Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 10: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(Minister for Defence).

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

I was dealing with the most serious aspect of the budget when I reported progress, namely, the fact that it was clear to everybody that, when we had 32 per cent inflation, over three years, a cumulative 9 per cent, the people on fixed incomes, the people with small incomes and social welfare recipients were the people to be thought about first and, if there was a main theme running through this budget, that would have to be the theme. We must naturally cut our cloth according to our measure, no matter how good or bad the year happens to be. That must impinge upon other aspects of the budget and this, I think, is something that people accept; they realised there was a great need to give a decent increase immediately to these unfortunate people.

I was then instancing the situation in which Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, came in here this morning and, in my hearing, said that, if they had been re-elected, the plan they had produced would have produced an increase in social welfare benefits, and such like, on 1st April. Now his Government never gave increases until 1st August; indeed the bulk of the increases did not commence until 1st October. This time-lag allowed inflation to continue which resulted in robbing these unfortunate people of their increases. Fianna Fáil also, of course, paid much less because the increases were deferred and the receipients were paid for only half a year in the first year. Their aim was to have the name of giving the increases without, in fact, giving them.

I want to emphasise now that this Government were limited in time in their application of social welfare increases to children's allowances, and so on, owing to the administrative problems and, had it been possible to give the increases from the date of the budget, the decision of the Cabinet would have been to do just that. As I say, administrative difficulties facing the Minister for Finance and the other Ministers limited the earliest date to 1st July. Nobody can say we were dishonest in this regard. We did one month better than Deputy Haughey's best and he never produced all his social welfare improvements on 1st August; he always held back some of them until 1st October and, in one year, an increase was not paid until 1st January. I was in this House before Deputy Haughey arrived here and, please God, if God spares me, I will be here after he has gone. The fact is that, under Fianna Fáil Administrations, the relevant dates were 1st August and 1st October. We have done better. Our increases commence on 1st July and, were it not for administrative difficulties, we would have paid them a month earlier. That is just how honest we are.

Let us also remember, as was instanced by the Taoiseach this morning, that the number of people affected by these increases total over 700,000—700,000 in this small population. The numbers were a vital factor. Because of inflation it was absolutely essential that these people should be compensated. We felt we simply had to give a fair increase to these unfortunate people. The number is quite extraordinary. It is huge. One finds right across the line of increases given to no fewer than 700,000 to 800,000 people involved.

I have been impressed by a particular characteristic of the middle income group. Some newspaper scribe said this morning that this was the group that would have to pay. I have been impressed by the appreciation of this group of the fact that they will benefit from the point of view of children's allowances because, in respect of children still at school, the allowances will continue up to 18 years of age. That is probably the most expensive time in the life of an adolescent. At 16 years of age they start to go round socially and probably cost as much as an adult to dress. They must have some pocket money. That is probably the most expensive time. The middle-class people who are said not to be getting anything from this budget are actually getting this increase. These people will appreciate it.

I would like to deal with the comments made in regard to another aspect of this budget and how it affects the middle-class people. These people have received massive help through the rates relief. This is costing the Exchequer £14 million. The average valuation of the houses these people live in probably means that they benefit by about £20 per house. This figure may vary. Valuations are lower in the country than in the cities. This relief will be highest where the burden of rates is highest. A middle-class family with three children will have the benefit of increased children's allowances up to 18 years of age and they will also benefit by the rates relief. If they have three children with the allowances on income tax it is unlikely that they will have an income of more than £2,500 net so that these increases will apply net. They will be of real benefit. This benefit should be between £50 and £100 a year.

It was said on the opposite benches that the middle-class people probably made the most effort for themselves, their families and their country. If they could have been helped more that would have been a pleasant thing for this Government to do. We helped them substantially. They will accept, as we did, that the first thing we had to do in this year of budgeting was to set at rights the neglect of the previous Administration in relation to the poor and the very poor. We have not succeeded in doing that completely, but we have done it in part. We are proud of that. If that first decision was something that had to take its effect on all the other aspects within the budget, then it had to be borne. Wisdom and effort succeeded and we got the best that could be got for the people.

I want to mention the question of business and to say that business people will also accept that we had to look after the poor and the very poor. We faced up to this problem in the best way we could. At the same time business people should not think that they were neglected. Massive amounts have been voted for grants from the IDA. Freedom from tax remains. The temporary removal of the extra corporation tax, which under severe pressure from us from the far side of the House was removed by Fianna Fáil in the face of desperate criticism, has been continued. Depreciation on new plant and machinery, outside the designated areas, has been continued. The 100 per cent initial allowance for capital expenditure incurred on plant and machinery is continued. In the face of our problems and of the necessity to look after the poor we continued this. Let us accept the fact that it is possible for a company at the moment to deal with capital expenditure and to charge the cost of that capital expenditure against net profits before tax is charged. This is an incentive to anybody who wants to carry out capital expenditure within his own business or start a new business. It is something that I, in my own small way, have found to be a great incentive and it made the difference between whether or not one could do the thing or not. One could say: "Well, if I do it, I will not have tax next year. I will have a holiday from tax." That is a big thing when one is trying to keep one's liquid assets right, and to pay wages and meet all the demands with costs increasing and the cost of stock increasing and the net amount lying in customers' debtor ledgers increasing. A year or two without tax could be achieved and this is most important.

The Minister, even in the face of huge amounts which he had to provide for social welfare, has succeeded in retaining that incentive. The business community should not forget this important feature of the budget. There is also the 20 per cent initial allowance for capital expenditure incurred on industrial buildings. This is a big improvement. We have been clear and honest and told the employers that they will be paying a higher percentage of the employment stamp. This is in line with the situation in the Common Market. We must fall into line with that over the years. These companies also have got a decrease in the amounts of rates they have to pay. This was greatly criticised by Fianna Fáil; Fianna Fáil did not want them to get that decrease in rates. I can understand an argument that a company with large profits might have little regard for a decrease in rates because, by comparison with their profits, losses or turnover would be a small item. If they get 25 per cent reduction in health charges we can ask them to give us some back by giving their employees better welfare benefits, paid for in part by them and in part by the company. We are asking for some of the money back, and I think that is fair.

I want also to mention corporation profits tax. This is something that we opposed on the opposite benches when there was a high rate in existence. The rate was reduced and we have kept it there for one year, and we will endeavour to follow the report on company taxation and to try, before next year, to simplify the system and to produce a fairer one. People must accept the fact that we arrived here eight weeks ago. So far as the Fianna Fáil approach to the budget was concerned, even as described this morning, we in those short weeks had turned the place tospy-turvy. We succeeded in doing things that Fianna Fáil thought could not be done. This has meant an enormous amount of work on the part of the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Cabinet, and also on the part of the officers of the Departments concerned, particularly the Department of Finance.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Minister want a standing ovation?

