Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 8

Finance Bill, 1977: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed : "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before the adjournment of the debate we had been discussing, against the background of the contemporary pre-election good news campaign being conducted by the National Coalition at present, the realities of our economic situation, against the background of propaganda films about the life and times of the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, to the daily news of new factories and industries to be established in the west, north, south-west, all over the place. Every day there is a new batch of good news. Against that background we were trying to pin down the reality of our economic situation at present. We had delineated the flagging and dropping of agricultural production and illustrated it with the key figures governing the size of the herd and flocks in the country, all of which have diminished alarmingly, and against the key fertiliser-usage statistics which as we have seen, are about half what they were in 1973.

I have been attempting to expose the fraud, for that is what it is, of the pretence being maintained by the National Coalition Government that the high structure of agricultural prices being enjoyed at present arises in some way from Government policy. On the contrary, as everybody who stops to think for a minute knows the price structure we now enjoy, inhibited and all as it is by the incidence of MCAs, arises from our membership of the EEC which was bitterly opposed by the Labour Party before our entry. The very fact that the Labour Parliamentary Secretary for Social Welfare can now boast of being the benefactor of the poor and disabled derives from the Fianna Fáil policy of bringing this country into the EEC that he opposed tooth and nail.

We tried to review this dropping down of agricultural production, of food processing and the running down of industrial effort generally, the closing of factories here, there and everywhere throughout the country, in spite of the glad news the Minister for Industry and Commerce scattered around the west last week when he had returned from foreign parts. Whether it was Australia, Japan or his spiritual home in Russia I cannot now remember. At any rate he was announcing a lot of these pre-election phantom factories. As every Deputy knows the reality is that, as well as the statistic of registered unemployed which is at an unprecedentedly high figure—it may have varied a thousand or two in the last year or so—in the Coalition context, there have never been such unemployment figures as have been produced by them.

Although that is so and although all of the Government's efforts should be aimed at encouraging investment, the expansion of industry and in particular the agricultural food processing industry, we have a situation of possibly 115,000 registered unemployed. Along with that we have perhaps 50,000 unregistered unemployed. The Government deliberately monkeyed with the rules by which unemployed people come on to the unemployed register. All the young people leaving school in the last couple of years, with a few fortunate exceptions, are now joining the growing army of disillusioned, frustrated, well-educated people. That army will continue to grow and become more frustrated unless the Government, whatever Government that may be, take immediate, radical and dramatic steps to ensure that there is more employment, more development of industry and, above all, more development in agriculture because it is in that area the largest opportunity for employment reposes.

In spite of the window-dressing, in spite of the phoney bonanzas trumpeted every time the Minister goes to Brussels, we have diminishing herd and sheep flocks and diminishing employment in the meat industry— and no other prospects—against the unpardonable Government policy of exporting calves in vast numbers because they are unable or unwilling to create conditions in which it would be unnecessary to export them. I am not quarrelling with the people who will accept the highest market price available for their calves. What I am quarrelling with, very bitterly and profoundly, is the situation that has developed under the Minister for Agriculture in which it is necessary and possible for Irish calf producers to sell their calves, thereby compromising the future dimensions of the Irish cattle herd on which the future prosperity of our agricultural economy ultimately depends.

I charge the Government with direct responsibility for that. It is a blow of such enormity that for the city Deputies in the Government it is difficult for them to comprehend it. However, workers in Clover Meats in Waterford, in Slaney Meats in Bunclody, in Amalgamated Meats in Bagnalstown and in meat factories throughout the country know because their future and their jobs are involved. There is a drop of nearly one million in the size of the herd since the National Coalition Government took over and this will be reflected in the level of employment in the meat factories throughout the country. Unemployed butchers will have to walk the streets because of the Government's failure to take the necessary action. They have allowed the process to continue that will ensure that the size of the herd in Ireland will continue to diminish. They have allowed a situation to develop where it pays Italians to feed Irish calves while it does not pay the Irish farmers to feed our animals. They are being exported hand over fist each day. It will take Fianna Fáil at least three years to restore the Irish cattle herd. The Parliamentary Secretary is the sole representative of the Government present in the House——

The Minister is at a Committee meeting in the House.

He is responsible to this Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary may not appreciate the importance of what I have said but the farmers and those in the food industry, particularly in the processing sector, will understand.

I wish to deal with one serious aspect of the fraudulent and false facade that has been put up by the Government with regard to farm profitability, the profits being made by farmers and the measures being taken to impose taxation on them. I would remind the House that, as Minister for Agriculture in the previous Government, I said, and I repeat it now, that there is no way in which a situation can be justified that would impose a certain kind of taxation on one section while exempting another section. A case cannot be made for exempting farmers or anybody else from taxation that applies to the community generally. I maintain that position and so do my party. What we protested about then, and what we still protest about, is the imposition of double and treble taxation on the farming industry that is occurring at the present time.

In spite of the facade of falsehood and deceit by the Government with regard to farm profitability, the situation is quite different. However, it has given rise to the widespread belief that farmers are not taxed at all and, secondly, that they are getting away with murder in the matter of taxation. This belief has been taken up by people like Deputy Desmond from the Royal Borough of Kingstown and Senator Michael Mullen, the Taoiseach's personal Senator in the Upper House. These people have been calling for a doubling and a trebling of taxation on farmers, partly to pander to what they think are the opinions of their constituents and perhaps in a sincerely mistaken belief that there is a situation that needs to be rectified. They are incapable of distinguishing between taxation of personal income and the taxation of a business project which may happen to be a farm.

There are certain peculiarities surrounding the taxing of a farming business that do not apply to the taxation of people in other walks of life such as policemen, lawyers, dentists or doctors. All lawyers need are a wig and a biro, and it is very doubtful if they need a wig, and they are in business. It is easy enough to get a degree. On the other hand, if a farmer wants to buy a tractor—he cannot operate his business without one—he will have to pay £1,000 tax and he will also have to pay tax on any other machinery he needs. A farmer buys a good deal of machinery; a large part of his annual expenditure is on machinery and buildings and he must pay tax on them all. Policemen, dentists, doctors, school teachers and so on do not have to incur such expenditure and, therefore, they do not have to meet the same kind of taxation.

A farmer's land is rated. We have inherited the system of land taxation from the 1840s when the first rates were struck to build workhouses to help the starving people of those times. The system of raising funds for the grand juries of those days has survived up to the present. Fianna Fáil have undertaken to the farming organisations that rates paid in this way can be claimed against income tax but the present Government have not seen it that way.

Some peculiar anomalies have escaped the attention of Senator Mullen, the Taoiseach's personal Senator. One of these is the exemption from all tax of some of the Taoiseach's personal friends—I am referring to the people in the blood-stock industry. Because they happen to have the affection of Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach, they do not pay tax and their projects are not taxed. It is an outrage and an absolute disgrace. People who are working hard to expand the real economy of the country are taxed, the people working in this House have to pay exorbitant tax, but the wealthiest class in the country are exempt because of their wealth. The real reason, the most corrupt one of all, is because the Taoiseach has many personal friends in this area and he uses his position to see that they are exempt from paying tax. A man trying to build up a herd of cattle or pigs or a flock of sheep will pay tax but the man running horses at Cheltenham or other places, the Taoiseach's friend, is exempt. If these people are friendly enough with the Taoiseach he will put them into the Seanad also.

This kind of disgraceful nepotism should be challenged even by a sincere man like Senator Mullen, when he is discussing taxation generally and the people from rural Ireland. We all remember the posters on the walls during the 1973 election campaign: "Cosgrave Puts the Nation First" Where does he put the nation first? Who does he exempt? Look where Cosgrave has put the nation. I am quoting from the poster.

The Deputy should not refer to the Taoiseach in that way.

I invite the representative of the Minister for Finance to tell us where the Taoiseach has put the nation. His posters said: "Cosgrave Puts the Nation First". Where has he put us? I submit he has reduced this nation to a state of beggary, where it now requires £1,200,000 per day to pay the debts raised by the Taoiseach and his colleagues in a cheap and shabby effort to purchase popularity. We are spending vast sums of money. Everybody knows that fraudulent practices in the payment of social welfare are widespread. As far as my information goes in the city of Dublin there are only two civil servants to see that there are no fraudulent practices.

Vast sums of money are being spent in the corrupt business of purchasing popularity. There is no investment made in schools, hospitals or in the expansion of industry. Work must be provided for our people. Our young people want to work. I believe if work is not provided that the day is coming when the people will take the law into their own hands. I accuse the Government of flagrant dereliction of duty. I have not been unreasonable. I have demonstrated, particularly in the field I know best, where statistics shout at one, that in the food industry, both primary production and processing afterwards, the situation certainly is not rosy. We have seen the difficulties encountered by one of our biggest co-operative meat processing factories. We have seen the difficulties encountered by Clover Meats. We have seen the passage of Golden Vale Meats in Rathdowney from co-operative ownership into multi-national ownership. It passed into the Guinness firm, who are multi-nationals. While the huge Golden Vale complex are encountering very serious difficulties and other co-operatives are running into trouble the Government, as far as I know, have not lifted a finger or done anything to see that this vital organ of our future prosperity, the co-operative food processing industry, is put on a sensible basis.

