Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expeditent to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Defence).

Last night I was developing the point that this budget is, in my opinion, a recipe for economic disaster in the immediate future as well as in the years ahead. I itemised the increases in a vast range of goods and services. To illustrate the point I will quote from the Cork Examiner of today's date. The heading reads “Land Rover tax rise riles farmers”:

The directive from the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Tully, to Local Authorities, spelling out in detail the increased rate of road tax to apply to Land Rovers and certain other tractors from June 1 was severely criticised by the Irish Farmers' Association.

Mr. Seamus McCann, secretary of the IFA's Industrial and Transport Section, said: This 20-fold increase in road tax, together with the removal of the subsidy on Potash a few weeks ago, is going to severely erode the advantage of EEC membership for our farmers.

These regressive measures will slow-up the development in agriculture, contrary to the accepted opinion of all—the Government included—of the need to invest in this, our major industry, so that we can maximise the nation's return from our membership of the EEC.

This is typical of the feeling of the country at large and the public in general are beginning to feel the sting in the tail of the budget.

The Minister in his budget statement, under budgetary policy 1973-74, said:

I must first of all have regard to the high rate of unemployment which must be reduced.

Immediately following that, he said:

Our second major economic task is to slow down the continuing high rate of price increase, for economic no less than social reasons.

While reducing the unemployment figure is not only desirable but absolutely essential, the result of this budget will be to increase rather than decrease unemployment. As a result of tax impositions there will be an increase in production costs. Because of that and increased value-added tax the end product will be dearer and that will result in a slowing down of the sale of the particular goods. The slowing down in sales must inevitably affect employment and the only result will be a reduction in the employment content in industry.

Following on increases in prices there will be a consequential demand for higher wages from industrial and other workers. Value-added tax will be taken off food from 1st September, but the tax has been increased dramatically on a whole range of other items, some of which I itemised last night, and the increases in the prices of these items will demand a compensatory increase in wages. A further increase in wages will increase production costs. Increased production costs will inevitably lead to a slowing down of production and a slowing down of production will inevitably mean unemployment.

The tourist industry will be affected by this budget. Because of our geographical position we suffer from a lack of sunshine and we have, therefore, to offer tourists other attractions, such as the traditional hospitality of our people, the beauty of our countryside and special amenity interests such as fishing, golfing and shooting. We must encourage tourists from outside. We must also encourage our own nationals to holiday in their own country. What do we find in this budget? We find overall increases in the prices of those items in which one becomes involved on one's normal holiday. There is an increase of value-added tax in the case of hotels. Value-added tax on meals will go up from 5.26 to 6.75, an increase of 20 per cent. There is an increase of 1p on the pint. A man on holiday, who wants to be sociable, may take a small one, in which case he will have to pay an extra 3p per glass.

It is indicative of the inflationary times in which we live that we are inclined to look at 3p of an increase as a small one, but when we look at the value in old money we find that there is an increase of 7d in the price of a glass of whiskey or a glass of brandy. The point was made that it is better to take VAT off food and put extra tax on whiskey and brandy. It is not as simple as that. These increases affect the tourist industry. The prices we are asking for food, drink and bed-nights in our hotels are affected. This budget increases the costs to the hotelier who passes them on to the holiday makers.

Postage charges have also increased. When an English tourist writes to a hotelier the hotelier must post him a brochure and a receipt for any deposit he gets. There may be other correspondence between the potential tourist and the hotelier and the postage on these items has increased, so there will be an increase in cost to the tourist. Telephone charges have also increased, resulting in an increase in overheads to the hotelier. These increases will have to be passed on to the tourists.

There is an increase in VAT on furniture, furnishings and cleaning materials. All these items are used by the hotel trade and also by public houses, restaurants and other establishments connected with the tourist industry. The budget is far-reaching in its effects, far beyond what is immediately observed by a cursory glance at the Minister's statement. In the months ahead the effects of the budget will be noticed by the Irish public.

There is an increase also in VAT on petrol and other commodities. This will result in a demand by CIE for increased fares and charges. We have already had the spectacle of the National Prices Commission submitting a report recommending an increase in fares, and this has been turned down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister said that he was not rejecting it but merely passing it on to the Minister for Transport and Power for consideration. This shows that the Coalition Government are passing problems from the Labour Party to the Fine Gael Party, hoping that the blame will shift. The increases in VAT will affect the running costs of organisations such as CIE. Further increases will be demanded by such organisations.

Last night I mentioned briefly the car assembly industry and the effect of this budget on the employment in that industry. In the budget the VAT on motor cars and motor cycles was increased from 30.26 per cent to 36.75 per cent. This is a massive increase. There is a rise also in car tax and in petrol prices. All these rises are hitting the potential growth of the car assembly industry and the motor trade in general. If there is a fall in the sale of cars, how will the Minister attain the first objective which he set out in his budget speech? The Minister must have regard for the high rate of unemployment. This must be reduced. The Minister must do everything in his power to protect and encourage the motor assembly industry. This industry must now suffer this crippling blow imposed by the budget on 16th May.

Other speakers mentioned the number of workers who use cars to get from their homes to their places of employment. This is particularly relevant in my constituency of North County Dublin. Some of the towns in my constituency could be described as dormitory towns. People travel from places like Malahide to the centre of the city each day. The Minister has increased their everyday expenses by these massive increases in car prices, car tax and petrol costs. The middle-income group are being badly hit. The Minister has given them no relief. The Minister has left the earned income relief exactly as it was before the budget at a time when many people were expecting him to do the big thing on this occasion and to give a reasonable and justified increase in earned income relief. Instead of improving the situation for these workers the Minister has pulled the mat from under them.

The increases in the prices of cars and petrol affect business firms of all kinds. How can a firm with one traveller on the road cope with the extra charges for that traveller's car, car tax and petrol costs? The Minister is doing all in his power to discourage any expansion whatever in the manufacturing and service sectors of industry.

Last night I discussed briefly the effect the budget will have on newspapers, magazines and journals. I would like to expand on that. In rural Ireland the local newspaper plays a very important role. It has been the traditional medium whereby local information is given to the people of the area. It contains information about local dances and auctions. It carries local advertisements and reports of local court cases. All items of local interest are reported in such papers. Trade magazines and journals are of interest to a certain number of people but they are vital for spreading important information. The national newspapers' costs have also been increased by the budget. There is now an increase in VAT on newspapers from 5.26 per cent to 6.75 per cent which is 20 per cent.

