Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1975

Vol. 277 No. 12

Financial Resolutions, 1975. - Financial Resolution No. 13: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Connolly

On Tuesday evening I was dealing with the extent of borrowing in which the Minister is engaging both at home and abroad and the effect that this will have on the private sector. If this borrowing continues there will be no money for the private individual, for the industrialist, the house builder or the farmer. This will create many problems. The Minister is seeking to borrow £158 million from banks and other finance houses here. If the Government continue to borrow to this extent all we can envisage is that they will complete three years in office so as to qualify for their pensions and leave the mess for us to clear up once again as has happened on other occasions.

The people have always had confidence in Fianna Fáil but there were some who thought that, perhaps, a change of Government might be good. They have been disappointed. They know now that this Government have not honoured the promises set out in the 14-point plan which they put before the people prior to the general election. No effort has been made in regard to controlling prices. The increased tax on petrol is hitting industrialists hard and the price of gas is now to be increased. Many other essential items have been increased in price also. The Government are leading the country to bankruptcy. Financial advisers and economists have reminded the Government that they are on a disastrous course. In these circumstances I can only hope that in the near future the people will be given the opportunity to decide who should be in charge of the country.

Mr. Bermingham

This budget is a good one when one considers the circumstances in which the Minister had to operate. For as long as this Government continue to show their concern for the less well-off sections of the community, I shall be prepared to continue supporting them. In the three budgets introduced by the present Minister increases have been given to the less well-off on a much greater scale than ever before. I admit that some of the benefits have been nullified because of inflation and the increased cost of living, but there can be no doubt that people such as old age pensioners and other social welfare recipients are much better off now than they were when this Government took office. I know there are difficulties of administration here but all our increases come into effect at an earlier date after the budget than ever before. This is very important. The recipients will get these increases in the autumn. This shows the concern which this Government have for the less well-off members of our community.

Some people living on social welfare are still hard hit, especially an old age pensioner or a single person living alone and who is solely dependent on social welfare. I recommend that the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare consider the introduction of a selective increase through the health boards, or some other way, for these people. I know that in some cases health boards are contributing to help some of the people I have mentioned, but something more could be done. I do not know how many such people there are or how much this help would cost. If these people were helped, a good day's work would have been done.

Fianna Fáil Deputies have been moaning and groaning about the housing situation. In the first complete year in office, the target of 25,000 houses was exceeded. All the signs indicate that that figure will be exceeded by 31st March, the second complete year in office for this Government. We are now told that these houses are not occupied. There may be some truth in that but I do not believe that there are many newly-built houses still unoccupied.

In this buduget £100 million was provided for houses, more than double the figure ever provided by the Fianna Fáil Government in a capital budget. I am most anxious to see an increase in the number of local authority houses being built. These houses are for the people in the lower income group who are living in bad housing conditions. This Government continue to show concern for the less well-off people in our community, those on social welfare, old age pensioners, widows, orphans, the disabled, the mentally and physically handicapped and deserted wives. People in these categories have been brought under social welfare for the first time in the history of this State by this Government. If Fianna Fáil think there is a crack in the support of the Labour Party for this Government they are wrong because as long as this Government continue to show concern for the less well-off members of our community they will have our support.

The previous speaker said that he did not like tax increases of any kind but he accepted that the tax on spirits was all right. The people in my constituency accept the tax increases, which were substantial in the case of drink, tobacco and cigarettes. The people in my constituency not only accepted but welcomed them because they know and realise that this money will be distributed to the people who need it most. I believe that is what participation in Government is all about: the redistribution of wealth. I congratulate the Minister for attempting to do just that.

Tax reliefs were given right across the board. Relief was given to companies who need assistance in order to keep their people employed. I support this Government whose first priority is to keep people in employment. If we must make a choice between increased prices and jobs, we are prepared to choose to keep people in employment. It has also been said that this Government intend to abandon price control. That is not so. Price control has been more strict since this Government took office and more people have been engaged in the detection of offences against price control than at any time since the time of the Emergency. Conditions over which the Government have very little control have brought about a situation which made it impossible to keep prices down. That did not mean that price control was abandoned. In the present situation some firms must get increases for their goods or they will have to reduce the numbers employed. I accept that in that instance they must get increases, probably greater increases than would normally have been allowed.

Because of the present inflationary situation our goods at home and abroad are not selling as well as they might, and this in turn is leading to increased unemployment. I discussed the position with the managing director of an industry in my locality recently and he told me that his sales in Ireland are as good as they ever were and that it is his sales in Britain and in other foreign countries that have fallen. Purchasing power in various other European countries has fallen far more steeply than it has in this country. The great United States, a very wealthy country, has an unemployment problem which is getting out of hand and they have not got a Coalition Government there. I wonder would Fianna Fáil try to hold the National Coalition responsible for the unemployment situation in Britain, in the European countries or even as far away as Japan. They blame the National Coalition for the situation here but they know and I know that the Government are not responsible for it.

In the Government's programme it is laid down clearly what is necessary to bring our country through the present economic crisis. Nobody is trying to say there is not an economic crisis. It is well-known that there is and we on this side of the House are very worried because the unemployment figures are as high as they are but the increase in unemployment is inevitable when the purchasing power in the European Community and in the world generally has fallen and our products are not being bought. Two industries in my constituency have gone on short time, in both cases due to a falling-off in purchasing power in foreign countries. While we continue to increase social welfare benefits and tax-free allowances, particularly for the lower income group, and while we continue to provide the means by which our people can do their business and carry on in employment, we are doing a good job. The people on the opposite benches want fewer tax increases and more assistance right across the board and to have no penalties of any kind imposed. Any practical person knows that is not possible.

If Fianna Fáil had had their way two years ago they would have gone for balancing the budget and that, as is now clear, has been a fiasco anywhere it was tried. The proper method is to have an inflationary budget and to go for a fairly high excess of expenditure over income. This is now recognised. It was recognised here more quickly than in most countries. The first thing to be tackled is unemployment and not inflation. Inflation is bad, too, and is the second objective to be tackled but when we must make a choice between inflation and jobs our Government are doing the right thing in giving jobs first priority.

There have been fairly substantial increases given in income tax allowances. This is the second set of increases given by the Government and it is an earnest of what they mean to do for the people in the income tax bracket. Fianna Fáil's record in that field will not stand up to examination. Over their 16 years I think only once was the ordinary tax allowance increased.

I want to publicly assure the Minister that in all his efforts to rationalise and bring about a fairer system of taxation we in the Labour Party stand firmly behind him. In the fields of housing, social welfare and taxation, so long as the present Government continue along the road on which they have started I, for one, will remain their supporter.

Ruairí Brugha

Of course Deputy Bermingham is quite right. Tax free allowances should be increased and social welfare benefits should also be increased if the economy can bear it and if it is not going to put people out of work. If the economy is being slowed down by an inflationary policy the net result must be further unemployment because every community must be able to pay its way and if it is not the Government responsible will be faced with major difficultes. Listening to the Minister on January 15th I felt there was a gleam of hope in that in his speech he announced the provision of a deferred amount, as he described it, in tax rebate of £12 million. I thought this was the first indication of a realisation by the Minister that the economy, industry and business were in difficulties. In so far as the deferment of £12 million in tax due may enable some of the better-off manufacturing industries to continue working. In that it may provide them with some of the additional cash flow that is so badly needed by all businesses and companies, it will make a small contribution to the survival of the economy. Last year the British Labour Government announced for their economy a tax rebate of £1,500 million. If one compares that with the relatively small economy we have it shows they have a better understanding of their economy than the Government here have of ours. If the Minister had a proper understanding of the economy he would have announced pro rate a deferment in the region of £80 million.

The US Government announced some weeks ago that tax reductions to individuals and industry of the order of £6,500 million were being budgeted for. If my figures are right the equation in reference to our economy would be about £85 million. In the interests of the economic future of the country I welcome the £12 million given but I have to point to some of the inadequacies in it. First of all, it is a deferment. It does not help in any industry which was hit a year ago by inflation and has a cash flow problem. Secondly, it appears to be something in the region of about one-sixth of what is necessary. Some economists have suggested that there are at present 27 companies who need £100 million in cash flow to get through 1975.

The problem created here relates to two types of industry. The Minister does not include those engaged in either wholesale or retail business. In ordinary circumstances one would not include them but nevertheless those people have to carry very large stocks from time to time. They have to be able to order from Irish manufactures what they hope to sell. If you order from any Irish manufacturer what you sold last year you have to order 20 per cent more in money value. You can only do that if you have the surplus money and you have paid your tax on it. If you have not got it and inflation has already hit you you cannot order or you have to ask your bank manager if he will allow you an extra 20 per cent on what you had last year. As the Minister said in his speech, there is a risk problem with banks. You will always get money from a bank if you have it and you will not get if you have not got it.

At present if you have to order from a retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer the cost in cash terms will be 25 per cent greater than last year. If your bank will not give the money to you and the Minister for Finance has already taken it the previous year in tax, then you will be forced to order less. If you have to do that, Irish manufacturers will be put on short time.

This is the stark reality of Irish industrial life at the present time. We have an extraordinary deficit of £150 million. The real meaning of reflation is the survival of the economy. The word "reflation" has been suddenly rediscovered and used as if it were a magic word that will save our economy. If the deficit which the Minister has estimated were to go into reflation I would support it. Unfortunately, all I can see going into true reflation is the deferred payment of £12 million in tax.