Last February my party published detailed proposals on how we would resuscitate the ailing co-operative industry and reorganise it. We put those proposals before the farming organisations. They have said that it is the first time that a serious and coherent effort has been made by any political party to put forward a workable plan for agriculture. The decay of the food processing industry, particularly the co-operative ring of it, continues. The shareholders in the co-operatives have very little reason to be thankful to the co-operative industry as it is now constituted. Some of the practices they engaged in during the 1975 crisis will be remembered for many a day. I refer to the incapacity of co-operative members to get suitable cattle into their own factories while the management of those co-operatives made millions of pounds, in spite of their inefficiency in that particular year, by exploiting their members. That kind of thing must stop as must also the general inefficiency which surrounds the co-operative industry. I refer to the co-operative meat industry in particular.

The Government have never given any evidence that they are aware of the seriousness of the situation. One of the first things they did when they came into office was to load every Government board, in the agricultural sector and in other sectors, with political hacks. I speak with full responsibility for boards set up during my period as Minister for Agriculture. The political allegiance of the members was second to their competence as board members. All those people were swept aside and their places taken by hacks. The most recent gesture of the Government is the setting up of the agricultural authority, for which a board will be established. I expect this will be managed by Fine Gael hacks. That is treating our major industry with intolerable contempt. I am confident when the voters of rural Ireland get their hands on the Government they will give them a salutary lesson and one they will never forget. When they do those hacks I have been talking about will get short shift from the Fianna Fáil Government which will then come into power.

We have a growing problem for the three million people in this part of Ireland of youth unemployment, declining industry and declining agriculture. We have certain resources which will help to arrest the decay of the economy. We have the land, which is by far the biggest asset we have and the products from the land. We have a large amount of first-class modern processing plant for processing those products. We have the people on the land and the people in the food processing industries. We have some minerals and possibly the prospect of some oil and marine gas.

The use to which the Kinsale gas is being put by the Government is about as uneconomic as one could put it to. They are only getting a 30 per cent efficiency from bringing the gas from the sea to produce electricity. That is the way they do it. We have the fast buck here again. We will have to organise those things, particularly the food production resources I have mentioned. We will have to be drastic in preventing the exploitation of land, which is the greatest resource we have, by speculators and chancers of every descripition. These people have upped to more than £2,000 per acre the price of agricultural land. The most dire effect of this exploitation is that it ensures the gradual but certain extinction of the small farmer. We are on a course that will lead to the extinction of the rural population but Fianna Fáil will reverse that trend on their return to office shortly. Regardless of whether the Taoiseach dissolves the Dáil this evening or waits until after the Ard-Fheis to dissolve it, we shall begin to reconstruct. The task, though, is enormous and will require a great deal of courage not only on the part of politicians but on the part of the people themselves. There will have to be the brutal facing up to the unsavoury facts. It is in the area of moral courage that the Coalition have been most inadequate. They have not the courage to tell the people what the real situation is. Instead, we have had mumbo jumbo about bonanzas from Brussels. Admittedly, there is a good type of structure in Brussels but small thanks is due to the Labour Party for that. This country was led into the EEC by Fianna Fáil, not by the Coalition. However, there remains a decaying agriculture. The processing industry, too, is in dire straits. It is regrettable that not a member of the Government has seen fit to be present at any time today for this debate but, then, they are not interested in what the elected representatives have to say on these matters. However, people more important than they—the electors— will have their day soon and I am convinced that they will give their answer in no uncertain manner to the National Coalition.

We have increased our vote at every by-election in recent years.

This debate embraces a wide area. In a sense, it is a second debate on the budget. I wish to comment on the Bill from an administrative point of view but, first, I will make the point that, although I shall not be repeating the very valid points made so far in the debate from this side of the House, that does not mean, as the previous speaker said, that one is not impressed by the strength and the cogency of these various arguments.

What strikes one first about the Finance Bill this year is that it is very different from the other Finance Bills that have been introduced by this Government. If one makes comparisons at any level one finds a strong change in emphasis on the Minister's approach on this occasion compared with his approach in the budgets for the earlier years of this Government.

I do not think that I am being cheap in any way when I say that there appears to be a peculiar coincidence that this should happen at this time. This change can be referred to as a deep-rooted change of heart but it is inefficient, incomplete and, may I say deliberately but in no way slightingly, incompetent. It is a change that recognises the reality of the situation.

During their early days the Coalition seemed to be dominated by a type of dectrinaire left-wing teaching. Much out-dated dogma and action based thereon was played to what was considered to be the most populated gallery. We have seen the result of all that. If we recall the budget of 1976 and the earlier budgets and if we analyse the situation what I am saying becomes very clear. Those budgets were designed to hound what were referred to as the rich classes, particularly in the private sector. In addition, there was a multiplication of public expenditure. Deputy Gibbons has referred to the spending of public moneys for the sake of popularity without there being any proper controlling of such expenditure. Also, there was the indiscriminate indulging in borrowing which leaves us with a massive national debt. These policies were based on a point of view which was not practical and which was based on false theory. Matters are so bad now that whichever government will be in office in the future will be faced with a critical situation on more than one front.

To revert to the change of heart that we are witnessing, in the past the Minister talked continually about the effects of inflation and found excuses in the generality of inflation in the world, particularly in Europe. He now at last seems to recognise that one of the things stoking the fires of local inflation was his taxation policy, and this year he comes in to try to undo the damage done by a false concept which he apparently had in the beginning and the implementation of it in regard to the whole question of taxation. He said "Government and private business are allies with different but complementary functions, sharing a common interest in the welfare of society". The Taoiseach has harped on this theme outside the House as well.

It is a terrible pity for this country that those thoughts were not more in evidence when the Coalition took office and embarked on their programme of running the country. It is a terrible pity that that was not realised in time before many small private businesses had closed up, before the impact of taxation, personal and otherwise, was such as to stultify growth in that sector. It is a pity that those thoughts were not applied in the agricultural area which Deputy Gibbons has been dealing with in another way. A little recognition of the true nature and basis of Irish farming might have left the State much more healthy than it is today. I am not going to repeat in detail the reasons. They have been given through the debate and anyone who wants to peruse the debate will find them. There was a misconception here with regard to the real basis of the Irish farming industry and as a result precipitate and one-sided taxation policies were adopted, the cumulative result of which has been unfavourable to agricultural industry. I leave it to those who know the details involved to speak of that. I claim no such expert knowledge, but I can and will say that following on any mishandling in that area of our primary product, food for our people, there must be inevitably an adverse effect on consumer prices. Nothing the Government have done in regard to agriculture has effectively improved that situation.

There are things in the Bill and in the budget that it is right should be done and I am glad they are being done, but I am sorry that in many cases the measures for the beneficial provisions that we are enacting in this Bill are necessary because of mishandling by the Government and are nothing more than an attempt to redress or make amends for the mistakes of earlier years, particularly in the financial context.

It is a pity that we find ourselves here with this situation. If the policy that prompts this type of action here today had been generally adverted to when the Coalition came into office, then we might have a budget and a Bill that would not be, so to speak, a frantic, last-minute remedial effort but a constructive contribution to the development of the economy of the State and to the relief of all citizens who are naturally suffering from inflation and all the other things which are problems for all of us no less than for the Government of the day.

I have referred to the phrase, "Government and private business are allies with different but complementary functions". What a pity that was not recognised earlier in the context of this doctrinaire socialism with its inefficiency, its expenditure and the payments that each and every one of us must make out of our pockets in the form of taxation as a tribute to the out-of-date as well as erroneous pet theories of certain groups. This is what has happened. It is playing politics at its very worst. The Minister said:

It has become clear that traditional long established business catering in the main for the home market and not hitherto enjoying tax reliefs commensurate with those enjoyed by modern manufacturing industries producing for the export market ought to be helped by an improved tax climate.

That was certainly not the situation, particularly when the Corporation Tax Act was being put through. What was done there? It was represented as a benefit, and in certain ways it was, but in the net it came out in Committee that there would be a little bonus rakeoff for the Exchequer. This Bill in this respect and the Minister's speech give me much material for argument. In my younger days in the House I would have been only too glad to keep the House for hours with fact against fact and item against item. That I do not intend to do today. The point I make is that there is a change of thought here and it would not be right for me to pursue that to the point where it could be said, `Oh, well, the right thing has been done and you are complaining about that as well as the wrong thing". Again I am glad to say that pro tanto—and it is only pro tanto—I am not to be taken in any way as considering that this Finance Bill and the budget are a marvellous contribution to the solution of our problems and a marvellous relief to taxpayers. I fear it does not solve our problems and with regard to inflation and other problems such as the problems in labour negotiations that are and will be confronting all concerned in the years to come no matter who is on the Government benches it will be found that some very necessary reliefs have been given and I am glad they are there because they represent some evidence of rational thinking which, late and all as it is, is to be commended and encouraged. Unfortunately that is not sufficiently sustained to convey any hope that it will continue and that more realistic views will prevail than in recent years.

