Since this discussion on the Budget started I thought it was a great pity that the Taoiseach did not follow the example of his opposite number in the Parliament across the water. I refer to Mr. Churchill, who, when he assumed office, made himself familiar with the conditions as they then existed, and proceeded to set out his views in a memorandum, a copy of which, it is reported, he sent to his predecessor in office, Mr. Attlee, incidentally, as far as I can learn, saying to Mr. Attlee: "It is no use in your blaming me or I blaming you. That is the position of affairs as I have found them. Let both of us start off from scratch and do the best we can for our country and for the common good." That was a wise and honest statement. It was the act of a man who put country before Party.
Unfortunately, in this country, the Taoiseach took a different line of action. With the full support of his Ministers, and, I presume, the Deputies who support him and his followers in the country, he set out to belittle the work of his predecessors, the ex-Ministers and, of course, the members who comprised the inter-Party Government. For the past nine months, I am sorry to say that ex-Ministers were held up to the people as men devoid of character, honesty and integrity, men who dissipated the financial resources of this country, men who spent the people's money without caring one thraneen whether value was given for the expenditure of such money; in short, men who left the country in a bankrupt position.
The slogan all over the country, so far as the followers of the Taoiseach are concerned, was that that other Government did not leave a penny in the till.
I regret very much the line of action pursued by the Taoiseach and his Ministers during the last nine months. The extraordinary thing about the attitude of the Government during the last nine months is that those people who now charge the last Government with reckless spending when they themselves were in opposition for three years twitted the then Government for their failure to spend more money. For example, Deputy Lemass, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, as reported in column 1916 of the Official Report of the 2nd May 1951, speaking on the Budget said:—
"The Government came in here last year with an Estimate providing for an expenditure of £14,000,000 on houses. But they did not expend that amount. Instead of developing the housing programme to the full extent of the £14,000,000 provided in last year's Capital Budget, the total expenditure fell short of that figure by £3,000,000."
That is the "reckless Government". On the same occasion, Deputy Lemass referred to the land rehabilitation scheme in these terms:—
"Do Deputies opposite realise how great that failure was? Do they understand that of the £3,100,000 provided in last year's Budget for the land rehabilitation project only £566,000, one-sixth of the amount, was expended?
Do they understand that of the money provided in last year's Budget for hospital development, for the provision of dispensaries, clinics and other projects of that kind, £417,000, less than one-fourth, was expended, that of that £417,000, only £104,000 left the Exchequer?"
Deputy Lemass said on the same occasion:
"That on all the projects administered by the Department of Agriculture, for which £6,000,000 was provided, only £3,120,000 was spent, and so on for all the other Estimates."
They are the words of the present Tánaiste, then Deputy Lemass, who has tramped the countryside for the past nine months criticising the previous Government for their reckless expenditure. I am sorry to have to say that for more than three years— from 1948 to 1951—the members of the present Government did everything in their power to thwart and make impossible of achievement the policy that was pursued, propounded and adumbrated by the inter-Party Government.
With regard to the Budget proper, let me say, at the outset, that I am not going to lay the sole responsibility for the introduction of this Budget on the shoulders of the Minister for Finance. The introduction of this Budget is the collective responsibility of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the other Ministers as well as of each individual member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope that those who support this Budget will have the moral courage, when confronted down the country with its implications, not to hide behind the fact that it was the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce who was responsible for it. I am approaching this Budget from the point of view of one who made no promises during my 25 years' membership of this Dáil.
I approach this Budget from the point of view of one who always believed, practised and kept before his mind the definite precept that a man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, that a man shall do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and that that policy, and no other, can make this, or any other country, prosperous. Therefore, I approach this Budget believing that we have arrived at a time when those two great virtues—truth and honesty—which go to make people great are practised, and that we can hope to hear something of the truth and something of the honesty in so far as the provisions of this Budget are concerned when the Minister comes to reply.
I know perfectly well, and there is no use in hiding the fact, as far as this country is concerned, having only a population of less than 3,000,000 that unless we increase production and increase our capacity to increase more and more than we have been doing for the ten or 15 years preceding the last three years, we cannot continue to enjoy the same standard of living we enjoyed during the last three years. I make a present of it to the members of the Government when I state that Deputy McGilligan, when introducing his Budget last year, made it a condition, in so far as our capital expenditure is concerned and in so far as our balance of payments is concerned, that we must increase production and save more. He made those points perfectly clear, which showed that he was not and is not the reckless spender which the present Government thinks he is, and said he was during the past nine months.