I do not see any real effort to slow down inflation in the Minister's budgetary provisions. The figures I shall quote now indicate to me that the balance is very heavily in favour of increasing the level of inflation. In the budget there is an additional petrol tax amounting to £27 million if the unfortunate motorist can afford to dig up the extra £2 or £3 a week to pay for the petrol.

There are additional taxes on beer, cigarettes, whiskey and gambling— these are taxes with which I would not quarrel—running out at around £34 million. I would not quarrel with that type of tax because it is an area, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me, that lends itself to additional taxation. However, the reality is that those who smoke, who take a drink and put a few bob on a horse or a dog will not stop doing those things and something else will therefore suffer. By and large, people do not change their habits and consequently the inflationary effect of that taxation at this stage must be very nearly instantaneous and people will want more money for these things; certainly that section of the population which does these things regards them as necessities and they will be looking for more money either from the State or from employers elsewhere. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the more you increase wages in an inflationary cycle the more you increase inflation.

The next item I am justified in throwing into this debate is the additional post office charges amounting to £30 million. They were not that far back behind the budget as to be irrelevant. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary sent out as many Christmas cards——

Mr. Kenny

Not as many as in former years.

Ruairí Brugha

I did not send out as many Christmas cards last Christmas.

Mr. Kenny

The Deputy may have fewer friends.

Ruairí Brugha

I do not avail of the free postal facilities. Now it is not that I want to be chiselling but every extra 50 cards sent out amount to something and therefore the overall inflationary tendency increases. The £6 million in the transfer of social welfare stamps over to the employer and employee is something I want to take up with the Minister for Finance because he did something I think no Minister for Finance should do. In his introductory speech he referred in a passing way to the fact that over the next six years the State's contribution to social welfare will be transferred to the employer and employee. He made it sound like a triviality. The total cost of the stamp to the Exchequer at the moment is in or around £30 million. I assume, therefore, that what the Minister was really saying was that someone is going to pay an extra £6 million a year. If it is the employer and employee we come back once more to the increase in the tax on petrol, on beer and on cigarettes. If the cost of the stamp is increased the employee will look for more money in wages to meet that increase and the inflationary cycle will be increasing more and more. I have a feeling that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me in this.

Had there been a genuine effort to reflate—this was the idea given by the Government Information Services over the past couple of months and also by the Minister for Finance— one of the areas in which a significant change should have been made was in VAT rates. One has to go back quite some time to see exactly what happened with value-added tax. Out of the goodness of their hearts, and because they had promised it, the Coalition Government removed value-added tax from food. The removal amounts to approximately £17 million. But value-added tax on all other commodities was increased by between 20 to 28 per cent and the net result was that in the following 12 months the Minister gained an additional £45 million from increased value-added tax on commodities other than food. This had its own inflationary effect on the economy.

Despite all the arguments, inflation is not altogether engendered by outside forces. Half of it is our own responsibility, starting with the Government. If there had been a genuine effort to reflate the economy then a reduction in the high rates of value-added tax was a necessity. I believe the increased tax on petrol was one of the Government's greatest mistakes. If the price of petrol was considerably lower here than in the other EEC countries there were arguments in favour of a change. I think the Minister used the argument that if our petrol consumption was greater our standing in the EEC would not be so good. In introducing the additional 15p tax the Minister said the purpose was to reduce petrol consumption and thereby improve the balance of payments position by £3 million. I believe the main object of the tax was to bring in a somewhat better budget; £27 million is not a small sum and, if one knows one will get an extra £27 million in the next 12 months, that helps to improve the budgetary figure. If it was necessary to increase the price of petrol by 15p in order to reduce consumption the Minister should subsequently have reduced that figure to 7½p when his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, permitted an increase of 7½p in the price of petrol within a couple of weeks of the introduction of the increased tax. Whatever arguments there may be for a uniform price in the UK and in the Republic there are very strong arguments in our economy against that type of increase in petrol in comparison with Britain.

There is a social and employment effect that does not influence the British economy as much as ours. Probably we are weighted on the service side, that private transport is used more in employment here than in Britain. In addition, our public transport service is not as adequate as the service in Britain. Consequently, for a large number of people there was no alternative but to pay the additional petrol tax if they wished to keep their employment.

With regard to the liquidity problem, I do not think the Minister is aware of the real seriousness of the inadequacy of the cash flow for manufacturing, wholesale and retail businesses. The Minister suggested that those who need the money in order to stay in business should get it from the banks. Leaving aside the problem that the banks may not wish to loan the money, there is also the danger when one considers the capital budget requirements that the banks may not have the money by the time the Minister is finished with them.

In the Summary of the Capital Budget issued by the Minister, the 1975 estimates for borrowing show the nice round figure of £258 million. For the previous nine months that sum is broken down as follows: (a) European Investment Bank and World Bank, (b) other foreign borrowing and (c) reduction in liquidity of departmental funds. The amount specified for item (c) is £28.8 million and we may well wonder how long this will continue. There are bank advances of £14.2 million, giving a total of £189 million. There is also an item of £85 million for commercial banks. When one considers the Minister's reference that it may not be possible to borrow more than £100 million, I suspect he may find himself in the position of looking for more from the banks than ever before. So far as business and industry is concerned it will depend on whether the banks are prepared to loan additional money to maintain businesses and, secondly, whether they have the money. In addition, the commercial banks will have to take into account that the Minister for Local Government may again compel them to loan more money to the building societies in an effort to keep up the private house building sector.

I am afraid that the Government are sailing with the wind and that they are using inflation to some extent as a means to gather additional tax. They have not set a good example for the people because so far as I can see there has been no effort to curtail unnecessary expenditure. In Wexford some weeks ago the Tánaiste said that Fianna Fáil were blaming the Government for everything and were saying that the world situation had nothing to do with us. We know the world inflation rate is affecting us but to a great extent the Government are hiding behind world conditions. Because of this budget the domestic inflation rate will probably be higher. This is due to the Government's policies, their lack of discipline, lack of single-minded decisions and good example.

I am convinced that the Minister made mistakes in dealing with our financial and economic system. In his first budget speech he announced he was removing the provision allowing £70 tax free interest with the commercial banks but within three or four weeks he withdrew his proposal. That was the start of a series of mistakes made by him. Perhaps it was done at the urging of his colleagues or perhaps it was due to inexperience and a lack of understanding of our financial system. Capital is vital to a small economy but the White Paper on capital gains tax had the effect of reducing confidence in the future of the economy. If this were the United States or Britain we could talk about such a tax without affecting the economy but as we are a small economy that is trying to grow to talk in this way can have a detrimental effect.

Before the general election the Coalition promised to remove death duties. That was a promise made to get votes but I have no argument against the idea of removing death duties. We find now that on top of a capital gains tax and a wealth tax it is intended to introduce an acquisition tax. What is really happening is that death duties are being removed but a similar tax is being introduced. I have no argument against an acquisition tax if death duties are removed, but I am afraid that where the National Coalition have been misleading the people is securing votes on the basis that death duties would be wiped out and then reintroducing what amounts to death duties again. I have not seen the Bill which will give effect to an acquisition tax but such a tax will affect the tax rate on property as if it was a death duty. The Minister may be doing this in a more sensible way, but in my view it means that the promise made at election time to remove death duties was not a promise at all. It was done merely to gain votes from certain people while the intention was to reintroduce a tax on property if property is transferred. In my view that is what acquisition tax means.

When it was announced that it was intended to introduce a capital gains tax the rate suggested was 35 per cent and this was later reduced to 26 per cent. We have put arguments against the general idea of a flat tax and we believe these are valid. The nature of Irish society is such that people should not be encouraged to get away with quick easy profit. A sense of justice in Irish society suggests that those who make money overnight, or within a short period, should have to pay a higher contribution to the upkeep of society than those who put in from five to 20 years hard work.

It is a pity that the Minister, and his Labour colleagues, did not know before this Capital Gains Tax Bill was introduced that the Labour Government in Australia was dropping a similar Bill. It seems to me that the Labour Government in Australia were realistic enough to recognise the damage that was being done to their economy and to workers' jobs. Unlike our Minister and his colleagues, it appears that they know the strength of their own economy.

I should now like to deal with the trade deficit. When the Minister spoke on this last year he referred to an approximate £150 million balance of payments deficit. This indicates his failure to study the position and to understand it. The Minister can obtain the advice of civil servants and they, and the Minister, knew last April what the increased cost of oil, which worked out at about £120 million, would be. The Minister must have had a much better idea of what the balance of payments would be. Certainly the Minister's advisers should have had a better idea. But it is possible that the Minister did not want to know. We all know that the balance of payments is working out at more than £500 million. The fact that the Minister spoke of a balance of payments deficit of £150 million last April shows that he was not studying the position.

I am aware that that balance of payments figure will be adjusted by capital inflow. I should like to remind the Minister that capital inflow is made up of money invested here by industries attracted by the IDA and by people who may come to retire here—if these people hear about a wealth tax I doubt if they will retire here anymore. The Minister should realise that capital inflow also includes amounts borrowed from banks and financial resources around the world, including the European Investment Bank. I hope that, when the Department of Finance are issuing the net balance of payments figure, they do not take from it the money which is being borrowed to carry our capital inflow or an investment in ordinary terms.

