I have dealt with the Government's promise in regard to price rises and the promise to introduce price control. When they got into office they sat back and allowed prices to escalate at a tremendous rate. In July the Government, for the first time ever, I believe, decided to override the recommendation of the Prices Commission and award a price greater than that suggested by the commission. This was not a serious way of tackling spiralling prices and trying to carry out the promises made in the election campaign.
The policies which we, when on that side of the House, initiated have helped considerably to moderate inflation but much remains to be done. I shall now look briefly at some of the benefits of the budget. First, in regard to income tax relief for workers, I believe this promise contributed largely towards the successful conclusion of the national pay agreement. The workers were told they would get considerable tax concessions in this budget but if they had known then the actual relief they would get we would not have had a third national wage agreement. This would be a great disaster because a national wage agreement is the only way to avoid strikes which eventually cost the country dearly. I think the workers were hoodwinked into accepting this national wage agreement in the hope of considerable savings in income tax.
A single worker earning approximately £1,000 per annum will, under the budget proposals, save about £27.85 per annum, which is a very small sum in the light of the present inflation and rate of rising prices. If he were travelling by car to work it would scarcely buy one gallon of petrol per week. A married man with three children who earns £2,500 will save £23.20 per annum, not enough to buy groceries for the family for one week. There are no real incentives to saving in this budget.
I had hoped that the Minister would do something about bank savings. For many years if one has money in the bank, in the case of a single person, if the interest exceeds £70 per annum, it is taxable. At present interest rates this is a very small concession. The current rate of interest is about 8 per cent so that if a boy or girl had £1,000 in the bank earning £80 in interest he or she would be liable to tax on £10 of that sum. If the Minister were serious in encouraging young people to save he would have done something about this because the £70 limit has been there for many years and it is beyond the time when it should have been raised.
There is very little in the budget for the young couple trying to buy or build their own home. Previously they were allowed 35 per cent on mortgages. Now they will get only 26 per cent. This is a step backwards in the case of people with whom the Minister and the Government should be concerned because we all know the terrible problems confronting couples thinking of marrying and setting up a home. We know their problems in regard to loans and high interest rates. In the budget we find the Minister does not even increase the grants for those houses. The cost of building material has increased very considerably. Even since January of this year the price of timber has increased by about 120 per cent. The cost of bathroom fittings has increased even more. A fact very often forgotten is that a person building his own home pays about £500 in value-added tax and gets a grant of about £325. In effect, the Government make a profit out of that man of about £175. That is a desperate situation at a time when we are trying to encourage young people to stay and build homes and rear families here. Surely the Government have a responsibility to help those people build their homes by giving them loans at attractive interest rates.
Social welfare increases were not adequate when we take into account the rising prices and the raging inflation at the present time. To keep ahead of inflation, those increases should have been in the region of 25 per cent to compensate those who are living on fixed incomes. The Fianna Fáil Government in its last budget gave increases across the board of £1. As everybody will agree, this was far in excess of the present increases taking into consideration the cost of living and inflationary trends.
Last year I spoke about the dependants of recipients of disabled persons' maintenance allowances. For some unknown reason, those dependants are not entitled to benefits. In a country which is supposed to be concerned about the less well-off section of the community, this is a disgraceful situation. A man in receipt of unemployment benefit with a wife and three or four children is given benefit for them. A man in receipt of a disabled person's maintenance allowance with a wife and children is not given benefit for them. To qualify for this allowance he must be disabled. Therefore, he is unable to provide for his wife and children. Yet when it comes to budget time and the Minister has an opportunity of rectifying this imbalance, these people are forgotten. This is a shame. Will the Minister take a look at this position and see if anything can be done? A person in receipt of unemployment assistance is capable of going to work if work is available. This is one of the conditions under which he receives unemployment assistance. Here we have an unfortunate person who is not capable of going to work and he is not entitled to any allowance for his dependants.
There is an anomaly which I should like to see abolished or changed, particularly as it militates against small farmers who apply for but do not qualify for unemployment benefit because they have gone to work for six months and have not sufficient stamps. There is a means test. If a man has not 78 stamps on his cards and if his income from the farm exceeds 50p per day, he is disqualified. In this day and age, this figure should be increased. The Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Social Welfare, who is a very reasonable man, should turn a sympathetic eye towards this section of the community.
Many small farmers in the west of Ireland because of the size of their farms are unable to eke out a living for themselves and their families. They go out to work on the roads or in industry when work is available. When that job is finished they return to their farms and sign on for unemployment benefit. The investigation officer should be much more lenient. This section of the community seems to be persecuted at all times.
There is another anomaly which I should like to see rectified, that is, young men who have the benefit of free board and lodgings in their parents houses. There is a value put against this. In some cases I have seen their means assessed at £5 or £6 per week. I cannot understand how this happens. Why are these people not entitled to the same benefit as a single person living in an urban area? This question should be looked into because it is very unfair that those people should be treated in this way. In the last 12 months I have had more complaints from people in this sector than previously.
Another aspect of the budget which has drawn criticism from the farming community is the proposed tax on farmers. Indeed, this will not affect many farmers in the west of Ireland. I am convinced that this is only the thin end of the wedge. Eventually more farmers will be caught in the tax net. In the past year or two we have heard a lot particularly from urban dwellers about the profits the farming community are making. It is only in the past few years that farmers' incomes began to rise. Immediately the cry went out to tax them. This cry came especially from the Labour Party. Their campaign seemed to be led by Deputy B. Desmond who was very outspoken. If the Deputy or some of the socialists of the Labour Party were to examine closely the hardships which farmers endure, the frustrations they meet every day of their lives, the uncertainty of their markets, would they be so outspoken? I wonder would the Labour Party be so outspoken about taxing them.
