To give any validity whatever to the arguments advanced on this budget by the Opposition one would, first of all, have to accept that there was no world financial crisis and, secondly, given the fact that there is a world financial crisis, an economic crisis, hitting western Europe in particular, one would have to accept that if Fianna Fáil were in office they would do better than the Government. Any consideration of the budget must be based on these two premises because everything that Fianna Fáil have said— perhaps not everything, but practically everything—is based on the argument that, if they were over here, they would be able to weather the storm. They could, in fact, completely ignore the industrial storm, be able to do everything and make everyone in the country happy. If Fianna Fáil's record over the years showed that that was the type of Government they were when they were in Government then perhaps there might be some reason for wondering if that, in fact, were true but those of us who have lived long enough to have experienced a very long time of Fianna Fáil in office realise that nothing could be further from the truth.
I have said on numerous occasions here, and I repeat it now, that it is very easy for somebody in Opposition, who has not been in Government, particularly someone who has not taken part in Government as a Minister, to offer instant solutions to practically everything without bothering to cost those solutions and without bothering to say what effect they would have on the economy. During my quite lengthy period in Opposition I, like everybody else, was prepared to offer what I considered to be solutions and, even though I worked very hard to try to find out whether or not the solutions I was offering were reasonable, I must admit now that, having had an opportunity of looking at it from the other side, quite a number of the things I suggested just would not have worked mainly because of financial reasons. A number of them would have worked and those I have attempted to put into operation since I became Minister.
I cannot understand people who have had experience as Ministers on this side of the House going to the far side and, having failed to do anything year after year, attempting now to get the House and the public to accept that the solutions they are offering from the far side are reasonable solutions, or indeed, solutions at all. I could give the benefit of the doubt to backbenchers and to front-benchers who have not had ministerial experience because they, like myself when I was on that side of the House, are using whatever political intelligence they have to attempt to offer something they think would work and to make fair criticisms. However, not alone is it unfair but it is entirely dishonest for someone who has been a Minister of State and who knows the facts of life in Government to go across the House and to put forward half-baked solutions which he must know would not work. We get them by the dozen.
I am very disappointed that the Opposition have not made a reasonable approach to the budget. Because of the economic crisis I thought that the Opposition would, as good parliamentarians, under a leadership who would point this out to them, feel that the onus was on them to help in every possible way to bring the country back to prosperity. Instead of that they are putting every possible impediment in the way of the Government, and attempting both at home and aborad to denigrate the efforts the Government are making. Happily the Government are able to survive, but it is not with the assistance of the Opposition. When in opposition we were always under instructions from our leaders that, under no circumstances, were we in this House or outside it to make a criticism of the Government, no matter how valid it might be, which would be against the national interest. That seems to have gone out of fashion, although former leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party pointed out to us the necessity for this, and we accepted it. It now appears to be the practice to try to denigrate the Government on every possible occasion, to do as much harm as possible, and if it helps to bring the country to its knees, so be it. I am sorry that a national party like Fianna Fáil should descend to that sort of thing.
I could understand such a line being taken by backbenchers because they possibly would not appreciate what they were doing but it is unbelievable that people of experience in the front bench, former Government Ministers and even the former Taoiseach, could make such contradictory statements. It seems to be considered by Fianna Fáil that there should be a drastic cutback in Government expenditure, that there should be a reduction in taxation, that there should be a reduction in borrowing, that hundreds of millions of pounds extra should be found under various headings, particularly housing, health, sanitary services, roads and so on. Strange things have happened in this country, and maybe they have discovered a pot of gold at the bottom of a Fianna Fáil rainbow somewhere, which we know nothing about and which, if they ever become the Government, they will be able to dig up and start using. There is no other way in which the suggestions they have made could be implemented.
I do not like mentioning people who are outside this House, but a former adviser of the Fianna Fáil Party has indicated that, in his opinion there should be a drastic reduction in social welfare and in civil service pay. At the same time, Fianna Fáil tell us we should be increasing social welfare and that we should be increasing the civil service pay under a number of headings. I would like to start off with one of those headings, namely, equal pay.