There are also the increased telephone charges to the newspaper world and we all know the amount of business that is done by the newspaper industry on the telephone. There are the increased postal charges. There is the increase in the purchase price of trucks for the distribution of newspapers, the increase in car tax and the increase in the price of petrol because of VAT. All these things are hitting at a very important sector, the fourth estate. I should like the Minister, if he is not firmly committed to this, to think again about what is involved here for the Press, both local and national.

The Minister has given some very desirable and very welcome increases in social welfare and nobody in this House begrudges one penny of what he has given. However, I regret the niggardly way in which he has withdrawn some concessions. He has given with one hand and taken back with two or three other hands which I did not realise he had. He has, for example, increased postal charges. On letters, post cards and printed paper there is a minimum increase of 1p. It does not seem a lot of money unless you relate it to, for example, a mother living in the west of Ireland, an old age pensioner with, perhaps, a half dozen sons and daughters working in Dublin, working in England and other parts of the world. She will want to correspond with them and a penny on each letter will mean a lot to her. The increase in telephone charges hits especially the people who have not got the use of private telephones. Coin box local calls have gone up by a penny to threepence which is a 50 per cent increase. For those with private telephones the increase is from 1.66 pence to 2 pence. This will affect the business community and every other section. On top of all this the Minister is increasing the rental charge by a £1 per quarter.

I should like to refer now to the issue of earned income relief. The Minister not only has not given an increase but has actually damaged this section of the community who are attempting to improve their lot. If you look at the figure and allow for the loss in the value of money you will see that he is damaging even further the hopes of the workers in this country.

The Minister has given some relief in rates. This was one of the major planks of the coalition parties at the time of the general election. I think he should give complete waiver of rates in the case of buildings used as community centres. It seems to me to be an anomaly to have a local community attempting to raise funds for the construction and running of a community hall and much of the money which they raise by voluntary effort taken by local authorities as rates. It is undesirable and something at which the Minister should look straight away.

Much has been made of the stamp duty concession. The Minister is reducing the scale and this is very desirable but let us not go overboard about it because most young couples getting married buy homes which are in the State grant bracket, in other words under 1,250 square feet in area. They are entitled to rates relief and do not have to pay stamp duty so the stamp duty concession should be viewed in perspective. I would like to see further assistance being given to young couples anxious to buy their own homes and it would be a help to them if the Minister would increase the earned income relief. This would assist young couples to save for their own homes instead of always taking the money from their pockets.

The decision of the Minister to remove exemption from income tax for bank interest is a retrograde step. In his statement he said he had decided that the best course would be to confine the exemption to deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Banks which, he said, are the main thrift institutions of the State, and to remove it from the banking institutions. Obviously, the Minister knows the great benefits that can accrue to the country by the stimulation of savings. One of the prime aims of the Government, therefore, should be to encourage savings. We all know that money deposited in savings accounts can be lent by the banks both to the public and the private sectors. Some years ago a decision similar to the one proposed was made by the then Minister for Finance on the advice of his officials at that time. Steps were taken in subsequent budgets to try to redress the damage that had resulted from that decision but, despite that, in his first budget, the present Minister is removing entirely the benefit from deposits in the banks. In time we will regret this step because the backbone of the Irish financial institutions has always been the banks which in the various towns in the country are referred to as the domestic banks. The farming community, in particular, have always had a firm faith in the banking institutions. By his decision, the Minister is eroding further the confidence of the community in the banking institutions. This is a retrograde step. I doubt whether he believes that the moneys transferred from banks will be lodged in the Post Office.

The economy depends to a great extent on the private sector as well as on the building, the manufacturing and the service industries as well as many others. The Government's decision in respect of interest on savings will result in their removing £60 million for their own needs from the domestic banks. This is money that is necessary for the expansion of the private sector but which will not now be available. There are two decisions involved here. The first is the taking up by the Government of £60 million of the money available while the other is the chasing from the banks of every £ that is on deposit in them. To take £60 million out of our economy in one year while at the same time damaging the banking institutions by removing this money will have the effect of damaging seriously the possibilities for the expansion of our industrial sector. If this happens the hope of the Minister of a reduction in the unemployment figure, which is the hope of each one of us, will not be realised.

I have studied the budget thoroughly but I cannot see in it much hope for that desired decrease in the unemployment figure because the Minister has done nothing to stimulate the economy. As well as removing money from the private sector, he is increasing prices and the rates of value-added tax. He is also damaging our tourist industry and the proposals will do serious damage to the economy.

In conclusion, I would remind the Minister that this budget is a recipe for economic disaster in the years ahead so that once again Fianna Fáil, after the next general election, will have to spend the first few years of their term in office endeavouring to recover the wasted years of Coalition mismanagement.

On the 28th February last the people reached a big and a wise decision in removing Fianna Fáil from office. However, there are some Fianna Fáil Deputies who do not realise that they are now in Opposition. Since the change in Government this House is a different place. Instead of having truculent, arrogant and, in some cases, contemptuous Ministers on these benches, there are Ministers who are willing and anxious to give Deputies the information they require and to reply to questions in a fair and reasonable manner. As one who was a Member of this House during the entire 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government, and for some years prior to that, I was impressed very strongly this evening while listening to the debate on the EEC Bill when the Minister dealt in a detailed and a courteous manner with the various questions raised by Opposition Deputies. I am glad that this House has recovered some of the dignity that was characteristic of the inter-party Government days and that debates can now be conducted in a much freer manner than was the case during the Fianna Fáil term of office.

The Deputy is joking.

Some of the people opposite do not like their present roles. The first budget of the National Coalition Government comes as a refreshing document after the type of budget to which we have been subjected during the Fianna Fáil years. Despite the criticism of the last speaker, the Minister is to be congratulated on his proposals. The budget is a comprehensive outline of our financial affairs, drawn up by the Minister after only a short number of weeks in office.

In the budget there are 59 subheads covering, in a rather detailed way, our national housekeeping position. As an ordinary Deputy what strikes me most about the Minister's budget is the breakdown of that barrier which has existed since the British Government established it in 1908. I am sure Deputy Dowling knows the barrier I mean, the qualifying age for the old age pension.

