Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 20—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.

Before I discuss certain aspects that arise directly on the Budget, I want to refer to one very shocking matter that arises out of the Capital Budget White Paper published last Saturday by the Minister for Finance. In that Capital Budget

White Paper, the Minister indicated that he and the Government had reviewed certain Estimates of voted capital expenditure. That review must either have been done as a panic measure by the Government or else certain Ministers deliberately misled the Dáil. I do not know the circumstances in which the Government did make that review; the Taoiseach knows that. He knows that as a result of that review certain items were changed in respect of which his Ministers during the previous week had come in here and given an untrue picture to this House. Parliamentary government as we know it cannot possibly exist unless Ministers when they come to the House, particularly with their prepared statements, not merely tell the truth but tell the House the whole truth.

The Minister for Lands on 4th May, that is to say, four days before the publication of the Capital Budget Paper, came in and at column 524 of the Official Report said "Subhead C.1, Acquisition of Land, at £135,000 shows an increase of £15,000 over the provision for 1964-65. The balance in the grants-in-aid fund..." In fact either the decision was made by the Government in a panic way after that date or the Minister was not telling the truth. The fact is that the amount was not £135,000 but was £60,000 and the Minister more than doubled the amount that is being made available according to the Government's White Paper.

In the same column later on, the Minister went on to speak of the amount made available in relation to forestry development. Again, the figures he gave to the House were incorrect, unless the Government, panic-stricken, changed them at a later date. Only four days were involved.

The Minister for Agriculture came into the House on 29th April—and at least I will say for him that he had five days more than the Minister for Lands and that it is possible within that five days the Government made the decision, not quite so panic-stricken, as they made in the case of the Minister for Lands—and gave the House incorrect information. In respect of the estimate for the farm building schemes, the information was incorrect by £50,000; in respect of the estimate for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, by £50,000; in respect of the scheme for the eradication of brucellosis, by £50,000; and in respect of the scheme for calved heifers, incorrect information to the extent of £200,000.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce—and I am loth to say too much about the Minister for Industry and Commerce because he has received a pretty rough handling by the critics since he took over that portfolio— came in on 6th May, two days before the Government issued their White Paper—and if I know anything about the difficulty of printing, the White Paper must certainly have been in operation at the time—and gave the House an untrue figure, in relation to grants for Foras Tionscal, by no less than £500,000. I want the Minister to make clear to the House and the country that when members of the Government came into the Dáil, they should tell the Dáil the truth. I do not believe these decisions were taken by the Minister for Finance and his Government colleagues, panic-striken, between 6th May and 8th May in one case, between 4th May and 8th May in the other or, even—for the benefit of the Minister for Agriculture—between 29th April and 8th May.

I believe all those decisions were plainly taken before then and either the Ministers decided it would not be wise to show that they had been cut or they had not taken the trouble to find out what Government decision had been taken. It does no justice to this House; it does not improve parliamentary procedure; and it is certainly no credit to the Government as a whole or to the Taoiseach that he should not exercise better control——

The Deputy is an expert in cutting capital expenditure himself.

Yes, but there is just this difference: I was frank enough to say so. And, now that I think of it, now we know why the Minister for Agriculture tried to whip in to prevent a discussion and debate on the Agriculture Estimate. That was the reason he wanted to do it, to hide it away. I am very grateful to the Minister for Agriculture for giving his hand away. Then it is, as I said earlier a shocking procedure.

The Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget gave us full information, and I congratulate him for giving us in the past week such a plethora of White Papers that no matter how many wet towels one used, one could not satisfy himself that one had really taken them all in. Some of them, of course, must come at the last minute because of the necessity for Budget secrecy. Some, however, do not involve that necessity and, while congratulating the Minister on the very full information he gave the House and the country, I urge him next year to realise the limitations of the human mind and publish in advance such of these papers as would not involve any disclosure of Budget secrets.

The more information on our economic position we can get in present circumstances, or in any circumstances, the better, and on that account, naturally, I welcome wholeheartedly the publication of that information. In the review of the position which I propose to attempt, I want to draw so far as possible on the material, statistics and information given in the Budget; but before I turn to that, I should like to make reference to certain aspects of the Budget itself.

The Budget the Minister introduced has been received — and I think the Minister intended it should be so received—as one dealing solely with social welfare benefits and social welfare matters. I find it difficult to understand why exactly the Minister failed in his Budget speech to justify or give the reason for the very distinct and very marked change in the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. Again and again, the Fianna Fáil Government have said, at and around Budget time and in Budget Statements, that so far as our economic position was concerned, it was utterly impossible for us to give anything more than a halfcrown to pensioners of one sort or another. Even as late as 17th of last March, I find a speech by the Taoiseach in the Central Hotel in Dublin in which he said:

The character of the Budget, therefore, could not be dealt with until it had been decided what, if any, further expenditure having regard to the general desire to see improvements in Social Welfare services and other aspects of Government activity....

"What, if any...."—and the date, 17th April. Is it not perfectly obvious that between 17th April and yesterday, the one thing that influenced the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance was the fact that there had been a general public revealing of social conscience in the past two months—of which the Taoiseach was not aware when he made that speech—which runs completely contrary to the pattern Fianna Fáil have always followed in relation to social benefits?

It is crystal-clear that the Taoiseach, when making that speech intended something in the nature of the increase which, perhaps, in the case of social welfare benefits, had accompanied earlier Budgets. The fact that he has changed that pattern is due entirely to the change in social conscience that has been—I was about to say inflicted —imposed on him as a result of the general election.

I made no speech on 17th April.

No, but it was reported on 17th April.

Then I made it on Good Friday. I was fishing on 17th April.

If that is the only explanation the Taoiseach can give for the volte face in Fianna Fáil, he will find it will hardly go down in the country. I want the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Social Welfare who will certainly be speaking——

There has been a volte face in Fine Gael also.

——to tell the country why they have changed their tune— because they have—and I welcome the changed but I want to know why they changed the tune because there was nothing in the speech of the Minister for Finance to justify that change. What they have done is to create a new category in the means test, a category that will mean that every person at present receiving the full old age, blind, or widow's pension must have his means re-assessed to see whether he comes in the level below £26 or in the level above £26 and between that and the present bottom level of £52.10s.

The least anybody will get will be 5/-. You would like to forget that.

But there will have to be a new assessment. I wonder what instructions will be given in regard to that new assessment, whether those concerned will be instructed to do it much more rigorously so that many people who heard the news on the radio last night or read it in the papers this morning and saw themselves getting an increase of 10/- will find that, as a result of the new means assessment and examination that must be carried out, they will not be at all in the happy position they imagined. Let me admit at once that they will get something. Of course. No attempt by examination of means will be able to prevent that because that examination will be eventually open to public light. I do want to know what it was that changed the whole tenor of the approach of the Fianna Fáil Government to it and I challenge them to deny that it was anything other than the general election and the lambasting they got from this Party during the general election.

We won the election.

If they do deny that, I challenge them to produce the reason because there is not one, except that they realised that the social conscience of our people had been awakened during the election.

When the Minister came to do it in this Budget Statement, he provided for a transfer payment of £3,222,000 from one side to the other. He provided for that, and more than provided for it, by the increase in tobacco and on beer or the increase in tobacco, part of the increase in beer and part of the increase in spirits and wine. The additional taxation was very much more than that one transfer payment alone.

The reason I want to make that point is that I do not think anybody in the community would resent a transfer payment of that sort from tobacco, in particular, from beer, even though it will mean some difference to the farmers in relation to malting barley, even though it will mean some difference to the brewing industry; from spirits even though it will mean again some difference to the farmers in relation to malting barley, and to the distilling industry, so long as the differences are not sufficient seriously to impact on those industries. Personally, I could not see that the amounts involved are sufficiently serious.

It is essential, of course, that we keep in relation to both brewing and distilling a healthy home industry on which we could base satisfactorily an export trade because, without a healthy home base there could be no possibility of an export trade in these industries or, in deed, in any other similar industry.

I do not quite understand why, when the Minister was fixing his duty on wine, he made it by reference to a flat amount. It may be that administratively it is impossible otherwise to manage but it does seem to me wrong that the increase in the wine duty will hit entirely what I might call the cheaper class of wine. The percentage increase in duty will be very much heavier on the cheap bottle of wine than on the dearer wines. If it was administratively possible, it would have been far better to do it by some type of graded duty.

The Revenue Commissioners are prepared to discuss this with the representatives of the wine trade at any time. I am just saying this now so that they will be aware of it.

I am glad to hear that. I am talking, not from the wine trade point of view, but from the point of view of the consumers. It does appear in its present incidence as being unfair on the consumer who might like a reasonable bottle of wine and not a very dear one. I hope also that the effect of the duty on wine will not be like that of the No. 2 Finance Act, 1947—the supplementary Budget of 1947—which for many years completely killed the wine trade and not merely prevented the Revenue getting the increased duty Deputy Aiken then Minister for Finance visualised in that supplementary Budget but, in addition, meant that for very many years afterwards, although the duty was brought back, the wine trade was non-existent and was not able to produce anything for Revenue.

The speech by the Minister yesterday and his arguments were, of course, based partly on some of the documents that were issued. I find it utterly impossible to reconcile at least one of the impositions that he made with any of those prognostications. The duty on hydrocarbon oils is a bad duty. It permeates through the whole economy. Particularly at the present time, it is one that is bound to cause some substantial aggravating cost and rise in internal costs. I do not know whether anybody has made an authoritative assessment of the amount of oil, using oil in the generic sense as covering petrol as well as diesel, used for pleasure as apart from business and commercial purposes. I remember not so very long ago no less a person than the Taoiseach giving it as his view that 80 per cent of the use of private cars was use by people for their business or to get to their business, that it was not use for pleasure as such. I do not think it is an unfair assessment. It is probably correct. Surely that is an additional charge at this moment that should have been and could have been avoided?

The Minister for Finance quite correctly has stated that at this moment we must do everything we possibly can to make certain that our industry and our exports in particular and our production will be competitive. While paying lip service to making our industries competitive in every way, he at the same time imposes what is in effect a charge on industry, except for the 20 per cent user to which I have referred. It is very significant that he has done it at exactly the same moment as his counterpart in Britain, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been deliberately devising the reverse of the Minister's action, has been deliberately devising a scheme by virtue of which transport costs will be cut, will be, if you like, subsidised by having certain of the indirect taxes on them removed for the purposes of making British exports competitive.

In a statement on 11th November last, Mr. Callaghan referred at some length to the duties on petrol and other oils which enter into the cost of manufacture for export. Because they did enter into that cost of manufacture, because he recognised, as every sensible person must recognise, that transport costs form a substantial part of the costs of manufacture, he decided to give a rebate in petrol and diesel oil duties to offset part of that cost. His counterpart here, the Minister for Finance, far from doing that, far from helping our people to become more competitive in exports, has decided to put an additional impost on them of 3d. a gallon. It shows that when framing his Budget, he was only paying lip service to the type of competitiveness that he mentioned.

I noticed Deputies opposite from the West of Ireland applauding the Minister at the end of his speech. If they read back over everything that has been said both from there and in any analysis of the position of the West of Ireland, they will find everywhere an acknowledgement that one of the difficulties about siting industry in the West is the additional cost of transport between the West and the heavy centres of population. This new imposition by the Minister for Finance yesterday will make it even more difficult to get manufacturing industry in the West of Ireland and makes nonsense of statements by the Government that they are really interested in the development of the West.

The effect of that imposition may seem small in one way. It will bring in £1,300,000 in the eleven months that are left of this financial year or £1,500,000 in a full year, but the effects of that over our whole internal costs in the economy will be substantially more than that £1,500,000. Therefore, I fear we shall go further on the road to making it difficult for our exporters to meet the fierce competition which they have to meet from other countries in endeavouring to keep their markets in Britain, notwithstanding the surcharge there, and to find new markets in the rest of the world. Without a satisfactory and successful effort by our producers to keep those new markets, we can completely abandon any hope of a rising standard of living.

The Minister, too, skimmed over lightly—and, I suppose, it was natural for him to skim over lightly the effects of his predecessor's actions insofar as they were unwise or unsuccessful actions—the Budget deficit of last year. One of the causes of the inflation which is around us at the moment is the fact that during the past three years the cumulative deficits of the Government's Budgets have been over £11 million. A Budget deficit of that size for these three years can only be likened to the action of a person attempting to put out a fire with a can of petrol. That £11 million has certainly had its effects, effects which we see all around us in rising prices. I am not so silly as to suggest it is the only cause. It is not, but it is one of the things which are responsible for rising prices and pull on our internal demand and on our balance of payments.

I find it difficult to understand why the Minister, in one publication, suggested that it was improper for him to take £4 million of the voted services and treat it as capital and, in another publication issued two days afterwards, to put that same £4 million on the "never-never" and treat it as capital expenditure, and even to do more, to add another £1,500,000 to capital services or what had up to this been regarded in the publications as being a current budgetary matter.

If it was true in one instance, why was it not true in the other? If it was correct to say on Friday last in the White Paper on the Capital Budget that this £4 million should be considered in relation to current budgetary problems and should be met out of current expenditure, why did the Minister not give any consideration yesterday to the aspect he had already mentioned? I suggest the reason was that the Minister for Finance was not allowed by his colleagues in the Government to carry out what he thought was the proper financial policy at the moment.

This Budget does nothing in relation to a variety of matters with which the people expected it to deal. It does nothing in relation to production, to stimulate or expand it. It does nothing in relation to employment, to stimulate or expand it. I cannot see how, without that stimulation of employment, there is to be a decrease in emigration. Without saying that the position of our balance of payments is such that we must do something at once, it does not seem to me that the Budget takes care of the dangers that everyone else sees around us.

Before I turn from the Budget provisions themselves, I want to express the regret that has been felt on two sides since the publication of the Budget Statement. The white collar worker felt that he was going to get some alleviation of his burden. In present times the tax-free allowance of £394 for a married taxpayer compares in figures with £310 in, say, 1954-55, but if the £310 in 1954-55 was adjusted to its equivalent on the basis of today's prices and today's income, that £394 should have been extended to £518. The personal allowance for a single person, which today stands at £234, was £150 ten years ago and on the basis of today's prices and income, the equivalent of that £150 is £294. I did not expect that the single allowance would be raised from £234 to £294, but I did expect some increase. I think everybody expected there would be some increase in the marriage allowance and that the tax-free allowance for a man and his wife would be increased from £394. That was last changed only because the reduced rate of tax was being abandoned.

Does anybody believe that an allowance of £60 for a dependent relative is a fair tax-free allowance in present circumstances? Does anybody believe that an allowance of £120 for a child is an allowance that gives anyone in the tax-paying brackets any opportunity of making the kind of provision he would wish for his child? The plain fact of the matter is that with the enlargement of the PAYE net in order to cover so many people, the tax now paid under the heading of income tax is not merely a tax on the welloff but a tax that hits in particular the white-collar worker and that position is one that should be alleviated by an extension of the allowances to a more realistic figure. Late as it is now, I hope the Minister will be able to see his way, between now and the Finance Bill, to relieve the lot of those people in the lower brackets who have, unfortunately, to bear the brunt.

I said this Budget does nothing to stimulate employment. What are the facts in relation to employment? In 1964 the total number of people at work was 1,059,000, admittedly 3,000 up on 1963 but down on 1959, down still further on 1958, and down still further on 1957. When the Taoiseach comes to speak, will he tell us why now, after ten years of government by Fianna Fáil, he has not yet put into operation his famous plan to provide jobs for 100,000 people within a period of five years? In the early years of this period of Fianna Fáil government, his excuse was that he was not able to do it because of the circumstances he found when he returned to government. He has had ten years now to put that plan, if there ever was a plan, into operation, ten years in which to provide these extra 100,000 jobs for our people, assuming he was serious when he made his prognostication and not just looking in a cheap way for votes.

Where is there anything in this Budget to stimulate employment? Where is there anything in this Budget accepting or developing the plan of the NIEC? That body made it clear that it was essential that something should be done towards the improvement of employment. They said: "The total employment, however, does not seem to be rising at the rate envisaged in the Second Programme." Yet, one sees nothing in the Budget which would act as an economic stimulus towards providing increased employment and nothing to indicate that the Government accept the suggestions put forward or have even considered them. The Budget should be used as a weapon for the forging of the economic policy of the Government of the day, the policy of the Government wish to put into operation. On the entire economic front, this Budget is singularly silent. It is true that, unless there is some stimulation of employment and some stimulation of those industries which have a high employment content, so that they will not be entirely dependent on the home market, we will not be able in the years ahead to cope not only with the drift from the land, which the Government have estimated at 66,000 people, but with the natural increase in the population in the years ahead.

Apart from all that, even if it were a question merely of getting going, the Government might be in a position to say it would not be desirable to provide anything further in the way of stimulus at the present time, but the statistics and the prognostications show that that is not the case. The projection of the national income the Minister has put on the Table shows an increase in national income of about two-thirds of the increase in 1964 in percentage terms. Does the Minister not think that is something that should be taken into account. The relative drop from £88 million to £65 million, expressed in terms of percentages on the year for which it is operative, is a drop from 13 per cent to 8½ per cent. Does the Minister not think, that is something in relation to which a Budget intended to be used as an economic weapon should provide something concrete and something certain to stimulate agricultural production and establish a fairer relationship as between agricultural and other incomes? The Budget has failed to do that.

The Minister read this morning the comment of the NFA. I am surprised the NFA were so foolish as to believe the collective word of Fianna Fáil. There are many Ministers in the Fianna Fáil Government who, as individuals, are men of their word. When they get together, however, they seem to forget all their individual characteristics and they throw overboard any undertaking, if it suits them. The NFA, a responsible body, alleged to-day that there was a firm undertaking given by the Government in relation to rates on agricultural land. There is nothing in this Budget which honours that undertaking. There was not a single mention in the Budget speech of the word "rates" notwithstanding that we all know everybody will have to pay very substantial increases in rates this year and that that increase will bear more heavily, perhaps, on the small farmer than on anyone else, the small farmer who is trying to eke out an existence at subsistence level.

Frankly, I am also disappointed that the premium milk estimate is so small. It shows the Minister for Agriculture must anticipate a very small amount of milk coming in as high quality milk. Only £400,000 has been provided for the scheme, a scheme undoubtedly worthwhile and one for which there has been some substantial demand during the year.

The increases suggested in relation to agricultural income of some £12 million this year are, even on their face value, ones of live horse, get grass. They are all increases that will arise solely because of the build-up of agricultural stocks. Farmers living at subsistence level cannot afford to wait if it is for an increase in stock values of that sort. I say that, accepting for the purposes of the argument the figures put forward by that side. On the other hand, the NFA have made it clear they do not accept those figures. They believe there will be a worsening of agricultural incomes by some £4 million this year. Be that as it may, it is quite clear in this Budget the Minister is not concerned with any effort to improve or alleviate agricultural incomes.

We come now to Table 13 in the Progress Report. One sees there a savage drop in the total of savings and capital formation. There is a relative drop from £41 million to £19 million and a percentage drop from 27 to ten. The only suggestion the Minister has in relation to meeting that is the National Bonds issue he has announced. I hope that issue will be a success. I do not take the view Deputy MacEntee took when I announced the Prize Bonds. He linked it to running the State on a raffle. That was a highly mischievous, irresponsible remark by Deputy MacEntee, the spokesman for finance in the Fianna Fáil Party at that time. I do not take that view but, at the same time, I do not think the announcement the Minister made yesterday will be sufficient to bring the total of savings and capital formation up to a figure that would be satisfactory to meet our present needs. Let me repeat that I hope it is a success. I will put a little, very little, money into it and hope the Minister will ensure that my bond will be drawn out at an early date.

The first or second year, perhaps.

However, I do not think it is at all sufficient. I would have preferred an extension of the existing Prize Bond structure, plus something on the lines of the index loans they have in Sweden. Something on the lines of an index loan, tied to the consumer price index, would appeal far more to our people, would catch their imagination and help more to expand savings in the way they must be expanded if we are to provide for the heavy investment in productive and employment-bearing industry necessary for the progress we all desire.

If we go on to examine the Department of Finance Report, we see it lists nine separate headings under which it assesses the main developments for 1965, assesses how the economy will operate in 1965 if nothing is done in the Budget. It makes it quite clear that these estimates, these prognostications, these forecasts are all with the budgetary situation as it was when they were made. The first is that there will be a growth rate down on 1964—down not much, but down all the same. The second is that there will be a rise in national income, but a rise substantially less than expected. The third is they estimate an increase in farmers' national income, which is being contradicted elsewhere. Even if it is not contradicted, it is only an increase because of the accumulation of stocks.

The fourth is that wages in non-agricultural employment are some £30 million up. I do not quite understand how that is computed in the light of what they have said earlier about the holding of the National Wage Agreement position. The fifth and sixth are a rise in non-agricultural profits and personal expenditure. It is significant that their estimate of the rise in personal expenditure is one that is greater than the total of the rise in non-agricultural employment wages and non-agricultural profits. Fixed asset formation—I have already indicated we are going to be down from 27 per cent to ten per cent.

Finally, they deal with the balance of payments. The figures in relation to the balance of payments are figures in regard to which, I accept, the Minister could have some detailed information not generally available to the public. Certain returns are furnished to him that are not available to the general public. But I think those returns are available to the Central Bank; and the Central Bank in its Quarterly Bulletin says that the rise in imports, if it is continued at the same rate, may create serious problems. We have a situation in which, for the first time for two years, there has been a successive decrease in the joint external assets of the Central Bank, the associated banks and governmental funds. The figure now at March, of £228,600,000 is lower than the figure for March, 1964, lower even than the figure for March, 1963, and almost on a par with the figure for March, 1962.

I am not suggesting there is anything in the nature of a crisis in those figures. There is not. But it is something that definitely should have been considered in relation to the Budget. As far as we can see, it was not considered at all. If the pattern were steady, it might not create so much difficulty. The fact is that our exports in the last quarter of last year were petering down and in the first quarter of this year were petering down far more. The total increase in exports in 1964 was £26 million. Of that, very nearly half was met in the first quarter of 1964. After that there was a steady decrease in exports. That decrease was carried into the first quarter of this year, in which our exports are down by £5,700,000. At the same time, our imports in the first quarter of this year were up £5,700,000, exactly the same figure as that for last year.

Our visible trading in the first quarter of this year was £11,500,000 worse than it was in the first quarter of 1964 and in 1964 we closed the year with a deficit in our balance of payments of £31 million. One of the reasons why I say the Minister has more information than the general public in relation to this matter is the residual account in the publication known as "Other Capital Transactions". The other capital transactions of a credit nature last year were £39,500,000. I do not know, and I do not know whether the Minister knows, how exactly that amount came in but it is freely stated around the city that a good part of that came in as hot money through ordinary building societies, through people who wanted to invest it pending the result of the British general election and the financial policies to be adopted by the new Government in Britain.

