Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 1961

Vol. 188 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 11—General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance).

Mr. Sherwin

Before the adjournment of the House on Thursday last, I had been developing a point in regard to the question of social benefits. I referred to the disparity between the 11/- granted to contributory pensioners and the 1/6d. granted to non-contributory pensioners. In view of the fact that both classes of pensioners have the same expenses to meet, the 1/6d. in the case of non-contributory old age pensioners is a miserable pittance and does not cover one-half of the increases that have arisen during the past year.

I shall now indicate some of those increases. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice allowed all private landlords to increase rents by 12½ per cent. In the case of a man living in one room, that would cost him an extra 1/- a week. In the case of local authority tenants, the last increase of 11/- was taken into consideration and the tenants were charged one-sixth of that amount. While the local authority may not take into account the small pittance now being granted, nevertheless all private landlords have the legal right to do so and are doing it and at the very least it will increase the outlay of old age pensioners by 1/- a week.

During the past year there were increases in the price of milk and butter and there was a shilling increase in meter fee. This shilling is an important matter to an old age pensioner. I had a request last week from a woman in the Hardwicke Street flats to have the meter taken out because, although she was using a candle, she was being charged for the meter which she had not in use. There was also an increase in bus fares. It may be suggested that pensioners do not travel a great deal in buses. They have to travel sometimes to visit their children or to attend a doctor. An old age pensioner will travel by bus a few times in the week and each journey will cost him or her a penny more.

During the past few months the price of newspapers went up by a penny. One newspaper a day is a necessity for unemployed persons and old age pensioners. If a person had not one paper per day, how would he know what was going on in the world or about the Budget, the census or anything else? If one paper per day is regarded as a necessity, the cost of that necessity has increased by seven pence a week. I am not talking about luxuries; I am talking about bare necessaries.

The price of cigarettes has increased by a penny on the packet of 20. Old age pensioners may not be able to afford to drink or to go to the pictures or to back horses but they do smoke, perhaps more than other people who have other ways of filling their time. An old age pensioner will spend at least an extra twopence per week because of the increase in the price of cigarettes. The price of a tin of boot polish was sixpence. It is now sevenpence.

I have worked it out that it costs an old age pensioner at least 3/6d. a week to meet the increases in the prices of these bare necessaries. To meet these extra costs he is given 1/6d. At the present time most employees have made demands for increased wages or reduced hours, Inevitably, there will be further increases. The increase of 1/6d. in old age pensions does not cover the increase in bare necessaries, much less has regard to the increases which are to come. I am not talking in terms of millions. I am talking about the little things because I know the people concerned and their needs.

Another important matter to which I referred on Thursday last is the practice of relieving officers taking into account any additional money that a person on assistance may receive. There are 1,500 persons in Dublin who are drawing assistance. There are two classes of persons on assistance. In one class is the person who resides with a member of his or her family, who is not obliged to pay rent but who probably gives a round sum to that member of the family to cover everything. In the second class is the person who has a room for which he must pay rent. Such a person gets assistance from the relieving officer to help to pay the rent. It is anything between 2/6d. and 12/6d. On each occasion in the past when increases were granted to those people the relieving officer in numerous cases took into account the small increases they got in social benefits and deducted it from the assistance, which meant that very often those people who are supposed to have got an increase got nothing at all.

Let us take the example of the unemployed man with a wife and five children who was supposed to get an extra 9/6d. He should get 1/6d. for himself, 1/6d. for his wife, an extra shilling each for the first two children and an extra 1/6d. each for the rest, making a total of 9/6d. That is the type of man who is getting 10/- or 12/6d. from the relieving officer. When he receives this 9/6d. all the evidence shows that whatever increase he gets from the Minister for Finance will be deducted from that 12/6d. He will be told: "Now that you have that you do not need this." That has always been the practice and I want to know will the Minister give an assurance or get an assurance from the responsible Minister that these little increases which they are supposed to get will in fact be got?

A woman who came to see me the other day about housing complained to me: "I have 30/- national health and I was getting 5/- towards my rent but because I got 2/6d. extra, the assistance officer deducted the 2/6d." In other words her position is the same as it was. It is to people who are in the very worst circumstances that this has happened, people who are not being supported by sons or daughters. On two previous occasions when these deductions were made I was told by the Board of Assistance that they intended to deduct the increases given. They did not in many cases because I got the Minister to make a public statement and I would ask him to do that again.

On the question of emigration, I am prepared to concede that there has always been emigration. I have been examining for the past two weeks the report of the Commission on Emigration set up by the last Government. According to this report, emigration was at the rate of about 22,000 a year between the years 1825 and 1830, and that was 25 years before the Famine. Therefore we can accept that there was always emigration. The evidence shows that there has been emigration over the past 200 years because a large part of Washington's army was composed of Irishmen and they must have been emigrants. We know most of them were Presbyterians but many of them were Catholics.

From the data in this report it appears there are about 1,250,000 people of Irish birth in Britain and 1,300,000 in Northern Ireland. From a comparison of the population of the Republic with the number of people of Irish birth in Northern Ireland and in Britain it would appear that in about 10 or 15 years time the majority of Irishmen will be subjects of her Majesty the Queen. In those extraordinary circumstances, what history will have to say about the makers of independence I do not know. I read quite a lot and I find it amusing to go back on the debates on the Treaty and consider them in the light of that prospect, that at the rate emigration is taking place the vast majority of Irish people will, of their own volition, be subjects of her Majesty the Queen. I say "of their own volition" because even the Nationalists of the North could not be said to be there against their will because they seem to be fairly satisfied, and I am not so certain that they would want to leave her Majesty and abandon the great benefits they receive.

I am not blaming the Government for that situation. However, this Government went before the people at the last election and they did not say whether the 100,000 jobs they promised would be provided in 50 years or in three years. They should have said so because in spite of the evidence that so many thousands of jobs have been created, there is a corresponding amount of redundancy, so the position is no better. It is an extraordinary fact that the population of Ireland today is the same as it was in 1803 although 20 million people were born here since then; therefore 20 million people born in this country since 1803 emigrated. The population is the same as it was in 1921 except for the difference that we have 100,000 fewer and Northern Ireland has 130,000 more, so we have nothing to be proud of.

What should be done? That is a fair question. The Taoiseach challenged the Opposition to say what they would do. It is not easy in a democracy to be frank and say what you will do. I found that out. Let us suppose that Fianna Fáil before the last election were challenged, say, by the Coalition as to what they would do and supposing they said: "We will put 100,000 to work". That is all right but they would not have said: "We will save £8 million on food subsidies and use that for some other purpose." If they said that, they would never have got in. It is not fair to challenge those not in power to say what they would do because if you tell people you are going to affect their interests they will gang up against you and you will never get into office.

On the question of jobs, I believe that 10,000 more people would be working if some people had not two jobs. There are married women employed and their husbands are also employed. I can understand a married woman being employed where there is no one to substitute but where there is that should be discouraged. I do not think that overtime should be encouraged either. There is too much selfishness amongst many people. If we adopted the principle of "one man one job" there would be another 10,000 people getting full-time, or at least part-time, work. I am not an economist but it occurs to me that if all factories worked two shifts a day, unemployment would decline noticeably. I talked this over with a man recently and he agreed with me that if all factories worked 36 hours a week —after all, workers are looking for a 40-hour week—and did a shift up to 1 o'clock and another shift after that hour there would be more employment.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

From the attitude of the Minister for Finance some time before the Budget and from the speeches of the Deputies supporting the Government, the country was undoubtedly led to believe that we were facing a period of reduced cost of living and a considerable relief of taxation. In the other House of the Oireachtas, the Minister prophesied a very good Budget. This chorus was taken up throughout the country in very loud tones and the newspapers favourable to the Government gave heavy black type to the prophecy that the taxpayers would get considerable relief in the forthcoming Budget. All and sundry were under the impression that the Government would present a Budget which would give considerable benefits to every section of the community and provide a general lowering in the level of taxation.

What happened? The position is that keen disappointment with the Budget is felt in every quarter. Not alone is disappointment felt by the taxpaying community but by every other section of the people as well, whether retired on pension, whether in work or unemployed. This Budget carries no reliefs whatsoever for the sections of our people already overburdened by taxation. It holds out no hope for those who had been led to expect great things in the form of concrete proposals for the stemming of the tide of emigration or providing work for the thousands who are unemployed.

I venture to say that what the Government had in mind was Budget on the pattern of the previous four but that this year they thought they would produce a Budget with a little general election sauce in it as well by giving less than threepence per day to the old age pensioners. If the Government thought that threepence a day for the old age pensioners was sauce enough to gull the electorate, they are making a very big mistake. The Minister pointed out that this would be his last Budget before the election. We are delighted to agree with the Minister in this and the people of the country are expressing grateful thanks to the Almighty that that is so.

The Government have now reached the stage in the lifetime of this Dáil when they must give an account of their actions since they were put back into office. This Budget is no better than the last, except that it contains this little election flavour of threepence a day for the old age pensioners. Otherwise, it is a complete admission of failure on the part of the Government and shows complete disregard for the pledges and the promises Fianna Fáil gave to the people just before the last general election. Reading the speeches of the members of the Government, one is inclined to ask whether the Government are living in space or whether they are in even remote contact with the general public, because from all their speeches it would seem we are now at a stage of great and growing prosperity and that there is no evidence of anything but greater and greater prosperity, that there is no such thing as poverty, that the wheels of industry are humming, that the farming community are living in luxury, that no one has any difficulty in paying taxation.

Recently a member of the Irish Hierarchy in the course of a sermon pointed out that the present position of our balance of payments and the increase in our exports have not in any way contributed to a relief of the serious plight of many small farmers and unemployed persons in rural Ireland. While we hear speeches from Fianna Fáil Deputies about prosperity and the Government congratulating themselves on the increased exports and the better position of the balance of payments, we see at the same time in the west of Ireland many houses closed up and entire families leaving. I sympathise greatly with the small farmers because they have experienced perhaps the greatest period of depression in the past few years since the Economic War. Those speeches are designed to lead the country into believing that we are living in the lap of luxury. Any Deputy who has close contact with rural Ireland knows that the speeches made by Government Ministers are far from reality and far from the facts.

If the Government want to boast about increased exports, we may ask what great part did they play in bringing about that increase? It cannot be denied that our exports have increased, due in part to the output of the St. Patrick's copper mines in Avoca which were established and developed by the inter-Party Government. Assisting in that increase also we have the oil refinery at Whitegate, negotiated and established by the inter-Party Government and, in addition, in my own constituency, the inter-Party Government were responsible for providing the money and completing the negotiations for the erection of two briquette factories which, I am glad to say, are providing a certain amount of employment in my constituency. In addition to the market for briquettes available at home, a considerable amount of briquettes has been exported recently. Therefore, the briquette factories, the oil refinery and the copper mines at Avoca have contributed to a considerable extent to the improvements about which the Government seem to boast today.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance are very loud in their praise of the period of industrial expansion through which we are told this country is passing. The facts are that the foundations for that expansion were laid by the Finance Act of 1956 during the period when the former Deputy Morrissey was Minister for Industry and Commerce. At that time, the Industrial Development Authority was set up, and from that Authority sprang many of the new industries about which the Government are loud in their boasts today.