The Minister, in referring to the balance of payments problem, suggested that the amount that could be borrowed abroad during the coming year would be of the order of £100 million against £148 million between April and December of last year. The Minister suggested this because the lenders will stop lending since we are reaching too serious a balance of payments position. Last autumn. I said that the Government's economic policy in trade and borrowing, particuarly borrowing overseas, was being seen in the light of a sale of our resources to foreign financial institutions—something which the Minister for Industry and Commerce used speak so strongly against in the past but about which we have heard very little recently. Where is the old policy of self-reliance, of standing on our own feet, of achieving a greater degree of economic independence? That was the policy pursued by Seán Lemass.

I am afraid that to some considerable extent that policy has gone with the wind in the economic and financial confusion in which the Government find themselves. This Government's performance, their lack of competence in financial and economic management, is generating a lack of confidence here. That lack of confidence is not in the economy, it is not in industry or in the ability of industry to move ahead. That lack of confidence in the Government's management of their own responsibilities. The present policy, as it is being implemented by the Minister, is directed against—I am speaking specifically of this budget—rather than for expansion and employment.

Finally, I should like to make a political comment. I feel that the great disadvantage for Fianna Fail administrations in the past was that they had to remain in office for longer periods than might have been good for themselves. There was no real choice for the electorate. Unfortunately, the past year has shown that this is only too true at present.

Mr. White

Budget day, in my way of thinking, is the stock-taking day for the nation. It is the time when we look back at what we have achieved over the last 12 months and, more important, forward to what we hope to achieve over the next 12 months. This is the first financial year to start on January 1st. Many other things should also start on January 1st such as income tax and social welfare benefits for women as well as men. As far as women are concerned the social welfare year starts on 1st July.

The year 1974 was a difficult year. The previous speaker said that 1974 was not a good year for us. It was not a good year for Europe or for the world. The main cause of that for us was that we are very much an oil importing country. It was only in 1974 that we realised the real increase in the price of oil. Nearly everybody knows that oil cost us an extra £120 million during 1974. This increase has shown itself in many forms directly and indirectly. Directly we saw petrol prices soaring from 30p per gallon to almost 70p per gallon. Speakers on the other side of the House stated that all those increases went into the Exchequer, half of the increase of £120 million.

It is worth noting that the price of petrol here is one of the cheapest in the EEC and also one of the cheapest in the world. In Argentine the price of petrol is 95p per gallon. In the USA it is 81p per gallon, and in Italy it is 82p per gallon. At 68p our price is the third cheapest in Europe. We must not underestimate the price we will have to pay indirectly for oil. Directly car hire firms, taxi owners and truck owners have been hit. Indirectly it has affected our exports and our imports. Indirectly it has had a bearing on the dirty word "inflation".

The experts have agreed that our inflation rate has gone from somewhere in the region of 17 per cent to 20 per cent over the past year. I have heard Opposition spokesmen stating time and time again that this Government were solely responsible for inflation. We must realise that 58 per cent of our inflation has been imported. People who have built houses or farm buildings over the past year or 18 months realise the terrific increase in the price of timber, steel, poultry rations and farm building prices generally. It is encouraging that within the next four, five or six weeks it is estimated that meal prices will fall substantially. There seems to be a terrific surplus of maize on the American market. I believe the meal compounders are buying this meal at a much cheaper price.

We have to learn to live with inflation. We must try to have a lower rate of inflation than the other countries in Europe. We have to keep down the prices of our goods. On 24th January, 1975, the Irish Independent did a survey of world prices. In that survey Dublin ranked sixth cheapest of 31 capitals of the world, giving us an inflation rate of 17 per cent, just around the world average. One encouraging aspect of 1974 was our 40 per cent rise in exports. A rise of 40 per cent in our exports in such a difficult year is the most encouraging sign this country has seen for a long time.

The big worry in the latter part of 1974 was the high rate of unemployment, which is reaching nearly 100,000. When a Deputy on this side of the House speaks he should say what he really thinks and what he really means. He should not say that everything in the garden is rosy. Everything in the garden is not rosy. Surely this figure of almost 100,000 unemployed is of grave concern to us all. I submit that it is not as bad as the people in the Opposition suggest it is.

They are comparing 1974 with the depression in 1956. Admittedly we have 99,000 unemployed but we must remember that 8,000 are partially employed and this will be the case for a short period only. It is also worth remembering that in 1956 41,000 people emigrated. Thank God we have not got to live with the terrible plague of emigration now. Over the past number of years the population of the Twenty-six Counties increased from 2.8 millions to 3 million. That is no mean feat. I do not think we can take all the credit for it, but every Irish man is glad that he can stay at home on his native soil.

If inflation continues at its present rate, a man with two children now earning £40 a week will need to earn £500 a week in ten years' time. We must try to keep down inflation. Let us take an example. If a man is earning £5,000 today, in ten years' time he will need to earn £100,000 to keep up with the present rate of inflation and to give him the same standard of living as he enjoys today. Working on those figures, in ten years' time a pair of shoes will cost £70. We must try to keep down prices and we must try to keep down wages.

I was in Italy recently where they have this terrible problem of inflation. It is probably worse than inflation here. If you go into a shop and buy something for 150 or 160 lira they do not give you your change in coinage. It is not worth their while because the lira coins are worth so little. They give you sweets as change or IOUs hoping that you will come back to their shops again. That is a fact of life. It is happening in Italy today. The scarcest thing in Italy is change—except for paper notes.

It is also depressing to think that ten years ago we used to get 70 Austrian schillings for an Irish £ and today we get 38 Austrian schillings for the Irish £. We cannot blame inflation for that. This means that inflation here has gone up much more than in other countries. The position in Italy is worse and in Austria it is better. I do not have to tell the House about Germany. Every couple of years we see Germany reflating and reflating.

These are serious problems. When talking about increases of 20 per cent or 25 per cent for workers and even for ourselves in this House, we sometimes wonder when we get these if we are really entitled to so much, even though we know we are entitled to a certain percentage.

In the last few weeks footwear manufacturers have been crying about the depressed state of the footwear trade. I see a Deputy opposite who is one of those primarily responsible for this. I agree with what he was trying to do, but the footwear trade must bear a good deal of responsibility for the position themselves. Before Christmas I tried to buy a pair of Irish shoes in a Twenty-six County town and I had to go to six shops before I could get them in my home town. There is something wrong with the salesmen for Irish footwear when they do not try to sell their products. Admittedly, there are cheaper imported products.

As regards the budget taxes and benefits, I think most people breathed a deep sigh of relief when the budget was announced. Most people expected a tough budget and now I think everybody agrees it was quite a good budget when everything is considered. The past year has been a difficult one and the prospects for 1975 have appeared a good deal rosier in the past few months. The Minister had gone for an expansionary budget and a deficit of £125 million. I was glad to hear Deputy Colley, the Opposition spokesman on Finance, saying that if he were in the Minister's shoes he would probably have gone for a higher deficit; but I think £125 million is sufficient, if not too much. I heard others express the same view. If things go well with us in the next 12 months, and especially in the last six months of 1975, we shall come out all right. The Minister took a chance; I do not think he had any alternative because we must maintain employment and that is why he went for £125 million deficit.

Deputy Colley's answer as to where Fianna Fáil would get the money was that they would take 4 per cent off VAT. This sounds great from the Opposition benches but we must not forget that it was Fianna Fáil who introduced turnover tax and then wholesale tax even though at that time traders throughout the country were marching in this capital in protest against these taxes. The Irish people have a short memory, but surely not that short. It was completely hypocritical for him to mention taking 4 per cent off VAT; and if that is their only answer, it is just a laugh.

The main beneficiaries of the budget are the social welfare classes, the ordinary taxpayers under PAYE, the farmers getting £2.2 million for the meal subsidy, the fishermen getting £1.4 million to buy boats and those who benefit from company tax reliefs. Fishing is one of our fastest growing industries. I was disappointed when the fishery Estimate was cut and BIM were not getting their full allocation, but I would now like to compliment the Minister on ensuring that the fishermen will not be cut and that the full money has been allocated to BIM so that as far as capital expenditure is concerned there will be no shortage in the fishing industry.

The £2.2 million voucher scheme for small farmers has been and will be a worthwhile scheme. Medium and small farmers, especially in the west and north-west of the country, have suffered tremendously in the past 12 months due to the slump in the cattle trade and this is a small way of helping to tide them over the next couple of months. Nobody doubts that cattle will be at a high premium in June, July and August. We have already seen great increases in cattle prices, but it is the small man who has not yet benefited from the increases who needs help in the next few months. That is why the scheme is being continued. Everybody must be encouraged, if at all possible, to hold cattle until May or June when prices will certainly be much higher.

Many people in the past few months said we should never have entered the EEC, that it was no good for the farmers or the country, but in 1974 alone we benefited to the tune of a net £95 million. Only for intervention where would our cattle trade have been last November and December? Intervention cost EEC £75 million but at least there was an outlet for our fat cattle. Only now do we see the big stores moving and in a couple of months time the calves and small stores will be moving. It has paid this country handsomely to be in EEC, and whether England stays in the EEC or not I believe we must stay in it.

I am worried about one aspect of EEC, and so I think is anybody representing a western or north western constituency, and that is the farm modernisation scheme. There are a number of little difficulties, such as where it is said that a man must get more than half his income from his farm and must spend more than half his time farming before he can be classed as a farmer. These things must be teased out. I believe a farmer should be entitled to a grant whether he works or not so long as he has a farm. We have been trying to encourage small farmers in the west to work in industry during the week and to work their farms in the evenings and week-ends. We must continue to do this and we must make sure that so far as EEC is concerned the small farmers, "the other farmers" as they describe them, will always get these grants. There is no short-term solution for these farmers. It is a long-term problem and everybody who has land has a right to work that land and, I submit, a right to get grants for that land.