That is the first reaction one has to the Bill and the budget. In regard to the actual situation in general terms, I cannot share the Minister's optimism, particularly in regard to unemployment. I sincerely hope he is right. He informed us in his introductory statement:

The EEC as a whole expects unemployment to rise this year. There are only three exceptions to this discouraging picture—Ireland, Germany and Holland. With the growing momentum of our economy we anticipate that our unemployment figures will over the next few months fall below the 100,000 mark for the first time in two and a half years.

I should like some reassurance on a few points in that respect. I should like to be sure that the figures he has taken are a realistic reflection of the true state of employment and unemployment here. Obviously some convention has to be adopted when dealing with figures of this nature and I am not suggesting for a moment that any other procedure can be adopted, but I am asking whether the method of computation of the figures is realistic.

Dr. Geary and his colleagues recently in a report, in a television interview and widely reported on radio and in the Press, appeared to show that the true figure is considerably higher. Indeed, I have a figure of 150,000 echoing in my mind. Unemployment, like a lot of things, is unfortunately a reality and I hope the Government realise that and that they will not mishandle this reality as they have others by relying on conventional measures. Unemployment is still a menacing problem for us, quite apart from the general situation in the community.

There seems to be a discrepancy between ministerial statements on employment and unemployment and the figures daily reported. Again I ask the basis on which the Minister can make such a statement. I ask is it realistic in real terms. Many Deputies have spoken about this major social problem, and Deputy Gibbons a few moments ago only echoed what a lot of people are thinking when they point to what is happening to young people, to those whom Deputy Gibbons referred to as the educated unemployed. This is a frightening problem. It is a problem of a generation in its prime, the ruling generation of the day, considering that when it has passed its prime it will pay in another way for its failure in its prime.

I do not think Deputy Gibbons used the word "revolution". I have used that word in other debates. One does not want to create scares, but I ask every Deputy to think of his responsibility and of what will be the likely consequences of the continuing output from our schools of people who have been equipped to think, who have the youth and the energy and the desire to make their way in life but who find themselves in an environment where they cannot exercise their intelligence and their abilities or fulfil their mission in life as human beings. Traditional alternatives are denied to them. The need for these alternatives were regretted by us in the past, but at least they were safety valves and it was our great hope in the past that we would no longer need these safety valves, that here there would be a great future for the younger generation, that there would be an opportunity to make Ireland an example of human progress, of what virile people could do in their own country when they had the room to do it. Sadly, that ambition has not been realised.

Instead we have the menace of these pressures on us. There is not a Deputy among us who has not had young people coming to him almost pathetically pleading for some outlet, some job. It is no longer a question of looking for plums but for something that will keep them from being beggars. With the realism of youth they realise that if they are living on subsidised social benefits, no matter how generous they are or how comfortable they may make their personal situation, dependence on them is degrading in status—they are reduced to the status of beggars.

These are frightening things, yet here we are with the annual budget, with the millstone of debt around our necks, neglecting the fundamentals. I mentioned the agricultural sector, for which I do not claim any competence to speak with any expertise. There are other industrial areas also and the situation there has been largely contributed to by the concepts of this Government since their inception, by their false ideas. One finds it very hard to see how adequate remedies for youth unemployment can be found and implemented in what I conceive to be the very short time left to the Government. Deputy Gibbons warned that, unless this Parliament and the people through their representatives can cope, our system will be found wanting. We have a deep-rooted change in mentality which I welcome and hope will continue. I regret that this change has come at such a late hour. The Minister for Finance said in his speech that a careful balance will have to be maintained to preserve a sensible level of public expenditure and a tolerant level of taxation. That is another small indication of a return to reality.

The Book of Estimates will show what is left in the area of public expenditure. Remembering the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's sensitivity to speakers drifting towards Estimates, I will anticipate his having to admonish me and I will not pursue it, except to refer to the source. What about the efficiency of the public service, and the extra load of work that has been generated by what this Government have done? What have this Government done to what was a very efficient and expeditious Department, the Revenue Department? Tax law was changed indiscriminately and tax was loaded on to all sorts of people. The Minister seemed to have a fix on what he called tax evasion. In the end a lot of the tax evasion was created by the Minister, because he killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Very serious problems have been created for the Revenue Commissioners by these changes in tax law, and delays have bedevilled them. A Department which could so pride themselves on their efficiency in the past are having to swim very hard in an adverse current. A huge amount of unproductive energy is going into the administration of practically every business. Many accountants are more than busy because of the Bills the Minister has brought forth and this Dáil has undiscerningly passed.

The public service bill has gone up, but has public service efficiency gone up correspondingly? If it has not, it is not all the fault of the public service itself. Every Deputy who votes here is responsible. Every Deputy on that side of the House is responsible for the legislation he voted through in support of this Minister for Finance. There is a limit to making the Minister the scapegoat. Everyone behind the Minister is as responsible, because without them these things would not have been done. No Deputy can wash his hands of responsibility. In the eyes of the public all Deputies, because of this performance, will be critically viewed by the public. If changes come or are forced by the young unemployed or anybody else, it will be because of the way Parliament has been divided into two groups who have marched to the tune of a Minister and the Government of which he is a part.

We have overdone the system where a Minister comes in and insists on his point of view and his cohorts, with the discipline of the Prussian Guards of old, will march behind him into the lobby. That may be very admirable discipline, but is it good parliamentary practice? The inevitability of a Government and an Executive taking an attitude towards the House—an attitude, which unfortunately, has been growing over a large number of years in democratic parliaments—that the minions are simply to be commanded has resulted in a reduction of the status and usefulness of the Members. To all intents and purposes they are ignored and the Minister is thrown completely into the hands of the administration, the permanent service.

Very often in cases like that it is an illusion for the Minister to think he is anything himself but a rubber stamp. There is a certain irony in this. If Ministers and the Executive will insist on reducing Parliament to being a rubber stamp they, in turn, become rubber stamps for the permanent administration. I say that advisedly but, nevertheless, without the slightest adverse reflection on the administration. The reflection is on us, on Deputies in this House. The administration have their job to do. They have their sphere. They cannot do our job. In effect, we are asking them to do both.

As I say, I am slipping imperceptibly from the substance to the administrative forms. Now I come to them directly. In the old days, in the original conception, a Finance Bill was meant to implement the budget. The legitimate contents of a Finance Bill were the necessary amendments of rates of taxation reliefs, the type of things which were strictly budgetary, and also amendment of tax law but with discrimination. There it stopped. I remember Deputies from the Parliamentary Secretary's party complaining with some of the rest of us, when they were on this side of the House, that too much was being slipped into Finance Bills; there was too much legislation by reference, too much loophole-plugging and too much slipped in for the mere convenience of the Administration.

I fear that, in spite of those protests from parliamentarians on both sides of the House in the past—and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will remember some members of his own party who spoke very strongly on these lines —we have now come to the stage where we have a budget, a budget debate and then a Finance Bill which, in effect, is the financial legislation for the year which is a complicated document and difficult to handle in the form it is in because it is largely legislation by reference, and it covers a very wide field. In turn, the debate on it becomes a second budget debate which, again, is wasteful of parliamentary time.

I wonder will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle permit me to make this reference to Estimates. I made it the other day in an aside. While this is going on, while we are having the duplicate budget debate, to some extent ineffective—we have a mass of legislation in this Bill which needs disentangling—at the same time the House cannot find time to discuss the individual Estimates and to take the expenditure and the accounts of the State in any kind of ordered fashion. I want to point out to the House that our financial business has got into a chaotic state, a haphazard state. Very often in panic we are bringing in and passing financial legislation at the expense of the homogeneity of the whole code. This is something which must be looked at in a broader way.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might be very much within his rights if he told me I cannot pursue that very far and perhaps I should take it up on the Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bill usually goes through in ten minutes before we break up for a vacation so, again, I will ask your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in making this reference. Suffice to say— because I want to keep within the rules of order—that there is a very urgent need for a thorough look at the way this House does its financial business, not only from the public point of view and the point of view of the control of public expenditure and the point of view of the control of the Dáil in that area, but also from the point of view of the administration who need stability, who need certainty, who need to be in a position to have an estimate of when they can bring business to the House and when they cannot. I have seen this matter from two points of view here in the House itself and in Committees. In fairness to the civil service, they are suffering very much from the problems resulting from—and I am a Member of the House and I share the blame as well as everybody else—I can only say the inefficiency of Dáil Éireann in handling the financial business of the State.

