I want to avail myself of the opportunity, usually afforded at this time, for a few preliminary remarks on the statement we have just heard, prior to the general discussion which will, of course, take place on the last Resolution. I take all the more pleasure in speaking at this point this year because of the obvious disappointment with which, the Minister's statement has affected his own followers. One has only to compare the rather perfunctory applause—which it would be insulting not to give to the unfortunate gentleman—this year with the enthusiasm that there was, say, four years ago, damped though that enthusiasm has become in the three years intervening. As Deputies opposite heard all the figures being rolled out, I saw them straining anxiously to know if there was going to come any one of three things which properly presented themselves to them—if production was catching up on unemployment; if production, under even subsidy and bounty, was making some progress in the country, if the unemployment problem was either being solved or nearly solved, and, if these things could not be given to them, if they could, at any rate, go to their constituents with some promises of decent remissions of taxation. I think that most of them began to read into the framework of the Budget, that there was more receding than the Republic and that these other things were receding more quickly than the Republic. I refer to the fulfilment of all that swung them into office: remissions of taxation, increased production which would break the back of unemployment, the new system within the system that was to bring us, with all the hopes we had this year for better cultural and spiritual development into a "haven of peace in a shattered world"— which was the phrase, I think, was used last year— not to speak of all the other gaudy flights of fancy we had during the last three years.
The Minister thinks that some part of the prosperity—mark the word— that afflicts the country at the moment might be ascribed to Government policy. I would prefer to phrase it that we can entirely ascribe to Government policy the failure to reach the derided prosperity of 1930 and 1931. The Minister tells us that he has balanced the Budget, though he hasn't said this with last year's assurance. He knows that it is futile to repeat such a phrase. He has not told the House of the new method of taxation, the financial resolution which can be and has been shot in so many times during the year. The finances of the country were so perilously near being on the rocks on several occasions that, for protection, the life boats had to be launched. Even so, in hypocritical phrase, the Minister ascribes some part of our prosperity, if prosperity we have, to Government policy. Last year the Minister imposed taxation, and between the Budget taxes and the additional tax on cement, the new taxation amounted to £1,250,000. He gave remissions, supposed to carry relief, to the extent of £250,000. In the result his new impositions came to the sum of £1,000,000. Not even that extra £1,000,000 has been remitted this year, but a mere £350,000, and for that relief we are told we have to thank Government policy. Is this small remission to be ascribed to Government policy? Is there not a possibility that any increase in revenue in this country is due to the fact that British prosperity is on the increase, that the dividends that Saorstát investors get from British securities have raised our income-tax returns? Is anything further to be learned from the consideration that, contrary to the avowed policy of the Fianna Fáil Government, this year they made their second coal-cattle arrangement? Does what the Minister gain correspond in any way to the amount accruing from increased dividends on British securities? Will he tell us how much of the newly-found prosperity is due to the fact that, even at low rates, more cattle can be sold? Would it be surprising to find that the Government have been able to give relief, even to the extent of £350,000, simply because an increase in the prosperity of the country which is so hostile to us has enabled us to get by a side-wind some assistance from our enemy's good fortune?
The Minister evaded one other notable matter. This country is represented as a poor country normally, but the present boast is that we have advanced materially, and have been able to establish a wide range of social services. We are now, in the fifth year of Government, making an attack, in a well-planned and comprehensive way, upon our unemployment. The Minister forgot to tell us that we have given to Britain, our enemies, £500,000 more than they set out to collect last year. We gave them that notwithstanding their pledge that "they set out to obtain only the amount they claimed— not one copper more." The House of Commons approved that pledge given to them that when they obtained that amount they would cease, that not one copper more did they want. The Budget statement made about three weeks ago by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Irish Free State duties had brought in £500,000 in excess of his expectations. In that, at any rate, the Minister might have taken some little pride. He knows right well that the coal-cattle pact could only have been arranged on a studied calculation that a stated number of cattle at the rate of duty imposed would bring in the amount to be collected. When the result is shown to exceed his best calculations he might have recognised that an extra £500,000 has been extorted from us and might have indicated his intention of keeping the British to their pledges— so recovering this overpayment for us.
This is the best of the Fianna Fáil Budgets. There is no remission of taxation from the 1931-32 figure as had been promised. There is £350,000 of a reduction, but that must be related to last year's Budget, with the £1,000,000 that was slapped on then. What has the Ministry done with the revenue they got since they became a Government? They have been four years in office and, in that period, with this year's estimated taxation added in, they gather in from our people £26,750,000 more than used to be taken from them in 1930-31. They have also had the spending of an annual sum of £2,000,000 which in the last Government's time used to be remitted to England. Over five years that is an extra £10,000,000. This is then £36,750,000 that they have had to spend.
In this period we are told that the National Debt has advanced only by £5,885,000. I question the accuracy of that figure, but let it pass. I was informed, in answer to a question a fortnight ago, that the debts of local authorities had increased in two years by £5,000,000. There is, of course, overlapping somewhere. The Minister, apparently, only takes over from local authorities something like £1,500,000 for housing. Is it possible that there is a further £9,500,000 as between the debt of local authorities and the State, and have the Ministry enjoyed the spending of this also? If they have had this also to spend, the full tot of their spending is the £26,750,000 got by way of extra taxation, the £10,000,000 repayments to the Local Loans Fund retained for use at home, and the other £10,000,000 represented by the increased indebtedness of local authorities and the State. The debt corresponding to the last will have to be repaid by this and the succeeding generation, but the fruits of the expending of it have been enjoyed by the present Government. There is a complete sum of £46,000,000 in a five-year period. It is the minimum for what the local authorities' debt has amounted to since 31st March, 1935, and we do not know what the State debt will be by 31st March, 1937. What we do know is that this Government prides itself on having taken from the country by taxation £26,750,000 more than it used to pay.