This Government are determined to have equal pay for work of equal value operated. I would like all the organisations involved, particularly the women's organisations and some of the trade union organisations who have been very noisy about this—and I speak as a trade union official of 26 years' standing and I know what I am talking about—to realise that there was no move towards equal pay by Fianna Fáil during their time in office, and that during the period of less than three years in which this Government have been in office the gap between the pay of men and that of women in public employment has been reduced by 60 per cent. Do the people who are shouting about equal pay and about the failure of this Government to introduce equal pay, including the lady who indicated that she was going to work might and main for the return of a Fianna Fáil Government, understand how they are paid or the mechanics of these things at all?
The women employed in the public service have had 60 per cent of the differential reduced as a result of the National Coalition Government being in office. I do not know how people can say that it was only because there was a row kicked up at the EEC that this matter was brought up at all. There is a report in this morning's paper about some gentlemen who came here from the EEC to investigate this matter. I do not intend to comment on the competence of those gentlemen; they represent the EEC and that is good enough for me. However, if the criticism which the newspapers seem to think is directed towards the Government is valid, the people who preceded us in Government are the people they are aiming their barbs at or should be aiming them, because they did nothing whatever to rationalise the difference in pay between men and women, who did nothing at all to have the principle of equal pay for work of equal value put into operation.
While I am of the view that we must, as soon as practicable, have equal pay for men and women who are doing work of equal value, I still believe the decision that the Government took was the right one and that the Government can hold up their heads and say to the employed women of this country that they did more in three years for them than Fianna Fáil did in all their years of office.
I would also make this comment, particularly with reference to some of my colleagues in the trade union movement with whom I have worked for many years. We have recently introduced a Bill to give a fair deal to farm workers. For most of my 26 years in the trade union movement I was compaigning for equal pay for farm workers. I did not see any evidence of the wild enthusiasm of some of the people who have been talking about equal pay in recent years when I was attempting to have farm workers brought up from the second class citizenship status to that of any other worker. There were a few exceptions, but I am afraid that the trade union of which I had the honour to be General Secretary for so long, the Federation of Rural Workers, fought a lone battle for farm workers over the years. I make no apology for saying that when the change of Government took place, I played a very substantial part in having the Government adopt the idea that farm workers' wages and conditions should be dealt with in the same way as those of any other employees.
The Agricultural Wages Board were set up by the Government and let me be very quick to add that they did a very good job in the early days, because in 1956 when they fixed a minimum rate of 24 shillings a week they did put a floor under farm workers' wages. Over the years the farm workers fell further and further behind. Then for two or three years in succession the Agricultural Wages Board refused to accept the national wage agreement, although it applied to everybody from the lowest to the highest in the land, whether they were organised workers or not. It did not apply to farm workers, according to the people who have the legal authority to regulate their wages. Their hours of work are still 50 per week in the winter, 44 in the summer, ten hours more than industrial workers. It was suggested recently that women agricultural workers should be given equal pay because it would increase their hours from 46 to 50 per week and would put them on an equal basis with the men.
I do not want to stay very long on this subject, but I want to make it clear that this Government made this provision. It is part of the ongoing policy towards which the present budget is geared to bring the country back on to a steady course. We want to ensure that everybody who has wages and working conditions regulated should be dealt with in the same way. There is a lot of talk now about the next wage agreement. The Government feel that there should be a stay on wages, that there should not be a big rush for further substantial wage increases at present, and that there should be an easing off until the country is back on an even keel. This is not alone in the interests of the country or the Government, but it is in the interests of the very many people who are unemployed. There seems to be a big objection to this. I suppose it is the old story of the well-off person feeling that he has no responsibility for others.