I have been pressing that issue here for my 22 years' membership of the Dáil, that our citizens advancing in years should be given an opportunity of retiring at an earlier age than they were allowed to do. We had many people qualifying for their retirement allowance at the age of 65, but those in our society who were not so qualified, largely self-employed people, in many cases the men who turned out to work in the wind and the weather, as Deputy Connolly knows down in Laois-Offaly, had to continue working for a longer period than their more favoured brethren. This is a reasonable achievement for the Minister and the Government after a seven or eight weeks' period in office. It was impossible to move Fianna Fáil on it. I employed every means possible, as did a number of other Members of the House. Our objective was to reduce it by five years, not in one bite—that would be difficult; money does not fall from heaven—but over a reasonably short period. We can thank God that it is no longer 70 years for the old age pension; it is now 69. Not being a prophet I do not engage in prophecy but I have a feeling that, if I were to move into that field of activity, I could say that under the wise direction of the National Coalition Government it will be chopped to 68, 67, 66 and 65. If I were to address the 68 age group in this country tonight I would say: "Keep your hearts up. There is a Government in power now that are anxious about you. They are not like Fianna Fáil who, despite all their years in office, never moved in your direction but set down that you, the people who have no social insurance, will have to continue until you are 70 years." I must ask the Chair to bear with me in dealing with this question because it strikes me so forcibly. It is something with which I have been closely associated in various forms, not by way of agitation but representation, in the past.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Before I was interrupted I was dealing with what I termed the most striking feature of this budget, the reduction in the qualifying age for old age pension. This, of course, is in accordance with our policy, and as Deputy Dowling has been so kind as to get me an additional audience I should like to remind the new members of the fold of my statement that for years and years I, together with several other Members, was beseeching Fianna Fáil to break that old barrier of 70 years set up 65 years ago. It took the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, and the National Coalition Government to do it. This, according to Deputy Burke, is the recipe for economic disaster. Now the old people advancing in years can look with fortitude to the years ahead knowing that there is a Government in power who are mindful of their position and who will see that they are fairly and equitably treated.

Not only did the National Coalition Government interest themselves in the qualifying age limit, but they did a great deal more. They said there was no justification for the means test proposed and in operation by Fianna Fáil over the years where a person had to be deemed to have no means in order to qualify for the maximum old age pension. Any person who had a house or who had the right of lodging or who had more than the formidable figure of £25 did not qualify for the £5.15 maximum rate under Fianna Fáil. What did the National Coalition do about this? Did they do as Fianna Fáil did in the years gone by so far as the means test was concerned? No, they considered the matter in a liberal way, and the Minister for Finance and his colleagues said they would ease the position so far as qualification for the pension was concerned. With a stroke of the pen they crossed off the first £4 for pension purposes. That is not bad for a Government that has been in office for two months. Previously if a pensioner had the small sum of £2 because he kept a few cows or because his wife had a little shop, that money was taken into account when considering his application for a pension. If he had a little nest-egg in the bank the social welfare officer made many inquiries——

The Minister said he was going to have a fleet of inspectors.

The National Coalition decided they would do something about all these matters. We told the people we would do so and, once we were elected, that is exactly what we did. However, I am afraid the Government's public relations system is not as good as it should be. Although the many advantages of the budget are set out in cold print, some people—even reasonably intelligent people—have not grasped yet what is waiting for them. Many people who may have an income of a few pounds because they keep a small shop or have a few cows do not realise that what they have received is a £4 weekly increase. It is not just an increase of £1 because we are not taking into account the few cows the man might have or the money he is making in his little shop. It was a wonderful achievement of the National Coalition to ensure that the first £4 will not be considered for pension purposes. However, we are doing even more. In the case of an applicant who is married, he and his wife will have £8 weekly which the social welfare officer will not take into account. How different this is from what Fianna Fáil did.

It is all right for the man who has the few cows or the little shop. What about the workers?

We did quite a number of things for retired people. We reduced the qualifying age, we eased the means test and we gave a flat rate increase. However, we considered another section of the community who were not being dealt with in a fair manner—I am referring to the widows. These people have lost their breadwinners, have found themselves left with young families and have had to make many sacrifices to make ends meet. They found themselves up against the rigid means test imposed by Fianna Fáil and were allowed only £100 in calculating their pensions.

Before Fianna Fáil there were no widows' pensions.

It was my distinguished predecessor from Cork South West, the late T.J. Murphy, who first moved on this question and I must give him that credit.

Fianna Fáil introduced the widows' pensions. They were in operation before he came into office.

Many of the widows were obliged to go to work in order to make ends meet because of the inadequate pensions. Frequently they did jobs such as housework to earn a few extra pounds to make life a little brighter for their families. Under Fianna Fáil the social welfare officers took account of this extra money and the allowance granted was negligible. However, the National Coalition Government have ensured that widows will be allowed to earn much more. I am sure that the widows appreciate that fact and will particularly appreciate it next Wednesday.

The same position obtains in regard to non-contributory widows. Many of their incomes will jump by £5 or £6 a week as a result of the National Coalition budget. Despite the steady decrease in the value of money it will make life brighter for them. If they do a bit of work they can now have that little extra money without being chased and in some cases brought before the courts for not disclosing it, as they were by Fianna Fáil. That is a welcome change and it will not bring this nation disaster as we heard them say over there.

Deputy Burke.

More than Deputy Burke. In the period between now and the next day of reckoning we will provide employment for all our people capable of working. We will look after them. If work cannot be found for them or if they are unable to work because they are disabled, the National Coalition budget will look after them. It would not be right to waste the time of the House spelling out all of what is in this blue paper. Everybody who can read knows what the position is. I am hopeful that the group of people who have been denied the right to work by the past Government, who have been denied the right to earn a reasonable standard of income, will think of the National Coalition on the next day of reckoning. If they do I cannot see them finding their way into the Childers lobby.

How many questions have I put in the Dáil since the 1970 Health Act was introduced about changing the procedure for qualification for disablement allowances? I am dealing with those whom we in our national programme promised we would help. We asked Deputy Childers, the former Minister for Health, to change this regulation which was depriving so many hundreds of people throughout the country of any allowance whatsoever because they were not in the insurance bracket and because, therefore, the members of their households were obliged to provide for them.

We felt their position should be changed. We thought it would be changed by the 1970 Act. Every Deputy in the House is aware of the number of letters he has received from health boards saying: "Joe Dowling cannot get an allowance because the means of the household are too high". That is how it operated under Fianna Fáil. It is not so long since Deputy Childers made it quite clear in this House as Minister for Health that he could not change that, that it would cost too much money. He asked where the money would come from. In effect he said: "Let these people continue to suffer; let them continue to be a burden on their aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters".

The National Coalition did not allow that to continue for long. Let Deputies read up the White Paper and they will see that Deputy Ryan, the Minister for Finance, in a couple of lines wiped out what Deputy Childers refused vehemently to wipe out. This is the man now going around the country asking the poor to help him on his way.