I listened to the Minister making his Budget speech recently and I felt that there was a note of anxiety running right through that statement. First of all he dealt with agriculture and said that that industry had not increased very much during the past four or five years. He said, I believe, that it had only increased by 3 or 4 per cent., notwithstanding the fact, as has been stated here by the Minister for External Affairs, that a great deal of money was expended by the former Minister for Agriculture during his term of office. I do not want to dwell on this aspect of the Budget statement because we can deal more fully with it when the Estimate for agriculture comes up for discussion in this House. I feel that the Minister for External Affairs must not have been paying much attention to the work of the Department of Agriculture or else that he must have ignored the notes which he received from his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, setting out month by month the number of acres that have been attended to, re-fertilised and even drained during the past three years, or he would not have made the statement which he made here to-night. In fact, close on 200,000 acres have been rehabilitated—land that was of very little use prior to the introduction of the land rehabilitation scheme. If one only puts an average value on this land of £5 per acre, which is low in view of the price paid for land at the moment, especially for conacre, one will find that five times £200,000 is £1,000,000.
That is no bad record of work done by the ex-Minister for Agriculture and the officials of his Department in regard to the land rehabilitation scheme.
Now we pass over from agriculture to industry. Again I noticed that the Minister had not very much to say nor had he very much hope of increased production in so far as industry is concerned. In fact, I thought it was slowly bearing in on the Minister and those associated with him that this policy of self-sufficiency is not going to be the success which they thought it would be when that policy was initiated. It is with regret I must say so, because no matter how much we may differ in some matters—and we do differ in many things—there is one thing we must agree on and that is, we all wish for the success and for the development of Irish industry in so far as it is humanly possible. I must emphasise the fact this evening that in regard to industry in this country stagnation in many parts of that industry has already set in. I remember well in this House many years ago when that man who has been styled the reckless Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, issued a warning as far back as 15 or 20 years ago that in so far as the setting up of industry in this country was concerned, taking the long view, his advice was: "Hasten slowly because, remember, the setting up of a factory is one thing; the keeping of that factory in operation is another". To-day I am sorry to have to say that there are hundreds of young men unemployed who are skilled in a particular form of industry for whom there is no alternative employment. That position exists to-day and I know of no more serious blow to a young man who has just married and is full of hope than to find that his means of livelihood is being taken, as it were, overnight from him. Might I express the hope that that position in industry is of a temporary nature?
I want to give this warning to those who think there is a need to set up a factory here, there and everywhere, not to forget the fact that in this little country there are less than 3,000,000 people. Unless you are able to export, as the Minister for Finance has stated, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has stated, unless you are in a position to meet competition in the external market many of our native industries must decay. Some of us on this side would be called saboteurs in certain quarters for saying that but expression has been given to these views by the present Minister for Finance and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
There is another aspect of this Budget that I personally would like the Minister to explain a little more fully and that is in connection with capital expenditure. Does the Minister agree that we should have capital expenditure? I consider he does because he has provided for it. Members of the Government state again that money was spent recklessly. Let us state here in unequivocal terms how that money was spent. As far as I know, it was spent on the provision of houses. A large part of it was spent on the extension of rural electrification, the provision of hospitals, and so forth. If there was a little waste here and there, that is nothing new in this or any other country. The then Minister for Finance, and the members of the inter-Party Government took the view that it was better to spend portion of our external assets here than have those assets deteriorating in foreign countries. It was a good policy provided always, as the then Minister emphasised, that we increased production; in other words, that we earned as we spent and that we did not spend more than we earned. That is logic and that point was emphasised at that time by the Minister for Finance.
Now the Minister thinks fit to impose taxes on butter, tea, beer, spirits and bread. So much has been said about those taxes that I do not intend to weary the House by going into them or endeavouring to point out how severe some of these taxes will be on large sections of our people. There is one thing against which I want to make my own personal protest and that is the proposal to do away with the tax on dancing. The income derived from dancing is in the neighbourhood of £120,000 to £140,000. Some of the Ministers referring to that sum treated it as a rather trivial amount. Might I put this question to the Minister for Finance and the Deputies who sit behind him? When did this country become so prosperous as to belittle a sum in the region of £120,000 to £140,000? When did a country with less than 3,000,000 people, depending almost exclusively on agriculture, become so rich that it could make little of £120,000 or £140,000?