From my very youngest days I have always learned that it was each for all and all for each. It was a question of the people who were members of a trade union not alone looking after themselves and their fellow workers but looking after other workers. I appeal to the trade union movement to go easy on this. The people who run the trade union movement have very long experience and are dedicated to ensuring that the people they represent are given a fair deal. I believe they have been given a fair deal under this Government. An effort should be made to ensure that those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, or the 60,000 or 70,000 who were unemployed at the time this Government took office, should also be given an opportunity of getting employment.
I have always felt that, with the exception of a relatively small proportion of people who are unable to work and who in my opinion should not be signing on at unemployment exchanges, should be dealt with in a special way. Ordinary workingclass men and women would prefer to be working than to be unemployed. It annoys me to hear well-heeled people —and in the main it comes from people who are employers—saying that the working man would rather stay at home because he is getting more by staying at home. I would be only too happy to hear from employers anywhere in the country who say they cannot get employees. I have heard this talk so often that I now say that any member of the Government would be glad to hear from those people who criticise unemployed workers. Let us hear where the jobs are and they will be filled pretty quickly. The unemployed and the sick are entitled to be able to maintain for a reasonable period, as near as possible, their standard of living. It does not appear to be accepted by some people, either in this House or outside it, that the man who owns a factory or a farm has a very big capital asset. However, if he happens to be unfortunate enough to die, his relatives have substantial capital assets to which they are entitled. The working man has one thing only, and that is his labour, the sweat of his brow. If he finishes work through illness or death, there is nothing for him or his relatives unless the State steps in. We still have a peculiar idea that there is no difference between the employer and the employee, that the employer is right to criticise the employee because of the fact that, if he is unemployed, he is getting an allowance on which he can live. I think he is entitled to it. I do not know whether Fianna Fáil would take the advice of the people who criticise this budget if they were in Government now, but they certainly took it when they were in Government. It is the old story, as far as social welfare is concerned, of the unemployed and the sick getting very little. There are many cases where people were literally starved into going back to work when they were not fit to go back to work. It should be remembered that the employee's and employer's contributions towards the cost of the stamp are considered as part of the cost of the employee. Therefore it is just as reasonable to count it as part of his wages. When people pay for stamps for many years, it is wrong for those who have never stamped cards, or who are still in full employment, to complain that their less fortunate brethren are getting sufficient to live on.
This Government can look back with pride on the tremendous improvement which they carried out in the social services over the past three years. Before the change of Government I remember people telling me of the small allowances they were getting when they were ill or unemployed. Indeed, old age pensioners and widows and orphans were getting a mere pittance. I quite agree that, if Fianna Fáil were in office and it was suggested to them that they should decrease social welfare benefits, they would do so. The economy of the country might be an awful lot better than it is, but the ordinary people who are depending on social welfare would have had to spend another three years in misery. For that reason alone, this Government can look back with pride on their efforts in the social field over the last few years. In addition to that, we reduced the qualifying age for old age pensions. They did something which I had been asking for, that is, they allowed the means test for noncontributory benefits to be brought to a stage where people who are badly off can get enough to live on because God knows, the Fianna Fáil system was wrong. I always think of an old lady of 80 years of age, living in an old thatched house, with only one room in it because the rest of it had fallen down, and the social welfare officer deciding that she had a house and therefore deducting 25p per week from her allowance. We did away with all that. Now people can get the old age pension with a reasonable amount of income from other sources.
The most neglected people were the girls who stayed at home to look after aged parents. I know hundreds of them. When the parents were there the daughter lived on their old age pension and when they died she might have had a council cottage or a little old house, and she had no income unless she applied for home assistance. In the country districts there is no work and at the age of 57 and upwards there is no point in looking for work for the first time because it is not available for such people. This Government introduced a system whereby such persons are paid benefit.
The unmarried mothers, whether we agree or disagree with what they did or how they carried on, were not entitled to be treated in the disgraceful way in which they were treated under Fianna Fáil. We have introduced a system which allowed those people to be paid benefits. Also the prisoner's wife, when through no fault of hers or her family's the husband was put in prison, until this Government took over, she could go on home assistance if she could get it. She could beg for a few pounds. This was not the way to restore her dignity.
