We are coming to the concluding stages of the debate on the Budget. Because of a change in Standing Orders, there has been a little widening of the scope of the debate. It might be no harm to consider for a moment what is before the House in this Budget and the fact that the Budget does not start at the beginning of the year or end at the beginning of the year.
When a Government comes to frame a Budget and to draft a Financial Statement and to decide on the taxes to be imposed, very often their considerations are affected by what has happened in previous years, not only the years immediately preceding the Budget but years long before that. A Government who have just taken over office, with no long record of government, could well excuse themselves at Budget time by pleading that they had just taken control and had only now got possession of the facts and figures on which they had to base their Budget. Such a Government might well be excused if they came before the House and said that they had to find an extra £12½ million out of revenue.
Of course, that is not the position of the Fianna Fáil Government. They did not take over just in 1965. They have long years of experience in Government. Any Opposition Deputy, whether from the Labour Party or any other Party, is entitled on this occasion to remind the public at large of the whole basis on which the Fianna Fáil Party have operated down the years and to remind them of the failure of the Government to take appropriate action at the proper time to avoid imposing unnecessary taxation on the shoulders of the ordinary citizens.
The Fianna Fáil record is fairly well known. They have fairly capable publicists. There is a newspaper that serves their purposes fairly well. However, some parts of their record should be called to the attention of the people again and again. On any occasion on which they find themselves in a difficulty, they have visited hardship on the ordinary working people in our community. They do that either by the attempted imposition of Trade Union Acts or by wages standstill orders and such panoply. They have done it repeatedly. At the same time, they have been notorious down the years for making either direct or implied promises to the people that, providing they support Fianna Fáil, everything in the garden will be lovely, if not next year, the year after that or some other year. This was particularly the position in recent years. In addition, they, or some of their spokesmen, have the habit of chiding contributors to a debate on the Budget and seeking from them cures and solutions for problems which Fianna Fáil, by their inept government and their inept Ministers have got the country into and, as one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, Deputy Dowling, did yesterday, they query Deputies whose views are not in accord with the views of the Government as to why they did not vote for the necessary taxation.
This must be answered at this stage. It is necessary to remind the Minister for Finance and all his colleagues, and I as a Deputy fully admit, that there were problems in 1956. Did Fianna Fáil vote at that time for the imposition of the necessary taxation to provide benefits and so on for the people? No—they went into the division lobby against it. Yet, their spokesmen are asking the Opposition today why should they not support a revenue Budget of £12½ million. There is a very clear and definite answer. It is because the raising of the money to fill the gap now facing the country will be at the expense of the ordinary citizens and the necessity arises from the failure of Fianna Fáil not only to take adequate steps but even to deal with the people in a reasonable and proper manner.
I and other Deputies were quite well aware of the antics of Fianna Fáil in 1963 and 1964, the antics of their Ministers and spokesmen, indicating that what they wanted was heavier expenditure under nearly all headings, their almost written request and urgings to local authorities to provide schemes on which money could be spent from capital which I do not know that they felt was available even at that time.
During the coming year, the people on whom these taxes will fall are the ordinary people of the country. It might be interesting to examine as to who some of these people are. Take the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Take the table at page 9 which shows the average actual earnings of workers in transportable goods industries. The table shows that the average actual earnings of those workers, whether engaged on a normal week's work, engaged in overtime or employed under incentive bonus schemes, and so on, were, in the month of September, 1965, 216/8— £10 16s. 8d. Such workers represent a very considerable section of the community on whom these indirect taxes will fall and a great proportion are persons with wives and families whom they have to maintain out of these average earnings.
The same table indicates the position of agricultural workers on the minimum wage rates and shows that in September, 1965, they had 160/9 per week—£8 per week. This is the payment of agricultural workers after so many years of Fianna Fáil rule. This is the Government who repeatedly promised a land flowing with milk and honey. If anybody could exist on these minimum rates of wages anywhere, I do not think it would be possible in this country. It appears that there would be a parallel with some of the people living in underdeveloped countries, such as Africa. Very few people on these benches have ever considered that Fianna Fáil have any real regard for the ordinary agricultural workers or the very small farmers. They rely for their support on the large farmers and rich ranchers. I do not drink and I do not smoke, but I know that the majority of these people do and the increases under these headings are going to fall on these people and will indirectly affect their families. It is unfortunate that in our society when a man takes a drink and the price of his pint goes up, he will continue to take the same number of pints and the hardship will be on his family.
