I suppose that at any time the motion which has been tabled by Deputy Sherwin would be a motion of some significance and I have no doubt that Deputy Sherwin tabled his motion well aware of the problem which he felt to exist and much concerned for its solution. However significant Deputy Sherwin's motion may have been when it was tabled, its significance has been enhanced enormously since the turnover tax went into operation last Friday. It is true to say that the effect of this tax on living costs is now beyond the stage of argument and has become a matter of fact.
In relation to this motion, Deputy Sherwin, I am sure, is now concerned at the effect on the living costs of the poor people, the sick, the unemployed, the aged, who are recipients of social welfare benefits. In common with the better off sections of our community, they have since 1st November to pay a tax on every article of food they buy, on every article of clothing or footwear that they may feel they have to get and on the fuel that they have to provide for themselves in these autumn and winter months.
Naturally, this motion, if passed by the House, with Deputy Sherwin leading, will be concerned to deal with the problem posed by the effect of the turnover tax and other costs on social welfare recipients. Indeed, the effect of this tax has, as I have said, gone beyond the limits of argument and has now so clearly become a fact that last night we had evidence of panicky measures being taken by the Government to deal with a situation which they themselves created by having this tax passed by this House. They have now to search around and find scapegoats in an effort to blame somebody else for the sharp spiral in the cost of living caused by the impact of this tax.
I am concerned, as Deputy Sherwin on record appears to be concerned, with the position of social welfare recipients. Deputy Sherwin is notable for his speeches in this House. He always expresses clearly what he himself desires. I suppose everyone is human. On 1st May of this year, I think before he put down this motion, Deputy Sherwin prophesied with regard to the effect of the turnover tax on the living costs of the poor. On 1st May, 1963—volume 202, column 817 —Deputy Sherwin, speaking on the Budget, said:
In regard to the Budget proposals themselves I am satisfied this turnover tax is asking for money only from those who can afford it. It does not create any burden for those who cannot afford it, workers with families. If you analyse it carefully, it means that it is only the single worker or the worker with no family who will be asked to pay 2/-, 3/-, or 4/- a week. The worker with children will have to pay little or nothing. The people on social benefits are not only getting sufficient to cover this tax but they are, in addition, getting as much again.
That was Deputy Sherwin's view on 1st May of this year. He felt and I am sure, as a conscientious Deputy, sincerely felt, that the social welfare increases reposed in the Financial Statement of this year would mean that social welfare recipients not only would not be asked to pay any tax but, in fact, would be getting more than they had been getting. So, Deputy Sherwin found himself constrained to support the Government and support the turnover tax.
I do not know whether it was subsequent to those important words that Deputy Sherwin tabled this motion but it is perhaps opportune that now after the turnover tax has gone into operation, after Deputy Sherwin's motion is debated by this Parliament, Deputy Sherwin, on 6th November, 1963, can have an opportunity in closing the debate of stating whether he still regards the position to be that social welfare recipients have made money out of the turnover tax.
I have no doubt that Deputy Sherwin is now as convinced as any Deputy can be that the views he expressed on 1st May of this year were views that in the event have turned out to be inaccurate and that, in this city and in Deputy Sherwin's constituency, old age pensioners who went out last Friday or last Saturday or Monday or Tuesday of this week to spend the pension money found that for everything they had to buy they, in common with everyone else, paid two and a half per cent on their purchases.
It may have been the desire of Deputy Sherwin last May to achieve a situation whereby as a result of the turnover tax a benefit would have been conferred on those in receipt of social welfare payments. The events have established that that hope has not been achieved and so we discuss this motion of Deputy Sherwin in different circumstances but in circumstances in which every Deputy in this House can vote now in full possession of the facts, vote, as I suggest, supporting Deputy Sherwin, vote in a sense that this Dáil should at last achieve a situation whereby there will be and should be a planned and definite approach towards social welfare payments and those in receipt of them.
I know that many of us who come into this Dáil meet disappointment of one kind or another. Ministers are no different in that regard from humble Deputies. Deputy Sherwin may be disappointed that the prophecy he made on 1st May this year does not appear to have been borne out but I know that, earlier, Deputy Sherwin had some other words to say with regard to the cost of living. I have here a speech which he made on 21st February, 1963, reported in volume 200, column 305, in which he states his position and, indeed, his future in relation to the cost of living. I know he was baring his soul in the remarks he made regarding the impact of living costs on the poor and those who have limited means.
Deputy Sherwin was speaking on a motion dealing with the Government's White Paper on Incomes and Output and he said this:
Let me say at once that I do not accept that this action of the Government stops the trade unions from demanding any increase they feel is necessary but I would ask the Government to try to ensure that there is no increase in prices while they are trying to prevent any further increase in wages. I expected an increase in prices after the eighth round and I would expect an increase after the ninth, tenth or any future rounds. That is to be expected, but we already have had the effects of the eighth round increase. All I am asking is that the Taoiseach should do something to ensure there are no further increases in prices.