These were the kind of things which had to be remedied, and they were remedied, and these things cost a great deal of money and will continue to cost a lot of money. Year after year the amount of money spent on them will increase. Fianna Fáil say: "Cut back on social services". For goodness sake, they should have a look at themselves and at what they are saying. Perhaps the people who say it are not speaking for the party entirely, and perhaps I am wrong to criticise them for doing that because individuals do say peculiar things, but they keep repeating it. They have said practically everything that could possibly be said, no matter how contradictory.
We heard a big hullabaloo about health services at present. I was a member of a health board when they were set up first, and I think I know as much about the running of health services as most ordinary Members of this House. It is utter nonsense for people to talk now about a huge cutback in health services. Of course we cannot do everything we want to do. We cannot find money to introduce new schemes which one hoped would be possible and which, please God, will be possible within the next year or so. However, because it could not be done this year does not mean that there should be cries from the housetops that the health services are being completely done away with. There should be a very hard look taken at the expenditure on the health services because I believe that those who are really ill and need attention should get that attention, but those who are not entitled to it and those who are wasting time and money should not be allowed to do so. It is amazing how over a period things can grow up in a certain way until people are prepared to consider that they must ask for something. They do not need it but they must ask for it because they have not anything else to do.
Medical cards have been mentioned again and again. The eligibility for medical cards has been expanded very much under this Government. Payments for medicines to people who are entitled to only limited eligibility have been increased enormously. The services for the aged, where they can be taken to a centre and looked after, given a meal, even a simple matter like a hair-do or chiropody, those things cost money. Collecting these people costs money; bringing them in and out costs money, but it is being done now where it was not done on the same scale before. It is wrong for people off the top of their heads to condemn these things and say this money is being wasted, or, alternatively, the State is not putting up enough money for these services.
One of the things that amuses me about Fianna Fáil is that they try to compare everything with last year. I advise them to compare it with three years ago. Because of the improvements carried out within the first few years of this Government's office things have improved enormously. The amount of improvement required now does not require a tremendous step-up which it would require if Fianna Fáil were still here.
In my own Department I have questions and questions. Housing is one of them on which not much more can be said. When I took over first I found there was provision being made for the erection of under 20,000 houses, perhaps down as far as 14,000 or 15,000. This was not good enough for me, and I insisted on extra money being provided, and the Government came up with that extra money. When we were looking for office we said we would build 25,000 houses per year. When I started first I felt that if we could reach the 25,000 by the end of our first term of office we would be doing very well. Because of the impetus which was started by the Government and the full co-operation we got from local authorities, building societies, various lending agencies, and from the builders, our first year in office produced, as everybody knows, 25,365 houses. The financial year ended in March. From the end of that year, from about November or December, there was a continual cry from Fianna Fáil, including some people who should know better, about the complete failure of the Government to reach the target of 25,000 houses. When we reached it they argued at once, "We had the ground work laid but you will not do it again". Though it was untrue to say the ground work was laid, it was true to say that sites had been acquired and that in many cases plans for the erection of houses and contracts had been made but had not been proceeded with because there was not the money to do so. Because of that they might reasonably say: "Well, the first year you got 25,000", but they did not say it was a tremendous increase on what they wanted to do. The second year came along, and right through that year from July to the end of the year again and again and again in this House and outside it, not alone members of the Fianna Fáil Party but people engaged in the building industry, or not exactly engaged in it, but some of the people at the top of the organisations kept repeating that we could not build the houses, there was not enough money. When we built, not 25,000, but 26,636, they then said —and it shows how damn stupid people can be—that we fiddled the figures. The statistics which we used were the same statistics which had been used year after year in the previous ten years by Fianna Fáil, and they are the only way in which houses can be counted. That is (1) houses on which a final grant has been paid or houses which have been certified as being completed if they are not eligible for the grants and (2) the local authority certifying that they have completed the houses and handed them over to tenants. They are there for anyone to count them and anybody who takes the trouble of going around from one local authority to another can without any difficulty check on the number of houses and find that the figures are as I gave them. It may be all right for politicians to bring housing within the realm of politics but it is very dishonest for those who, though not politicians, speak on this issue for none other than a political reason. The facts are that during our second year in office the number of houses built was 26,636 and for the next year, or that just passed, although we were told that the number would fall flat compared with previous years we built 25,992 houses or eight short of 26,000.