Not many years ago Fianna Fáil were promising 100,000 jobs. That was reduced to 86,000. Let us have a look at their performance. In the same document, on page 98, there is a table for the estimated total labour force and number of persons at work in main branches of economic activity in April, 1961 to 1965. This interesting table shows the advances we have made under the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, the same type of advance as we made under his predecessor who is now President. We always appear to be advancing down some little alley way and then emerging worse off than we were before. For instance, in 1961 in non-agricultural economic activity, the number of workers was 673.8 thousand and in 1965 it was 712,000, or an increase of 38.2 thousand. It appears to be a very satisfactory position until we look at the numbers employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing in 1961. The figure was something over 378,000 while in 1965 it was 338,000, a reduction of 40,000 in the period.
This was a marvellous achievement and well up to Fianna Fáil standards. Perhaps the figures were wrong, but as they are published in this booklet, I presume they are official. The same table gives the figures for the total at work, which was 1,052,000 and the total at work in 1965 was 1,050,000. I am sure the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture, must be priding themselves that they are doing a good job. They are getting people out of employment. Obviously while we are concerned in this House to see an increase in industrial activity, we are also concerned to see that the numbers employed should not go down but should rise fairly steadily. There is little use in anybody going to the hustings and saying: "We will have 100,000 new jobs by a certain date", if by that date you reduce employment by 120,000, because there is a net loss of 20,000. Of course, we have emigration to take care of that problem.
In the same booklet we have projections for 1966 and I quote:
Industrial employed increased by 14,000 in the two years and came close to the annual projection for this sector. Employment in the other domestic sector increased, though at a rate well below that projected; estimation of employment in this sector in an inter-censal period is difficult and it is possible that employment may have increased by more than is indicated in the table. The increases in employment in the industrial and other domestic sectors are, however, completely overshadowed by the unexpectedly high rate of decline in employment in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector.
I presume the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for this position. I have heard him being called "The golden boy" but he must have been a "platinum boy" to arrive at this result.
The fall in employment in this sector in 1965 alone was equal to the growth in industrial employment in 1964 and 1965. The fall in the two years 1964 and 1965 was two and one half times the annual average projected in the programme, and exceeded by 25 per cent the annual average figure in the period of the First Programme.
That is not very pleasant reading for our community. It continues:
The projections for 1966 suggest that there will be some fall—perhaps 3/4,000—in employment in that year;
That is not much. It is no harm from Fianna Fáil's point of view to say that there may be 3,000 or 4,000 fewer in employment in 1966. I wonder is this part of the reason why they are not going to hold the local elections? Perhaps somebody might have the bad manners to suggest that members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have such an inefficient Government are hardly worthy to be returned to the local authorities because they might make the same mess as the Government have done at national level.
The paragraph continues:
increases in industry and services will be more than offset by a reduction in agriculture, forestry and fishing. If this projection is realised, the average annual increase in employment required in the period 1967-70 to achieve the programme's target would be nearly 23,000.
It appears that the only possible way in which you can make progress along those lines is to change the whole Front Bench of Fianna Fáil. On their record for the past five years, they have been striving to bring about a situation of fuller employment. I am sure they have read the leaflet issued in 1957 by the Irish Congress of Trades Unions giving a plan for full employment, but they do not appear to have grasped how to put that plan into operation. It goes on:
Past experience suggests that it will be extremely difficult to increase employment at this pace.
This is the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. It indicates clearly what the position has been under Fianna Fáil Government for the past five years and what the position is likely to be this year.
I wish to pass now to the Report on the Economic Situation issued by the National Industrial Economic Council. During recent months, the Taoiseach and members of the Government have been talking about the serious situation in regard to industrial unrest. In paragraph 43 of that Report, page 36, we read:
An example of the dissatisfaction with existing differences is the attitude of manual workers towards the relationship between their earnings and the earnings of various clerical or other office workers. There also appears to be dissatisfaction among wage earners generally with the differences in conditions attaching to their employment as compared with salaried employment: in very many cases there are, for example, differences in security, pension rights, holidays, sick pay and hours of work.
