So the Minister had not even that excuse. The Minister, of course, did not advert to the years when it was necessary to increase the taxation on sugar. I do not want to refer back to other days; I only wish to remind the Minister and the House that there were circumstances which, thank God, we have not to-day, and I want to remind the Minister that to-day we are at the beginning of a war. At that time we were at the end of one. It is all very fine for Ministers to get up here and, when it suits them, to appeal for co-operation, to appeal to people to think of the country rather than of Party politics, while all the time they themselves are thinking of nothing but Party politics. Does not the Minister know from all his experience that he and this Government are lucky and fortunate that, when they are placed in the unfortunate position —I will not put it more strongly—that they and the country are in to-day, that they have on this side of the House an Opposition that has a sense of responsibility.
May I ask the Minister to throw his mind back a few years and to ask himself what the position, the attitude and the mentality of the then Opposition was. Might I suggest to the Minister and to his colleagues that the conduct of the Opposition, not only to-day and not only last night, but all the time, has been that of thinking of the country rather than of Party advantage or of making things more difficult for the Government. The Minister knows quite well that, if the Opposition Parties in this House wanted to make difficulties for the Government, if they were thinking only of Party advantage and if they were thinking not at all about the people of the country, they could make things very difficult for the Government, much more difficult than it was possible to make for the previous Government. There is no necessity for the Opposition to punch holes in the policy of the present Government; those holes have been punched in by the Government themselves. The Minister knows that. Still we have the type of exhibition that we listened to here this morning and had to listen to last night from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Minister accused Deputy Professor O'Sullivan of "play-acting". Was there ever any greater exhibition of "play-acting" than that which we had from the Minister this morning? In one breath the Minister was invoking the Holy Name on this grave crisis facing the world and facing this country, and in the next breath he was talking, to use his own words, "flapdoodle." Does the Minister think that, in this serious national and international crisis, the type of speech that we had from him this morning is the type of speech that this House and this country is entitled to get from the man placed in charge of the finances of the country? Does the Minister think that that is the type of speech that is going to be helpful towards the flotation of a public loan in this country? How can we, or the people outside, treat the Minister as a serious Minister? How can we convince ourselves, much less the people outside, that he is a man who should be in charge of the finances of the country in this crisis?
I said, and I should like to believe, that the Minister was unfair to himself to-day. The Minister forgot himself. I do not think he was himself at all this morning. He talked about social services, and what was the sum and substance of his speech? That the standard of living in this country was too high, that we would never have reached the standard of living we have, or have the social services we have to-day, if we had not got them from the British, that we may thank the British for having these social services to-day, that the people of the country would never get from a Government of their own their present standard of living, nor would our unemployed, our old or blind people, our sick or destitute people get even the standard they have to-day, if it were not for the British. The only reason, according to the Minister, that they have those standards is that we took them over from the British. That statement comes from a man who has been in charge of the Department of Local Government and Public Health for the last seven years. That was a speech which I might expect, and would expect, from the Minister's colleague, Deputy Hugo Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would never expect to hear it from Deputy Seán T.O Ceallaigh. I hope the Minister's association with Deputy Hugo Flinn for the last month or two is not responsible for the very big change in him. If it is, I hope the Taoiseach will decide to make another quick change in the Ministries, and will remove Deputy Seán T. O Ceallaigh from the influence of Deputy Hugo Flinn.
The Minister talked about the sacrifices that will have to be made, and about the economies of the Economy Committee, presided over by Deputy Hugo Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary. Introducing this Budget, the Minister referred to the committee, at column 962, and said:—
"The committee appear, however, to have come to the conclusion, with which I am afraid I must agree, that so large a proportion of the State's outlay is spent on social services that no large-scale economies of the kind that are required to meet the present emergency can be secured without reducing the standard of these services to some extent."
That is the statement of the Minister for Finance; that is the statement of a man who, in his speech half-an-hour ago, boasted that he had got the votes and confidence of the workers of the country over the last 11 years. Why did he get them? Because he promised them, not reduced social services and not a lower standard of living, not the standard of living handed over to us by the British, but a far higher and better standard of living and far greater and better social services than were ever given by the British Government, or by the previous Government, and the Minister knows that. Again, he talks about his honesty, sincerity and truthfulness, and about the truthfulness of the Budget, about placing all his cards on the table and about not taking any steps that would increase unemployment. What is this Budget going to do? Will the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary contend that it is going to reduce unemployment? Do they not know quite well that it is going to increase substantially unemployment?