In reply to this a Deputy on the other side of the House said that this figure was a reduction on that for the previous year. There was a reduction of slightly more than 600 but we exceeded our 25,000 target. As I have said here before, Fianna Fáil estimated that in the mid-seventies between 14,000 and 15,000 houses would be required and as late as 1969-70 they promised to make the necessary provision for this unless outside affairs resulted in changed circumstances. That was at a time when houses were costing a lot less to build than they are costing now. All I ask of the Opposition is fair play. During their terms of office I considered many things they did to be dreadful but in some respects I lauded them for what they did. However, I have yet to hear anybody over there admitting that we have done anything well. I consider that a very poor outlook in so far is they are concerned.
I have been criticised, too in respect of the increase in local authority housing from 4,400 in 1972-73 to 8,700 last year. Within the past couple of days a representative of the building industry federation was reported in the newspapers as differentiating between local authority and other houses. So far as I am concerned a local authority dwelling is a house, too. I might add that local authority houses being built now are a good deal better than some of the houses built down through the years by some of the said builders. I am aware that at the time of the so-called guaranteed order cheaper type houses were being built by the local authorities on the instructions of the then Ministers for Finance and Local Government and that the standard then was deplorable. I am not blaming either of the then Ministers in regard to the question of central heating because at that time oil was cheap and it was assumed that it would continue to be cheap. However it is easy with hindsight to see that they were wrong but I could not guarantee that if I had been in office then I would not have been tempted to do likewise. However, apart from the heating question, everything else about those houses was wrong and there is no point in laying the blame on the people who worked on the houses, to blame the contractors or the designers because these people worked in accordance with specifications supplied to them and they were told that there was no point in building houses to last 50 or 60 years but to aim at something which would have a life span of from 25 to 30 years. We know that because of the design decided on many of these houses will not last half that time and that after they had been occupied for 12 months they cost nearly as much to repair as they had cost to build. That is a scandal that Fianna Fáil must bear for the rest of time.
I am glad that this whole question has been resolved and in this regard I pay tribute to the members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour as well as others at local authority level who accepted the standards I suggested in regard to open space, back entrances, fire places, retaining walls and so on. Without their co-operation it would not have been possible to achieve these improvements. If there is anybody who wishes to differentiate between local authority and private houses I suggest that he examines the local authority houses being built now so that he may see for himself the improvements that have been achieved. These houses are ones in which anybody would be proud to live.
I noted in the Evening Herald recently that a Fianna Fáil member of Dublin Corporation tabled a question which he succeeded in having published and which suggested that he was responsible for the introduction of the senior citizens' homes that are included in the local authority housing schemes. I would remind the House of the number of old people who were living alone in very bad conditions and whose only escape was to go into the local county homes. I might add here that during the term of office of the previous Government and since we came to power the county homes have been revolutionised so that they are now very comfortable, but they are costing a lot to maintain. It was my opinion that it would be much better to provide a proportion of local authority dwellings for some of those people and I suggested that in each scheme an effort should be made to allocate about 10 per cent of the dwellings for those who are capable of living on their own. This has been done so that now we have those old people living among the younger generations and not only do the older people receive assistance from the younger ones but they can devote their time to teaching the children a way of life which may have been forgotten by the children's parents. The arrangement is working very well. Here again I congratulate the elected representatives of local authorities and the officials who helped in this work.