Let us examine for a moment what could be done with £140,000. Assuming that it is £140,000, you could build 140 cottages at an average cost of £1,000 a cottage; they could be divided into three or four equal parts and handed over to county councils like Donegal, Galway, Mayo and Leitrim and thus be given to poor people, who at the moment have no houses or who are living in houses, the rent of which they find is very difficult to pay. You could point to those houses as cottages that were erected without creating any hardship on any section of the people of this country. If you did not choose to do that, you could, if you so desired, make it a part of servicing a loan possibly of £2,000,000.
I am not an expert financier but I think that about one in 20 nearly provides the interest in sinking fund for any sum, however great or small. You could then build 2,000 houses, assuming they cost £1,000, and that your loan was in the region of £2,000,000, and you could pay for it each year by the revenue derived from rents. If you did not choose to build a number of houses you could select any suitable scheme in any part of the country. Take, for instance, the matter of coast erosion. You could spend that £140,000 on building ramparts to minimise the damage done by the sea to the land along our coast. If you did not choose to do either of these things you could devote £40,000 of the £140,000 to keeping the Greenore branch railway line running. I would recommend that action to the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he were here now. He himself said that that line was run at an annual loss of about £40,000. If he took the action which I have recommended he would still have £100,000 left to spend in other directions. The Minister for Finance will, no doubt, convey that suggestion to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Since the Greenore line was closed, from 90 to 100 men have been put out of work. People in the little towns of Omeath and Carlingford have felt the want of the railway facilities which they enjoyed for such a long number of years. The number of tourists who visit these towns has dwindled almost to vanishing point since that railway was closed. I think that that would be a very useful purpose to which the proceeds of the dance tax could be applied.
It has been argued that the cost of collecting the dance tax does not make it worth while. People who make such statements have not studied the position at all. What is the procedure with regard to the payment of the dance tax? In the areas where the tax applies, all that has to be done is to send to the post office for the number of stamps which they think they will need for a particular night. We must bear in mind the fact that the dance tax did not apply in areas which were a certain number of miles from the nearest town, and in which the population was less than 500. The dance tax was confined almost exclusively to large centres of population such as Dublin City, Cork, Limerick, Galway and other provincial towns. Therefore, there is no use in arguing, as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs argued, that the collection of the dance tax involved so much trouble it is hardly worth while. The dance tax was very easily collected, and on the figures submitted by the Minister it brought in something in the region of £140,000, which was well worth getting. But it is not the amount that is at stake. It is the principle of the thing. How, in the name of goodness, can you reconcile your action in imposing extra taxes on beer and cigarettes, or in reducing the subsidy on bread, and in taking off the tax on dancing. I am sorry to say that, owing to certain matters which were mentioned in this debate, I am afraid the people who will benefit by the remission of this tax will be good friends of the Government in power— and these people are the dance hall proprietors. Remember that those who are attending the dance hall will not benefit by the remission. That tax was being paid by the dance hall proprietors during the past three or four years, and its remission amounts to a good deal for some of them. I am sorry that the Minister thought fit to take off that tax in this Budget, in view of the fact that this year he has to raise an extra £15,000,000 in order to balance his Budget. The increased taxes have come at a very inopportune time. I am not here to magnify the position and to say that things are worse than they really are.
I think there is a very big recession in all trades and industries in this country at present. Whether that is directly due to the Budget I cannot say, but certainly the recession exists. I think the recession can be attributed not so much to the introduction of this Budget as to the speeches which were delivered by the Taoiseach and his Ministers during the period preceding this Budget. There is no necessity for me to reiterate what has been said here already. However, I mix a good deal with the general public—with business people, industrialists, artisans, tradesmen, labourers and farmers big and small—and I have never heard so many complaints about the state of trade as I have heard during the past four or five weeks. Consequently, I fear that the impact of this Budget will be very severe. I think it would have been wiser if the Minister had more or less spread over two or three years what he is trying to accomplish in one year. The result may very possibly be that he will receive less revenue under the increased tax than he got under the old tax. Consequently I, for one, feel that there was no necessity for this severe taxation and that the workers are being asked to carry too much of the burden. I feel that the country as a whole is against the Budget, but I hope and trust that, no matter how the vote goes, things may improve so as to make it less difficult for the ordinary people to bear the great burden of taxation that it is now proposed to impose on them.