I should like to comment briefly on the regional fund of the EEC. We have heard Opposition spokesmen say that the regional fund of £35 million is very small, that the regional fund of £8 million for 1975 has not been up to their expectations. But let us remember that the £8 million we are receiving is, as a percentage, more than we were promised, if one takes the other EEC countries into consideration. The amount coming from this regional fund must be devoted to the areas needing help most, which are those areas with small hill farmers on the north and north-west coast. I was glad to see that the Department for the Public Service are trying to depopulate Dublin, moving some of the Departments into the country. We must encourage people to remain and live along the west coast. We talk about a just society. There will be no justice in this country if we depopulate the west, leaving Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Dundalk and such areas overpopulated.

The main problem experienced on the east coast is that people have not got services; they have not got land on which to build their houses. There is plenty of land to be offered to people. We want to see the benefits of this EEC fund accruing to the western areas and so establish the infrastructure within which to develop water and sewerage schemes, housing sites and establish industries.

Last year the Minister entered into a commitment so far as personal income tax was concerned: he said he would increase the personal income tax allowance in line with inflation in his future budgets. He honoured that commitment. The working-class public certainly deserve all the help they can get.

There is one respect in which I feel we have been remiss. That is in regard to the person who has to travel 20 miles or 30 miles to work and back each day and who receives no tax allowance in respect of that expenditure. The Department should examine that question very carefully in future years. I heard of a case lately of a gentleman in my area who has to travel 45 miles to work and back each day. It is very easy to say: "Why does he not live beside the factory where he is employed?" The answer to that in this case is that that man married a woman 45 miles away who owned a house. He was one of the lucky ones; he married one of those "laying hens", as they are called down the country. But it costs this man £8 per week on petrol, plus income tax. When he gets home at the end of the week he says, and I quite agree with him, that he would be better to go on unemployment benefit. There is no incentive whatsoever to that man to work.

The other matter the Minister should investigate in the social welfare classes is the question of single women under 58 years of age. Anybody representing a country constituency must realise that there are many such women who have cared for elderly parents for a considerable length of time. While the parents lived, such people, first of all, were entitled to the dependent relative allowance and probably both parents were in receipt of a pension. But when the parents died what it really meant was that that single person, under 58 years of age, at, say 40, 45 or 50 cannot then take up a job or engage in a profession. Such people have practically nothing. They have to humble themselves and seek home assistance. I do not think that is right. Any single person who has devoted a large part of his or her lifetime to looking after a household where there is no revenue coming in should receive automatically some form of assistance from the Department.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the huge increase he has granted in social welfare allowances. I would mention particularly the old age pensioner, old people, needy people, sick and disabled. Such people need all the help they can get. We are delighted to think that in October they will be receiving additional benefit. But we must face reality. We must ask: "Is it right that such huge increases should be given also to the unemployment and dole sectors?" I spoke recently to a person working in a county council. He was a married man with five children earning £28 per week. That man would have been better off by £3 on unemployment benefit. If we get away from the incentive to work there will be terrible repercussions throughout the country.

We have to examine this question again and say to ourselves: "Right, people must get benefit, but they must not get more benefit than they would receive were they working." I would advocate that stipulation, that nobody should be able to receive more money sitting at home idle than they would receive out working. It is a hard thing to say, especially for a Deputy representing a country constituency, because one tends to rely so much on that type of vote. But the day has arrived when we have to speak out. Perhaps we have been giving too much to that category and we must now give more incentive to people to work. Perhaps there could be implemented some kind of scheme such as the one they had in Germany about 20 years ago when everybody on the live register had to do at least two days' work per week. That way one would be doing something productive, putting something into the country instead of constantly dragging out of it.

But where shall we get all the money involved? It is very easy to say we have given extra money to the social welfare classes; we have given the taxpayer so much; we have done this and that. But the money must come from somewhere. The Minister is reaping this money from taxation on cigarettes, drink and gambling casinos or slot machines. I do not think anybody can crib about 6p extra on a packet of cigarettes. A lot of us smoke despite the fact that we know it is not doing our health any good. Probably we started when we were young and we must now try to educate our children more and more in this respect. I mean children in schools, youth frequenting sporting clubs and so on. We must make them see that smoking is a bad habit. As far as drink is concerned, nobody would have any crib about the increase in the price of whiskey, stout or beer. One can drink as long as one pays for it. I feel not enough is being done by the Garda and the authorities to ensure that 18 year-olds are not given drink in pubs.

Drinking has become a real problem. It is very disturbing to note that in this poor country we drink more per head of the population than is the case in any other country in Europe and that we drink half as much more as our neighbours in Northern Ireland. On the other hand we must realise that there is not much else for people to do by way of recreation. It is unfortunate, though, that so many young people are drinking.

Coming from a tourist area I have a special interest in the Minister's proposals regarding slot machines. It is only right that the gaming licence in respect of these machines be increased to £100, but the fee will be less in respect of those machines used only for a three or a six month period.

The important aspect in so far as these slot machines are concerned is to ensure that the stake may not be increased from the present 2p. limit and that the jackpot will not be increased to more than its present limit of 50p. We must maintain strict control to ensure that a situation would not arise in which very high stakes would be played for. In various parts of the country it is possible to find machines in which one invests stakes of 5p. and may win as much as £25. This is a away from the amusement aspect and is heading towards casino-type gambling and that is something we must not allow. I approve of slot machines so long as they are used as an amusement amenity.

I am aware that there is a company here at present who have been before the Australian courts. This is a Chicago based organisation which operates a factory in Dublin in which slot machines are manufactured for use on a worldwide gambling market. This organisation has links with members of the Mafia and is financed by gangsters' money. Such organisations are interested in a small country like ours only if there is the prospect of a wide-open market for gambling casinos. We all know that fortunes are made by the people who operate such places. That is why I say we must have strict control on the limits, both of the stakes and the jackpots, that are played for on these machines.

There is the question also of the use of these machines in public houses that are not licensed for this purpose. I am aware of from between 400 to 600 such machines in these premises. I trust that the Minister will take measures to ensure that the proprietors concerned pay a licence fee for every machine installed.

I compliment the Minister on having doubled the grant to the IDA. This Government are correct in having as their first priority the policy of creating as much work as possible for our people, and to that end they are endeavouring to attract many new industries to set up here. A special word of thanks must go to the IDA for the efficient and courteous way in which they conduct their operations. We often hear of the inefficiency of some semi-State bodies but such criticism cannot be levelled at the IDA.

In my constituency the IDA have decided on two growth centres. Courtaulds are to build a big factory at Letterkenny and a site of about 65 acres has been purchased at Finner. The whole idea is to make work available in factories for small farmers and also to make it possible for people to stay at home who otherwise would have to emigrate. Some thought must be given to the setting up of a committee to deal with the whole question of the development of the west. We have the Department of the Gaeltacht and SFADCo but there is a need for some sort of co-ordinating committee.

One area of disappointment to me in the budget has been the absence of any help for the tourist trade. Since the beginning of the troubles in the North five or six years ago the tourist industry has been hit badly. One must live in a tourist area to realise how bad the situation is. Those people who visited our resorts year after year are not coming now. In particular we have lost the Northern tourists. If ever an industry needed an injection of capital it must be this one, and it should have been given this injection.

Recently, Deputies were circulated by the hotels federation with a suggestion that petrol vouchers be given to tourists. This is one way of encouraging tourists to come here. It is a system that would not be too difficult to operate. It would cost very little, and would bring in much needed money to the country. I would suggest that, say, 400 vouchers for petrol at 10p a gallon be issued to anybody from outside taking his car into the country and booking into hotels for two weeks. The hoteliers, too, might contribute by issuing, say, 200 vouchers for petrol at this rate of 10p per gallon to people from Northern Ireland when they had booked into the hotels. Let us assume that the average number of people who travel in a car here is four. I have estimated that each person spends an average of £100 per week here. If, say, the vouchers cost about £30 per car, that is, £7.50 per person, we would be taking in a lot more than would be involved in the operation of the scheme. I trust that when the Tourist Bill is introduced, it will contain some badly-needed incentives for this industry.

It has been stated that the increase in security is costing something in the region of £24 million. This is a sad state of affairs. This £24 million which is being spent to increase our Defence Forces. Garda force and improve security directly and indirectly, could have been spent in many other worthwhile ways. We could have increased old age pensions, built more houses, encouraged more industries and helped the tourist trade and western development. In other words, we could have given a better standard of living to everybody with this £24 million.

I wonder if these self-styled patriots realise what they are costing this small country? Do they realise the harm they are causing to the tourist trade indirectly? Do they realise the harm they are doing the IDA and others who are trying to bring industry here? I believe they are out to wreck our economy. The ordinary people were concerned this morning when they opened their papers and read of a threat to——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wide of the budget now.

Mr. White

The responsibility for anything that happens to the people on hunger strike will fall on the heads of their leaders. If they want to help our economy and save £24 million per year, let them call off the strike and call for a cease fire——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must appreciate that this is wide of the budget debate. He is widening the scope of the debate and is completely outside the Financial Resolution.

Mr. White

This £24 million could be put to better use. Everyone in this country wants to live in peace and have a better standard of living.

