Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 4: Wholesale Tax (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Wednesday, 13 Nov 1968

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Last night, I was endeavouring to show that the Government have no forward-looking policy. Their policy appears to consist in imposing taxation and hoping for the best. It is obvious now that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, about which there was so much talk in the rank and file of Fianna Fáil, is not likely to yield very much more in the agricultural sphere. It has allowed for an industrial expansion, but a limited industrial expansion. I suggested last night that the Government should take another look at the beef export potential. The prosperity at the moment is due entirely to the fact that so much stock was lost in the United Kingdom through foot and mouth disease, with a resultant heavy restocking; that will continue possibly until the end of this year. I was challenged last night by Fianna Fáil Deputies who said that stocks are higher today than they ever were before. It may be that young stock is higher, but replacements simply do not exist as they might have existed had the Government exercised some foresight in their policy.

I asked the Taoiseach a question today and I suggested that the Government might avail themselves of the opportunity that now appears to be presented to them in the latest agreement, and it is an agreement, the first sign of a communal agreement between the Six, to explore a wider trading area than we have had over the last two or three years. There is an opportunity now for an expansion of trade. There is an opportunity of making a trade agreement not alone with one of the Six but with every single member of the EEC. It seems strange, therefore, that we apparently have to wait before we take any action. It is for that I criticise this Government. They never move in time. They can never do the obvious thing. Every other country has ambassadors and parliamentary representatives out looking for trade agreements. We never do anything like that.

One must look to the future. It is no use merely progressing from Budget to Budget, from one six months to the next. The policy of the Government is one of living from hand to mouth. They will not be there indefinitely but, so long as they are there. I hope they will keep improving the situation so that it will not be too bad when we take over. I suggest to the Taoiseach that there must be an overall increase in trading. The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement is not the be-all and end-all of trade. It has produced results in industrial exports. The results in agricultural exports are largely fortuitous because of external circumstances—disastrous circumstances from the point of view of the British because they had to buy so much from us in order to replace their stock. We have now practically reached saturation point in the British market. Every time one reads the papers one notes that there are plans and schemes on foot to increase agricultural production in Britain. The traditional policy of Britain was to buy food from abroad and to export to the countries from which they bought food, industrial goods and products. We were in on the ground floor. We were an agricultural country living in close proximity to the United Kingdom and our trade with that country kept our economy alive over the years. I want to stress that this is changing now. Our ambassadors abroad should be instructed to take action.

The Taoiseach knows as well as I do—he has travelled as much as I have—that a great deal of trade is arranged at social functions such as dinner and luncheon parties. These matters can be discussed in amicable surroundings and very often trade follows on those discussions. We have useful ambassadors in different parts of the world, and they should be instructed to look for all the trade possible, and pass back any information they have to the Government. The thinking here today is on one track in Government circles. We have had 50 years of self-government and although we have had our trials and tribulations we have had comparative peace. All the emerging nations which have come into existence as one unit are out looking for trade every day of the week literally. Perhaps the Government are a little bit sensitive on the question of the British market. The Taoiseach is responsible for the destiny of this country. There was a time when it was suggested that we should not trade with Britain. Now there is a complete swing around and the Government have a one-track mind. So long as they have a one-track mind, and so long as we confine ourselves to the existing trade potential, the Government will continue to impose extra taxation.

There is another angle with which I should like to deal briefly before I conclude. I am sure many other Deputies are waiting to make their contributions. There has been very little mention of economy. The idea in thinking circles seems to be that we should raise all the money we can, that anyone who is earning or producing should have the life taxed out of him to supply funds for Government purposes, and that there should be an increase in the bureaucratic control of the country as a whole.

We established the Department of Labour about two years ago. It is costing the Exchequer £1,100,000. I do not know what is the function of that Department. When it came into existence it was said that it would have a special function with regard to establishing better relations between workers and employers and correlating production and wage increases. I fail to see that the Department of Labour has achieved anything.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is rather interesting to note that some speakers from the Opposition benches seem to have a cure for all ills, believe it or not. Many Deputies who spoke will remember the years 1949 to 1951 and 1954 to 1957. The Ceann Comhairle is a man of great character and I do not like always to be reminding him of these things, but I am forced into the position of asking the Opposition why during their period of office they did not do all the wonderful things they are now criticising us for not having done. In 1957 this country was at the lowest economic and political ebb possible. As a matter of fact, we were nearly the same as Newfoundland, a country which asked another country to take over their administration or assist them out of their difficulties.

One would imagine that out of the conglomeration of intelligentsia made up of Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan and Independents, someone would have produced some economic policy to save the nation. I remember in my own constituency at that time about 1,800 families left their homes, and over 100,000 were unemployed in the country. In my constituency 1,800 families left their homes and went to America, England, Scotland and various other places. I saw this happening. There was one honest man amongst them.

I asked the Minister for Education a question about a school in Brittas. I told him we had the land and that everything else was settled, and I asked him when he would build it. The honourable gentleman said: "You cannot take the trousers off a Highlander.""Congratulations," I said, "you are one honest person." At that time the Minister for Local Government was telling us there was money for everything. The Opposition talk nowadays about the building of houses, about what we did in relation to building enough houses, and what we should have done. I was a member of Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation during the period of office of the Coalition Government, and I remember that the building machinery of the local authorities was disbanded because there was no money to go ahead. Houses were built but there were no grants or loans for them. There was not the price of a bag of cement left when they left office. That is what we found in the city and county of Dublin, certain parts of which I have the honour to represent from time to time.

We are trying to keep our economy alive. We are only doing what any other intelligent Government would do. I often stood up here, a Cheann Comhairle, to defend tough Budgets but today I am proud to say that the Taoiseach, as Acting Minister for Finance, is keeping the economy of this nation as it should be kept. I do not want to see our nation back to where we were in 1956-57. I remember in 1948, when we were defeated, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Seán F. Lemass, said to the Taoiseach, the very honourable gentleman, Deputy John A. Costello, that we had given over the country in a sound financial position and asked him to give it back to us in the same way. The whole approach to our economy by these people at that time was hopeless. They could not run a hotel never mind a country. They scuttled everyless thing and did not stand up to their responsibilities. We are standing up to our responsibilities and so long as we can keep reasonable employment in the country we are going to do that.

Since the commencement of the Government's Programmes for Economic Expansion the volume of output of manufacturing industries in Ireland has grown at an annual average rate of 6½ per cent. The employment given by the industries increased from 142,000 in 1958 to 177,000 in 1967, which is not a bad effort. In the same period industrial exports rose from a maximum of £33 million in 1958 to an estimated £147 million by 1967. How was that done? That was not done by the crows or the birds. It was done by the initiative of the Government who looked after the interests of the nation and tried to bring about the balance of payments.

The capital investment in industrial enterprise in the State in the nine years from 1959 to 1967 is estimated at £98 million of which State grants represented one quarter. These industries have an employment potential of 44,000 people. They have already absorbed about 30,000 of our people in good employment. Most of these enterprises are producing for export. In dealing with this problem alone it is possible to see the great advances we have made; great things have happened in our time. Notwithstanding the adverse criticism of the Opposition speakers, we have succeeded in doing great things and we will continue to do great things.

The Industrial Credit Corporation was closed down in 1957. There was not a bob stirring during that period. Since 1959, however, the Industrial Credit Corporation have advanced capital totalling £28 million to industry, the bulk of that being loan capital. More than 4,000 people are employed in the enterprises at Shannon.

I do not wish to delay the House, as there are other Deputies who wish to speak. I do not trangress the laws of courtesy in this House and, therefore, I do not speak for too long at any time. However, before concluding, I should like to refer to education. There has been an increase from 59,300 children attending secondary schools in 1957 to the present figure of 118,800, a considerable increase. The number of full-time teachers has increased in the same period from 2,850 to 5,080. In the vocational schools the trend has been the same. The number of pupils attending wholetime day courses has grown from 22,000 to 42,000 since 1957 while the number of teachers in these schools has increased from 1,500 to 2,800. In the universities, student numbers have increased from 7,700 to 16,000. These advances could not have been made without very substantial capital.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Not wishing to interrupt the Deputy, but on a point of order may we have details of the document from which he is quoting these figures so that we may be enabled to make further references and inquiries in regard to these statistics? Further, may I inquire if he is quoting from this document when he makes reference to the fact that the Agricultural Credit Corporation was at one stage closed down? It has never been closed in my memory.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy said it did not have a bob which is the same thing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy made no reference at all to it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I went to a great deal of trouble to prepare my speech.