The Industrial Development Authority was designed to promote industrial expansion and to advise interested parties and promoters on the establishment and development of new industries. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce—at that time Deputy Morrissey—was steering that Bill through the House, it met with the most fierce opposition possible from everyone connected with the Fianna Fáil Party, from the Taoiseach down. They could see no use in the Industrial Development Authority. They said it would have authority in name only and that, in regard to benefits to the community, they could hold out no hope for its success. The people who criticised the Industrial Development Authority and who were inclined to seek its execution before its birth are now loud in their praises of the benefits it has brought to the country.

I cannot understand the type of hypocrisy which says that the Industrial Development Authority was all wrong when the inter-Party Government were in office and all right when Fianna Fáil are in office. Whether Fianna Fáil like it or not, the Authority was set up by the inter-Party Government and it has been responsible for any industrial achievements this country has attained in recent years.

It is typical of Fianna Fáil to introduce a Budget on a particular day which they describe as Budget Day. The facts are that every day is Budget day, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned. Down through the years, they have been responsible for bringing in many supplementary Budgets. If the taxpayer were satisfied that he knew the limit had been reached so far as his assesment for tax for a year was concerned, it would not be so bad, but a situation has presented itself in which every other month and every other week the Fianna Fáil Party are imposing, directly or indirectly, increased burdens and increased charges on an already overtaxed people. Supplementary Budgets are bad and I feel that the advent of so many supplementary Budgets has not only aroused the anger of the taxpayer, but has reflected, certainly in no creditable way, on the economy of the country.

If we look back over this great period of glowing prosperity which Fianna Fáil describe, we find that it has been a most expensive period for Irish taxpayers; we see that recently £2,000,000 per year extra was extracted from the pockets of the insured workers; and we see the huge additional contributions the workers and employers are asked to make to the State which has extracted millions from the pockets of the workers and the employers.

Again we must consider the tragedy of the disastrous Budget which was responsible for the removal of the food subsidies. Fianna Fáil may think it is a long time since the food subsidies were removed, but I venture to prophesy that, in the general election which will certainly take place before the end of this year, at every church gate throughout the length and breadth of the country they will have to answer for the removal of the food subsidies.

Mr. Clohessy

That cock will not fight.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The prices of bread, flour and butter have been substantially increased. Let us take, for example, the price of flour. Since the Government took office, the price of flour has been increased by 89 per cent. Flour must be purchased in every home. There is no small farmer's house, no house in rural Ireland, in which flour is not purchased. The Government abolished the food subsidies and, without any cause whatever, and having pledged themselves not to do so, deliberately embarked upon a policy of increasing the price of flour by 89 per cent. The price of biscuits and all flour products was increased in consequence.

Bread is a very important part of the diet of the poor about whom Fianna Fáil spoke loudly at the last general election. Having pledged themselves not to increase the price of bread, having stood before the electorate and said they would not stand for, subscribe or contribute in any way to an increase in the price of bread, they deliberately, without cause and with full knowledge of the serious hardships which would be inflicted upon the poor, increased the price of bread by 69 per cent.

Let us take the price of butter. Again, without any cause whatever, without any justification, without any reason and with a full knowledge of the serious consequences to the fathers of large families they increased the price of butter by 22 per cent. I shall be interested to hear at the various church gates what excuses the Government will give to the working class people, to the small farmers and to the audience in general, for the increased prices of flour, bread and butter. The increase in the prices of flour, bread and butter alone will be sufficient to put the Government out of office at the next general election. They gave their word of honour at the last general election not to do these things if elected, but immediately they were elected, they set about extracting £9,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and the greater part came from the poor who had to pay more for bread, butter and flour.

In addition to the increases on bread, butter and flour, we were faced with a substantial increase on tobacco. In this Budget, there is a further extraction of a very great sum from the pockets of the smokers. This increase on tobacco and cigarettes is unnecessary and unjust. We have also had an increase in charges by the E.S.B., for which the Government are responsible. Consumers were asked to avail of the facilities offered by the E.S.B., and I repeat that guarantees were given that overhead charges would not be increased. But no sooner were the people gulled into connecting with the E.S.B. than the undertaking not to increase overhead charges was forgotten, just like the food subsidies.

In Ireland to-day you have the dearest motoring in the world. This has been caused by the Government increasing petrol charges. In the past two months, we also had the insurance companies getting away with substantially increased motor insurance premiums. It was the duty of the Government to protect motorists from being fleeced by bringing in legislation to prevent another raid on the pockets of the people by the insurance companies.

Transport charges have been increased all round. It is all very fine for C.I.E. to boast they are paying their way. A man is always in funds the day he sells his own house, but the roof is gone from over his head. Why would C.I.E. not be in funds when they are closing down branch lines and canals, selling railway stations and stretches of canal, depriving people of services and dispensing with the services of their workers? I want to warn the Minister to convey to his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, the indignation of the general public if any attempt is made to bring about wholesale redundancy at Kingsbridge, as planned by C.I.E., where there is to be a big pay-off shortly as a result of economy measures. We have also had increased postal charges and a further raid on the taxpayers' pockets.

I should like to ask Deputies what benefits this Budget has brought to the small farmer. None whatever. It is common knowledge, and it must be admitted here, that it is Fianna Fáil policy to get rid of the small farmer and drive him out of existence. Nowhere in Ireland is that policy more in evidence to-day than in the West. The small farmer is the enemy of Fianna Fáil, and Fianna Fáil is the enemy of the small farmer. There is now a battle between Fianna Fáil and the small farmer. It is common knowledge that the Fianna Fáil aim is to rid Ireland of the small farmer and crush him completely out of existence.

What ray of hope has this Budget for the small farmer? To-day he is faced with ever-increasing rates. Any Minister for Finance should give serious consideration to measures to curb this trend. National taxation has reached its peak, and now we find local taxation is equally crushing. Farmers, particularly small farmers, are unable to meet their liabilities to local authorities. This year every local authority was faced with the position of having estimates presented to them by county managers which called for the imposition of outrageous rates on the people.

The increased rates were brought about as a result of Government policy. We have a Health Act extracting millions from the taxpayers, directly and indirectly. While local authorities were obliged to increase rates for this Act, fewer people are availing of the health services than ever before. The Health Act is unworkable. Fine Gael maintained all along that it would be unworkable. The Minister for Finance, when he was Minister for Health, prophesied here—as he prophesied about the Budget a few weeks ago—that the Health Act might impose a rate of 1/10d. or 2/- in the £.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

Which was true.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

But he did not tell us about the additional 2/- or 4/-it would cost. Everybody knows there is no county in Ireland in which the Health Act costs less than 2/-, while in some it costs 3/-, 4/-, 5/- or even 6/-. Though fewer people are availing of the services, the poorer sections of the community are faced with greater difficulty and hardship. The Government have made so many blunders that it would be difficult to say which will bring about their downfall at the next general election, but I believe the Health Act will play a major part in bringing about a speedy end to the Fianna Fáil Government. That Act has proved too costly to the taxpayer. On the one hand, there is the cost to the taxpayer; and, on the other, the fact that the poor are getting no service.

That is why I feel that the Health Act is unworkable and is a failure. It even went beyond all expectations of the Government that brought it in so far as cost is concerned, but even though it has reached an outrageous cost to the local authorities not all the services are in operation under the Health Act. If they were, what would it cost? I feel that the time has come for a general overhaul and review of the rating system, because local authorities are now faced with the position that they are at the peak of their demands, and the ratepayers are finding it impossible to pay the rates for the maintenance and upkeep of local authorities. Rates demands, health demands, water works schemes, sewerage schemes, housing, home assistance and the various other demands, are all reflecting back on the farmer and the small business man. I venture to say that the time has now arrived at which the ratepayers cannot bear any further burdens.

It is not the duty of the Opposition to tell the Government how it should or could be done, but it is the duty of the Government to devise ways and means to bring about the relief of local taxation which is urgently required and essential if the people are to remain on the land and to remain in the country at all.

Dealing with the farmer, and particularly the small farmer, while we have increases in rates and in general taxation, it has been generally said in strong terms by the farmers' organisations that the farmers' income has decreased considerably. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in regard to the small farmers or the farmers of the midlands, because they are asking them in this Budget to pay more for everything, to pay more in rates and local taxation, and at the same time they are asking them to take less for what they produce from the land. Fianna Fáil at the last general election solemnly promised that they would give the farmers 82/6d. a barrel for wheat—about which we will deal mainly on the Estimate for Agriculture—but the facts are revealed now that this year, in the case of wheat bushelling 54 lbs. or less, there is a reduction of 11/6d. per barrel.

This has been the cause of an angry protest published on the 8th February, 1961 by the N.F.A. Grain Committee, who said that the members saw an unwarranted reduction in the price paid to Irish farmers for wheat when they were already faced with a decreasing income on all sides. Where is the prosperity for the farming community there? Does anyone say that the farmer gets better off when he is faced with a reduction, for example, in the price of wheat despite the fact that he was solemnly promised, for the purpose of getting his vote, 82/6d. per barrel, in the same way as he was promised 45/- per barrel for barley which he never got?

The farmers' income has dropped considerably and has been decreasing month after month while this Government were in office, whether it was derived from the price of milk, the price of barley or the price of wheat. We find that the facts are there, and we have responsible people such as the N.F.A., the representatives of the farmers, making public statements registering their strongest possible protest and admitting that the farmers have faced a decrease in their income all around.

How are the Government going to explain that at the church gates? How do the present Government explain the position here and now? I venture to say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the farmers are worse off to-day than they ever were before. I cannot see how the farmer can be better off facing a reduction next harvest of 11/6d. a barrel in his wheat, and I cannot see how that should be the cause of laughter from Fianna Fáil or the cause of applause for a Government who are responsible for reducing the price of wheat by 11/6d. a barrel, having promised 82/6d. to the farmers, having failed to keep the promise, and having knowingly and deliberately dishonoured it and deceived the farmers. While they took steps to reduce wheat by 11/6d. a barrel, at the same time the produce of wheat, namely flour, has been increased by 89 per cent. and bread by 69 per cent. Here we say again, and it cannot be denied, that these steps have been taken to make substantial gifts to the millers at the expense of the consumer of bread and the grower of wheat. Of course to Fianna Fáil the miller is more important, because they will probably be able to extract more in the form of a cheque from the millers than they ever can from the small grower's organisations or himself.