Mr. Donegan

No, I do not, but at the same time I would say that we did a very good job and we are entitled to say so.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister for Finance said that about ten times in his speech yesterday.

Mr. R. Ryan

And got a good ovation.

Mr. Donegan

In relation to the question of the middle income group, who are said to have done badly in this budget, they will also benefit from the withdrawal of VAT from their food. It was said this morning that in the lower income group the amount of money spent on food was about 40 per cent of the total income, whereas in the highest income group the amount spent on food was about 23 per cent of the total income. The middle income group can be taken as spending perhaps 30 per cent of their money on food in the normal family. If this is so, they will get 5 per cent off this. The Opposition made great play of the extra vigilance needed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am sure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will do a very good job in providing this extra vigilance.

I would now say also, particularly to the middle income group and to businessmen, that any extra taxation that has been applied has no effect on the necessaries of life. The only necessary expenditure on which you could say it might have some bearing would be in the case of a small motor car or motor cycle on which a worker would go to work. While I take a drink and smoke an odd cheroot, one does not have to smoke or drink. These extra taxation measures, in fact, do not have an effect on the real cost of living as distinct from the consumer price index. Therefore, if we can hold the galloping inflation that Fianna Fáil allowed to proceed over the past few years, when they were thinking of other things, very desperate and difficult things, within their own party, we should be able to come together with the trade unions and the businessmen and produce a fair and proper continuing series of national wage agreements. If we can do that, then we will have the ship of State on the right tack. If we cannot do that, we are in trouble. If we can do it, we will have succeeded in setting the ship of State on the right tack as well as having helped to an extraordinary degree the social welfare receipients. We will not have affected adversely the middle income group. In fact, we will have helped them. One help that I should have mentioned that they are getting is that if they are building or buying a house at the moment we will have helped them to the extent of £100 or £110 in regard to that expenditure.

Great play was made about the 3 per cent increase in furniture and household utensils because of the change in value-added tax, taking it off food. Remember that the purchase of furniture is a first and last expenditure. If there is a matter of 3 per cent there, that £100 that I have mentioned would provide the tax on about £3,000 worth of furniture and utensils.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister knows it does not apply to most new houses because they do not pay that sort of stamp duty, anyway. The Minister knows that.

Mr. Donegan

I do not know that and I do not accept it.

Mr. Haughey

Most new houses——

Mr. Donegan

I will leave that to be contradicted by the Deputy if he feels capable of doing so. I will not enter into a disorderly discussion with the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey

Because the Minister knows he would not win.

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate so far has been devoid of interruptions and the Chair would like it to remain so.

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy could be a little out of date. There might be an anachronism. I am making the point that when we had to apply extra taxation it was applied, in relation to the middle income group particularly, in an area where, if they so wish, they can reduce expenditure. They can buy three pints instead of four. The increases were larger on spirits and cigarettes. The increase on the humble pint was merely 1p. From pub to pub one will often find a penny variation on the pint. One may find greater variation now. I would say that that was a kindly thing for the Government and the Minister for Finance to do. As far as the middle income group are concerned they have been well treated. They will have to accept, as we all must accept, the necessity to look after our poor. The business people have all these benefits, some of which were already in existence, and they are further helped by the fact that this is an expansionist budget. The business people must view their situation on the day after the budget in relation to their situation on the day before the budget in the light of the fact that we have injected into the economy huge sums of money. If it were only the £40 million going to the social welfare recipients, it will mean that they will buy goods. I put it to the business people that they will benefit from the expenditure of that £40 million. They will benefit because of the extra turnover. When you take your stock, gross profit comes very close to net profit. That extra amount of money in the economy will have a great effect. It does not stop at that £40 million. There is the huge amount for roads, for building. We have nailed our colours to the mast in relation to 25,000 houses a year. God be with the days when there was a credit squeeze, in 1957, when the then Government were in trouble with the Suez crisis and the international monetary situation that produced a dreadfud credit squeeze. Having got the Coalition Government out of office by a confidence trick, the Fianna Fáil Government came in and cured that economic situation by not building any houses for five years. I remember well the series of questions by the then Deputy Costello, now the Attorney-General, in 1958 to 1961, when the number of houses built dropped from a figure of 12,000 and 13,000 a year to as low as 4,500. This was how the credit squeeze was cured at that time.

We have decided that we will build 25,000 houses a year. The money to do it is in the capital budget. When I was being driven here this morning I picked up my paper in Drogheda and on the front page was shown the case of a young man and his wife and child who had nowhere to go and who had slept on the street. In that town of 20,000 population I know of harrowing cases of persons who have been waiting for houses for six to eight years. How proud I am to be a member of a Cabinet who have decided to build 25,000 houses a year and have decided to raise the money. How surprised I am to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about the effect that the huge capital budget—the greatest ever—will have on inflation. It will not have a bad effect on inflation if properly applied. The money that has been set aside in the capital budget for borrowing and for spending will be properly applied and has been so designated. It will be directed towards proper avenues, such as housing and roads.

There is a need for good roads. With the numbers of vehicles increasing continuously it is very unlikely that we will be able to keep pace with the road building programme as we would wish. We must do our best. The extra taxation on motor vehicles will not leave the Road Fund. We are not robbing the Road Fund, as was done before. There will be extra employment as a result of the work on roads and there will be better roads. They will not appear by tomorrow. About this time 12 months the good effects will begin to appear. We have made our decision in regard to capital expenditure and we will stand by it.

The question then arises of business entertainment and yachts.

Mr. Power

That is near to the Minister's heart.

Mr. Donegan

Yes, indeed. I know something about this. I feel that somewhere in the Department of Finance there is somebody who thinks a little small—certainly not the Minister—but somebody along the line has got a "thing" about this. I want now to disabuse whatever official in the Department of Finance of his "thing".

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order, I do not think it is appropriate or according to procedure and practice in this House to criticise an official of a Department.

Mr. Donegan

Then I withdraw it and will proceed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister did not elaborate.

Mr. Donegan

I feel that I did. I should like to give the situation as it is and as it has been.

Mr. Power

We will not tell about it.

Mr. Donegan

I have withdrawn the remark. When the turnover tax and the selective wholesale tax at various levels came into operation, the tax was applied to sporting goods, including yachts. At that time no such tax was levied on yachts or on certain other sporting goods in Britain. On the south coast of Britain and on the Clyde there are thriving industries dealing with boat construction, giving very considerable employment. In Ireland this industry is in its infancy and there is a strong lobby to try to save it from extinction. There is one firm in Arklow that is now making fishing boats, one at Cross-haven, one at Mullaghmore in Sligo, and one in Donegal. In the latter place the man concerned went to Scotland where he got his grants so that his customers could purchase without having to incur a crushing burden of taxation. I am glad to say that when things became better his son-in-law returned to this country.