Mr. Dillon

God forgive you.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Surely the Deputy does not expect me to tell him where I got these figures from?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It would be a surprise if the Deputy did.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They are available to every Deputy in this House.

Mr. Dillon

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. I take it that the Deputy's speech falls into the category of statistics.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

Deputy P.J. Burke.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am delighted that Deputy O.J. Flanagan corrected me. If I implied in my statement that the Industrial Credit Corporation closed down, I did not mean it that way. There was not a bob to be loaned by the Industrial Credit Corporation in 1957; they might as well have been closed down. It was just the same as the pub with no beer. They had a licence but no beer. Does the Deputy understand what I mean? Of course, the Agricultural Credit Corporation was the same.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What about the Agricultural Credit Corporation in 1966?

Mr. Cunningham

We are talking about the present time.

Mr. P.J. Burke

During the past ten years we have had many increases in social welfare, the highlights being 10/- in 1965 and 7s 6d this year. These increases exceeded by far the general rises in prices. Therefore, they have improved significantly the position of social welfare beneficiaries, the unemployed, the disabled, the old, the blind and the widows.

Mr. Dillon

Especially those who live in Balbriggan.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Since 1957 we have increased the non-contributory old age pension——

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. Everyone will acknowledge the right of a Deputy to fortify himself with a copious note but perhaps, the Chair will make a distinction between reading a speech and referring to a copious note. If we are to hear long wads of manuscript prepared by minor Deputies, however popular, of Fianna Fáil, the proceedings in this House will suffer.

I often milked a cow into a tin can. That was the most I ever did: That was some years ago. I am always anxious to listen to constructive criticism because I am at school as far as this Assembly is concerned. There is not a day that passes when I come in here and possibly learn something. I always like to listen to constructive criticism but not to cheap jibes of the kind one might hear around a public house at closing time. The unintelligent type of criticism that we have heard from Deputy Fitzpatrick across the floor of the House is unworthy——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I shall quote the Deputy in full before very long.

Mr. P.J. Burke

——and is not what one would expect from a wellknown family solicitor and, as far as I know of him—a gentleman. I have nothing to say against him personally. I may have a lot of enemies but I have none worse than myself. I do not want to delay the House any longer. Believe it or not, I would have finished long ago were it not for the help I got from Deputy O.J. Flanagan, Deputy Dillon and Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick of Cavan. It is now 4.45 p.m. and that means that I have made an unusually long speech, for me. On the whole, we have been doing our best for our country. We have faced up to our responsibilities here. On anything we have done, let it be unpopular or otherwise, we stand four-square behind our Taoiseach who is at present also our Minister for Finance. I am very proud of him. I must say he has done and is doing a very good job for our country. Long may he be spared to us. I am thankful to the gentlemen of the House.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is more than welcome.

Mrs. Desmond

This interim Budget, or moiety of the Budget, or whatever we might call it—we certainly cannot call it a "mini-Budget"—seems to me to be the proof, if proof were needed, of the sensible attitude taken by the Irish people only a few weeks ago when they refused, in no uncertain terms, to give this Government the mandate they sought to continue in office for an indefinite period of perhaps 20 or 25 years. Coming at this particular time of the year, this Budget proves beyond all doubt, if proof were needed, that the Fianna Fáil Government is incapable of leading this nation other than up the never-ending cul-de-sac to which we have become accustomed down the years. We seem to be in an economic and social rut out of which this Government do not seem capable of leading us. As evidence of that statement, one could go back over a long number of years but I do not propose to do that now. For instance, we could cast our thoughts back to 1965 and the occasion of the last general election, the one in which I became a Member of this House. I remember that, just before that election, we seemed to be going ahead very well as a country. Indeed, according to the words of the then Fianna Fáil Government, we were entering upon a long period of prosperity. No sooner was the general election over than all the economic ills, in precisely the same forms as now, reared their heads. The new Fianna Fáil Government took precisely the same steps as are now being taken to curb those economic ills. This seems to be an ever-recurring facet of life here down through the years.

From that period in 1965, practically to the present day, we have had stagnation. Those of us in public life had repeatedly to make the standard excuse to people who sought local authority services and, in fact, who sought services of any kind that financial measures were taken to correct the ills that were apparent in the economy with the result that no money was available for such schemes. The tragedy is that the corrective measures taken down through the years have tended to aggravate our basic ill which appears to me to be a lack of employment and a high rate of unemployment. Until the provision of more and more jobs becomes a priority over every other consideration, our social and economic ills will never be solved. We have, I believe, a small proportion of our people in productive employment—that is, in proportion to the numbers in our community—on whom the aged and the young depend. Until we increase that proportion, our economic ills will certainly never heal for any length of time and our social ills will not be cured at all. We have a relatively small work force with a wide disparity in the ranges of remuneration paid to that work force.

We have an unjust taxation system in so far as the emphasis is on indirect taxation and in so far as direct taxation weighs most heavily on the section of the community least able to bear it. Some of the items taxed may be considered luxury goods but the fact remains that they are goods which are essential to some members of our community. While 4d on the packet of cigarettes may be an insignificant increase to a highly paid worker, to a man on £8 or £10 a week it represents a very large slice of his income on this one commodity alone.

About three years ago we talked about a minimum living wage. Surely with this never-ending spiral of taxation, taxation which, as I say, weighs most heavily on the poorer section of the community, the time has definitely come to introduce a minimum living wage? However, I believe that all these ills to which I have referred, and many others to which in the course of the next few minutes I shall also refer, cannot be eradicated until we increase the number of people in productive employment and the number of people who will be able to contribute to the revenue of the country.

The wholesale tax has been represented as not weighing on essential goods such as food and clothing. However, it will have the effect of slowing down our economy, of slowing down housebuilding and very many other activities. The increase in postal charges will have a similar effect. The result of all this will be further stagnation and a further retraction in the number of our people in employment.

Hardships have been imposed and hardships continue to be imposed, but they are not solving anything. The basic problems remain, and this Budget, in spite of what Deputy Burke says, far from solving them, will only aggravate them. Deputy Burke stated we have spent more money on water supply and sewerage schemes and other such local authority services in the past two or three years than we have ever done before. That is a wild statement. My recollection of the last few years is that we never had a longer list of schemes waiting for sanction, waiting for money and waiting for the go-ahead from the Department of Local Government. The people's needs are not being met in regard to housing, water supplies and sewerage schemes. Arrears are being built up year after year and it would appear to me that the present policy of the Government will not solve them within the foreseeable future.

We have basic problems in regard to agriculture and in regard to land drainage. People are facing a situation where more and more acres of their arable land are becoming incapable of being cultivated and are being lost to the economy. Large sums of money are required and I cannot see this Government being able to provide the necessary finance. Therefore, I can see this problem being aggravated to the point where it will be a very major one indeed. Large tracts of arable land are being lost to us, a tremendous source of wealth which is not being explored and does not look like being explored in the foreseeable future. Similarly large sums of money are required to arrest coastal erosion which is a very serious problem, because such land could be lost to us forever.

Then there is the big problem of agriculture itself. I do not intend to go into it in detail on this motion. Suffice it to say that we should be gearing this industry to the future; otherwise we shall find ourselves facing serious problems which could well have been avoided if the appropriate measures were taken in time.

Going back to 1965 I remember we had the good news of a White Paper on health. It was not all that this Party would wish for, but it promised to go a long way towards eliminating some of the basic ills in the health services at the moment. We were told this scheme would be in operation in a very short time, in a matter of months. Years have passed. We have had various negotiations and various reasons have been put forward as to why this health scheme is not being put into operation. Of course, the simple reason is that there is no money available to implement it.

Deputy Burke also spoke about education, and, perhaps, tomorrow we shall have an opportunity of going into some of the difficulties that remain in the field of education. On this motion I shall confine myself to the remark I made in regard to the provision of jobs. Education is a worthy goal in itself, but we must bear in mind that, having educated our people, we must find jobs for them. This Government have fallen down badly over the years in this regard.

We have intermittent Budgets and intermittent efforts to collect money for various purposes one of which is to improve the social welfare services. I suppose they have been improved in some small way, but not alone as a result of direct Budget reaction but as a result of lack of price control, these improvements have been vitiated. Whatever the Government may say, if you ask any Irish housewife about price control she will tell you there is no such thing.