That is why I say that the present Government have a knowledge of a considerable all round reduction in the farmers' income and yet, in the full knowledge of that, they will stand up and say that the farmers were never better off, never had more money to spend, although we see that the facts reveal the very opposite. So much for the farmer.

The last speaker admits that emigration always and will exist, but I have to subscribe to a different viewpoint on that. I remember many of the Fianna Fáil speeches and even the posters and handbills that they invariably displayed at general elections which were never without a little flavour of a mild reference after an election and a very serious reference before the election to emigration. The only time we hear of emigration from Fianna Fáil is for a month or two before an election. It is the duty of every Deputy on this side of the House, as it is the duty of every member of the general public, to query the Taoiseach and the Government on the promise that the Taoiseach made of the 100,000 new jobs. No Fianna Fáil Deputy can dissociate himself from that promise. We now find ourselves in the midst of the last Fianna Fáil Budget and we have to declare that there is no evidence of 100,000 new jobs, but there is clear evidence that there are 51,000 fewer persons in insurable employment to-day than there were when the inter-Party Government were in office. There is the strength of that promise, and of the Fianna Fáil policy of providing work.

It is the duty of a Minister for Finance and of a Government to give first thought to providing the citizens of their country with a way of living. This Government have failed miserably to provide work, and tens of thousands have emigrated, particularly during the last four years. Everybody knows that never before in the history of the country has there been such a flight from the land and such a continuous flow of people out of the country as during the past twelve months. If emigration from the country generally has gone on to the same extent as it has from the small town from which I come, the position is not alone very serious but drastically critical.

The older type of emigration was that the head of a family would go, but now the position is that the father of a family goes first, settles into his job, pays a deposit on a house, and afterwards brings over the remainder of the family. There are tens of thousands of families in England to-day who could and should be here if the Government were doing their duty of providing work for the people. The Local Authorities (Works) Act gave employment, but that Act was abolished by Fianna Fáil, not because they found any fault with the Act or because its phraseology was wrong but because of sheer spite, because it was a good Act, brought in by the inter-Party Government to provide work under the local authorities.

It gave local authorities substantial funds to carry out important drainage schemes. It enabled many fathers to keep the home fires burning because of continuous and guaranteed employment under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Because of sheer spite, because of envy of success, the Fianna Fáil Party took steps to abolish the Local Authorities (Works) Act. With that went a substantial contribution to local authorities and, with that, went an order to councils to employ fewer men. Fewer drainage schemes were to be carried out and fewer schemes of great importance to land-owners were to be undertaken.

The dismantling of the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been a great tragedy. It was designed to give employment. It was designed for the execution of proper and essential works. We now find ourselves faced with that Act no longer in existence. Ratepayers have to meet additional costs to substitute for funds that were contributed by the State under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. As a result, fewer are employed in rural Ireland and it has added considerably to the many thousands who have had to emigrate.

The same remarks refer to Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme. That section was responsible for providing employment. It was responsible for speeding-up land reclamation. It was responsible for adding to the national wealth by providing speedily additional arable land. As a result of the Land Reclamation Scheme, over one million acres of land are producing food for man and beast that would not otherwise be arable. Those of us associated with the inter-Party Government feel proud of all our achievements in this regard. Our only regret is that the Fianna Fáil Party saw fit to dismantle the satisfactory working of that Act by abolishing Section B. At the next general election we shall tell the people, as we have done and as we are doing, that the moment Fine Gael assume office as Government we shall restore Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme and reinstitute the Local Authorities (Works) Act which will be of considerable benefit to local authorities and provide employment for those unemployed in rural Ireland.

I made no reference whatever to the increase in the cost of living beyond referring to the food subsidies. It must be borne in mind that the cost of living has increased 12 points since Fianna Fáil took office. Yet we shall be told that Fianna Fáil have not increased the cost of living. The statistics they published, and for which they are responsible, show that there is an ever-growing increase all round since they took office.

Some Deputy may say that whilst I was speaking of the farmers and the advantages and disadvantages of this Budget, I made no reference to the fact that farmers are being helped in this Budget by the grant for lime. There is no help in this Budget in that regard. The Government deserve no congratulations for assistance to farmers in regard to lime because they are only restoring what they took from them three years ago.

Why should there be any appreciaton, on the eve of an election, of a pretence of helping farmers to lime their lands when the Government are only giving them what they took from them three years ago, what they should have had for the past three years and what they should have had this year. In recent years, farmers are keeping their eyes open. They listen more attentively. Farmers cannot now be gulled when they hear the Minister for Finance say he is providing money to help them to lime their land. They know he is now giving them what he took from them three years ago. That cock will now crow again.

The farmers have already seen that. The farmers know that. The farmers know that this is only restoring what was taken from them. They were warned at the time by Fine Gael not to interfere with the lime subsidy. We were told three years ago that the subsidy was not necessary, that it was of no benefit to the farmers, that the farmers did not require it. Here they come, on the eve of an election, to restore what they took from them because they now realise that they took something from them that they had no right to take, an action that was resented by the farmer. They are now giving back something for which our farmers do not thank Fianna Fáil. They are only giving back farmers what was unjustly and wrongly taken from them three years ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that on more than one occasion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I want to refer to the facilities in this Budget to assist farmers in regard to cow byres and to help them in the drive to speed up the complete eradication of bovine tuberculosis. I do not see what is in this Budget to assist them in that regard. The memory of Fianna Fáil must be very short. Fianna Fáil now ask farmers to speed up by every possible method the measures required to eradicate bovine tuberculosis.

In the clearance areas and in the areas which have not as yet been declared clearance areas, Fianna Fáil now realise the damage they did three years ago by abolishing the double byre grants. Was that a way to assist farmers to get rid of infected live stock? Was it a way to encourage farmers to give their full co-operation to the Government in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis? It is common knowledge that the double byre grant was specifically designed to assist farmers in that direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that that would be a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. Details of agricultural policy would be relevant on the Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I shall accept your ruling but other Deputies have dealt with it. I just want to point out that the facilities in this Budget do not require an expression of thanks from the farmers to the Government. Everybody knows quite well that one of the most difficult tasks facing the Irish farmer is the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. That scheme was commenced in 1950 by the inter-Party Government. We went out of office in 1951 and Fianna Fáil took over. Nothing was done from 1951 to 1954. In 1954 the double byre grant was provided. Fianna Fáil took steps to deprive the farmer of that benefit. It was wrong to do so. The action of the Government in so doing has added to the difficulties of speeding up the successful eradication of bovine tuberculosis from this country.

I want to make special reference to income tax reliefs. My constituency is one in which quite a considerable amount of employment is given by Bord na Móna, the E.S.B. and by mining interests in South Laois. We have now reached the stage in which even ordinary road workers are obliged to pay a considerable amount of income tax. I want to make a protest against that and to say that income tax is being extracted from people at the present time who cannot pay it. There are many road workers and others who find that they cannot fully meet their commitments and they are obliged to work, in some cases to work against their will, because of this imposition of income tax.

So far as children's allowances are concerned, this Budget is very disappointing. Some provision should have been made to have children's allowances increased particularly where there are large families. I had expected that some provision would have been made for additional benefits to be paid in the form of children's allowances to families where there are five or more children. I think the Government would have been wise to give some additional benefits to the fathers of large families because with the cost of schooling and education, the increased cost of foodstuffs and clothing, such people are in a bad way and some provisions for additional benefits should have been made.

I do not want to detain the House beyond saying that this Budget does not contain any provision whereby additional taxation will be paid by foreigners purchasing land in this country. We know quite well that a good deal of land in this country is being bought up by Germans at the present time. I feel that Government action in this regard is called for. I was expecting that there would be some provision in the Budget which would have made it more difficult for those people to buy up land. I do not propose to deal in detail with the land policy of the Government but I do say that it is no great credit to the Government.

The lands being bought up by foreigners today should be leased or rented to the sons of hardworking farmers who have completed an apprenticeship course in agriculture. They are better entitled to the land of this country than any alien coming over here. I believe that the Government are failing in their duty by not taking the necessary steps to stop the very serious invasion of this country by foreigners. On the one hand, we have tens of thousands of our people going away and, on the other hand, we have foreigners coming in here to buy up the best land in the country. Steps should have been taken to curtail such activities.

The land policy of this Government is wrong and when a change of Government takes place our land policy will be changed to meet the changed conditions. Those big tracts of land will be purchased by the Land Commission or some such body and made available on a lease or rent basis to young farmers to give them an opportunity of existing and making a proper livelihood in their own country. That is something which calls for urgent action. It is a problem that will be tackled most effectively after the next general election. I say with full knowledge that there is keen disgust amongst hardworking young farmers who have spent considerable time in agricultural colleges, who have a thorough knowledge of farming and who would be prepared to marry and settle down on a holding of 50 acres of land. I say that they are better entitled to it than the foreigners who are coming here from many parts of the world and I trust that after the next general election the question will be tackled very effectively.

The present Government have failed. They are still hanging on to office merely as hangers-on, not because they are interested in the country or in the people of the country; they are interested only in themselves. The quicker the general election comes the better. We are ready for it and we are facing it with the full knowledge that, when it is over, there will be a Fine Gael Government. I want to say without the slightest fear of contradiction that only a Fine Gael Government can restore the confidence of the people in our industry and in our agriculture. When the election is declared, that declaration will meet with the entire approval of the vast majority of our people who have been disillusioned and deceived by the Government. After it we can settle down to hard work, to do our best for our people at home and to see that agriculture will be the backbone of this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Corish

I have been waiting here since seven o'clock.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

The significant thing about the debate on this Budget is how little the Opposition have said about the Budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary would allow me to interrupt for a moment, I should like to inform Deputy Corish that I looked at him when Deputy Sherwin offered and, when Deputy Sherwin finished, I had to call on Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I can assure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I was not in any hurry to speak, had anybody else offered.

Mr. Corish

I did not think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could hear me.

Mr. Haughey

The significant thing about this debate has been how little has been said by the Opposition about the Budget itself. The Opposition have been at pains to talk on every conceivable subject except the Budget. Of course that is only natural. It is generally admitted that it is a good Budget and so the best thing the Opposition can do is to talk as little as possible about it. In the fifth Budget which he has presented to this House, the Minister has given us his best yet. Admittedly, all his Budgets were good but, as the years passed, they got better, and in this fifth Budget we have the crowning achievement of his period as Minister for Finance.

The Budget is an indication of the generally satisfactory state of our economy. The Minister has been able to paint a picture of a progressive economy. He has been able to point to a satisfactory balance of payments position, paralleled by an equally satisfactory internal financial situation. He has been able to point to rising employment and increasing national production. This Budget gives concrete expression to that satisfactory position.

