At the outset I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for Finance for the bold flair shown in his approach to this Bill. I would have been much happier if some of the people whom I thought needed assistance had been included among the beneficiaries under this Bill but they have not been. The Minister has assisted certain sections of the social welfare recipients. This is good. I know of some people who need the greatest assistance because they will never be in a position, and never were in a position, to act for themselves. These people are dependent on county councils to help them in their difficulties. The county councils are heavily overburdened and can give very little.
There are three people in my own constituency who need assistance very badly. They are two brothers and a sister. They have two cows and a donkey. The two cows last had calves about nine years ago. They still have them to give whatever little milk they can at their age. They have been completely without food. The neighbours told me about them and I succeeded in getting the county council to give them £5—£2 for each of the men, and £1 for the woman. The day that money was given I knew of a medium-sized farmer who sold seven of his cows at a Kerry mart for approximately £198 each. He left the mart and went to Killorglin to collect £11.10 assistance. I cannot accept a position like that in this day and age, where people who are really down and out cannot get anything.
In a letter I drew the attention of the Minister to these people. They are subnormal and were never in a position to help themselves. Their people before them were subnormal and were not able to earn enough for the necessaries of life or to make provision so that their family could survive after them. It is unfortunate that farmers and workers with plenty of money spend so much while unfortunate people like these cannot get enough to live on. If it is possible for the Minister to make any money available for such people I would be glad if he could make arrangements to have them looked after. It is beyond the capacity of the county council who are doing the best they can. Councils are heavily taxed. Every kind of inducement is sent out from central Government giving grants for this and that, provided that the county council put up 25 per cent of the money. Unfortunately, the poorest people who need assistance are left out.
I would ask the Minister to keep these people in mind. I can give him the names of the people concerned and the name of the farmer whom I know collected £11.10. He was a person who did not need it, but got it.
The assistance given to other social welfare recipients is very welcome. The easing of the means test has been of considerable assistance to many poor people. I want to thank the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, for this. People in receipt of social welfare benefits expected to get a little more than the £1 given, but the easing of the means test has compensated them.
There is a great danger in carrying a deficit of £44 million, such as that mentioned in the budget. It is rather expecting too much to anticipate, in this difficult year, that buoyancy of revenue will meet that deficiency. There are signs of trouble ahead for the building industry, which is one of the greatest employers in the country. This industry is also one of the greatest providers of tax revenue for the Minister because it is mostly our young single people who are engaged in this arduous work. They work long hours earning big money and this provides very sound income tax returns to the Minister. Those young men consume large quantities of spirits which brings in another type of revenue to the Minister.
There is great difficulty at the moment in getting supplies of timber and other materials. This could bring about a recession in the building industry. If that happens it will have a serious effect on the revenue collected by the Minister. We know that there is a shortfall of 25 per cent in world supplies of timber and that the Americans and Japanese have succeeded in buying up two-thirds of the world supply. They would have bought the entire supply if some independent people in Northern Europe had sold to them. Those people are now auctioneering their timber today. They will not quote prices. They invite you over to Europe and they try to sell the timber at their own price. This is having a serious effect on supplies of timber. Certain lengths of timber are not available at all because the Canadian supplies have completely dried up. We do not appear to be getting the supplies from Russia which we were getting up to recently.
We have had difficulty recently in having payment made of housing grants. This can hardly be caused by shortage of money because the Minister has provided the money for this in the budget, so perhaps it is caused by shortage of inspection staff. Every time I write about housing grants not paid to constituents of mine I get letters saying that "The matter is being investigated". It is rather upsetting to a person to receive nine or ten of those letters over a six months period. This matter should be investigated because people should not have to wait so long for those grants.
Many of our young people, who are earning big money, have to travel long distances to work, sometimes up to 30 miles. I know they did not get a bad deal in the budget. However, some concession should be given to those people who use cars to get to work. Many of them could remain at home and collect the dole but they prefer to work. This concession for the use of a car, which is applicable in Britain, should be introduced here. In Britain, workers get some concession towards the operation of a car and this enables them to travel long distances to work. Those young people work hard to earn a living. If the Minister cannot do anything about this now I would ask him to consider giving some relief to those people in the next budget.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly which exists in regard to VAT. The previous Minister stated very definitely that goods sold before 1st November would not be subject to VAT. In a tax guide book this was clarified in one portion of the book, but later on it stated that all moneys received after 1st November were subject to VAT. In my business, when the turnover tax was introduced, we paid this on cash receipts but we found great difficulty in operating on this basis. We were not always able to pay the tax on the due date because we had to do a lot of exploration work to see what was taxable and what accounts were paid in. We do a large credit business and sometimes a man will pay £20, £30 or maybe £50 out of a much larger account. The Revenue people came down from Dublin and examined our books. They suggested the easiest way out would be to pay tax on invoices, that when the invoices for goods were received we should take the taxable side and add up our normal gross profit and pay the tax on that. We agreed to do this and we were working on that basis up to the introduction of the VAT. When that system came in in November we found ourselves having to go back again to cash because the regulations stated that as a proportion of our business was wholesale we had to give our tax returns on a cash basis. That meant all our cash receipts for sales before November were subject to tax.
