asked the Minister for Finance the additional revenue required to provide social welfare benefits at the existing level if the savings on agricultural subsidies due to this country's entry into the EEC were not available to the Exchequer.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
77.
I would remind the Deputy that I dealt comprehensively with this matter in my budget statement on 16th May last. On that occasion I explained to the House that the net Exchequer gain of some £29 million from EEC membership was absorbed in arriving at the pre-budget level of current public expenditure for 1973-74 resulting in an opening gap of £20.2 million between expenditure and revenue, before provision was made for specific budget changes including the social welfare improvements costing the Exchequer almost £39 million in the present year. As I said in my budget statement "... prior to the change of Government the net saving to the Exchequer of £29 million, resulting mainly from the reduction of agricultural subsidies within the EEC, had sunk without trace in the sea of inflation".
It is clear that the savings due to EEC membership, while benefiting the Exchequer generally, were not directly available for any particular budget concessions. Because of this non-availability the budget concessions had to be financed by other means. This was done partly by levying extra taxation to the net extent of £20.7 million, partly by taking into account some £4 million in the hands of Departments since the end of the previous year, and partly by allowing the budgetary deficit to rise to £39.3 million, although, as was indicated in the budget statement, it was expected that in the event tax buoyancy resulting from the expansionary budget would have the effect of reducing the actual deficit for the year.
How can the Minister reconcile the reply he has given with the information available in the Book of Estimates? Surely he will not continue with the nonsense he spoke after the budget to try to justify unwarranted taxation?
If £29 million for EEC membership had not been absorbed, the opening gap would have been £49.2 million but, because it was there, the opening gap was £20.2 million. The money was not available to finance the concessions which were given in this year's budget. It had already been committed.
The Minister knows, of course, that he is talking nonsense. Will he agree that he stated in his budget statement that the net Exchequer gain in the current budget in 1973-74 from EEC membership was estimated to be of the order of £29 million?
No. I stated that there was an opening deficit. I am sure the Deputy is not denying that there was an opening gap of £20.2 million.
Could I ask the Minister would he answer a simple question?
I am very good at answering simple questions.
If we had not joined the EEC would he have been in the position that he would have had to find another £29 million in his current budget?
I say the opening gap would have been £49.2 million.
This is a straightforward question and the Minister can answer "Yes" or "No" very simply.
We are indulging in argument now and argument is not germane to Question Time.
It is a simple question, Sir.
I will not accept responsibility for either the expenditure or the Estimates of the former Administration. I have given the figures at the commencement of this financial year and they are there for anyone to interpret as he wishes.
Is it not a fact that the common agricultural policy of the EEC began to operate in this country only in February of this year and that no benefit whatever to the Exchequer occurred before the change of Government? Is that a fact or is it not?
It is not a fact.
Why?
Tell us why.
I do not think Question Time is a suitable occasion to start explaining the facts of economic life. If I were to give a full answer to the questions now being fired at me, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald would complain about the length of the answers being given.
I asked the Minister——
Question No. 78.
This is an important question and I am entitled to ask a supplementary.
The Deputy has asked a number of supplementaries.
I asked two questions. I asked him if he would agree that in his budget statement the net Exchequer gain on the current budget for 1973-74 is estimated to be of the order of £29 million and he answered: "No". I would refer the Minister to his budget statement.
The Deputy must ask a question. The Chair wants to assist the Deputy but the Deputy is not assisting the Chair.
I certainly do not want to be disorderly but I am, I think, entitled to ask a number of supplementaries on this very important question. The Minister stated in his reply that the money——
The Deputy is now paraphrasing.
The Deputy must ask a brief specific question.
Let me ask the Minister to give me specific instances of the manner in which the money was spent.
If the Deputy reads the budget statement and the accompanying tables, he will get that information there.
Question No. 78.
I asked the Minister a very brief supplementary question and I did not get an answer to it.
The simple fact is that the money for social welfare came from——
I have called Question No. 78.