The Opposition were caught on the wrong foot. They hoped they might be able to attack this Budget because of the circumstances in which it is introduced, as a vote-catching or election Budget. The Minister has disappointed them in that regard because of his good financial management. Because the sound economic policies of the Government are coming especially to fruition in this year, the Minister has been in a genuine position to give something away and to make concessions. That is a satisfactory position for a Minister for Finance to find himself in, but it is also a position which places heavy responsibilities on him. Aware of the fact that he has a surplus to dispose of, he has to be equally aware of the responsibility he has to dispose of that surplus in a way that is both just and economically beneficial. He has to balance carefully the needs of social justice against the requirements of economic stimulus.

We must all agree that the Minister has done his task excellently. He has in this Budget followed the pattern he set himself in his previous Budgets. He has taken care that the poorer sections will benefit in fair measure from the satisfactory state of the Exchequer and the economy. With careful attention to their needs, he has given what assistance he can, while at the same time using the remainder of the resources at his disposal to procure the greatest economic advantage possible from the point of view of the nation as a whole.

The most significant thing in the Budget is the reduction of 8d. in the standard rate of income tax. Listening to the Opposition, one would think that this kind of reduction is something that happens every day in the week. This reduction is a very significant one and one of the utmost importance to our economy. But Deputy Sweetman completely ignored it. Since I have interested myself in economic matters, I have always been aware of the fact that the greatest single stimulus one can give to an economy is to reduce direct taxation. That is the ideal aimed at by all economists and all Ministers for finance.

In this Budget, we have a concrete example of that principle being put into practice. Remember that the reduction of 8d. in the rate of income tax this year has to be added to a reduction of 6d. given the year before last. From the point of view of national development and economic progress, the achievement of the Minister in effecting this reduction this year cannot be ignored as the Opposition have chosen to ignore it but must rather be regarded by all rational people as an important and entirely beneficial achievement.

The Minister has continued his policy this year of helping economic expansion by means of fiscal reliefs. Since he took office, he has introduced a variety of measures to that end. He has extended and improved tax reliefs on exports. A number of concessions have been made to industry, not the least being the 25 per cent. increase in wear and tear allowances in last year's Budget. Deputy Sweetman chose to ignore all that. He said nothing was done to encourage the expansion of industry. The Minister has given the best possible incentives that can be given to industrial expansion.

A lot has been said about unemployment and emigration. Again, any sensible person looking at our situation from the point of view of these twin problems will admit readily that the only effective solution to them is an increase in national production. In so far as this Budget is an incentive Budget, it contributed to that end. We can achieve an increase in production only if we give incentives to get that increase. This Budget gives the utmost concrete possible incentive it can, that is, the reduction in direct taxation. In that regard, it is making a very definite, very clear-cut and very real contribution to the solution of these problems about which everybody talks so much.

In those circumstances, one would think the Opposition would give due credit in that regard. If they were as concerned as we all are about these two matters, they would welcome this Budget because by the incentives it gives, it contributes to an increase in national production and ultimately to the long term solution of these prob lems. The position with regard to the Capital Budget cannot be regarded as anything but satisfactory.

If you look at Table VI of the financial tables published with the Financial Statement, you will see that the capital expenditure proposed in the coming year is £55.3 millions. That amount represents a significant increase on last year. It represents an increase of 10 per cent., from £50.5 millions in 1960-61 to £55 millions in the coming year. The 1960-61 figure represented an increase of £7 millions over 1959-60 and the 1959-60 figure represented an increase of £6 millions over 1958-59, so that in every year the amount of capital being invested in the development of the economy in one form or another has been steadily increasing.

That increase has been achieved without any strain whatever on our balance of payments situation. Our balance of payments situation is satisfactory at the moment and gives no cause for concern. It is a very significant and real triumph to have been able to increase, year after year, in this fashion, the total national capital investment, without in any way upsetting the structure of our external asset position or of the balance of payment position.

Furthermore, if we look at Table VI we notice that not alone is the overall amount of capital investment increased, but, what is probably equally important, there is a directing of that capital investment into productive sources. We can see that ports, harbours, airports, tourism, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, all productive sources, are sharing in the increased capital resources being made available.

At the same time, social capital investment is not being neglected because it stands now at £4,000,000 higher than it did in 1958-59. Generally speaking, the picture on the capital side of the Budget is as satisfactory as it is on the revenue side and available capital resources are being directed in an increased measure into productive national development. Another satisfactory feature of the capital side of the Budget is the buoyancy of small savings. You could not have a better indication of the basic soundness of the economy underlying the financial structure than the fact that these small savings are becoming increasingly available for national development.

The Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement, outlined that the objective on the current side was to increase the momentum of economic progress while at the same time avoiding inflation. If we look across the water, we see that that is a task very much in their minds and it is a task which in any community must call for financial skill and judgment of a very high order. We can rest assured, from the various statistics and figures which have been supplied to us in connection with the Budget, that we are succeeding in achieving economic progress and at the same time avoiding any risk of inflation.

Again the Minister is to be congratulated on the manner in which he has achieved these two objectives side by side. He was able to point out in his statement that of 20 countries reviewed recently in an article in an economic magazine of the highest standing, only five were lower than we are in the proportion of total national income that is taken in the form of taxation. That is probably as sound a criterion as you could apply and it reinforces the general picture given by these figures of a current budgetary position that is quite satisfactory.

Deputy Dr. Ryan during his term in office as Minister has, apart from achieving very considerable fiscal success, done very good work in another way. He has carried out very important and very useful reforms in the structure of our financial administration. The most important and the most valuable was the introduction of P.A.Y.E. That operation was carried through successfully and, I think, has given satisfaction all round. He has given another indication in this Budget of his intention to keep up that good work. He has merged a number of the surtax rates, with a view, as he said, to the eventual elimination of surtax by its combination with income tax.

From time to time, we have heard the argument put forward that we should do away with death duties because we would thereby encourage wealthy people to come and live here and thus benefit the economy. That has been talked about for a long time, but for the first time the Minister has decided to do something concrete about it. In this Budget, he has said, in effect: "Very well; I will put this matter to the test and I will introduce provisions in an experimental way which will enable us to decide whether the abolition of death duties would be as successful as people have been saying down through the years." That is not a very important fiscal provision in itself but it is evidence of the Minister's approach to this whole problem, a refreshing approach, a desire to introduce reforms in the structure in any way that seems beneficial. He has carried out a number of important reforms already and this clearly indicates that he proposes to continue the process.

The Opposition have made reference to alleged burdens that the Government have put upon the people. They have referred to blisters and generally endeavoured to convey the impression that this Government have increased the burden of taxation unnecessarily to an unbearable point during their term of office. Let me deal with that. If we take the five financial years 1957-58 to 1961-62, the position is that Dr. Ryan as Minister for Finance has given a net relief in taxation of £4.2 million. The Opposition outline the increases in taxation and ignore the reliefs given but the overall position in these five financial years is that net reliefs in direct taxation amounted to £5 million whereas net increases in indirect taxation amounted to only £8 million. So that, far from any excessive or unbearable burden of taxation being heaped upon the backs of the people, in fact, the Minister has been able in that period to give net relief to the extent of £4.2 million.

That is a magnificent and significant achievement. Do not forget that that has been achieved while at the same time the Minister has forgone completely a large amount of revenue that he would have got from industrial profits from exports over the last few years because of the export relief provisions. The figures, documents and publications which have been circulated to us at this Budget time represent, to me, a saga of success. In every page there is evidence of some progress, some increase in national development. The national income itself is probably the greatest single indicator we could get of that.

At page 24 of the booklet Economic Statistics there is set out in Table 10 the national income for the years 1956 to 1960—an unbroken record of increases: 1956, £454,000,000; 1957, £467,000,000; 1958, £479,000,000; 1959, £502,000,000 and 1960, £528,000,000. It represents a story of successful achievement that none of us would have believed possible when this Government took over in 1957. The same sort of picture is seen in the figures of industrial production and the employment statistics.

The progress made over the last four years is reflected in a clear concise and concrete way in the figures in the Minister's Financial Statement. To my mind, his Budget contributes to economic progress and national development in two entirely different ways.

In the first case, there are the actual fiscal incentives to development and the fact that good financial management and sound economic planning are reflected in the ever-increasing volume of industrial and agricultural production.

It is a very significant thing that, for the first time since 1954, the decline in agricultural employment last year was offset entirely by a corresponding increase in industrial employment. That has been the ideal set by economists in this country for a long time. It has been realised that with modern developments it is almost inevitable that employment in agriculture will tend to decrease and that the only way to offset that decline in agricultural employment was by a corresponding increase in industrial employment thereby enabling the population as a whole to rise and to bring us all the benefits that that would bring in its train.

For many years it seemed to be a hopeless task to try to achieve that objective and the picture was one of increasing industrial employment but that increase not being able to make up for the decrease in agricultural employment. In 1960— and this is probably the most hopeful thing that the statistics in connection with this Budget have shown—that position has been achieved.

As I said, the actual fiscal provisions of the Budget will have a very beneficial expansionist effect on the economy but possibly even more important than that is the fact that the provisions of the Budget show more clearly than anything else that the programme of economic expansion is succeeding and that the country is in good hands and in good shape. This evidence will have a beneficial effect on the morale of our people and on their will and determination to achieve their economic salvation. For that reason, I have no hesitation in saying that this Budget is the best I have seen introduced into this House.

Mr. Corish

This is the 21st year of Government of the Fianna Fáil Party and I suppose, like many ordinary people of 21 years of age, they are inclined to settle down and to forget the jousting and the give and take days of their teens or even of their early childhood. From the speech the Taoiseach made here last Thursday, it seems that he wants us now to forget the rompings of his teens or the misdemeanours of his early childhood in politics.

The Taoiseach reprimands the Opposition about the type of speeches they have made on this Budget. He seems to feel very sorry for himself and to resent any sort of criticism. I do not take any exception to the type of speech made by Deputy Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice. He presented one side of the picture as it appeared to him. It has often been said of politicians that they want to have things two ways. The Taoiseach seems to want them only the one way. He wants us as the Opposition to support what he believes are the good things done by the Government. I do not think that is the role of an Opposition. I do not think it is the definition of "Opposition" that the Taoiseach gave himself when he was the Deputy Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party on this side of the House. I remember that on one occasion—I mentioned this before—he said it was not the duty of the Opposition to provide solutions for the Government. It was not the duty of an Opposition to tell the Government what policy they, if in Government, would implement. It was the duty of the Opposition to be watch dogs and to criticise where they thought criticism was justified.

Deputy Haughey also said he was surprised there was so little reference to the Budget itself. I do not know whether or not Deputy Haughey was here last Thursday but I am sure he read the Taoiseach's speech. Can Deputy Haughey tell me there was any substantial part of that speech devoted to the Budget proposals? In one short column the Taoiseach talked about the main provisions of the Budget and then he went on to talk about things he said we should not talk about, the cost of living, advances in social welfare, emigration, employment and unemployment. Therefore, whilst also talking about the main provisions of the Budget, we are entitled to talk about these things which the Taoiseach said we should not mention. Of course, he describes it as misrepresentation.