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance knows whether that is true or not and, if he does know, I do not know whether he is able so to state or not. At the present time it is impossible for people to get funds needed for production purposes, much less the funds needed for housing purposes. We have in the Capital Budget a very substantial sum put away for housing purposes but it is not much use putting that sum aside for housing purposes if the situation is, as it is at the present time, that the money is not there to enable people to buy their houses, that there is a substantial danger that what is known as speculative building is likely to be drawn to a close on that account.

One building society has publicly announced that it will not accept applications over a certain figure for houses. Another building society is just not able to provide for anything like the demand made on it by would-be house purchasers. We have the herring in an article in a business paper of 30th April, Business and Finance—“Lend and borrow : almost nothing to lend” in which the writer says:

One Dublin Bank Manager said this week "if a client were to come in tomorrow with £10,000 of stocks and shares as security for a £5,000 advance I could not accommodate him. Our problem is not the credit-worthiness of our customers but lack of money to help them."

Anybody who has professional interests in the city or, indeed, in the country knows that that is true. It is virtually impossible to get an advance for the purpose of buying a house. It does not matter how creditworthy a person is, he is just not able to get it. I know the previous Minister for Finance denied there was a credit squeeze. Everybody knows there is a credit squeeze and that it is impossible to get funds on that account. It would be much more realistic if we acknowledged the difficulties of the credit squeeze over here and where it might lead us instead of the Government, ostrich-like, denying it exists and hoping somebody else will do the dirty work and prevent credit expanding in undesirable ways.

Steps will have to be taken, if speculative building is not to be brought to a standstill, to ensure that the liquidity of the building societies is strengthened. It would be far preferable if those steps were taken now rather than later. They certainly will have to be taken at some time, unless the Government are prepared completely to jettison that type of house building. The Government could quite easily get building societies to come together and ascertain from them what amount was required to provide liquidity for them. They could make that sum of money available to them on loan. I am not suggesting that building societies are in any way sickly. Of course, they are not. It is purely a question of their liquidity at any particular moment. I believe that liquidity has disimproved and has been severely restricted by a good deal of money that came from Britain last year and the year before, having gone back to Britain in the last month or two.

The ability of the associated banks to lend is also affected by the cut and thrust merchant banks which are advertising such high rates of interest that they are siphoning off some of the funds that would normally be made available to the associated banks. The fact that the problem is there seems to have been dismissed by the Minister for Finance on the ground that the Central Bank was going to talk to the associated banks about it. This is not the time for talk; it is the time for action. The time for talk was when the Minister's predecessor denied there was any restriction on credit. We are suffering from the ostrich-like attitude he adopted at that time. I do not see where the Government would lose if they want that type of building to go on. I cannot see where they would lose if they said to the building societies: "You want £1 million for the purposes of making yourselves liquid to tide yourselves over this particular hump. The Government will lend you that money at interest." If the Government do that the building societies will be enabled to tide themselves over this hump and the people who are so anxious to get homes of their own and fulfil their obligations will be able to do so. I know of many cases where people, having entered into commitments with a promise from building societies of being able to get a loan to complete the purchase of their houses, have now been told they cannot get it. They may have to wait, in certain circumstances, a pretty considerable time.

Does the Minister want a restriction of credit or does he not? Does he want it, in relation particularly to house building, or what is his idea? It is worse than that. We will feel the effect of the credit squeeze which is taking place beyond here. The effect of the credit squeeze in Britain is bound to mean that associated firms here will not be able to get from Britain the funds to carry on their business here, which they have been doing for some time. Many firms with British connections were financed by their head offices until the credit squeeze came in Britain. The effect of that has been that those associated firms will have to stand more and more on their own legs here and that has a cumulative effect on our industries. It is happening at a time when the volume of production in the manufacturing industries was obviously petering out towards the end of 1964. The increase in the volume in the last quarter, compared with the increase in the first quarter, was little more than half—11.1 per cent down to 6.6 per cent. If that continues into this year, we shall find ourselves in quite substantial trouble.

I cannot see anywhere in this Budget that the Minister appreciated that he would, perhaps, face difficulties in relation to the balance of payments or that the momentum that had been caused and that Deputy Dillon frequently said was being caused by the scraping of the bottom of the barrel prior to the British general election was wearing off. If that momentum was wearing off, and everything points to this being the case, then this Budget as a real economic weapon should have been designed with the intention of doing something further to expand exports, of doing something further to assist real savings, of doing something further to ensure that we would not jog along under the steam of what had been generated in Britain or in the United States and that we would design something ourselves for the pattern that was needed. The Minister contented himself with a review, contradicting many of the documents that he himself had circulated a few days before, ignoring others, and, in general, burying his head in the sand in relation to our economic problems, hoping that the political rabbit that he had pulled out of the hat would take the attention of the people off the real problems that are there and that have got to be faced.

Finally, I want to say a word in relation to social welfare benefits. Some people seem to think that certain people are ogres in relation to social welfare benefits and do not want to increase them because they say that it cannot be done at any one period or another. Everybody, including all sides of the House, including every normal person in the community, wants to ensure that the plight of the community is alleviated and that the plight of the handicapped is improved.

There is no use in being soft once only. There is no use in doing something once only unless it will be an effort that is really capable of being sustained. The improvements that have been carried through in our social welfare system—and I hand it to the Government that there are improvements—will not be sustained unless the Minister tackles our economic problems in a far more open and forthright manner.

Speaking after the Minister's Budget statement yesterday, the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, said that we, as a Party, welcomed the improvements in the Budget and that we considered it a step in the right direction. I think that was fair comment. He also said that it could be described to a certain extent as a social Budget. However, having had time to look at the proposals, some of us are rather disappointed with the actual working of the proposals which the Minister announced and which appear at first glance to be a big improvement but on closer examination show that they are not what they seem.

Consider the non-contributory people. The non-contributory old age pensioners, widows, and so on— according to the Minister's statement, according to the headlines in this morning's paper—are to receive an increase of 10/- per week with effect from 1st August next. But they do not get any such increase. They get an increase of 5/- instead of 10/- if their total income is over £26 per year. For quite some time, it has been the law in this country that the means test applied to those people was that if they were in receipt of not more than £52-10-0 per year they were entitled to the full non-contributory pension and then it was scaled down, according as the rates of income went up, until it reached £143-15-0.

It is rather an extraordinary thing that when old age pensions were first introduced in this country in 1909 the amount of income which one could have in order to qualify for the full old age pension of 5/- per week was £26 per year. So, in the year 1965, the Minister for Finance in this House steps back through the years and applies a means test for a full non-contributory old age pension which was first applied in the year 1909. I do not know whether or not we should say that the Minister is to be congratulated on doing this. Obviously, the people behind him yesterday evening thought he should be congratulated. However, the Minister now suggests that we should apply a further means test and reduce the already too low test. I have expressed the opinion in this House and so have members of my party that the minimum of £52-10-0 is too low and to reduce that to £26 is something of which neither the Minister nor the Government can be proud.

When the Minister is replying, perhaps he would give an estimate of the number of people in each category likely to benefit by the 10/- per week with effect from August next? I think it is a fair question. If the Minister has the information available, I hope he will be able to give us the reply to this question. Every old age pensioner I have met throughout the country since yesterday evening is under the impression that he or she is getting an increase of 10/- per week. They will be very disappointed when they find out that they will not get 10/- but 5/-. If they get the 10/- per week, it brings the non-contributory old age pension —I shall stick to this for the time being because I want to make the point—from 37/6 to 47/6 per week.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Defence a question about the amount spent on Army rations for a recent week. The week he quoted was the week ending 16th April, 1965. He gave me contract prices, Dublin and Dún Laoghaire average retail prices and national average prices. On the contract prices, the amount of money which the Army, buying in bulk, spends on food for one of its soldiers is £1 11s. 3½d per week; the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire prices average £2 2s. 5½d, and the national average is £2 1s. 4d. So that, even with the new rate of benefit those who have nothing else except less than 10/- per week, therefore qualifying for the full increase from August next, will have the princely sum of 6/2d per week, out of which they are to pay for rent, light, heat, clothing and so on. Of course, I am sure they can do without such luxuries as rashers, which appear to be dearer than normal, apples and a few other such items. If they do without these things, I have no doubt they will squeeze in an extra couple of pennies.

The Minister must face up to these things. While I agree it might not be possible to do everything that is required in one stroke, nevertheless I believe that the amount of the increase for those who will get it is still far too low. The date of operation is 1st August for those who will qualify for the benefits section, and the date for those who are getting it by right of their status is 1st January, 1965. One of the extraordinary things is that the Minister, and rightly so, has given 10/- to the person who is drawing benefit, and 10/- to an adult dependant, but the non-contributor is not given an increase of more than 5/- if he has over £26 a year; even if he has somebody depending on him who is not drawing a pension, he is not entitled to anything extra.

The dates 1st August and 1st January may be used and the Minister might say:—"We will not be able to supply the money or have the necessary alterations made in order to pay before that." Can the Minister give any good reason why those people should not be credited with the increase with effect from the same date as the Budget increases come into operation? Has he any reason why those people should not get the few pounds extra by way of payment on the date on which the Minister proposes to increase the benefits? After all, if State employees negotiate for an increase, and even if, as has happened in one case, it takes almost 18 months to finalise, there does not seem to be any difficulty in having arrangements made to have it paid retrospectively.

We must give the benefit of the increase to those people with effect from the date on which it should normally operate. It should normally operate for the old age pensioners from the date of the Budget but the Minister said it will be paid on 1st August for the non-contributory old age pensioners and on 1st January for the contributory old age pensioners. While the Minister did not mention it, I am assuming that the reason for the date 1st January for these contributory people is that his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, will be increasing insurance stamps for the employed person from that date and he will thereby get two-thirds of the increased cost back from the insured people.

Having said so much, I should like to repeat that I and my Party consider that the Minister has taken a step in the right direction. We have heard various sections claiming responsibility for the Minister and his Government taking this action. I know the Government say they did so because the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers before the election made an announcement that they proposed to do something like this. That is fair enough. But Fine Gael claim that the Minister did that only because it was included in their programme. Might I point out that the proposals of the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael proposals were originally contained in the Labour Party's programme, and have been there for quite some time? I do not want to labour the point but even if they were borrowed from us by Fine Gael originally and then borrowed by Fianna Fáil, they have had the result of getting something extra for the people concerned.

Nobody but Fianna Fáil ever did it.

Everybody is claiming the credit except the people who did it.

It would not be 10/- if there had not been a general election.

The two Ministers in the Government front benches claimed everything before and after the election: they got every trick they had in their hands.

We have a good record for which to claim credit. There has been an increase every year since 1959.

The Minister is well aware, as Deputy T.F. O'Higgins says, that if there had been no general election, there would have been no 10/-. We claimed during the election campaign, and I want to repeat it, that the Labour Party were the social conscience of this House and we made it clear that something had to be done. The Minister for Social Welfare should be careful about what he says.

You had two periods of office—two Ministers for Social Welfare.

The amounts given by the Coalition Government compare proportionately with what they were then, and very well even with the amounts quoted yesterday by the Minister.

They certainly did not.

He did not say we would have the 1909 means test. That is one of the things the Minister cannot wriggle out of.

Your cheques were no good.

Deputy Corry has been helpful to everybody in this House, including the Taoiseach, who told him to shut up but I am too polite to do that.

Deputy James Tully.

The question of employment and unemployment is one of the matters to which I thought the Minister would refer in his Budget speech. I thought he would try to make some effort to show how it was proposed to improve the present position. I honestly believe it would have been possible to give far higher increases in social welfare benefits if the numbers on the employment exchanges were not so high. If the Government made an effort to try to get these people off the exchange lists by taking the necessary steps to provide employment, then I feel the amount to be made available could be spread more widely.

Last Saturday we still had 53,000 people signing in the unemployment exchanges. I use the term "unemployment exchanges" deliberately because that is what they are. Very few people find employment there. As far as I know, few arrangements are made to try to channel people signing in the exchanges to any type of employment. Nobody tells them there are jobs available. If they go along and sign, if they are lucky, they get a few shillings unemployment assistance but no effort is made to channel them into employment. The figure of 53,000 is almost the same as it was last year on the same date, and the year before and the year before that again. The Minister may think this is a good record for any Government. I do not think it is.

The Minister did not make any reference to the position about emigration. Two years ago the Central Statistics Office had to change the figure of 12,500 when it was pointed out that it was only one-half the number emigrating. The actual figure was 25,000. Last year it was 25,000 again. Up to February of last year, it was 26,050. The Government have very little to be proud of there, and apparently they are not anxious or willing to make an effort to remedy that position.

They may point to the grants they are giving for the purpose of starting industries and giving employment. They could refer to the one which cost £341,000 a few days ago in Dundalk. I told the Minister that that grant was given without there being an investigation of the possibility of exports, and the chances of success and survival of the company. If a Deputy or anyone else goes to the IDA and is anxious to start a small industry which will employ ten or 12 people, he will be questioned and asked to fill in forms and everything else for months on end, and 99 times out of 100, he will be told that the £2,000 or £3,000 which would help him start a small industry in rural Ireland is not available. Yet £341,000 could be made available to one firm which did not survive 12 months.

The Minister referred to the necessity for holding wages. He felt that the increases which would arise as a result of the Budget should not be taken as a reason for making more wage claims. I am sure the Minister appreciates the fact that the trade unions are desperately anxious to hold wages, and that, in almost every case against the wishes of their members, they are holding the line of the National Wage Agreement made 18 months ago. They are holding it in an effort to get stability. I am sure the Minister is also aware that because of continuing increases in the price of practically everything, the position is getting extremely difficult. The Minister must be aware that it is difficult when certain firms—semi-State or otherwise—give increases to small sections to such an extent that those on a lower level are forced into a position in which they must look for an increase in order to keep their place in the social scale. Of course, when that happens, the firms are not blamed; the trade unions are blamed because they look for an increase for their members.

There is almost certain to be an increase in some prices as a result of the Budget, apart from the increase in the price of beer, spirits, cigarettes and tobacco. The price of certain commodities will go up, mainly because of the increase in the cost of road freight. The Minister could help in regard to that matter if he does what he was asked to do on a number of occasions, that is, if he attempts even at this late stage to put some control on prices. I know the Minister has made the case that he cannot do that.

I did it when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce, where it was necessary and possible.

The Minister did it on two occasions.

On several occasions.

The Minister did it once when the price of sugar was increased and Deputy Corry, who was so helpful a short time ago, had something to say about that. He did it on the second occasion because there was a Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis, when the price of petrol went up by 1d, and the Minister's Party thought he should. The Minister quite rightly said: "You cannot increase the price," and down it went, but there are many other things of which the Minister must be aware. I am sure the Minister knows what the retail prices are.

I held the price of bread and flour.

When the election was over, the Minister allowed it to go up.

I made a full disclosure of the facts at the time.

Not before the election.

There was an inquiry.

The price of bread went up after the election. It was a secret until the people had voted.

Not at all.

Surely the Minister does not say that everyone knew the price of bread was going up?

We discussed it in the House.

Does the Minister suggest that everyone in the country knew the price of bread was going up after the election?

Certainly they did.

We are prepared to believe a good deal of what the Minister says, but we are not prepared to believe that. It is a little too farfetched.

The bakers made a statement about it and I dealt with that statement. It was public knowledge that the price of bread was depressed, having regard to the price of flour.

(Interruptions.)

We will leave it at that. There is a difference of opinion about it.

It was cooked up.

It was baked. On the subject of social welfare, there is one other item I should like to mention, that is, disabled persons' allowances. I do not know if the Minister is aware that a disabled person's allowance is given not if the person's own circumstances are bad, but if his family circumstances are bad. Again, they will be expecting to get an increase of 10/- per week, but they will find that only a fraction of the 10/- will be granted to many recipients of DPA. Therefore, the increase appears to be very much larger than it is.

Deputy O'Connell put down a question today about building societies' investments. I wonder can the Minister say if it is true that instead of lending the money which they have taken in for the purposes of a building society, they are, in fact, investing it at higher rates in other directions, and then find themselves short of money to lend to a prospective house owner who applies for a loan to them. If that is so, it should be stopped as quickly as possible.

The balance of payments was very lightly touched upon. Surely we must all appreciate the fact that if we have stopped foreigners from buying land here, the tremendous amount of money which was coming in for the purchase of land will not be coming in and we must expect some reaction there.

There are one or two points in the Minister's statement which do not make sense to me. One is in relation to the calved heifer scheme. It appears from the current Budget tables that last year the calved heifer scheme cost £3,155,000. The figure for this year is £3,200,000. I wonder is the Minister really serious about that figure because quite obviously the number of people who took advantage of the calved heifer scheme last year surprised the previous Minister for Agriculture who gave a figure of, I think, £360,000 to the previous Minister for Finance as the amount required. Then he found he was nearly £3 million wrong in his estimate.

I am sure the Minister knows that since grants are paid on the national herd, it means it would require a bigger increase during the next 12 months than occurred during the past 12 months if the amount of £3.2 million is to be spent. All of us who live in the country know that practically everybody who could keep an extra cow did keep a heifer or buy in a cow last year with the result, as far as I am aware, that they have used up all available space and as much of their land as they can possibly use for cattle so that they could not possibly increase their herds again by a similar number this year. In fact, what the Minister says here is that the national herd is to be increased by a greater amount.

Finally, I come to the question I asked the Minister yesterday evening when we were discussing the Financial Resolutions. He has said that all tobacco is to be increased by 4d an ounce. I suggested that hard tobacco, usually smoked by older men, should be exempt or have a reduced amount of tax. The Minister told me that 80 per cent of those smoking pipe tobacco smoked hard plug.

Eighty-seven per cent of all pipe tobacco is hard pressed.

I am amazed to hear it. I feel there must be a mistake in the estimation somehow.

I am talking about the hard plug which has to be cut to be used. I believe what the Minister tells me but if anybody else told me——

Where does the Minister get the figures?

From the Revenue Commissioners.

The Minister must be aware as a pipe smoker that four out of every five people he meets smoking a pipe do not use hard plug.

It must be the other way about.

The Minister says it is a fact.

I suggest it needs rechecking.

I suggest the figure is all screwy and because of it numerous unfortunate old people who smoke hard tobacco are getting stuck.

There are young men smoking, too.

Mr. Tully

According to the Minister they smoke nothing but plug tobacco. There must be a mistake.

They are all hard chaws.

I should not like the Minister to forget that when the turnover tax was introduced, it was suggested it would neutralise, to some extent, the necessity for additional taxation on the things which up to that time had been considered the main sources of revenue—tobacco and cigarettes, petrol, beer and spirits. Now we have an extra tax put on all these items in addition to the turnover tax. It would, accordingly, appear that there seems to be more fat in the others than many people appreciated. As Deputy Corish said yesterday, we agree an effort has been made in this Budget to try to straighten out at least the social services to try to give something to those who need it most. For that reason, we supported the Budget yesterday and shall continue to support it. Nevertheless, we are anxious to ensure that this will not turn out to be just a flash in the pan. A start has been made and we intend, as far as we are able, to see that this progress will be maintained.

This Budget stands out clearly and has, I think, been immediately recognised and accepted as a good social welfare Budget. The provisions for improvement in social services that have been made came within a month of the general election. We are, in fact, doing what we undertook to do. The effect of these Budget proposals is to increase the gross expenditure on the social welfare services administered by my Department in a full year by £9.214 million. That includes a figure of £0.934 million, the estimated cost in a full year of the proposed amendment of the Unemployment Assistance Acts for smallholders in the congested districts.

The estimated gross expenditure on social welfare for this year at the Budget rates is £52.341 million and that means, in other words, that in this year the arrangements being made in this Budget are for an increase in gross expenditure on social welfare of 17.5 per cent. In fact, if we take the increase over the actual expenditure last year it is even more impressive. The actual expenditure last year, as accurately as it can be determined at this stage, was £51.697 million and the increase when these payments in the Budget are being made will be at the rate of 19.1 per cent.

I think it cannot be denied, and I do not think it is denied, that this is a major step to take in a single year in the redistribution of income to those who find themselves affected by any of the contingencies covered by social welfare but it is not a new departure for this Government, as the Opposition speakers have been trying to imply, because, in fact, we have been consistent in our attitude to social welfare. In practically every year since we came to power in 1957 there has been an improvement in social welfare rates of payment. What we are doing this year is merely further proof of the continuous attention we have been paying to this important matter of social welfare and it can be readily shown that we have been making progress in this respect side by side with the progress in the country's economy.

As I have said, £9.214 million is the effect in a full year of the proposals in regard to the social welfare services administered by my Department but there is a further sum of £0.462 million in respect of increases being provided under the heading of infectious diseases allowances and disabled persons' maintenance allowances, so that the total extra expenditure in a full year will be £9.676 million.

Unlike the Opposition Parties who talked vaguely during the general election of vast increases in social welfare benefits without reference to the means of financing them, our undertaking in this respect was clear and explicit. We declared it was our intention to allocate an increased proportion of the national resources to improving social welfare and made it clear every time this was mentioned that it was only from the people we could expect to get this money. It can be readily shown that we are, in fact, fulfilling that undertaking in this Budget.

If we go back over the whole period since this Government came to office in 1957, we can see the progress made. In the financial year 1956-57, at the end of which we came to office, the gross expenditure on social welfare was £29.424 million. That was a year in which there was abnormally high unemployment—the highest rate ever in this country—and so expenditure on social welfare then was higher than it would normally be. When the increases for this Budget are in course of payment, the gross expenditure on social welfare will be at the rate of £61.555 millions in a full year. That is an increase over that period of 109.2 per cent. During that same period the gross national product has increased from £559.3 millions to £1,016 millions, which is the projected figure for this year. That is an increase of 81.7 per cent, so that in that period there will have been an increase of 109.2 per cent in the social welfare expenditure, as against an increase of 81.7 per cent in the gross national product, so that obviously this Budget ensures that expenditure on social welfare is increasing at a more rapid rate than the national resources. In other words, we are effecting a relative improvement in the position of social welfare recipients generally, particularly when you appreciate also that the number of unemployed is now only roughly one-half of what it was in 1956-57.

In regard to the specific undertaking we gave to allocate an increased proportion of the national resources to social welfare last year, the gross expenditure on the social welfare services administered by my Department was 5.5 per cent of the gross national product last year. Assuming that the gross national product will rise to £1,016 millions, as expected this year, the position when these new rates of payment provided for in the Budget are in course of payment will be that expenditure on social welfare, expressed as a proportion of the gross national product will be 6.06 per cent which is a record figure. We can therefore see that within a few weeks of the general election we have in fact implemented our proposals with regard to social welfare.