Because of the spiral of price increases and because of the big disparity year after year in the incomes of the various sections, our social welfare classes are no better off, relatively, than they were a few years ago. The same applies to our lower paid workers. They are the people to whom we must give particular attention in the future. They have been sadly neglected and they have been paying more than their fair share of the burden of all taxation. In spite of that, there does not seem to be any long-term solution to their problem.

I come back to the basic problem with which we should be able to get to grips—that of providing more wealth by way of putting more people into productive, taxable employment. Unfortunately, we are as far away from a solution as ever. Another basic problem is our unjust taxation system. Our taxation system has been unvaried over the years. Under it, people with £6 5s or £6 10s a week must pay income tax. All of us on these benches have agitated for the upgrading or the increasing of the personal allowance but we have been told of the big figure it would involve by way of loss of revenue. This is another basic injustice which the Government do not appear capable of ever solving.

I do not wish to detain the House longer on this subject. We have many ills in our economy, industrial and social ills. Occasionally we appear to recover from them temporarily, but always only temporarily. The rut is still there and it calls for a lot of new thinking, for a fresh approach. First of all, we have got to make employment a first priority. The Government have to see that our economy develops to the point where there will be more and more jobs and they must take positive steps to intervene to ensure there will be more jobs. Whatever the effects of such a policy will be, if we are to get out of this rut we have got to take action. It requires a fresh approach and it is clear now that this is not the Government to consider such an approach.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The year 1968 will go down in the political history of this country as the year in which the Fianna Fáil Government played party politics with the finances and the economy of this country, the year in which the Fianna Fáil Government wasted the time of this House and of the country in trying to alter the electoral system so as to consolidate themselves in power indefinitely. But it is the year in which the Irish people made their power and voices felt by refusing to be fooled and stampeded into handing over absolute power to Fianna Fáil, and how right the people were.

The Budget which we are discussing is proof positive of the dishonesty of the present Government. I want to put it to the House that in introducing this Budget the Taoiseach did so with a guilty conscience. He realised that what I have just said is correct, and in introducing this Budget he immediately went on the defensive by trying to establish and to put across the bona fides of the Government.

In his opening remarks the Taoiseach stated, as reported in column 2051 of the Official Dáil Debates for 5th November, 1968:

The Financial Motions on the Order Paper for today are clear expressions of the Government's sense of responsibility for the good management of the economy.

I think the Financial Motions on the Order Paper of this House for 5th November, 1968, portray the present Government as political adventurers who are more interested in keeping themselves in power than in the good management of the economy of this country.

It is not without significance that we had a Budget introduced earlier this year by the Minister for Finance which should have been a Budget dealing with the finances of the country for 12 months, a Budget which would raise by taxation or otherwise the finances to run the country for 12 months. But, in fact, it was no such thing. It was a Budget introduced in advance of a referendum, in advance of a national political contest to try to present the Government in as favourable a light as possible, so that they would be able to put over their electoral reform proposals to the country.

I think it is a disgrace that an Irish Government in a referendum year, in a year of a national electoral contest, should introduce a Budget in the spring and then come along in the autumn of this year, immediately after the referendum had been disposed of by the people, with this second Budget, which was hailed in advance by some newspapers as a "mini-Budget", but on the morning of 5th November was branded by Radio Éireann as the "late autumn Budget". The fact is that the Government hoped by the comparatively favourable Budget which they introduced in the spring of this year to get their electoral proposals across, and, if they had done that, I shudder to think what sort of Budget they would now have presented in the House. I think the people are entitled to ask that. It has been said that in the referendum the people won. They certainly did. These kind of tactics are not new. They have been tried out before.

The present Government are discredited. They have received a defeat at the hands of the people such as no political Party received in this country in the last 50 years. They are a Government that seem to be divided. The Cabinet, as far as we can see, are completely divided. We had the Taoiseach making a speech one day, a senior Minister making a totally different speech the next day and again that speech being contradicted by the Taoiseach on the following day and a speech from a senior Minister on the next day. But, in so far as this Government claim the confidence of the people in any shape or form, they do so on the basis that the Taoiseach is an honest man. I am afraid the Taoiseach's record in the matter of budgeting, especially in election years, does not entitle him to the description of an honest Minister for Finance or the honest Head of a Government.

In 1965 the present Taoiseach introduced his first Budget. At any rate, he introduced a Budget which I think was his first. In the following year, 1966, which was the Presidential Election year, the present Taoiseach, as Minister for Finance, introduced a Budget on the 9th March. In the very early part of his statement he posed the question "What went wrong with my Budget introduced in May last?" One would have thought that a Minister for Finance, who was forced on the 9th March, 1966, when introducing a Budget to pose the question "What went wrong with my Budget introduced in May last?" would have gone to great pains and taken great care to ensure that the Budget which he was then introducing was an honest and adequate Budget and one that would meet the requirements of the country for the ensuing 12 months.

That profound statement was made by the present Taoiseach on 9th March, 1966, and he introduced his Budget and put it through the House. As we know, there was a Presidential Election held here on 1st June, 1966. As things turned out, we know that was an election in which the Fianna Fáil Party and their candidate required any vote they could get and only won by a whistle. That contest was held on 1st June, 1966, and, on 14th June, 1966, two weeks after, we had the present Taoiseach, the then Minister for Finance, back into this House with another Budget—three months approximately after his Budget on 9th March, 1966.

That was an extraordinary performance. It was a performance which required a lot of explanation, but the Taoiseach got away with it, and the Fianna Fáil Party got away with it. That was in 1966 and, as I have told the House, in 1968, in the year of the greatest electoral contest of all time, the contest in which the Fianna Fáil party gambled its future, we have a repeat performance. We have a spring Budget before the referendum. There was a generous increase of 7s 6d for the social welfare classes, and very little taxes at a time when the Fianna Fáil Party anticipated that the referendum would be held within months. At that time it was fairly clear that we would have a referendum in June. The referendum was held but the people did not fall for the "Yes" vote and back we have the Taoiseach. Perhaps it is ironical that fate should decree that the Taoiseach's nose would be rubbed in the mud, that the man who introduced two Budgets in 1966, in the Presidential year, should be directed by fate back into this House to introduce the second Budget of 1968.

(Cavan): It is 3d tax and, as a result, there will be 4d more on 20 cigarettes. If Deputy Cunningham wants to break that down or dissociate the Taoiseach from onethird of it, I will not argue. Beer was increased by one penny per pint in the April Budget. It has been increased by 2d a pint in this Budget. It is true that wine was increased at the rate of 1/a bottle in the April Budget and it is equally true that wine has escaped the Taoiseach's axe in this Budget— for what that will mean to the ordinary man in the street. In the April Budget imported spirits other than spirits imported from Great Britain were taxed at the rate of 6d a glass but, as we know, spirits other than spirits imported from Great Britain again only concern the more wealthy classes. In this Budget all spirits, including Irish spirits, are taxed at the rate of 2d a glass.

When we deal with the taxation of spirits to the tune of 2d a glass in this Budget it is necessary to recall something the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, had to say on the 23rd April when he was introducing his prereferendum Budget. I quote the Minister for Finance at column 66 of the Dáil Debates of 23rd April, 1968. He said:

Revenue receipts from Irish-made spirits in the year just ended were lower than in the previous year and I have decided that the home products could not be asked to bear additional taxation this year.

The taxation of spirits had ceased to be profitable and he had decided that in the present year spirits could not bear any further taxation. Well, I should like to remind the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance that notwithstanding the fact that a referendum intervened between April and November we are still in the year 1968 and I would like to ask what change has come about in the spirits trade which justifies the change of attitude.

That is why it is impossible to describe this as a mini or a minor Budget and that is important for two reasons because if it was an honest Budget one could understand some miscalculation but surely one would expect that the subsequent or second Budget in a year would impose less taxation if it was an honest mistake? The people are entitled to conclude that this was not a case of miscalculation or making a mistake, that it was a deliberate attempt to fool the people, a deliberate attempt to introduce an easy Budget in April, 1968, so that the referendum would go down and now the real Budget is being introduced.

As well as the charges I have mentioned up goes wholesale tax by 5 per cent from 1st January next. That increase is as severe as the wholesale tax imposed in the first instance. Post Office charges have gone up all over the place. That is why I say, Sir, that this is not an honest Budget and that is why I say that the Fianna Fáil Party are not entitled to shelter under the umbrella of the Taoiseach's honesty because this Budget does not present him or the Government of which he is head as an honest Government or as an honest Taoiseach. He is an experienced man in finance. He served his time in Finance. Surely he vetted this Budget when it was being introduced in April last? If he was honest, if he was sincere about it, why did he not tell his Minister for Finance that he did not want any political playacting, that he did not want any electioneering tactics and that he should go back and introduce a full and adequate Budget? People are entitled to know that and the people, mind you, as has been proved in this year of 1968, are not so easily fooled. I for one am satisfied that no matter what sort of Budget is introduced by this Government if they are still in office next spring the people will not accept it. How could they accept any Budget introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party in an election year as an honest Budget in view of their experience in the election years of 1966 and 1968?