Regarding housing generally, it is my hope that our target of 25,000 houses will be reached again in 1976. The money is available and so is the expertise. Recently I met a representative of the Construction Industry Federation and he told me that the federation are doing well and are confident for the future. It is worth considering that by the time this Government will have been in office for four years we will have completed more than 100,000 new houses. Let us compare this with the expressed hope of Fianna Fáil to build between 14,000 and 15,000 houses each year in the seventies and to increase this, perhaps, to 17,000 or 18,000 in the mid-eighties. These are the people who tell me that I am not building enough houses and that there is something wrong with the industry. I believe in calling a spade a spade: there are sections of the building industry that are not doing well. We are not building hotels but everybody knows that the reason for this is that the existing ones are not being filled. Nor are we building as many factories or office blocks and this has an affect on the overall employment in the building industry. But for an Opposition Deputy to say I am responsible for the fact that the housing section of the building industry is doing badly when we are building almost twice as many houses per year as the average of the previous three or four years with Fianna Fáil is mischievous or those who make such statements do not know.
I should like to deal with two other matters which concern my Department—sanitary services and roads. Previous Governments, including previous Coalition Governments, did not seem to understand that sanitary services were so important. They did not seem to understand that if money was not made available for sanitary services industry and housing could not continue. They did not seem to understand that there was little use talking about the environment or improving the waters of our country if we did not make provision for dealing with the effluent from the towns, the villages and from agriculture. The result was that although this year I have 130 per cent more money allocated than my predecessor had the last year he was in office it is only a drop in the ocean. This year I could spend another £30 million but I have not got the money and, under present circumstances, it would be unfair to increase income tax substantially to raise this money. I do not think I would be justified in asking the Government for that money. We have to cut our cloth according to our measure.
I have heard a lot of criticism from Dublin Deputies about sanitary services and for this reason it is only right that I should point out that Dublin received 30 per cent of the money allocated for this purpose. Dublin county and city are entitled to that amount of money but it is unfair of those who know they are entitled to it and who know the circumstances to blame me for the fact that my predecessors over the last ten years were not as active in trying to get money for sanitary services. Had they been as active we would not have run into the difficulty we are in now. We require a lot more money but we have not got it and we will have to wait until it will be possible to raise it.
I was amused to hear people talking about local authority housing in Dublin. I am a country man but, having travelled around the country and seen the standard, I believe it was wrong that we should have a situation where in a country district a newly wed could be allocated a local authority house while 5,000 families in Dublin city had to go on a waiting list. In some cases families had to live four to a room. Thousands more could not get on the waiting list until the change took place in the points system because Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council felt there was no point putting them on it because there was little hope of rehousing them. This year I put 40 per cent of all the local authority housing capital into Dublin. Some people will say it was terrible to do that and will ask me what will happen to the rest of the country but the greatest need is in Dublin and we must tackle it. I have allocated £23 million to Dublin this year for local authority housing. I wish those who have been criticising me, even since the money was allocated, would accept that an effort is being made, irrespective of who is making it. It is possible that when they have another look at the situation they will have a change of heart.
On the question of roads I should like to remind the House that I represented farm workers and local authority employees for many years. I know practically every road worker by his first name and he knows me by my first name. I am proud of the fact that I was responsible for introducing the five-day week for road workers—this was done through a Labour Court case on 4th July, 1961 —and I was also responsible for the reduction in working hours from 48 hours to 45 hours to 42½ hours to 40 hours. These things have meant improvements for such workers over the years but, nevertheless, Opposition Members have said that I was deliberately creating a situation which would leave road workers off work. They are codding themselves; they are not codding me because I have too high a regard for those people who go out in all weathers and do a good job although some people do not appreciate it.
I have given instructions that where there was an ongoing job on a national primary or national secondary road it should be continued. I have given instructions that where there were contracts entered into they should be honoured. I have given instructions that work should continue on anything on which it was necessary to spend money to make roads or bridges safe and that all money required for national primary and secondary roads maintenance should be provided. Having provided that I divided the remainder between all the local authorities and told them: there is a block grant for you; you are the experts and you know where it can be best spent so spend it there. The only thing I asked was that as far as possible it should be spent where men are employed. I want to see men employed throughout the year on this work. I do not want big machines brought in to do a job in three months that would take a group of men with smaller machines, or without machines, six months, although it would not be done any cheaper. That is false economy because we can wait for the extra three months.
