I have often wondered if the Fine Gael Party have ever endeavoured to find out why it is that, despite the deluge of destructive criticism which was poured by the Fine Gael Party on Fianna Fáil Budgets down through the years, despite the manner in which Fianna Fáil Budgets have been misrepresented by the Fine Gael Party, as they are misrepresenting this Budget, and despite the fact that the Fine Gael Party have been in Opposition for a very considerable time, and because of that in a position to be all things to all men by demanding this Budget, and despite the fact each heading, while at the same time complaining about the cost, the Fianna Fáil Party are the largest Party and have remained the largest Party in this House for many years—larger than the combined organised Parties.
If the Fine Gael Party were to try to find out the reason for this, they would find that the answer is a simple one; simply that our people are an intelligent people and it would be wise for any political party to treat them as intelligent people. Our people expect from an Opposition reasonably constructive criticism, not the type of destructive criticism to which we have been listening here for the past few weeks and to which we have, indeed, listened for a number of years on all the various Budgets introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party.
Having listened to the debate on this Budget, there is one thing of which we can be assured. Whatever the Fine Gael Party may lack—there is no doubt they lack much—their powers of imagination are unlimited. Their speakers have conjured up all types of ogres and demons in relation to this Budget. The Fine Gael Party have declared that the country is lost, despite all the signs to the contrary. One would expect the Party who led this country to the brink of ruin in 1957 to be better able to read the signs. As the Minister has said, however, we need not take statements on the Fine Gael benches too much to heart because these prophets of doom are very obviously indulging in wishful thinking. It becomes rather boring having to listen to Fine Gael speakers crying out about what they allege is Government extravagance, especially when one notes how careful they are not to itemise the directions in which they think expenditure could be reduced. There is, of course, a very good reason for that; if they were to suggest any way in which expenditure could be reduced, that would hit some section of the community. That would not be popular and Fine Gael have always endeavoured to found any programme they put forward on its short-term popularity basis.
I have listened for a considerable time to a litany of prices. To put the matter in perspective, I shall now give a few points, perhaps, also in the form of a litany. Since we came into office in 1957 we have consistently increased the amount allocated to agriculture until it is now two and a half times what it was in the last Book of Estimates issued by the Coalition Government. I know this annoys Fine Gael because that Party would like to be known as the friends of the farmers. There is no doubt that if the basis of this friendship were measured in words, they would have a very good claim. It must be difficult for them to convince the farmers how much more interested in them they are as compared with Fianna Fáil, remembering that we are giving them two and a half times more money than Fine Gael.
Fine Gael have stated that we are extravagant, that we are spending too much money. It is only fair that we should ask them, taking agriculture, first of all, where they would make savings. Do they suggest we should end the eradication of bovine tuberculosis scheme? We could save money in that way. Do they suggest we should reduce the price of milk? Do they suggest we should hold back the money we have allocated towards reducing rates on agricultural land? Is it suggested we should reduce the grants for fertilisers? Is it suggested that the farmers are getting too much in the way of grants for farm buildings? We would like to allocate more money, if we could. As I have said, if Fine Gael want the Estimates reduced, they must tell us where they want the reductions made. I have put a number of questions to them with regard to agriculture. I should like to hear those questions answered before this debate closes.
If they say they do not want any reduction in agriculture, then let us turn to industry. Do Fine Gael suggest we should reduce the grants we are making available to induce industrialists to come in here and establish industries, thereby providing more employment? Having listened to some of the speeches by the leaders of the Fine Gael Party in my constituency, I have a feeling that there is an idea of that kind moving around in the Fine Gael Party at the moment. If that is so they can be assured that, should they ever attempt to have this money reduced, they will meet my strongest opposition. Do they suggest we should reduce the grants we are now making available to our older industrialists to enable them to equip their industries so that they will be in a position to compete in the free trade market we are all agreed lies ahead? There, again, some Fine Gael speakers are endeavouring to convince our older industrialists that we are forgetting them, they themselves forgetting in the process that the Fianna Fáil Party was the architect of industry here and that we have recently passed a Bill providing still more money for industrialists who are anxious to improve their industries. That is proof that we are most anxious about these older industrialists and the provision of this money is mainly to ensure that these industries will continue to thrive and that those who are employed there will continue in employment.
Are we spending too much money on health? We would like to be able to spend more. If I am to judge by the motions and questions put down by the Fine Gael Party on the subject of health, they also want more money spent on health.
With regard to social welfare, is it suggested we should cut down on old age and widows' pensions, on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance? So far as this Party are concerned, that is a suggestion which would be very strongly resisted. We have a very fine record with regard to social welfare benefits. If, however, the Fine Gael Party think there ought to be cuts, then let them say so.