I have been involved in this for 20 years. I want to state categorically that I know about practically all the yachts in this country and for that type of business entertainment I can mention five that could be so used. Therefore, people should disabuse themselves of the fixation they have on this subject. There is a necessity to develop the boatyards but high taxation will not help. I know that there is the impression that a man who buys a yacht is rich but what about the man who has ten racehorses? If one of the horses is sold for £200,000 there is not a word about it.

In the first single-handed Atlantic crossing, it was a matter of pride for us that the boat, Gypsy Moth III, was built in Arklow. In his book about the crossing, Chichester relates that on one occasion he was in his cabin reading The Tempest and he thought that no boat could survive the storm that raged outside. Afterwards he paid tribute to Jack Tyrrell of Arklow who built the boat. Incidentally, Chichester came to Cork for a boat for his last expedition.

The people involved in this business are a small group but they could build a thriving industry. While our coastline is very extensive, in England people are being crowded off the waters. About six months ago there was a proposal to build 700 holiday houses and a marina in Galway at a cost of £7 million, but it was not proceeded with because of planning permission difficulties. I hope that in future budget statements emotive remarks about yachts will not be used.

I know that there are abuses in loss-buying transactions. As a businessman I am well aware that companies with losses forward are bought in order to avoid tax. I hope when the Finance Bill is introduced the legislation put before the House will ensure that if the company concerned are carrying on and if there is employment losses forward will be allowed. I have had personal experience in this matter. I bought a company that had losses forward and if I had not the right not to pay tax by charging up the losses against the tax I could not have succeeded in keeping the company going. However, I realise it may be necessary to consider whether people are too enthusiastic in relation to loss-buying transactions.

The exemption from corporation profits tax for certain public utility societies and other bodies, including building societies, is being continued until we have a decision on the White Paper on Company Taxation. This is desirable. There is an opportunity now for some of the building societies who have been complaining in the last few weeks to work with this Government in a more co-operative way. It might result in far better deposits and more money for house-building. Despite what has been said on the opposite side, I do not think there has been a great slowing down as yet. I do not think there has been any loss of employment but it is necessary that these people should know that, while the Government want to work with them, equally the Government want the building societies to work with them. I would ask the building societies to take their cue and give of their best in the building of more houses for the white-collar workers.

We welcome the extra expenditure for the developing countries. The amount of hunger and misery in the world should be a matter of concern to us all. Deputy Power was in full flight at Question Time yesterday regarding our policy on Irish. I informed him we wished to see Irish used more and that we were certainly interested in Irish as part of our culture. I would ask the Deputy to consider that while his Government gave 50p per day by way of grant to students who went to the Gaeltacht, we doubled that amount. As a result of the budget, every student who goes to the Gaeltacht will get £1 per day. Handsome is as handsome does— money talks. Deputy Power will realise from this that we have the cultural heritage of Ireland at heart. However, we will not have the rotten system of compulsion that existed before which meant that if a person did not know Irish he did not get a job. Those days have gone forever——

Mr. Power

And they will be followed soon by the Irish language.

Mr. Donegan

With regard to rates relief, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said they were going to remove all rates from private dwellings. Ten minutes later he spoke about the amount of money we had spent; according to him, we had spent far too much. We had the advantage of £30 million from the EEC farm subsidies. His proposal would have meant an expenditure of £40 million. It was an election gimmick, produced when there was nothing else left and when they knew a week before the election that they were beaten. That politically dishonest proposal gained them some votes, it retrieved some of their lost support and they nearly came back with a majority. Nevertheless, it was a dishonest proposal.

Anyone who examines this budget will be aware of what is being done for social welfare recipients, will be aware that house building, road building and capital expenditure are proceeding. The EEC suggestion that we should have an expansion budget had to be followed. We must realise the great difficulties facing the Minister for Finance in presenting this budget. We were only eight weeks in office and everybody knows the legacy that was left to us. This budget gives fair play to all. Our proposals in removing housing subsidies from rates in a four-year period, by slices, is realistic by comparison with the promises of Fianna Fáil that they would remove all rates on dwellinghouses at one time. It could not be done and they knew it could not be done. Therefore, their argument is not sustainable.

I think the next budget will have to look in detail at the business and farming communities. The business community await consideration of the White Paper on Company Taxation. Here there is a great opportunity to make it possible for us within EEC conditions, as apart from grants in respect of which we have until 1990, and new exports, to create a situation like that in the other countries in the EEC. We have the boys and girls to do the work if we have the employment for them. This Government will produce that employment with a consequent massive upsurge in the industrial economy.

On the subject of death duties, their replacement by another form of taxation will require long and detailed scrutiny. It was not possible to do that in the eight weeks we had before this budget. We felt obliged, having drawn the attention of the nation to the unjust system that obtained before the election, to go some of the way. We have gone a good distance and we have done so in the fairest way possible. Take, for instance, a man with a wife and an adult family of three or four. We have not done anything for that man because until we can get the structure of our new tax system examined in detail and translate such study into tax removals, we cannot go much further than we have gone.

What we have done in this respect will be appreciated particularly by the farming community. The position, as I see it, is that a widow with three dependent children can have an estate of £41,666 before she pays tax. This is a big step forward from the previous position. A widow without dependants can go to £25,500 before she pays tax. The people have been waiting for this for 16 years and they could hardly expect us to make greater concessions in the eight weeks we have had before the budget. They have our commitment in regard to it, and as an earnest of our commitment we have given that improvement, which is greater by far than any commitment given by any government in the history of this State.

Now I come to the question of insurance policies which people take out in favour of spouses or other dependants. We have made a marvellous improvement in this situation. Deputy Haughey has left the House— I wish he was here. I should have liked him to hear what I am about to say about the 1965 Finance Act. This wiped out the Married Woman's Property Act which provided that if a man from his income took out an insurance policy in favour of his wife, such policy, when he died, would not be counted in his estate when passing to his wife. One of the reasons given in 1965 for that change was that there had been abuses and that very rich men had misused the Act for their own ends. I say that Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Finance at that time, made a wrong decision when he wiped out that Act. It removed the opportunity for a man from his own income to provide for his dependants on his death. It might be all very well for a farmer or a self-employed person but it caused fierce hardships in many cases. That was a dastardly act on the part of Deputy Haughey and the pre-1965 situation has been restored. It is a major breakthrough.