So much, Sir, for the sincerity of this Budget. So much for the motives which prompted an easy Budget in April, 1968, and this harsh Budget now. The people have already caught out the Government in the referendum and they have certainly caught out the Government now. I do not want to deal at length with Deputy Burke's speech but I seem to remember that the theme of Deputy Burke when speaking on the April Budget was: "You do not want to pay for the social welfare benefits. Do you object to the old age pensioner getting an increase? Do you object to the widows and orphans getting an increase?" A funny thing about this Budget is that although its taxes are far more severe than those of the spring Budget there is not a penny in it for the social welfare class. I shall deal with that when I come to it.

Let us just discuss for a moment the objects of a Budget. A Budget should reasonably be expected to raise the necessary revenue for 12 months; it should provide incentives for industry and agriculture and it should make a fair distribution of the national income by protecting the social welfare classes or those unable to protect themselves. Those would be my ideas about it. The Minister for Finance in introducing the April Budget gave us some of his objectives: "To improve social welfare benefits so as to offset recent and foreseeable cost of living increases and to assure the recipients of a share in the advance in community living standards." He also went on to say that there should be provision made to grant a moderate increase in public service pensions. Those two objects are certainly worthy—to improve the lot of the social welfare classes, to cushion them against the increase in the cost of living and to give them a share in increased living standards and also to grant a moderate increase in public service pensions. In so far as the Budget of April last honestly set out to achieve that it deserves credit but let us see what has happened.

The increases for the non-contributory old age pensioners and social welfare people, the non-contributory classes, only came into force in August last and the increases granted in the April Budget to the contributory section will not come into force until next January. Yet, within a couple of months of the non-contributory people reaping their small benefits and a couple of months in advance of the contributory sections receiving their benefits we have this late autumn Budget, as it is called, introduced with the effect of taking away substantially from the non-contributory social welfare classes the benefits which they received in August and of ensuring that the benefits promised to the contributory social welfare classes as from January next will mean nothing to them. Was that fair? Is that an honest deal? If this was an honest mistake in budgeting, why did the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach not give some further benefit to the social welfare classes and the State pensioners to bring them up to date and ensure that this Budget would not further reduce their standard of living?

I want to make a brief reference to the health services mentioned by Deputy Mrs. Desmond. I remember sitting in this House for a week and spending a long week at home before that trying to understand the White Paper on Health. That was early in 1966 and we were solemnly assured then that the necessary legislation to implement that White Paper would be introduced here before the end of 1966 and that the sections promised in that White Paper would be a reality before the end of 1967. We are now at the end of 1968 and not a section of an Act of Parliament has been introduced to give effect to the White Paper. That is a disgrace. The fact that the Government were too busy all this year trying to steamroll their electoral reform measures through the House and distracting the attention of the country and trying to get people to accept these measures and the fact that we are now going to have further elaborate electoral reforms before the House present no excuse for the Government in regard to the provision of fundamental health services.

The Government know perfectly well that if they introduce worthwhile health services, even on the lines of the White Paper and even if they do not go as far as some of us would wish they would be practically accepted as an agreed measure. There is some satisfaction in the fact that the delay in the case of the health services is possibly due to the fact that the Government are now going to accept in toto the Fine Gael health proposals because I understand, from either the Taoiseach or one of his Ministers recently, that they are now considering a health scheme based on insurance.

This Budget will further retard housing because it will increase the cost of houses which has already been increased several times in the last few years by turnover tax, wholesale tax, devaluation and now an increase in wholesale tax and all at a time when the standard State grant has not been increased since 1948. I speak of the standard State housing grant. The honesty of the Taoiseach and the Government is at stake here. That is the case and it is all they appear to have on which to hang their hat—the honesty not of the Members but of the head of the Government. When the Taoiseach recently and not so recently —in months past—asked that workers should be careful in demanding increases in salaries and warned that if wages were further increased the economy of the country would get out of control. I make no apology to the Taoiseach or any Member of the House for asking: did the Taoiseach appreciate that position when he as head of the Government sanctioned increases in ministerial salaries and in Deputies' and in judges' salaries?

I am entitled to ask that question when the honesty of the Taoiseach is at stake and the integrity of the Government. It is no answer for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to throw across the House at me: "If you do not want your increase, give it back." That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Cabinet, when sanctioning these increases, appreciated the necessity for the call for restraint which has since come from the Taoiseach and his Ministers. It is no answer to say that I did not then stand up in the House and refuse or oppose the increases. The Government are the experts and they are in charge of the country. They have an expert Civil Service to advise them. Either the Taoiseach did not know of the need for restraint, which he and his Ministers have been preaching, when he sanctioned these increases and he was not minding his business or, worse still, he did know and concealed it from the House and the country. I should like the Taoiseach to deal with that point when replying.

I want to conclude by saying that the Government have no mandate whatever to impose these taxes in this Budget. It is a responsible function of a Government to introduce one Budget in the year but in my opinion a Government needs considerable authority before introducing a second Budget. It is an unusual step, something that is rare, although, admittedly, less rare than formerly. Therefore, I say that a Government should be backed not only by the confidence of the House but of the country in introducing a second Budget in the same year.

There is no doubt that the Government have lost the confidence of the people. They went to the country on 16th October and asked the people to accept their electoral reform proposals, having campaigned up and down the country at enormous expense for months before that. There is no doubt that Fianna Fáil put the Referendum to the country as a political issue.

I say, therefore, that this Government have not got the confidence of the country and it is very doubtful if the Taoiseach, who introduced this Budget and who is acting Minister for Finance, has the confidence of his own Cabinet. It is impossible to find out who is the Leader of the Government, who we are to accept as the man in authority. I am glad the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is here because I would prefer to say anything I have to say in his presence rather than behind his back. One day we have the Taoiseach making a nice, polite hands-across-the-border, friendly speech to Captain O'Neill and the following day or a couple of days later we have the Minister for Agriculture——

Mr. Andrews

On a point of order, I should like to ask what this has to do with the Financial Resolution?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Because the Government are breaking up.

Mr. Andrews

I should like to have the Chair's ruling.

But who the Leader of the Government is, is a subject for debate.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We have it on the authority of one member of the Government, to wit the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, that certain members of the Government are not pulling their weight. We had the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stating the other day that he is doing his best to serve under the Taoiseach and that he is doing a lot better than most. I want to pose the question if in “most” he includes the Minister for Finance, because the Minister for Finance is responsible for this Budget? If the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries means to convey to the House that the Minister for Finance, who cannot budget for more than six months ahead, is incompetent, is not pulling his weight and not doing his stuff, I for one agree with him. We have it from within the Cabinet. Sometimes we have to look for external evidence and sometimes look for evidence to corroborate statements we make. I have been trying to establish that this Government is both incompetent and dishonest. I can prove out of the mouth of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that it certainly is incompetent because he has stated that he put the Taoiseach where he is, that he played a big part in putting in the Taoiseach. We know is was a big job and we give him credit for the part he played, but he went on to say that he has done his best to serve under the Taoiseach and we know what the best from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries amounts to; we know the Minister's best has ended up in chaos, absolute chaos in the agricultural industry. Yet this is the man who says that he has done his best to serve well under the Taoiseach and that he has done much better than most. I cannot conclude my contribution on a stronger note, and with some humility may I say on a more eloquent note, than quoting the words of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

Whatever about the eloquence of the Deputy's finishing remarks there was certainly very little eloquence about what he was saying in the few minutes that I have been present in the House. He has been far removed from the matter before the House and he has taken time off to have a swipe at matters which are of little concern to him, if any, and which of course were untrue in most respects. The present Leader of the Government——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The present Leader?

Mr. Blaney

——is the elected Leader of our Government. He is there by agreement of our Party and there is nobody in our Party who does not agree with that leadership. That leadership is going to continue, not only of the Party but of the Government. This contrasts very much with Deputy O'Higgins, who is in the driver's seat over there today and who has been doing his best, with others helping him, to unseat Deputy Cosgrave in recent years. As I have said, Deputy Cosgrave is really to be pitied rather than laughed at in the position he has found himself, particularly in relation to this matter of the referendum where, as the view of the Fine Gael Party, taken for their own political motives——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What do you call the bird that makes a noise away from its nest in order to distract attention?