Are we to reduce the grants for housing? I know the Fine Gael Party are annoyed because of the boom in building at the moment. Perhaps that is why they suggest reductions in spending on building. This is something in which we have taken a very considerable interest right since 1932 and we shall continue to do so; we shall provide as much money as we possibly can for housing.
What about education? Should we reduce the Estimate for Education? If I am to judge by some of the speeches made in my constituency, it is the view of Fine Gael that we are not doing enough for education, particularly for the poorer people to enable them to get a reasonable education. Again, the fact that we have increased considerably the number of scholarships in the past two years has been conveniently forgotten. We are giving very many more scholarships now than were given under the Coalition.
Are we to reduce the money allocated for telephones? I can imagine the uproar on the Opposition Benches if it were suggested we should. Are we to reduce the amount allocated to the Land Commission for the buying up of farms and the subsequent redistribution of those farms among deserving applicants? Are we to reduce the amount of money allocated to the Board of Works? If I remember rightly, a considerable number of questions was tabled by Deputy Oliver Flanagan in connection with bog roads. I should imagine he would be opposed to any reduction in the amount of money allocated to that end. I have been through most of the Department Estimates, but I doubt if any Fine Gael speaker will allude to any Department in which he would like to have a reduction made.
It must also be remembered that if the Opposition decide that certain Estimates should be reduced, they must also consider what effect this would have on employment and what effect it would have on the small shopkeeper about whom they have talked to a considerable extent in the past few weeks. I should imagine that, difficult as the position of the small shopkeeper may be in regard to this tax, he would prefer it very much to conditions as they were in 1956 when he could not get in his money at all.
When the Vote on Account was before the House, the major opposition Parties differed in their approach to it. The Labour Party stated that they were satisfied that the amount of money being sought by the Minister was reasonable. The Fine Gael Party adopted their usual conservative attitude, that we were spending too much, and that we were looking for too much money. This is merely in keeping with certain statements I have seen from Fine Gael on many occasions on which they said that their policy was to allow every man to spend his own money without any Government interference. That is a very satisfying policy for the rich but I am sure it will be agreed that it is rather harsh on the poor, on the old age pensioner, on the unemployed, on the person who is depending on taxation to supply him with the social welfare benefits to which he is entitled. This standstill attitude of Fine Gael is one to which I have always been opposed and I have stated this on many occasions in the House but at least I can say that, on the surface, anyway, Fine Gael are consistent in their conservatism because they opposed the Vote on Account and they now oppose the Budget.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand the Labour Party attitude to the Budget. I might add that I have been very disappointed by their attitude here. Here is a Party who were agreed that the estimated expenditure was reasonable but who now oppose the manner in which this money is being collected without suggesting any alternative likely to provide anything like the amount of money needed. I know Deputy Corish and other Deputies have stated that it is no part of the Opposition's duty to suggest an alternative policy in regard to taxation. In this case, there is a certain duty on the Labour Party because they agreed that the estimated expenditure was reasonable. If they agreed that the estimated expenditure was reasonable, they must also agree that a certain amount of taxation had to be levied. If they have a system whereby this taxation could be levied which they believe is a better system than the one we have put into operation, it is their duty to let us know it.
However, I am very much afraid the attitude of the Labour Party is based on the fact that it is popular to spend money on people—hence their support for the Vote on Account—but it is unpopular to collect it—hence their vote against the Budget. Those are the reasons for their opposition to the Budget rather than sound economic principle or concern for social justice.
I am suggesting this because many countries in Europe which have Labour Governments have in operation a tax system such as this one and I have in mind particularly one country which has had a Labour Government for a considerable number of years and where the standard of living is one of the highest in Europe. I am also suggesting it because of the fact that the expressed intention of the Labour Party in Britain to operate a tax system somewhat similar to this one has caused the present Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain to instruct a number of people to examine the possible effects of a turnover tax on the British economy. I believe that this is only a prelude to the introduction of a turnover tax in Britain.
As has been said here on many occasions, no tax of any description is popular and it was only to be expected that the introduction of this tax by the Minister for Finance would not be popular either. The facts are that the Minister faced a very considerable deficit between estimated expenditure and estimated revenue and this deficit had to be met. While Opposition Deputies criticise Government spending and suggest we are spending too much we have not got one specific proposal from the Opposition to show where cuts in expenditure ought to be made.
Therefore, at least as far as the Labour Party are concerned, we are agreed that new taxation had to be imposed. When taxation is imposed, somebody has to pay it. What we on this side of the House were concerned with was that the imposition of taxation should be equitable and that the poorer sections of the community and those with the greatest responsibility should be protected. The Minister has assured this by increasing old age pensions and children's allowances; he has cushioned those sections of the community who would be likely to be hardest hit. Despite efforts by the Opposition to befog the issue, the people in these categories are well aware of what they will get and what they are entitled to, of how these social welfare benefits will counteract and more than counteract the effect of the turnover tax.