It is important to place on record exactly what is being done in this Budget. It is particularly important because it has been insinuated that we are using the cost of living as a yardstick for improving these rates, whereas in fact it can be shown we are effecting a considerable improvement in the rates of all social welfare schemes relative to the cost of living. The social assistance services were increased in the 1964 Budget and I have shown previously that at that time the effect of those increases was to bring about an improvement in the position of social assistance recipients relative to the cost of living. The latest figure for the cost of living available at the time of the 1964 Budget was for February 1964 and the latest figure now available is for February 1965. In that period there has been an increase in the cost of living of 7.27 per cent. The increase of 10/- a week which has been granted to old age pensioners on receipt of non-contributory pensions whose means are less than £26 a year represents an increase of 26.7 per cent and the increase of 5/- in the rate of pensions payable to those whose means are between £26 and £52. 10s. is an increase of 13.3 per cent. In the case of widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions, the increase of 10/- which is payable to those whose means are under £26, is 27.8 per cent. The 5/- for those whose means are under £52. 10s. is an increase of 13.9 per cent.

There is also of course—something which some Opposition Deputies appear to forget—a 5/- increase in the other rates of pension at the higher points on the means scale. For a married couple drawing unemployment assistance in a rural area the 10/- increase granted in this Budget is an increase of 22.5 per cent and for a married couple in an urban area the increase of 10/- is equivalent to 19 per cent. This is in a period in which the cost of living rose by 7.27 per cent, so that obviously we are dealing with these rates of payment in a fundamental way. The social insurance benefits were last increased in November, 1963 and since then the cost of living has increased by 7.92 per cent. The 10/- increase which is being granted in the personal rate of contributory old age pensions is equivalent to 20 per cent while the 20/- which is being granted to married people in receipt of old age pensions represents an increase of 22.9 per cent. Again, the 10/- increase in the personal rate for contributory widows' pensions and unemployment and disability benefit is 23.5 per cent while the 20/- increase which married people in receipt of any of those benefits will receive, is 27.6 per cent. It is obvious this is a real and substantial improvement and that we are not in fact using the cost of living as a yardstick but tackling the problem of effecting a fundamental improvement in the rates.

Some Deputies have been trying to create the impression that this is the first year improvements have been made in respect of social welfare payments and that it is a new thing for a Fianna Fáil Government, despite the fact that in nearly every year since 1957 something substantial has been done. I think I should also place on record what the actual improvement has been since we took over in 1957. The cost of living figure in 1957, immediately before we came in, was 135 points and the latest figure available is 177, which represents an increase of 31.1 per cent. In that time the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pensions has been increased by 23/6, from 24/—which was the rate when we came in—to 47/6, that is, 97.9 per cent for those whose means are under £26. For those whose means are between £26 and £52-10-0 per annum the increase has been from 24/- to 42/6, which is a 77.1 per cent increase.

In the case of widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions the increase for those whose means are under £26 a year has been from 22/6 to 46/- which is 104.4 per cent. For those between £26 and £52. 10s. the increase has been from 22/6 to 41/-, which is 82.2 per cent. In regard to unemployment assistance for a single person in a rural area, the increase is 133.3 per cent, that is from 12/- to 28/-. For a married person the increase has been from 20/- to 54/6, or 172.5 per cent. In an urban area the increase are 88.9 per cent for the single person and 123.2 per cent for the married man. The contributory widows' pension has gone up by 75 per cent, and the increase in the personal rate of unemployment and disability benefit is the same, 75 per cent. The married rate for unemployment and disability benefit has gone up from 45/- to 92/6 that is by 105.5 per cent so that in all these services where there has been an increase of 31.1 per cent in the cost of living, the improvements we have given have ranged from 75 per cent to 172.5 per cent. In addition, the contributory old age pension scheme was first introduced in 1961 and since then the cost of living has increased by 19.6 per cent and the rates of payment of contributory old age pensions have been increased in the personal rates from 40/- to 60/- in the present year, that is 50 per cent, while the married rate has been increased from 68/- to 107/-, an increase of 56.9 per cent.

I think it is obvious that it is not only in this year we have been effecting these improvements, that this is a record of continous improvement of social welfare. The new rates, the substantial improvements that are being made this year, are nothing more than a logical and predictable development of the policy we have been operating over the years since 1957.

I suppose we should be grateful for the fact that the reaction of the opposition Parties to the Budget has been to try to get in on it in a second-hand way, to claim that it was their pressure that induced the Government to provide these social welfare improvements, but of course, as they well know, that is not so at all. It was quite clear, indeed, from Deputy Sweetman's remarks that he still cannot realise it was possible to effect such substantial improvements but in his very first speech of the election campaign the Taoiseach declared it was our intention to allocate an increased proportion of the rising national resources to improving social welfare. We have done this in our very first Budget. As far as I know, that statement was made before the famous Fine Gael "Just Society" document had emerged from the melting pot. The point was that the people believed we would do what we said because they had before them the evidence of our consistent attention to the needs of social welfare down the years. They also had evidence of the increase in the capacity of the community to finance these improvements which is, of course, the important thing. They did not believe Opposition promises because they were out of character with their past performance and because they were unrealistic in so far as there was no reference to how they were to be financed. Apparently, no consideration had been given to that.

In each year since 1957 there has been some improvement which has ensured a continuous if gradual gain for social welfare rates over the cost of living. In the early stages in particular that was done in difficult circumstances when it was vitally necessary to concentrate on developing the economy. Now, because of the fact that we attended to the fundamental necessity of ensuring that the capacity of the people to provide money for these improvements increased, we have reached the stage where it is possible to make more rapid progress towards the goal of adequate social welfare services. This year's Budget marks a significant step on the way.

It is apparently becoming the fashion to decry our social welfare services here, to contend that they will not stand comparison with other countries. That it not true. All the contingencies for which such social welfare services are normally provided are, in fact, covered here. These can be classified under the eight heads of the International Labour Convention No. 102— Minimum Standards of Social Security —sickness, unemployment, old age, employment injury, family, maternity, invalidity, and survivors are all covered by compulsory social insurance except employment injury which it is intended to cover soon in this way. Assistance services are available also for all those contingencies.

And while the rates of payment under these different schemes may not be as high as considered desirable they are by no means as bad as some people claim. The maximum rate for non-contributory old age pension, for instance, will now be 47/6d and it is available to people whose means do not exceed £26 per annum. In the case of married claimants for the non-contributory old age pension the means are halved so that if both husband and wife are of pensionable age, the benefit may be obtained by both. A married couple, if both are of pensionable age and if the means do not exceed £52 per annum get £4 15s. 0d. per week. In addition, they are now getting increased allowances in respect of dependent children.

A contributory old age pensioner who is married receives £5 7s. 6d. per week as a result of the provisions of this Budget with the addition of 13/- per week each for up to two dependent children and a further 8/- per week for each other dependent child. For unemployment or disability benefit the rate for a man and wife now becomes £4 12s. 6d. For a man with a wife and two children it is £5 18s. 6d. or if they have four children £6 14s. 6d. or six children it is £7 10s. 6d. and eight children, £8 6s. 6d.

While these rates of benefit possibly represent a decrease in the standard of living of comparative severity for those who are enjoying higher rates of employment, they compare quite favourably with at least the lower-paid rates of employment, particularly for people with families. In fact, there are many cases of people whose cash incomes would be higher from social benefits than when actually employed. The new rates of unemployment and disability benefit for a man and wife of £4 12s. 6d. is 60 per cent of an £8 per week wage after taking account of the deduction for the insurance stamp. A man with a family of six children, which is not an abnormally large family, would actually be equally well off financially when drawing benefit as when working. So, while there is considerable scope for further improvement and while I hope there will be such improvements, social welfare payments in this country are not as bad as people sometimes make out.

I am afraid many members—indeed, from what I hear in the House, most of the Opposition Deputies—think only of one particular class when they think of social welfare and that is the non-contributory old age pensioner. I am quite conscious of the need to improve the rates of non-contributory old age pensions but I cannot agree that the need is any less urgent in the case of non-contributory widows' pensions and young married people depending on unemployment assistance. I have consistently refused to do as the Coalition Government did when they were in office and that is take the easy way out by dealing only with this one class of social welfare recipients. The result of this attitude on the part of the former Government was that when we came into office in 1957, while the old age pension rate was 24/-, the rate for unemployment assistance in the rural areas was only 12/- and the rate for a man and wife was 20/- Twenty-four shillings was not a princely sum for an old age pensioner but 20/- for a man and wife was ridiculous.

We have adopted the much more expensive but more equitable course of improving rates of all the social welfare schemes and ensuring they would more than keep pace with the cost of living. I believe the people are quite prepared to pay for these improvements which we have provided for in this Budget and I am glad to see that at last the Opposition agree with that point of view. It is only a month since we told the people we were going to do this and, so far from trying, like the Opposition Parties, to make it appear that this could be done practically free of cost, we have been at pains all the time to point out that increases in social welfare could be financed only by taxation.

I myself certainly pointed that out at every opportunity I got. I told the people that, in view of the more robust state of the economy, and in view of the fact that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion had got off to a good start, we intended to step up the rate of improvement of social welfare. I told the people everywhere I got the opportunity exactly what that meant, that it meant taking more from them in taxation and I think I can regard the fact that we got an extra seat in County Dublin as an endorsement of our intention to levy the increased taxation necessary to step up the redistribution of income to social welfare recipients as we have done in this year——

There was another reason for that.

——by the substantial amount of 17.5 per cent. Deputy Dunne, apparently, thinks there was some other reason why we got the seat——

There were contributory factors.

——but I think I am entitled to regard it as an endorsement of the policy we put before the people and certainly it was an indication of the fact that the Fine Gael talk of a theoretical and fanciful just society without any reference to the means of obtaining it, to the means of financing their proposals, was regarded by the people as treating them with contempt.

The taxation arrangements being made in this Budget are to enable us to fulfil the mandate that we obtained from the people. We are increasing the proportion of the gross national product which is being spent on social welfare from 5.5 per cent last year to a record level of 6.06 per cent this year and we have been specifically authorised by the people to do this. The Taoiseach pointed out categorically in his first speech of the election campaign that that is what we intended to do and it was clearly spelt out that this meant increased taxation in order to get the money.

There has been criticism of the fact that it is proposed to give a higher rate of non-contributory old age and widows' pension to people whose means are under £26 than to those whose means are over that amount. I must say that I find this attitude surprising, particularly coming from the Labour Party. I certainly consider it entirely equitable, particularly when the amount of money available is limited, as it obviously is limited, to give more to the "have-nots" than to the "haves".

There is no reason why pensions should be paid at the same rate to those who have means of £52 per year and to those who have means of only £26. In fact, the differential, if anything, should be 10/- instead of 5/-, to be strictly equitable and, indeed, it would be justifiable, in my opinion, at some time in the future to introduce further categories at this end of the means scale for people whose means are between £26 and £39, for those whose means are under £13 and for those who have no means at all.

That sort of means test was scrapped some years ago.

I know it was scrapped, but when the amount of money available is limited, is it not more equitable to give more to those who have less means than is given to those who have some means, and particularly to give more to those who have no means? In fact, only yesterday I was being pressed by means of a parliamentary question to provide supplementary pensions for those who have no means. This is exactly the direction in which we are moving.

Deputy Tully said today that old age pensioners with £26 per annum or more will have only 6/2d left out of their pension over and above the cost of food. In what Deputy Tully said here today he was surely making a case for something extra for those people who have no means because we must remember that most of those who are assessed as having means under the Old Age Pensions Acts have, in fact, got full maintenance and residence and that is assessed at only 1/- per week. So that it is those who have no means who are really badly off and this move of ours to give the increased rate of pension to those people is entirely justifiable.

In any case, it has been conveniently forgotten or has been overlooked by Opposition Deputies who have spoken that there is, in fact, a substantial increase for those who are getting the present maximum rate of this pension —an increase of 5/- a week—that is, for those who are getting the maximum at present and who will not qualify for the new maximum.

I was asked how many of the people getting the maximum rate of old age pension at the moment it is expected will qualify for the new maximum. The estimate is that 70,560 out of a total of 112,000 old age pensioners will get this 10/- increase and the approximate number at present drawing the maximum is 100,000. So that, something more than 70 per cent of the people who are getting the present maximum rate of old age pension will get this 10/- increase and, of course, the remainder will get an increase of 5/- which is, as I have said already, a substantial increase and is, in fact, twice as much as was granted during their whole term of office by either of the two Coalition Governments. Even if we were to do no more than give a flat rate of increase of 5/- we could call this a good social welfare Budget. It seems to me to be really equitable that the income of the old age pensioner who has no means whatever apart from the old age pension and the total income of a person who qualifies for any of the other rates of old age pension should be roughly equal.

There is one other matter which has an effect on this Budget concerning social welfare which I think I should mention before I conclude, that is, that it has been decided to increase the income limit for compulsory insurability of non-manual workers, from £800 to £1,200 per annum. This added to the commitments that the Minister for Finance had to meet under the Health Act. It will also have the effect of widening the scope of social insurance by bringing an estimated 20,100 persons into social insurance, and this in turn will give a clearer picture of the number of people insurably employed.

I have dealt only with the social welfare aspects of the Budget. I thought it was desirable to put on record exactly the extent of the improvements that are being made and also to point out that this is, as I said, not a new departure on the part of Fianna Fáil but merely a logical development of the policy that we have been operating since 1957 and a development that could have been expected and that would obviously have come about now that the economy is in a more healthy state and that the capacity of the community to provide for social welfare has been increased. These improvements are possible only because we have recognised from the start that the fundamental necessity was to develop the capacity of the community to provide the money for these purposes. I think this is a good Budget and it effects a considerable improvement in the position of everybody who is depending on social welfare, and it will not be the last improvement that will be made by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Barrett

All we have heard here since the Minister for Finance rose yesterday and all we have seen has been a most interesting study and an indication of the democratic process we enjoy in this country. Despite what the Minister for Social Welfare has been telling us for the past half an hour about the good intentions of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to social welfare, not alone immediately before the general election but throughout the year, it is within the memory of every one of us here that it was only about midway through the general election campaign that the Fianna Fáil Party departed from the vague generalities referred to by the Minister for Social Welfare and indicated that if they did get back into power, they would see fit to give attention to the problems which had first been pinpointed by a Party to which belong one-third of the total number of Deputies, the Fine Gael Party.

It was in the first speech the Taoiseach made.

Mr. Barrett

It was only then the Fianna Fáil Party awoke to the fact that the people really did want to move towards a just society and that they would move towards a just society with Fine Gael unless Fianna Fáil pulled up their socks. The Minister has been telling us that over the years the Fianna Fáil heart was bleeding for all these people for whom the largesse of the increased allowances——

No. I was talking about our actual performance.

Mr. Barrett

I did not interrupt the Minister and I expect similar courtesy from him. I am very glad if I am annoying him but I ask him to try to be courteous. I was saying that the Minister was indicating that all through the years the Fianna Fáil heart was bleeding for the unfortunate people who have now got some largesse from the Minister for Finance. However, if that heart was bleeding, there was very little evidence of it in Budgets throughout the years. The Minister said in a nice sort of way that "every year we gave them something". Every year they gave them something, a little sop so that they could not be accused of giving nothing to the most deserving section of our community, the least of our brethren. The very fact that this year such a considerable percentage increase had to be given to these people points implacably to one thing, that over the years, despite what the Minister mouthed here a few minutes ago, this section of the community was almost completely neglected by the Fianna Fáil administration.

What I rejoice in is this, that although these people groaned and groaned over the years and were not heard by the Fianna Fáil Party, when a strong Opposition Party added their voice to the groans of these people and said to them: "Here is a policy which you can follow unless the Government Party mend their hand", the Government Party mended their hand and came in here with these proposals. Then the Minister for Social Welfare says: "We have done a wonderful thing and are we not great fellows?" and he quote statistics.

The logic of statistics reminds me that there was an occasion in America when the statisticians undertook to find out where was the most dangerous place to be from the point of view of health and the maintenance of health. Having gone into the matter very carefully, the statisticians came forward with the most logical conclusion, that the most dangerous place to be was to be in bed because more people died in bed than any place else; and the next most dangerous place to be was to be at home because you were likely to break your neck falling down the stairs or burn yourself to death.

I was reminded of that when the Minister was talking about the cost of living and the 7.92 per cent. This figure is got by putting a whole lot of figures together and reaching a mean figure. The Minister forgets that the unfortunate man getting the 10/- increase in many cases has to pay 20 per cent extra for his meat. The Minister forgets that since the Fianna Fáil Party went back to Government, there was quite an extensive percentage increase in the price of bread, to the extent of ½d a loaf.

The Minister forgets all these things but I rejoice that Fianna Fáil also are moving towards a just society. I rejoice that their social conscience has been awakened in some respects, at all events, and I qualify it with "in some respects" because in regard to one of the most fundamental matters of social welfare in this country, the proposals of the Minister for Finance are profoundly disappointing. I refer to housing.

The White Paper on Housing laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas last November indicated that our housing needs run from 12,000 to 13,000 houses annually for some years to come. It was admitted that this might be a conservative estimate and I am quite convinced that if we are to approach our housing responsibilities properly, it is a conservative estimate, and that if we build 14,000 houses a year, having regard to wastage in houses and various other things over the next few years, we would be scarcely grappling with the problem. In 1963-64 we built only 7,431 houses and since then the output has not gone up much, due directly to the inactivity of the Government. This year, however, although we have built only about 7,500 houses, the Minister provides only £4,250,000 more than last year's figure. He intends to make available £19.58 millions as against £15.33 millions last year, an increase of less than a quarter.

I should like to ask the Minister and the other Fianna Fáil speakers who follow me to tell us how that tallies with the Fianna Fáil professed intentions in the White Paper they laid before us six months ago, with their own admission that it is absolutely necessary in this fundamental matter to build at least 12,000 to 13,000 houses each year? How does that tally with the hard facts of this Budget? Taking into consideration the increased cost of building houses, we shall be lucky if we produce anything like 1,500 houses extra this year. That is an indictment of the Government Party. It is an indictment of their social conscience and it is a clear indication that but for the fact that we on this side of the House had prodded them in regard to benefits which they have given to people in relation to old age pensions and so on, over the past few years, precious little would have been done about that.

I see in the Minister's proposals the complete destruction of the hope of thousands of people who believed what was set out in the White Paper of the Minister for Local Government six months ago, that this was really the programme that was going to be followed. We find now that on the Minister's overall figures, there is no hope of its being followed this year. If you take into consideration the fact that the Minister has allowed such a relatively small increase in expenditure, if you take into consideration the Government's failure to provide moneys in the Capital Budget, if you take into consideration also that people who are trying to get houses are finding it difficult because all the building societies have closed down on advances to them, that banks have brought on a credit squeeze, I fail to see how we will reach anything like the programme the Minister for Local Government put before us with such pomp about six months ago. Deputies on the Government side smiled and thought it was a wonderful thing, a new charter for housing in this country. We buried that document today and I believe we will continue for quite some years to come to disregard completely this most important social need.

The Constitution lays down that the family is the fundamental group of society. Where will one raise the family and, having a family, what will one do for that family if one has not a house in which to rear the family? From time to time complaints are made about street girls. It is we who put them on the streets because there is nowhere else for them. That is the fault of the people sitting on the Government benches and of the Minister who gives such a paltry increase, and that at a time like this when the Minister for Local Government must have advised him, as he advised everybody in this White Paper, that there was an immediate necessity for the building of 12,000 to 13,000 houses per year. But for the fact that it is so tragic, I would rejoice in seeing the Fianna Fáil chickens coming home to roost because, in 1957, when we, as members of the inter-Party Government, built 10,969 houses, Fianna Fáil cackled loudly and said we were building too many houses and there was no one to go into them. That was said in my own hearing, in the hearing of Deputy T. F. O'Higgins and of other Deputies now on these benches.

The result of that cackling was that Fianna Fáil decided it was not necessary to build houses. It was not necessary to house the people and the sacrament of marriage was no longer important because, if you got married, you were not going to get a house. The Minister knows and every Deputy knows that it is no good young people relying on any public authority to provide them with a house if they get married. They must have a family first. It is very difficult to know where they will have the family except in the garrets and slums left by the Fianna Fáil Party. As a result of the fallacious belief, a fallacious belief which suited the Fianna Fáil Party incidentally, house building ceased and Fianna Fáil were able to spend the money saved quite recklesly elsewhere. Instead of the 11,000 houses we built in one year, Fianna Fáil built approximately 5,000 per year between 1959 and 1962. That was the programme at a time when people were crying out for houses. But they did not get them. The Minister for Local Government did go to the trouble of investigating the position and, having investigated it and found out exactly what the needs are, the Government came along yesterday and declared, through the Minister for Finance, that the problem is really not so grave as was suggested.

In Cork Corporation we tried to encourage people to build their own houses so that they might have some pride in property, instead of paying rent year after year and never owning a stone of the premises in which they live. The idea was that a man could build up some sort of little asset to leave to his widow or to enjoy himself in his later years. We proposed to the Minister for Local Government that we should be allowed to provide a lower rate of interest—3½ per cent going up to 5½ per cent instead of 6¾ per cent. We had many applicants. People are hungry for houses. People are anxious to own some little property of their own. We had many applicants. They engaged architects and bought little plots. Then the Minister for Local Government came back and said: "If you help these people, you will get no subsidy from the Department and you had better stop this very quickly." Cork Corporation are stopping it now very quickly, and with regret, because the finances of the Corporation are such that they cannot go ahead since the Minister would not allow them the subsidy which would have facilitated their policy.

Another matter on the capital side of this Budget which caused me the gravest disappointment is the Minister's approach to education. The sum provided for the erection of new schools and the improvement of existing ones rises from £2.4 million to only £2.48 million. That indicates little or no progress. Indeed, I believe it merely allows for the increased costs of building. That does not square up with the promise of the Fianna Fáil Party during the election that education would be looked after, that it was very important, that we must educate our children and give them advantages we never had. This little sop is apparently the kind of advantage we intend to give them. Frankly I am very disappointed at the failure of the Fianna Fáil Government to realise the importance of primary education and the importance of educating children in schools which are not overcrowded. No Deputy on the Fianna Fáil benches can tell me that he is not aware that national schools are grossly overcrowded. I should like to hear them say so because, if any tried to deny it, I am quite certain they could not go back and face their constituents subsequently.