I spoke on the budget in 1965—I probably have done so on all budgets in the meantime—and every year I have been asking for that concession. It is a pride and a pleasure to me to find that the particularly dastardly act of the then Minister for Finance has been negatived. On the general question of agriculture, the manner in which the budget affects it is of great interest. It is true that the necessity for large agricultural subsidies has disappeared because of our EEC entry.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition this morning ranting and raving about the £29 million—he incorrectly used the figure of £30 million—in hand this year which meant that we could have had a marvellous budget with no new taxation. Could it be possible that a Deputy who has been Minister for Industry and Commerce, Minister for Finance and Taoiseach could think he was codding anybody by that argument? It reminds me of a former Deputy, Paddy Burke, who on every occasion when we in Opposition voted against the budget said we were voting against increases in the old age pension. Does not everybody know that the budget is a most complicated all-enveloping thing? Are there not hundreds of figures all measured together—capital expenditure, above the line expenditure, below the line expenditure, deficit amounts and so on? Thanks be to God we have in this country a set of honest, dedicated civil servants, even if some of them never got their feet wet, and they do not produce in any circumstances improper or untrue figures.

Mr. Power

What about the man who did not like the yacht?

Mr. Donegan

The former Taoiseach knows perfectly well that the figure produced, providing for an opening deficit of £5.7 million, is perfectly correct, so far as the best efforts, intelligence, expertise and knowledge of the Department can produce it, so that when the Minister for Finance, who also has to follow the figures as produced to him, says that this £30 million was lost in a sea of inflation he is telling the truth. I opened my speech by pointing out that that sea of inflation totalled 9 per cent cumulative over three years, being a 32 per cent inflation in three years and this is also true because these figures have also been produced by the Civil Service as fact. That is where the £30 million went, into a sea of inflation, and while that sea was enveloping that sum, the Opposition sat and did nothing; the recipients of social welfare benefits, old age pensioners and the like, found themselves perhaps hungry and certainly if not in want of food, in want of other necessaries.

This is what happened and that is why we are here and the Opposition are over there. It is as simple as that. I have been here for 19 years and how many times have I seen the October budget, the mini-budget, produced by Fianna Fáil. They could produce these for all sorts of extraordinary reasons, to their own betterment, but they were prepared to leave the social welfare recipients to wait. That is unpardonable. It is something which one cannot fathom and something which has had the obvious effect.

When referring to the £30 million, I was dealing with the position of agriculture. I believe that the work of the Minister for Agriculture—and this has been typified in the last month or so—will be less budgetary in future and more involved with the furtherance of agriculture itself and with working in EEC. He arrived by accident at the point in time when the prices in the EEC for agricultural produce had to be settled by last Tuesday week, and I suppose he was not one day in five in his office since then because he spent most of his time in Brussels; but it does show a situation wherein the Minister will be less involved with budgetary matters and more involved in the promotion of agriculture, in research and in work in the EEC.

While that is true it was found possible to provide £500,000 for capital expenditure on agriculture and also for the sheep subsidy scheme. This is something which should be good expenditure. I come from a constituency where there used to be 12,000 or 13,000 mountain ewes on the Cooley Mountains and that figure is now down to about half. Maybe that is due to the arduous nature of the task of preparing them or to the fact that people have more to do, but this particular help provided by the Minister will be applied entirely to the mountain sheep scheme. We have falling numbers of sheep and I cannot understand why we should have. Surely with the advance in price, although it has not been as spectacular as in the case of beef, it should be very much in the minds of young people on the farms that a bit of mountain land which perhaps would not carry bullocks would carry more sheep with more profit. The decision to spend £500,000, even at a time when the work of the Minister seems to be moving away from budgetary matters, is a good decision and one which will be appreciated by the farming community.

The farming community will also appreciate the relief from death duties in the case of dependants, widows and children, but I would say again that this is not for farmers alone. The self-employed person, the person with a shop, the salaried person with a house or a bit of property, all find themselves helped by this death duty decision so far as their dependants are concerned. It is true that this is not in the spirit of our commitment, but if we could not produce our commitment physically in time, we went the right way towards helping those most in need. The desire would be to have some sort of tax paid during the lifetime of the person owning the estate so that, at his death, he could pass on to his non-dependent relatives or to friends—perhaps adult sons and daughters or even a widow—property free of death duties, they having been paid already. But thinking of what one can do in eight short weeks, one thinks of those most in need and these are surely the dependants—the housewife who never had to go out to earn her living, who had a salaried husband and a little property, who had a husband with a pub or a shop or farm.

These and the dependent children are the people who should first be helped and we have given more to them in our eight weeks than was ever given in the history of the State, so that if we have not, for physical reasons, been able to go as far as our commitments said we would and if we have to work towards it, just as we have to work towards our commitment on rates and the removal of health and housing subsidies from rates, we will do it in an honest and forthright way, but the earnest offered was the proper one and something we should look forward to as a most helpful and a most pleasing extension of the goodwill of the Government in this regard.

This is the first budget of this Government. I look forward to very many budgets from this Government but I would say that, just as in business the financial year is not the be-all and end-all of everything, you have to look at things not in relation to one year but a continuing period of three or four years, this budget will have to be looked at in this way. I have mentioned rates, which are a continuing feature, as are death duties, and the question of company calculations which awaits the presentation of a White Paper and all these things bring us in 1973 outside the ambit of this financial year. More of this is going to happen in the future. As life, business and affairs of State become more complicated, we are going to have budgets which impinge more on other budgets and you are going to have three- or four-year periods of a policy towards an end. This Government are fully aware of that. The Government are a modern, dedicated, energetic new Government, new in approach, an approach which is typified in the budget and something which is appreciated by the people.

Mr. Power

It is with a certain amount of temerity that I rise to speak because this is the first budget I have listened to from this side and the fourth I have seen presented here. I am conscious of the fact that I follow the Minister for Defence who has been here for 19 budgets, on his own admission. One of the things I miss on the occasion of this budget is the presence of the former Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, who I think always followed the presentation of the budget, on this side of the House. I envied him his expertise, his great manipulation of words, the ready flow that he had and the fact that he could stand up immediately he had heard the budget presented and give a very lucid and learned rundown on what the budget contained. I used to say to myself that that was possibly the way of life he had, and that he was used to doing that sort of thing as a member of the legal profession when he was defending or offending, or whatever the word should be, different witnesses, and getting them to come around to his way of thinking. I always felt that he was a very able Deputy who could put the nation first, leave his lucrative briefs in the Four Courts, and rush over here for the presentation of each budget.

One word he used in relation to every budget was "phoney". That adjective has always stuck in my mind. I hope I will be excused for using the word "phoney" now. It is a pity that ex-Deputy O'Higgins is not here. I am sure he would still be here to represent South-Dublin had he chosen to do so. The fact that he did not is possibly a great relief to the Minister for Education and his colleagues.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

He will soon be promoted to a more exalted office.