The only fear I have is that these facts are not known and appreciated. Indeed, if the Government have failed in any way it is that they have not transmitted sufficiently to the 180,000 old age pensioners and to the thousands of widows' dependants and the disabled, both physically and mentally, how we have catered for them in this document presented to us on 6th May. Of course, it was on 28th February when the people voted for us and pushed us over here and them over there that the good work was done. It is the people who deserve the thanks in the first instance. We are satisfied with secondary consideration. In order to enable this to be done the Government had to find the formidable sum of £52½ million. I will not go into details of all we have done. It is in this white document and it is in more detail in the blue document.

We are satisfied.

We are and so are the people. Of course, Fianna Fáil are jealous, envious. Their sins can be read in the catechism: envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

Doctor Lucey must be giving the Deputy his lessons.

It is hard on Deputy Dowling. He is just as pleased as Deputy Dunne. Deputy Dowling is anxious about those people. I accept that he is but he should have brought his 15 or 16 stone to bear on Deputy Lynch to change the law in these respects. Of course, £52½ million does not fall from heaven.

Richie's mint.

The Government realised this was a formidable burden but they also realised the plight of those people and had no hesitation in making that huge sum available to brighten their lives. Most of those people have not cars, luxurious houses or big incomes. The older ones have given a lifetime of service and they need care in the winter of their lives. I have asserted that at all times. I am glad that, under a considerate Government, they are getting it now.

The problems that confronted the Government in the preparation of this budget were enormous. On leaving office Fianna Fáil left a legacy of mismanagement and mis-everything. I am not going to go back over the past years when the former Government's attention was taken up by internal wrangling. Someone told me, and I am sure there is some truth in it, that it was as a result of a further act in this internal wrangling campaign that Deputy Lynch called the election in February. However, whatever the cause, or the motives, the result was good.

The National Coalition Government had to contend with an inflationary trend which was the highest in Europe. Prices were going beyond bounds and money was pegging itself down from year to year and almost from week to week. As the Minister indicated in his budget statement, the big "nest egg" expected as a result of EEC entry had disappeared. Everybody accepts the Minister's statement in that regard.

That is not true, and the Deputy knows it.

I am satisfied that it is factual. Deputy Moore is long enough in the House to know that a Minister of State such as Deputy Ryan would not make an untruthful statement to the House and, through the House, to the nation.

You are far too intelligent to believe that.

I have sufficient confidence in the Minister to believe him. The figures can be checked if Deputy Moore is in any doubt.

We did check the figures.

But the Deputy's mathematical brain it not functioning at all now. The Deputy is in a coma. The Minister did a fine job. It will take some of the Deputies in Opposition a number of months to get over this.

We will never get over statements like those made by Deputy Murphy and I do not think that the Government side will either.

After such a long time in power it will take the Deputy, and his party, a long time to get over it. A sum of £52½ million has been allocated by the Minister to improve the lot of recipients of social welfare benefits. One would think, after such a payout, that the Government's pocket would be empty but more benefits were given. A statement was made prior to the election by the National Coalition that the problem of rates would be tackled. Everybody knew that rates were rocketing from year to year and that they were too excessive for many ratepayers. Nobody knows that better than the public representatives who have to reply to so many letters and statements regarding soaring rates.

Many questions were asked in this regard. Should there be some easement? Should some of the money collected through local revenue be channelled into the national revenue collection system? The National Coalition in their first budget took into account the position of the ratepayers of the country and their difficulties. Fianna Fáil claimed that the proposals outlined by the National Coalition could not be implemented. Spokesmen for that party told the people that there was no possibility of doing that, that the rates could not be interfered with and that the two systems for public financing, national and local, would have to continue.

On the 14th or 15th day of the election campaign Moses or someone saw the light and a statement was issued by Fianna Fáil that they would abolish rates. This was a shameful document and one that caused Deputy Collins a great deal of embarrassment. He had already printed thousands of leaflets containing the opposite view to that expressed by his party. Fianna Fáil is a thing of the past and we will continue to strive for progress.

The Government had to find £24 million to ease the rates situation. If that sum were not found the rates demand this July would be higher than heretofore. The Minister went on to ease the situation in regard to death duties. We had groaning and moaning from Deputy Colley that the Minister was going to knock off all these with one stroke. The Minister did make a marked concession on death duties and anyone can read of these reliefs in his statement. This relief, according to some Fianna Fáil Deputies, amounts to nothing. Giving widows from £2,000 to £4,000 is a marked increase. We have given £1,000 to £2,000 for dependent children so that now a widow with three children with property worth £43,000 or £44,000 is completely free of the net of estate duty. That is supposed to be nothing according to Fianna Fáil.

There are a number of other people like deserted wives, unmarried mothers and so on. There are the sheep farmers. Almost all sections of the community will benefit generally. We have increased the age limit for children's allowances from 16 years to 18 years. Does that count for nothing? Does it cost money? What did Fianna Fáil say about increasing the age limit from 16 years to 18 years? They did not do it. We are doing it now and, as a result, a family with five children will qualify for £20 per month. That is a step forward.

Mention has been made of the middle income group. Fianna Fáil are always anxious to divide our people into high income, middle income and low income groups. It has been said that no profit accrued to the business people from the budget. Is it not reasonable to assume that the £52½ million which the Government put into the pockets of our social welfare recipients will find its way into all our shops and business houses and help the shopkeepers and others? It is not to the banks that that section of our people go with their money. The greater part of it, if not all of it, will move around and, in moving around, it is bound to help other sections.

Our public TV service has been the subject matter of many questions and many discussions in this House in recent years. It is heartening to hear mention made of this matter also, particularly in its more elaborate form, by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. There are different demands in different locations. In the southern half of Ireland we have a demand for additional channels. We feel that demand is legitimate. We know the difficulties of its attainment. Coupled with that, we have poor reception, hopeless reception, in some centres. Nothing could be done, and nothing was done, by Deputy Gerry Collins during the time he was Minister, or by his predecessors. This Government were not in office for two months before they dispatched their Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to meet the British Minister, Sir John Eden, and to have, as reports indicate, a very fruitful discussion with him.

Does that improve reception?

The budget covers all public activities. In the south of Ireland we are all looking forward—12, 13 or 14 counties are involved——

How fruitful is that?

We now have in charge of RTE a Minister who will do something about this major question particularly so far as the southern half of our country is concerned.

Did you have to get the permission of the British Government?

We are prepared to co-operate with the British Government if, by such co-operation, advantages will accrue to this country and its people. We are out for co-operation with Governments. We do not believe in isolationism.

Could you not do it without their permission?