In the course of a debate on another Estimate yesterday, Deputy Corry, with his usual lack of conscientious regard for facts, indicated that we in the Fine Gael Party were in some way against industrial grants and allowances for development. He referred, of course, to the Verolme Dockyard and alleged we wanted to close down that vast organisation. Earlier Deputy Crowley implored the Minister not to implement what he alleged were our proposals in regard to the Verolme Dockyard. I do not know what Deputy Crowley meant. We never made any proposals. We simply counselled the Government to have regard to the fact that, in the case of industrial grants being given to people, grants paid out of the pockets of the people, the bona fides of the applicants should be tested most carefully. We are happy any time money is properly spent.

Foras Tionscal have handed out a total of about £22½ million in grants. All we can say is that they should investigate fully the bona fides of those who get these grants and, when Deputies ask publicly for an investigation, they should not be told that it is not right that the people who look for our people's money should have their bona fides investigated. Deputies on this side of the House, who conscientiously, and sometimes to the detriment of their own popularity in a constituency, investigate these matters, should not be told that they are trying to sabotage the national effort. That is the approach by the Government Party to any effort made by this side of the House to ensure that money spent on industrial development is wisely spent and given to the right people.

Yesterday, when the GEC factory situation in Dundalk was being investigated, the Minister for Agriculture said the same thing; he said this does not encourage industrial organisation. I do not agree. We want to encourage industrial organisation but we want to encourage the sort of industrialist who is prepared to allow himself to be investigated to the full without the slightest fear that anything will be found to his detriment. When firms which have factories in other countries come in here, we should try to ensure that we will not be the victims if there has to be any reduction in output. We should make quite certain that foreign industrialists do not come in here in the belief that they will always have a factory in Ireland to close down if they must reduce production and their production in their factories abroad can continue at the same level.

I am sorry the Minister did not make some reference to something we all know is happening. I refer to the credit squeeze and the failure of the building societies to advance credit to people who want to build houses. The Minister could have dealt with that in some fashion. I hope, when he is concluding the debate, he will do so. I also hope he will be able to tell us exactly why the Government have fallen down so badly on their social obligation to the people in regard to housing.

Unlike Deputy Barrett, I do not think the Government carry the sole responsibility for prostitution. I think there are other factors which enter into that problem. But the Government carry responsibility for social evils probably as great and almost as grave as the particular one I have mentioned.

From my observations over the years, Budget debates tend to become competitions in coal-blowing. Recently, we heard of the just society. We saw trotted out in the newspapers by a Government Minister the announcement that we were entering a golden era under Fianna Fáil. Who could possibly visualise a golden era under any other auspices? More recently we had a profession of neo-leftism from the Taoiseach. Lo and behold, that was no sooner in the market place than we had another gallop to the left by Fine Gael. You will forgive the Labour Party if we smile a bit wryly at that situation. We are the only Party who, since their institution, have constantly advocated measures, some of which have been adopted in this Budget. We are the sole voice that has been raised here since 1922, not that I have been here since 1922 or anything like it.

God forbid.

Or even since 1927, like Deputy Corry. I am here a few years just the same. We are the only Party who have consistently raised the social issues that have always been so important and which so vitally affect the lives of the ordinary people. We have seen Budgets brought in here on previous occasions when the muchvaunted benefits conferred by Fianna Fáil consisted of 1/6d to the old age pensioner. The Minister for Social Welfare tried to make a case for his Party that they had at all times improved the lot of the old age pensioner. This is the only occasion they did anything half decent for the old age pensioner. All of us, perhaps, not openly as Party men, have admitted privately to ourselves that the efforts made in other years to alleviate the lot of the old age pensioner were miserable, mean and contemptible—the half-crown and the 1/6 on other occasions.

Here we have some kind of an effort to do better, not that it is all that much, mark you. I do not regard it as a tremendous gaisce out of the Government to give the old age pensioner 10/-. It is not a matter about which they can brag and boast. It is an increase long overdue and still leaves a great gap between what the old person needs to live in any kind of comfort. However, if my colleague, Deputy P.J. Burke, will forgive me for intruding on his particular territory, I should like to quote Lincoln, who said: "I am always prepared to go along with anybody who is going my way." That is our attitude towards this Budget. Fianna Fáil in this instance are going the way of the Labour Party, not as far or as quickly as we would. Still, we are glad they have taken that step to relieve the most necessitous of our people.

We have always said we were quite prepared at all times to vote for increased taxation if we could be satisfied that that taxation was going to go to the people most in need of help. In other years that has not happened. There are sections of our community which have been featherbedded by taxation by Governments in the past. Some of them are moaning now because they were not still further feather-bedded in this Budget. We have always made it quite clear that we do not think money can be conjured from the air. We know revenue must be got with which to make improvements. We have always stated we are prepared at any time to face the hard facts of life and to vote for taxation where we are satisfied it will do most good.

There is no mention in this Budget of any proposal to alter the very inadequate rate of workmen's compensation, which stands at £4 10s. and has stood at that figure since 1955. The Minister for Social Welfare announced that the insurable limit is to be raised to £1,200. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance actually announced that yesterday or not. I would suggest that the question of the rate of workmen's compensation is tied in with the matter of increasing the insurable limit and should be considered as urgent by the Minister.

Similarly, we are disappointed—I am particularly so because of my interest in Ballyfermot, the most thickly populated area in the country— that there was no announcement of any increase in children's allowances. This is something to which the Minister should have given attention and a need he should have tried to meet.

I join with others who deplored the lack of reference in the Budget to the most urgent problem of all which faces the country, the problem of housing. This is a problem which has many facets, as we know. It is a problem which, particularly in Dublin, has been allowed to degenerate into a deplorable condition of affairs where houses are falling on all sides. At the same time, the local authorities are only getting into motion the very unwieldy machinery which exists for the production of houses on a large scale.

The problem of housing is a formidable one. There is no question about that. The fundamental thing is housing, the provision of homes, no matter what we may do to encourage production or whatever other steps we may take in regard to the expansion of the economy. The family constitutes the home and in this day and age there are 9,000 people in Dublin who are literally homeless. It does not mean they are walking the streets, although some of them would be better off doing that because of the difficulties they have to go through, living under impossible landladies or with their in-laws. That is possibly the biggest problem. There are sub-tenants in a great number of corporation houses. The people are living with relatives. This is a real problem because the people are living in close contact. It leads to difficulties and conflict. This always happens when people are living in close proximity with one another in the confined space of corporation or county council houses.

Many of us who have taken the trouble to consult with our constituents often come away from meetings very depressed to think so many of our people, especially old people, are living in overcrowded corporation houses. They are not doing so because of lack of money for housing but because of the apparent lack of responsibility on the part of those elected to represent local bodies and even the National Parliament.

I feel the Government, through the Minister for Finance, who is the key Minister, have a responsibility in this situation to tackle this urgent problem. They should tackle it with the greatest speed possible. There is no reference whatever to this problem in the Budget, nor is there any reference to this very dangerous development in regard to building societies and bank restrictions in relation to people who are anxious to purchase their own homes. Surely of all groups in the community, the most deserving of help are those young people, preparing to get married, who, both boy and girl, as is quite a common thing in Dublin, sacrifice from their wages the money they would like to spend on the pictures, drink, cigarettes and many other simple pleasures in order to get together sufficient money to make a deposit on a house of their own. These are most admirable people who do not lean on the State or local authorities to provide houses for them, except to the extent that they depend on local authority grants.

These people are now facing an impossible situation. The young people in Dublin who want to buy a house have to provide £3,800 to £4,000, a house which three or four years ago could be got for half that sum. This is a scandalous situation. House prices in Dublin city and county have been allowed to soar to such an extent that these people are unable to buy them. Something should be done to improve this situation. It should have been referred to by the Minister for Finance. There is a grave danger that, if it continues, it will affect the economy and could lead towards inflation.

This is definitely what is happening here. If other sections of our economy, like the building industry, allow prices to soar, we will have inflation in a very short time and we all know very well what disaster can follow in the train of such a development. It would have been preferable if the Minister made an announcement, regardless of the attitude of building societies, an attitude which at the present time is to restrict loans, and told us regardless of what the banks were doing in their own conservative way, that steps will be taken to provide people anxious to purchase their own homes with interest-free loans.

This is a Labour Party proposal which has been put before the country on many occasions and has been canvassed by us. It has not been put into effect by those in power so I would urge the Minister to consider, at any rate, an easement of interest rates or the provision of interest-free loans, even on an emergency basis, for young people, or even older people, who want to purchase their own homes. This would be a great solution to this terrible problem. If something is not done along those lines, we are likely to have a housing problem for at least a decade.

We have not now got Mr. T.C. O'Mahony as a housing director. He was appointed during the first inter-Party Government. During that time over 30,000 houses were needed. At the present time the estimate is 50,000. This man, because of his tremendous capacity, tackled this problem and it had reached a solution inside a dozen years. That is the kind of approach we want now. That was the kind of approach which came from the Government of that day. You do not get that inspired earnestness, which is so essential in public servants, unless it is directed and encouraged by the Government of the day. I do not see any evidence of that on the part of the present Government. It should be there to bring about a solution to this problem of the inadequacy and lack of housing.

With regard to the benefits which have been announced for the old aged, widows, orphans and so on, these will be no good whatsoever if the cost of living is permitted to go its merry way. I met a man recently who showed me a receipt for 12/6d for a lb. of steak which he bought in this city. Perhaps the 12/6d did not reach Deputy Corry's farmers but certainly that is the price which is paid for meat in this city.

I would not be surprised.

Raw. It is 18/9d. if cooked.

It is a bit raw.

There you are. As I say, unless some steps are taken to ensure that the cost of living is not allowed to go haywire these benefits will be of no value to the people who will receive them. We have signs of industrial unrest developing at the present time, which are serious matters for all of us, particularly in relation to national industry. There is a danger of a national strike in the Electricity Supply Board which can have a calamitous effect on the economy. These things flow from the fact that the cost of living has been let run too far.

Workers do not lightly take it into their heads, particularly mature and experienced men with families, to stop work and lose their wages just for the sake of doing that in order to appear to be heroes or in order to get a rest. They do it because of the hard facts of economic necessity. They do it because they are forced to do it and cannot live on the money they are getting. All this reflects on the Government's lack of policy in relation to control of the cost of living and lack of policy, also, in relation to the control of prices. The Government should lose no time in seeking a satisfactory agreed settlement to this particular problem so that industry and commerce and the people of the country generally will not have to undergo hardships which might otherwise prove to be inevitable.

We welcome what is good in the Budget. We are disappointed that there was not a lot more. We look forward to improvements in the years to come. The Labour Party are proud to have brought about a situation, with our efforts here and those of our predecessors, in which it is now accepted that the most important items in a Budget are those which affect the lives of the ordinary people and particularly of those who are most distressed in our community. The Labour Party, as the social conscience of the Dáil, are responsible for that and we are very happy that some steps have been taken to meet our requirements.

Look where the conscience has gone.

I was amused to hear speakers on behalf of Fine Gael and the Labour Party yesterday and again today claiming credit for this Budget. It is rather a novel experience, I am sure, for the Minister for Finance to find the Opposition saying in effect: "This is a very good Budget. It is so good that we cannot let you have the credit for it: we must claim it ourselves."

Let us examine the double thinking by which these Parties proceed to claim credit. The Fine Gael Party seem to think that the best way to do it is to keep repeating the phrase "a just society". It is rather a nice phrase but it does not in any way explain how the Fine Gael Party are responsible for this Budget. Apparently, the reasoning is that this Government had no intention of increasing social services until the Fine Gael Party told them to do so. I doubt if even the most dedicated members of Fine Gael are so naive as to believe that. The Labour Party seem to think that they should dispute the Fine Gael claims in this regard. Indeed, they claim that ever since they came into this House—I think Deputy S. Dunne said it—they have been advocating this kind of Budget.

I want to suggest that the truth of the matter is that these Parties began only relatively recently to realise the real possibilities of the development of social services—and I do not mean only social welfare services. That was the time when they first admitted to themselves that this country was making good economic progress under Fianna Fáil. Up to then, they do not seem even to have envisaged any real possibility of development of our social services. However much subsequent speakers may want to dispute this claim, there is one very good test by which one can judge whether or not it is true and that is by judging the performance of those two Parties on both occasions when they were in office. I do not want to go back over the sordid history of those two occasions. I need mention merely those occasions to underline the fact that this alleged concern by the two Opposition Parties in this House for social progress—including progress on the social welfare front—is something which has happened recently. If they had this tremendous concern for the development of our social services—by which I mean education, health and social welfare— why did we not see some evidence of it when they were in a position to do something about it?

The truth of the matter is that if one examines the record of the political Parties in this House—it is the safest method by which to assess the performance of any Party—one must admit that the only Party in this country which has consistently worked for the development of our social services is the Fianna Fáil Party. The Labour Party can claim a certain amount of credit. In certain fields, they did support the Fianna Fáil Government. However, there were many occasions when they did not and, in particular, when they had not got the political courage to support the necessary taxation for advances in this field. These are verifiable facts and no amount of talks about a just society or describing the Labour Party as the social conscience in this House can surmount these facts.

Fianna Fáil have always realised that in order to make advances on the social front one must first advance economically. This may seem a very elementary fact: it does now, but it did not always appear so. One of the results of Fianna Fáil's realisation of this fact was that the Government Party and, in particular, the Taoiseach, have been accused of being materialistic and of being too concerned with the materialistic aspects of this nation's life. The truth is that this Government have been realistic. They have realised that any progress must be based on economic progress. As I have said, it was only when the two Opposition Parties—and Fine Gael later than the Labour Party—realised and admitted to themselves that there was genuine economic progress in this country that their minds opened and they began to examine the possibilities of advance on the social front.

Despite the fact that this Government have been concerned with economic progress as a basic necessity, they have not by any means ignored social progress. We all know—despite what some people may say here on occasions—that social progress is seldom a spectacular thing: it is a matter of slow and steady advance. Unlike the Fine Gael Party who are concerned with the just society which dates from very recent times, the Fianna Fáil Government have consistently been working towards advance on the social front, that is, in education, health and social welfare. I do not propose, Sir, to go over all that ground but I do propose to quote certain figures relating to education, which is my special concern, in order to show that the Fianna Fáil Government have not in this field awakened only a few months ago or within the past few years to the necessity of developing our educational services.

In the figures I should like to quote, unless I state otherwise, the comparison is between expenditure in the year 1957-58 and in the year 1965-66. In primary education, the expenditure has grown from £9 million to £17.3 million. For primary school buildings, expenditure has grown from £1.2 million to £2.9 million. In the period in question approximately £14 million has been spent on new primary schools; 640 new schools have been built and 502 large-scale enlargement or improvement schemes have been carried out. Most significant, I think, is that 116,750 new places have been provided in our primary schools in that period.

One question in the educational field on which play is made from time to time by the Opposition Parties is the matter of scholarships. I should like to make it quite clear that I am not satisfied, and no member of my Party is satisfied, with the present position in relation to scholarships. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it was only in 1961, when the Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) (Amendment) Bill became law, that the State was enabled for the first time to contribute towards the cost of scholarships. Despite the tremendous concern of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties with the future of our children and their ability to obtain education irrespective of their parents' income, in both periods during which they were in office they did not find it possible to introduce legislation which would enable the State to contribute to scholarships.

The present Government did so, however, and, as a result, the total number of post-primary scholarships has increased since 1961-62, from 2,668 to 7,500 in 1964-65 and the number of university scholarships from 377 to 650. It is proposed in the fairly near future to amend the Scholarship Act with a view to at least doubling the number of scholarships available. This, I suggest, is clear evidence of the fact that this Government has been steadily working out and planning for an expansion of our educational services which, again, if I may repeat myself, is dependent on economic progress.

The progress which has been made on the social front has been related to the progress on the economic front. In the primary schools also the number of teachers has been increased since 1957 from 13,402 to 14,297. These are trained teachers and, indeed, we were able to discontinue the recruitment of untrained teachers in 1958. In each of the past six years the ratio of pupils to teachers has been reduced. Last year a special effort was made to reduce the ratio in Dublin city where, as the House knows, most of the large classes are concentrated. In the last year in Dublin city 104 new teaching posts were created and over 100 prefabricated classrooms were supplied.

Also in the primary schools we know there have been difficulties with regard to maintenance of the schools. The amount allowed for heating and cleaning has been increased over 100 per cent since 1957 and, in addition, there are now special grants available for painting the primary schools both internally and externally. These are grants which never operated before. Some people may think these are not of vital importance in the field of education. I think they are, and we should not expect our children or our teachers to work in drab unattractive schools.

Any real expansion in education is dependent not only on increased numbers of schools but also on an increased number of teachers. Teachers are not the product of a machine in a factory. One has to plan long in advance when increasing the number of teachers. Again, I should like to point out that this Government has done this. The training college for men has at the moment in course of construction an extension which is estimated to cost £1,500,000. This will enable us to increase by 50 per cent the output of male teachers from 1966.

There is also a new training college being erected for Church of Ireland students at a cost of £600,000. One of our training colleges has already had installed a language laboratory and it is intended to provide a similar language laboratory at each of the other training colleges. Work has also been carried out in regard to providing reference libraries in our national schools. The scheme began in 1963 and up to date libraries have been provided in 2,000 of our national schools. It is hoped within a few years to have these supplied in all of our 4,800 national schools. This, I think, is a most important scheme and I might, in passing, be permitted to pay tribute to the librarian in Limerick County and City. I am sure Deputy Jones is familiar with the tremendous work done there in this regard. It deserves to be commended and imitated throughout the country.

The problems of educating our physically and mentally handicapped children are considerable and require very great effort but, again, in pursuance of the theme which I should like to convey to the House, that is, that this Government has been consistently working for the improvement of our social services and in particular our educational services, I should like to point out that since 1957 the number of these special schools has increased from 24 to 46. Specially favourable staffing arrangements have been introduced for these schools and grants have been given for the provision of special equipment needed in this type of school. Perhaps most important of all from the point of forward planning, in 1961, training courses for teachers of the mentally and physically handicapped were established in St. Patrick's Training College and, as a result, we have been enabled to increase substantially the number of these schools.

Also as an example of further forward planning, many Deputies here from time to time have expressed themselves as being very concerned about the failure in many of our schools to teach Irish adequately. Most people who are familiar with this problem are agreed that what is required is the utilisation of the most modern knowledge and the most modern methods available to us in language teaching, and to apply them to our problem in teaching Irish. In this regard a linguistic statistical survey was taken in 1963. The work is well in hand although it will take some further time—I would say probably a year and a half or so—before we have the final word.

Has this anything to do with the Budget?

It has—it is expenditure.

We will have all this again on the Minister's Estimate.

This is not administration.

This is not my Estimate speech. I can assure Deputy Donegan that I will have a lot more to say on my Estimate. I can well understand that Deputy Donegan does not like to be reminded of the fact that despite the claims of his Party to be looking for a just society, they have expressed virtually no interest in any of these developments or in forward planning for social development. I am taking education merely as one aspect, as I explained earlier.

I am just bored stiff. That is the reason.

I am not compelling the Deputy to stay in the House.

There is nothing like education.

Yes, perhaps the Deputy might gain a little from education. I feel it is very important that the people are not misled by glib talk about just societies into thinking that Parties have changed their spots. The real test is what was done when those Parties had the power to do it, or, when they were in Opposition, what proposals did they put forward, and how did they vote when it came to voting the necessary moneys.

I have been obliged here in the House—though, like Deputy Donegan, I was not obliged to remain here—to listen to Fine Gael speakers yesterday and to-day talking about a just society, and claiming they are responsible for the increases in this Budget. I do not know if Deputy Donegan was in the House when I made this point before, but I will make it again for his benefit, and I can assure him——

I was here.

——that this is not the last time he will hear it. He will keep on hearing it. Talk about a just society is all very well, but Deputy Donegan and his Party will have to be prepared to be judged on their performance and not on the next new image they decide to take on. They decided to take on three or four different images in the past 12 months.

In our secondary education sphere, we have also had very substantial increases in our expenditure, in the number of pupils, and in the number of teachers. In addition, forward planning has been evident in the schemes inaugurated to assist the teaching of science in our secondary schools. As a result the number of science classes has increased from 2,392 in 351 schools to 4,258 in 522 schools. Grants were also made available, and are being made available, for furnishings and equipment for science laboratories, and special grants of £150 per annum are payable since last year to schools in respect of which recognised science graduates are employed.

All these things are not of major importance but I want to suggest they all add up to planning for social advance. Such things as grants for schools to use modern teaching aids, such as tape recorders, and the planning of comprehensive schools which are revolutionary in our educational system—and as I mentioned in replying to a parliamentary question recently, I hope four of them will be in operation by September of next year—all add up to steady consistent concern on the part of Fianna Fáil for social development.

I know we will be hearing from the Opposition Parties complaints about the things we have not done in this Budget, but the real problem I see facing us is that in order to make further progress, we will have to alter taxation from time to time. Even though we progress economically and even though, without any alteration in the tax rates we can expect with that economic progress a greater yield to the Exchequer, nevertheless if we are to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of the increase in wealth, we will have to alter tax rates from time to time. The problem as I see it when any Party claim they want to secure social advance is, to what extent are they prepared to stand up and be counted when it comes to voting for additional taxation? On this occasion the Opposition Parties have no great problem in that regard. I think they recognise that the people are happy, that this is a fair Budget, that it is doing what should be done, and therefore they have no great problem. It will not always be so. We can be quite sure there will have to be new rates of taxation at some time in the future.

In connection with education again, it is quite clear that the big problem facing us is the provision of a higher level of post-primary education for the greatest possible number of our children. This will cost money; it will cost a lot of money. Indeed, when you add in the further educational requirements, the sum involved will be very substantial, and this is only one field of Government activity. In this field, in the past, this country has been very fortunate in that our children have been able to obtain an excellent education probably more cheaply than in almost any other country in the world because of the services rendered to education by devoted members of religious orders. Though we can continue to hope for this kind of service, of itself it will not be enough.

We need more than that, and to enable these people even to continue their work, the State must pay an awful lot more money. I should like to feel, when I hear certain people speaking of a just society or suggesting that their Party represent the social conscience of Dáil Éireann, that such people, when it came to voting the extra taxation which will be inevitable, would be prepared to stand up and be counted. However, having been sufficiently long in politics to have developed a certain amount of cynicism, I do not expect they will do so. I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do and say to myself: "You were right all along", if they do not. It does not prevent me drawing attention to the fact that occasionally in politics people do indulge in this tactic.

It seems to me that the economic well-being of our country, indeed perhaps even the future of the nation, may well depend on the extent to which we are prepared to devote a considerable amount of our income to the development of education and I believe that the people will be prepared to do this. I hope the Opposition will be prepared to do so, but, as I say, I have my doubts. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this Budget, when the Opposition seem to have difficulty in finding very much fault with anything, I can commend the Budget to the House and ask it for its full support on this occasion, bearing in mind all the time that implied in the Budget is the future progress of the nation which of necessity will entail further taxation.