Mr. Power

The first budget I was here for was on the occasion of Deputy Haughey's accident. The exTaoiseach presented the budget and I suppose, in a way, that was a phoney budget, because it was introduced by an understudy for the part. The reason I say this is a phoney budget is that the person who should have introduced it did not introduce it. I am not referring to the fact that many of us felt Deputy FitzGerald was the obvious choice instead of Deputy Ryan if, by any mischance, the Opposition here last year should form the Government. I am referring to the fact that the people who planned this budget and who made possible such a good budget, in some ways, were the Fianna Fáil Party.

I am reminded of a biblical story. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that Jacob put skins on his hands and went in to the old man to get his blessing. The old man said: "The voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau." In this case the voice is the voice of Richie but the budget is the budget of George. The real bones of this budget story were well planned and written by Fianna Fáil. The story goes back quite a long way. It has its origins in an economic war and a second world war. With two brief intervals for Coalitions, the story continued under Fianna Fáil Government and saw the end of unemployment, and saw us with a buovant economy, despite the frightful troubles in the North which we witnessed and the consequent drop in tourism. We were the party who were able to keep the country on a straight course. This story was heading for a happy ending and it could, possibly, have been classed as a comedy but for the fact that the ending has now been so tragic.

I am convinced, as previous speakers on this side of the House were convinced that a tide in the affairs of this country has been missed by the Government. We were the people who gave them the opportunity, but they did not take the chance which was offered to them. We are the party, more than any other party, who ensured that the right advice was given to the people about our entry to Europe. While the Deputy who now occupies the front bench opposite me belongs to a party which vehemently opposed entry——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Power

The Parliamentary Secretary opposed our entry into Europe and, at that time, they were satisfied to accept the help of every type of lunatic who crept out of his hiding place to join them and advise the Irish people that Europe was not our destiny. The Labour Party advised the people not to go into Europe. All Fine Gael did, that I saw, was to pay lip service to it. We worked to that end and we achieved that end despite the then Opposition. Now we find that the two parties who were diametrically opposed for their own selfish ends can come together and form a Government to rule this country and expect us to believe that it is for the betterment of the country. The party who did not want us to enter Europe now claim credit for the social welfare benefits that have been achieved. They have an infernal cheek to ask how did we intend to spend this £30 million. The previous speaker quibbled about whether it should be £30 million or £29 million. That does not really matter.

The structural work for this budget was done by Fianna Fáil. I can appreciate that it had to be twisted to accommodate the 14-point plan. Some of the items promised would not suit under any condition and had to be thrown overboard. The parties opposite do not want us to mention them now, but we will have more about them anon. I should like to mention the housing target referred to by the previous speaker and referred to before the general election by every speaker from the National Coalition parties. I should like to refer later to the promise of pensions at 65 years of age without a means test. All these promises were not acceptable, or could not be fitted in, and, therefore, they had to be discarded. While the National Coalition may have discarded them lightly, the people will realise that they were "conned" by these false promises. They would like to hear the real reasons why these promises were not kept.

Other promises made had to be trimmed. Since the credibility of the National Coalition Government would be far too questionable if they were dropped completely, some of them had to be kept. Whether that was for the good or the ill of the country did not matter. They felt that they had to keep them to maintain their credibility. One promise was that VAT would be taken off food. The Minister for Finance is to be pitied because I am sure he was being torn by many pressures when he was presenting his budget. He was torn by many parties and I am sure by many factions within parties. If the Ceann Comhairle were here he would know what I mean.

The Minister had to endeavour to placate all those people in a short eight weeks. There is a continual harping on eight weeks by everybody who rises to speak on the far side. They tell us: "We have not had a real chance yet." The Minister had not much time at his disposal to placate all those people. Some of them must have been better at the horse-trading than others. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has displayed a horse-trading sense that we were not aware he had. He seems to have done pretty well. He has got very steep increases for his Department which should ensure, at the expense of those who will have to pay them—anyone who makes a telephone call or writes a letter—that his Department will have more money for the proposals he intends to implement.

There are others in the Parliamentary Secretary's party, such as the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, who seemed to be much more easy to placate when they got to the far side of the House than they indicated they would be when they were on this side of the House. Perhaps the years mellow us all; I do not know. A budget presented by the Fianna Fáil Party would be a straight budget, a budget that would see things in a straight line. When our Minister was presenting a budget he never had to endeavour to twist it and turn it and try to be all things to all men.

The social welfare increases are what everyone expected and what we had promised about a year ago. About 11 months ago we had a sojourn quite close to the Parliamentary Secretary's area in west Cork. We promised that the money saved on agricultural subsidies would be channelled directly towards social welfare recipients and those who needed them most. I am pleased that almost all of that promise has been kept by the new Government and I would like to compliment the Minister for Finance for not altering those proposals. It was indeed a pity that the £1 we promised for child dependants had to be trimmed to 50p, but since the 50p given to children who go to the Gaeltacht has been increased to £1 one might expect that would offset the other 50p. However, one must realise that very few children go to the Gaeltacht. All of the children in Ireland would have benefited by the Fianna Fáil promise of £1.

There was the promise of an old age pension for all at 65 years of age with no means test. When the Minister for Defence spoke about the conglomeration of parties that came together to form the National Coalition Government he neglected to say that the real reason why they gained sufficient seats, if not sufficient votes, was because of the promises which a gullible public heard them make and were foolish enough to swallow and believe.

This was one of the promises that were made and the election in my constituency was fought on the issue that everybody who reached 65 years of age would get an old age pension and there would be no means test. The Labour colleague in my constituency, who now occupies the seat over there, promised that. I believe he is now living a lie because that promise is not being carried out. As the Parliamentary Secretary who is sitting over there belongs to that particular party, he also is living a lie. People who forgot about promises made by previous Coalitions or felt they would never do the same again were foolish enough to believe those promises and voted for a National Coalition Government. That is the real reason why the present Government are where they are. They made the mistake of not going into the matter in depth to find out whether those promises could be kept or whether it would be good for the economy of the country to keep them.

They, when they wanted to grab power, were satisfied to make those promises and decided that they would see afterwards if they could be kept. The Aga Khan has stud farms in my constituency and during the election campaign I asked the then Opposition Party if the Aga Khan came to live in my constituency would he qualify for an old age pension at 65 years of age. The Government have now decided that will not happen. The Aga Khan has racehorses and many employees in my constituency and his net income is not easily assessed but if he, the Begum and his Harem came to live in Kildare he would surely qualify for the children's allowances which were announced yesterday by the Minister for Finance. He would get those allowances because it would be very difficult to assess if his net income, when all his expenses were paid, was under £2,500. He, like many other people whose income cannot easily be assessed, could collect children's allowances at one counter in the post office and lodge it to their children's accounts at another counter, where it would grow from year to year and remain there until the children were 21 years of age. That was not the purpose for which children's allowances were first formulated.