There is some doubt yet as to how this tax will operate. However, I believe that there will be consultations between the various groups who are concerned in this with the Department of Finance and that they will jointly work out an equitable and reasonable method of collecting it, before it comes into operation next November. When PAYE was decided on, we thought it would be very difficult to operate and we find now it is not so very difficult at all.
Revenue is also being increased by increasing corporation profits tax. As the Minister pointed out in his Budget statement, profits have risen considerably and they can bear this extra taxation. That there should be an outcry from the Fine Gael Party in regard to this type of taxation is something which we expected but we on this side of the House were concerned with social justice and this required that the taxation should not fall on those who are unable to bear it.
Since we came into office in 1957 we have increased aid to agriculture very considerably. The amount of money being allocated now is enormous in comparison with the amount which was allocated in 1956 when the Coalition were in power. Fianna Fáil did this because they recognise that agriculture is our basic industry and that practically every facet of our economy depends on agriculture. They did it also because they would like, if it were possible, to achieve a reasonable balance between farming income and the income of people in other types of employment. For these reasons Fianna Fáil increased the price of milk which cost the Exchequer £1,250,000 and this is, also, being provided for in the Budget.
We realise that, however much we may improve agriculture, we must look to manufacturing industry and to transportable goods industries to increase the number of people employed. Between 1958 and 1962, there was an increase of 25,000 in the number of people employed in these industries. All we have done for agriculture and for industry costs money. We could have saved this money by not adopting the expansionist policy we have adopted. I do not think any Party, apart perhaps from Fine Gael—I am going only on their statements—would be in agreement with saving the money at the expense of agriculture and industry.
In my constituency, nobody who has seen the strides made in the expansion and development of industry there would agree for a moment that we should adopt a conservative policy. For the sake of comparison, I shall very briefly go back to 1956. Take my constituency, which is highly industrialised. By the end of 1956, industry had got into a shocking state. Week after week, large numbers of people lost their employment in industry. Things became so bad that our people lost confidence and even those who did not lose their employment in industry decided they would get out. That began the shocking wave of emigration which started to slow up only a short time ago.
Today, industry in my constituency is booming. At the present moment, we have three new factories under construction in Drogheda. A fourth small one is awaiting delivery of some machines in order to begin production and there is another one in the offing. At the other end of the constituency, we have a proposed expansion of an industry which at present is employing 800 people. According to a recent statement, that industry will this year be able to employ 1,100 people and ultimately 2,000 people.
One of the factories I have mentioned in Drogheda hopes to start with 150 people and to reach a total employment of 500. Another will employ all male labour. I cannot vouch for one of these industries but certainly every one of the rest of them has been helped by State grant. These State grants are moneys which were taken in taxation. For that reason, the taxpayer must ask himself the question: "Do I want a reduction in taxation with a consequent reduction in employment prospects or do I prefer things as they are and an improvement in regard to employment prospects?" If he says he would prefer a reduction in taxation he must remember he is not only doing an injustice indirectly to his unemployed neighbour but is also endangering the prospects of his family and of other young people getting employment here at home.
When speaking on these matters, I speak of something concrete—not just airy-fairy talk about expansion of industry. I am talking of what I see in Drogheda at the present time. For that reason, I have no hesitation in supporting the policy of the Government. The policy I support is one which is providing more and more jobs. In the interim, I am quite prepared to accept whatever short term unpopularity will come from the unthinking with regard to taxation. So long as I believe that the policy being pursued by the Government will provide more jobs, and this, of course, I do believe, and I must believe it because I have the evidence of my own eyes at the present time in my constituency with regard to it, I will continue to give it my wholehearted support.
I sincerely hope we shall be allowed to continue this programme of expansion. We know from past experience what misrepresentation can do. A by-election in 1954, in which I was a candidate, was won by the Fine Gael Party on the basis of the now notorious blue prices pamphlet which led the people to believe that if the Coalition were returned to power prices would revert to the level which operated in 1951. The people were taken in for a very short time. They returned the Coalition to power with the disastrous results of which we are now only all too well aware.
It is worth while remembering that within the very short space of two and a half years the Fianna Fáil Party were returned to power with the largest ever majority in this House. The obvious reason was that the people might be hoodwinked for a very short time but you cannot hoodwink them or fool them all the time. We may expect in the future a somewhat similar campaign. I think the people who were fooled at that time realise the effect this type of misrepresentation had afterwards on their livelihood and on the whole economy of the country and will not be so easily fooled on this occasion.