Strictly within the rules of order, this should be a rather difficult Bill to discuss on Second Stage. The Second Stage should be short for two reasons. The substantive matters I have mentioned should have been disposed of in the budget debate. The Finance Bill should have followed more quickly. There has been an inordinate gap between the two for whatever reason I know not. If we were doing our business efficiently, the Finance Bill should have followed more the budget in which case the substantive discussion would have taken place on the budget and a businesslike Bill would be before us and we could dispose of it in a businesslike manner. Instead, we had what I have called an inordinate delay. We have had a second budget debate and now we have a complex Bill which cannot be disposed of in an orderly and businesslike fashion because of the way we are placed at the moment.

In fact, it is very difficult to dissect it. Instinctively anyone who has had some acquaintance with the method of operation of our finances says: "There are things in this Bill which are proper to a Finance Bill and there are other things which are not. Can we sort them?" On looking into it, I find we have developed to a stage where a cleancut sorting is not very easy. If we look at the contents we find that the first three sections are amendments of something else. In these cases they are proper to a Finance Bill. Then we go on to corporation profits tax. Part of the amendment is very proper to a Finance Bill in so far as it relates to the rates of incidence of tax. I question whether much of what is put in in regard to corporation profits tax is proper to this Bill. We went to the trouble of trying to order our taxation legislation by having an income tax code as embodied in the Income Tax Act, 1967. I think that is the date but I am not quite sure. We have a Corporation Profits Tax Act. We have a Wealth Tax Act. We have a Capital Gains Tax Act and a Capital Acquisitions Tax Act. All these Acts were nicely ordered and had the semblance of being what you might call a homogeneous code. Here we are amending the lot of them, income tax, corporation profits tax and capital gains tax. There is reference to the Wealth Tax Act. That could be quite legitimate in a Bill of this nature.

This Bill has developed into a complex mixture of what should be in it and what should not in so far as it contains legislation which should more properly be separate. It is confusing and mixing up existing codes that we have set up. It seems to me to be not exactly orderly. If one thinks of the Finance Bill as being narrowly a Bill to implement the budget, all of what I have said is sustainable. I can, however, understand somebody taking issue with me in regarding a Finance Bill in that light. That would bring me into a wider area.

I should like to make a suggestion en passant. The way we are developing we may need two types of Bill, a Finance Bill immediately after the budget and something that I might call an administrative Bill that would deal with some of the complications, that would plug loopholes, deal with certain types of evasion and other adjustments of that nature. Where there are specific statutes, conceived as consolidated measures, such as the Corporation Profits Tax Act or the Wealth Tax Act or the Capital Gains Tax Act, it would be preferable to amend them specifically. It would not take very much more time and it would stop duplication in debate and make the job of the Chair, which incidentally has become much more difficult as a result of our approach to this kind of business, a much easier matter.

These are general points. Specific matters will and should arise on Committee Stage. The Bill should be largely a Committee Bill. As I said, I did not intend to make a long contribution to this debate. I have commented essentially on two things: the change of attitude of the Minister and the Government at this time and the relative improvement that is evident in the measures before us and in the budget. I have also commented on the House's responsibility in financial matters and the deficiencies which I conceive in that area. I have commented on the adverse situation from the point of view of resources, and the national debt in particular, and the menacing problems of employment and unemployment, growth and output as against decline. These problems must be faced by the Government.

Finally, I must ask this question. Whoever brings it in, what does the next budget hold, particularly if it is to be brought in by the present Government? I must say that I would be disturbed at the attitude of a Government and a Minister who have had such a record over the past four years —misconceptions and severity resulting in serious financial load and embarrassment to the economy as a whole and specifically to the individual citizen, whether he is regarded as a taxpayer, a consumer, a worker or anything else.

We find then such a budget on the eve of an election and it is conceded that in any event this year, or at the latest the early part of 1978, must see a reference to the people. It is not unreasonable to express a fear and to wonder if when the next budget comes in it will be as favourable or whether the cup being brought home, so to speak, then the doors may be locked and the penal and damaging measures that we on this side of the House protested against two and three years ago will be enforced.

With all that in mind, can something like that be expected if this Government are returned? These are legitimate thoughts. Anyone who asks this question is asking a reasonable question. If he wants a reasonable answer let him study the facts and the record and assess them for himself. I would be very disturbed merely as a citizen—I am not talking about my present capacity—in the days before a budget to be introduced by the present Minister for Finance and his Government. I would be very much afraid. I would hope that such fears would not be grounded but I fear the situation has got so bad that the problem confronting the next Government, no matter who they are, will be intimidating indeed. It behoves us all to approach this election with our feet on the ground and with a cool assessment. As Deputy Gibbons said, where youth and the educated unemployed are concerned, this election may be one of the most critical in the history of the State.

When the Minister for Finance introduced his budget this year he presented it with such a flourish that it seemed to everyone that he was distributing something of his own or something that he himself had created with his own hand and his own effort. That was one of the illusions in a whole patchwork of deceit, the results of which may be an economic milestone tied around the necks of the taxpayers of this nation for many years to come. This budget, labelled as the "election give-away", was possible because the expected deficit did not materialise. I should like to give what I think is a suitable title for the whole affair. It should be known as the saga of revenue buoyancy inflated by mismanagement and deceit and designed to keep one afloat in a sea of inefficiency. That should be the label of this budget.

Let us ask one question—did the deficit really go away or is it that, convinced that the political strategy in an election year would require a give-away approach, we did not look very seriously perhaps at what there was to give away at the time of the budget? Any account that shows revenue and expenditure alone would not be accepted as evidence of the well being of any commercial concern. Any first year student of accountancy could tell you that the balance sheet is the real basis for assessment. The balance sheet gives the whole picture. That is why there are legal obligations imposed on the people who sign and certify the balance sheet of any company or commercial concern.

The Minister for Finance, in presenting his budget, has not complied with the standards legally required of the directors of any company in filing their annual accounts. He has made no provision whatever in the form of a charge against revenue of a loss of more than £300 million incurred by State agencies and guaranteed by the Minister for Finance.

What would anyone expect would happen to the director of any company being aware of a loss of more than £300 million, the said director making no mention of it in the accounts produced for the period in which the loss occurred, and furthermore making no provision for its recovery in the product pricing policy for the future trading period which would be under discussion? Such a situation exists in regard to the accounts of the nation. I would like to draw your attention to pages 8 and 9 of the Central Bank Report for 1976 and to the notes relating to the need to provide for massive amounts to meet repayments of foreign borrowings, the true cost of which has escalated because of devaluation of sterling since the loans were first obtained. Most of this increase occurred in the year 1976. In table 6, page 8, we see that the total of foreign borrowing on 31st December, 1976, is shown as £781.6 million, but the note on the right hand side of the page reads:

Figures are the Irish £ equivalent of loans at the time each loan was contracted. Where repayments of capital have taken place, the remaining amount outstanding is expressed in the original Irish £ equivalent. It is estimated that when exchange rate changes are taken into account, the amount outstanding is £1,028 million.

Not £781 million. Deducting £781.6 million from £1,028 million we get a figure of £246.4 million of a deficit which is not accounted for in the budget. In page 9 of the same Central Bank Report it says that the total outstanding external debt of State-sponsored bodies is £299 million. Again the note on the left hand side reads:

Figures are the Irish £ equivalent of loans at the time each loan was contracted. Where repayments of capital have taken place, the remaining amount outstanding is expressed in the original Irish £ equivalent. It is estimated that when exchange rate changes are taken into account the amount outstanding was of the order of £323 million.

Not £229 million as shown on the right hand side of the page. If we add £94 million, which is the difference between £229 million and £323 million, to the £246 million, the deficit on page 8, the total figure is £340 million of a deficit which is not accounted for or mentioned at all by the Minister. Most of this increase occurred in 1976.

The Coalition Government over the past four years have given the impression that in assuming office they also assumed the ownership of this country. The personality projections engaged in by different Ministers during this time has confirmed this belief. The Minister for Finance has been portrayed for the last four years as the taker of everything, and now in this budget he has been converted into the giver. The last straw must surely have been the appearance, on the lines of a modern slave trader, of the Minister for Labour at every breakfast table lately with his offer of £20 per head to the people.

The Coalition do not own this country. They are only the trustees for the time being, and it is on their conduct of the nation's affairs as the said trustees that they will be duly judged. The liability of future taxpayers is one of the consequences of their misrule and the millstone that is tied around the taxpayers from now on.

I have repeatedly exposed the Government's failure to deal with the effects of the energy crisis. I argued time and again that the Coalition did not know what it was all about, and this has been proved to be correct. I was fobbed off on these occasions and told that the stock profits ramp that I illustrated was incorrect. I was supposed to be imagining these figures here in this House and pulling them out of the sky.