I am convinced the Government have slipped up badly here and this has proved to me that the manner in which this problem was approached was a lazy and very unjust one. I have given this matter considerable thought and I have discussed it with previous Ministers. I am sure that the cost of implementing a means test for children's allowances purposes will be very high and the amount saved hardly worth a candle.

Now that the Minister has announced increased children's allowances and also a means test I would like to know if he, in his short time as Minister, has discovered some magic formula which will enable him to separate those who are well-off and those who are not and also enable him to differentiate between border-line cases. Apparently there are to be no border-line cases. You are to get this or you will not get it. Yesterday I asked two Ministers two particular questions but I did not get any answers from them. Perhaps I framed them in such a way that they could not be understood. I hope the question I am now going to ask will be understood and will be answered. A friend of mine came to Leinster House to hear the Financial Statement yesterday and he made a calculation afterwards that under the new system he will get £40 more children's allowances but will pay £65 more in tax. Would the Minister explain that to me? It is not sufficient to read out reams of words and to make long-winded statements which are hard to digest because the plain people want plain answers.

I would like to be able to answer constituents of mind who come to me in their bewilderment asking about this budget and who want to know the reasons why things which were announced on the Budget Day do not happen afterwards. Today's Irish Independent referred to it as a “Give and Take Budget” and somebody else has referred to it as a “Robin Hood Budget”. In regard to children's allowances, I think the Sheriff of Nottingham would only be in the halfpenny place compared to the present Minister for Finance.

An announcement attributed to Deputy Kavanagh was published in the papers recently. He said that the Presidential Election would be fought on the 14-point plan. We were quite prepared to fight the election on the merits of the two candidates involved and leave the matter a non-political one. We do not worry about politics entering into the matter, as we are quite prepared to face the electorate on that issue. We are quite prepared to have the issue fought as battles were fought in the days of Setanta and Ferdia, possibly by single combat, and have a direct confrontation on television.

I would like to say, with regard to this 14-point plan, that the grand, many antlered stag has been skulled and many of his points are now missing and that the fine monarch of the glen, the Fine Gael candidate we saw with Deputy Begley astride his pony —the Minister for Finance referred to him as a back, although he appeared to me like a man one hour ahead of the posse——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in his speech must refer to the budget resolutions. He cannot deal with the presidential campaign.

Mr. Power

I am referring to the promises made before the election in a 14-point plan and the much trimmed 14-point plan which has been fitted into the budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must refer to the budget only.

Mr. Power

It would appear to me that this 14-point plan has been trimmed very much and that the National Coalition candidate will not want to hear much about that plan by the 30th May. It has been trimmed to such an extent that it is an entirely different one.

Mr. Kelly

You avoid these problems by never having a policy at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us proceed with the budget debate.

Mr. Power

The people seem to feel that we have a policy which entitled us to stay where we were for many years.

Mr. Kelly

It seems they have got beyond that.

Mr. Power

The credibility of the people who made these promises is now very much in doubt. Are they prepared to stand or fall on the promises they made? I am convinced that the National Coalition parties were returned to power because they made promises that the people believed they would keep but which they have not kept. The promise was to take VAT off food immediately: it was not that they would endeavour to do so; it was to be done immediately. It will not be done immediately. Reference was also made to the fact—and the Labour representative for Kildare made great play on this in his election literature— that they would eliminate poverty. They did not say they would try to do it but made a statement of fact that they would eliminate poverty.

I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cluskey, during the few brief opportunities we have got of questioning this Government—they took a rather long recess—and he told me that it was their aim to eliminate poverty. If that is so the Tánaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary should possibly aim a little higher. We were told also that the National Coalition Government would promise 25,000 houses per year.

Mr. Kelly

No. They were not promised that.

Mr. Power

The other day in the Dáil I heard the Minister for Local Government saying it will not be possible to build the 25,000 houses this year——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that matters pertaining to Estimates are not appropriate to a budget debate. What may be discussed in a budget debate includes taxation, expenditure and financial policy and other matters only in so far as they are connected with financial policy.

Mr. Power

Yes, Sir.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Deputy finds it very difficult to speak to the budget proper. I can sympathise with him.

Mr. Power

I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary does not find it so difficult to listen to me because when the Minister for Defence was speaking before me Government members must have found it so difficult to listen to him that not one from his own party or any other party sat behind him.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Deputy has an audience of three members of his own party at present.

Mr. Power

I should like to impress on the Chair and the two National Coalition members opposite that while the National Coalition may claim credit for the good they do, surely they cannot blame us for all the bad they do. But that seems to be what they want to do. They cannot have it both ways. Last night the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that they inherited a very sticky mess and that they were only in power for two months. We have heard that repeatedly. Is it right that if you do something good you should take all the credit for it, as in the case of social welfare, the £30 million that was lost in a sea of inflation and magically found by the National Coalition and made available for social welfare in a short eight weeks?

I suppose the promise to take VAT off food in September will become a fact. The promise was that it would be taken off immediately. I re-echo what previous speakers have said: I hope the full 5 per cent VAT will be taken off food. I am a bit doubtful about that and so were many learned Members now exalted to ministerial posts when similar decreases in taxation or, indeed, any movement of prices either up or down was mentioned while they were in Opposition. I would like an assurance on this score. The Minister has indicated that a diligent eye will be kept on price rises. Perhaps I should also refer to a promise that was made that increases in price would be stopped immediately: that has not happened.

I am perturbed to find there will be increases in the case of clothing, footwear and fuel. In answer to a point raised last night the Taoiseach said food was something people had to buy every day but that fuel was a seasonal matter. That amazes me because this is mid-May and we are still using fuel and I am sure most old age pensioners are using fuel. Even if the weather became very fine it would be necessary for the old age pensioners, for whom the Government profess such great regard, to cook their food. What type of fuel they use I do not know, but when I pressed the Taoiseach on this matter last night my question was ignored. Perhaps from a nutritional point of view it is best to eat food raw as this is supposed to preserve vitamins lost in cooking but this would scarcely appeal to some old age pensioners I know. It might appeal to them less if they adopted the Taoiseach's suggestion to buy fuel only on a seasonal basis and perhaps follow the plan adopted by the Fianna of old who from lá Bealtaine to lá Samhaine went into summer camp. Even if people had to run about to keep warm they will find that shoes and shoe leather have also increased in price as have slippers, running shoes and sportswear. That will also have an adverse effect on people trying to housekeep on a tight budget.

I am convinced that our plan to retain VAT on food as it was, was a better plan and would not have such a detrimental effect on people on a tight budget. We know we were right; the Minister thought he knew. He was entitled to think that but I hope at this stage the Minister knows that he did not know.