The Taoiseach asked for suggestions from the Opposition. He deplored the fact that he as Leader of the Government, is not getting any assistance from the various Opposition Parties. We are not so childish as not to realise that, invariably, if any solution is suggested from this side of the House, we hear the cry from the Fianna Fáil Party: "Why did you not do it?" However, that sort of interjection by backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party does not deter me and has not deterred me from saying what I believe should be done in certain branches of Government and in respect of some of the policies the Government are implementing.

On the other hand, we are entitled to take the Taoiseach to task and remind him how he behaved in Opposition. I remember occasions when, if not he, the members of his Party could be described as saboteurs when they cried very loudly that because foreign capital was being invited in here the then inter-Party Government were selling out the country. That sort of propaganda, which I will not say was designed to, but which might have undermined the efforts of the Government at that time, was freely spread throughout the country and freely given in this House.

The Taoiseach also said when he was in Opposition—he subsequently denied it—that he had a plan to create 100,000 jobs, over what period I do not know; he was not very specific. He talked about 100,000 jobs but he did not give us any details as to how he intended to implement that plan, behaving according to his own description of a good Opposition man, merely talking about and suggesting things but giving no details of policy in respect of them.

Deputy Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary, spoke about the favourable position in regard to the balance of payments, the tremendous increase in national income, the increase in industrial output, the small but welcome improvement in agriculture in 1960 compared with 1959. He became very enthusiastic about all these improvements and described them as the greatest improvements that have ever taken place in any single year under any Government. It would be fair comment therefore to say, as I said last Thursday, that the Budget which was introduced does not reflect the enthusiasm of Deputy Haughey when he talks about the improvement in the balance of payments, national income, industrial earnings, industrial output and agricultural output. The Budget is not that good.

If all these things were as good as Deputy Haughey seems to believe they are, surely the Budget would have been more attractive to many more people than it has been? It has not been a spectacular Budget. There is nobody who does not welcome the increase, small though it was, that was given in social welfare. Everybody welcomes the remissions that were made in income tax. Apart from these items, however, what imagination was shown in the Budget? Does it demonstrate that the five-year plan has been eminently successful? I do not say it has been unsuccessful but has it been eminently successful? This is the fifth Budget that has been introduced by this Government and apart from a few things here which are of no great consequence it is much the same Budget as has been introduced in this House for many years back.

The Taoiseach says that it is unfair for us to talk about emigration, as he suggests we have done, as if it only began in 1957 since the advent of the present Fianna Fáil Government. We are all conscious of the emigration figures—at least I am and so is my Party—in the 'fifties and the big emigration figures after 1945 when the war ceased. If they happened to be bigger in 1955, 1951 or 1946, surely that should not prevent the Opposition Parties here talking about the recent emigration figures, the figures for 1960, and comparing them with 1959 and even with 1957?

It will be fair then for us when we go before the people to examine the record of the Fianna Fáil Government just as they were entitled to go before the people in February, and March, 1957, and tell them about our three years of office and about the two Budgets we introduced. Surely the Taoiseach and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party have not become so thin-skinned that they cannot take criticism? I know, especially on the hustings, they were well able to give back criticism and refute criticism. The Taoiseach adopts the role of a purist in politics. He wants everybody to pull together, to stand solidly behind the Fianna Fáil Party and sympathise with them in any difficulties they have. According to them, the Dáil was responsible for anything that was unsuccessful—not Fianna Fáil.

I remember in particular how the present Minister for External Affairs had so much to say from 1954 to 1957 about emigration. I read Deputy Davern's speech on this year's Budget about the decline in emigration. There is no decline unfortunately and surely this is the time to point these things out. The 1959 figure, the most reliable we have, puts the rate of emigration in that year at 38,400. In 1960 that had increased by something in the region of 2,000. Surely, therefore, we cannot say that the policy pursued by Fianna Fáil in those two years has succeeded in diminishing emigration from this country?

The Taoiseach does not have to tell us that there are many nuns and missionaries who emigrate every year and who contribute to the figures available. These people have been emigraing every year so we can have a good comparison in one year with the other, disregarding the Taoiseach's suggestion about the nuns and missionaries. This year we shall have the true emigration figures when the result of the census of population is made known. We shall then not have to depend on figures for people leaving by boat and by air and coming in by the same means.

Deputy Haughey talked about the improvement in the balance of payments, national income, industrial output, but the funny thing about this country is that the smaller the population, the more prosperous we seem to get. I do not know how the economists reconcile that sort of thing. Deputy Haughey is, I suppose, an economist. At least he is an accountant and he seems to be fairly well satisfied that as far as the economists and all the fiscal measures are concerned, this country is on the right road. How many of us in this House, particularly we in the Labour Party who do not pretend to be economists, can judge the country in any other way than by the outward signs?

The outward signs to us are the numbers in employment, the numbers who leave the country, the amount of income that goes into the household each week, the number of people working on the land or in industry. We can judge the economy only on figures like that and it is on figures like that that the Government will be judged. I do not think the Government's record in respect of employment is good. We heard the Minister for Transport and Power talking about the wind of change blowing through the country through the establishment of so many new industries but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Government's record in respect of employment in the last four years is not a good one.

It is no answer to say that the Government's record for the three years before that was not a good one or that it was not good in the three years before that again or in 1935 or in 1932. In the next election the Government will be judged on the figures for unemployment in the past few years. As far as the people of the country are concerned, the figures for employment have declined by 20,000 since 1957 and that decline was particularly noticeable in rural areas. We get no comment from the Taoiseach when we suggest certain measures to try to ensure that more people would at least stay on the land. I know that the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been trotted out in this House time after time. I agree it was valuable in that it kept Irishmen at home in this country.

The Local Authorities (Works) Act is not a fair comparison in this respect but it is no harm to mention it in this context. This year we are to spend £5,000,000 for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Last year we spent another £5,000,000 to try to ensure that the cattle of this country would be rid of tuberculosis and thus qualify for the British market. It is a pretty big figure for a worthwhile project, but surely if the Government and the economists think it desirable we should spend £5,000,000 to eradicate T.B. in our cattle they should consider that it would be worth while to spend a similar sum, if not double the amount, to keep Irishmen at home?

We try to preserve our cattle trade with Britain but neglect to take the steps necessary to keep Irish flesh and blood at home and, no matter what has been said about the causes of emigration, the one big reason Irishmen emigrate is that they have not got employment. Many of them do it because they have not got security or continuity of employment or decent wages. Somebody has suggested in the past few days reasons Irishmen emigrate. They gave examples of people who had up to £8 a week wages but who had the itch in their feet and went off anyway. I can say that for every one of that type there are thousands who want to stay.

Surely there is work to be done in rural Ireland—in drainage, in forestry, in fishery development? Surely there is productive work of that kind that could be given in order to keep people at home? When one talks as I am talking now, people are wont to say it is so much preaching, so much moralising. Surely they must realise it is important to keep Irishmen at home in their own country, if not from the point of view that they are Irishmen, at least from the economic point of view?

The Government say they are confident that there will be established in this country many more new industries. On the other hand they have said our unemployment figures are down to the lowest in many years. We all know that in this figure of unemployed as registered there are many who are unemployable. I could not put a figure on them. They believe themselves able to work but, for various reasons, employers will not take them. Therefore, we are left with a relatively small number of people available in this country to be put into the industries the Government say will be established in the next four years. What happens then? Will we have factories with no men, industries with no Irishmen to man them? The flight from the land must come to an end. If our dependence is to be on agriculture we must have a minimum army of men to produce the goods, the crops and the stock with which this country is so vitally concerned for home consumption and for export.

When I suggested some time ago— or if I suggest now—that even £5 million or £10 million per year should be spent to keep men at home, it was said that I was advocating relief schemes. As I said before, there is much work to be done in forestry, drainage and fisheries, and even if that £5 million or £10 million were spent on those schemes, or even on relief schemes, it would be worthwhile in order to conserve workmen for the boom in industry which Fianna Fáil say is coming. No one will be more pleased than I and the members of the Labour Party, if that boom does come. As I say, we will find ourselves in a queer position if we are geared to and ready to deal with an increase in our industrial output, and have not enough men in the towns or the rural areas to man the factories.

I saw an item in one of last Sunday's newspapers—whether or not any credence can be given to it I do not know, but it was not denied — stating that some employing agent from Britain attended at, I think, Castlebar and recruited 117 men to go to work in England. Perhaps 50 of them were family men who had to leave their wives and children at home in order to go to some place in Britain to work on an airport runway or on road construction. Is there anything we can do to keep those 117 men at home? Surely it would be worthwhile to engage in the type of work which I described a few moments ago, to keep those 117 men from Castlebar in that part of the country? I cannot check on whether it was a fact that they were recruited and did, in fact, go but if it is true, it is a deplorable state of affairs that we should allow such an important commodity— one should not describe them as a commodity—such an important source of our economic development to be taken out of the country and no return given.

The Taoiseach said there were three main purposes in the Budget. That was his only reference to the Budget. He said there were three important features in the Budget and at column 833, volume 188 of the Official Report, he said:

Against the four per cent. increase in national income which was achieved last year we are now providing an increase of over five per cent. in the old age pensions and the other social welfare payments.

They provided 1/6d. per week. I remember that in previous Budgets presented by the Minister, when they had not the same boast to make about our economy, bigger increases than 1/6d. were given. When there was not such a spectacular increase in the national income, as it has been described by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance gave more than 1/6d. per week. That is why we are forced to say, from this side of the House, that the 1/6d. was meagre.

Surely the Fianna Fáil spokesmen have their tongues in their cheeks when they talk about a spectacular increase in the national income, a favourable balance of payments, increased industrial output and increased agricultural output, when all that means for the old age pensioner is 1/6d. per week. It has been so spectacular, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, that that sort of increase may not be achieved again. If Fianna Fáil behave as they did this year, the increase next year will be only the same or even less and the old age pensioner will get only 1/6d. or even less.

I suppose it is not fair to take him to task here now, but the Minister for Health speaking on the radio in connection with the Budget on Saturday night had occasion to say—why, I do not know—that during the regime of the previous Government, even though the price of cigarettes was increased, no increases were given in social welfare benefits. I think it was the Taoiseach who said across the House to Deputy Dillon last Thursday that they were the only Government who had done something for social welfare recipients in every Budget they introduced.

The Government from 1954 to 1957 introduced two Budgets, but in those two Budgets, they included provisions for increases in social welfare benefits. I do not want to go back but, very briefly, an increase of 2/6d. per week was given to the old age pensioners, which amounted to £900,000 for a particular year, an increase of 25 per cent. was given to recipients of social insurance benefits, and there was a vast improvement in workmen's compensation. I mention those figures merely to refute the allegation made by the Minister for Health in his Budget broadcast last Saturday night.