The same energy crisis has now become an excuse for all our economic ills according to the Minister for Finance. This Government, and particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce through the Prices Commission, did not take into account these stock profits when granting huge price increases, not only for petrol but for all sorts of heavy fuel oil, indeed, all products of a barrel of oil that were necessary because of the OPEC oil increases starting with the oil crisis in 1973.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance to the Business Section of last Sunday's Sunday Times which indicates that the Shell Oil Company in their accounts for the first three months of 1977 made a stock profit of £80 million. That can be read in the Sunday Times by anyone who disbelieves what I have been saying over the last three years about these stock profits.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce did not take this into account. At that time I proved conclusively how important it was to save petrol consumers the burden of paying for increases by first taking the stock profits into account. We should not let the Government forget this. The consumers have had to pay for this inefficiency. All this happened since the energy crisis, which is the reason for most of our economic ills, according to the Minister for Finance.

The real truth is that the Minister for Finance is responsible for the greatest percentage increase on petrol prices—60p since 1973. He has done more damage than the OPEC countries or the multinational oil companies by this extra taxation, not least of which was the increase of 15p per gallon introduced three years ago. The excuses put forward for this increase in taxation were laughable. It was said that petrol users from the Six Counties were coming into the Twenty-six Counties to buy petrol because it was cheaper. The Minister had the audacity to tell us that this had an adverse effect on our balance of payments. The other reason put forward was that the people would use less. Government policy at that time was: the more you tax them the less they use. Neither of these reasons proved to be the correct one. Because of this taxation a gallon of petrol here is 10 pence dearer than it is in the United Kingdom.

Has anything been done to ensure that this will not happen again or will not be allowed to continue? No, nothing has been done. We are in the same position as we were in October, 1973. We are, as the Minister for Transport and Power said then still at the mercy of the multinational oil companies. At that time we were very quick to say that the first necessity for our economic good should be self-sufficiency in refining capacity. But no, not one single step has been taken in this direction to gain control of supplies or costs of these vital products, which are so necessary, and will continue to be necessary for a considerable time to come. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and Transport and Power were in cahoots and seemed to be unable to understand my arguments not only on the stock profits but what should be done about them.

The Shell Oil Company published stock profits of £80 million for the first three months of this year. This has been happening here for the last three years. The Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Transport and Power failed to take this into account when they were presented with a seven days' notice from this company for an increase in prices of their products— petrol, fuel oil and so on. It is the business of any good accountant to present a true picture of the situation in any firm. It is the business of the Minister for Finance to do the same when presenting the budget. This company presented their stock profits and would have presented stock losses if that had been the case.

It follows therefore that the Minister's action could at best be described as deceitful and at worst fraudulent. He presented a set of figures to this House which took no account of an accumulation of exchange deficits. The impression was created that suddenly on a given day in January, the day of the budget, by some miracle everything in the garden had suddenly become rosy. Never in the history of this nation have losses of such a magnitude occurred. I condemn the dishonesty of any Government acting as trustees of affairs of a State to resort to what is nothing but what could be described as bucket shop standards of practice. Political expediency has pledged our future. Now, at the eleventh hour, we find there has been the gravest abandonment of financial accountability. People in ivory towers often believe their own deceptions, and this is the greatest danger of all.

The Coalition have succeeded in fuelling the inflation which has brought the country to the brink of economic disaster in the last four years. Instead of having a plan to get us out of the mess we are in, they are setting headlines believing that because they say so, the trouble of the past four years never happened and suddenly we are back to the same level of economic development as we were four years ago.

The people of Ireland, the electorate, will not forget what has happened since this Government took office. We all admit there was a world economic recession and that the oil crisis affected us, but we had opportunities to correct many of the ills which had befallen us. We discovered natural gas off the south coast. What has happened to the supply of natural gas? We said what we thought should be done with it, but the Government did not listen. We said a gas grid should be created to benefit people living in cities which had a gas system, such as Dublin. We said that natural gas should be used to the maximum benefit for the economic good of the country. Again the Government did not listen to us. What has happened to the Dublin Gas Company since the ESB were given 70 per cent of this natural gas to generate electricity? By giving the ESB 70 per cent the Government were ensuring that this 70 per cent would be completely wasted in generating electricity. We also pointed out that no country in the EEC is permitting natural gas to be used to generate electricity except countries that had permitted it up to ten years previously.

I am sorry, but it is clear that the Deputy is straying very far from the Finance Bill, which deals primarily with taxation measures arising from the budget. The budget debate is over. I have allowed the Deputy a good deal of latitude and he is raising matters concerning energy which would be more appropriate on the appropriate Estimate.

With respect, I was merely emphasising the importance of using natural resources for the economic benefit of the country in order to avoid further taxation and make our industry more competitive for the overall good of the economy and particularly with a view to providing low cost energy. Energy costs are proving a heavy burden on all our industries and are causing our products to be less competitive in world markets. Therefore, in the interests of all, it is the Government's duty to make the maximum use of any natural resources we have in order to lower the burden of taxation. This is what I intended to point out and I think, with respect, it is very important that a resource such as natural gas should be used for the maximum benefit. Finally, on this subject I wish to refer to an article in the business page of last Sunday's Sunday Independant which agreed completely with what we have been putting forward for the last three or four years. It made the same criticism as we made three years ago about giving access to 70 per cent of this natural gas to the ESB for a 70 per cent wastage. I hope it is not too late to change that decision.

Creation of employment is part of the duty of the Minister for Finance as well as of the other Ministers and of the Government as a whole. I should like the position clarified regarding the smelter about which we hear so much and which could create much employment if it were built and put into use. This is a very important matter for the country because again it would reduce the taxation burden for many people if we had maximum use of our natural resources. Also, by creating self-sufficiency in refining capacity we would be creating a good deal of downstream industry, which in turn would generate more employment. The more employment we create the more people are earning money and are in a position to bear their share of the tax burden which must be borne by those in a position to pay tax. More employment is vital for this economy and the only way to create it is by more investment. We have certain opportunities to do this. One is to get the smelter on stream as quickly as possible and another is that downstream industries would arise from further refining capacity.

If we are serious about creating more employment those are means by which it could be done. It should be clear to any Government that it is urgently necessary to get this project under way. It is important for all our people. The more we have at work, the fewer will be dependent on social welfare, unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. These payments must be financed by taxation. If we continue to have growing numbers dependent on unemployment benefit and assistance we will need greatly increased taxation to meet the bill.

After four years of Coalition Government it is only fair to say that they have failed the country. They failed to take measures to correct the serious economic trends we have had. More particularly, as was mentioned by two previous speakers, they failed to take any steps to provide employment for young school leavers, who are educated for jobs that are not available. It is the Government's duty to ensure that employment opportunities are available for school leavers. There is grave danger in continuous idleness forced on these people through no fault of their own. The Government had the opportunity of doing something about this but instead they waited for things to right themselves. That does not happen. Necessary action must be taken and this they have not done. Now that we are facing an election the ordinary wage-earners and the plain people of the country must be under no illusion as to what has happened in the past three or four years. This is their opportunity to judge those who have been in Government during those years and to cast their votes for their own good and the good of all the people.

The budget and the Finance Bill which followed gave the appearance that everything in the garden had suddenly become rosy, but there is a total of £300 million which is not taken into account in the budget and to which no reference is made. This is money borrowed by the State and State bodies and, because of the fall in the value of the £ sterling, deficiencies must be made good either by capital repayments or interest. Neither the budget nor the Finance Bill refer to this and that represents improper accounting that would not be permitted by any commercial concern. No accounting firm would put their name to this kind of balance sheet which shows only revenue and expenditure. Like the board of any commercial concern, the Government have a duty to put the financial situation properly before the Members of this House and the people instead of trying to create the illusion that everything was going so well. That illusion was created on a day in January last while at the same time hidden at the back of the Bill and found in the Central Bank Report for 1976—the pages I refer to are pages 8 and 9—there is a deficit of £340 million of which there has been no mention.

Despite the fact that it has not been mentioned it will have to be produced by the Minister for Finance ultimately because of guarantees given when the moneys were borrowed. The only way he can produce it is by taxing the people, if not this year, next year. Deputy de Valera referred to the mixed budget of next January. It will be a very interesting budget when the true picture emerges after the general election.

I endeavoured to ascertain information from various Government Departments in relation to the number of people living below the poverty line and found it disheartening that the Government themselves are unaware of the enormous problem in the community. I did some rough calculations from a reply to a question to the Taoiseach yesterday in regard to the total number drawing unemployment assistance in April, 1977. The reply was that on 6th May last the number of applicants was 50,607. Multiply that by four—the average family—and we find there are 202,440 people affected by assistance. Therefore, the figure I was given yesterday does not give the global picture. In other words, we have 200,000 people living below the poverty line.

One survey of the situation is recorded in the NPC report for January, 1977. It relates to the economic aspects and the dietary intake of old people. In the first page it is stated that those on fixed incomes are affected adversely by inflation and that between 10,000 and 20,000 old people require immediate help. It states that in regard to old people of more than 65 years of age, the frequency of energy deficiency is 33 per cent. This is high by any standards. It means that one third of the people interviewed in the survey were suffering from under-nutrition. Yet the Government have failed to reveal these facts.