Mr. Blaney

There is another bird known as the "whang" bird and it would describe the Deputy well. In so far as their line on the referendum was concerned, it is true, as we said before the campaign began, that the only real reason there was a narrow majority of the Fine Gael Party against the proposals and against their own Leader's view was——

It is very much on the Financial Resolution.

I know that.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy should not try to water it down and say that everybody knew there would be more wheat and more milk. What everybody knows is one thing but what the Deputy knows in an exact way is quite another thing. He should not depart from the claim that he has already made—that he knew last April that which nobody else on this side of the House and nobody on the other side of the House knew. Not even Deputy Donegan who was sitting beside Deputy O'Higgins on the day he made that contribution knew and he is a man who has been in the grain business for a long time. He buys, sells, stores and dries grain. He also makes calls on the farmers in his area in connection with the sale of fertilisers. Even he did not know this.

I suppose Deputy O'Higgins is not only adept at forecasting and, indeed with certainty, telling us what the produce of the cows would be but he also took the Minister for Finance and the Government to task for not providing in the Budget of last April the amount of money that would be required this year to meet the wage claims and the salary adjustments that had not even then been commenced to be decided or negotiated. He claims to have known how much we would need over and above to meet salary and wage claims and adjustments that had not even then been served, let alone decided, and, indeed, some of which are not even yet finally determined. He knew then but he did not tell us. This was very naughty of Deputy O'Higgins. It was not fair at all. He was not playing the game of the good citizen that he really is. Perhaps, he forgot. He might be excused for forgetting to give us the information. Of course, he does not like the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I am quite happy about that; in fact, I should be very worried if it were otherwise. Had he given us this information last April we might have known a little more about what we were going to produce, but this might not have been a good thing. But, apparently, it might have shown that I had more knowledge about farming than I have, that I had an insight into it that is superhuman. This would not do. This might put Blaney up a step. Also, if he was told about the wheat, this might in some way be used to Blaney's advantage and that would be bad.

But, when it comes to the provision of money for the public service of this country, the civil servants, the members of State boards and all others who draw sustenance from the State Exchequer one way or another, the Deputy surely had not this excuse to make for not imparting this knowledge. Why did he not tell us then that £9 million more than we were providing for would be needed before the year was out?

I do not think he can be forgiven for this unless he has an explanation that none of us can really think about. I do not think there is any excuse for not imparting this very important knowledge, for not correcting the Government and the Minister for Finance at that time and keeping them on the right financial track: I do not think there is any excuse for not making them put up the taxes higher last April than the Government and the Minister for Finance announced in that Budget. The Deputy should have told us.

If we required to put another 2d, 3d or 4d on the fags last April, Deputy O'Higgins should have said so. If we required liquor to go up, he should have told us. Now, what I do not like at all, he comes along and says we are to blame, that we should have known, that he knew. I think this is wrong. I think it is unfair of Deputy O'Higgins to gibe at this Government for not making provision for these unknown things to ordinary mortals like ourselves over here. He said he could see in the crystal ball what we did not know about, namely, that £9 million more would be needed. It was terribly unfair of him not to say all that last April.

It is now being said that we did know, whereas, in fact, we did not know and could not know because we have not this inbuilt computer that Deputy O'Higgins has recently developed. However, an extra £9 million clear is needed between now and the end of next March; an extra £4 million is needed in order to pay for the additional great yields from our farmers and an extra £1½ million is needed for the wheat from a phenomenally good crop that has the highest millable percentage of all time; a yield that is a record for this country; a yield beyond that which we were seeking or even hoping to get. All that amounts to £14½ million. There are three items that Deputy O'Higgins could have told us about. Now he blames us for not including them at that time.

We publicly confess we could not have known at that time that these things would happen and that they would cost that additional money but Deputy O'Higgins knew it and he knew it at that time. He now says that we were really trying to cod the people. It was not that he was afraid to say it to us lest he might hurt our feelings when we were doing an honest job according to our lights and that he did not want to disturb us. No. He says we also knew and concealed this from the April Budget in order to present a false Budget in the hope that this would in some way affect the referendum which some of his colleagues said was expected last June. Deputy O'Higgins is not being honest: that is to say the very least about it. He is being far from honest when he makes these assertions and these charges. Unless he can — by a display of this inbuilt computer that he has now got, this new mystical insight and foresight that he is now saying he has got — show us clear evidence that he has this quality that we never suspected before, then we can only say that it is not we who have been dishonest but Deputy O'Higgins who has been blatantly dishonest in all of his harangue about this supplementary Budget.

Deputy O'Higgins can and will have his opportunity. As I say, I shall await him with open arms to disprove my belief that his assertions on this Budget are the dishonest participation in this debate and not the action of the Minister for Finance last April. By coming along and offering his services; by projecting next year's wheat acreage, the yield, millable quantity percentage and the price the people will get; by telling me, in Agriculture, how many cows will give how many gallons and the profit; how the grass will grow; what day will be fine and what day will be wet; whether it will be a good or a bad grass season; whether it will be a good or a bad hay season: all of these things the Deputy can tell me if he has been honest with this House. If he cannot, or if he will not, tell me those things then he is not standing by the farmers of this country whom he claims to know so well and for whom he alleges he has such great regard because this is a service to them, not to me. This knowledge is vital to them. I have not got it. I am human and mortal. I am without this inbuilt knowledge or insight or crystal ball that the Deputy seems to have. He can give the information if he has it. If he does not, he is losing faith and face with the people of this country.

If Deputy O'Higgins chooses to give the information then it will authenticate the claims that this Budget of last April was conceived in dishonesty and presented with an ulterior motive last April by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey. If, on the other hand, he cannot produce the evidence and show his good faith by putting that knowledge at my disposal and at the disposal of the farmers of this country then Deputy O'Higgins stands condemned as the man who has been dishonest in his contribution and in his assertions on these Financial Resolutions and on this Budget when it was introduced a week ago. That is fair.

Deputy O'Higgins has his course open to him. I am sure, before the week is out, we shall hear from the Deputy. If, by next week, we have not heard from Deputy O'Higgins then we can only take it — as, indeed, I unfortunately suspect — that the Deputy, in fact, will be shown to be a man who has been misleading; a man who has been making assertions that are not honest; a man who has been blackguarding the Minister, who is now absent, unfortunately, through illness, and all that went with him in the preparation of that Budget, honestly done and undertaken and presented to this House at that time.

Let us go on from there and see how we have fared during this past year and what the likelihood and chances are of faring well in the future. When we are considering what our prospects are in the future, we must have regard to how the engine worked in the past — in the recent past and farther back. Indeed, if there is this talk — as the Deputies over there like to talk amongst themselves, particularly in and around this House and more so here than anywhere else — that there should be a change, then we must also, in fairness to ourselves and to the people outside, have a look at what the alternative to the Fianna Fáil Government would be. Thereby, we get very enlightening figures.

The last opportunity we have to compare this Party and this Government would be with the Coalition Government of 1954-1957. These indicators can, I think, be taken in any economy as fair indicators and a fair barometer on how fares the Government and what is the welfare of the country at any given time. How fares the country? Growth rate is important to our wellbeing. Under that alternative government, the Coalition Government, the only alternative then and the only alternative now, we find that Government saw, during 1954-57, the results of its great efforts and its great promise in a growth rate of a miserable ½ per cent. That was the Coalition's growth rate during those three years 1954 to 1957 — one half per cent. I cannot but be somewhat annoyed with that retarding of our progress, with that miserable ½ per cent that the Coalition recorded after all their efforts from 1954 to 1957. One miserable ½ per cent per year — that was the record of all their sweat.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Would the Minister mind if I left now?

Mr. Blaney

I am sorry in one way——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I shall come back if the Minister refers to me again.

Mr. Blaney

——but the Deputy may depart. This ½ per cent average growth rate in the three years of the Coalition Government is to be compared with an average growth rate of 3¾ per cent during the ten years of Fianna Fáil Government from 1957 to 1967. Maybe Deputy O'Higgins has another sort of computer that will show that a ½ per cent is greater than 3¾ per cent; that may satisfy Fine Gael but it will not satisfy anybody else.