I am not an expert on this matter. It is being handled very capably by the Minister who, I am sure, will be only too pleased to answer the Deputy's queries. I know enough about it to know that we must have the co-operation of the British Government through their Minister, Sir John Eden. Deputy Moore can rest assured that this item is in very sound hands now that Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien is dealing with it.

He dearly loves a lord —toadying to British imperialism.

The Deputy need have no sleepless nights about it.

He is a much travelled man.

We will have early reports because the Government are fully behind this effort. Telephones were also mentioned. There used to be a waiting list of three years. I am hopeful that with the new blood on these benches that position will change. These are all important items. Roads were mentioned. Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government, is not dipping his hand into the Road Fund as Fianna Fáil used to do, and more money is being made available to improve the road out to Kilcock about which Deputy Burke, or somebody else, was moaning or complaining a while ago, and to improve the many other roads that need improvement.

In all fields of activity in all Departments there is fresh air blowing through. The atmosphere has changed. People have new faith and new confidence in the new Ministers. That is a pleasing feature. A lot of the old wood has been hacked away. Some fell by the wayside and others almost slipped. They were very lucky.

The previous speaker, Deputy Burke, said that, as a result of putting 1p on the pint and 3p on the glass of whiskey and 1p on the postage stamp, our tourist industry will be finished. That is a fair appraisal of his remarks. Whom does he think he is codding? Would any other Deputy make such a nonsensical statement? Would any other Deputy waste the time of this House making such a statement? I am surprised at Deputy R.P. Burke—he is a new Deputy—because I believe his father would not make a statement like that, a statement no man could swallow.

The Government are obliged to find money and are finding it honestly. They do not like taking money from the people. I do not like it. I am a publican but, even if I were not, I would not like it either. I like to have a drink and a smoke, like everybody else, but we appreciate we have to contribute and, we appreciate that, in contributing, we are not being unfairly dealt with. I know it is hard on people, but we must look on the bright side as well as the dark. I do not accept that putting 1p on the pint, 3p on the glass of whiskey and 1p on the postage stamp will spell ruin for the tourist industry or finish the hotelier who has to reply to requests for accommodation. There must not be much fodder left in the Fianna Fáil manger when they have to pull this straw up from the bottom of it.

We have heard a good deal about value-added tax. What did I say a moment ago: £76½ million. Tot up now the value-added tax on food. That gives us £93½ million, outside of estate duty and so on. We are moving ahead now in our figures. It is spelled out clearly in the budget and there is no need for me to go on totting, but these three items alone amount to £93½ million. The Government are removing value-added tax on food in accordance with their statement of intent. That will help all sections of our community. We never believed in taxing food.

Who first thought of value-added tax? Listening to the speakers on the opposite benches one would think it was the National Coalition Government who invented it since they came into office. It was firmly and forcibly imposed by Fianna Fáil. When they came to an end of the systems of grabbing money from the people, they put value-added tax on food. They also put value-added tax on motor cars, furnishings, cutlery, drink and so on. Listening to the speakers on the opposite benches one would think value-added tax was an innovation, something that was never heard of before. But Fianna Fáil were doing fairly well with value-added tax. They imposed 5.26 on various items. No need to spell them out. They imposed 16.37 on other items. They are loud in their lamentations about the 5 or 6 per cent increase on the car, but it was 30.26 under Fianna Fáil. We are told this will hit the car industry.

Impartial observers will not accept the contentions of the Deputies opposite so far as this line of taxation is concerned. We removed value-added tax from food. We believe this is a step in the right direction. We got a mandate from the people to do it. There are relatively small increases in other items and I believe the people will approve the other adjustments made. If the Deputies opposite are so worried about value-added tax why did they think of it first and why did they introduce it at a time when allowances were not nearly as good as they are now and when money was more valuable than it is now?

I am not hiding anything. There are things about which people may feel aggrieved. There has been a certain amount of lobbying about income tax. There are many complaints, reasonably justified complaints in many cases. We have debated income tax in this House on many occasions. I mentioned it on numerous occasions and I was told by the respective Ministers that little or nothing could be done. And that is the way it was over the years: little or nothing was done. It is no use Deputy Haughey, now on the benches opposite, wailing about the income tax code and the level of tax. He was Minister for Finance and he did nothing about it. In reply to a question tabled by me on one occasion he told me how many millions it would cost to make any change. One can readily appreciate, when one tots up the many advantageous measures in this budget, that the Government could not go all the way at one stroke of the pen, after a mere two months in office. Mark you, they did not overlook the matter entirely; they gave the married woman some hand-out. We are pleased that the forms will be simplified. They are difficult to understand and I am sure everyone will welcome any simplification.

I do not want to delay the House but great progress has been made in many directions since we took office. Think of the impact the Minister for Education has made since he became Minister. He has made a greater impact in two months in office than his predecessor made in his whole term. That is not my own view only. It is the view of many people, even of some of the Deputy's party. Because of the qualifications and personal attributes of our Ministers and their administrative capacity, Ireland is now on the right road. The ship is being soundly skippered. Deputy R. Ryan and Deputy Corish are at the helm and will be there for years.

You cannot have two helmsmen; the two are going in opposite directions.

There is a good team down along the line. The people elected them on 28th February.

That might account for the crazy path you are still on.

This Government represent all sections of our people. There is nothing sectional or narrow about them. They are all-embracing. It is no harm to emphasise that to the Members opposite. The people accept it. The change is refreshing. It is likely that the 16-year period of office of the last Fianna Fáil Government could be surpassed in length by the present holders of office.

The budget was a well-prepared statement of our national housekeeping. It covers all our activities. It indicates in a clear and straightforward manner the direction in which we are going. Many people cannot appreciate the magnitude of the advantages, particularly to the needy sections of the community, amounting to £100 million while digging so lightly into the pockets of the tax-paying public. Some people find it difficult to understand how that happened. It is a soundly-constructed policy statement. The people who drafted this budget are capable of drafting many more budgets of this kind. As the Government delve into all aspects of public affairs, in the process remedying the defective measures of the past Government and removing all traces of the difficulties that beset them during 1969, 1970 and 1971, the people can look forward to the future.

The Minister for Finance and other members of the Government should look forward to 31st May, 1973, when the National Coalition candidate will, I am sure, assume the exalted position of first citizen of this State.

Having listened to Deputy M.P. Murphy it is easy to understand why there is no other member of the Labour Party on the Benches behind him. They got "fed up" at an early stage and drifted away.

This budget has been called by many names. It has been called the "Hokey Pokey" budget, because the Minister gave with one hand and took back with the other. When we examine the budget we will see the situation clearly.