The Taoiseach said that social welfare recipients would share in the increase in the national income. I do not think that is good enough for the old age pensioners. We should be prepared to do a little more for them. The Taoiseach said that the national income in 1960 had increased by four per cent. and that he was giving the old age pensioners a five per cent. increase. As I say, I do not think that is good enough for the old age pensioners. At times when the increase in the national income was very much smaller, the Fianna Fáil Government and the last inter-Party Government gave increases that had no real relation to the increase in the national income. We believe—and I am sure Fianna Fáil must at some time believe—that there is a lot due to the old age pensioners. There is a big backlog to be made up so far as they are concerned. It is not good enough to have them trotting along with the increase in the national income. We should get them up to some sort of a decent standard and then link them up either to the cost of living or a general increase in wages or, if you like, the increase in the national income.

In 1954-55, the national income increased by £18 million and the Government at that time, because they believed it was his due, gave an increase of 2/6d. per week to the old age pensioner which more than compensated him for the increase in the cost of living and certainly was much more as a percentage increase than the percentage increase in the national income. Even though in 1960, according to Government statistics, the national income increased by £26 million, the best the Government could do in the face of such an increase was to give the old age pensioner an increase of 1/6d. per week.

The Taoiseach also talked about the numbers employed in manufacturing industry and said that, in 1960, the highest number ever had been attained. There is no point in having a row about this across the House or discussing it, but these statistics, prepared by the Taoiseach's Department, indicate that 1955 was the year in which the greatest number were employed in manufacturing industry. I shall not read out the figures. They are there for the Taoiseach or for any member of the Fianna Fáil Party to see for themselves. On the one hand, we have the Taoiseach accusing us of misrepresenting the facts, and then he comes into the House and glibly describes 1960 as the best year for employment in manufacturing industry.

Everybody welcomes the concessions in regard to income tax, but they do not mean a lot for the working man. I reckon that of the amount given by the Minister for the relief of income tax more than 50 per cent. will go to companies. There are many who will not benefit at all. A married man with £11 a week, not a fantastic figure, will save 4½d. a week; but under the concessions in regard to sur-tax, a married man with £3,000 a year will save something like £120 a year, which is not too far off £2 10s. a week. Whether or not the Minister and the Government think it desirable that the concessions should be made in that direction, I do not know. As far as I and the Labour Party are concerned, we would have much preferred to see the Minister give concessions in respect of the allowances—the earned income allowance, the personal allowance and the allowances in respect of wife and children. That would have been much better for the ordinary family man.

I do not know if the Minister, in making these concessions, had regard to the British Budget in reverse. They have taken the extraordinary step of imposing a tax on employment. This is designed to correct an employment situation the British Government do not like, that of full employment. A proposal was introduced in their Budget to try to ensure the most economical use of labour by industry. I wonder did the Minister for Finance, in framing his proposals, consider giving concessions to employers here in respect of the number of people they employed? The accent now seems to be on the establishment of industry and giving assistance for the building of factories and the provision of machinery. There is no reference at all to the employment content. The Minister should consider giving a tax concession to employers who take on as many men as they can, having regard, of course, to the economic working of their industry.

There has not been any comment from the Government on a suggestion I put forward here previously. As far as I know, if a foreigner decides to establish a factory here in the under-developed areas, he gets certain concessions, including the full cost of the factory and one-third the cost of machinery. He may also get an allowance for training employees and concessions in respect of electricity and rates. In many cases, the Government give what may be regarded as substantial amounts of money. Having given this money, what control have the Government over these industries? If a Belgian, a German, a Britisher or an American decides to establish a factory west of the Shannon and builds that factory with the financial assistance of the Government, we do not know how permanent that industry will be. We hope it will be permanent, but have we any assurance it will last any length of time?

I do not want to go into the trading difficulties in Europe at present and discuss "The Six" and "The Seven". We know, however, that the United States are prevailing on the British Government to join "The Six" and there is the possibility that they may do so in the near future. The trading situation in Europe may change to such an extent that it might be more advantageous for someone establishing a factory here to go elsewhere. While we welcome the idea of these people coming here, many of us have wondered why they want to establish factories on our western seaboard. Undoubtedly, the financial inducement is very good; but they must have some other reason, apart from the money. I do not believe that it is solely the money they are after. It was a factor in attracting them to Ireland, but we have no guarantee they will stay here.

I cannot offer a perfect solution now. However, in order to ensure that these industries will be firmly established, not alone should the Government give them financial assistance but there should be a Government representative in these factories to exercise some partial—not overall—control over them. Let him be appointed as a director. Let the Government themselves invest money in the industry so they will have some sort of administrative and financial control. Would it not be a tragic situation if in five or ten years' time, these industrialists should decide to pack their bags and establish themselves elsewhere? God forbid that day should ever come, but if it did happen, we would find ourselves with tens of thousands of Irish workers on the unemployment list again. The Government have asked for comments and suggestions. I do not want to be critical of their industrial encouragement policy. However, I should like to hear a statement from them that, as far as they can guarantee it, these industries will be firmly established. I know they cannot give an absolute guarantee, but some firm statement should be made on the points raised.

It seems to be useless to try to induce the Government to engage in the establishment of industries themselves. We seem to have come to a sudden stop in the matter of State-sponsored companies. We can quote the success of the Irish Sugar Company, the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, the Whitegate refinery and a few others. These were directly sponsored by the various Governments. They have been eminently sucessful and have given a considerable amount of employment. They have been responsible to a large extent for what is regarded as the favourable balance of payments position. If these industries have been successful, surely the Government should investigate what further can be done in the matter of establishing State industries to afford further employment?

Speaking about emigration I referred to agricultural workers and their wages. It seems to me that the wages of agricultural workers have lagged very much behind in the last eight to ten years. I have before me the book of Economic Statistics compiled by the Central Statistics Office and, on page 27 in Table 15, we are given index numbers of the weekly earnings of industrial workers in transportable goods industries and of minimum agricultural wage rates. The table shows that while industrial workers' earnings stood at 100 in October, 1953, and agricultural wages stood at 100 in July, 1953, by October, 1955, industrial earnings had leaped to 108.4 but agricultural wages had only risen to 104.9 and in December, 1960, industrial earnings were 142.4 while agricultural wages were then only 134.7. It thus appears to me that, as far as the agricultural worker is concerned, so long as he has to live with a situation like that where his income is not in line with other workers he will turn his eyes towards the towns or, if he cannot get employment there, he will turn them towards Britain.

I was pleased that the Minister in his speech spoke about the development of horticulture. I think this was the first major pronouncement or reference by the Minister for Finance or any Minister of his Government to the possibility of this development. I do not know whether the time is opportune for a further statement to be made about it, but we can recollect the complaint by the General Manager of the Irish Sugar Company to the effect that he was being restricted in his efforts to develop this industry. The small farmers would certainly welcome development in that respect, because there would be crops that they could manage easily from which there would be a very good return if the canning industry which has been mentioned is to be developed on any sort of scale at all.

Whilst not posing as an agricultural expert I had occasion to say on some Vote on Account a few years ago that I believed the policy in respect of the small farmers should be reviewed. The Taoiseach complained that he does not get many suggestions from this side of the House. I complained on that occasion that the bigger type of farmer could more readily avail of the generous assistance given by various Governments than could the smaller farmer who has not the capital or the initial moneys to put down to build his haybarn or his byres, or to engage in drainage in order to get the Government grant.

The man with capital, with financial resources behind him, can get everything. He can avail of every single thing from a grant for an incubator up to a grant of maybe a few thousand pounds for land drainage. The small farmer who needs it cannot get it. I shall not attempt to define what a small farmer is, because the small farmer in County Wexford might not be the same as the small farmer in Tipperary or Mayo or any other county, but every Deputy has his own idea of the small farmer and the Government could certainly average what he is. There should be much more assistance given to the smaller type of farmer than there is to the man with a large holding.

Nobody likes means tests, but it has often occurred to me that it is the poorer sections of the community to whom the means tests are applied. It is the widow with no means whose husband had no insurance stamps who is subjected to means tests. The man who applies for the dole is subject to a means test. The non-contributory old age pension is subject to it. In all these cases the applicants have to prove that they have got nothing before they can be assisted by the State, but in respect of industry or agriculture we do not find any means tests at all. In respect of children's allowances there are no means tests. The richest man in the country who has children qualifies for children's allowances. The wealthiest group who decide to build a hotel are entitled to a grant within the rules of the administration of the law. The farmer who has 2,000 acres or 1,000 acres can qualify to obtain a grant for an incubator or to build a cow house or a pigsty, but he does not really need it. All he has to do is to apply for it and he gets it.

I shall not say that that sort of money represents a substantial amount of the agricultural grant, but it should be devoted to the person who really needs it. I know farmers in Wexford struggling with 30 acres who cannot get all the grants they need to do the drainage necessary on their land and who cannot build the various sheds and outhouses and pigsties that they need because they have not the initial moneys to engage in that work, or at least they have not the full amount. Therefore I believe that as far as the agricultural industry is concerned we should do much more to help the small and middle-sized farmer who provides the goods for us. We say we depend on him and that he is the most important man, and if so we should help him more.

The Taoiseach mentioned as if it were a new thing that the Government were considering doing something to change and improve the educational system in this country. I understand that he cannot be here for every debate, and I believe that his time is much more precious than the time of all of us here, he being the Taoiseach, but surely that sort of reform in our educational facilities has been advocated for the last four years, for ten years before that and for ten years before that again? I have always felt, and have protested in this House, that not enough scholarships were being provided to allow children who would be regarded as very intelligent and clever to carry on their secondary education and if necessary to go into the university. We are very mean and niggardly about the amount we provide for education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question would be more relevant on the Estimate than in the general debate on the Budget.

Mr. Corish

I am making only a general remark on this question and will wind up with two or three sentences on it. There are very few people in County Wexford who can afford to go to the university and, therefore, the county council in their generosity, whether they get any assistance from the Government or not I do not know, have provided scholarships for people of modest means. They provide three scholarships and there is another which is an agricultural scholarship. This means that altogether four people in the county whose parents cannot afford to send them to the university are assisted, not very generously at that, to go to the university.

It means, therefore, whether we like it or not, that the majority of those in the university are there merely because their parents can afford it. Good luck to them. Nobody begrudges them, but when we talk in the Constitution and in the Declaration of 1916 about equal opportunities for all in respect of education it is a joke when we remember the number of scholarships given in the entire country. It was very welcome when the Minister for Education announced some time ago that he was contemplating providing many more scholarships. I hope that he does. He certainly will have the support of the Labour Party in that. The only thing we would urge is that it be done as quickly as possible.