Mr. Leonard

The term "too little too late" has been overworked in recent times. When one looks at recent budget proposals, this is only a factual description. When discussing this budget it appears that we are only talking about one instalment. Some months ago we had a mini-budget which raked in £14 million in postal charges. The service did not benefit from that increase because the postal and telephone service are in a chronic state. To collect this increase and not improve the service is not to be commended. Before Christmas we had a second budget which was expected to bring in about £27 million from the increase in petrol.

One gets the impression when listening to Government speakers that they have not their hearts in their jobs. They cannot justifiably claim that this is a good budget. The last speaker seemed to think that petrol here had been too cheap and was due to be increased.

A number of Fianna Fáil Deputies spoke on the second budget and drew the attention of the Government to the dangers inherent in that increase to the economy. Some workers must travel long distances to work and it will also affect farmers. The last speaker, having apologised for our cheap petrol, then suggested that we should subsidise petrol for tourists. It is very hard to reconcile these two trains of thought.

In the latest budget, No. 3, there is a deficit of £125 million. That would not be so bad if this was the end of the road but the Minister has given clear warning that he is only getting warmed up. On his performance over the past few months we could expect to have a monthly budget.

If a businessman wanted to borrow money his bank would expect him to give proof of his target—an achievable target. Even small farmers are expected to set a target for their progress and make an effort to achieve it. That is as it should be. The keeper of the national purse has not set a target for this year. The space for gross national product appears to be empty. That is a fair indication of our present position and of the inability of the Administration to handle the problems. If the Minister is not in a position to give a firm estimate for the 1975 gross national product, and he does not appear to be able even to hazard a guess at it, the only thing we can deduce from this is that the Minister is afraid to set a target.

Perhaps he is more concerned than some of his colleagues in failing to deliver the 14-point programme. There is no doubt that the amount offered to the farming community is not alone too little but could not have been less—unless, of course, they got nothing. In his speech the Minister made much play about the need to save jobs. We all agree that jobs must be saved. The Minister must realise that by helping farmers he is at the same time bolstering industry. Our economy is not a series of separate compartments. The industrial sector needs a healthy and prosperous agricultural sector. The agricultural community have got so used to half measures and decisions that are taken too late that they would now be surprised if action was taken in time. They have reached such a state of frustration that we now have a threat from the farming organisation of a grow no beet campaign. While I, or nobody in my party, could justify a threat to kill a valuable industry the circumstances in which this threat was made must be kept in mind. Farmers have lost faith in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and in his ability to handle the situation either here or in Brussels. Some of the problems of the Minister for Finance were created by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who over a long period could not make up his mind regarding the green £. He eventually stumbled into seeking it, after being pushed by the Opposition and months elapsed before it was clear as to what we would get. It was this period of the great silence that had such a damaging effect on agriculture. The country has suffered a decline in the pig industry. We have had the fodder shortage and the beef debacle. Farmers have suffered so much from the inaction and faulty action of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that for the Minister for Finance to have given adequate compensation would have meant a substantially greater budget deficit.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to to be going into some detail in respect of agricultural matters. That would be more appropriate for another time.

Mr. Leonard

Is it all right to mention particular items briefly?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made some reference to it. I would not wish him to go into any further detail.

Mr. Leonard

I wanted to mention the payments under the various headings.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be more appropriate to the Estimate.

Mr. Leonard

I would just mention briefly the oil subsidy for horticulture, a sum of £270,000. This allocation is of significance to only a very small number of growers in North County Dublin. There has also been an additional £500,000 towards the cost of constructing and repairing accommodation roads and bog roads. While we welcome the increase in respect of the local improvements scheme we hope there will be a fairer distribution of the money to the various counties. We had occasion to bring a deputation from Monaghan County Council to the Minister for Local Government. We pointed out to him the imbalance in the allocation of money for the local improvements scheme. Those schemes are very important. We brought to the Minister's notice that County Monaghan had received something in the region of £24,000 while an adjoining county had received £82,000. There was also an imbalance in the additional allocation made later on. In that supplementary allocation one country received more than we originally received. While £500,000 might seem to be a worthwhile additional contribution, when one takes into account the extra cost of road materials, labour and machinery, one finds that very little additional work could be done. The local improvements scheme is the most important scheme so far as the rural areas are concerned. If the Minister can see his way in future years he should increase substantially the amounts under this heading.

While we welcome the cattle feed voucher scheme we must say it is coming very late. This scheme is being temporarily supplemented by money from the Exchequer but this money will be recouped by temporarily withdrawing the credit available to the registered buyers of cattle so that, in fact, this scheme will cost the Exchequer very little. We were lucky we had a very mild winter. Otherwise we would have had animals starving. There are many people who have not as yet, been told whether they have been accepted under the feed voucher scheme. It is a pity the scheme was not made available earlier in the year so that farmers producing small cattle would have known whether they were actually getting the vouchers and the amounts to which they were entitled.

I notice the subsidised loan scheme, which is for the purpose of assisting in the retention of young cattle, has been extended for ten months. The provision under this heading seems to be £240,000. I would appeal to the Minister that should the need arise, extra funds should be provided under this heading.

The amount provided in the budget for agriculture is almost insignificant especially at a time when an injection into that industry was very necessary. We all hoped with the fall off in the use of fertilisers, because of the very substantial increase in the price, that some effort would have been made to ensure that farmers were encouraged to use them. Some years ago when subsidisation of fertilisers was first introduced farmers made a great effort to ensure their land reached the highest possible level of fertility. The drop in the use of fertilisers is the most serious aspect of our economy. It has only been over the last ten years that farmers realised the potential of their land and realised that by proper husbandry, the use of fertilisers and proper programming, they could achieve their targets.

The increase in the price of petrol, veterinary fees and veterinary medicine is creating a serious problem for farmers. Many of them will probably fail to use some of the veterinary medicines necessary to ensure the health of their stock. If a subsidy was provided for farmers who have a large number of breeding stock this would help greatly.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is getting back again to some detail on agricultural matters. I have given him a lot of latitude. I am sure he realises this is not a debate on agriculture.

Mr. Leonard

Other speakers have spoken about the housing situation and appeals have been made to increase the maximum loans from £4,500, which is very low. If this is not done it will have a very serious effect on the private housing sector. The maximum income qualification should be increased from £2,350. Many people are unable to obtain bridging loans during the interval between submitting their application for a housing loan and when it is approved. It is the wish of most young married couples to own their own houses. It gives them a stake in the country and gives them something to work for. Their homes are their castles. If the maximum loan is not increased many young couples will not be able to own their own homes. This amount is not sufficient when one takes into account the high price of developing sites and the cost of house building in general. Many young men are faced with redundancy and with short-time work so that they have a drop in their incomes.

Rural electrification is a serious problem in many areas. Now that there has been a withdrawal of the subsidy many people are faced with having to pay £1,000 to obtain a connection. Some assistance will have to be given to those people who are building their houses in rural areas as otherwise they will not be able to have electricity.

There has also been a withdrawal of amenity grants. The Minister, in answer to a parliamentary question, gave us the reason why those grants were withdrawn. Money was spent on worthwhile projects under the amenity grants scheme and the Minister should have given serious thought to the withdrawal of those grants.

Money should have been provided for industry, especially for those facing difficulties at present, such as the shoe, textile and furniture industries. The shoe industry was debated very extensively in the House. Following our Private Members' debate steps were taken and I think there will be a curb on the importation of shoes. There is also a serious problem in relation to the importation of furniture and wood products which are in serious competition with home-produced products. I was on a deputation which met the Minister for Finance in relation to this matter. The home producers felt that VAT should be levied at the point of import rather than the point of sale. I had hoped that the Minister would have examined this by now. In view of the serious position in which many of these furniture factories are he should take a decision very soon in this matter.

In the debate on petrol we pressed for some allowance for workers who have to travel long distances to work. That is another area the Minister might examine with a view to giving some relief to these workers.

A great deal has been said about the reliefs given in the budget by way of social welfare. We naturally welcome these reliefs but they are not really giving anything additional to the recipients; they are merely going some of the way towards compensating for the rise in prices due to inflation. The Minister should have made a greater effort to provide work for people because, while the dole is good in its way, it is short-term. In the long term what is really vitally essential is the provision of jobs in either agriculture or industry and a greater effort must really be made to provide these jobs.

Arterial drainage is of vital concern to my county and to the adjoining counties of Fermanagh and Cavan. I had hoped that this year a great deal more money would have been provided for arterial drainage out of the special EEC fund for underdeveloped areas.

Speaking about the EEC, a Deputy on the other side recently said that many people were against the EEC. It was, of course, members of the Government he should have been addressing because we in Fianna Fáil accepted that the EEC was the best for the country and we did all in our power to persuade the people that that was so. The people responded with a massive vote. We still have confidence in the EEC and, if we have any criticism to make, it is that the Government are not taking full advantage of membership and fighting a hard enough battle in Brussels.

Mr. Finn

First of all, I compliment the Minister on introducing such a budget at this very difficult time. Many people were surprised—indeed, almost shocked—to find the Minister could produce such a budget in this inflationary era, which exists not only here but all over the world. Never since 1932 have any Government faced such a difficult period. There is rampant inflation. We have a very costly defence bill and a very high cost of living. Of course, people are better informed today than they were in the years 1932 to 1940. With the mass media of communication everybody now knows the situation facing the Government.

