I want to refer briefly to the statement by the previous speaker about the political levy by any union. I have always abided by the rules of this House and I intend to abide by them. That precludes me from saying that the Deputy told a deliberate lie. I will, therefore, attribute his statement to ignorance of union rules and procedure. Every trade unionist who reads his book of rules knows exactly what the position is. Possibly the kind of trade unionists in the Fianna Fáil Party do not bother to read their book of rules. Therefore, it is not surprising that statements such as those made by Deputy Dowling are made in this House.
Those statements are made in complete ignorance of the facts of the situation. A voluntary contribution is made by all members. Before I leave that, I want to say that it is not too peculiar to have an attack on the trade union movement or an attack on trade union leaders coming from the Fianna Fáil benches. It is not the first time this has happened and we know it will not be the last time.
Now, to get to the Budget. Over the past week we had Government speakers telling us what a wonderful Budget this is. They maintain that it relieves distress, that it takes away hardship and generally does good. I want to pose a question. If we accept for a moment that this is true, who was responsible for the hardship and the distress which sections of people are suffering today? Was it not the Government who through their lack of policy down the years caused all this distress and hardship to our social welfare recipients and people on low wages generally?
Government speakers now expect the people to thank them for a very slight relief of the distress which the Government, by reason of their policies, have caused those same people. Over the past 35 years Fianna Fáil have been in office for almost 30 years. During most of that period they enjoyed an over-all majority. In spite of all those advantages, in spite of all the speeches we hear today, we still have a very high level of unemployment, a very high level of emigration, a very low level of social welfare benefits, a very low level of industrial expansion and very slow progress in housing and other amenities.
Progress over those years has been very slow. All the progressive countries in Europe have gone ahead, both socially and economically but this country has always lagged behind. We continue to lag behind after almost 30 years of Fianna Fáil Government. Of course, the Government got to power simply and solely on the promise that they would provide more jobs. They have managed to keep in power by the continuation of that false promise at every subsequent election. The fact remains, however, that employment has steadily gone down, particularly in the last few years. The number of people at work has decreased during those years.
Many speakers from this side of the House made reference to the two Budgets of 1966 and the extra taxation imposed on the ordinary people in those two Budgets and the fact that they got practically no reliefs. I want to refer to an attempt to introduce a third Budget last year. This was an attempt by the Minister for Local Government in another way to raise extra revenue. He had the idea that the tenants of corporation and council houses should pay more rent. He window-dressed the demand for more rent with a promise that the money would be used to provide a cheaper house for people who could not afford the high rent. This was all very good in theory, I suppose, but it was nothing more than an attempt to introduce a third Budget in 1966. I am glad the Government realised that the old age pensioners and people in receipt of unemployment benefit and assistance could not afford to pay increased rent, but it was a very deceitful way to try to fool these people into paying higher rents. It was deceitful to go about it in this manner. The only aim the Minister for Local Government had was to provide extra revenue, extra taxation, not by increase in rents if you like, but it was an extra tax on people who live in council and corporation houses. If the Government are really worried about the rents that old age pensioners and other social welfare classes have to pay for houses, they should increase the benefits accordingly. The level of social welfare benefits should be such that tenants of local authority houses, and, indeed, tenants of private houses, if they are sick, unemployed, or if they are old age pensioners, should from the money they receive from the State be in a position to pay the rents and provide themselves with proper shelter.
It is the duty of the Government to make the level of pensions such that it will give these people the necessary money to pay reasonable rents. The Minister for Local Government, or any Minister of State, should not be trying between Budgets to raise extra revenue by putting extra taxation on workingclass people who are already heavily burdened with direct and indirect taxation. No attempt should be made to put this extra taxation on them. It has succeeded, unfortunately, in some counties and there are occupiers of workingclass houses paying up to £1, and in some cases more than that, increase in rent as a result of the policy of the Minister for Local Government with, I assume, the sanction of the Government.
This policy has now been laid aside because of the forthcoming local elections. I want an assurance from the Minister for Finance that if he does not introduce a second Budget this year none of the other Ministers, either the Minister for Local Government by way of demand for increased rents or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by way of increased postal charges, will come to this House before the end of the year looking for more money.
The proportion of taxes now being paid by social welfare recipients and the lower paid groups has gone up substantially in the last few years, but the benefits accorded to them have not been in keeping with the increase in the cost of living, which, in turn, has been brought about mainly by increases in indirect taxation. If the Minister in this Budget appears to help the weaker sections and appears to relieve distress, I would ask him why should there be a weaker section. Who made weaker sections in our society? Who created the distress which we have now to try to alleviate?
There are a few of the Budget proposals to which I should like to refer. The medical expenses relief is welcome, but I wonder does it really go far enough. I know it is difficult to do all that is required, but I also know of single men with wages of from £8 to £9 a week who have been refused medical cards and who cannot get free medical services. If these people run up a bill of from £30 to £40 a year will they get any relief for these medical expenses? The single man with from £8 to £9 a week cannot get a medical card. If he runs up a bill of from £30 to £40 a year and he is also paying income tax, will he get relief for these medical expenses?