Exports are a very important element in the economy of any country but particularly of our country which depends so much on its exports. During the years 1954 to 1956 exports went down by £2 million per year. That was the record of the Coalition Government during those three years, and that Government is the only alternative to Fianna Fáil. From 1957 to 1967 the increase in our exports was an average of £16 million per year. Therefore, exports go up under Fianna Fáil up to last year, the latest available figures, as against an average downward trend of £2 million per year in the three years of the last Coalition Government.

Some people say: "Why accumulate external assets? Let us blow them." Maybe they are right, but at the same time we must remember that these assets do not belong to one, two or three of us; they are the assets of the nation. It has been held by all the economists we have ever heard speak — that is, bar the scatty ones; there are always a few of those in every profession—that it is necessary for a trading country to have a reasonable amount of money available to them quickly in external assets. When the last Coalition Government came in in 1954 our external assets stood at roughly £241 million. Of course, it will be said the value of money fell since then. Fair enough; it fell somewhat, but if it fell during those following three years, in order to have an equivalent value in our external assets it is obvious that, under a wise Government, that £241 million would have increased, to take account of the decline in money value. But what happened? Instead of the assets increasing to take account of devaluation, they went down. Just the same as the exports went down the external assets went down. This is something that I hope the people here, over there and outside will take note of, that our external assets were allowed to go down from £241 million in 1954 to £183 million at the end of 1956, whereas our assets now stand, not at £183 million as we found them in 1957 when we came back into office, but at approximately £295 million.

This is noteworthy, because when we came back in 1957 things were in a bad way. Nobody knows that better than the people over there. There were all sorts of bills lying about that had to be paid and there was no money to pay them. As a new Government we had to find ways and means of paying the debts of the Coalition Government. We had to find a few million pounds to make up the deficit in the Budget that was left as a legacy to us by the very people who are blasting us now about dishonesty in Budgets. I have not the actual figures here; I will get them before I finish, but relative to the total Budget of that time, the error in the Budget of 1956-57 was far greater than the alleged error made by Fianna Fáil in relation to the present Budget. And there are reasons this year in regard to milk, wheat and wages and salaries that did not arise in 1956-57.

Therefore, if Deputy O'Higgins wants to go home with arguments, let us give him the arguments. Let him make his charges. Let him compare his own performance as a partner in the Coalition of that time, using the same yardstick but without any of the causes of the increases which have arisen this year. Let him compare the Coalition Government's performance with ours. On that basis, if the Budget of last April was dishonest, the dishonesty of the 1956-57 Budget beggars description. I will get the actual figures but, broadly speaking, there is no doubt the error displayed in the deficit in the Budget we inherited in 1957 was, relatively and percentagewise, far greater than the error alleged by Deputy O'Higgins to have been made in the Budget of last April.

All the economists tell us is that savings as a percentage of gross national product are a fair indicator at any given time as to the state of the nation. So we have the records showing that savings during 1956, expressed as a percentage of GNP, stood at 7 per cent. In 1967, under Fianna Fáil Government as distinct from Coalition Government, that 7 had been converted to 12 per cent—a healthy 12 per cent savings expressed as a percentage of GNP. Again, on comparisons, they are beaten by many points. Another thing which is worthy of note is the matter of capital inflow and outflow to a country, denoting in its various ways the healthy state or otherwise of an economy.

What do we find about 1954-57, a period when we should have expected that all the friends the Coalition allegedly had, who had gone away during the period of Fianna Fáil Government and who would come back to reap the benefits of Coalition Government? Not only were the people still going out of the country in numbers approaching something we have never seen before but, in fact, the capital outflow was running at an average of £1 million annually.

So, instead of attracting money in to develop our country during those three years, in addition to all their other failures there was a net outflow of capital of £1 million annually during those three years. When we look at that and stop to think, we begin to realise just what sort of a Government would be in prospect if we had to have an alternative to Fianna Fáil tomorrow, next month or next year. There is nothing in prospect but a return to Coalition and Coalition Governments have a record on all the worthwhile points I have indicated. They have a record there on the economic barometer which shows them up in a very poor light as to performance for the benefit of the economy.

That is the serious thing about all the squawking and the talking about how much Fine Gael want an election and about how they will come back as a Fine Gael Government. Maybe they can cod themselves that far, but the Lord save us, let them not for a moment think they will cod the people of the country sufficiently to allow that to happen. It will not. The gentlemen have not a chance so let them not waste their time thinking they have. There is the danger that at the same time as they make these big claims they will annoy the people who provide the only possibility of getting them into a Government—the aid and assistance of the Labour Party. If a situation should arise when Fianna Fáil could not get an overall majority—I do not for one moment believe it could—Fine Gael's chances of participating in a Government lie with the boys over there. They know as well as I that they have not a hope of making it on their own. That is one bet that Deputy Coughlan would not chalk the board on.

Mr. Coughlan

I take a lot of chances from time to time.

Mr. Blaney

We all do but that is beyond even the Deputy's capacity. I left out a figure which I should have given in fairness to the Coalition. I mentioned capital inflow and outflow and said there was a net outflow of £1 million for each of the three years of Coalition Government. I should have given that figure of £1 million a year as compared with the ten-year average inflow during the ten years of Fianna Fáil Government since 1957. In those years, up to 1967, the average capital inflow was £20 million per year. That is the end of the tables for the moment. They provide a good all-round barometer—they all point the finger in the same way—that Coalition performance cannot match the performance of Fianna Fáil Government. On each of the six heads of the economic barometer to which I have referred, which are taken as a guide, an indicator, in every economy in the world, the Coalition Government come out very badly, on the wrong side of each.

As I was saying to Deputy Coughlan in a particular way, and indeed to the other Deputies in the two Opposition Parties, even though you make these pronouncements in the best of good faith from now until the eve of the next general election that there will be no more coalition, if by any chance you should get enough to beat Fianna Fáil for the Government I say — and not in any sense by way of reflection — that you will coalesce. This is what you will do and there is no point in trying to make people believe you will do otherwise. You will go together if you get an opportunity, no matter a damn what you said before. This would be a misfortune. It would give us a coalition with the sort of results I have pointed out here tonight.

There have been a number of other statements about the Government and their lack of ability to do this, that or the other, and that Fine Gael could do better. We have heard the sneering of Deputy O'Higgins about our lack of knowledge in finance in preparing last year's Budget. That I have dealt with to some degree already. We also had Deputy O'Higgins telling us that we have done no planning during our period of office or that no planning was evident during the past year and the present year. I wonder what Deputy O'Higgins had in mind? Why does he say we have not been planning for the future? Why does he say that since the evidence is there, even though the plans may not have worked out according to plan. He cannot accuse this Government or the Fianna Fáil Governments for the last nine to ten years of not having a plan; they even published their plans. We have been publishing plans since away back in the 1950s and Deputy O'Higgins says there is no planning under Fianna Fáil. Maybe Deputy O'Higgins, bright in some spots, will forecast milk production and the wages a man may get after bargaining a year or maybe he has a blind spot and has not seen any of the programmes for economic expansion that have been produced and discussed in this House — and even criticised by Deputies as to whether they were correct or not. Deputy O'Higgins cannot be serious unless it is that corresponding to the bright spot he has displayed, there is a complete blank on the other side and there are certain things he does not see at all.

There has been a little play on "who is your leader?" I am asking Fine Gael — who is your leader? It is not evident. One cannot have them saying things about us which are not true and not have them saying these things about themselves. Do you all agree with your Leader? How long will you keep him? Have you real belief in him?

Mr. L'Estrange

I will take you on any time. I did my share.

You came up to join Fine Gael and you would not be accepted.

All the Chair can do is point out to the Minister that this is irrelevant to the debate.

Mr. Blaney

Will Fianna Fáil coalesce?

Mr. Blaney

Not on your life. Not on your nanny.

Mr. Carty

Did he not do so in the last Budget and in every Budget since 1957? The old age pension was 22s 6d in 1957. What is it now?

Mr. Coughlan

This is going back into the past.

Mr. Carty

Deputy Coughlan does not want to go back?

Mr. Coughlan

On 16th October of this year, 300,000 people told Fianna Fáil to waken up and to take some "pep" tablets — be they illegal or whatever way you procure them; let it be LSD or purple hearts, or whatever it may be — to try to put a bit of life into the Fianna Fáil Party. Three hundred thousand people told Fianna Fáil in no uncertain manner that they do not want Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Carty

They did not say so. That was not the issue.