A good deal of hardship was suffered by the people in the west over the last year. The hardship was not of their making. Neither was it the making of the Government. Weather conditions were responsible to a certain extent but the worst contributory factor was the advice given by the so-called experts to the farmers to over-produce animals they could not feed. The stock had to be got rid of at any cost and the farmers in the west suffered far more than did any other section of the community. I saw these farmers outside Leinster House protesting. One man sold three or four young cattle to buy a suit of clothes. The Minister has now helped them through the medium of increased social welfare. Had these social welfare increases not been given these farmers could not have survived.

The Minister has done a good deal for social welfare recipients generally but one category has been left out of consideration, the category that will be considered, I hope, in the Minister's next budget. I refer to the widower who is left with a young family. He is very hard hit. I trust this category will be included in the social welfare net next year.

I should like to thank the Minister for increasing the allocation for local improvements scheme. However, the provision made should have been increased by another £1 million because drainage in the west is a serious problem. This applies in particular to my county and the neighbouring counties. To help solve this problem county councils should be allocated sufficient money to open the tributaries. This would be a much quicker and more efficient method of draining the land.

The cattle and beef sectors of agriculture have been going through a most difficult period. This was due to circumstances outside the control of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries but everyone will admit that the Minister worked very hard for the farmers. He must be complimented on his efforts in Europe where he was faced by much stronger nations. However, there are people in this country who will never have to work again because of the benefits they obtained from the intervention price scheme. The people who bought cattle and sold them to the factories have made a considerable amount of money. These people should not get all the benefits. The small farmers should have got the intervention grants but this did not happen in many cases. I know of people who accumulated wealth but it is a sad situation that small farmers were held to ransom, were forced to sell their cattle at low prices to people who subsequently got the intervention price. I know the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries could not do much about this because we have private enterprise here. I have been a member of the IFA all my life but I cannot understand why Mr. Maher or his associates did not act in this matter——

Mr. Callanan

Hear, hear.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a convention of the House that we do not mention persons outside the House.

Mr. Finn

I do not understand why the IFA did not act. It would have been far better if they had acted at that time instead of acting now with regard to the "no beet" campaign. That will result in a desperate loss to the economy, particularly to the west, and I am sure it will close the Tuam factory. I am not in favour of the "no beet" campaign. I am in favour of improving the economy of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I cannot relate his remarks to the budget.

Mr. Finn

I am glad the Minister for Finance has allocated more than £2 million for the cattle voucher scheme. The people who have applied for the vouchers will get them in due course. It will help the small farmers in particular because feed has been very scarce this year.

I must compliment both the IDA on the job they are doing and the Minister for giving an increased allocation for the development of industry. I think the Minister should check on areas where there is a considerable amount of unemployment assistance being paid. Industries should be located in these places. In my constituency and the border constituencies from Kiltimagh, Swinford, Charlestown, Ballyhaunis to the Roscommon-Sligo border an enormous amount of unemployment assistance is paid. The IDA should concentrate on these areas when the question of establishing industries is being considered. It will not be possible to cut out unemployment assistance until these people get work. The IDA have done tremendous work in the Killala area and in two years' time there will not be an unemployed man in that area.

There is no Member in this House who is anxious to see price increases but a Government must face up to their obligations and the services of the State must be provided. In the present inflationary period the Minister for Finance had no option but to increase taxation. Although we do not like the taxes on drink and tobacco we must support whatever Government are in power on this matter so that services may be provided.

We are near the end of this period of crisis and next year the budget will be even better. Our economy will have improved by then and the cattle prices, which are moving upwards, will have reached a good level. I believe that we do not appreciate that we live in one of the nicest countries in the world. It is only when we travel abroad that we realise the beauty of our country.

Mr. Noonan

I should like to remind the previous speaker, and other Deputies, that the cattle feed voucher scheme is merely a contribution from one farmer to another and it has nothing at all to do with a subvention from the Exchequer. Deputy White mentioned the fact that small farmers were being encouraged to take part-time employment in industry, something we all agree with. This was encouraged by the Fianna Fáil Government but I am afraid the Minister for Finance has failed miserably in this aspect because he has introduced a system of income tax for those farmers. The result is that farmers who take up part-time employment are liable for income tax and this does not encourage them to take up such employment.

I should like to talk about the question of leadership, particularly leadership that should be provided by the Minister for Finance. In the past two years the Government told the people that the position was serious, that our financial and economic position was serious, and that our balance of payments was in an emergency situation. The Government accept—and this has been stated by at least two members of the Government—40 per cent of the responsibility for this which means that 60 per cent of the cause of this situation arose from outside sources. I accept that 60 per cent of the cause of this situation is due to the oil crisis and other factors outside our control but the Government have done nothing about their share of the responsibility.

This budget, which reflects the thinking of the Government and the Minister for Finance, demonstrates in a clear manner their attitude to the Irish people. Nothing shows better than a Government speaking to their people in times of emergency when people expect leadership. It is very difficult to realise why the Irish people are being treated as if they have less than sufficient intelligence. The Government were given an opportunity of showing leadership, and honesty, in this budget but, in fact, they insulted our people. They have reneged miserably in all aspects of leadership.

For some months the Government talked of national partnership, something which was mentioned by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech, but we now know exactly what the present Government means by national partnership. We had a demonstration of that meaning last week. We had a demonstration of arrogance from the Minister for Education. That Minister gave us a glaring example of how a Government will react to constructive criticism, of how they will treat any type of questioning of their policies, how they will treat any dissecting of their ideas. The attitude of the Government can be summed up in this way, what is right for us is right for Ireland and nobody else has any worthwhile views. This Government should realise that they are incapable of participating in a national partnership. There is an obvious lack of leadership. They should have learned in 16 years of Good Government while they were in Opposition that in a time of emergency, harsh but positive steps are essential to reverse adverse economic conditions in the shortest possible time.

There is no point in putting off until tomorrow a situation which will worsen day by day in the months and the year ahead. This is exactly what the Minister has done in his budget. He took the steps needed to correct the position to date, but he showed no foresight in planning ahead. He said he was bringing social welfare recipients up to the position that pertained 12 months ago. Having regard to inflation and the drop in the value of money, he may possibly have brought them up to date, but he certainly allowed no leeway for inflation.

He attempted to hide from the people the emergency which must arise again and again throughout the year. He will probably continue to adopt different approaches to remedy the situation in a piecemeal fashion. The increase in taxation on petrol some two months ago must be considered as a budget in itself. How many more of these budgets will we see during the coming year? The people would have accepted a straight package as an emergency measure if they knew it would be sufficient to carry them over until the next budget, and sufficient to deal with the financial and economic problems which will arise during the coming year.

A large part of the Ministers dishonesty is shown by the fact that he did not tell the people some of the income which will vastly increase his revenue during the coming year through taxes other than the taxes in this budget. He did not mention an estimated £30 million which will come from the vastly increased price of petrol. He did not mention what will accrue to the Exchequer from the recent increases in the health contribution charges, which are estimated to bring in £4 million. He did not mention the recently increased telephone charges and the postal charges. Above all, he did not mention the huge increase in value-added tax which will accrue to the Exchequer from all those increases, and all the other price increases over the past few months.

As a further example of how the Minister treated the Irish people I want to quote a sentence from his speech. He said:

When I introduced my budget last April the economy was in a healthy state....

This is far from what he told us last April when he introduced his £16 million deficit budget for the coming year. We in Fianna Fáil warned him about this type of deficit budgeting in the economic climate which pertained at that time. We said it was highly dangerous. The Minister ignored our warning and now we have a consequent enormous deficit this year. This must be regarded as hazardous and careless budgeting.

A measure of the result of last year's budget is that we are now approaching a figure of 100,000 unemployed, and that figure is continuing to rise daily. This involves 4,000 people or 5,000 people in severe economic difficulty, at a time when prices are being allowed to skyrocket, at a time when payments are enormous, at a time when the simplest loan facility costs in the region of 15 per cent to 21 per cent in interest charges. To my mind this is nothing short of criminal neglect on the part of the Government.

To compound that situation by not facing up to it this year and taking the economy by the throat is dangerous. This Minister said:

Moderation in income increases in 1975 is therefore imperative if we are to half the serious deterioration in employment.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that. What effort has he or have the Government made to control the prices which give rise to the need for these increases? What effort has he or the Government made to economise in their own spending in the non-vital sectors so that our people who are pressed to the wall by price increases can be fairly told not to ask for more pay or more compensation for the increase in the cost of living?

The Minister in his budget speech referred to the large proportion of extra staff assigned for telephone development in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Wherever did they go? We have seen no improvement in the telephone service, which must be one of the worst in the world. This Department, which continually brings in large sums in revenue is, I feel, robbed of it. We can understand that money must be transferred from one Department to another but it is not a good thing to bankrupt any one Department, particularly the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which needs the revenue. It is understandable that the Minister in charge of this Department, Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien, is far too busy dabling in other Departments to bother with his own Department and its development. In such a situation the Taoiseach must find himself with a Government in which certain Ministers exercise no control over their Departments. We might ask where the money accruing from revenue to that Department has gone.

I now refer to a section of the community that is of particular concern to me because I live among farmers and know their difficulties. The Minister's budget statement in this regard sounds very hollow. He says:

The Government have been very concerned about the problems of the cattle industry and have taken all possible steps open to them to deal with the situation.