In relation to protein intake the survey revealed that one-third of the people of more than 65 years of age were suffering from inadequate diet and that because of the deficiency they may be at serious risk of malnutrition.

Will the Deputy please relate his remarks to the Finance Bill which is essentially a taxation measure?

My remarks are properly related to it because it is a measure to raise taxation and I am speaking about the inadequate financing of services from taxation. I am indicating that the Bill is ineffective from the point of view of dealing with our greatest underlying problem. The survey tells us that more than 45 per cent of the subjects interviewed of more than 65 years suffered from iron deficiency, and in relation to vitamin C more than half the sample, 56.7 per cent, were suffering from deficiency. As many as 73 per cent of the people interviewed were suffering from dietary deficiencies of one kind or another. We can add to that the 200,000 people I have mentioned who are living below the poverty line. That figure of 73 per cent was subject to 24-hour recalls.

Therefore, there are people starving in our cities and throughout the country and a large number of others are on the borders of starvation. Here we have a Bill of enormous magnitude yet this very important section are not being catered for. Perhaps the Government are unaware of this but I would ask the Minister to read this NPC report to make himself aware of the grave problems of the aged. It is appalling that in 1977 the Minister has to be told that almost 200,000 people are starving. In that background the Minister calls this a great budget.

The survey report I have been referring to was published by the NPC and I am sure it was compiled by responsible people. Let the Minister relate these figures to the great budget of last spring and he will get his answer. That budget and this Bill have assisted the wealthy and victimised the poor. No corrective measures have been taken to ensure a reasonable standard of comfort for those old people in their dying days. Do they not matter to the Government? Are they only concerned with people who will vote for them? Perhaps these people are considered too ill, too infirm and do not matter any more. But they matter to us here and to the thinking public; they matter to the people who matter. When the day of reckoning comes the Minister and the Government will get their answer from the people concerned about the downtrodden masses indicated in this report.

So much for that report and the information which the Government either have not at their disposal or will not make available to the public. Every Government must and should have this information from surveys carried out. If they have not, then they have callously neglected their responsibilities to our aged people. I charge the Minister with callous neglect because he has said he has not the information. It is about time he had and that he woke up to the fact that there are almost 200,000 people living below the poverty line. That is the situation demonstrated in this report. It is a lengthy report and I shall not deal with it in any greater depth. I am certain that, if one of the people affected were to read that report, on coming to the last pages they would be horrified to see another 46 price increases allowed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and they would observe also substantial increases in every aspect of life affecting them. It shows clearly that their lot must be worsened from the date of publication of that booklet.

What has been done since to relieve the situation? What have the Minister and the Government done? What moneys have been made available since that date to meet the terrible situation recorded in this official publication? They have done nothing; they have a callous disregard for their duty. Only when we are afforded an opportunity of presenting the true situation will justice be done, and it will be done quickly and effectively when that time arrives.

The Minister for Finance no less than any other Minister—and I have tried to extract information from many Departments without success—is culpable in this respect. Listening to the Minister for Finance yesterday, when he read out the long list of social welfare benefits he had increased since he took office, one would think he had done wonderful things. Whatever he may have done for other sections of our society entitled to increased benefits to meet the ever spiralling cost of living, he did nothing for the group about whom I am speaking. At this juncture there is no point in giving a man an increase of a shilling; one must move with the times, with price increases and with inflation. At present large sections of our people on social welfare benefits are not getting their entitlement to meet ever increasing costs while others are receiving moneys to which they are not entitled. There must be carried out a realistic assessment of the situation to ensure that those in need get the assistance they deserve. No amount of whitewashing by the Minister will cloud that fact, as he tried to do yesterday when in reply to a question he rattled off a load of statistics for which he was not asked, but failed to impart to the House the vital statistics Members had been seeking for so long: the number of people living below the poverty line. I know the Government set up a commission some time ago. Indeed, they set up many other commissions and committees to examine various situations. But here they are confronted in concrete terms with a terrible problem about which they have done nothing. Even at this late stage is the Minister prepared to make concessions to the starving population of our city, as indicated in that report? If he does not, he will have fallen down completely on his responsibilities to the nation as a whole. Or will he proceed on the basis that there will be selectivity in relation to the people who will receive the benefits, that they will get benefits on the basis that they will be bribed to support the Government in election campaigns, disregarding those who are starving? Even those he has tried to bribe in the budget and since would take exception to the fact that their parents, relatives, or fellow Irish men and women are condemned to a living hell because they have not sufficient on which to exist.

Let us take a look at those employed here. The national wage agreement brought in recently was another "con" job, when members of the Labour Party ran to and fro with full information about the upward spiral in the cost of living, without any information in relation to the increases about to take place, advising their members that such increases could not be implemented. Then, when the agreement was signed, we found that that upward spiral continued so that the benefits of the pay agreement were eroded, leaving people 5 per cent or 6 per cent worse off than they were beforehand. That is the type of "con" job that has been done time and again by members of the Fine Gael and Labour parties. That will have to cease at an early date. Honesty must be injected into Irish politics. We must take an honest approach to the problem, ensuring that our people are fully informed and are aware of trends and tendencies. Of course, in many cases trends will not be available for many years to come.

The question of a census which can indicate trends and guide people along certain avenues in relation to the variety of problems confronting the nation has been put in abeyance. This has been put off for some reason unknown to Members of this House, or indeed the country at large, known only to an irresponsible Government. No responsible Government would endeavour to turn back the clock so that our people would not have statistics that were accurate, up to date, allowing an assessment of trends in our society and ensuring, in turn, that economic and other policies could be implemented correcting the ways in which we tend to go wrong.

I am sure workers see clearly now that they are at a great disadvantage, having accepted the word of some of the people who participated in discussions before the wage agreement was finalised, having taken the word of Ministers and other Members of this House based on incorrect information. We cannot hope to establish sound industrial relations on the basis of deceit. It is on the basis of honesty we must tackle all our problems, economic or otherwise. We must be honest with our workers, employers, the aged and ourselves. Unless some sense of honesty is demonstrated then we shall be heading for an explosion within our society, with terrible consequences.

We know what happened in other countries when people were mislead and callously neglected, as is being done here at present. I would have hoped that the trade unions and trade unionists by now would have seen the folly of their ways in accepting the word of Members of this House and that of others who were a party to this agreement and who misled them. We cannot conceal the facts of the situation for all time; they will be discovered. When this Government go out of power in the very near future we will be able to present our people with the facts of the situation, having examined the files in depth to ascertain the real tragedy confronting the country. In many deceptive ways the Government have been concealing from this House and the public, the real problem with which we are confronted, ensuring that no remedial measures can be taken because of lack of information. The workers have been conned and there are 150,000 people in need of jobs. Little has been done except to issue a photograph of Michael O'Leary to the newspapers. That is the sole contribution of the Government towards helping to reduce the number of unemployed.

The Deputy must not refer to Members of the House in that fashion. He must refer to the Minister.

His photograph would frighten off any employer because it indicates deceit——

The Deputy must not make that charge. He must not make personal charges.

The only solution the Government appear to have is the £20 that Mighty Mick is going to pay out of his own pocket.

I hope the Deputy will withdraw the phrase.

Which one?

The Deputy knows well. I am sure he does not want the Chair to repeat it.

Is it Mighty Mick?

The Deputy has twice used those words and he should withdraw them. He should withdraw any remark that reflects on Members of the House.

I will withdraw anything.

The Chair will not ask the Deputy to do that.

I am totally dissatisfied with the Government with regard to the matter that was questioned in this House recently. I am sure the 150,000 people unemployed will not be too happy about it. They have little to be happy about in looking at a picture of a Minister indicating that £20 will be available in certain circumstances. It is rather like the soldier who gets six ounces of bread per day, perhaps.

I am quite sure that the FUI and industrialists generally are intelligent people. They knew since last January that this scheme was in operation. If it had any credibility or if the employers thought it was viable they would have made use of it. Perhaps the Government neglected to inform them properly and now they have to tell us what happened in the budget. The advertisements with the photograph cost £200,000 and that is the sole contribution of the Government. However, it benefited the Minister to the extent of £200,000 worth of publicity but it says little for the Government that they have to publicise the scheme a considerable time after the initial announcement. The Government's public relations officers seem to have erred. I hope the Minister for Finance will indicate some reliefs even at this stage.

There is the additional problem of 51,000 school leavers who will be on the labour market in the next two or three months, young men and women who have no hope for the future. Of that number 26,000 will not get any benefit; I am referring to the female school leavers who are being discriminated against by the Department of Social Welfare. They will not get any benefits until they have 26 stamps but how can they get the stamps when there is no employment? Even if the level were as low as one stamp many of them would be unable to obtain benefits because they cannot get jobs. Many of these young people have repeated the leaving certificate rather than be on the dole queue but this cannot continue. They will answer advertisements for jobs that do not exist.

