheaper pint, a cheaper glass, a cheaper smoke or a cheaper gallon of petrol. This Budget has the merit that it is a balanced Budget and that is why I say we should not deal too harshly with the Minister. Let us make up our minds that we cannot have increased public expenditure, reduced taxation and financial stability on the basis of our present volume of production. It is necessary that all elements concerned in the administration of the country should grasp that fact and act on it. Indeed I think it is most essential.
There are grave grounds for apprehending that, in the very near future, we shall have to face very unfavourable export conditions indeed. On the authority of the Minister for Agriculture, this House has been told that it would appear, except in respect of one commodity, that our farmers have been priced out of the export markets in recent months. We cannot maintain our present standard of living, or anything like it, unless we have an export trade which is expanding in volume and value. How can we fulfil that condition, how can we compete in overseas markets—whether the British market or any other market-if we compel our already overburdened producers to carry a heavier load of public expenditure and if we withhold from them the reliefs to which they are entitled? That, I think, is the question which every responsible Deputy, no matter to what Party he belongs, and every responsible voter in the country, too, must ask himself—not only ask it but answer it and act on the answer.
The people want a reduction in taxation. The condition of our economy demands a reduction in taxation. It is the duty of those Deputies whose votes control and determine the Government to give them that reduction, provided, again, that they put a curb on public expenditure. That is the essential condition, because we do not want any more McGuilligan Budgets in this country. Our economy was sinking under them, that series of Budgets which was introduced from 1948 to 1951, with a recurring deficit every year, and wherever a deficit was not shown, wherever a deficit was concealed, it was concealed because obligations which had matured were not met as they matured and were left to those who succeeded Mr. McGilligan to liquidate and pay for.