I would like to quote from newspapers and to give comments made by various people so as to make it clear to the Minister that these are not my own complaints about the problems but those of other people.

In the Irish Press on 17th May Mr. D. McDonagh, of the Federated Union of Employers, said the budget was—

strongly motivated by social considerations but unfortunately in some respects it disimproves the competitive position of industry as it faces up to freer trading conditions.

It is a situation which affects a number of workers to some degree.

The Confederation of Irish Industries welcomed the overall expansionary aspect of the budget—

in that the capital budget is up by over 20 per cent and ... the Minister has aimed at a current account deficit.

It expressed disappointment that no action was proposed to spread the taxation burden more equitably.

It considers that while the redistribution of wealth was welcome there was not enough attention given to the encouragement of sustained growth in industrial output and employment.

This lays the emphasis on employment and shows clearly that enough has not been done in this particular sector.

Mr. MacGiolla of Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place) said:

It was fairly clear from Mr. Ryan's budget that the Government were going to force through a wage freeze at all costs.

The trade unions must now be wondering where Labour is going to find a political voice in their coming confrontation with the employers and Government.

... it was becoming daily more clear what a conservative, right-wing government we now had. It was a Cosgrave government, a classic Fine Gael government with the Labour Party already reduced to an incoherent supporting role.

Will the Deputy give the source of that quotation?

The Irish Press of 19th May, 1973. This shows clearly the type of role which Deputy M.P. Murphy played.

Mr. Matt Larkin, general secretary of NATO, said:

it was unfortunate that the working man's only form of relaxation, "the pint and fags", had to be taxed again.

The Chairman of ACRA said:

it was not an "over-imaginative" budget. The proposals on death and stamp duties were only partly satisfactory ... and were not going to cost the Exchequer any significant amount.

He deplored—

the increase in telephone rentals and coin-operated calls.

Mr. Robert Prole, secretary of the Society of the Irish Motor Industry, describes the increase of VAT on cars as extremely harsh. He said:

this move made nonense of the efforts of the National Prices Commission and the society to narrow the gap between the prices of cars here and in the UK.

The criticism that came from this side of the House had a fair amount of support from other quarters. According to the Irish Independent of 17th May, the farmers are bitter. I quote:

Farm organisatoins reacted bitterly last night ... to the failure of the Minister for Finance to implement a pre-election commitment to abolish estate duties.

The Women's Progressive Association, according to the same newspaper said it contained little or no incentive for married women to go back to work. I quote:

The increase in the tax allowance was hardly worth the Minister's while, as the present allowance of £74 a year was so small anyway, it added. The Women's Progressive spokeswoman referred to the Children's Allowances and suggested that the two main changes in the area would cancel out one another. Although increasing the allowance for those under £2,500 a year had been good it was a bad move to reduce the tax-free allowance for those over that figure, she said. It would act as a disincentive to many married women to go back to work and the nation would miss out on their skills and abilities, the official spokeswoman, Mrs. Hillary Pratt, said.

The Deputy Chairman of the Automobile Association described it as nonsense. He had quite a lot to say about the increase in VAT and the impositions on motorists in relation to petrol, driving licences, taxation.

Mr. Leo Keogh, chief executive of the Society of the Irish Motor Industry was concerned about the increase in VAT. He said and I quote from the Irish Independent of 17th May:

The new tax placed Ireland much further out of line with the tax structure on cars in other EEC countries. Our new tax of 36.75 per cent compared with less than 20 per cent VAT on cars in the UK. It was surprising to find a Government Minister still regarding the car as a luxury.

This is a fairly wide volume of opinion. It does not all come from Fianna Fáil. We had a comment from Mr. Tom Reynolds of the Construction Industry Federation. He expressed disappointment that nothing had been done to relieve the building societies. The federation, he said, believed the situation to be critical and he hoped the Minister would come to a speedy decision in regard to their call for tax relief.

Mr. J. C. McGough, President of the Irish Exporters Association in a statement said:

We are seriously concerned at the increases in telephone and postal services and motor taxation charges which will increase the burden on exporters which cannot be recovered from the market place abroad.

Mrs. Maureen Black, vice-president of the National Association of Widows in Ireland said that as far as the widows were concerned the £1 rise in the contributory pension was not going to take them very far.

Mr. A. McNamee, the secretary of the National Income Tax Relief Organisation said:

Wage and salary earners will undoubtedly revolt against the unequal treatment.

A spokesman for P.J. Carroll said that the increase in excise duty on cigarettes would bring Ireland further away in that field from a harmonisation of taxation in the EEC. As EEC members, he said, we should be aiming at harmonisation of taxation. He said: "This is the biggest increase we have experienced yet."

Mr. John Keogh, general secretary of the Licensed Vintners' heard the news with "disbelief". He claimed that the .27p per pint would give the brewers an additional £1,500,000 in the coming year.

Mr. Eddie Connellan, secretary of the Irish National Vintners' Federation, said it was a "terrible" budget as far as his members were concerned.

These are just a few comments from a fair cross-section of the community, all quoted in the Irish Independent. I have here also two leading articles published in the Irish Independent of May 17th. In the first leading article they say:

Any new taxes are of course unpalatable to those affected by them. The Minister's statement that his new taxes will fall on the "better-off" sections and that "every citizen will benefit" from the Budget may come as a surprise to many taxpayers. The day is gone when the owner of a motorcar can be regarded as enjoying a luxury product.

In the second leading article in the same newspaper they say:

Thousands of elderly people will be disappointed that the age for old age pensions came down only a year; thousands of families will point out that VAT on food stays until September and that the rate of VAT on clothes and footwear, both costly items in any househould—has been increased not decreased. Extra postal and car charges are bound to impinge on the family budget, and these are not necessarily offset by the increase in children's allowances ...

In the same newspaper we read: "Little Joy for the Consumer—Gain offset by Rises".

I am giving these quotations from the Irish Independent in case the Minister did not get around to them, he is such a busy man. This article continues:

The pre-election promise of the National Coalition to allocate a zero rating of VAT to food is welcome but the juggling of rates to recoup the revenue loss from this move will be less favoured. Increased motor taxation, higher postal and telephone charges and the inevitable rise in transport costs as a result of petrol increases—all caused dismay among consumer groups last night... Special precautions are being taken to ensure that traders do not increase prices in anticipation of the removal of VAT, Mr. Ryan added. Mr. Ryan did not say what the special precautions were and this, with the fact that the VAT does not come off until September 1, increases fears that pressures may frustrate his wishes.