The Department have produced wonderful booklets for school leavers about jobs that are not there. It is another effort to hoodwink this important sector. These young people should and must have a future. They are the adults of tomorrow and if we are so callous that we do not ensure they have sufficient jobs we will be betraying them. No wonder young people become cynical about politicians when they realise they are thrown on the scrap heap when they finish their education. If the 150,000 people signing at the labour exchanges had four or five university degrees they would still be unemployed because there are no jobs for them.

I hope the Government will give an indication of something more positive than the £20 being promised in advertisements which cost £200,000. In my constituency if one walks into a house one finds young people concerned about their parents who are unemployed; in many cases the fathers have been unemployed for two or three years. The unfortunate children look across the table in sorrow at their parents while the parents look in sorrow at the children they have educated who have no jobs or job opportunities. That situation obtains in many households in my constituency and throughout the country. No effort is being made by the Minister or by the Government to correct it.

Can the Minister tell us what he will do to relieve this situation? Surveys carried out in my constituency show that unemployment there is double the national average. The Ballyfermot area has 23 per cent unemployed as against 12 per cent elsewhere. It also showed that 23 per cent of the 1969 school leavers are not yet employed. The Minister and the Government do not appear to be aware of those facts. We have spoken about this time and time again and there appears to be no response to this terrible tragedy other than that the unemployment figures will escalate every time more young people finish school.

What policy have the Government to find jobs for the 150,000 people who are unemployed? What policy have they to find jobs for the 50,000 school leavers? Where are the females to get the 26 stamps to get their benefit? One could understand the situation if they were debarred for 26 weeks, 12 weeks or six weeks because at some stage they would get social welfare benefits. Twenty-six stamps is a permanent barrier to social welfare benefits for those young people at a very impressionable age. We know that the Government will do nothing, so there is no point in taking this problem further with them.

The lives and security of individuals throughout the State are at risk. People are captives in their homes, towns and cities. We have seen many people speak from platforms recently asking that something be done about the terrible tragedy which the Government have allowed to develop. They use the excuse of the violence in the North for the lack of law and order in this part of the country. They have a responsibility to ensure that the basic rights of the individual to live without fear are maintained. This is a city of fear. There were 108 armed robberies last year. Robbery with violence is an everyday occurrence.

This is not appropriate to the Finance Bill.

I want to point out on this Bill that the Minister is not making enough money available to ensure the security of the people. The security of the individual and the protection of his home are very important no matter what Bill is being discussed.

Taxation is in question, not expenditure.

If the Minister wants to increase taxation to ensure that people can live in comfort and without fear, I am sure the House will respond generously. I received a letter last week from a sick old lady who said she was unable to go out and afraid to stay in. That is the staggering situation we have. The Government have a responsibility which they have neglected. If money is needed for security why do the Government not look for it and ensure that people are protected.

The Deputy, with his long experience in the House, is well aware that expenditure is a matter for Estimates and that taxation, which is the kernal of the Finance Bill, is what he is dealing with at the moment.

One can indicate to the House the areas where one feels the Finance Bill is not adequate. This Bill covers every area of Government responsibility. We cannot brush aside the fact that there is no law and order by saying that we cannot discuss it under this Bill. The protection of the institutions of the State and of the people is of fundamental importance. People should be able to go about their business, come to and from this House and be able to speak freely and effectively regarding the problems that confront us. I feel the Finance Bill is not adequate.

The Deputy will talk down the Chair before he finishes. This Finance Bill is one facet of the budget. The Finance Bill deals with taxation.

I can point out in a very detailed way where adjustments should be made to meet the situations I am talking about.

The Chair will listen to the Deputy if he can do that.

There are areas in the Finance Bill where adjustments can be made and where more money should be made available to meet different problems. I believe that is covered in a very general way in what I am saying. The question of vandalism and the cost to the State of the vandalism which takes place by explosion and otherwise which must be paid for out of public funds can surely be discussed on the Finance Bill.

It can be discussed on another matter, on an Estimate debate or on the budget, but not on the Finance Bill.

One would have to look at the Bill to indicate where one feels too great an impact has been made or where not enough impact has been made. Surely under some section of the Bill I can say that I feel money should have been made available to increase security? I think that is a reasonable argument to make.

As long as the Deputy is dealing with taxation the Chair is in co-operation with him.

I feel I have beeen most reasonable in my assessment of the situation. I, like many others, am very perturbed about the dreadful problems we have. It is just as important to mention law and order as it is to mention the upward spiral in foodstuff prices or the other matters I have mentioned. This Government of law and order either did not make enough money available or used the money for some other purpose. Some money is now being made available for security but for the last few years the Government allowed a situation to develop which has put private and public property at risk and your security, my security and that of every individual in the State at risk.

I wish to deal now with the question of social welfare benefits. I trust that in this regard I will be allowed the same amount of latitude as has been allowed to others. I have referred already to the discrimination that exists in respect of several sections of society. For instance, the social welfare code discrimination against the school leaver and the widow.

The Chair would prefer if the Deputy did not anticipate the motion on which he is due to continue speaking later this evening.

In that case I shall wait until 7 p.m. In a speech to the nation on November 8th, 1976, the Minister for Finance suggested possible cutbacks in public expenditure. In this context he referred to the possible abolition of the free school service, of agricultural grants and of children's allowances. Consequently, we know now that if returned to office, the Government will effect cutbacks in these areas. Let the Labour Party Deputies take note of that. In making these suggestions the Minister was endeavouring to get public opinion in this regard but he found that there was no support for such measures. However, there will be no reluctance on his part in regard to their implementation in the event of the Coalition winning the election.

The abolition of children's allowances would affect most the unfortunate housewife who fought for so long to have these allowances paid to her rather than to her husband. The Minister may say that he will counteract the effect of any such move by increasing income tax reliefs but this is no consolation to the mother of a family. When the Minister made that suggestion he told us that there was no money available for additional social welfare benefits for the unemployed but we learned subsequently from his budget that he had settled away £120 million. From where could he have got that amount of money between October and the date of the budget? However, this is another instance of the type of deception and dishonesty that we have come to expect from the entire Government. The various Ministers make statements here that they know to be incorrect. The sooner they leave office the better for the country. The Minister for Finance was only indulging in the same type of "con" job as has been indulged in by the various other Ministers. This is a situation that cannot be tolerated any longer. No doubt the people will make this very clear when they go to vote in the election. To the extent that there is collective responsibility within the Government, each of them must accept the same share of responsibility as the Minister for Finance in regard to deceiving the people.

Not only the female school leaver is discriminated against in the social welfare code; the widow is discriminated against also because if she is sick or out of work she is entitled only to half the normal social welfare benefit. We see, then, how the most vulnerable sections are discriminated against. Having regard to all the circumstances, the Taoiseach must rid himself at the earliest possible opportunity of this Minister for Finance and replace him by a man of honesty who will be prepared to inform the nation of the real situation. Hopefully, when replying to the debate the Minister will be able to tell us who were deprived in order to make available the £120 million extra that we learned of on budget day.

I have here the European day-to-day publication of April, 1977, in which details are given of the consumer price index for the various countries. The Government have told us that the people are being compensated adequately from time to time for the upward spiral in prices but in this publication we find that in Ireland there was a variation in the consumer price index of 16.7 per cent between February, 1976, and February, 1977. The increases for some of the other countries are as follows: Germany, 4 per cent, France, 9 per cent, The Netherlands, 7 per cent and Belgium, 8 per cent. In other words, we have set a record. Not so long ago I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of price increases that had been sanctioned between 21st January and 11th March this year, a period of 44 days. I was informed that the relevant number was 77. This must be another world record. One would have expected at least a reasonable valley period after the budget.

It did not end there. The next booklet showed 45 further price increases. That came at the end of that month and nine days later we had another booklet from the National Prices Commission which showed another 45 increased prices and told us that another 65 increases were on the way. This range represents more than two increases for every day including Sundays. This Government have a record of price increases that no other country can produce. The Minister for Labour has told us that he has trained more people during his term of office than has any other Minister for Labour. He did train more people to stand in the dole queues than any other Minister ever trained in the history of this State. The Government have a record that they cannot be very proud of. With the upward spiral of prices we see the terrible tragedy of the aged who are starving as indicated in a Government publication and nothing is being done about it.

The Taoiseach told me some weeks ago at Question Time that £1.90 is required today to purchase what £1 would have purchased when the Coalition came to office. It now takes £2 to purchase what £1 did when Fianna Fáil were in office. Had we still been in office we would not have this terrible situation now. We were told about the stabilisation of prices as one of the points in the famous 14-point plan and what have we? We have a record number of price increases-77 in 44 days and in another 20 days there were a further 90 increases. That is the record, 123 in 63 days and 46 in 19 days. That is what the aged, the housewife and the 200,000 people affected by unemployment have to face. The statistics show an appalling picture: 16.7 per cent is the highest rate in Europe. Must we be the best in Europe in inflation and highest in price increases? We must tabulate the record and let the public see it in readable form so that they can assess the situation.