Listening to Deputies at Question Time one would get the impression that I deliberately set out to leave hundreds of road workers in every county off. One would get the impression that at least 500 road workers were being laid off in every county although most counties do not have anything like that number employed altogether. Many Members have overlooked the fact that as far as main roads grants are concerned when it comes to a question of priority it is not so important that such works should continue if other important things are left out, particularly if people lose employment as a result.
A lot of people do not seem to understand that if there is a national primary job to be done and in the region of £500,000 allocated for it that when that job is finished the local authority does not get that money again but for the next job in line. Some members of local authorities, and Deputies, seem to imagine that if money is given one year it should be given every year. If these people want to know if they are getting more money for employment on roads this year as compared with last year they should leave out the question of the new roads and ascertain how much money is being spent in the country then. If they do so they will find that in all cases they got more money this year than last year and that more people will be kept in employment throughout the year. It is my job to ensure that this job is carried out.
On the question of rates I should like to state that over a long period a survey has been carried out to find out what we should do about rates and if we could have another form of local taxation to raise money. When we took office the National Coalition included in their programme a commitment to review the rating system. We promised to take health and housing off the rates. We said we would attempt to find a way to meet local taxation. We took health and housing off the rates. Let me repeat, there is at least an average of £4 in the pound less being paid by ratepayers in towns, cities and country—that includes farmers— than would be paid if Fianna Fáil were in power.
Before the election Fianna Fáil said if they got in they intended to do away with rates on dwellinghouses. They did not cost it because they could not have done so in that short period. From the costing I have done, I discovered that it would cost a great deal more than we are suggesting. Let us check and find out what Fianna Fáil really meant and how it affects the budget. In a White Paper published in December, 1972, by Fianna Fáil, after years of deliberation, they decided there would be no relief for ratepayers. They gave vague promises of studies to be carried out but there was no reference to derating of domestic premises and no relief from health or housing charges. In February, 1973, two months later, they promised to derate domestic premises but gave no indication of how the money could be found to do this. In 1975 relief of domestic premises cost about £45 million. In the Fianna Fáil election manifesto no reference was made to derating domestic premises. If they intended to do it, that was the place for it.
One Deputy—I do not want to name him—got about 200,000 leaflets printed pointing out how stupid the Coalition were to suggest that that could be done. I am told he nearly fainted when he saw in the newspapers that Fianna Fáil had decided to do away with rates on houses. He had a big bonfire. Those are the facts and it is ridiculous that Fianna Fáil should castigate us about rates and say we should have done something about them in the budget.
In my view the present Government did very well in this budget because, apart from taking health and housing off the rates, they also made provision for malicious injury claims. This meant that in North Tipperary, for example, there would have been an extra £2 in the pound on the rates because of malicious injury claims but for the fact that the Government stepped in to meet damages caused by explosions and so on as a result of troubles in the North. Yet Deputies stand up in the Opposition benches and say "We would do more". If they could do more, was it not extraordinary that in 16 years of unbroken rule all the wonderful things they now say they can do were not even thought of or referred to?
Recently they criticised us over the farmers' dole. They said it was a scandal in certain areas. It was and we made certain provisions to ensure that it would stop. What is happening now? A few days ago I heard some Deputies saying that we were a very unfair Government because of what we were doing to farmers on the dole. Wanting to have your cake and eat it is childish.
In view of the serious economic situation, this was a very good budget. I represent more of the people who drive in and out of this city to work than anybody else. For years I have been asking for something to be done for them. Previously the employers could get away with this through income tax but the workers could not. We stopped the employers getting this benefit. From talking to a number of workers I learned that they are now getting travelling allowances, because of trade union negotiations. People who feel they still have a grievance are not quite correct. While we would all like to see an easier budget and see things better than they are, at the same time the Government did a good job in very bad circumstances and Fianna Fáil should be the last people in the world to condemn us.