Miss Joan Morrison of the Consumer Association of Ireland said:

Mr. Ryan's decision to increase VAT from 16.37 per cent on furniture, furnishings, cleansing materials, electrical, kitchenware, haberdashery, jewellery, holiday goods and other items effectively blankets the consumer durable market. With the controversial increase to 36.37 per cent in the rate of VAT on cars, motorcycles, television and radio sets, gramophones and records, he has pushed them into the luxury class. ... Postal and telephone charges are already very high and the increases are very disappointing. It also appears that cars are still regarded by the Government as luxury items.

Mrs. Eithne Moore, vice-president of the Irish Housewives' Association said that she was dismayed to hear that clothing and footwear would be subject to a slightly higher rate—6.75 per cent compared with 5.26 per cent. She said: "I regard postal charges as high at present and it is disappointing that travelling must go up as a result of higher motor taxation and petrol costs."

These quotations give an indication of the type of budget that has been presented by the Minister. Now I should like to indicate the background against which the budget was formed and who was responsible for the formation of the budget, who the pressure-groups were who applied pressure to ensure that certain concessions would be granted and that certain action would not be taken. I have here a copy of Hibernia of March 30th, 1973. The heading is “Fine Gael's ‘Black Paper”’ and I quote:

Coalition Opponents who hoped for a crisis, as much as Coalition supporters who hoped for a balanced open-ended approach to emerge from the dichotomy of conservative and socialist politics in the preparation of the first Coalition Budget are in for a severe disappointment. There will be no crisis, nor will there be much give-and-take between the two parties who make up the National Coalition. The following report is based on a confidential document circularised to a small and influential number of bankers, financiers and stockbrokers which sets out the Coalition Government's economic policy. The small-print of that policy, understandably perhaps given the pressures of the General Election campaign, has not yet been unveiled to the public. But more alarmingly, it seems very likely that it is not known by many members of the two parliamentary parties as well.

They are referring to the two parties that form this coalition. The article continues:

But already the men who matter in the banking and stockbroker belts have received their assurances, clearly set down in a highly confindential document. The document, in fact, is a blueprint of the Fine Gael strategists for the operation of their period in Government. The document is very specific about what will NOT be done. Not content with the 11-point programme Fine Gael have documented what way this was to be read ... to avoid ambiguity or later dispute. Before the election a significant number of stockbrokers, bankers and industrialists had their fears assuaged by Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who was then Shadow Minister for Finance, speaking on behalf of the National Coalition.

For those who were not present to hear Dr. FitzGerald tell the stockbroker belt how it was to be in Coalition, his views were set out in the document giving a question and answer résumé of what was said, which was then circulated among a limited group of influential people.

* Value Added Tax will be removed from food and non-alcoholic drink. The estimated loss of £15 million will be recouped by increased VAT on other goods by anything from 1% to 6% and by raising the present wholesale element of the tax by 5%.

This document was published some time before the budget was introduced and it continues:

* Through the personal tax system, the Minister will attempt to prevent income from sources other than wages and salaries from rising more rapidly than taxable incomes.

* To garnish the incomes policy carrot for the workers a general tightening up on price increases will be announced. The stringent measures will be of a temporary nature, though this might not be spelled out fully This will mean that the new Government will give the National Prices Commission wider powers.

* The first steps in easing the rates burden will be taken in a "promises kept" post-election exercise.

What will not happen? This much is clear from pre-election assurances given by Dr. Garret FitzGerald on behalf of the National Coalition.

* There will be no dividend control.

* No profit control.

* No change in the company tax structure, other than that foreshadowed in the Fianna Fáil pre-election white paper.

* Banks will not be nationalised and the finance and other credit institutions will not be taken into public ownership.

* There will be no major move to end the mining exploitation.

* All the stated ambitions of the Labour Party, when in Government, are to be denied. Fine Gael's own speculative gains tax is to be left on the shelf.

* There will be no early move to regulate mergers and takeovers.

* There will be no intervention by the Government on the outflow of cash from Ireland for investment overseas, especially in Britain.

On a point of order, is it in order to read one's speech which, in effect, is what this Deputy is doing at the moment?

The Chair cannot say that the Deputy is reading his speech but the Chair was about to draw the speaker's attention to the fact that lengthy quotations are not in order and the Deputy is quoting extensively.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, I do not wish this article or any part of it to be taken out of context.

The Chair will not permit the Deputy to make any further quotations of a lengthy nature. From his long experience in the House, he knows they are not in order.

Because of the concern of the Deputy opposite, perhaps we could have a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Before I was interrupted so rudely——

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy interrupted himself.

The document that had been circulated——

Before the Deputy indulges in further lengthy quotations, the Chair would inform him that such quotations are not in order and that a series of them is not a contribution to debate.

I was quoting from a document that had been circulated. The article from which I was quoting concludes with the paragraph:

The Labour Party Outline Policy Book originally sold for five shillings. It must now be worth a small fortune as a collector's item. The document quoted above is an even rarer item ... and seemingly is going to be worth a great deal more.

It will be worth considerably more to the old age pensioners.

This is the scandalous situation of which the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues were not made aware before the general election campaign. However, to get back to the budget, I take it that it will be in order to quote at length from the Minister's document.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Read all of it.

Since no one will write the Deputy's speech for him, he may as well use the Minister's brief.

As reported at column 1238 of the Official Report for the 16th May, 1973, the Minister said that:

Factors originating abroad, which are outside our control, will unfortunately continue to push up prices in the months ahead...

We were told before the election that prices would be reduced. The Minister also said at column 1239:

...the indications for the present year are far from reassuring. As I mentioned, at mid-February, 1973, the increase in the index was 10 per cent, of which food prices represented over half...

Further on the Minister said:

...I must stress that these increases in food prices are entirely outside the direct control of the Government.

Prior to the election we were told that prices were the complete responsibility of the Government. There will be enormous price increases after the 1st September and there will also be an autumn budget. In this second budget the Minister will be seeking an additional amount of taxation which will be equivalent to the amount he has taken already in the main budget.

Now we see the approach of the National Coalition Government to the problem of price increases. We have been told through the media that this Government is the greatest thing since the sliced pan but now they are to reduce the size of the sliced pan. This is the National Coalition's contribution to the house-wife's problem. This is the second occasion that the Coalition Government have changed the size of the loaf. This is the type of gimmick the National Coalition Government are now indulging in. As I said, it will be September before VAT is taken off food. Why did they not take it off immediately after the budget? It is quite clear that the savage increases that will take place will not be allowed to take place until after the Presidential Election. There will also be an autumn budget, which is a necessity now because of certain factors contained in the budget, because of certain statements made by the Minister for Health recently, indicating that the Minister must get £11 million before next budget day in order to keep the economy moving, and he can only get it by way of taxation. We know also that the desire of the National Coalition now is to ensure that the car manufacturing concerns here go out of business at the earliest possible moment.