I want to refer to a matter of a rather personal nature but one about which I have no inhibitions, Deputies salaries. We were all, I am sure, inclined to speculate as to who would be Minister for Finance and who would hold various ministerial posts. Many of us thought that Deputy FitzGerald, who had devoted so much time to financial matters and who was shadow Minister in Opposition, would be the new Minister for Finance. We were rather surprised that the Taoiseach decided that Deputy Ryan should be the man to look after the State coffers. It was explained to me that the present Minister for Foreign Affairs would be easily swayed. I realise that he is rather a political weathercock. I have noticed that ten scatterbrains outside the gates for any lost cause would always find a champion in Deputy FitzGerald; whether that is now changed because of his ministerial status I do not know. I was told Deputy Ryan was a different type of person, that he was rather tight and mean and in that way was the ideal man to entrust with the post of Minister for Finance. I must say that I did not entirely agree with this assessment at the time but, as from yesterday, I am in complete agreement with their assessment of the Minister for Finance. I say that TD's salaries should have been increased from 1st January of this year at least and the increase should not have been deferred until July next. The reason for the deferment, we were told by the Minister yesterday, was that he was thinking of the poor and he wanted the TDs and the poor to get their increases on the same day. Is it not a wonder that the members of the judiciary would not have the same thought for the poor and be prepared to wait for their increases until 1st July also? I have been only four brief years in this House and I have never got an increase in that period. There was no increase the year before I came in either. I feel we deserved an increase before now. I make no apology for that.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Why did the Deputy's Government not bring it in?

Mr. Power

If the Deputy had been here yesterday he would have heard the explanation given by the ex-Minister for Finance that advice that this increase would not be in breach of the national wage agreement appeared on his desk on 30th December. Because the Dáil did not meet again and because there was a general election the ex-Minister could do nothing. I believe this decision has caused quite a lot of trouble, particularly among Labour members, and even among some of the Minister's own colleagues, if what we hear is true. We can well understand why there was such a hubhub last night over this particular matter. Those who have another source of income, as some in this House have, are not worried about their salaries as T.Ds and, maybe, as a consequence, they are not so worried either about the service they give their constituents but, so long as I remain in this House, and so long as the present Minister for Finance remains in it, I will look upon him as the Minister who wronged T.Ds. Is this Minister, who was so worried about and so anxious to help the poor, happy in the knowledge that the proposals he has promised to implement will raise the Taoiseach's salary from £8,000 to £10,000, a 25 per cent increase, an increase of £40 per week? Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, will get an increase from £6,000 to £8,000, again £40 a week of an increase. Compare that with £1 a week to the old age pensioner, a 33? per cent increase. No wonder one of our newspapers referred today to the budget as a "Robin Hood Budget". "Robin" is the operative word.

Mr. Kelly

I thought the Deputy wanted them all to get back money. Would that not make it worse? The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Power

I make no apology for the fact that I feel we deserved to get the increase before now and the fact we did not get it is due entirely to the Minister for Finance. If anyone in my constituency feels I do not deserve it and does not want to vote for me on that ground, he is quite entitled to do so, and I should like those on the benches over there to apply the same standards in their constituencies as I am prepared to apply in mine.

I should like now to deal with estate duty. I am conscious of the fact that the position requires to be remedied and I welcome the small advance made. I had hoped that something would be done by our Government with regard to this. As I say, I am glad something has been done because this is a matter that causes grave concern, particularly among those engaged in agriculture. I note that the promises made to the agricultural community have also been broken in this particular budget. The farmers were fools. If there was one thing more than another which helped to win the election for the National Coalition it was the false promise they made about estate duty. There is some slight improvement. I admit this is a matter that needs to be thoroughly examined. Is it right that a nephew, who is reared by an uncle and inherits the farm, should now have to pay twice as much in estate duty? Is this artificial valuation really the way in which land is assessed at all? To take a concrete example, a widow is assessed for £8,000 and she decides to sell an eight acre field which, because of its geographical location beside a stud farm, or something like that, is enhanced in value and she gets £1,000 per acre for that eight acres, with which money she hopes to pay off the estate duty, at that stage the valuation of her farm can be re-assessed because of the enhanced value. The whole question of estate duty will have to be thoroughly examined.

The Minister for Defence said this was just a first step and the matter was under active examination. I welcome his announcement. I hope that is not the last word we will hear about estate duty. I hope it will be examined and this great thorn in the sides of the agricultural community removed. Anyone with any kind of land at all must be very worried, indeed, about estate duty.

I do not claim to speak as an economist, but I should like to give the plain man's view of the increases in taxation. It has been argued that, if you do not want to drink, you do not have to and, if you do not want to smoke, you do not have to. But there are people who do one or the other or both. The increase in cigarettes is a very harsh increases. So are the increases in the case of spirits and beer. In the past Ministers for Finance have argued that the old reliables can be taxed and will come bouncing back. It is possible we have now reached the point of diminishing returns. What good will this increased taxation do? Will it bring in more revenue. In a year's time we will know the effect of this increased taxation. Once it goes on it is unlikely that it will ever come off again. The old age pensioner who likes a smoke and a pint will find his cost of living increased substantially.

With regard to rates, our proposal was that rates should be removed from dwellings. That was a very sensible proposal and one accepted all over the country. The proposal here is that health charges should be removed from the rates. This will be done over a four-year period. It will cost £68 million. It will help the poor but it will help to a greater extent the better-off and the big commercial concerns. I am sure this must have been discussed by the Ministers in the National Coalition Government. I am wondering how these pseudo-socialists swallowed this particular pill. Was it sugared in other ways that made it acceptable to them? With regard to the increase on petrol, cars, road tax, et cetera, is it not realised that these increases must also bring increases in fares and in the cost of living? I do not speak as an economist, but is it not obvious that all this tends to unsettle the economy? When it comes to making another wages agreement, is it not felt that the increases mentioned will make it harder? A wages agreement will be very necessary when the wage-earner realises that everything except food will cost more. Houses and furniture will cost more. Newly-weds will be faced with an intolerable burden when they want to set up house. They will realise that they have got a raw deal. They will consider that they should demand much more than the economy of this country can afford to give them.

I live in a constituency where people travel long distances to work. It is not rare to meet people who travel 30 miles each way to and from work. The increases on petrol, road tax and tyres will have the effect of unsettling them and making them feel, as I do, that they have got a raw deal. When Members opposite were in the position of being hurlers on the ditch, they were worried about the welfare of such people and they expressed their concern about them on every occasion. Have they stifled their consciences on this occasion? Have they accepted something which a true-blue—perhaps blue is not the correct colour to mention—socialist would not accept?