Listening to the Minister for Finance yesterday, I was not moved in any way by his Budget speech until he came to announce that he was to give an increase of 10/- a week to old age pensioners. I was really surprised at him. The picture being painted around this was like a three card trick—now you see the 10/-; now you do not see it. To my amazement in this year of 1965, the Minister introduced a means test of £25 a year.

The figure is £26.

If they had the £26, they got the knock; if they had the £25, they qualified.

I am listening very attentively.

This will mean that Deputy Burke and many of his colleagues, myself included, attending old age pension committee meetings will discover these frightened old ladies and old and shattered men——

Oh, my God.

——after a visitation and an interrogation by pensions officers who in practically all cases are decent men, but who are officials entering the homes of these people who are in terror of them. Would it not have been a decent thing to have given the unfortunate people the 10/- and be done with it? It is bad enough to have a delayed action bomb, not due to go off until August but here in a kept paper, one of the kept papers of Fianna Fáil, we find a further three card trick. Here, in black type to raise the heart of the old people, it says: "Old age pensions up by 10/- a week".

The Minister is not responsible for what is in a paper.

But did the unfortunate people read right down in the small print that they would not get 10/- if they had more than £26 a year? I would ask the Minister now to facilitate an amendment so that all old age pensioners will qualify. Deputy Colley asked if we would be counted when it came to raising the money. During the general election we often heard the shouting: "Where will you get the money? Where will the money be got to put the Fine Gael policy into operation?" Fianna Fáil said in effect it would be impossible to provide the money. They were the people who had been in Dublin and who knew the state of the Exchequer.

The Minister for Education asked why we did not do it when we were in office. I was not a Member of the House then but I was at a pensions committee meeting, the biggest and longest meeting I can remember due to the Budget at that time when the means test was raised from £39 to £104. That was a break-through. The pension was raised by 7/6d at the same time. It was a good increase all right but the break-through in the means test was a break-through, something to talk about. Unfortunately for the inter-Party Government, they had not three kept newspapers and did not have the running of the radio station as Fianna Fáil are now running the radio and television. They are putting their young men in, damning people with faint praise and by innuendo, sometimes giving people the kiss of death.

That is a good one.

An old trick of Fianna Fáil. I call on my namesake, the Minister for Finance, to wipe out that stain to us in this kept paper.

I have told the Deputy that the Minister is not responsible for what is in a newspaper. It is not adding to the dignity of the House to show papers like that, whatever they may contain.

It certainly would not add to the dignity of the House to show a paper like that.

The Deputy will not misconstrue me; I mean any paper.

It would not be in order to give the history of that paper.

The Deputy will return to the business before the House.

The next thing I should like to say is that I was disappointed—unfortunately Deputy Colley has left the House——

Mr. Barrett

Surely you were not disappointed in him.

I wanted Deputy Colley to stay.

The Minister for Education.

Deputy Colley, the Minister for Education, went to great lengths about his Department. The Minister for Finance might take the same trouble with his and other Departments, including the Department of Local Government. I hope the House will be told about the housing problem. We heard so much during the general election about this wonderful Ballymun project which has been given so much publicity. Being a simple man, I looked at this Ballymun project and thought it was rather wonderful, but then I said to myself that they were going to build the houses anyway, but if you dress it up and build it up into something marvellous, you think it is a marvellous break-through by Fianna Fáil. There are more places in Ireland than Ballymun and there are more housing problems than the one in Ballymun. I was talking to various colleagues from various parts of the country recently and they all referred to the people's desperate need for houses and about people coming to them in the street, or in their houses, or while they were visiting their constituents, asking about houses. A colleague put down a question about Limerick recently and the answer the Minister gave was that there were 7,000 valid applications for houses in Limerick city and that Limerick Corporation were building 200. We have the same kind of problem in Waterford.

The phrase "a credit squeeze" has been bandied about for some time. Fianna Fáil were very clever about the credit squeeze. They could give the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party some pointers about this. I will give honour to the devil where honour is due. During the term of office of the inter-Party Government local authorities sent up schemes for houses which were duly vetted and sanctioned and they were able to build them. Then the bank rate in England went up and there was a credit squeeze, through no fault of the Government. The Government were desperate for money but they found the money and the houses were built. Now, local authorities send up a scheme and it lies in the Department, as I know, for two years. The Minister for Finance will come in and say, as his predecessor Dr. Ryan said last year, we have more money for houses. However, they did not use it because they did not give sanction to build the houses.

Now we are told there is to be £4 million more available. They might as well have made it £12 million because they have no intention of giving sanction for the houses to be built. Anyway it will be impossible to build the houses because the builders will be building flats for people who are able to pay £24 a week for them. The people building these flats can employ a horde of people to build them and pay them much more money than the contractor who is building houses for the working classes can pay.

Under this terrible inter-Party Government, about which Deputy Burke and other Deputies speak, they would have had to get permits to build the luxury flats but they would not get them. You had probably the whole labour force building good houses for the working classes and the local authorities were getting sanction quickly and getting the money at three per cent. Think of that. Then we have a Minister coming in and asking what did they do when they were in office. He did not know what they were doing.

Mr. O'Malley

Three per cent?

Well, three and a quarter per cent. I wish we could get that money now.

Mr. O'Malley

In what year?

In 1948, 1949 and 1950. The Minister has just reminded me of something. The grants were fixed at that time by an enlightened Minister for Local Government, the late Deputy Tim Murphy. He was quite a man. I had occasion to ring him up one day when he was Minister. I had the honour of being Mayor of Waterford at that time and an enlightened manager had let a contractor build houses——

I hope the Deputy is not travelling into the realm of administration, which is quite irrelevant.

I am always glad, Sir, of your guidance, but I am actually talking about expenditure and how cheaply and how efficiently houses could be built in those days and how expensive it is to build houses now, and of the great despair of young people. I am sure you will bear with me——

If it is administration, I cannot.

I am not talking about administration.

I am listening attentively to the Deputy.

I am rather flattered by that. When Deputy Burke has the advantage of me, he interrupts me. I think I must have him down. Now we come——

He has put you off your stroke now.

He will not put me off my stroke; I am too long at the game. Of course, I have my notes. It is a great advantage to have notes. I was looking at a young Fianna Fáil dynamo in here last week reading the speech supplied by his office and reading it badly. I was going to ask him what he was quoting from but I did not. However, the grant at that time was £275 and I think the Minister for Health would agree that houses cost £2 a square foot to build at that time.

Mr. O'Malley

Less.

Good man. It just shows I am being fair. We are nearly up to £3 10s. a square foot and the grants are still the same. The interest is much more and goodness knows where we are in regard to building houses. Recently I saw a programme on television dealing with these wonderful luxury flats. We would all like to be affluent and able to afford them but of course we could not. They also showed some houses being built and the commentary referred to the fact that we are building houses and they showed a rather nice house which cost £6,000. I do not know any working man who can afford this house.

I do not know what Fianna Fáil are doing but I have a suggestion to make because I never get up to speak and to deal with all the ills without trying to produce the remedy. No local authority will be able to build their quota of houses with the way things are going at present. We have office blocks, hotels, luxury buildings and so on being erected and I consider that when whatever is in hands comes to an end, that should be the finish and the Taoiseach and the appropriate Ministers should meet the building contractors' organisation and the unions and have a national housing emergency declared.

A national housing emergency must be declared. There is no use just pointing the finger and saying how badly off you are in Dublin; we are in a terrible way in Waterford and the same position obtains in Cork. Nobody knows this better than Deputies. We have to knock on a lot of doors during elections and we see how the people are living and there is not a man in the House, barring the very highest, who has not had to knock on many doors in various centres recently. It is a frightening thing to knock at the door of a very small house and to discover there are 15 people living in it and that when you ask: "Is there a Thomas Doyle living here?", they answer: "He is in the back room".

People have been interviewed in various chambers of commerce and are quoted as saying how good the Budget is. If it is to be good, we must grapple with this problem: money must be provided at better rates of interest for the building of houses. There will have to be a break-through so far as union restrictions in regard to closed shops in the joinery trade and so on are concerned——

Surely that is not administration.

But it is a wonderful idea.

It may be, for the Deputy.

And it would be a wonderful thing for all these young people. They will be grateful to me for mentioning it and to you for allowing it——

The Deputy should try to do it on another occasion when it is relevant.

I find it very difficult to get that occasion. I am constantly being checked in this House when I bring up something like this. It always seems to be relevant on another occasion. However, I am glad I have got so far.

I suggest to the Minister and the House that this is probably the number one problem of the country, the provision of houses and flats, the building of them as quickly as possible and the braking of luxury building.

Recently we had a bright and shining new Minister for Agriculture, with sword and shield, and God knows what he was going to do. The Minister for Education spoke here about Parties changing their spots. I live to see the day when a Fianna Fáil Minister will come in to talk about the cattle trade. I remember when cattle were vermin in the country because of Fianna Fáil policy and when one would be physically assaulted in many towns—as I was—for protesting against such a state of affairs; but Fianna Fáil changed their spots. The Minister for Agriculture went off on this triumphant tour of the West——

The golden boy.

God help these people in the West. I was not quite aware of the position until the Roscommon-Leitrim by-election when I went into many homes and saw how they had been neglected. I felt ashamed. I do not think the people should be used as the victims of vote-catching stunts, triumphant tours with promises of enormous, useless schemes. It is not fair to say to these people: "We are going to bring in a scheme and dig drains in such a place," and tell them that so many people will be employed when all that will happen is that they will dig some drains and then go away, leaving the people to starve until another election.

The proper approach to this matter is to divert the large sums of money being spent on useless work in these places into some factory or industry that would give the people in the West permanent employment. That is the only way to do it and it will not be done by allowing industries to concentrate in the capital city. We here can deal with this problem. We are always complaining about the siting of factories. I have seen hundreds of factories sited around the centres of population when these centres could very well have done without them and when all these factories needed was Shannon power. Such industries could have been put into remote places where the people are willing to work in them.

In going through my own and other constituencies, I have often asked people how they made any money. About ten years ago I told a story in this House of a time when I changed my spots. I had often condemned the policy of small factories being opened in certain places, as was then customary, when one might say: "Look at that factory employing only a few girls." I take it all back. I met a man who reared 12 children on a very small and very bad farm. He had always been in desperate financial trouble—how could he be otherwise?—and the sow no sooner had bonhams than she would be rushed away to be sold to pay the rent or meet some other bills——

This would not seem to be relevant to the Financial Resolution. It would be more relevant on the Estimates.

I am talking about the enormous advantage of having industries in small places. This man told me that he had no overdraft and when I asked him how he managed, he told me he had two girls working in a factory. At that time wages were not what they are now and he said they brought him home two £5 notes every week-end. The boys, he said, were no good; they might give a couple of pounds a week but then they wanted some of it back on Saturday night. He changed my spots.

This is something the Government can deal with. There are many factories that could and should have been built elsewhere. I have in mind one which was built on the Naas Road. I am not seeking to take anything away from the capital city but it would not have made any difference to Dublin, while it would have made a tremendous difference in a West of Ireland town if it was paying out £700 a week. It would create a boom town there. Those are considerations we should keep in mind.

The image, as the modern idiom says, of the farmer, is being put before the people from time to time. A very respectable Sunday paper last Sunday showed a group of people in a cocktail bar complaining about the prices of milk cocktails at 7d a bottle. I do not think that is fair to the people who produce that milk and bottle it.

That would seem to be a matter for the Estimate for Agriculture and not relevant on the Financial Resolution.

I am sorry, Sir, you were not in the Chair some time ago when the Minister for Education gave the whole history of his Department. I thought we would have a little bit of latitude in speaking about other Departments. It is not right that the image of the Irish farmer should be presented in that way. He is working a 90-hour week. I am all for the civilised 40-hour week; it is a wonderful idea but, unfortunately, they have not yet invented a 40-hour cow. If they are going to complain about getting milk at 7d a bottle in a 6d bottle, I do not know what the farmers will do. I will remember it on the Estimate for Agriculture.

Next year.

Yes, next year. I will be alive, please God.

And, I hope, back in the front bench. It has not the same sparkle since the Deputy left.

I am grateful to the Minister. I am too old.

The Minister might be a little more gracious.

I meant that.

Deputy Colley lashed the Fine Gael Party and suggested that in the years they were in office they were eating locusts or smoking opium, or, at any rate, were not doing very much. He did not add up that Fianna Fáil have been 25 years in office and have left a sorry tale behind them. He is too young to be able to add that up. I want to come down to the Department of Defence. I do not think there has been any mention of the Department of Defence here at all.

For that reason there can be no discussion on Defence on these Resolutions. The Department of Defence does not arise.

You ought to let me refer to the corvettes——

I could not allow the Deputy to discuss corvettes.

I want this Cork Minister to devote some money to them to have them pumped out and painted.

That will be a matter for the relevant Estimate. It does not arise on these Resolutions.

I shall remember. The Minister was not in the House for my opening remarks and I want to tell him that everybody was delighted about the 10/- for old age pensioners. We are not delighted about the fact that there is a means test in regard to it. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that. Old age pensioners whose income exceeds £26 a year will not get the 10/-. If there is a big number of old age pensioners, that is all the more reason why they should get it. If there is only a small number of them, that is all the more reason why the House should vote the extra money. To apply a means test is not playing the game. The Minister had nothing to do with the headlines in the newspapers last night, "10/- for pensioners". The Minister should make that come true and let it be 10/- for pensioners and have the Finance Bill amended so that 10/- will be paid out to all recipients of old age, widows' and contributory pensions. If he brings such a proposal into the House there will be nobody counted going into the Lobby because I am quite sure it will be passed without a division. I make that suggestion to the Minister and ask him to consider it.

Our attitude to this Budget has been rather clearly recorded. We have no hesitation in saying that while it is not a wonderfully good Budget, we cannot say it is a bad Budget. If we are to compare this Budget with Budgets in the past, it must commend itself from a social welfare aspect. For years back an increase of 2/6d for social welfare recipients has been so consistent a feature of Budgets that our concern here as a Party was, was this 2/6d to remain with us forever. The figure has been now so substantially and so suddenly increased to respectable proportions that we feel it can be attributed only to one of two reasons: either the Government twelve months ago deliberately refused to administer justice or our economy, our ability to carry taxation, has increased four times in the course of that 12 months.

How it was done or the conditions that brought it about do not really matter to us as a Party but it makes it possible for us to lend our support to Fianna Fáil, or, indeed, to anybody else who is prepared to introduce a Budget that would bring about the improvement in services and the relief in the field of social welfare that were so much desired and so much required.

The Minister here has refuted any attempt by the Opposition to claim that it was because of sustained pressure from any group here that those increases were brought about but we as a Party feel otherwise in that regard. If the Government assert that they came to this decision apart altogether from any pressure that was brought to bear, surely they will agree that our approach in the social welfare field has been consistent since the State was formed? Those who went before the members here now, away back in 1922, have consistently kept up the appeal for justice to be applied in the social welfare field. I was rather confused when Deputy Colley said that any increase or improvement in social welfare payments would have to be related to a similar improvement in the economic position. That is why I am wondering whether the economic situation here has improved pro rata with the increase from the 2/6d. of former years to the 10/- now being given.

We support the Government in the implementation of this Budget because it has been our avowed policy that any taxation would be voted for from these benches provided that a substantial amount of the money acquired by the imposition of that taxation would find its way into the pockets of those who need assistance more than anybody else. Any time that Fianna Fáil or, indeed, anybody in this House, is inclined to travel that road, we will be inclined to travel it with them. We have not sold out and are not going to sell out to anybody in this House during the life of this Party but we are prepared to stand in with anybody who makes an attempt to administer justice.

Our policy has not varied over four decades, no matter what may be said to the contrary by speakers from the other side of the House. It is, briefly, a simple policy. The policy is that all sections of the community should share as equitably as possible in the accumulation of national wealth that might be brought about by increased national productivity. That is a very simple policy.

While speakers from the Government benches have said that they have not been influenced by any demands from anybody else, it was an extraordinary feature of the last general election that the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, went out of his way to assert to the public on a number of occasions, on one of which I heard him, that the Labour Party had no policy, that they had no national outlook. That was a rather unfair attack but that attack was made because of the fact that the Taoiseach, and, indeed, many others, had noticed that there was evidence of a swing to Labour throughout the country, a swing that has reflected itself in the number of Deputies returned to these benches. Nevertheless, I think the Taoiseach knew right well that the Labour Party did have a national background because of its origin and tradition. It has a policy, the simple policy that I outlined a few moments ago.

It is bad for political life when any man, particularly a man of established high repute, should drag politics down to that level and should hasten to chastise anybody else who might be tempted to stoop to that. It is very bad. All Parties in the House should try to avoid that type of unfair criticism. However, it has not done any damage as far as we are concerned.

We have supported this Budget for what is in it. We do not agree with everything that was said therein. We do not think, for instance, that social welfare recipients should have to wait in some cases until August, and in more cases until January, for the increases. We also think the £26 means test should be eliminated. However, taking it by and large, we agree it is fair enough from the point of view of social welfare. We have gone the road with Fianna Fáil in this and we have no regrets in that regard. We shall continue to do so any time we think it is justified.

We have referred to things that were not among the Budget proposals. The provision of housing is still, and will be for some time to come, a great national problem. We might have heard more about housing in the Minister's statement. We must agree on all sides of the House that there is no single problem in this State that has contributed more to another great national evil, emigration, than the need for housing. The only solution for many of our boys and girls who wish to get married is to emigrate, because they cannot obtain housing here. The Minister and the Government will have to consider the problem of housing seriously and deal with the matter a little more fully than it has been dealt with in the Budget proposals.

I was rather amused at the speech made by one of the Opposition speakers yesterday evening in reply to the Budget Statement. He claimed that they were the fathers and mothers of a just society. There was a slight change from their tactics on other Budget Statements when proposals were made to increase social welfare benefits. On previous occasions Fine Gael voted en bloc against us because they said we were not giving enough. They gave their blessing yesterday in a very halfhearted way to the increases in social welfare benefits to the people in the weaker and more dependent sections of the community.

The general approach of the Fine Gael party to the people during the recent general election was that we in Fianna Fáil did not think anything at all of the poorer sections of our people. As everybody knows, the Government cannot raise money except through taxation, through the ordinary means of taxing certain commodities. No Deputy here wants to increase the burden on any section of our people, but if we want to increase social welfare benefits, the money cannot be found in any other way. What is wrong here is the hypocrisy which has been displayed by the Fine Gael Party. On the one hand, they want increased social welfare benefits but, on the other, they will not vote for increased taxation. In County Dublin one of their representatives told the people during the election campaign that they would reduce the rates by 20/- in the £, that they would wipe out all the health charges. I agree that the rates are high. I would like to see something done about them, and I shall speak on that later.

The Opposition say that taxation in Ireland is extraordinarily high. That is not so. The level of taxation here compares favourably with that of many other countries in Europe. In Ireland, taxation on income represents a lower proportion of gross national product than that in any of the 13 countries of the Common Market and the European Free Trade Association. We have gone a long way on this side of the House to meet the demands of every section of our people. We are concerned with every section of the people and for that reason we decided that this time we would give reasonably good increases to our old age pensioners, widows and orphans, and others. Fine Gael claim to be the only Party concerned with promoting a just society but they do not wish to vote for the taxation which will improve benefits for the most needy section of our people.

We did not want to increase the price of petrol by 3d a gallon but it was the only way to provide the social welfare increases. One cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. I ask the Fine Gael Party: Are they really honest in their statement about the just society? Will they tell us how they would raise the money to implement their plan? Would they interfere with capital expenditure or with housing? Would they interfere with the money provided for increasing industrial production, for the establishment of factories, or for the provision of water and sewerage facilities? Would they interfere with employment?

Notwithstanding what the Fine Gael Party say, all the newspapers today agree with my colleague, the Minister for Finance. Even those newspapers that may not hitherto have been so favourably disposed towards the Fianna Fáil Party said it was the only way out. Even business people faced with increased costs as a result of yesterday's Budget say it is a just Budget. But the Fine Gael Party do not say it is a just Budget. Their action yesterday was tantamount to voting against the increase in social welfare benefits for the less fortunate in our society. That sizes up the whole approach. I must compliment them on the way they got out of their predicament; they said they were concerned about increased costs. How can any Government, any Minister or any Party get money for social welfare except in the one way? I should like the Fine Gael speakers who follow me to deal with that point, bearing in mind that they have openly proclaimed here that they want a just society only outside on the platforms; when they come in here to do the practical work in this House, they fail completely to subscribe to a just society.

I welcome the increase allocated for housing. We are most anxious that all our people should be housed. I am a member of two local authorities. In one we have about 1,000 houses at different stages—planning, actual construction and some almost finished; in the other, we have about 2,000 houses being built by the ordinary traditional method and about 3,100 under a new method. We have, in all, about 6,000 houses. We are not stopping at that. We hope to continue and I think we will be able to continue in the light of the Budget. The Minister stated we have the money to go ahead with the very essential services required by our people. At no time have we failed to go ahead with housing.

I listened to Deputy T. Lynch this evening talking about the low rate of interest in operation when the inter-Party Government were in office. When we left office in 1948, the interest rate was very low, 3¼ per cent. A few years later, it went up to 3¾ per cent. May I remind the House once more that the inter-Party Government left everything in such a chaotic condition that there was no money for anything? They floated a loan which was not subscribed. The bottom fell out of housing. All the machinery for the building of houses was destroyed.

Deputies on the Opposition benches will tell you now that there was plenty of money for everything.

The houses were built.

I am delighted Deputy Lynch has come in because he is always very helpful to me.

The Deputy has to tell the truth now.

There were 1,000 houses in County Dublin and the crows were flying in and out through them.

I wish those houses were there now.

No fewer than 1,800 families left corporation housing areas. The best tradesmen we had went away. They criticise us now and ask what have we done for housing; they destroyed the best housing machine we had.

Read the figures. More houses were built.

The then Minister for Local Government brought in a Bill providing that people who had a certain salary or wage would be debarred from getting loans. I am sorry I have not a copy of that legislation with me. When one is speaking off the cuff, it is not so easy.

I will help the Deputy.

Not at this stage.

If they have more than £832 now, they will not be allowed to build houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Is that what the Deputy is at?

No. At that period those with a very small salary or wage were debarred from getting a loan. Dublin county was in a bad way. My constituents were rushing away to England, Canada and Australia. They were our best tradesmen. Some of them asked me for the fare.

Now the Deputy is putting them to live in military barracks.

That arises because of the prosperity of the nation. They are all coming back.

And 250,000 have gone away.

Perhaps Deputies would allow Deputy Burke to make his speech.

I think, in fairness, he should be allowed to make his speech.

I am sorry——

Do I hear aright?

