In his opening statement the Minister for Finance said that the Government's aim was to have a new and better Ireland. Obviously, this would be the aim of all Governments, but it is difficult to reconcile this wish with the Finance Bill. However, there is much confusion regarding some of the benefits proposed in the Bill.
To illustrate this point I should like to refer to a notice issued by Dublin Corporation to tenants. A person had been given a waiver of rates by the corporation, had received the benefit of the reduction in the rates because of the removal of the health charges, and he had also received increased social welfare benefits. Up to recently the man had been paying £2.05 per week but now he must pay £2.63p. Irrespective of the largesse in the budget and the reduced amount of rates the pensioner had to pay an extra 57p per week. It makes one wonder if the entire system is not out of gear when this situation arises. Irrespective of the Minister's pious hope about making this a better land, the budget has not brought about any changes and it is not likely that the Finance Bill will alter the situation of pensioners.
I should like to take this opportunity of wishing the Minister for Industry and Commerce good luck when he meets the members of RGDATA next Wednesday with regard to the price limit order. Although VAT will be removed from food next September it will not mean a reduction in prices. In this morning's papers members of RGDATA stated that because of existing circumstances they cannot sell certain lines within the limits imposed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce even though the association would like to keep down prices. We cannot be confident that the removal of VAT from food will mean reduced prices.
I noted with interest that although VAT has been imposed on clothing and fuel, exemption is granted to the horse and greyhound industries. It may be that those industries are very important to the economy but clothing and footwear are essential items and the increased costs will hit the poorer section of the community.
I know that the Minister for Finance has his difficulties and I wish to be helpful in my comments. The Government have said that they will provide 25,000 houses each year. I hope they achieve their target but I have my doubts about it. In section 64 the Government make provision for increasing the stamp duty on office block buildings from 10 to 15 per cent. Some years ago the then Minister imposed 10 per cent stamp duty on office blocks; at the time I thought this was not an entirely desirable tax because the developer will get his percentage by way of increased rents. It will be the firms or the Government Departments who rent these buildings who will pay the extra amount.
I suggest that the Government might consider removing the tax from office blocks provided the owner or the developer guarantees to allow 25 per cent of the area to be used as living accommodation for those in need. If the Government adopted this suggestion it would provide much-needed living accommodation in central areas. This would be a much better social and financial investment rather than imposing a 15 per cent stamp duty. It would help towards easing the housing problem and towards achieving the target of 25,000 dwellings per year. Whatever social aims the Government may have, housing must have a high priority.
VAT is charged on building components at a rate which works out at approximately 3 per cent. If the Government are prepared to give exemption to the industries dealing with greyhounds and horses, they might consider giving the same exemption to building components. The cost of these items is aggravating the present housing situation. I am sure most Deputies would agree that this matter should be examined. Homes for people must come before horse-boxes for horses or kennels for greyhounds.
The Minister should consider the question of VAT in the context of the building industry in order to see whether its removal from this industry would help towards the achievement of the Government's target of 25,000 houses per year. Apart from the question of finance, the Government will have great difficulty in achieving that target but it would be my wish that they would achieve it during the next year. Certainly, they will have the support of this side of the House in their efforts in this regard.
The Minister said in his brief that the budget was designed to lift the growth rate appreciably and to help reduce the level of unemployment. I do not think the Finance Bill will have that effect. There are inflationary tendencies inherent in this Bill. Of course, it is much more difficult to solve the problem of unemployment or any other problem, for that matter, in an inflationary situation rather than in a deflationary one. However, I have read that some economist holds the opposite view and says that inflation can help in some cases but he did not go to any great lengths to explain the reasons for his assertion.
I admit that the social welfare aspects of the Bill are good. Let us not forget, though, that for many years budgets produced by Fianna Fáil Governments provided also for increased social welfare benefits. It was part of the social thinking in all our budgets that we help further those people who were most in need. Because of the way in which price increases are eroding the extra benefits being paid, it may be necessary in the autumn to consider the position of those people in our community who are dependent on social welfare benefits. The case I cited last night of an old age pensioner being allowed a rates waiver but having to pay an extra 57 pence per week in rent is an indication of what can happen as a result of any increases being given in payments.
We are glad to note that some help is being given to the parents of thalidomide children in so far as any money that may be paid by the German firm concerned will not be taxable. I hope the Minister will go further in this respect and will ensure that any seriously handicapped child would have an adequate income for the remainder of his life.
Perhaps the Minister would explain the position in relation to illegitimate children who inherit property. About a year ago a case was brought to my notice of an illegitimate child who had been left property by her mother but she found that in her case the amount of stamp duty payable was much greater than would have been the case in respect of a legitimate child. The then Minister made some change in this regard but this did not go the full way to meeting the problem. This is another area that the Minister might consider.
I note that in section 19 there is provision for tax remission in respect of contributions to certain charities. Am I right in thinking that these charities are only those set out by the UN and by the Council of Europe so that, perhaps, if a person in this country wishes to donate money to a charity, he would not be entitled to any tax remission on any such donation?
