It is likely that in the future, as in the past, there will be disagreement with regard to orthodox finance methods. The Minister when in opposition took exception to his predecessor's practice of eliminating from the total of the current expenditure such capital items as in his judgment should be defrayed out of borrowing. Now, the Minister himself is putting into operation—last year I should say markedly for the first time— that particular principle. In my view, for what it is worth, the Budget of last year did not balance to the extent of approximately £500,000. It is quite true that the Minister in his speech, in introducing the Budget, claimed that he was entitled to borrow in respect of export bounties and a certain part of the money expended on the relief of the unemployed. We have had these export bounties in existence for the last six years. Even this year we are not quite rid of them, but last year a sum of £350,000 was added in order that the price of butter could be reduced by 2d. per lb. During these last four or five years the creameries were expected to collect levies on every cwt. of butter. I can imagine the horror of the Minister for Finance if he had a letter from a creamery manager stating: "I would be glad if you put this on the borrowing side of the account, as I am not in a position to pay now." Naturally the Minister would not have that. Why does he practise what he would not allow others to do? However, that is with regard to last year's Budget. Of course, the same remarks could be said to apply to that portion of this year's Budget, where the Minister proposes to borrow under two or three headings, unemployment, export bounties and so on.
Last year we collected the largest sum of money that I think was ever collected in taxation since the State was established, and our expenditure was at an equally high figure. It will be in the recollection of those who have been in the House for the last eight or ten years that since the Fianna Fáil Party honoured the House with its presence, its members criticised the high taxation, and said it could be lowered. There is no use in the Minister for Finance or any other Minister complaining when people remind them of their own statements in that connection, nor is it much use to find fault with the normal criticism that comes from people who adopt the tactics that they were taught by the Fianna Fáil Party. For the five years that I sat on the opposite benches listening to the talk that went on from this side of the House, when my friends were in opposition, there was a continual complaint about the high cost of taxation, the poverty of the country, the inability of the people to meet the enormous demands being made upon them, and so on. I presume we can now say that we are starting a new epoch, and that while the Government takes all the profit it can out of this new Agreement, and takes every advantage to the National Exchequer that is possible, in my opinion it is their duty to look at those who have suffered during the last five or six years—and suffered entirely owing to the manner in which the Government handled the situation. I do not believe for a moment, if an offer had been made to the British in 1932 to pay £26,000,000 over six years, £10,000,000 in cash, and allow them to have a voice in the management of our fiscal autonomy, that we would not have been offered the ports and that the question would not have been settled in 24 hours. No British Minister could possibly have objected to accept that. If he did he would be foolish. If Mr. Thomas had done so he would be Prime Minister to-day instead of where he is.
However, that is past, and we are starting on a new road, starting out under a lot of disadvantages that certain people have had to share and to bear during the last five or six years. These disadvantages were noticeable even during the last few months. In the months of January, February and March the numbers of registered unemployed went up. There was a rather remarkable increase in the numbers. During these three months something like 4,000 persons more than last year made claims in respect of unemployment insurance, and that was distinct from unemployment assistance, notwithstanding the fact that during these two or three months possibly very large expenditure of public money took place. The numbers registered as unemployed increased very considerably over those of last year. If we measure the prosperity which the Minister boasted of last year, when he said that the increase in the revenue returns were indicative of it, if we measure that prosperity by what it has brought home to those looking for employment, it is not shown by these figures. We have, during the last two years, noticed a rather alarming increase in the adverse balance of trade. That is a matter that members of the Fianna Fáil Party used to speak of years ago, when it was much smaller than it is now, and if we continue to sell goods to outsiders to the extent of over £20,000,000 a year less than what they buy from us the result is going to be a drying up of the national resources, of our national savings, and during the last few years there has been evidence of the marked contraction in the value of our sterling assets. There are people who pride themselves on their innocence of knowledge of sterling assets or sterling balances. It would be well for them to find out what they mean. It is certainty with no satisfaction that we refer to the increase in the numbers of persons unemployed, to the growing size of our adverse balance, and to the reduction of our sterling assets. It is very remarkable that the numbers of the unemployed should increase as our emigration continues to swell, and, consequently, when we heard of this Agreement there was a feeling of hope and of confidence that this year's Budget would be a satisfactory one. I would say, having given it as much attention as I could during the last hour and a half, that it is the most characterless of all the Budgets I have heard. Opportunity might have been taken just now to repair the damage that has been done to the agricultural industry during the last five or six years, and that damage was reflected in a return which the Minister for Industry and Commerce sent out to us during the last couple of days, showing a reduction in the agricultural stock of this country.
If we mean to make this country prosperous, if there is an effort going to be made to increase employment on the land, to keep the people at home, lessen the drive towards the urban districts, not only in this country but of our neighbours beyond, some marked improvement must take place in the agricultural industry. It is certainly in a much more favourable position than it was four months ago because this unfortunate dispute which ought never to have been entered upon has been brought to an end. But, the condition of agriculturists generally throughout the country requires just now much more assistance than merely telling them that they are better off than they were two or three months ago. It is in the interests of agriculturists that it should be done. It is in the interests of the industrialists of the country that it should be done, and it is in the interest of every trader and manufacturer of every class and kind. I personally regret sincerely that the Ministry was not more alive, even to their own interests, in endeavouring to do something to repair the damage that has been inflicted upon this industry during the last six years.
In my view, for what it is worth, the sum of money that is to be taken from the people in the next 12 months is beyond their capacity to bear. The collection of taxation over the last six years has drawn from them more than the normal incomes of the people could afford. We must have eaten into capital during that period. We must be drawing upon resources which we need not only at the present time but at any time. We require, in the special circumstances of to-day, with uncertainty in so many countries, to get back to a less expensive method of administering the affairs of the State. It is of very little use to point to savings. There are some items here in this Budget, items such as industrial alcohol, of expense which could easily have been avoided. Rich people can afford to make experiments. They seldom take risks in the houses of the poor, and this country is not a rich country and cannot afford these costly experiments. The public administration is on a most extravagant and most expensive scale. The Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce ought to know that in connection with the administration either of home assistance or of unemployment assistance. Expenses are multiplied and the people are harassed by so many visitors of one sort or other from different institutions in the State, all of which the taxpayer has got to meet which he gets the bill.
I would certainly have wished there was some evidence of appreciation of the general economic situation in this country, that some effort would be made to help agriculture. If evidence were given of that it might do much more to inspire the industrialists and the business people with confidence, which they sorely need at the present moment. It is not by speeches, it is not by declarations, it is not by clever statements that one inspires public confidence. No matter how many speeches the Minister might make or that are made from those benches, or that are made by the Labour Party— these do not contribute to make the success of a national loan. What contributes most to make a success of a national loan is the soundness of the public financial position, the soundness of the administration, the balancing of accounts, and the general acceptance of the necessity of that balancing on the part of all Parties that are in the House. Unless a real effort be made just now to get back, first, the confidence of the agriculturists in the country, secondly, to give them some help in getting that confidence, to lessen the expenses of their business, and to facilitate their business, then we are going to delay recovery. It is remarkable how Canada, Australia and New Zealand increased their exports of agricultural produce over the last six years. The most remarkable is that of Canada which, in 1931, sent over to Great Britain some £35,000,000 worth of goods, and in the year 1936 or 1937 they had increased that by over £50,000,000. Those are the markets that we so lightly looked at some six or seven years ago. Those are the markets that ought to be there for the agricultural produce of this country. We are better placed than any one of the Dominions for getting that trade.