We can only assume that Deputy Sherwin must have been concerned and, perhaps, tantalised over the spring, summer and early autumn months but all his doubt and uncertainly must have disappeared last Friday when the turnover tax went into operation. We know now that there is an increase in prices. We know that the first step has been taken to start a new spiral in living costs in this country. That was not done accidentally, fortuitously or because the cost of imported articles has risen. It was done because of deliberate Government policy. So Deputy Sherwin's appeal to the Taoiseach has fallen on deaf ears and the motion now proposed by him is one that I have endeavoured to describe as being of particular significance in that the turnover tax is now in operation.
Deputy Sherwin is probably doing a service to the Dáil by enabling a decision to be taken on this matter. I listened with interest to what was said on behalf of the Government. The Minister, in reply to Deputy Sherwin, said that his proposal created administrative problems and that it would be impracticable for a variety of reasons to carry it out. Eventually the Minister declared that this motion would not be accepted by the Government. I do not know what the Minister meant by that. Apparently, in his view, it is proper and right that social welfare recipients should depend on the political fortunes of a Government at each Budget time. He has said that once a year is sufficient. Once a year may be sufficient but I do know that because of the political exigencies present at Budget time, the purse strings are loose or tight, depending on the way the political wind may be blowing.
If a Government, particularly a Fianna Fáil Government, found themselves in a strong position in this House and in the country, then the social welfare recipients could soldier on for another year but the nearer an election comes, the more attuned will the ear of the Minister for Finance be to the possible injustices being suffered by social welfare recipients. So far as Deputy Sherwin is concerned, he will have none of that. He wants this Dáil to lay down a definite and planned approach to social welfare justice for the poor, aged and sick. More power to Deputy Sherwin. It is a pity that he was not as vigorous in his approach to this matter when he spoke in February and made his appeal to the Taoiseach, when he spoke in May and declared that the turnover tax would not affect social welfare recipients. He has been disappointed. I have no doubt that Deputy Sherwin will not be disappointed a third time and that this time he will make sure that what he states is supported by the vote of this house and not by a back-door agreement with anyone.
I was interested to hear Deputy Carroll speak on this important matter last night. Deputy Carroll did not believe with Deputy Sherwin in the month of May that the turnover tax would affect no one except single workers and workers without dependants.Deputy Carroll at that time did not believe, as Deputy Sherwin did, that social welfare recipients would make money on the turnover tax. Deputy Carroll was strongly of the view then that Deputy Sherwin's hopes were not soundly based. Deputy Carroll not only believed that the turnover tax would inflict hardship on social welfare recipients and the general body of the poor people but he went into the division lobby and did his best as one man to prevent this tax being inflicted on the poor.
Deputy Carroll has always been consistent in this House. He has left no one in any doubt as to where he stands. It was a matter of surprise, and I think it was a surprise to Deputy Carroll himself, that he found himself voting in a particular way last Wednesday night. But he came to his senses apparently when he came into this House last night to have us believe he now realises he made a mistake, as we do, and went on to explain how he made a mistake. He declared yesterday evening that, so far as the old age pensioners and the social welfare recipients are concerned, what has taken place since last Friday is not an increase of a small percentage, 2½ per cent or anything else, on what they have to buy, but an increase of as much as ten per cent or 20 per cent. Deputy Carroll is now, as apparently also are the Government, appalled by what has been done.
We all have to face this. The people outside, when they get an opportunity of apportioning responsibility, can be fair to Deputy Sherwin, fair to Deputy Carroll, fair to the Government Party, and fair to all of us. Equal justice for all is proper and sound. But in the process an omelette will have been made; and the eggs that will be broken in making this Government omelette unfortunately will be the hearts of so many old age pensioners and social welfare recipients. Those outside not knowing why and how, not knowing the finesse of the minds of Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Carroll, not knowing how Deputy Sherwin's deep felt wishes have been frustrated, now knowing how Deputy Carroll may make mistakes—these people are being called on to pay increased prices out of the miserable pittances they have. They do not know the why or the how, because Government policy is approved apparently accidentally by this House. The Minister says: "Well, is not once a year time enough to review them? Is it not good enough if we do something for them at Budget time?" He is not making a commitment that something will be done for them at Budget time. If the Minister for Finance is mellow at the time, if the political fortunes of the Government do not happen to be particularly favourable, then hold up your heads, you poor people and you sick people, you will get something if you live long enough for the next Budget.
As Deputy Sherwin says—and we in this Party support him in this regard —that is a wrong approach in 1963. It is particularly so in view of the precedent established by this Government that the necessaries of life of the poor people, the food, fuel, and clothing they have to buy, are no longer sacrosanct from the grasping hand of the Minister for Finance. Once that stage has been reached it is time for individual Deputies — Independent Deputies like Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Carroll—to build some little bulwark, some little defence, for social welfare recipients, to provide for them so that, whatever way living costs go, whatever way taxation impacts on the real value of their allowances and payments, they will be at least guaranteed some fair play, some measure of social justice in a planned approach.
It is for that reason we in the Fine Gael Party gladly and fully support the enterprise of Deputy Sherwin in moving this motion. It is a pity the motion did not come on earlier. But at least it has come on now, when every Deputy can vote for or against it and not be swayed by arguments in this house but in the full knowledge of the facts. It is well that should be so. I have no doubt but that this motion will be passed by the House.