Saying that the Government have been very concerned is little consolation to the many farmers now facing bankruptcy because of the Government's indecision and their muddling in the past year in regard to the most important sector of the community. The dairy farmer has seen the price of calves drop to rock bottom. It was suggested at one stage that there might be an opportunity to export dropped calves to third countries but the Minister refused to apply to the European Commissioner for Agriculture for sanction for this notwithstanding that a transport subsidy would be available from the EEC to subsidise the export of these calves.

Farmers depending on the beef section of the industry are faced with rising interest charges, non-availability of markets and stagnation of their farms because the Government cannot or will not act positively on their behalf.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that, while some of this matter would be relevant, the detail in the speech would be relevant to an Estimate but not to the general financial proposals.

Mr. Noonan

The Minister did refer to agricultural matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In a general way, but the Deputy would not be in order to pursue details.

Mr. Noonan

It is easy to blame the EEC for every ill we have. Yet the EEC are able to make arrangements for other countries in the Community and I do not see why our Ministers should not apply to the EEC for some means of helping this country out of the present emergency. When we in Fianna Fáil some months ago asked the Government to apply for the green £ the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries kicked for touch for months on end and only at the end of that period did he negotiate the green £ when the farmers had their backs to the wall. Here, again, we see the futility of this Government moving at the last minute and not moving far enough.

Today when the Government are speaking of a national partnership, they have upset another section of the farmers to the extent that they are now threatening a no beet campaign. The Government have said these farmers are acting unfairly and so they are faced with the prospect of not acting and going bankrupt. This section of the farmers has suffered grievously in the last 12 months.

In addition to that the Government introduced in last year's budget, and continued in this year's budget this question of taxing farmers. Of course that was done as a result of the constant nagging of their socialist minority partners. Time and time again the farmers have declared willingness to pay their just share of tax but the Government could not wait for the opportunity. Now they have imposed on farmers a system of double taxation, income tax and rates on their method of production and rates on their land. This is certainly not in keeping with our European partners. As far as I am aware, no other country in the EEC makes its farmers liable to double taxation.

I would ask the Minister for Finance to reconsider very carefully this suggestion of having it either one way or the other : imposing rates on their means of production or income tax on their income. I would urge the Minister to keep that aspect of taxation of the farming community in line with other European countries because this system of double taxation is most unjust. I would ask the Minister to amend this legislation. Indeed the Government could not have picked a worse time for its introduction. Not alone will the Government stand idly by and watch the farming industry go to the wall——

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Begley)

We heard that before.

Mr. Noonan

It is well to hear it again and again so that at some time certain Ministers might be impressed and listen to reason. It is a wonder they have not learned from their 16 years in Opposition to a good Government how emergencies should be dealt with. But the Government are standing idly by now watching the farming industry go downhill. They will give them a further push down the hill and tax them on their way down; in other words, tax them at their time of greatest need, and tax them doubly.

Before the last general election the two parties which subsequently joined in Coalition had a bright new idea for a review of the entire taxation system. There was to be a great new departure in Irish legislation. But when we got over the first hurdle we found what they meant was that they would slam new taxes on without regard to the existing system, or existing taxes, or without regard to the double taxation position in which the farmer now finds himself.

The Minister for Finance referred in his budget speech to the question of national assessment. He said that the intention was that that concession would be available to farmers as an alternative to an assessment on an actual profit basis. How well he might say that. Let us hope the farmers are not foolish enough to take him up too strongly on that offer. The idea of taxation on a rateable valuation is as old as the hills and is as antiquated an idea of taxation as can be envisaged. The imposition of tax in accordance with valuation of land has the same undesirable effect as the high rating system operating at present because it does not take into account the amount of profit the man may have in that year or indeed of the profitability of his holding. When the Government speak of out-of-date taxes, they might well give consideration to the out-of-date system of rating from which farmers suffer.

The Minister also mentioned in his speech the introduction, or should I say, the increasing of the Exchequer subvention to local authorities for the implementation of local improvement schemes. Being a member of a local authority I welcome the Minister's contribution in that regard, one of the few worthwhile contributions made in his budget. Many of us who are members of local authorities realise there are long waiting lists. In Limerick alone there is a waiting list of two-and-a-half to three years for the implementation of such schemes because of inadequate finance. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government is listening. I hope he will impress on his Minister the need for further subventions to that very important fund for the implementation of more of those local improvement schemes.

The Minister for Finance took money out of one pocket and put it into another. Might I refer—as has been done time and time again by speakers from this side of the House —to the decision of the Minister for Local Government to withdraw the amenity grant scheme? It is a recognised principle of our State that communities, whether they be residents' associations, local communities or parish communities, must develop and live in harmony because, I believe, out of those communities emerges the nation as a whole. Amenity grants were introduced by Fianna Fáil, when in Government, to help those communities and they have been in existence for some time now.

They ensure that such developments as these communities wish to undertake by their own decision are helped by the local authorities and by the Government. Community development is most desirable and more necessary today than ever it was, with the change in our society from the old agricultural crossroads idea to the greater, urbanised area. As Deputy White said earlier today, the withdrawal of these amenity grants means that there is no provision for the erection of community centres, that our young people, particularly boys and girls in country areas, have no place to go other than the local pub or lounge bar.

In the urban areas, the built-up towns and villages, the areas adjacent to the larger cities, the community spirit is again beginning to prosper. These communities are drawing together in their meeting places for the good of their area, and no movement deserves more praise than this. But here we go again: the Government remove the amenity grants. It is a serious thing when people suffer in their pockets and in their jobs, but it is even more serious when they suffer in their spirit. Their spirit and their willingness to fight against the pressures which surround us will be fostered first in their own community areas, and everything that can possibly be done to bolster this spirit should be done at community level. Yet this Government have ignored this basic need of our society. Again I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister to have these grants restored. In the course of his budget speech the Minister says:

There is no room for pessimism. Defeatist attitudes that breed on themselves are uncalled for and dangerous.

Here surely is hypocrisy, because the Minister's attitude stinks with defeatism and pessimism. Like a man with his back to the wall he handles only what is absolutely necessary for today, with no thought for the future and no broad planning. It is small wonder that the companies who thought of coming to this country and the companies already here will neither found nor expand, respectively, because there is no broad Government policy. Every one of the Minister's proposals is a half measure. Honesty is completely absent from his speech and from his thinking. Above all, in this so-called Coalition Government leadership is missing. It is hard to blame the Taoiseach, the Leader of this mixed lot of Ministers of different views and different approaches.

Mr. Begley

You are fairly mixed yourselves.

Mr. Noonan

One-third of his time must be spent watching, as he calls them himself, the mongrel foxes in his own party, those who would knife him. Another third of his time must be taken up with diplomacy with the small Labour faction in his Government, this group of Ministers that dabble in other Departments rather than in their own, who blackmail his Government with frantic taxation of people they would consider the villains of the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from the matter before the House.

Mr. Noonan

In their frantic efforts to remain in power this Government are trying to maintain an appearance of unity. Therefore, in a sense we should be a little more compassionate with the man who leads our country at present. However, I want to contrast this performance with that of Fianna Fáil when they were in Government. Fianna Fáil never lacked the capacity to act and to take emergency measures when they were needed at budget time. that is the reason they stayed in power, because the people appreciated this capacity to act forthrightly and to take desperate measures when desperate measures were needed and, indeed, be successful with them. We never lacked leadership or unity. Surely the time is near when this country must call on us again, because the people have no hope with this disunited semblance of a Government. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Richie Ryan, in his budget, showed a complete lack of leadership, a complete lack of planning and a complete lack of forthrightness with the people.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Begley)

I think it is fair to say, from meeting the common people of Ireland, that they have indicated in no uncertain way that this budget was a realistic one and also showed concern.

It would not be in order for me to suggest to any Deputy the line he should take in his contribution to this debate. Suffice it to say that the Opposition would have been better off complimenting the Minister on producing a budget such as this at this time rather than to indulge in the sort of criticism we have heard from their speakers. During his term in office the Minister for Finance has shown a real concern and a sense of realism in the budgets he has introduced, a concern and a realism that, before, were absent.

Deputy Noonan's contribution was far reaching and, at times, off key. He put certain questions to the Department of Local Government and I am glad to avail of the opportunity to deal with some of the theories he put forward. The Deputy expressed amazement at the abolition of the amenity grants. Replying to a question here last week, the Minister for Local Government said there were other areas of higher priority than amenities. At this time, when not only Ireland but the whole world is experiencing difficulties, we must have our priorities right. I am sure that every elected member of a local authority would agree with me when I say that it would be far better to provide housing for somebody who was unfortunate enough to be living on the side of the road or in a broken-down caravan rather than to make money available for amenities.

There is nothing to prevent local authorities from providing money for amenities if they so wish. In any county no more than 10p in the £ on the rates would be required to provide the type of amenities that Deputy Noonan has in mind. The Minister for Finance expressed the hope that this world recession would be of a temporary nature. In the meantime we must have our order of priorities right and so far as the Department of Local Government are concerned, our first priority is that of housing those people who are in need of housing.

It is seen from the Book of Estimates that the grant for local improvements schemes is almost £500,000. Our Government are a Government of concern and in deciding on the amount of this grant they took into consideration the views expressed from both sides of the House and had no hesitation in including an extra £500,000 in the budget for local improvements schemes.