——if I am annoying the Deputies by stating the truth. Not only is it the truth but it is the whole truth.

So help me God.

Truth in the news.

The position we found in 1957 was as I have described it. Deputy T. Lynch, a very honourable man, told me when they were in Government, loans could be procured at three per cent. Subsequently he corrected that figure to 3½ per cent, but he did not tell the House that there were no loans to be got for houses when he left office in 1957.

Where did the 1,800 houses the Deputy said the crows were flying in and out of come from?

There were 1,000 SDA loan houses built in Dublin city and county and there was no money for loans. There was a change of Government and I remember meeting about 20 builders at the gate of Leinster House—they were the few who had managed to survive.

(Cavan): Perhaps the Deputy would deal now with the present building society credit squeeze.

I am dealing with a factual matter.

(Cavan): The credit squeeze is very factual at the moment.

We should all like to hear about it.

I will deal with that in a moment. These builders asked me if there was any chance of getting some money from the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Smith, to stop the remainder of our tradesmen leaving the country. The builders were in an appalling position. The very best tradesmen had left the country. Now we are asked what have we done about housing. We could not, of course, when we came back, build up the economy again overnight. We had to face an unbalanced Budget. The country was in a chaotic condition. We had to cope with the debts that were left. I remember bringing people to the Minister for Local Government. They were not satisfied and we brought them to see the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera.

He waved the wand and the miracle was worked!

I do not want you to take this too seriously. I am just giving you the facts. Fianna Fáil had to spend two years trying to pay the debts left by the inter-Party Government. That Government squandered our adverse trade balance.

Squandered our adverse trade balance?

Deputy Lynch has already spoken. Perhaps, he would allow Deputy Burke to continue?

I never heard of anybody squandering an adverse trade balance.

We had £400 million to our credit. They could not get rid of it quickly enough. Even some of their supporters in the House spoke about it at the time. Things were so bad that they nearly auctioned everything. They sold the transatlantic planes. They wanted us to go back to the days of Brian Boru.

What about the auction of the railway lines?

They even criticised our tourist industry. I remember able leaders of the Fine Gael and Labour Party saying we were creating white elephants.

That was the former Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee.

That is what they called the Carlow sugar factory.

Deputies might allow Deputy Burke to proceed.

No matter what they do, they will not disturb me. One always speaks kindly of the dead, but I heard a man who was a leader at that time say that we were bringing in foreigners to eat our food and building hotels for them. When the same man became a Minister himself, he went down to Butlin's Camp and changed his mind overnight. He said that the tourist industry was worth £27 million a year to this country, that it was our second biggest industry. That kind of inconsistent policy is responsible for retarding progress in this country. We are in Government because we have a consistent policy that does not change like the wind. The retrograde policy adopted by the inter-Party Government put us back ten years. Let us return to 1957.

We never left it since you started.

It took the country a long time to recover. We had to invest money in capital production. We had to give encouragement to every manufacturer and farmer to try to build up our export trade. If we had not increased production, we would not have the standard of living we have today.

As far as building schools is concerned, we have spent almost £4 million in the city and county of Dublin since 1957. At that time I remember asking a question of the then Minister for Education, an honourable and decent man, General Mulcahy. I asked him about the school at Brittas. He said everything was ready.

This is a detail that would be relevant on the Estimate. It certainly is not relevant on the Financial Resolution.

He said that everything was ready but that you could not take the trousers off a Highlander. He told us the true position at the time while other Deputies were telling people there was plenty of money for everything.

The one thing our future depends on is that we get more and more into the export market. That concerns every individual in the country. If we cannot succeed in exporting more, our standard of living cannot increase. I compliment the Minister and the Department on the wonderful work they have done since 1957. The Minister's predecessor faced a very heavy burden when he took over. The present Minister has tried to do something for our less fortunate brethren by giving them something worth while.

I note that the income from tourism increased from £18.5 million in 1958 to £32.9 million last year. The policy of Fianna Fáil is to encourage tourism. This has certainly paid off and is in sharp contrast to the proposal once made by Coalition spokesmen to levy a tax on every visitor to our shores. Foreign tourists spent £58.8 million here in 1964 as compared with £49.8 million in 1958.

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Fianna Fáil handouts from Mount Street.

I am quoting from a document compiled by myself of speeches which had been made in the House. I shall supply the reference afterwards.

We should like to have that reference if we could.

Visitors to Ireland spent more than twice the amount of money Irish tourists spent in other countries. Tourism earnings in 1964 were 11 per cent higher than they were in 1963. There were more people here in spite of the statements made by the other side. In order to reach our target of £90 million per year by 1970—that is part of our Second Programme and I am sure Deputy T. Lynch is national enough to help us in that——

This is farcical.

I am talking about the Second Programme. I am sure Deputy Lynch is national enough to help us.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputy T. Lynch refrain from interrupting? Deputy P.J. Burke is in possession and he is in order.

This is from the Budget speech. The Government have provided £2,601,000 for the development of tourism during 1965-66 compared with £2 million in 1964-65. This comprises £1,847,000 for the administration and general expenses of Bord Fáilte, £499,000 to assist major resort schemes and £255,000 for the development of holiday accommodation. I am sure Waterford will get something from this.

We will get nothing; we never get anything. You can bank on that.

£225,000 is being provided for the development of holiday accommodation. Waterford is well in.

We are not.

Agriculture remains one of our major industries. Deputy Donegan thinks he is the saviour of the agricultural industry. We have put huge sums into agriculture to help our farmers and to try to bring them up to date by every means in our power. The Government's enterprising and sensible approach to the problems of agriculture has clearly shown good results.

(Cavan): The Deputy is quoting from The Farmers' Journal.

I bet he did not read today's paper.

It is clear that 1964 was one of the best years ever for the Irish farmer. Farmers' income is estimated to have risen from £121.5 million to £143.7 million, that is, by £22.2 million. The wages of agricultural employees rose by £1 million. When one allows for the reduction in numbers on the land—one must take into account that in practically every country, except the undeveloped countries, this trend exists—one finds there has been an increase in income of roughly 20 per cent per head of the farming community. Deputy T. Lynch can see we are going ahead.

The Deputy ought to go out and ask them. They do not believe it.

It has been common knowledge that our agricultural prices have increased but last year there was a very significant increase of nearly 11 per cent over the previous year.

May I point out that long quotations——

This is my own speech.

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me? May I point out to him that long quotations are not in order? The Deputy should make his own speech.

On the Budget.

May I say with regard to education we are anxious to spend more every year? We have been increasing the amount spent on education since 1957 and we hope, year after year, to go on until such time as we meet the wishes of every section of our people with regard to education. We want to make it possible to have sufficient vocational and secondary schools to meet all our needs. We have greatly increased the number of schools built since 1957. Our potential programme in relation to vocational schools is one of our most happy programmes because we are very anxious on this side of the House to see that no child should leave school after 14 years of age without the advantage of at least a vocational education, even if he has to leave the country afterwards.

It is most important to every child to have an opportunity of secondary education and, if there is not a secondary school near him or if his parents are not in a position to send him away to college, I hope to see the day when no child will leave the national school without the advantage of a secondary or vocational education. I shall be satisfied when we have succeeded in providing secondary or vocational education for every child in every area of the country. If the child has to emigrate, at least let him be educated before he has to do so. We have succeeded in the field of education far beyond our expectations.

With regard to employment, we have spent a considerable amount of money on our factories ever since the grants for the building of factories began in 1957. I admit there may have been failures here and there but it would be most unusual if certain industries or certain businesses did not fail from time to time. I suppose there are failures here in the Dáil itself. We have reached the time when we have stemmed emigration.

I shall obey the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle with regard to long quotations. I shall, perhaps, meet Deputy T. Lynch in the corridor and I will give them to him. I can assure Deputies we have stemmed emigration and there are very few people who have to leave the country. I admit there are people who are anxious to travel. Every other country as well as our own has people who want to go away and settle in another country. When I was young, I very nearly left this country and if I had done so, I could have been in the American Parliament.

I could give an answer to that.

I can understand the loss.

On the whole, I must say the Minister has done a good job in introducing a fine Budget. It is so good that he has upset the Opposition because they have no real criticism to make of it.

The Minister had better be careful because the Deputy is going to lobby him for something.

It is really too bad because they cannot do anything about it. May I say again, because it is no harm to repeat a good thing too often, that the Opposition bubble of the just society has been burst? I think I have covered in a general way everything I wished to say.

Everything except the Budget.

I am sorry I could not read out all the extracts I had but I shall get an opportunity some other time, perhaps, to do so. I must say the country is going well on the whole. I hope the Minister will live long to do a good job and that next year's Budget will be even an improvement on the present one.

The only jarring note I have to sound concerns the increasing rates burden on our community. I believe this House will have to consider seriously whether it is better to pay rates directly or to reduce them by increased taxation. Fine Gael never said on the hustings how the health charges were to be reduced. We must face the position that either we must reduce the rates by national taxation or agree to carry on as at present. They are a very heavy burden, especially in the county and city of Dublin. I know of people with reasonable salaries whose rates are now up to £70, which is a good deal of money. Of course, we have facilities to enable them to pay by the month, should they so desire.

The rates burden is a big national issue. It might be worth considering the setting up of a committee to examine the problem. In the meantime, it would be a matter for all Parties to agree that if local taxation is to be relieved, there will have to be agreement for increased taxation in some other sphere. We might then have a more just society.

(Cavan): What about the credit squeeze, which the Deputy was to deal with?

I have finished my speech now, although I had intended to deal with it.

I thought the Deputy was anxious to deal with it?

That came out of the Fianna Fáil office.

This handout, where-ever it came from, has had the result that Deputy Burke has made a different speech on the Budget this year. On the occasion of every other Budget since I came into this House, Deputy Burke spoke about Fine Gael voting against the old age pension. No matter what one might do here, Deputy Burke would find a situation which could not be answered.

A Budget that represents an expenditure of over £200 million means the collection of taxes in many different ways. When an Opposition decide that they would collect taxes or perhaps spend more money in different ways, then it is their right to go into the division lobby to indicate that they would do the job in a different way. That is quite fundamental. That is how we should like to answer the question: "How would you deal with it?" There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. From this side of the House, this is absolutely and entirely a matter of policy. It would be quite wrong for anybody here not to advert to the fact that this Budget was framed in the shadow of a general election. The arguments made on the public platform, the commitments entered into and the promises made all had an effect on this Budget.

I am ready to say that although we lost the general election we won the debate which went on all over the country in the three weeks before voting took place. The evidence that we won that debate is that there was a demand for higher payments to social welfare recipients.

Everybody will admit that all the people outside are not members of Fianna Fáil cumainn, are not members of Fine Gael branches or of Labour Party branches, but they were all aware that old age pensioners and others were badly treated and expressed their opinions in their various ways to indicate that that situation should be changed. To my mind, that means that the people from this side of the House who produced from the Taoiseach a social policy, which he had not got until the general election campaign had been in operation for a fortnight, had won the debate before the people went to the polls.

We do not say now what Deputy Burke wants to say, namely, that the bubble has been burst, that Fianna Fáil have produced the just society, that the general policy of this Government over the next five years will result in a better situation as far as health, education and social welfare are concerned. They have merely produced a stopgap solution by giving the old age pensioners a bit more than the traditional 2/6. Everybody knew that with the vast increase in the cost of living in the past 12 months, the traditional 2/6d would not be of much use this year and therefore there was a flat increase of 5/- or, for those with an income of less than 10/- per week, an increase of 10/-. That, and other increases, does not mean that any comprehensive policy of social improvement has been produced by Fianna Fáil.

I should have said, when I started, that I wish the Minister every success in his new office. In his Budget speech, the Minister did not make any statement on future Government policy in relation to health, education and social welfare. He merely indicated that they are trying to improve matters in certain ways.

There has been a lot of talk about Government by Opposition. As we won the general election debate, the fact is that there had to be changes. From the evolution of Government policy over the past eight years, it is quite clear that there is some truth in this assertion. One must remember that the Party now in Government gained office in 1957 and then approached matters rather in the old Manchester School of Economics way. No matter what Deputy Burke or any other Government Deputy may say, the figures are there to show that, at that time, Fianna Fáil reduced the number of houses erected for ordinary people by one half. We recall that, at a time of world credit squeeze, the inter-Party Government built twice as many houses as were since built, on average, by Fianna Fáil.

If this general election has resulted in a situation in which this Government will spend more money on housing, that is an excellent thing. If it has resulted in a situation in which the old age pensioners have got a part of their just rights, it is a good thing. However, other matters must also be considered. One of our most pressing needs is the modernisation of our completely antediluvian health system. I do not want to transgress the rulings of the Chair and to go into details in regard to health policy but the House knows and the people know that a Committee, which is now of course burst, had been sitting for the best part of four years discussing the health system. During that time the then Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee, was most unco-operative. I was a member of that Committee and I say that without fear of contradiction.

A few weeks before the general election, the Taoiseach announced that the proposals of the Opposition in respect of health changes were impracticable and impossible. From then on, we knew there would be no change in the present health system. We now have a new Minister for Health and I hope that over the next few years he will convince the Cabinet that a change is necessary. Anybody who does social work and meets his constituents will realise that changes are necessary and they must be made, even if they are expensive. They have to be paid for and let us face the fact that what Deputy Burke said is quite incorrect. From every platform in the country, we told the people that our changes in the health scheme would require an extra contribution from the employer and the employee.

Deputy Burke tells the story that the money was coming from the reduction in rates. We want to get the money in a different way. It is the right of an Opposition to say whether or not they would agree with how the money is being raised and whether or not they would raise it in a different way. That is where the Minister's Budget falls down. When it comes to answering the question of where you will get the money, this Budget is an as-you-were Budget, in which there are no changes, no new attempt to expand the economy. This would have meant a greater gross national product, a greater turnover of money and a greater revenue with which to do the things we on this side of the House wished to do, if we had become the Government as a result of the last general election.

If expansion can be brought about by new tax measures in a way that will mean more wage packets, more people in employment, more production, greater sales then there will be more revenue. The tax law now embraces everybody, whether he drinks or not or whether he drives a car or not. The Minister has not included any new measures in his Budget for industry. Before the Budget, we had appeals from the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and by various other bodies for certain measures that would help the industries of this country to weather the very difficult situation in which they now find themselves.

In the Minister's speech there is no new measure designed to encourage industrialists to expand their production or create new production. I should like to suggest to the Minister that grants and loans are excellent things. Outside the undeveloped areas, it was a Fine Gael Minister in an inter-Party Government who first introduced them, mark you in face of the opposition of Fianna Fáil. The opposition recorded not only in their speeches but in——

That is a multiplication of your previous claim.

Yesterday the Minister for Industry and Comerce said that Foras Tionscal had been in operation for the undeveloped areas from 1952. I accept that, but as far as I am concerned and as far as the whole east coast is concerned, and as far as Dublin and the Minister's constituency in Cork is concerned, for any real industry within them, the first grant given to a factory was given as a result of the Industrial Grants Act in 1956 introduced here by Deputy Sweetman, then Minister for Finance, and the first freedom from income tax on export profits was the result of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of the same year which was also introduced here by Deputy Sweetman.

It was Deputy Norton who was responsible for industrial grants legislation.

If the Minister looks back, he will find that those two measures were in fact introduced by Deputy Sweetman.

Deputy Norton introduced them.

That might appear to be so to-day but if the Minister looks back, he will find I am right.

You are not.

We will agree to differ. If the Minister in his speech had any new measures which for existing industries meant an opportunity for new expansion and had said that over the next three or four years, it would mean perhaps a foregoing of some taxation because these people must be given an incentive and after that time there would be an increased turnover and increased revenue which would have provided the funds the Minister desires to do these things that are so necessary, then I would have agreed with him.

If we accept his own figures, we find that the Minister, in approaching this Budget, was in perhaps as fortunate a position as any of his predecessors over the past decade or decade and a half. He was as near to balancing his books as any Minister has been for many years. He took office in a period when import prices have not been rising to the same extent as export goods. The terms of trade were in his favour and it was easy to leave things as they were and merely introduce these few improvements in the social welfare code without accepting problems in relation to health, education and employment.

The other day I quoted from the report of the National Industrial Economic Council and I should like now to quote from that report at paragraph 2:

Total employment, however, does not seem to be rising at the rate envisaged in the Second Programme, mainly because of a more rapid decline in the numbers engaged in agriculture and a slower increase in employment in the services sector. The slower rate of increase in employment is not the result of a general labour shortage (though local shortages of particular skills are occurring); unemployment remains high and annual emigration has recently been about 25,000.

Does it not seem that, even if it were to mean considerable extra taxation, it is necessary in this Budget for 1965 to increase incentives and to create the likelihood of more industrial jobs? I have said before that we on this side of the House do not accept the prognostications of the Government that the agricultural population must fall by 66,000 people by 1970. We feel that if this problem were really tackled with vigour, energy and money, there would not be this catastrophic decline in the agricultural population. If we have the situation referred to by the National Industrial Economic Council last week, we have a situation where the new jobs are not coming up fast enough to meet the demands for employment.

Surely in this Budget there should have been something more by way of providing new jobs? This would have meant fewer people on the emigrant ship and more pay packets at home. The position in relation to agriculture is that the honeymoon is over. The Minister for Agriculture, whom a columnist described as "The Golden Boy" has turned to copper—not even silver. The Minister for Agriculture arrived at a moment when his predecessor had introduced the calved heifer scheme and at a time when his predecessor had decided to increase grain prices slightly. Then we had his premium for quality milk which, of course, was suggested from these benches two years before and in respect of which I was the subject of caustic comment by my friend, Deputy Corry.

The Minister for Agriculture became the Golden Boy, the man to whom the farmers went. He is not the Golden Boy today because milk prices are still the lowest in Europe. This Budget has come and gone and there is no increase in price for the creamery milk suppliers.

I want to advert now to the amount of money, £400,000, voted in this Budget as a premium for high quality milk. The Minister knows, as I know, that less than half the farmers of Ireland will gain from that premium of 1d. per gallon. Their costs are going up. Even according to the extremely faulty method of calculation in the Budget Tables issued last week, their costs are going up. The method used is to take the gross output minus fertilisers and seeds. Everyone knows that in the multitudinous requirements of farmers there are far more items than fertilisers, seeds and feeding-stuffs. Those are three of the items, but there are 30 or, perhaps, 300 more. They have gained a bit through the heifer scheme, but they have been deprived of the almost traditional 1d. per gallon which is like the traditional 2/6d. for the old age pensioners.

The farmers have seen this Budget come and go and they still have their rates problem. There is no doubt that if we are all here in ten years' time— and I hope we all are—health charges will have been removed in whole or in part from the rates of this country. Farmers do not pay income tax, although they will have to pay turnover tax on retail sales of over £150 per month. Farmers pay rates not only on their houses and outoffices but also on their land. They pay rates on what I might call their stock in trade, and that is why they do not pay income tax. They pay this impost which very often is a larger impost than they would pay if they were paying income tax.

The burden of rates keeps mounting. The actual amount of money which has to be met by the local authorities keeps mounting. The amount of rates on land increases year by year even taking into account the fall in the value of money. This is progressive and it must and it will end. If we are to have an expansion in agriculture we must have a very big change in the farm building programme. The farmers have seen this Budget come and go and they are still faced with the problem of farm buildings.

I want now to reply to the Minister for Education. In a rather long speech he repeated as his theme song at frequent intervals that there was no evidence that those of us who say they are interested in a just society did anything about it when we were in Government. That is a challenge that must be taken up. I am very young in politics. I am here since 1954 only, but I am sure I can quote accurately what happened in 1948. In 1948 a Fianna Fáil Government removed the food subsidies—a total of £9 million—and before that could be written into the economy and so become completely irrelevant, there was a change of Government and the inter-Party Government restored the food subsidies. I want to put it to the House that that is evidence of interest in a just society in 1948, when the price of food was, perhaps, more important than it is today, although it is highly important today to the woman——

The Deputy should go back on his history. I do not think he is accurate when he talks about the restoration of the food subsidies.

I think I am.

The Deputy should look it up.

I know what happened in 1948 and 1952.

The food subsidies were in full force in 1948 when the inter-Party Government first came into office.

Fianna Fáil removed them in 1947 and they were restored in 1948 by the inter-Party Government.

They were introduced in 1947.

The Minister is trying to play politics. They were restored by the inter-Party Government in 1948.

I do not like interrupting the Deputy, but I do not agree with what he is saying.

Then disagree.

When he reads the record he will correct himself.

I know what happened in 1952.

There was a reduction but they were not restored.

Some were removed.

Deputy Donegan said they were removed at one fell swoop and that they were restored in 1948. I do not agree with that.

Penal taxes were removed in 1948, taxes which were introduced in 1947.

I was not here. If the Minister wants to have a little fiddle——

The Deputy made the assertion.

That is my recollection of what happened and I will stick by it. We will leave it at that.

When the Deputy finds he is wrong, he will tell the House.

In 1957 the Party of which the Minister is a member reduced housing to half what it was during the period from 1954 to 1957, and they continued to build half as many houses until the present day. Perhaps, the debate which went on during the three weeks before the election made the Taoiseach and the Minister aware of the fact that housing is a national ill. I want to tell the Minister that in my constituency there are towns in which boys and girls who have been married for five or six years have had to go back to their respective families because when one or two children arrived they could not exist in tiny rooms. They have now gone back to their families and are no longer really married couples. That happened because of complete neglect by Fianna Fáil of the housing programme since 1957. There is no denying that, and the Minister or anyone else on the Government benches cannot deny that they have built half as many houses during the period 1957 to 1965 as were built from 1954 to 1957. I am awaiting a denial of that, but I will not get it because it cannot be denied.

I do not want to delay the House too long, and I should like to conclude by saying that we in Fine Gael believe, as we believed before the election, that by proper management of the tax structure, and by proper expenditure, we could change the framework of this country and put the accent on more employment, more industry, on decent social welfare payments and on health and education. It is the right of the Opposition to suggest different methods of doing the job. We tried to suggest those methods during the election. We accept the fact that we lost the election but we do say we had a considerable influence on the Budget in certain aspects. We are not at all satisfied with the general approach to the Budget because it leaves very much to be desired.

The reports of the National Industrial Economic Council seem to agree with my views. Fianna Fáil believe it is politically possible to continue with a better and better State for fewer and fewer people. It may be a more difficult thing politically to go the other way, to seek to achieve a better and better State progressively for more and more people. We on this side of the House will continue along that difficult road. Fianna Fáil are happy to give a palliative to the voters as best they can. They settle their supporters and some other people in a nice railway train that runs on set lines. We did not succeed in getting the majority we sought but we still believe in the change we advocated and we shall strive to implement it. In regard to the small part of our policy which the Minister has seen fit to implement in this Budget we agree. The major part he has disregarded. There we disagree with him and shall continue to do so until we go again before the people in the next general election.