Paragraph 44 states:
There is a feeling that there is no justification in equity for the extent of the differences that currently exist between different kinds of income, that is, between wages and salaries and profits, dividends, capital gains, professional earnings and incomes from rents ...
We did not hear much about capital gains in the Budget. The Minister for Finance kept away from that. He imposed an increase in taxation on the ordinary workers in industry and agriculture but he kept away from doing anything about capital gains. Neither did he make any specific effort to draw into the net of the Revenue Commissioners the considerable sums of money obtained by one means or another by a fairly large section of the community who do not complete the normal income tax returns, who are self-employed or in a certain elevated state in agriculture or so on. These are overlooked but the ordinary taxpayer is required to meet the heavy burden of the increases.
Paragraph 44 continues:
The extent of these differences, and the feeling of inequity to which they give rise, are highlighted and, perhaps, even exaggerated by the impressions created by particular instances of conspicuous affluence in business entertainment or ostentatious living by the few ...
I like those words "conspicuous affluence in business entertainment". The Minister and his colleagues should be able to talk at length on this because many of them make their principal political announcements at that type of entertainment rather than here in the House. The paragraph continues:
To the extent that people have these impressions, whether justified or not, they influence their attitudes towards what is regarded as an acceptable rate of increase in their real and money incomes.
I have read those paragraphs because they bear on another point I should like to make in regard to the record of this Government. I understand the Government have accepted that Report in general. Certainly, as far as their own employees are concerned they have not accepted what is contained in the paragraphs I have read. Today, after many years of Fianna Fáil Government, there is a large percentage of wholetime unestablished employees in every Department of State who have no sick pay provisions. The State, headed by a Fianna Fáil Government, by Ministers who lecture us on all forms of economic and social theory, has not taken the time to look at its own employees. Many private undertakings could show a good example to the State in this regard.
It is not as if the question has never been raised. The question of these wholetime unestablished employees in the Department of Defence, the Department of Justice and the Board of Works has been raised repeatedly for years, but nothing has been done. Consequently, these people on wages of £10 to £11 per week are the one section in the Government employment who, if they meet with illness, have to fall back on social welfare schemes and have no payments from their employers. This is all in all with the approach of the Government to social welfare payments. The Government should give a lead. The Taoiseach is on record as indicating—I do not know whether the Minister for Finance did so also—that if there is any justification for an increase in wages and salaries, it would only arise in relation to the lower-paid workers. The people I referred to earlier in agriculture and industry all come under that heading.
What about the people employed by the Department of Justice in the Four Courts and other places as night watchmen? They work for seven days a week at night work for less than £10 a week. The most reactionary employer in private employment would hardly get away with that type of wage. These are forgotten people. I do not criticise civil servants getting salaries commensurate with their responsibility. But I think in these matters of salaries and wages the Minister for Finance and his colleagues should direct the Secretaries of their Departments to look at the wage rates paid to Government employees and to examine whether they provide even a meagre living for these people. We must make comparison between those employees who are engaged on night work spread over the nights of the week, including Sunday night, and civil servants—and again I am not criticising them—who have a five-day week with normal hours. There should be some concern for these other people.
Those are some of the reasons why this Party do not find it possible to support the taxation proposed in this Budget. They supported the one item of taxation which would meet the provisions for the social welfare cases. At one time the dancehall proprietors were the darlings of Fianna Fáil. This time there is a tax imposed on dance-halls, and we supported this tax because it would help to relieve distress. The Labour Party did not support the other taxes because they are imposed to endeavour to cover up the faults and failings of the Fianna Fáil Government not only in 1965-66 but in 1964-65, 1963-64 and so on.
Building is in a parlous position at the moment. Building activity, as compared with last year, is reduced by 50 per cent. I do not know whether the Government are concerned about the situation, having regard to the fact that the level of activity in building has a tremendous effect on the level of activity in every other sphere in a country. I want to confirm what Deputy L'Estrange said earlier this afternoon, that bad as the situation appears now, it will be much worse in the coming year.
