It may not be generally appreciated by members of the Dáil and the public who are to-day discussing the Budget that when the Government came to prepare it they had before them an Estimate—prepared, I presume, by the Revenue Commissioners—that the revenue from existing taxes in this year would exceed the revenue last year by £3,000,000. That was a very happy position for any Government to be in. They could face the problems of preparing the Budget knowing that, without action on their part—without any alteration or adjustment of any tax rate—they could count upon getting £3,000,000 more tax revenue than in the previous year. I think that is the most significant and perhaps the most important fact in relation to the Budget.
The Budget of 1954, which was introduced by Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil Government, would have balanced upon the basis on which he presented it. The tax revenue in 1954 would have been sufficient to cover, with a small surplus, all the Government expenditure arising in that year chargeable against taxation. If the present Government had succeeded in keeping down Government expenditure to the level at which it was last year, they would have £3,000,000 available to distribute in tax reductions. It required no greater effort from them than the restriction of Government expenditure to last year's level to put themselves in the position in which they could give substantial tax reliefs and make a show of redeeming their election promises.
The pledges given on behalf of the Government as to its intentions after it was formed—certainly the pledges given by the representatives of the various Parties comprising the Government during the general election were not limited to keeping expenditure down to the 1954 level. If they had gone to the electorate in the general election and said it would be the aim of a new Coalition Government to prevent expenditure from rising beyond the level to which Fianna Fáil had brought it, do they think they would have received an enthusiastic reception from the public? What kind of support do they think they would have got in respect of a programme limited to that promise? They knew that and so they went before the public with a different type of programme. They said they would reduce expenditure below the 1954 level.
Various spokesmen of the different Coalition Parties gave various estimates as to what reductions were possible. The Taoiseach is on record as saying, as far back as 1952, that in his view a reduction of £10,000,000 on the expenditure of that year was feasible. They sent Deputy McGilligan down to Radio Éireann to broadcast on behalf of the Fine Gael Party—I believe that is what happened even though Deputy McGilligan has denied it since and has said he went on his own responsibility with a speech of which his colleagues knew nothing—to say that a reduction amounting to several million pounds could be achieved without much effort, that the Fine Gael leaders were convinced that a Minister for Finance who was serious in a search for economies could reduce the level of Government expenditure by no less than £20,000,000. One would have thought that a Party that went to the electorate with these pledges on their lips and which got support from the electorate on the basis of these pledges, and found themselves a Government, would have made some effort to redeem them or at least some effort to prevent expenditure from rising beyond the limit that they said was excessive. They did not succeed. If they had succeeded, if they had done no more during their ten months in office than hold the level of Government spending to what it was when they took office, the taxpayers of this country could be enjoying reduced income tax and reduced taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco—reduced tax levies to the extent of £3,000,000.
I do not remember any occasion when I was a member of the Government on which the Minister for Finance was able to come to a Cabinet meeting and say: "I have here an estimate from the Revenue Commissioners that shows that, without alteration in tax rates, we will have £3,000,000 with which to give relief in the coming year." The present Minister for Finance and his colleagues were in that happy position. The main issue that has to be debated here to-day is what happened that £3,000,000.
We know that when the members of the Government were private Deputies, speaking in this House and throughout the country, they considered that the taxes in force upon beer, spirits, tobacco, petrol and the level of income-tax established by the Budget of 1952 were excessive. The present Taoiseach, or Deputy J.A. Costello as he was at the time, who was the spokesman of the Opposition Parties, said in this House, as reported in Volume 131 of the Official Report: "I would resign the next minute rather than proceed with any single provision of the present Budget." That reference was to the taxes on beer, spirits, tobacco, petrol and the rate of income-tax established by the 1952 Budget. The Taoiseach had the opportunity of resigning when his Minister for Finance brought to the Cabinet meeting the proposal to leave those taxes unchanged this year. He has the opportunity of resigning now. Alternatively, he has to explain why he is not doing so, how it is that the first Budget that he and his Minister for Finance are bringing to the Dáil is leaving unchanged these taxes upon beer, spirits, tobacco and petrol and the level of income-tax to which he took such exception in 1952.
The Labour Party fought the election on the same issue. They issued a handbill for universal distribution to voters. They said in that handbill anent these charges established by the Budget of 1952 that "Fianna Fáil deliberately increased these taxes at the behest of the Central Bank". At whose behest are they keeping them unchanged now? Was it the Central Bank that told them that they would have to go into the Division Lobby within a day or two to vote to leave these taxes unchanged, or is it the Fine Gael Whips who will make them do so?
What influence is at work to make Deputies opposite so completely reverse the views they held only a few months ago? A few months ago these taxes were unnecessary, these taxes were a brutal imposition on the public, according to Deputy McGilligan. These taxes were so unjustified that Deputy Costello would resign the next minute rather than propose them to the Dáil. These taxes, according to the Labour Party, were imposed, not because the Government wanted them, not because the situation of the Irish people required them but at the behest of the Central Bank. Why are they being left now unchanged? Somebody has to answer that question before this debate is over or else these Cabinet Ministers in the present Government and the Deputies sitting behind them have to stand up here and say that the words they used last year were worthless, that the pledges they gave were not worth the paper on which they were printed.
The impression which they will leave upon the public, if they do not give a thorough and full explanation of their change of attitude is that these pledges and promises were made solely to get into office by any means and now that they are in office they do not intend to honour any of them.
For myself, I would far rather be sitting over here with my personal honour unsullied than to sit now in the Government Bench with all those unredeemed promises hanging over my head.