The Taoiseach says he does not get many suggestions. Sometimes it is risky in this House to make suggestions. The Irish language has been the subject of debate for a long time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the matter would not arise on the Budget Statement?

Mr. Corish

According to many speakers on the Fianna Fáil benches, it is a most important subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be so but not on the Budget.

Mr. Corish

I shall reserve my remarks. I only wanted to say that I am, and always have been, in favour of the revival of the Irish language. I did not and do not agree with the methods applied to revive it. If I suggest as I have suggested, that we should remove the compulsion, I shall be told immediately by certain elements in Fianna Fáil that I am unpatriotic. While agreeing that the Irish language should be revived, surely we should agree to differ on the methods of doing so?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid I cannot allow any further discussion of that subject.

Mr. Corish

It is as much as I wanted to say. I do not want to wind up this speech with a flourish and forecast of the election. The Budget was a disappointment to the people. Maybe Fianna Fáil themselves were responsible for that. If so, they must face the public and take the consequences which I know they are prepared to do.

The Minister for Finance announced some time ago in the Seanad that the Budget would be a good one. He gave the people much more hope than the Budget justifies. I do not know whether or not his remarks could be regarded as a breach of confidence. I do not allege it is, but in my experience in this House and in my short memory of politics, I do not remember a Minister for Finance telling the public that the Budget would be a good, bad or indifferent one. As a citizen, his remarks would have had no effect on me but I wonder what effect they had on what is called the financial world. It was an intimation that there would be some concessions —I suppose the best bet would be income tax. Whether or not that had any repercussion or effect on the financial world, I cannot say. Nobody has said so far that the Minister was indiscreet or unwise to make that remark but it is the first time I have heard the Minister announce what sort of Budget he would introduce. However, he disappointed the people. It would be better if he had said nothing. Then maybe the people might have regarded this as a better Budget than it really is.

Mr. Johnston

From what I have heard from the public outside this House and read in the newspapers, some of which are not favourable to the Government, the Budget has been well received. One of the best tributes came from an Opposition Deputy who said it was not by any means an election Budget, as it is not. It proves the honesty and integrity with which the Minister drew up his Budget.

The attitude of the Opposition reminds me of the statesman who remarked that when a country is doing badly, people blame the Government and when it is doing well, they thank God. The Budget is an indication of the progress that has been made. The Minister has been able to give some reliefs. They are not spectacular and they were not meant to be so. However, they were spread over the people as a whole. Everybody has benefited to some extent.

It should be clear to everybody where the road to prosperity lies— increased production from our farms and from our factories and increased exports. In that way we shall raise our standard of living. That has been the policy of Fianna Fáil. I was surprised to hear my colleague, Deputy Giles, say that in his twenty-five years of public life, he has not seen any progress. In County Meath, there has been very considerable progress in housing, hospitalisation, land division, water supplies, and so on. That is real progress and it can be continued, provided we have the right driving force behind us. Deputy Giles suggested we should send 40 or 50 members of the Fianna Fáil Party down to Guinness's to learn salesmanship. If the Taoiseach thinks well of the suggestion, he will not be short of volunteers but I do not think it will be necessary.

Much mention has been made of the plight of the small farmer. They are not doing well and they have not done well, as far as I can remember. This will give some indication of the value of land. In my county, 11 statute acres were recently sold at a public auction for £1,700. It was bought, not by a foreigner but by a local farmer who has a good deal of land. He was buying something solid on which he was prepared to work.

If our people are given the proper leadership, then, as will be seen from the Budget, they will go forward with the task in hand. They have that leadership. I do not think they will let it slip. Deputy O. J. Flanagan said that after the next election, Fine Gael will be in office. I think he is a bit over-optimistic, as we shall see from the result.

Mr. P. Byrne

If I may take up on Deputy Corish's concluding remark, I would urge on the Minister that there is no more productive form of expenditure by the State than expenditure on education. After introducing the Budget last week, the Minister circulated a White Paper Direct Taxation which I have studied very carefully over the weekend. I suggest the Minister should immediately abolish the Income Tax Commission. It is perfectly obvious that the Commission are getting nowhere. The Government accepted their first report which recommended the introduction of P.A.Y.E. There have been three other reports. With the exception of one or two small points in the second report, the rest have been totally rejected by the Government.

It is a most hardworking Commission. Their reports are very thorough surveys of their subject. The members of the Commission are all eminent and indeed distinguished persons. It seems to me that they are wasting their time for what they have said on many important aspects of our tax system has been completely ignored. Indeed, one of their reports has been treated almost with contempt by the Government, being dismissed in two or three paragraphs in this small White Paper.

In particular, I want to refer to the second report, the main recommendation of which was that Schedule A. taxation on owner-occupied dwellings under £30 valuation should be abolished.

The White Paper claims that that is an illogical recommendation. That is a rather strong criticism, a most undeserved criticism. The recommendation is not at all illogical; it is quite realistic. Presumably, it is suggested that it is illogical because, if Schedule A is wrong in principle, one could argue that it should be abolished altogether. The Commission was enjoined to make practical recommendations and the Commission had regard to the effect on the revenue of any of its recommendations. The suggestion of this ceiling of £30 in the valuation for Schedule A tax purposes was made in order to lighten the impact of the concession on the revenue.

Schedule A taxation is a penal tax on the thrifty citizen, on the householder. Receipts from it are said to be about £1½ million. That figure is a most deceptive one, a most misleading one, and should be studied with great caution. The fact of the matter is that the only persons who are effectively paying tax under Schedule A are, by and large, householders. Admittedly, business property is subject to tax under Schedule A, but what is gained on the swings under that heading is lost on the roundabouts under Schedule D, which gives relief of the amount assessed under the previous tax.

It is a most complicated tax which is inequitable in its incidence. I greatly deplore and resent very much the view the Minister has taken of the Second Report of the Income Tax Commission. The only persons who benefit from Schedule A taxation are the landlords of residential property and certain other small properties. If the recommendation of the Commission were accepted, the cost to the revenue would be approximately a quarter of a million pounds. I am not suggesting that it would be very easy for the Minister to give that concession this year, but he could have gone part of the way. He could have admitted in principle that the Commission had made a good case for its remission. An important point to have regard to in connection with Schedule A taxation is the very heavy cost of its collection. Apart from that, I believe that the whole tax is wrong in principle, that it is based on crackpot, outworn, Victorian economic ideas.

I think that only very few Deputies here, perhaps only a minority, are aware that our main tax statute is the British Income Tax Act of 1918. This is the 109th year in which this tax code in its present form is being imposed on the Irish people. The whole concept of income tax, as we know it, goes back to the time of William Pitt —it is over 150 years old. I believe that we have been far too reactionary and far too conservative in our approach to income tax affairs. I greatly regret and, indeed, resent the manner in which virtually all the recommendations of the Income Tax Commission have been rejected by the Government. In particular, I feel it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the wage earner and the salary earner contribute far more than is equitable to our direct tax revenue. The receipts from the wage and salary earners, particularly after the onset of P.A.Y.E., have been such that the Minister has done very handsomely from them during the past year.

The approach is that the wage earner and the salary earner are fair game for the Revenue Commissioners. They are an easy mark. Their income is easily ascertainable. They are taxed in full on every 20/- in the £. They are the only section of taxpayers who receive no allowances in respect of expenditure when their tax assessments are raised. I believe the time has come when future Ministers for Finance must have regard to the inequitable impact of our present form of income tax on wage earners and salary earners and must introduce differential rates of allowances. A very strong case can be made for a higher rate of personal allowance for wage and salary earners or for a higher rate of earned income relief. The amount of the salary earner's expenses is something that should be looked into and at the earliest possible opportunity. The rule with regard to those expenses is one which has been condemned by very many important authorities, including a British Royal Commission and many courts of law.

In respect of the taxation of wage earners and salary earners, I should like to say a word about the P.A.Y.E. scheme which has worked very successfully from the Minister's point of view. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting all concerned with the mechanics of P.A.Y.E. and to say what a very good job the Revenue Commissioners have made of adapting to our purposes the British system. In the mechanical sense, the job has been done with great efficiency. When P.A.Y.E. was introduced, Senator O'Brien gave a very apt description of it in the Seanad. He likened it to a person who has an old wornout coat and who put a patch on it. That is P.A.Y.E. he said.

What is really needed is a new code. Because P.A.Y.E. seems to be working well and because the Minister has not, perhaps, received very many complaints about it, we should not be too smug with regard to it. It is only a patch on an old outworn tax code, a tax code which should be discarded.

I should like to express my agreement with a point made by Deputy Corish. He said he would prefer to have the income tax concession given in the form of increased allowances for the individual rather than by way of reduction in the standard rate. I suspect one of the reasons the Minister did not increase the personal allowances was that that would have involved the scrapping of the certificates for the current year issued under P.A.Y.E. during the past two or three months. This is one of the criticisms one can make of the system; in a mechanical sense, it seems to impose a certain degree of rigidity on the tax structure.

In relation to this question of the inequitable impact of direct taxation on wage and salary earners, it is true to say that the proportion of the national income accruing to wage and salary earners has not increased significantly in the past two or three years. Over the same period, the amount of taxation paid by wage and salary earners has increased very considerably. As far back as 1956, the present Tánaiste as a Deputy in Opposition, referred to the principle of social justice. At volume 158, column 226 of the Official Report, Deputy MacEntee said:

Apart altogether from that, there is an obvious element of social injustice because, after all, while the percentage received from Schedule E tax has gone up by 50 per cent. —there is a 50 per cent. greater proportion of the total yield from the tax than in 1938-39—the earnings upon which this tax is assessed have declined very substantially in real value per unit of currency.

Further on, he says:

The main plea I am going to make to the Minister is this. I think we should have this examination of income-tax as it affects all classes of taxpayers, but we should particularly have it in relation to its incidence upon those who are employed and whose income is mainly derived from the carrying on of a business or profession, whether that income accrues to them as the owner or as the employee of it ... we should consider whether we have not reached the stage at which income-tax has become positively detrimental to our continued economic development. It is, at its present rate, highly inflationary. It leads to all sorts of abuse.

At that time, of course, Deputy MacEntee was in Opposition. He is now a member of a Government who have produced this extremely reactionary White Paper and who have rejected so many of the recommendations of the Income Tax Commission.

I am intrigued as to what was behind the concessions given to surtax payers in this Budget, concessions costing no less than £100,000. This £100,000 represents the third concession given by the Minister for Finance in the present Government to surtax payers. Some years ago, he raised the surtax exemption limit from £1,500 to £2,000. In 1959, he made the personal allowance chargeable for surtax purposes. Prior to that, it had not been. That was quite a considerable concession. Now he is raising the limit to £2,500. I wonder does the Minister feel the Fianna Fáil Party have an obligation to discharge to the wealthy classes in the country? Can we from now on regard Fianna Fáil as the rich man's Party?