I am glad to be in the House when a Budget of this description is presented. There was very little hope of introducing such a Budget until the State was built up by a forward economic and financial policy. A few minutes ago I heard my friend, Deputy Donegan, challenge the Minister for Finance on the question of industrial grants. Where would the Minister for Finance, who could not afford eleven quid to clean the portraits of General Collins and Arthur Griffith lying below in the hall, find money for industrial grants? He said the country could not afford the eleven quid. In the name of heavens where would he get money for industrial grants?

I have also heard their complaints on housing. Several years ago I said in the House that housing is the responsibility of local authorities who have the job of looking after the areas of their jurisdiction, whether they be county councils, housing committees or corporations. It is their job and if they shirk it they are the people to blame. I say this above board because, as a matter of fact, the Department of Local Government threw down on local authority managers the responsibility for clearing up the housing problem, whether the applicants were qualified to have houses or not. I have yet to see a Minister or the Department of Local Government that can stand up to the pressure of any local authority determined to see their people housed.

Therefore, it is no use blaming this Government or that Government in regard to housing. Every month my local authority get a table from our manager setting out the date on which each housing scheme left his office for the Department of Local Government. If the scheme is delayed we instruct the manager to write immediately to the Department as to the reasons for the delay. That is the way we get through our housing schemes. I admit there is a considerable amount of red tape still hanging around that Department and I hope to see that red tape cut.

Whitewashed.

When we come to look things in the face, the only reason for our ability today to deal adequately with social services is the progress directed by Fianna Fáil since 1956 when this country was bankrupt— when local authority managers had to be called in to be lectured by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, on why no more grants were available, when we found ourselves, as local authority members, compelled to go to the banks and borrow from them the wherewithal to pay the contractors the money that should have come to them from the State. That was the state of affairs when Fianna Fáil came back to office.

Admittedly, the then Government left us a couple of legacies, a couple of tail stings. They went over to England and made a bargain which clamped £16 a ton on sugar produced here and exported to Britain. It cost us £2½ million for the pleasure of sending sugar over to sweeten the British. It was a firm agreement with Britain. Then when Deputy Dillon was in his whitewashing humour, he said the British should not have done it to them. Those were the legacies left to us after 1956. Those were the debts.

The country had to be built up. Employment had to be found for the 87,000 idle people. Of course, no Government can continue forever at the one pace. It is necessary to find a new industry or an extension of an old industry in each town once every ten years if the tide of emigration is to be stemmed. The problem of finding that new industry rests very largely with Deputies in the constituencies concerned. Primarily, it is their job. They have got to find out about the need for the industry and then come up here and persuade the gentleman in charge of the cash to part with a little. That work must be done if we are to continue to progress. Employment will never be provided in the manner Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan—I am sorry he has left—suggested. He said the financial policy of Fine Gael is to abolish industries like the Verolme Dockyard in Cork. There is no doubt that if they had succeeded in that, then we would be able to shout that there are an extra 1,000 unemployed. They tried it and they failed and they failed in this House. Of course, Cavan was considered far enough away to bring out an election address signed by Tom Fitzpatrick and Paddy O'Reilly to the effect that Fine Gael's financial policy was to do away with the Verolme Dockyard. That was in an election address that solemnly proposed to drive 840 men out of employment. That is what Fine Gael tried to do.

They were not interested in finding extra industries and extra employment for our people; they were only interested in the fact that a certain amount of public money had to be spent training young men in the shipbuilding industry so that they would be able to make that industry an economic proposition. Thank God they failed. How it is possible for those people to come along and pretend to have any kind of industrial policy beats me.

I am concerned like every other rural Deputy about the rates position and the burden which is thrown on the ratepaying public by the Health Act. It is a long number of years ago since the health services were costing not 25 per cent of what they cost today and the former Deputy Dr. Ryan came along and gave 50 per cent of the health charges to relieve the ratepayers. I suggest there should be a change now and that that 50 per cent should be made 75 per cent. I suggest that it is time that some relief was afforded the agricultural community particularly and also, apart from them, the small shopkeepers in towns and villages all over the country who are endeavouring to eke out a livelihood. Rates are becoming a problem all over the country and not only for the farmers. As a farmer myself, I can see their particular difficulty. We have to compete today in a worldwide market: we have to compete against our brother farmers in Northern Ireland and against our brother farmers in Britain who pay no rates on agricultural land. That creates a rather tall barrier which the agricultural community have to climb before they enter any market other than their own. That is a matter that should occupy the minds of the Government, particularly in regard to health charges.

I am not satisfied with the present set-up in regard to health services. There is no use pretending we are satisfied. I do not believe that the position is right if practically every week I have 15 or 20 people coming to me looking for medical cards and asking for my intervention with the powers-that-be for the benefit of their families. I do not think that is my job. I have a duty to my constituents whilst I am there and I carry it out but I look to the new Minister for Health to rectify this matter and I believe he will. There is very little else I wish to say. As I said, if we are going to keep our boys and girls at home we will have to find industries to provide employment for them. We do not want the industries sabotaged and we will not allow them to be sabotaged by anybody over there who thinks he has the right to turn the clock back. I consider that the election address published in Cavan by Deputy Fitzpatrick, and by Paddy O'Reilly from Ballyjamesduff was a disgrace, a deliberate——

How well the Deputy saw it.

Yes, and used it. Every dockyard worker who walked out of Rushbrooke dockyard three days before the election had Deputy Fitzpatrick's election address put into his hand as he came out. I succeeded in that anyway.

The Deputy was lucky to escape the Fianna Fáil convention. They wanted him to stand down, too.

The Deputy is a product of a by-election, and if he is a good boy, he will get back again.

I got in in spite of the Deputy.

However, I should not like to see the Deputy going.

And I return the compliment. I would not like to see Fianna Fáil succeed in having the Deputy stand down.

This interchange must stop.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy will cease interrupting.

They can finish it at a Cork County Council meeting.

I have said all I wish to say upon this matter. I suggest the Opposition think it over. After all, they have constituents, too, and those constituents have families growing up and those families want employment in this country. There is very little use coming out here with a tune that there were so many idle when responsible Deputies, or Deputies who are supposed to be responsible because they have been put on the front bench of the Opposition Party, advocate the sabotage of such an industry.

From the point of view of social service benefits the Minister's Budget is very welcome because few of us begrudge that unfortunate section of the community the extra benefit given to them. But we should not think it suddenly places them in the lap of luxury—far from it —because with present day rising prices one wonders what advantage it will be to them by the time they get it or even by the end of the year. In providing these social benefits the Government were no doubt influenced by public demand and the Labour Party in no small measure contributed to this. The Labour Party, the champion of the lower classes, focussed public attention on this grave injustice and did actually bring about the pressure that resulted in these increases. Accordingly, I should say the public demanded them and the public got them.

There was a sigh of relief through the country when it was known the Budget was not so harsh. With all respect to the Minister present, the Fianna Fáil Government have adopted the tactics of providing shock treatment. The rumour passed around that it would be a terrible Budget and then there was a sigh of relief when it was found not to be so harsh; we should probably say, not so harsh as the Fianna Fáil Party led us to believe it would be. The sigh of relief is only for a few months and then we shall find ourselves again fearing and worrying over the next Budget. It has gone on year after year in that way. There is seemingly a dread of succeeding Ministers for Finance. We always had it in my household; we were always prepared for the Budget and told to tighten our belts as a result of Fianna Fáil tactics and shock treatment.

We are faced with an increased deficit in the balance of payments to the extent of £31 million and a great likelihood, judging by trade figures, that this will increase. The NIEC say that the deficit should not be allowed to go over £30 million. The OECD say that a reduction from the present level is essential in the interests of the country's economy but one can see no great effort at achieving this and it looks as if the trade deficit will increase over the next few years and by the time 1970 is reached we shall not be down to the figure that we should reach of £16 million or £17 million of a deficit.

The NIEC has said that Irish industry exports are barely competitive and that we must have a faster rate of employment. This does not seem likely, according to the trend up to now, unless we can achieve it in the last year, which would be fantastic. A reduction in prices is essential but the blame should not be put on the workers who seek increases. More attention should be paid to investigating profits. The Government say price control is not the answer: the Labour Party believes price control and investigation of profits is the answer. We have cartels and price rings which maintain prices and these should certainly be investigated and broken down. It is not the workers who are keeping prices up. The Government say that they will only interfere where competition is not affected. Competition does not exist: we have too many cartels that need investigation. We have take-overs, secret agreements to keep up prices and no effort is being made to counter factors keeping up prices. Accordingly, the Labour Party supports the idea of price control and investigation of profits.

I do not think the Minister's statement is an adequate approach to the question of savings. He should have suggested an increase in Post Office savings by an increase in the interest rate which would give an added incentive to small savers to invest. Nothing has really been done about small savings. The rate of interest has not increased for years. We should also have introduced bearer bonds paying, say, 3½ per cent and by that means millions would become available for investment here.

Returning to the question of increased expenditure that has resulted in a deficit of £4 million in the Budget, it seems clear that the cause of this deficit was a rise in Government costs and the Government should introduce means as soon as possible to cut down the cost of Government. Looking at the book of Estimates, I was appalled to see the cost of running a Minister's Department, secretary, private secretary, deputy secretary, three assistant secretaries and all these falling over each other. It appears the Minister is the lowest paid of the higher executives. It costs over £29,000 in one Department to provide these various secretaries. This is a fantastic figure which shows the Civil Service is top heavy. We want efficiency introduced so that where possible the top heavy state of the Civil Service will be corrected where necessary. We do not want too many secretaries or assistant secretaries. By that means we could cut down tremendously on the cost of Government Departments.

May I interrupt? The Deputy referred to a secretary and assistant secretaries in a Minister's office——

No, in Ministers' Departments. The Minister says he will introduce automation into the Civil Service. We hope it will result in reducing the cost of these Departments and thus bring down the cost of Government.

Once again, we must say the turnover tax is unjust and unfair. I wonder why the Minister did not adopt the American system in which there is a sales tax with stamps provided and payable in advance by the firms. That is a just and equitable system out of which nobdy makes money but the Government get their turnover tax in that way and it is not abused. That should be adopted here and then the public would know what they were paying in turnover tax.

I asked a question about exports quite recently. We have tax concessions for exporting industries and I asked if we could have an extension of the system to workers in these industries. I was told it could not be done. That answer was given before serious consideration was given to the matter. There is no doubt that if you can provide incentives for workers you will get greater work and more exports which will benefit the community. I asked the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of extending some tax concessions to the workers in export industries. There is no use in saying it cannot be done unless the matter is seriously considered.

There is also the question of the small exporter who needs short term credit facilities against orders received. Many small exporters are discouraged from exporting because of the long delay between the time their goods go abroad and the time they receive the money. If short term credit was available to them on production of invoices, it would help many small exporters to add to the export drive that is being made here. He gets no help from Córas Tráchtála or Foras Tionscal.

Reverting to Córas Tráchtála, we wonder if Córas Tráchtálá announces all the special advantages at its disposal? Some months ago a bright spark in Aer Lingus found out that Córas Tráchtála makes provision for financial aid to exporters who seek new markets. He sent circulars to all firms announcing the fact that these facilities were available, with the result that many exporting firms rang up Córas Tráchtála to know all about it and were told that there was some mistake, that the circulars should not have been issued. On further inquiry, it was discovered that these facilities were available but were never advertised. Córas Tráchtála is not doing its work in regard to the export drive if it does not announce these facilities. The questionnaire that goes out to these exporters then makes it absolutely impossible for any exporter to avail of the facilities. He is asked what the exports are for which he will get a market. He does not know until he gets the orders. The whole business should be simplified. Córas Tráchtála should announce the fact that facilities are available. This would help our export drive tremendously.

On the question of housing, while a considerable sum is being devoted to housing and the Minister in his Financial Statement says that our housing problems will shortly be over, it was mentioned here in answer to a question that there is no hope of a young family being housed within the next number of years. That is a contradiction. We are either solving the problem or we are not solving it. If £4½ million is given over to it we should have the matter taken care of very soon and housing should be available. People are leaving this country, not because there are no jobs available but because of the fact that there is no housing for them.

We need a complete reorganisation of the health services. The stigma of the medical card should be abolished. A proper service should be provided. We hope our new Minister for Health will approach the matter in the knowledge of the problems facing the people and will solve them.

The presentation of the Budget each year is an occasion of great interest to the taxpayers, the farmers, business people and, in fact, every section of the community. For the past 24 hours the Minister for Finance has been the recipient of congratulations on the presentation of this Budget. I wonder how far removed from reality are those people who are offering congratulations? I should like to enquire what the congratulations are for.

Here we have a Budget presented to us immediately after a general election. We have a Government of youth and vigour, energy and determination, who, we were told by the Taoiseach immediately after the general election, are prepared to surmount every possible difficulty that lies ahead and are the men who will be responsible for a new Ireland in which there will be a new order for the poor, a break for all sections of the community, an improved standard of living for every individual within the State.

We come to their first Budget and what do we find? We find that congratulations are forthcoming from all over the country because 10/- per week is being given to some number of old age pensioners who are in receipt of 37/6d per week. The Minister has decided that he will now give some of these people 10/- a week and that others will get 5/- a week and that there will be an investigation of means in order to find who qualifies for the 10/-. I put it to this House that there is a number of old age pensioners who will lose their pensions altogether as a result of the investigations which are likely to take place in this revision of pensions. It may be described as a revision of pensions. If pensions officers are let loose to probe into the means of persons at present in receipt of 37/6 a week in order to ascertain whether they qualify for the 5/- increase or the 10/- increase, I prophesy that Deputies will receive letters from old age pensioners within the next 12 months stating that their pensions have been taken from them as a result of this Budget on which the Minister is now being congratulated.

Here we have a Government who are to give, not tomorrow or next Friday, but after some months, an increase to old age pensioners. They are not as quick as they were in the case of the judges or in the case of their own salaries or in the case of the allowances for Deputies and Senators. Those people had not to wait until four or six months had elapsed in order to get their increases. The old age pensioner is now being given a slice of lemon coated with chocolate. Even with the 10/- increase, he will have less than 50/- on which to live. When people talk of a just society and this being a step towards a just society, how do they expect, in 1965, any person to keep body and soul together in accordance with Christian decency on 50/- a week? Even with the Minister's 10/-, an old age pensioner will not have 50/- a week. Yet because such a person is asked to purchase the necessaries of life, food, clothing, shelter, on less than 50/- a week, the Government are being congratulated. Surely there is some degree of intelligence in the Government in relation to the value of 50/- a week today.

I am surprised that there has not been more reference in this debate to the cost of living. The Government have been most successful during this debate in preventing any discussion of the cost of living. The cost of living is a matter that we should be discussing in relation to the Budget because the cost of living has been increased by deliberate act of the Fianna Fáil Party and the present Government. They deliberately increased the price of bread, flour, tea, sugar and butter. Not satisfied with slashing the food subsidies a few years ago, by which act they deliberately made food dearer, within the past twelve or fourteen months they introduced the new system of turnover tax. I entirely agree with the last speaker who referred to the turnover tax. The Government may say that the turnover tax has been accepted by the people. I say the turnover tax has not been accepted by the people and will not be accepted by the people. We are told that in many instances the turnover tax is now in operation at the rate of 2½ per cent but we can point to many instances where commodities costing £100 when the turnover tax was introduced now cost £115 to £120. It would seem that the Government, in every £100 worth, now extract 3 per cent in tax.

This Government have gone completely mad. They have made no effort whatever to control prices, no effort to ensure that food will be within the means of the poorer section of the community, no effort to keep down the price of bread and flour or butter. Every Deputy here knows that Irish butter can be purchased cheaper in Britain and Northern Ireland than at home. We are told by the medical profession and others in a position to give advice, that children should be well nourished, that it is most important that families should have ample supplies of the best butter, not margarine and butter substitutes.

I put it to the Minister that there are hundreds of families who cannot afford to buy butter. I put it to this House that there are many children attending national schools who have to eat dry bread. Numerous families in Ireland to-day are put to the pin of their collar to purchase food for the last two days of each week, particularly those people about whom we have been hearing so much, who will now be the millionaires with 50/- per week, the old age pensioners. Those people are living on the verge of starvation and a certificate of authority can be had from any branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Ireland to the effect that never before was there such a drain on the funds of charitable organisations in assisting poor people to live as there is at present.

I should like to know why the Government failed during the past 12 months and failed yesterday to take positive action in regard to the cost of living. May I take it that the Government are quite satisfied with the cost of living as it is? What the Government are really saying is: "We are across the river now. You may take up the drawbridge and let down anybody who wishes to use it." The Government are not concerned with the weaker sections of the community. The records show that there are between 55,000 and 65,000 unemployed people and there are at least 15,000 unemployed people who are not registered. Tens of thousands of people have emigrated during the past 12 or 18 months, and they continue to go. Deputy Corry said that there are no more people emigrating and that some of those who emigrated are coming back. The real position is that there are probably no more of them to emigrate.

Old age pensioners, widows and orphans, those who are blind, those who are infirm or who cannot obtain employment—these are the sections of the community the Government have completely failed. Not alone have they failed those people but they have failed the vast number of people living on fixed incomes, people with limited private means, people who may be in receipt of pensions from private concerns and to whom the various increases given from time to time are not applicable. How are those people expected to cope with the cost of living?

Any Government with a degree of commonsense or intelligence would, having gained the confidence of the people, have shown their sincerity by making an effort to control prices and to reduce the cost of food. The cost of living has been allowed to soar recklessly. Does the Minister not know that not many years ago there was machinery in this country for the control of prices? A price tribunal was established by the late Deputy Norton, and if any single commodity was increased in price, there had to be a public sitting and those responsible for the increase had to give evidence before a tribunal to justify it. In this way prices were not recklessly allowed to rise as they have risen during the past 12 months.

What steps does the Minister propose to take within the next 12 months to prevent commodities from increasing in price? The Government have allowed this matter to run amok. I put it to the Minister that price control and the cost of living are matters of vital concern to every person living in this country. This Budget does not deal with price control or the cost of living. It is a Budget in which I have absolutely no confidence and for which I have no charity, because I can see no worthwhile results coming from it over the next 12 months or two years, or even during the lifetime of this Government. The Government have failed miserably in regard to price control and the cost of living.

This Budget gives an increase of 10/- per week to some old age pensioners, not to all. What will happen to the old age pensioner who is in receipt of a supplementary allowance of home assistance from the local authority? Immediately the Department of Social Welfare give their increase, will the health authority proceed to reduce the home assistance allowance? We have had that experience before. Will we have a recurrence of the situation where the county manager may take it upon himself to say, when the State increases the pension, that the recipient has a sufficient amount to keep body and soul together, that the local authorities are not there to provide fully for people but to supplement their income, and that the home assistance allowance should be cut off in view of the increased State allowance?

I want not only a guarantee from the Minister but I want him to go further. I want him to circularise county managers forthwith that any old age pensioner, disabled person, widow or orphan who is in receipt of a supplementary allowance of home assistance will not, as a result of the increases granted in this Budget, have that allowance reduced or cut off. When we approach a county manager, he says he is the health authority and that he is responsible for making decisions in this regard. I want to hear from the Minister what will be the position of the numerous old age pensioners in this matter.

Apart from the position of old age pensioners and widows and orphans in receipt of pensions, I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the state of affairs that prevails in regard to disabled persons and disablement benefit. There is practically nothing in this Budget for disabled people. Disabled persons cannot provide for themselves and are at the mercy of either the local authority or the Government. Institutions, such as the Rehabilitation Institution, and other charitable organisations have done much to improve the lot of disabled persons. All of us in our own way do our best to brighten the lot of these afflicted people. What has been done by the State for these? There is no provision in this Budget for them. There is no provision for dealing with the special problem of the mentally handicapped. No special allowances are provided for the parents of mentally deficient children. There is no provision of suitable accommodation by way of homes. No provision for trained personnel to look after these children. There are thousands of homes in which there are invalid children and not one penny is paid by the State towards their maintenance. If the parents die, those children will be dependent on the charity of brothers and sisters or they will have to go into mental homes and institutions.

The State has a bounden duty to these people. Not one penny is provided in this Budget for the thousands of mentally handicapped. Yet there are people who congratulate the Government on this Budget and describe it as a wonderful achievement. The Government are leaving our people their pants and their shirts. Our people have suffered so much, having their coats taken from them in the past, that they are thankful for small mercies now and grateful for being left their pants and their shirts. They are used to being fleeced by Fianna Fáil and they are almost grateful that they will have to pay more for petrol, for their drink, for their tobacco and for their cigarettes. Of course, they are also facing a situation in which there is no relief where food prices are concerned and no relief in the cost of living.

Vast sections of our community will not benefit one penny. Rather, they will be asked to pay more for what many of them regard as essentials. I do not smoke, and the Minister will get nothing from me. I do not drink. Again, the Minister will get nothing from me. I do not go to pictures or amusements. I have never gambled on a horse. I am not a political Pharisee. Neither am I a killjoy. I love to see a man enjoying a drink. I love to see a man enjoying a smoke. In many cases a smoke to a person who really likes it is as important as a meal. Thousands of hard-working men like a pint or two after their day's work. They are entitled to that. The Government, not satisfied with raiding their pay packets through PAYE, are now digging their hands deep into every trouser pocket and into every purse and shopping bag to take away another portion of these people's earnings. Now they are raiding the smoke and pint. They are out to deprive the workers of their simple pleasures. And there are many people who congratulate them on that. I do not and I neither smoke nor drink. For large sections of our community a drink is a necessity.

Now the Government will raid even a man's drink. I do not approve of that. Still less do I approve of the increase in the price of petrol. The increase in the price of petrol was one of the reasons why this Party entered the Division Lobby yesterday to vote against the Budget. In this country we have the dearest motoring in the world. That can neither be denied nor disputed. The motor car is today a necessity for a great many workers. It is vital to the commercial traveller. It is also vital to those who use it to get to their work. As a result of this increase in the price of petrol, will we find ourselves faced in the not too distant future with an increase in fares on public transport? Petrol must be purchased by CIE. Will business firms find themselves compelled to pass on the increased price of petrol to the consumers of their goods and services? Or will these firms lay off one or two men to offset the increased cost? I believe this increase in the price of petrol will affect the economy of the country very seriously in the next twelve months. I expected motorists, particularly commercial travellers, would have had some form of relief. Those engaged in the motor trade and garage proprietors anticipated some reduction in the price of petrol, remembering that we have here the dearest motoring in the world. Other countries are enjoying a reduction. We are faced with an increase. That is bound to have a bad effect. It will inevitably lead to a certain amount of unemployment.