The Taoiseach, when he was Minister for Finance, introduced a second Budget in that year, and he then wanted to know what had gone wrong as he could not believe it was necessary to introduce a second Budget. He did not ask us this year what went wrong with the Budget. We all know what went wrong, because it was a Budget purely and simply designed to condition the people for events which lay ahead. On 25th April the Taoiseach said the Budget was a good one. He described it as a Budget which suited the needs of the present and also suited the hopes for the future.

I wonder, when he was talking of the hopes for the future, were those hopes the hopes of a success in the referendum. He had hoped at that time that his Budget would condition the people to accept the Government's proposals which we all knew were doomed to fail, proposals which assumed the character of being political but which were non-political when it suited the Fianna Fáil Party. We were told they were not political, that this was a national issue and had nothing to do with politics. Yet, at every council meeting throughout the country when it was introduced Fianna Fáil opposed it as being a political matter. However, the people of this country gave their answer in no uncertain terms to the Government in that referendum. Never before have a Government been so defeated, practically annihilated. The Government, because they neglected for nine months of the year to look after the finances of the country, because they were so occupied with this useless and wasteful referendum, could not see how the finances of the country were going. They did not know until now that they were so deeply indebted and once again we have them coming in here taxing the usual items — the pint, the cigarettes and whiskey. Those are things which have been taxed out of existence. Those are the things which Fianna Fáil regard as a luxury. We on this side of the House believe that the pint and the cigarettes are no longer a luxury. They are practically a necessity for the ordinary worker.

In his Budget statement we were told by the Taoiseach that there is £4 million necessary for milk subsidy. I do not profess to know a lot about agriculture but I can tell you that it is no consolation to the people I represent in an urban area to know that there is £4 million being given to subsidise milk prices. I wonder has this surplus milk come as a result of the £15 heifer scheme? If it has, this heifer scheme has proved to be a costly failure.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries spoke here this evening and told us about the tremendous success he had achieved in agriculture. Again, I do not profess to be an expert on it, but he told us the farmers were never so well off. Indeed, lately inside and outside this House he has been telling us how well off the farmers are. He shouted through a barrage of interruptions last week, he nearly broke his vocal cords, trying to tell us that the farmers of this country were prosperous in spite of Fine Gael and that they will continue to be prosperous whether Fine Gael like it or not. I am glad that he was able to tell us the farmers are prosperous.

He also told us about the increase in exports. He could have saved his voice and his shouting and could have more usefully told this to the members of his Cabinet. Remember, Fine Gael always believed in farming exports. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us recently that 70 per cent of our exports are to Great Britain, even still, and the great bulk of our exports to Britain are agricultural produce. The Minister, instead of trying to shout across and tell Fine Gael that these exports would increase in spite of them, could have turned to his colleagues on the Front Bench; he could have turned to the Tánaiste and told him how lucky it was that the people of Ireland did not take the Tánaiste's advice when he wished to have all the ships sunk to the bottom of the sea; I do not think he was considering that exports to Britain should be transported by air. He had other reasons. He could go to another strong supporter, a former member of Fianna Fáil, and tell him that he was thankful that his words were not true when he said that the British market was gone and gone forever, thank God. At that time Fine Gael advocated that it was in the best interests of the country to trade with Britain. Fine Gael have always advocated trade with Britain and we are glad to hear that our trade with Britain is doing so well, even under a Fianna Fáil Government.

The Fianna Fáil Government have talked about encouraging personal savings. How can they expect people to save when there have been no less than 300 increases in prices and services since the 1st January, 1968. How can they expect the wage earner, the ordinary worker, to save under circumstances like this?

I wonder why the Taoiseach did not ask this time what happened in the Budget of the Minister for Finance. It reminds me of a slogan that has appeared on notices all over the city. I do not know where it emanated from. The slogan is "What really happened to my son Henry". I see it has been followed up now by a new slogan—"Watch out for the Fiddler". I do not know whether this has any reference to the Fianna Fáil Party.

We know that recently the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has thought fit to go to places outside this House and preach about Partition and wave the flags and beat the drums and even contradict the Taoiseach on his own statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of Partition does not arise on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Blaney got away with certain things.

Mr. Dillon

The question of Cabinet responsibility surely arises?

Mr. L. Belton

I do not think there is a question of Cabinet responsibility any longer. The Taoiseach should become firm and make firm decisions before it is too late. He should make changes and exercise his power within the Cabinet because, if the situation continues, changing Ministers from one post to another will not be sufficient. What they want is a complete change of Government. The Government must know that the present situation can last only for a short time. All the signs are against them, and the results of the referendum show in no uncertain manner that the people are tired of Fianna Fáil Government. This trend has been evident for some time. It was evident in the local elections; it was evident in the last Presidential Election. Certainly the Taoiseach, although he claimed it was a record to have won six by-elections, knows that they were all by-elections with reduced majorities.

The Taoiseach knows that in his own constituency the Government had an overall majority before ever he was Taoiseach. Before even he was Taoiseach they won a by-election on the first count. He knows that in the last general election Fianna Fáil had an overall majority in his own constituency and yet in a by-election held there since he became Taoiseach not alone did Fianna Fáil not hold their votes but they dropped 3,000. Surely he cannot say that this is an indication of a mandate from the people to carry on? Surely he must see that even if they won by-elections on reduced majorities they no longer have the confidence of the people? In all sincerity would he not think it is time that he came out and gave the people a chance to show him what they want? He is reluctant to move the writ for the Wexford by-election. If he would only come out and hold that the people would surely give an indication of what their feelings are. The sooner the Fianna Fáil Government decide to hold a general election and let a fit and proper Fine Gael government take over the better for everyone.

Mr. Dowling

I am amazed by the attitude of the two Opposition Parties to this Budget and the Financial Resolutions which were presented to the House. They were opposed by both Parties. It is regrettable to think that the Labour Party would vote against the necessary Financial Resolutions when money was needed to pay the workers of the State concerns, deplorable to think that workers were granted increases and when the Financial Resolutions were presented to this House the Labour Party had the audacity to stand up and oppose them. This is an indication that they were not prepared to meet the bill to pay the workers.

Mr. Corish

Are the workers going to get £20 million per annum out of this?

Mr. Dowling

That is only one portion of it. The Fine Gael Party on the other hand were concerned about milk prices and other reliefs for the farming community. This was also a factor in the Financial Resolutions which were put to the House and opposed by both Parties. I can only take it that the Party opposite was opposed to the increases for the farming community for which the money was necessary.

I speak as a worker, as one who has worked, on behalf of the workers and as a member of the workers' party. I say that the workers can now look forward with confidence and without the haunting fear of poverty destroying their peace of mind. We can do that because the Fianna Fáil Party over the years have taken the necessary steps at all times to correct situations, to keep Irish workers in employment and to meet their commitments to Irish workers. It is regrettable that when the necessary Financial Resolution was put to the House people who talk labour voted against it and tried to discolour the picture. The bare facts are that the money was required to pay the State servants who are just as entitled to salary increases as other sections of the community. The money was required for reliefs for the farming community and we faced it with the courage and understanding it deserved. Our policy throughout the years has been one of support for the worker and reliefs for every section of the community that needed them where reliefs could be granted in the circumstances.

What is the Fianna Fáil policy? It is to achieve the maximum development in both agriculture and industry. It is to ensure that the benefits of this development are shared equally by all and not by the few only and to give special care to those who are unable to support themselves. This has been the policy of Fianna Fáil over the years. It has been the policy for which we have stood and for which we were prepared to come to this House time after time and look for reliefs.

It has been said by Labour speakers in this debate that there is little difference now between the policy of our Party and that of Fine Gael. Fine Gael speakers have said that there is little difference between our policy and that of the Labour Party. This may be so. There may be a little difference in certain respects because we have convinced those Parties over the years that it is necessary to have industrial development, necessary to have social services, necessary to meet our commitments in relation to the weaker sections of the community. We are not a Party that talks left and acts right. We talk left and we act left in relation to industrial development and in relation to the social services that are required to meet the needs of the needy sections of the community.

Mr. Corish

That is a bit out of date now, is it not?

Mr. Dowling

Members of the Fine Gael Party have spoken at length about their Party's policy, the Just Society. It is interesting to hear Fine Gael speak of a policy because the political dustbins are full to the brim with discarded and rejected Fine Gael policies including the Just Society. There is little need for me to speak about a Labour Party policy because they have no policy. They are supposed to be compiling a policy. The sham socialists of the Labour Party are now compiling a policy which they are going to present to the people in the future. Their policies, too, have been rejected and are filling the political dustbins.

Mr. Corish

We do not know whether he wants answers to his questions.