He sets out the services that are to be curtailed, and, in the same breath, he tells us to-day that the impositions in this Budget are being put on so that we can continue unemployment assistance and other social services. Did the Minister take the trouble to read the last Budget statement before he presented this one? Did he look to the last Budget statement to see under what headings the reductions, such as they were, made by his predecessor were made? Surely, if not as Minister for Finance, as Minister for Local Government, as he then was, he knows that £150,000 was taken from the Road Fund, other sums from unemployment assistance and so on, up to a total—I am speaking from recollection—of £300,000.
The only saving, so-called, made in the Budget this year was at the expense of the workers and the unemployed. I agree with the Minister on one point. He, very rightly, I think, took Deputy Cogan to task for suggesting that this Budget hit only one particular section of the people and he said that it hits every section. Of course, we know it does, but it does not hit every section with equal severity. Does the Minister know that? The real reason why sugar has to be taxed and the price increased is that the Government has come down, in the words of Deputy McGilligan, to the last resort, that they have taxed everything and everybody else in the country.
The Minister bewailed the fact that we had not many wealthy men in this country. He only wished that we had more. That is a bit of a change of tune. The Minister did not always play on that particular string. He told us that he had a longer and more intimate association with the organised workers of this country than anybody else in the House; he told us of his concern for the unemployed; he told us of the efforts which had been made by the Government to solve unemployment; but he reminded us that not even the great wealthy countries, like Great Britain and America, had been able to do it. The Minister could remember all the votes he secured at the various elections over the past 11 or 14 years. Does he remember when he told the people and the workers of the City of Dublin that he could put every one of them into employment? Does he remember, when he was challenged by the Opposition, he and his leader and their Party saying that they were doing what England, America or any other country in the world could not do, that is, completely to abolish unemployment? Does he remember the full-page advertisement which was published the following morning by Fianna Fáil—"England and America may fail and every other country in the world may fail, but we have conditions here that will enable us to put every man into work"?
Honesty, sincerity and truthfulness —we had these words thrown around the House last night by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the man whom the Taoiseach, in his wisdom, thought the most fitting person to be in charge of the unemployed. What was his contribution? That there are fewer unemployed in this country to-day than there were ten years ago. Is there any man in any Party who believes that? Does anybody think that the man who has recently been transferred and put in charge of Industry and Commerce is the man to face up to that tremendous problem when he talks in that irresponsible way? Nobody wants to exhibit our sores to the world, but does not every Deputy, and particularly Deputies for the City of Dublin, know that here in this city, the capital of the country, there are to-day 1,500 more people in receipt of outdoor relief than there were in the corresponding week last year. Is that not unfortunately true? We are told then of the unparalleled efforts the Government are making for the poor and the unemployed. Now, the only thing that is held out after seven years is that we are told that we enjoyed a standard of living under the British social services and British rule that we cannot afford under Irish rule, that economies have to be made to pay for the foolishness of the last seven years and the only economies we can make will be, in the words of the committee headed by the Parliamentary Secretary, at the expense of the poor and the unemployed.
We were told here last night by the ex-Minister for Finance, and to-day by the present Minister, that it is the duty of any Deputy who knows where economies can be made, to point out where these economies can be effected and that we are failing in our duty if we do not. Might I ask these very honest, very sincere, very truthful gentlemen, to produce for the nation now the £2,000,000 that they had satisfied themselves they could save for this country without affecting adversely any services in the State? Mind you, that £2,000,000 would bridge the deficit and give the Minister something in hand. We do not hear a word about it now. Was not everybody told up and down the country, had we not people ranting at every crossroads in this country ten years ago, that the country was groaning under the burden of taxation and that the reason we had so much unemployment at that time was that the country was overtaxed? If that were true then what, in God's name, must be the position of the country to-day? Do we not know that whatever the capacity of the country was to bear the taxation which existed ten years ago, the country is in a much worse position to bear the present rate of taxation? Do we not know that most of the real assets of the country were wasted over the last eight years? Do we not know that, apart from losses in the price of live stock, apart altogether from the slaughter of calves and other things of that kind, a great part of the fertility of the land of the country was lost because the land became impoverished owing to the fact that the farmers were unable to purchase sufficient fertilisers? Do we not know that, as a result of the bungling and the incompetence of the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the war is on for the last two months, notwithstanding the fact that everything which the farmer has got to buy has increased in price by anything from 5 per cent. to 100 per cent., the farmer to-day is receiving, if he can sell at all, a lower price for his cattle than he got two months ago? Is there a farmer in the House, whether on the Fianna Fáil Benches or these benches, who can deny that?