I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is with regard to the drainage of the Shannon. Immediately before the general election he said £20 million would be provided for the drainage of the Shannon. There is nothing in the Budget about that.

That would be a matter for the Estimate and not for this Financial Resolution.

That may be so, but we are discussing the Budget and certain provision is made in the Budget under certain headings. If it were a matter of thousands I should not mind there being no mention of it, but when it is millions it is only right that a question should be asked. This scheme, costing £20 million, was to start immediately, but there is no provision in the Budget and no provision in the Estimate.

It should be raised on the Estimate.

I suppose that would be the place to raise it, but it was not mentioned and it is not now mentioned in the Budget. Was this another election fraud? There is no question of £20 million being spent on the drainage of the Shannon.

I am afraid we cannot discuss the Shannon. I am sorry.

I shall not pursue the matter further. I agree the proper place to raise it would be on the Estimate for the Board of Works. We did not get a chance. There is nothing like giving the Minister a gentle hint that this will be raised. I cannot understand how a scheme costing £20 million can commence when there is no £20 million provided.

It does not arise on the Financial Resolution.

I should like to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to forestry development. We cannot raise that on the Forestry Estimate. We were told by the Minister for Lands in the course of that Estimate that he was aiming at spending £120 million on forestry development. Only £16 million has been provided. Where is the £120 million the Minister for Lands was talking about? Here we have another sham disclosure to wipe the eye of the ordinary fellow down the country.

The Deputy may not discuss forestry on the Financial Resolution. These are matters relevant to the particular Estimate, but not to the Budget.

I want to refer in a general way to public expenditure in relation to housing, health, forestry and fisheries. The Second Programme for Economic Expansion has been mentioned frequently by every member of the Government. If paper and ink would make us rich, we would all be millionaires years ago. In my opinion, the Second Programme for Economic Expansion is a fraud. It is paper and ink. We have had plans and schemes from Fianna Fáil for the past 27 years. I must give the Government credit for always having plans and schemes. No Government in the world have produced more plans and schemes. But where are they? They are all in various shelves in Government offices, covered with dust and surrounded with cobwebs. According as the plans are made, they go into those shelves. So it is with the Second Programme. I presume that, after a while, that, too, will be on the shelves of Government offices, covered with dust and surrounded with cobwebs.

The farmers have at last lost faith in the Government. Why was there not some measure of relief for them in the Budget? The Government succeeded in extracting the votes of the farmers in the general election on the undertaking that they were going to work wonders for them. Today the farmers must be disillusioned, saddened and disappointed. I wound up the broadcast I made before the general election by saying that if the people of this country sowed nettles, they could not expect roses to grow. That most certainly applies to the farmers of this country today. If they voted Fianna Fáil in the general election—and the bulk of them did— they must feel saddened and disappointed that they were not even mentioned in the Budget.

What is the position about the price of milk? Surely provision should have been made to give the dairy farmers some improvement in their standard of living? Every landowner expected some relief would be given to the already overburdened ratepayers. I have great sympathy with the farmers who have to bear the present heavy burden of rates, but the position is even worse for the ratepayers in our cities and towns, who are expected to meet every severe increase in rates. No relief whatever is provided. If local authorities want to improve housing, sanitary services and so on, the ratepayers must foot the bill. This Budget holds out no hope in the future of any substantial relief of rates.

There is nothing in the Budget to assist the country shopkeeper. Deputies know well from their contacts that our small country towns are now being converted into wayside villages and that the grass is growing on the footpaths outside country shops for the want of customers. Some people may say that is a slight exaggeration. In country districts at present it is hardly worth the while of the small shopkeeper to open his doors until after dinner. Business his diminished and in some cases has disappeared entirely. We might have expected some assistance for the country shopkeeper in the matter of rates and taxes, but there is nothing whatever to assist him.

The taxes imposed on beer and spirits will have a detrimental effect on the licensed trade in general, on the barmen's union and on the brewing and distilling industries — probably the oldest industries in this country. The brewing and distilling industries provide worthwhile employment in my constituency. This Budget, instead of helping them, is driving the nail further into their coffin. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has received representations from the brewers and distillers, whether he hopes to meet them at an early date to see if they have any representations to make for concessions and what concessions he will give them in the next 12 months. I can forecast difficulties in these industries as a result of the Budget, and I hope the Minister will do something about it.

Last night we had a long discussion on unemployment in our coalmines. I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind. If the new Government want to start off on the right foot, what courageous efforts are they making to provide more employment? There is nothing in the Budget for the provision of more employment. On the contrary, it will most certainly lead to some unemployment. There is nothing in the Budget which will help stem emigration and call back our emigrants. There is nothing in it to hold out a ray of hope for the bright Ireland we all spoke about before the general election.

During the next 12 months, the Government will be expected to do many things. We, on this side of the House, realise our position. For the time being, while in opposition, we will discharge our duties with great vigour. It will be our duty to see that the promises made to the people will be carried out. If they are not carried out, it will be our duty to see that an explanation is given by the Government as to why they are not carried out. If that is not done, the Government will have to wave the white flag of surrender in regard to the various schemes of national development, employment, stemming the tide of emigration, the provision of houses for our people and the various other things which are required in every sector of the community.

The Minister for Finance, like every other Minister before him, has a most difficult job. I do not envy him his job. I want to assure him this Party intend to do their job. If the Government made promises before the general election, it is our business to make them keep them.

This Budget is a complete and entire failure on the part of Fianna Fáil insofar as something constructive for the future economy of this country is concerned. It is the same old humdrum story. There is nothing new in it, nothing progressive and nothing that we can really boast about. I had hoped the Taoiseach, leading a Government of young men which he spoke about before and after the general election would have given us something completely and entirely new and revolutionary. Instead of that we find the Budget coming in as old as could be.

We find this Budget is something on the same pattern as the 1933 Budget, the 1937 Budget or any of the Budgets of the 1930s. which were sponsored by Deputy MacEntee. This Government have taken no positive action for the future. There are many people who expected the Government were serious when they said they were going to cut down on taxation and expenditure and to reduce the number of civil servants. Nothings sounds nicer from the platforms, particularly when an old warrior like Deputy Corry gets up to address the people, than to say when you get back to Government, you will cut down the number of civil servants, and reduce taxation. Nothing sounds nicer coming from the lips of public speakers but where is the sincerity in those speeches? Is it not true to say that, despite the promises made by Fianna Fáil to reduce the number of civil servants, they have actually increased the number? They cannot sit on two stools. They have not kept to their promise to reduce the number of civil servants. They have been hoodwinking the people. That may last for a while, but as soon as the people become sufficiently educated, they will not be hoodwinked by Fianna Fáil by the after-last Mass propaganda. They say on a Sunday morning they will reduce the number of civil servants and the following Wednesday, come up here and take steps deliberately to increase their numbers.

We have in this country at the present time the highest cost of living in the world, a low standard of living and probably the worst housing conditions of any progressive country in the world today. I wonder would the Minister for Finance take a trip—I will not go as far as to say he should take it at his own expense but at public expense—and have a look around the slum clearance areas of any of the towns and cities in Britain? Dublin Corporation some time ago sent some people abroad for the purpose of looking at the housing conditions and slum clearance which was being undertaken in certain cities outside this country.

During the past fortnight I had a look at some of the slum clearance schemes in the city of Manchester. When one sees the steps being taken outside this country to provide houses for the people, one is almost ashamed to come back home to Ireland and see the unsatisfactory progress being made in providing the people with decent houses. I wonder why the Catholic Bishops have remained silent so long when it has been brought to their knowledge that husbands and wives have been living apart because of lack of accommodation.

I do not see how housing arises on the Financial Resolution.

This is an occasion on which money should be provided for proper housing so that husbands and wives and their families can live together with a roof over their heads in the one home. This is a national problem. Here in this city there are husbands and wives living apart because of lack of accommodation. The housing of the people of this city and the country should be treated as a national emergency because there are people living in nothing more than hovels, as far back as 17 or 20 years ago. I know this is true because I visited some of them before and after the recent general election.

I ask the Minister to be courageous as a Minister for Finance and receive his colleagues. Everybody knows every Minister has to go to the Minister for Finance with his Estimates year after year. It is the duty of the Minister for Finance to chop down and prune to the last the Estimates of his colleagues in the Government. A good Minister for Finance is adjudged a good Minister by the amount of pruning and cutting down of those Estimates.

I want to pay tribute to the civil servants of the Department of Finance. The staff of the Department of Finance are more devoted to their Minister than any other staff, no matter what Minister is in power. They leave nothing undone to see that expenditure is cut as much as possible. They do their best to save the taxpayers. I have no doubt whatever that the Minister for Finance would want to be an extraordinary person to be able to surmount the temptations in his office in Merrion Street and the mysterious sounds of the telephone at his home saying: "We should not spend that; we should cut that down". The Minister would have to be a very brave man to be able to stand up to that.

The Minister is responsible for his Department, and not the officials.

The Deputy does not realise that.

When the colleagues of the Minister for Finance come to him with their Estimates, they will be pruned as much as possible. What is the use of a Minister having a certificate as a good Minister for Finance in that he cuts down and prunes every Estimate, when the money is needed to provide things which are badly needed by our people? That may be good bookkeeping all right. We all agree good bookkeeping is necessary but what is far more important is employment for our people, a good standard of living, housing and everything else that they require. I say the people require a good standard of living and work at home in their own country. That is far more important than anything else. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude for future Budgets and to get away from the attitude in this Budget which holds nothing for anybody. It is a public announcement of failure on the part of this Government.

I do not propose to repeat what I said earlier this evening but those who are offering congratulations to the Minister on increasing the old age pension by 10/- per week, while at the same time compelling people to meet high living costs on 50/- per week, are congratulating him on something which is unworthy of any modern Government or a Government who will try to describe their society as modern and outstanding. It is a shame that people are asked to live on such a meagre and miserable income.

This Budget is one of which the Government cannot be proud and certainly cannot be congratulated on. People are grateful for small mercies but when they realise that the Government are in a position and have the power and authority to grant substantial benefits, they will realise how much the Government think of them. This is an occasion when the Government have deliberately withheld substantial benefits from the people in addition to the benefits of price control, control of the cost of living and other benefits to which I have already referred.

This Budget represents a Fianna Fáil failure. I see nothing in it on which to compliment the Minister or the Government. It holds out no hope for the future and it contains no worthwhile proposals for the building up of our country into one in which we can all be proud to live, with our people enjoying a decent standard of living in the full terms of Christian decency.

I should like to deal with the Minister's Budget in a general way. No Minister for Finance can possibly enjoy having to impose additional taxation. It is never popular, particularly with those who have to pay. On the other hand, it is merely a truism to say that social services, and the whole machinery of government, must be paid for. In this instance, I feel it is a pity that there is not better communication between the Government, who are obliged to raise the revenue and the people who are obliged to pay. There is far too much of an attitude in this country of "us" and "they". The same attitude is frequently to be noted in conversation. I fear that there is a psychological separation between far too many of the people and Dáil Deputies and, indeed, the Government. This separation arises from a lack of communication, a lack of education amongst the people as to the functions of Government and, indeed, the functions of this Chamber. If these matters were better understood throughout the nation, I believe there would be more readiness on the part of the people to accept what, from the Government's point of view, may be unpopular decisions.

As a matter of urgency, the Government, through schools, television, radio, the Dáil and all organs of Government, should endeavour to explain more clearly to the people what taxations are and, generally, the functions of taxing. In the nature of things, people are, I believe, wholly unaware of how the machinery of Government works, and what it is, and we have a duty to inform them. I suggest the provision of pamphlets by each Government Department, for instance, the Department of Social Welfare, clearly setting out the various benefits to which people are entitled. In that way, we should have a lack of speculation because people would then know and understand the benefits to which they are entitled. With such a pamphlet, they would have this knowledge at their fingertips. There would be no doubt in their minds about their position. Again, a great burden would be lifted from the shoulders of county councillors and Dáil Deputies and others who are plagued with such questions. I think there is a lack of information and the answer to it is pamphleteering by the various Government Departments.

It is no mean privilege to live in this society of ours but it is one for which taxes must be paid. There is an old Irish saying: "Is áluinn an tír í Éire" That is quite true. We have many privileges in this country which are envied by more highly industrialised and prosperous countries. We live in what is clearly a classless society and this is no small thing. We should endeavour to keep this society of ours classless. We can do this only if those who have are prepared to see that the less privileged people share in the nation's prosperity. It is for that reason that I believe the increases for social welfare schemes are justified. The improvements in the welfare scheme should not be regarded as charity but should be given in the spirit of charity, which is quite a different thing. In Ireland, the more prosperous members of a family share their prosperity with the less properous members and that is as it should be in this nation of ours.

We are a small country and, I think we would all agree, a relatively happy nation. We have virtually no crime, of any consequence, at any rate. We have tremendous liberty. We in Ireland have virtually all the amenities of living that are available to even the most prosperous nations and our aim should be to see that this prosperity is spread amongst all our citizens.

In the Budget, we have provided for increased expenditure. I am glad the Minister was able to assure us that, in the administration of this expenditure, he, as head of the Civil Service, will take all necessary steps to ensure that the machinery of government is up to date and modern in every respect. There are vast improvements in organisation due to computers which are now available and which, I believe, were not available up to ten years ago. I am glad to hear the Minister say that those new methods will be available to civil servants. It will in the nature of things modernise the Government.

I welcome—and I am quite like everybody else in this Chamber—the increases for the older members of our society. I do not believe, however that money alone is the answer in this case. The real problem of the old people and of our older citizens is boredom and loneliness. I am afraid that in the next 20 years this problem of loneliness and boredom will affect greater sections of our community and greater numbers of our old people. I hope, and I am sure from some of the speeches he has made, the Minister for Health is aware of the problem. I hope he will devote special attention to making the declining years of our older citizens more tolerable, and that in the administration of these welfare schemes—and I repeat here—an effort will be made to make it clear to the people who are availing of them that they are not given by way of charity; they are getting this assistance but it is by way of right because they belong to the family of the Irish nation; they live in a country where all citizens of any income level are regarded as full citizens and full Irishmen.

Having said that, I should like to make a remark or two on Deputy O.J. Flanagan's speech. He says he has no charity for the Budget. I expect he included in this generalisation those in receipt of increased welfare benefits. I agree with Deputy O.J. Flanagan that there are many institutions in the country doing great work for the disabled and for those not in a position to look after themselves. However, he further says that there are thousands of disabled and mentally handicapped people not being provided for. I think, apart from the dishonesty of this statement, Deputy O.J. Flanagan did not give this House one instance, one fact, one figure, one disabled family. This is a rather unfair and unjust allegation against the Government, apart altogether from its pettiness.

He also said there are hundreds of families living in appalling living conditions but again we were given no facts and no figures. He said there are wives and husbands living apart as a result of poor housing conditions— again, no figures, no facts.

(South Tipperary): The barracks?

I do not wish to reflect for one moment on Deputy Andrews' statement when he takes Deputy O.J. Flanagan to task. I sat here admiring Deputy Andrews speak. It is difficult for a new Deputy to come into the House, get to his feet and make a delivery which can to some degree be termed intelligent. I do not say that with disrespect to Deputy Andrews but, having listened to the phraseology and terminology used by Deputy Andrews and his questions about facts from Deputy O.J. Flanagan in relation to husbands living separated from their wives because they have no houses, and questions about facts in relation to mentally handicapped children in this country, all I can say to Deputy Andrews is this: when he has been long enough in public life, he will not have to wait for Deputy O.J. Flanagan to point these things out to him.

I would say to a young man coming into public life that this is annoying. One of the things that would possibly keep me in public life is the cause of the mentally handicapped. What are the Government doing about it? It is not the responsibility of a benevolent association, be it in Donegal, Cork or Kerry. It is the responsibility of the Government and this Government have done absolutely nothing to help in this cause.

That is not true.

Maybe it is not true; perhaps it is a harsh statement to say the Government are doing nothing.

(South Tipperary): They are doing little.

They are doing very little. I do not want to use this argument and bring it to a low political level. I have been identified with the movement in Donegal and I have, at all times, avoided that. This is a thing that knows no political barriers, no social or religious barriers. It can happen in any family. It demands and is entitled to the support of all public representatives. It should be completely above politics and the only reason I mention it is to bring it to the notice of Deputy Andrews, who was elected for the first time in the recent general election and who gets up and in nice English tells this House that Deputy O.J. Flanagan should be more precise and should go into details and give facts when such a thing does not even need mention. Every person who realises it is there would accept any Deputy's word that it is there without asking him to go into details.

Like many other Deputies, I cannot understand why people should throw bouquets at the Minister for Finance for giving an increase to some pensioners of 10/- a week. I should like to congratulate the Minister and wish him well in his new post. I hope while he is there he will enjoy good health, bearing in mind that at the first opportunity we get we shall try to relieve him of his obligations. However, while he is there, I wish him the best of luck.

Having said that, I shall get back to the Budget. I can see no reason why bouquets should be thrown at any Government for giving 10/- to old age pensioners. I know, as every Deputy knows, that there are many old age pensioners living in starvation. I know many cases in Donegal and you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, being a Donegal man, know the very same people. I know a brother and sister who are expected to survive on £2 2s. 6d. a week. Now, the Minister gives them 10/- a week, and possibly less, to support themselves. Will those people prosper? Is this the stepping stone which Deputy Burke referred to when he criticised the Fine Gael "Just Society". Can we, as Christian people, really say we have done this section of our society justice by offering them 10/- a week, on a means test?

Being a member of a local authority, I recognise immediately that any person who qualifies for this increase of 10/- per week will immediately lose either his DP allowance or his home assistance allowance. In effect, if he gets the increase of 10/-, the local authority will reduce their contribution by possibly 5/-.

So far, we have Deputies getting up and praising the Government for doing justice to the poorer section of our community because we have given them 5/- a week. I see no reason why we should in 1965, in this era of prosperity, this great Utopia which the Government boast about with their five-year plan, their first economic plan and their second economic plan and everything progressive, boast about giving the old age pensioners from 10/- to nothing. It just does not make sense. We have many examples of families, particularly in rural Ireland, living in poverty and in hunger, and in homes that could not be described as such and which are completely unfit for human habitation. While this is going on people who have come into this country have made fortunes out of the purse of the Irish people, and the sop to the individuals who are living at starvation level is to throw them a few shillings a week and say: "We have done something for them."

If this country were progressing, and if there were prosperity, the people would not have to be told of it by Fianna Fáil speakers in every newspaper we read. Every time we turn on the television, or listen to the radio, we hear Ministers speaking about prosperity. They are continually telling us about the progress of the nation, of increased prosperity, employment, and everything that goes with it. If this is a fact, would the people not realise it without having to be told either by the press, on radio or television? If it is true, in his Budget the Minister could have proved beyond doubt that it is true by giving the poorer sections in our society a better "do" than they were given. I do not offer any congratulations to the Fianna Fáil Party or the Minister for treating this section of the community as they did.

The Budget has not pointed to increased housing. We heard Deputy O.J. Flanagan state that in 1957 three times the number of houses were built as were built in one single year since then by a Fianna Fáil Government. When a public representative who is not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party exposes such cruelties and such injustices, he is termed outspoken and impertinent for doing so, but it is the duty of a public representative to expose injustices. Some of the main social problems, to my mind, are the problems of old age pensions, of housing, of the infirm, and of those who come within the mentally handicapped and disabled persons categories. The Government have not done anything to help those sections.

The greatest scandal in this country at the moment is the housing scandal, and I make no apology to anyone for saying that. During the Cork by-election, I met a Fianna Fáil Deputy who is a personal friend of mine. We were discussing the results of the pending election and I was challenged by an individual whose name I have forgotten already about a remark which I made about a certain Minister who had fallen down on the job. That Fianna Fáil Deputy, whose name I will not disclose, freely admitted to me in a private conversation that the Minister for Local Government had let down the Fianna Fáil Party, and that if there were a general election, any Fianna Fáil Deputy holding a marginal seat would be in peril of his life.

It is not in very good taste to relate a private conversation in public.

I have not mentioned the person's name, nor will I mention it, but I want it on record that a backbencher of the Fianna Fáil Party told me that. If he told it to me, it must be common gossip in the back benches of the Party. I do not challenge that fact. I agree that it is true. The man was only admitting the truth to me.

The Minister for Finance did nothing in this Budget about providing more housing. I do not blame the Minister personally because he has only taken over that post in the past few weeks. The Government have collective responsibility and therefore every Minister in the Cabinet is equally responsible with the Minister for Finance.

There is an extra £4½ million in the Budget for housing.

There is an extra £4½ million to build houses that should have been built five years ago.

There is an extra £4½ million in the Budget this year and the Deputy must remember that in 1956 when his Party were in power, Dublin Corporation had 1,600 vacant dwellings on hands in the city.

If the inter-Party Government had not built houses in 1956-57 what would the position be today? How many people would have died in the tenements and derelict buildings which were removed by the inter-Party Government? I will not discuss the position in Dublin with Deputy Moore but, you, Sir, know the position in Donegal as well as I do. When a person makes an application to Donegal County Council for a house, you, Sir, know the predicament he is in. You know how many times it comes back and that you have to go to the council secretary or one of the staff officers to see what is happening about the application. It takes anything from three and a half years to 14 years. I know of one application which was submitted in 1951. It was rejected three or four times; it was passed once; but the house has not yet been started. Is this progress? Is it right to say that there is an extra £4½ million in the Budget for housing when such things are already happening, as you know, Sir, in Donegal.

Please do not involve the Chair in this argument.

With respect, I was not trying to do that. I was trying to be helpful more than anything else, and I wanted you to bear out that what I was saying is true. We know that in Donegal when the occasion arises to build a group of houses, possibly six, the only chance a person has of getting such a house is if he is living in a hovel and has a family of six or seven, or if he is in the unfortunate position that one of the members of his family is ill. Those are the circumstances which qualify a person for a house. A young man wishing to get married, if he is not in a position to build a house for himself, can expect either to go and live with his in-laws, or to bring his young bride to live with her in-laws, in a society which the Fianna Fáil Party claim is a just society. Things like that would not happen in darkest Africa. We have families living in Donegal with a father and mother and six in family living in one room. If that is Christian decency, I have never learned the meaning of the words.

We were told by certain Fianna Fáil Deputies that the famous turnover tax was introduced to alleviate the rates problem. I remember Fianna Fáil speakers saying that the turnover tax would reduce the rates in Donegal by 5/- in the £. That was a popular thing to say, but what has happened? Have the rates in Donegal been reduced by 5/- in the £? The rates have increased so much that people, particularly small business people and people living on fixed incomes, are finding it most difficult to meet their rates payments when the rate collector comes to collect them.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13th May, 1965.
Top
Share