(Interruptions.)

I shall develop this at a later stage. There are also the redundancies that will take place in CIE after the Minister, in conjunction with another Minister, has examined the matter as he indicated on television. In this sphere nobody appears to have any authority at all. Deputy Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is passing the buck to Deputy Barry, the Minister for Transport and Power. Not alone will there be a substantial drop in the number of personnel employed by CIE but there will be a substantial increase in the bus and train fares in the near future. We know also that there are many people not very sympathetic to Aer Lingus and that substantial reductions in personnel will take place there because of statements that have been made by Ministers and by other members of the National Coalition group.

The biggest redundancies will be in those benches.

There is also a serious situation in relation to the people who are hard pressed. They can well laugh over there. It may be a joke that people are left without employment or have to pay higher prices. If we examine the Minister's statement in relation to assistance to the weaker sections of the community, we find that while the Minister has taken VAT off food and drink——

What is the Deputy quoting from?

A "Guide to Added-Value Tax", issued by the Revenue Commissioners, Dublin Castle, July, 1972.

Fianna Fáil were in power at that time.

Would the Deputy give the page number?

That is outdated.

(Interruptions.)

It is not outdated.

Would Deputies allow Deputy Dowling to make his contribution? Other Deputies, in their turn, may answer.

Would he quote the White Paper on rates?

I shall deal with rates if the Members want me to deal with them.

Would Deputies allow the Deputy to make his contribution?

We are waiting for him to start.

While value-added tax is being taken off food, the Minister has not indicated very clearly the items from which it will be removed. The items that are not covered are medical substances used for injections, linaments, ointments, disinfectants, soaps and detergents. These are all at the higher rate. Then there is an increase by 28.32 per cent on other items, such as footwear and clothing. These are important items. The Minister is not concerned about the weaker section of the community and while social welfare benefits have been increased, there are other items on which the Minister intends to get back two-fold the amount of money he has given to these people. These are very important items in any household where there is a large family.

What document is that?

If the Deputy's ears were as big as his mouth he would know long ago.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputies should not make personal reflections.

Surely the Deputy is entitled to a hearing.

The Chair has said so.

There are also additional taxes on tobacco, petrol and fuel. In regard to fuel we see that fuel includes electricity, coke, coal, turf and wood in various forms used as fuel and gas. This will also add to the burden of the community. Value-added tax is one of the items that is recouped by the ESB irrespective of who pays an ESB bill, so a very substantial sum is passed on to the consumer in relation to fuel. Does the Minister believe that the children of this country should sit around empty grates? Responsible parents will endeavour to ensure that there is comfort in the home, but a very substantial tax has been applied. Newspapers and periodicals are also taxed. The argument was put forward in the House by members of the National Coalition not so long ago that taxation on newspapers, periodicals and booklets was a tax on education. Again the savage increase of 28.32 per cent in this field indicates what the Minister thinks of the views of some of his colleagues.

We can understand the Deputy's sense of deprivation in relation to education.

Building materials of almost every description will be increased from 5.26 to 6.75. One item in which there is no change is dances. Apparently they have a heavy session in front of them.

We have seen the Parliamentary Secretary and other members of the Coalition Government do a tango here tonight. It may well be their last tango when we consider the number of items that have been increased in cost. I listened with interest to the Taoiseach on television at the "clap-in" at the Mansion House last Saturday when he indicated that items such as cleansing materials, furniture, hardware and kitchen materials were not essential items. I should like to see what kind of house he lives in. Does he think that the people do not buy these items? On all these items there has been a considerable increase.

The cost of cars, television sets and radios has been increased also. When we consider the situation that is developing in the car assembly business we will realise that this vicious increase will ensure that the business will not be competitive. This measure will hasten the redundancy of the 3,500 people employed in the industry. Many of these workers are in my constituency; in a short time quite a number of them will be out of work, together with people from the building industry which has been hit also because of the inactivity of certain members of the Government.

The car industry, CIE, Aer Lingus and the building industry are grinding to a halt and many of the workers may soon be forced to go to the labour exchange. It is unfortunate that no effort is being made to ensure continuity of employment. The budget did not do anything to help. The National Coalition Government are not concerned about the livelihood of people this year, next year or the year after. They are only concerned about the year they will have the election.

In four years' time.

The budget has been framed on the basis that they will stay in office for four years, although I am not sure that will be so. The Labour Party and their leader are a party to this, just as happened when they first entered office and closed down industries. This indicates clearly their policy of keeping people out of employment. They are not concerned about the people in the car assembly industry, in CIE, Aer Lingus or in the building industry. The fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated he was not prepared to increase bus fares before the Presidential Election but that he would have a long, hard look at CIE, can only mean that the workers will soon be out of work, just as happened people in the heavy engineering industry when the last Coalition Government took office.

The budget is a repetition of what happened in the past. On that occasion members of the trade union executive and influential trade unionists accepted what happened, as they are doing now. However, they have no say in the matter now. On one occasion the former Deputy Dillon said of the Labour Party that when they were in office they were as quiet as mice; the same thing will happen now. The Tánaiste, the Parliamentary Secretary and other members of the Labour Party will be a party to any kind of industrial destruction provided they stay in office. Irrespective of how many people are forced to go to the labour exchanges, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare will laugh and will try to cover up the misdeeds——

I am not as concerned about staying in office as I am about keeping Fianna Fáil out.

I know many families would like to make decisions at the moment but are unable to do so because they know about the National Coalition Government and about some members of the Government who were involved in the previous Coalition Government. The people will realise the sad situation facing the country as a result of the budget, just as the farmers realised they were hoodwinked. We know from reading the papers the shock the farmers got and how they feel about the National Coalition Government.

On considering the budget in greater detail we are aware of many things not indicated by the Minister for Finance in his speech. There will be indications of other things when VAT is removed in September. There is no doubt there will be another budget in the autumn.

There has been a cut-back of £8½ million to the health authorities which must be found because it will be vital to provide essential services. The weaker sections of the community will seek assistance from the health authorities and this will require the Government to meet the proposals put to them by the authorities and the public representatives. The Minister for Health has told Fine Gael and the Labour Party that he will not yield but will cut the allocation to the Eastern Health Board by £3 million. The Minister said the sum involved was only £1.6 million but, in fact, it is £3 million.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 24th May, 1973.
Top
Share