I raised the matter with the tax authorities and pointed out we had already paid a higher rate of tax on most of the goods than we would have to pay under VAT. However, they stated that, although we had paid wholesale and other taxes, we were not entitled to remission of the wholesale tax, which amounted to 10 per cent. Thus, we were at a disadvantage in that we had to pay a 10 per cent tax and VAT. The law states that a person does not pay tax twice but in this case we were being asked to do that.
We are happy to pay tax on all sales if we get a refund of the tax already paid at the invoice stage. We cannot get clarification from the Revenue people at local level or from the authorities in Dublin and I would ask the Minister to get clarification for us. We are not sure if we can claim the entire wholesale tax but we know we can claim some of it. We are now being asked to pay a 5.26 per cent tax on sales before November for which we have already paid tax. Unless this matter is clarified we will be forced to go to the courts but it should be possible to get the matter cleared up now.
The references in the guide-book are at variance with the position and they need adjustment. I would ask the Minister to give this matter careful consideration. As far as I know, we have received approximately £40,000 since November for goods sold before November; out of this £30,000 was taxable at a rate of 10 per cent or 11.5 per cent, but now we are being asked to pay a further 5.26 per cent. We would be much happier if account were taken only of transactions after November and operate from that date as we do at the moment. If we are liable, as the guide-book indicates, we must be entitled to a refund of the extra taxation paid on the sales.
I would ask the Minister to refer to this matter in his reply and to give us some guideline on the matter. The position is confusing; the tax authorities in Tralee cannot clarify the matter except to tell me it is the law and that I had a part in passing that law. However, that does not help us when we are under pressure from the Revenue Commissioners to pay double or treble tax. For example, we had to pay twice as much for timber and other items as against the tax now payable and we are now being asked for a further tax on the same material.
I know the Minister will be sufficiently alert and broadminded to acknowledge the points raised here and to see the necessity for adjustments. If this matter had been clarified in November we could have made the necessary adjustments. A definite statement was made in this House that goods sold before 1st November would not be subject to VAT but the July issue of the guide-book has been slightly changed and is now more in line with Revenue thinking on the matter. The earlier issues stated that goods sold before November would not be subject to tax but now it is pointed out that all cash receipts after 1st November are taxable. The guide-book has changed; I do not know if it is as a result of what happened in the House or if it is to suit the interpretation that was given later.
The reduction in the grants for county roads has not helped the authorities in County Kerry, even though I realise that some of the money was channelled in other directions. A large percentage of heavy traffic uses the secondary roads in County Kerry, whether for the delivery of limestone and fertiliser or for the removal of gravel from mountain areas. This kind of traffic creates havoc on the roads. The road grants helped to maintain the secondary roads and I would ask the Minister to have them restored.
There is a necessity in County Kerry for land drainage. I understand money is being provided by the EEC which will help western areas and I would ask the Minister to keep this matter under consideration. It is essential that we improve our grasslands and the low-lying lands which are much more fertile than the uplands. The development of the cattle, sheep and the dairying industries in the mountainous areas is necessary and this is one aspect that has not been given sufficient consideration. Our greatest wealth lies in the land and the mountain farmers who are prepared to stay in those areas should be given every encouragement and help. This is the one way in which money can be provided for the improvement of back roads and for land drainage.
I had intended speaking on many other aspects of the Bill but it is not possible for me to continue speaking at the moment because of a throat infection. I congratulate the Minister on the extra moneys provided in the Bill for those who are in need. However, maybe the provision of these extra moneys has been a factor in the huge increase in the cost of living. Price increases have reached a very serious stage. This is reflected in the fact that a number of people have remarked to me recently that they consider their position to be similar to that of 40 years ago when it was not possible for them to buy meat or the other necessities of life. The position is very difficult for people whose incomes are limited. I suppose that our association with the EEC has been responsible, to some extent, for the present situation. People living in poorer areas, in particular, are hit hard by all these increases because their incomes are not sufficient to allow them avail of the necessities of life or to enjoy the standard of living that they have been enjoying during the past ten or 15 years. Even in my own household it has been found necessary to budget. This was not the case in the past.
An income of £30 or £40 per week would purchase very little compared with what, say, £20 would have purchased ten years ago. We must take steps to curb these rising prices. The Government must view the matter from all angles. Perhaps it is not so difficult to understand why meat is so expensive when one considers how expensive it is within the Common Market countries but there are many other foods which have become so expensive that they, too, are almost outside the capacity of any household budget.
I thank the Minister for the increased benefits that are to be paid not only to people in my area but to people all over the country. I would be very happy, though, if he would endeavour to help those people who are being hit hard now and to whom I have referred already.