The local authority of which I am a member also got a circular in connection with the Capital Programme for 1966-67, and this is a beautiful lesson in economics. The amount for which provision is made this year is just over £6 million, £3,500,000 of which is for the purpose of servicing the capital expenditure on the Ballymun project, but if that consortium does not operate to the extent that they will require the £3,500,000, there is no suggestion that it could be used for other essential housing construction or development. A sum just short of £3 million is to be reserved for housing construction and development. The interesting fact is that practically all that money is already committed to contractors who are doing building work at the present time, and the amount of money that will be available for new schemes—and this will possibly be the situation in every local authority area in the country—will probably not exceed a couple of hundred thousand pounds. In other words, what will be said to the local authorities is: "Do not send up any schemes except for less than ten per cent of what you need."
On the question of supplementary grants and loans, the same position applies. There are hundreds of applicants for SDA loans in the local authority area of which I am a member, lodged since January, and only a percentage of those applicants have any hope of getting a loan as a result of the issue of this circular. I am sorry the Minister for Local Government is not here because I had the pleasure of seeing letters from his Department in 1964 impressing on Dublin Corporation the desirability of submitting schemes—hurry on, hurry on—and yet there are schemes with that Department since September, 1965, for development work which will affect the provision of dwellings for the next year or so. The details of what can be done will possibly have to be examined, but certainly there is only a minimal amount of money being made available for new schemes in 1966.
Under every heading this Government have been failures. They have not provided the necessary number of new jobs. In regard to educational activity, even there, I am sure there will be a cut-back in the provision of schools during the coming year. We know it is not in the Capital Budget, but, in the light of the circulars coming out at the present time, the Capital Budget is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. It reminds one of the previous prognosis of so many new jobs each year. If money is provided for new schools, what is the position of the children coming out of those schools, if the Government fail to secure opportunities for employment for those young boys and girls? Will the figures for emigration continue to rise. The figure in 1962 was 21,000; in 1964, it was 26,700; in 1965, it was 27,300. This is a marvellous record for the Fianna Fáil Party, for a Government with all the experts they are supposed to have.
There is no use in the Minister for Finance or any other Minister saying in this House that something went wrong in 1965. That is a very poor excuse having regard to their statements in 1956 when they were on this side of the House. In Europe as a whole, there has not been any great cut-back in employment or in the credit position in 1965 as there was in 1956. This country has not been affected by the situation in Europe. It has been affected by inefficient—I shall not say "ill-advised"—government. The Government's advisers prepared programmes. They are no longer called plans. Indeed, many years ago, the present Taoiseach used to be very critical of plans and Fianna Fáil are still somewhat critical of plans. Now they call them programmes. If there is a plan, they are compelled to accept some responsibility for taking steps to ensure that that plan is carried out, but, if it is a programme, they can say it is simply a projection which may be carried out if someone else does the work. In this fashion the Government then can, in fact, try to plead ignorance of the real situation.
There is then the matter of the Government's approach to social welfare recipients at Budget time. Once more we have had the meagre increase and, in order to make sure they will save something on that meagre increase, it will not come into operation until some months hence.
One matter that appears to be escaping the attention of the Government altogether is their complete failure to deal with prices, a failure which has resulted in all kinds of difficulty and confusion. The situation has got out of hand and workers who have had to face an increase of 10.4 per cent in the cost of living since 1963 are now told they should be satisfied with an increase of three per cent. We have adverted to this before. The year 1963-64 was the time in which the Government should have examined the situation and taken remedial action. That was the time to ensure there would be no increase in prices except where such increases were publicly justified. We do not contend that prices should in no circumstances increase. We are quite well aware of the fact that if the cost of raw materials coming into the country increases, prices must naturally increase. At the end of 1963 and in 1964, two sections of the community took advantage of the situation. Those with goods to sell increased their prices and the Government took advantage of the ninth round wage increase negotiated between trade unions and the Federated Union of Employers and other groups. The Minister for Finance cannot deny for one moment that his Party did not take full advantage of that situation.