Mr. Dowling

We find that the Fine Gael policy was to attack industries which had been set up and we will take just a few of them. We find that in the 1965 election address of Deputy Fitzpatrick and Mr. O'Reilly of the Fine Gael Party, they referred to the establishment of the Verolme Dockyard as financial extravagance and a waste of money. This dockyard has provided substantial employment and now has a very wide range of skilled personnel. As a result of its being established we have trained a substantial number of skilled personnel who are members of trade unions and who have made their contribution to the trade union movement. This industry was frowned upon by the Fine Gael Party as financial extravagance and a waste of money. They also condemned the building of luxury hotels. We were not supposed to build any more hotels or attract visitors who had money to spend. We were supposed to remain in whitewashed houses and ask people to come and stay in them. Fortunately, we have long since passed that stage and it was regrettable that this attitude should have been adopted. They also advocated that we must not have any more fine roadways, continental speedways as they termed them. Is that their policy, that we are to remain a backward nation for all time, that we are not to have good roadways or good hotels? Surely we are entitled to them?

I represent that area and I am aware of the barricades that went up in a vast number of houses and the tears that were shed for not alone one member of a family but the whole family, father, mother and children, who had to emigrate because of the situation which existed when the Coalition were in power. Anyone can create vacancies by forcing people out of their homes and then say that there are houses available. Deputy Dillon talks about the number of houses available and he takes pride in it but they were only available because people had to leave their homes, just as they had to leave the country before in coffin ships and in other ways. There would be plenty of homes available if we drove the people out of the country. It is not our intention to drive people out. We want to ensure that they have employment in industrial estates like Shannon, Ballyfermot, Walkinstown, Coolock, Waterford, Galway and elsewhere. We will not be impeded in our industrial development by crackpots who would try to ruin such development.

The ambition of the inter-Party Government in 1948, when they first came into office, was to drive people out of Aerlínte, sell the aircraft, and deny them the right to work in their own country. The disposal of these aircraft was put into the hands of a very competent auctioneer, Daniel Morrissey; he was a Minister in the inter-Party Government at the time. There is no doubt about it; if they got into power tomorrow they might give the same opportunity to Deputy Oliver Flanagan, who is a very competent auctioneer, and I am quite sure he would be just as capable of disposing of anything put into his hands for sale. He would probably sell this place, if he had his way.

The last general election gave the people an opportunity and they rose to that opportunity in no uncertain fashion. They returned this Government. They were satisfied that this Government, and this Government alone, were the only people who would help the nation to make progress, limited as it might be. As a worker and trade unionist, I hope there will be more progress still. We are prepared to meet our commitments. We are prepared to impose taxation. We are prepared to measure up to our responsibilities in the future as we have done in the past, irrespective of whether or not the steps we take are popular or unpopular. We are not concerned about trying to rule the people. We do what we think is right and we do it when we think the time is right.

We have been criticised here a good deal, particularly in relation to this Budget. But this Budget is designed to increase the income for the farmer and for a very responsible section of the community employed in the Government service. It may be that the Labour Party do not want the workers to get these increases, even though they deserve them. It may be that the Fine Gael Party do not want the workers to get these increases. It may well be that they want discontent among workers. We want to ensure good conditions for the workers. We have passed legislation here designed to achieve that object. We will pass more in the future. We will build more factories, whether the Opposition like it or not. If Providence decrees that the Opposition get into Government and if they try to sabotage the nation, as they sabotaged it before, we will again rectify the position, as we did on the last occasion. Unfortunately, so many had lost their jobs and departed to foreign fields in search of employment it was not possible to rectify the situation in its entirety.

The chassis shop in Inchicore, which would have been a valuable source of employment in the heavy engineering industry, was ruthlessly closed down by the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party. Both Parties had no regard for Irish workers. They stabbed them in the back. They sold the means by which they could be employed. They sold the machinery, some of it still in the packing cases. Some was sold as scrap. That is the picture, and the only picture, one can present to the people of government by the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party when they get together.

Facts speak for themselves. They had no regard for the workers. They cannot point to any legislation passed by them on behalf of the workers. They said the workers should get this, that and the other. When they got in, what did they do? What did they give the worker? They gave the majority a one-way ticket to Australia, Birmingham, London, and elsewhere. Those are the places to which our building workers had to emigrate in search of a livelihood. That was the coalition's contribution to the Irish worker. There have been reckless and untruthful statements made here. Some were made by Deputy Dillon in relation to Verolme. Verolme is now giving employment to 750 workers.

When talking about tourism, Deputy Dillon spoke about observing with amazement and astonishment a collection of strange people swarming into the hotels of Dublin and elsewhere——

Mr. Dillon

Maximoe, Eindigger and Dunnico.

Mr. Dowling

His words were a reflection on the staff of the House here.

Mr. Dillon

No, it was all about Taca.

Mr. Dowling

He said people can get in and out of this House undetected. I believe the security of this House is as good as it could be. I think it is deplorable that a Front Bench Member should try to derogate the very worthy section of the State servants in control here. It is a reflection on the workers of this House. If, as has been alleged, people go in and out freely from the House, something will have to be done about it but I do not believe that this is so.

I will convince Deputy Flanagan and his colleagues that a considerable amount of progress has been made in this respect and sufficient money has been made available to deal with the housing problem. I am sure Deputies are aware that when we came back into office the building trade was at a complete standstill and the workers were employed in Birmingham. Coventry, Glasgow and elsewhere. This was the situation which prevailed when we came back to power but in a short space of time we had that rectified.

I read in a report in the paper of a demonstration which is being planned by members of the Labour Party in Dublin Corporation in relation to widespread agitation by Labour supporters for the immediate improvement of the housing situation in Dublin. This was revealed in a statement to the press by a man who is vice-president of the Labour Party. The report appears in the Irish Press of Wednesday, November 13th. It comes from a man who knows nothing at all about housing but, nevertheless, he thought it worth his while to protest. This man is vice-chairman of the housing committee. He has no confidence in himself, in the committee or in the Corporation. At the moment Dublin Corporation have 2,430 houses under construction.

Mr. G. Collins

Mr. Corish

I am sure you will.

Mr. G. Collins

Have you your little book?

Mr. Foley

You are between two henchmen there. Do not talk about knifing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If, at this stage, Deputies will not cease interrupting——

Mr. Corish

You boys have given up the green shirts anyhow.

Mr. Foley

Red tie and red shirt.

Mr. Dowling

If I might continue, without interruption——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Mr. Molloy

Is the Deputy speaking about Deputy Harte?

Mr. Dillon

I am speaking about Deputy Dowling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Repetition is not in order.

Mr. Dowling

This is a disgraceful display by Deputy Dillon, to indicate that the Taoiseach sent me in here to waste the time of the House. It is a deliberate falsehood and is in keeping with many of the falsehoods that have been uttered during this debate by members of the Fine Gael Party. I am not a party to any delaying tactics. I do not tell untruths. Anything I say is factual. The suggestion by Deputy Dillon that I was sent in here deliberately to use up the time of the House is completely false and erroneous. What I have said about various aspects of Government policy, the housing of our people, employment and so on, is a bitter pill for the Opposition to swallow. I know that early on in my statement I did direct some of my remarks to the statements which have been made by Deputy Dillon on many occasions in the past and which have now become a joke. I can well understand that he would become frustrated at this stage and try to create the erroneous impression that I was sent in here by the Taoiseach. I came in here of my own accord to deal with the problems before this House. We had the courage to back up our policies by going into the Division Lobbies in order to ensure that the necessary finances were available to meet the workers' claim for increases, the claims of the farmers and of the other sections of the community.

I will not be intimidated by Deputy Dillon or anyone else in the Opposition. Moneys are being made available in order that the workers in the employment of the State will get their fair reward for work done, and they should not be intimidated as they were intimidated by members of the Fine Gael Party, and particularly by the foul utterances of Deputy Lindsay in relation to a very responsible group of people here in this House, the ushers, and the various people in control of the services in the House. As a Deputy I will not see these people trampled on by Deputy Lindsay, Deputy Dillon or any other Deputy. We will protect the right of the ordinary employees in the Government service. We will see that they get the increases they fully deserve, and even if it means the imposition of taxation we will go into the Division Lobbies and vote for it, whatever the reaction may be. We will not be put off by Deputy Dillon or by the other Deputies who have spoken here from the Fine Gael benches or by the tactics used to try to silence me.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 13 Nov 1968

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 4: Wholesale Tax (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Acting Chairman

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1968