Deputies Noonan and Leonard spoke at length regarding the varying allocations to different counties for local improvements. There are reasons why this is so. Have the Deputies endeavoured to ascertain the number of roads awaiting attention in the various counties or the number of applications from each county that are being processed and are with the local district engineers? Kerry, for instance, is high on the list because there are more than 800 roads awaiting attention there. It would be a worthwhile exercise in democracy for those Members of this House who happen to be members also of local authorities to find out from their local authorities what is the situation in this regard.

In the budget the Minister increased substantially the allocation to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. As Deputies will be aware, since being elected to this House I have displayed a particular interest in fisheries and that at one time I was spokesman for fisheries for my party. The increase to BIM this year, compared with last year, represents 41 per cent. The discussion as to whether boats should be built here or abroad was apt in the wake of this increased allocation. My personal opinion is that preference should be given to the Irish boatyards. There are employed in these establishments craftsmen of exceptional talent, whose craft has been inherited down through generations.

In Dingle there were 25 people engaged on boat building in 1972 but I am glad to say that the number increased to 40 in 1974.

There is a substantial increase, too, in the allocation to the Gaeltacht areas. I have no hesitation in availing of this opportunity to voice my concern in relation to certain aspects of this allocation. I trust the Chair will bear with me if, in order to illustrate my point, I find it necessary to go into some detail.

It is my contention that the Gaeltacht scholarship scheme is being abused. It is wrong morally that any co-operative can make a profit of £34,000 on the running of these scholarships. I am not worried as to who may be hurt by my saying this. This is money that would be better spent if given either to the mná tí who look after the children or in providing extra recreation and educational facilities for them. The various groups who organise these scholarships should be compelled to make available their books for public inspection so that the profits involved would be known. I have no hesitation in saying that out loud. In my opinion, £34,000 profit was far too high for anybody to make out of Gaeltacht scholarships. This money should go to the people and not to a specific group.

In 1972-73 the public capital programme for housing was £46.16 million; in 1975 it is £101 million. These figures speak for themselves. Again, this emphasises the point I made at the start—we are showing concern for those who need it. Housing is a first priority on our list. If more money is given for the housing programme, the amount for sewerage and water facilities will also be increased. To reinforce my argument I will give more figures. In 1972-73 under Fianna Fáil £8.23 million was provided for sanitary services. In 1975 we gave £16.75 million. No matter what way you look at this, and no matter what your political affiliations were in the past, it must be admitted openly by every member of a local authority that there was never so much money available for housing, water and sewerage before. These are official figures.

Deputy Noonan criticised most severely the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The 1974 Estimate for this Department was £33 million; in 1975 it is £39 million. The Minister is providing money to improve the existing telephone system, the automation of new telephone exchanges throughout the country and expanding the system to meet demands for new phones. He is prepared to say that by 1978 he hopes to have 90 per cent of all subscribers to automatic dialling.

The 1974 Estimate for Industry and Commerce was £40.9 million; in 1975 it is £61.63 million. Again, that shows that the IDA, SFADCo and Gaeltarra Éireann are doing their work. It is wrong that snippets of criticism should be directed at these bodies because they are doing more than their share.

There has been a substantial increase in the provision for Fóir Teoranta. For 1975 there is a provision of £4 million. This is to ensure that it will continue to discharge its functions in a proper manner. Since April, 1972, Fóir Teoranta have approved financial assistance for 136 concerns employing 13,800 people.

The Estimate for Radio and Television for 1974 was £1.71 million; for 1975 it is £3.17 million. On what is that extra money being spent? It is to provide a second channel for the people in the country—Kerry, Cork, Waterford, up the west coast and Limerick. This is money well spent. We are as much entitled to a separate service as the people living on the east coast. This shows that the Minister's ear is to the ground. He has listened to the volume of opinion expressed in the south west and the west. He said here that he would provide a second channel and he has provided the money to carry that promise through. Again, this shows that the Government are concerned about the anomalies which exist between one side of the country and the other.

Social welfare as a percentage of the gross national product in 1972-73 was 4.1; in 1973-74 it was 4.9; in 1974-75 it was 5.1 and in 1975 it was 5.6. The Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown concern for the people who need help. The budget provides a very substantial increase in all weekly rates, of social welfare. Most notable, perhaps, is the £2 per week in the personal rate for old age contributory pension. It also brought the rates for pensioners under 80 years up to £10.50.

The increase in personal rates ranged from over 21 per cent to as much as 23.5 per cent, well above the rise in prices since July, 1974. Again, that shows that the Government are concerned about the people who need help. The qualifying age for a pension has been reduced from 70 to 67 years. The means tests for a variety of social assistance schemes has been eased by a further £1. This means that a person can earn £6 a week and will still qualify for the full pension. These facts cannot be forgotten. They have gone down well in rural Ireland. When the by-elections are over this will be shown by the people at the ballot boxes.

The most notable feature of social welfare has been that the rate of weekly payments will be reviewed in the light of developments in the cost of living in the period ahead. They will be increased again approximately next October. The review is in line with the commitment contained in the Government's White Paper on the economic situation and is designed to protect the standard of living of all those depending on social welfare and related benefits in a period of continued inflation. Those actions speak for themselves.

Perhaps it would be no harm to reply to the criticisms of the dole. The Fianna Fáil Party should come out and say, as it seems to be the farmers' dole that is bothering them, that they will abolish it if they get back into power. That is the message that is coming loud and clear across the House. When Fianna Fáil were in power they made an effort to abolish it but there was such an outcry, with some of their Deputies abstaining from voting, that they dropped it like a hot bun. No matter how one looks at it there are small farmers who would be in very poor circumstances were it not for the farmers' dole. If there are abuses it is for the Department of Social Welfare to find out where they are and remedy them. To say one prefers to see a man working than drawing the dole is a lovely bald statement, but if a man is living seven miles up a mountain with nothing but two or three cows and a few mountain sheep where will he get a job?

I know it is the concern of every Deputy to keep as many people as possible in rural Ireland. Of course the criticism from the Opposition has come from the Deputies who live in the rich Midlands, the Deputies with the big farms. When the beef subsidy scheme was introduced by Fianna Fáil the big farmer could buy up to 100 in-calf heifers and get the subsidy while the poor man up the mountain could barely carry one. That was an indirect subsidy to the big farmer and there was no outcry about it. This is a social problem and there are some farmers who would not be living in rural Ireland today if they were not getting the dole. If there are abuses and if Deputies know of them it is only right that they should be corrected.

In the budget the Minister also helped out the income tax payer and it is only right to put on the record that this is the second year in succession in which the Minister has done this. The matter of income tax relief was left in abeyance by the Fianna Fáil Party for a number of years. As in the case of the qualifying age for old age pension, it took the National Coalition to show concern in the areas where concern was needed.

I will not bore the House by reading out figures because I see Deputy Gibbons over there and he is always a very reasonable man. I would not like him to be left out of the debate so I will conclude by saying that some of the criticisms made by the Opposition were not substantiated by their contributions. The Government are concerned with people. As far as priorities are concerned, housing and social welfare are Nos. 1 and 2. That is how it will be and that is how it should be. I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhhairle, for the patience with which you listened to my contribution. I know I strayed occasionally.

Dr. Gibbons

The Minister for Finance began his speech with a reference to the fact that he had not the wealth or the wisdom of King Solomon and suggested that, but for those attributes of his, he would have been forgotten. I suggest that the indiscretions of Solomon with the Queen of Sheba would have been remembered. Indeed I think a film has been made of this facet of his life. I hope that as time passes the Minister will not be remembered for his indiscretions in the Department of Finance rather than for his wisdom. At times one is inclined to think that this is how it will be.

Much has been made of what this budget has done for social welfare recipients. It must be accepted that it has gone some of the way to compensate them for the inflation which has occurred over the past 12 months. Much is made of this fact by the senior partner in the Coalition Government. It is essential at times like this to remind the public that it was the Fianna Fáil Party and their policy that made the payment of social welfare in reasonably large sums acceptable to the public. I, to a certain extent, am unfortunate in that I remember away back in the thirties when Fianna Fáil came to power. This was one of the big things that had to be sold to the people who then had the wealth. I remember well that the then Cumann na nGaedheal Party did not believe in social welfare to the same extent as the Fianna Fáil Party at that time did. Indeed it was only following the 1961 Election that Fine Gael realised they would have to get in on the social welfare aspect of government and so they published their policy on the just society. For all practical purposes they were about 30 years behind the Fianna Fáil Party in the matter of social welfare.

One of the biggest contributions which Fianna Fáil policy made to the development of this State was that gradually over the years they got the public to accept that there was an obligation on those who had wealth to divide it with those who did not have wealth. The Labour Party, who opposed our entry to the EEC, are now taking credit for increased social welfare benefits. But the resources from which those benefits are being paid were, firstly, made available from our own resources though the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government over the last 20 years and secondly, made available by EEC funds which were released to us through the Agricultural Vote. If the Labour Party had had their way those funds would not be available to us.

There is a gap in our social welfare system on which I should like to focus attention. It is the situation of the sick wife who cannot avail of adequate rest or adequate medical treatment for her condition because it would be necessary for her husband to cease working. I have tried to focus attention on this by questions both to the Minister for Labour and to the Minister for Social Welfare. This gap must be filled by making it possible for a husband whose wife is ill to cease work for four to six weeks and a special social welfare payment should be made available to cover that contingency or if necessary have it made available by the employer. As a doctor, I see this happening week after week. It is one of the glaring inadequacies of the social welfare system.

Debate adjourned.