I should like to deal with the Road Fund. The Minister mentioned that a grant of £21.93 million is to be made to the Road Fund. While that is an increase, it is not enough. I have been a member of a local authority and I am aware of the huge sums needed. Until recently I wondered was it necessary to spend these sums, but I am now convinced that such expenditure is the answer not alone to the road problem, but to the social problem and the regional problems also. In the county which I represent we are, fortunately or unfortunately, straddling three important roads. The traffic growth in through-traffic means that better roads are needed and the roads must be maintained. We need money now to improve the roads. We are all aware of the bigger vehicles now using the roads. These vehicles need good roads. The roads in this country have the effect of hampering the growth of industry. Enough is not being done.

The Government are concerned about regional policy. The west will have to be specially considered. One of the factors that would discourage a potential industrialist who might visit this country with the idea of setting up an industry would be the condition of the roads. If he had to travel to the West of Ireland the journey on the road between Dublin and Kilcock would take him so long that he might ask his driver to turn and go back. Good roads must be provided. By providing them we will be providing a facility which will enable us to open up our country and will encourage industrialists and tourists.

That brings me to the question of encouraging industry in this country. We are now in the happy position that we have more markets for our industry than we had before. We have more competition also. Greater vistas are opening to our industries, but we must complete with stronger competition than we had before. Will the Government allow the increases in the insurance stamp, the increases on petrol road tax, tyres, new machinery, telephone costs and postage on letters, will they allow all these increases at a time when we are finding our feet in the EEC and need to gear our industries to the highest point of competitiveness? Was it wise to increase charges now?

I welcome the Minister's reference to savings and the increased interest that will accrue to people who are prepared to leave their savings in Government hands for longer periods. I appeal to the Minister to examine the opportunities offered by promoting savings among employees in big industries and firms. I am conscious of the fact that many young people who come to see me for one reason or another and who intend getting married and are anxious to provide a house have made no conscious effort to save money for that house. This is something that is done as a matter of course in other countries. In Germany, on the first day a boy or girl goes to work, they automatically put away so much money for the house they will need some day. This will be the greatest expenditure they will ever meet. It would be a help if we could encourage people to save a substantial amount in order to allow them to build their own houses. A person earning approximately £30 per week can get a loan of £3,400. If one has to provide a site or purchase a house, even allowing for Government grants, there is a big gap to be met. I hope that the Government will introduce some scheme whereby voluntary subscriptions would be encouraged so that young people would leave some of their wages with their employers. This should be examined. As a matter of course everybody should be encouraged to save with the firm for whom they work. Interest at a rate that would appeal to everybody should be offered to them to encourage them to save.

Nuair a bhí an tAire Cosanta ag caint dhein sé tagairt don Ghaeilge, agus don deontas do dhaltaí a théann go dtí an Ghaeltacht. Is é seo an t-aon rud amháin atá anseo i dtaobh na Gaeilge. Sé mo thuairim nach bhfuil ann ach sop in áit na scuaibe. Dúirt an tAire Oideachais gur rud cultúrtha a bhéas sa Ghaeilge as seo amach. Ba mhaith liom ceist amháin a chur: an mbeidh Gaeilge á múineadh ins na scoileanna ins na blianta atá romhainn? D'oscail an tAire Oideachais an scoil i nDún Chaoin. Measann sé, agus measann a lán daoine leis, go mba chóir dúinn go léir a rá gur fíor-Ghaeil iad Fine Gael. Fágfaidh mé faoi mhuintir na hÉireann an freagra ceart a thúirt air sin.

The Minister for Defence was not satisfied to make reference to the present budget. He referred to the next budget and told us that the next budget would take care of the business community and the farming community. Did he infer that the farming community have not been taken care of in this budget? Some of today's newspapers feel that they have not been. Did he mean that the business community have not been cherished properly, as he would like them to be cherished? Reference is made to the plight of those in the middle income bracket in all the newspapers today. I would say that they hope that they will not be cherished in the next budget as they have been in this budget. I am sure the business community and the farming community hope that the Minister for Defence was not prophetic when he said that they would be taken care of in the budget that will be presented in 1974.

The Government had a quiet running-in period. The budget was the first big item that the National Coalition had to deal with. It has been disastrous for the country. I hope I will be proved wrong but all the indications are that many mistakes have been made in this budget which was to be the showpiece produced by the galaxy of talent that we have heard so much about. This wonderful Cabinet—the brains of the country assembled in one place—would produce something that would amaze everybody. I am serious when I say that what has been produced is a sorry spectacle. We anticipated that the cracks would not show for a year or two because enough had been done to fob off the different factions within the framework of the Coalition to keep them quiet for some time. We felt this would have the effect of keeping things quiet. The cracks are plainly visible already, not only to my jaundiced eye, but to everybody.

The absence today and for most of yesterday of many of the Government's backbenchers and the fact that they were not here to hear their leader speak this morning is an indication that the backbenchers, particularly in the Labour Party, are not at all happy with developments as outlined in this budget. The newspapers of today show that the honeymoon is over. I would have been critical of them had I got an opportunity up to now. Some of the papers that we felt should have been favourable to our party seemed to be the ones that were hardest on us but they are beginning to view things in proper perspective today and have shown the true colours of this National Coalition Government. I hope that will be evident not only to us. It is up to us to ensure that this will percolate down to the ordinary people who have been gulled and fooled by the promises that were made and then broken.

For instance, we were told that strict price control would be implemented immediately. That is something which we doubted. We never claimed that we would do that because strict price control would also have to take into account some form of wage control. Perhaps this is something which would prove to be beyond the conglomeration of diametrically opposed parties as regards labour relations and prices and incomes. We do not hear much about this strict price control. The Minister did say, however, that every effort would be made to keep an eye on things. That is not enough. I hope that the promises he has made, even at this late stage today, will have the desired effect.

I see no mention here of any better attempt to enable people to build their own houses. We are aware that within the last few weeks building society loans have become much more difficult to secure. There are many people who would like to provide their own houses who are debarred from getting a council loan because their salary is over £1,800 a year, which is not an unusual salary today. These people now cannot get building society loans.

During Question Time recently the Minister for Local Government showed concern and appeared worried because the promise of 25,000 houses a year could not now be realised because the plans for the houses had not been laid and it would take some time for the hastily conceived plans of the National Coalition Government to mature. I suggested to him that he should make money quickly available to persons in the over £1,800 a year bracket who were not able to get building society loans and who might wish to provide houses for themselves. I pointed out that this would encourage people to provide houses for themselves and would relieve the Government or the local authority of the responsibility and that it would have an effect within a year because if people had the money and the desire, they could start from scratch and could be living in their houses within a year. This suggestion did not appear to appeal to the Minister for Local Government. However, I noticed that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan, said that there was plenty of money for the building of houses and that he was proud to belong to a party that had promised the people 25,000 houses a year. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 22nd May, 1973.