It is extremely important from the point of view of inspiring confidence and preserving public morale that the income tax code should be both impartial and equitable in its impact upon taxpayers. Our present code is neither impartial nor equitable. The fourth report of the Income Tax Commission expresses that opinion in paragraph 143:

If a tax is to command public support it must fall impartially on all members of the community. In practice there will inevitably be some modifications of this idea, but the whole foundation of our system of income taxation is damaged so long as the basis of assessing income is out of conformity with the realities of the situation. Our recommendations are intended to remedy this serious difficulty.

Their recommendations have, of course, been completely rejected, along with the recommendations in most of the other reports of the Commission. There is a very strong moral obligation to instil a measure of equity into our tax code. An unfairly loaded tax code is bound to be demoralising in its effect on those who are called upon to pay on their full income.

If I may revert to this question of Schedule A—the householder's tax, as I term it—I would suggest to the Minister, and it is a constructive suggestion, that he should consider the reintroduction of the repairs allowance for Schedule A purposes. At one time, there was a repairs allowance. It was abolished in the 'thirties by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly. He was probably hard pressed for money. In the absence of the complete abolition of this Schedule A tax on owner-occupiers, the introduction of a repairs allowance would go part of the way towards making this tax somewhat fairer in its impact.

There is one section of the community sadly disappointed by the Minister's latest Budget, and for a very particular reason. In the autumn of this year, Irish television will become a reality. Already cinema owners are suffering adversely because of the popularity of British television. A year ago the Minister made quite a generous concession in relation to entertainments duty where cinemas are concerned. He gave a flat rebate of 20 per cent. on the duty payable per week, plus a round allowance to each cinema of £10. I think that perhaps the Minister in one respect was over-generous last year.

The time has come when the desirability of taxing cinemas on a differential scale should be seriously considered. The big cinemas, the O'Connell Street houses in Dublin, the first-run houses, will always draw big crowds and will always pay their way very handsomely. The second-run houses, usually the smaller cinemas, are the ones which are now feeling the draught in a very big way. Several of them in the Dublin area have closed recently and I am afraid that it is probable more will have to close unless the entertainment duty on them is abated considerably.

Two scales of relief are called for, one scale for the first-run houses and another for the second-run houses. It should not be administratively impossible to devise such a scale. The relief that was given a year ago is really most significant for the big men. It does not mean nearly as much to the smaller ones, those which really need the relief, those whose prices are in the lower bracket. There are 3,000 people employed in the cinema industry, 1,500 of them in the Dublin area alone, and the reality of the position is that their jobs are in jeopardy by reason of the falling off in attendances due to television. A scale of duty related to the attendances or to the revenue earned per seat in those houses, is one which should commend itself to the Minister.

As I said at the commencement of my remarks, we should face up to the fact that in this country William Pitt's code of income tax was never designed for Irish needs and that it is quite unsuited to our economy. I would urge the Minister to take another look at all the reports of the Income Tax Commission and adopt a less reactionary approach. I have a Parliamentary Question down for tomorrow asking the Minister how many recommendations the Commission have made to-date and how many of those have been accepted by the Government. I think I can anticipate the Minister's reply. The vast majority of them have been rejected in this reactionary, over-conservative White Paper which the Minister circulated a week ago.

Mr. Loughman

Deputy Corish admonished the Minister this evening because in the Seanad a couple of weeks ago he said that he was going to introduce a good Budget. The extraordinary thing is that Deputy Corish himself, four or five months ago, prophesied that not only was the Minister going to introduce a good Budget but that we were going to have a general election in May, because of the Budget. He made that statement in Clonmel and repeated it in some other place. He did not allow to the Minister anything like what he allowed himself. It is because it is a good Budget that there is all this fuss. What I often wonder is what the Opposition would call a good Budget. I have come to the conclusion that a good Budget from the Opposition's point of view would be one that would blister the people, impose heaxy taxation and impose crushing burdens on industry, and so on. That would give them an opportunity at the church gates and here in this House of shouting about the disastrous effects of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Of course we did have it from Deputy Dillon and needless to say when Deputy Flanagan spoke, we had it even better. Of course everything Deputy Flanagan says is exaggerated, as, for instance, his statement that Fianna Fáil at the last election gave pledges, promises and undertakings in order to induce the people to change the Government. "Pledges, promises and undertakings"—he must repeat himself two or three times for emphasis sake. It so happens that I was present at the last speech, I suppose, delivered by a Minister at the general election. The meeting started at 10 p.m. and the Minister spoke at 10.30. The Minister was the present Minister for Finance and the most important statement he made at the meeting was that because he did not have details of the financial position, he was unable to make any promises whatever to the people except that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power they would devote all their energies to clearing up the mess which they felt the country was in——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And that was his most important statement?

Mr. Loughman

There was no doubt about it that a mess did exist. I want to deal with the question of election Budgets and appealing to the people and all that type of thing. There was an excuse for the election that followed the first Coalition because there was internal dissension. We all know about that; it was published in the newspapers; and they spoke of sinister influences and so on. The second Coalition had an excellent majority and Fianna Fáil were not able to beat them in any way at all. The only reason I can see for their dissolving Parliament was simply that they were not able to carry on. If the Government were able to carry on, why should they dissolve before three years had expired?

We all know the position of the country at the time. Unemployment was at the highest level in my memory and it was increasing. We all know there was no money for any purpose and that grants had been suspended. In fact, in the first two or three months after the election, I was getting nothing but appeals from people to help them to get grants which they should have got a year before. Factories were in a very precarious position. I know that to be perfectly true. Factory workers were working on short time and many were being dismissed.

The real reason the last Coalition Government dissolved was simply that they were unable to carry on. That being the position, what were the people to do when a Party like Fianna Fáil appealed to them? They knew the Coalition Government had failed. They knew that they had thrown up the sponge, that they had actually admitted that they were unable to carry on the government of this country. What option had the people but to elect the one Party who could give them a Government?

It cannot be denied that for the past four years there has been a period of stability and peace in this country, a period of certainty. Everybody knows that the country is in a sound financial position, a situation completely different from that which obtained during the three years previous to Fianna Fáil taking office.

Deputy Flanagan told us that there was keen disappointment in the country because of the Budget. I do not know what kind of people Deputy Flanagan meets but I meet a fair cross-section of the people every day and the general comment on the Budget that I have heard is exactly what the Minister has said, that it is a good Budget. I believe that to be perfectly true.

Deputy Flanagan consoles himself with the thought that this is the last Fianna Fáil Budget. He prophesied that the election would take place before the end of this year. The last Fine Gael Budget was introduced about a year before Parliament dissolved. I suppose they were afraid to introduce a Budget in the year 1957. They were afraid of the taxes they would have had to impose.

We have heard a tremendous amount of talk about the food subsidies. So far as the people are concerned, the food subsidies are as dead as mutton. Nobody in rural Ireland bothers his heard about food subsidies. The price of bread, tea and butter is a subject for wonderful election slogans but the people generally are not concerned with the food subsidies at the moment. They are able to buy food at the prices obtaining and they are quite happy to have the money to buy these commodities. I am quite happy to envisage Deputy Flanagan's threat being put into effect, that at every church gate in the country, we will be hearing about the food subsidies.

Deputy Flanagan also told us that if we believe that the threepence per day granted to old age pensioners will mean that we will sweep the country, we are living in space. It is the Deputy who is living in space. The old age pensioners are very happy about any increase they get and Fianna Fáil have always given such increases to the fullest possible extent.

I was amazed at the attitude of the Labour Party towards the increase in old age pensions. About 18 months ago, Deputy Kyne, from the Labour benches, advocated the imposition of an extra tax on tobacco, cigarettes, beer, spirits, cinemas and other luxuries, the proceeds to be used to improve old age pensions and other social services. Last year, the Minister imposed an extra penny tax on cigarettes and tobacco and announced that it was hoped thereby to raise £900,000, £450,000 of which would be allocated to old age pensions and the balance to other social services. To my surprise, last year, Deputy Kyne, who had advocated exactly what the Minister had done, walked into the division lobby to vote against that tax. He did precisely the same thing last week when the Budget was introduced. I had complimented him when he spoke on that motion on taking a realistic view of taxation, of government and of everything else. I said he had come to realise, and was the first person on the other side of the House I had heard stating, that in order to give anything, the Government had first to collect it. The Deputy advocated the imposition of a tax and then suggested a method of spending it.

Deputy Corish always amazes me when he talks about the old age pensioners. The Deputy was Minister for Social Welfare for about three years. He believes that the old age pension is a means of livelihood. I remember challenging him on that question. I have always regarded the old age pension as something which a Government give to old people to help them. I believe, and I do not make any secret of my belief, that old people are the responsibility of their children, just as children are the responsibility of their parents. I hope the idea will never be accepted in this country that old age pensioners are wards of State. I am always happy when a Government are able to improve the position of the aged by giving them something extra and the more they get the better I will be pleased, but Deputy Corish, who believes that the old age pension is a means of livelihood, should have seen to it when he was a member of the Coalition Government that that belief was put into operation and that, instead of the 25/- or whatever it was at that time, they would get £3 or £4 or whatever sum he thought would be a means of livelihood for old people.

Deputy Flanagan referred at great length to the small farmers. I asked him several times what exactly he meant by a small farmer but I did not get an answer from him. Towards the end of his speech, he gave a solemn pledge that when Fine Gael took office again, they would, through the Land Commission or by some other method, purchase the thousands of acres that were being purchased by foreigners and would give 50-acre farms to the sons of farmers. I wonder is the owner of a 50-acre farm the small farmer about whom Deputy Flanagan was talking? Apart from that, what amuses me about Deputy Flanagan is that he of all people should talk about farmers. When we increased the price of milk by twopence, he protested that he would not agree in any circumstances to increasing the price of milk to benefit the rich farmers of Limerick and Tipperary. Every penny on the price of milk, he said, meant twopence a lb. on the price of butter to his constituents and he certainly would not stand for that. This is the man who comes here today and every day and lectures the Fianna Fáil benches about the farming community.

I noticed when Deputy Dillon was talking about farmers that there were only two farmers in the 13 men who sat behind him. I have no objection to the number of farmers there may be in any Party but it is extraordinary that the number of farmers in the Fine Gael Party is as small as it is. I do not think there is one Fine Gael farmer living in the province of Munster. There are quite a number of them on the Fianna Fáil benches. It is the people who elect their representatives but it is laughable that the suggestion should come from the opposite benches that we should not open our mouths about the farmers.

The price of wheat was referred to. We were told that we had promised 84/- a barrel for wheat. Certainly no such promise was made in Tipperary at the last election.

Mr. Rooney

It was promised on the radio.

Mr. Loughman

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th April, 1961.