On 30th March, not so long ago, I put down a question asking the Minister to indicate the price increases of the various commodities that affect the lives of every individual and that carry the calcium and vitamin C and so on that older people need. We were told that in mid-February 1973 when we left office, potatoes were 48p per stone; in mid-February, 1977, they were 124.4p per stone. Rib steak was 46.2 per lb in mid-February, 1973, and in mid-February, 1977 it was 77.5p and it has increased another 5p or 10p since. Sirloin steak in mid-February, 1973, was 72.5p per lb. and in mid-February, 1977, it was 120.4p and it has gone up a fair amount since. Round steak in mid-February, 1973, was 60p per lb and in mid-February, 1977, it was 103p. Milk has increased from 5p to 8p per pint in the same period and sugar from 5p to 12p per lb. Tea in the same period increased from 34p to 59p per lb. Now it is £1 per lb or £1.10 per lb for medium quality. The best quality was 41p and 67p per lb and it is well over £1 now. Butter has increased in the same time from 27.8p to 53p per lb. Bread which was 13.1p is now 23.1p and the size of the loaf has been reduced since the Government came into office. These items are necessary for people's welfare.

There is a substantial increase in subsidised foodstuffs, the area which we were told the Government would protect. This is a clear indication of the Government's inability to carry out their promises. The Minister who promised did not deliver the goods. Very few people are having those goods delivered today. Meat is now a luxury as are potatoes and tea will be a luxury in a short time for very many. How are the aged who are suffering from malnutrition going to exist? What is the Minister going to do in the course of this debate to alleviate the problem? We were told that the immediate economic aim was to stabilise prices, halt redundancy and reduce unemployment. The unemployment figure is now 150,000; there are redundancies by the thousand and the price increases are so large that the people are starving.

The 35,000 people on the Dublin labour exchanges want a solution to some of the problems I have posed here today. Many of these people are in the Minister's own constituency. Can he give them any relief? Can he indicate what the Government propose to do in order to normalise the situation and to bring the unemployment figures back to a realistic level? There will always be unemployment for one reason or another but the figure at the moment is appalling. The Government and the Minister must do something to ensure that the workers who were conned into signing the national wage agreement, the aged who are starving, the young girls who are going on the labour exchange who will have no benefit, the widow whose social welfare benefits are cut in two, the 17,000 adults who are going to be unemployed in my constituency, the large number of young people who are unable to obtain jobs in Ballyfermot who represent double the national average will have some hope that something will be done before this Government leave office.

Will the Government desert the nation as they did before? Will they desert the nation in the middle of the night? It is in the middle of the night that they had better get out because these people will be waiting when the time comes, which I hope will be very soon, to give their answer, an answer that will bring back confidence and self-respect and a Government of understanding who will do the job they set out to do.

My contribution will be concerned mainly with the overall inadequacies of the Finance Bill in relation to the economy. In recent times we have been treated to wild-sweeping statements by Government spokesmen to the effect that everything in the garden is rosy. Deputy Dowling drew attention to the about-turn in their approach in relation to the financial situation. It is remarkable that as we approach a general election things seem to be on the up and up—we are just awaiting the delivery of the crock of gold that is at the end of the rainbow. This year we have had no budgetary Financial Resolutions to pass. Apart from the first Finance Bill of the present Minister four-and-a-half years ago, it has been necessary to increase taxation each year. Of course, in this election year that has not been found necessary.

This Bill and the first Finance Bill of the Coalition have some remarkable resemblances. At the time of the first Finance Bill of the present Government the state of the country was so good that all the Minister had to do was to distribute the goodies. The Government have been describing the interim period as having created one of the roughest economic crises that the world or this country has known. This is the third Coalition or inter-Party Government and it is odd that their periods of power have seen the greatest economic recessions that had occurred up to then. My personal opinion is that when the general election comes the electorate will have to decide whether they want the country to go ahead at a reasonably progressive pace or to send back another Coalition with the attendant hard financial crises which seems automatically to follow them.

It is remarkable that it is at this time we get a Finance Bill which does not impose fresh taxation. It has been lauded by the Minister for Finance as an instrument to dish out goodies because of the brilliant manner in which they have steered us through the economic crisis. He said that this year's budget offered further incentives.

To my mind this Bill is completely inadequate in relation to current demands. All of the preceding Finance Bills, and this one to a lesser extent, were inflationary. We have been told that this Bill contains increased tax allowance provisions but anybody who analyses the end-product must appreciate that the tax provisions do not in any way measure up in value to the allowances given in the last Finance Bill of the previous Government. Deputy Dowling spoke of the buying power of the £ and said that it now takes almost £2 to buy what £1 would have bought in 1973.

The public might justifiably have expected in this Finance Bill, particularly with our high degree of unemployment, provisions conducive to job creation, particularly with the experience the Minister must have had or that he had the responsibility to discover, during his four-and-a-half years in office. More than anything else at the moment the country needs employment development at industrial and agricultural levels. What we have are 114,000 registered unemployed and many thousands more unregistered unemployed.

There is no doubt that due to the battle that has been going on in order to try to keep the compulsorily unemployed people happy by giving increases in social welfare allowances to enable them to buy the necessities of life, a stage has now been reached where it is becoming extremely difficult to get the necessary type of employment for a married man with four children. The jobs are not there but even if they were available at the lowest level, there is no incentive for an unemployed man with four children to get back to work. It is difficult to find a job with the necessary incentive. We have been worked into this situation over the last four years. I am not suggesting that unemployment assistance or benefit should be reduced, but the people are being conditioned to be happy being idle. This is a very bad development for which the Coalition Government must accept the full responsibility.

What we needed in this Finance Bill was a bit of enlightened legislation following quite an amount of thinking by an intelligent and well-backed up Minister for Finance with colleagues who are interested in getting the people back to work. I cannot say that not enough money has been spent by the Government over the past four years in their staggering efforts to try to get the economy on its feet. The difficulty is that most of the massive four billion pounds which now constitutes the national debt has been borrowed in an effort just to keep the wheels turning. This Government will be remembered and condemned for that. One of the major promises in the Government's 14 points was to stabilise prices. The second major promise that affected votes to a great extent was to reduce unemployment. Both of those promises fell flat, but the annoying feature was that at no stage over the past four and a half years have the Government or any of their agencies appeared to have done anything serious about tackling either of the problems.

Under the inflationary head not alone did they not tackle it but they were the greatest contributors to the inflation spiral. Apart altogether from the various Finance Bills that were inflationary we had a despicable performance in relation to oil prices. The Government blamed the Arabs for the inordinate increases. My colleague, Deputy Colley, drew attention to the fact that the Minister for Finance outstripped the Arabs by three to one. When the Arabs increased petrol by 12p per gallon the Minister for Finance increased it by 35p.

The Deputy's figures are wrong.

The Minister will have the opportunity of dealing with them in his reply. It has been said over and over again that the Government jumped in on any occasion when there was any chance of further increased taxation. On each occasion they set off a further round of spiralling inflation. The Minister contradicts straightforward facts by the simple statement "the Deputy is wrong".

They are not right.

I have repeated a statement made here by our spokesman, Deputy Colley.

The Deputy has not. In fairness to Deputy Colley he did not exaggerate as much as that.

Deputy Colley said that the Arabs put on 12p and the Minister for Finance or the Government put on 35p. That was on Tuesday, 10th May. When any Fianna Fáil spokesman sat down, having contributed to this debate, the Government had an opportunity to contradict this. The only major contribution we have had from the Government side was from Deputy Halligan who quite obviously is engaged, as a spokesman for Labour, in a private serious war situation or confrontation with the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and his Fine Gael colleagues in relation to the State Development Corporation. We have a situation where the Taoiseach goes down to Killarney and makes a statement reassuring entrepreneurs and private developers, upon whom we have relied to a considerable extent, that there would be no State Development Corporation. The Minister for Health made speeches about it also and the Minister for Finance came in with this Bill and made no statement about it. Following on that Deputy Halligan, the same as the Minister for Health, said that it is a condition of Labour participation in the next Coalition, that there will be a State Development Corporation as part of a planned programme of agreement between the two major parties in the Coalition. The response to that came last weekend from the Taoiseach when he addressed the faithful in Dún Laoghaire. He reassured them that he would not accept any State interference with private enterprise and that the State would not have a corporation to compete with it. It is remarkable that the only contributions we have had from the Government side in this regard have been the sort of short, curt replies similar to the one I got from the Minister for Finance a few moments ago.

Having done a little research I can truthfully say this is the first occasion on which a Finance Bill has been discussed in this House for two weeks and no other Minister has contributed to the debate.

That also is not so.

I am saying so far as I know. We had a projection of a potential 16 per cent increase in the cost-of-living index for 1977. That was the projection in December-January last. There is an election in the offing and a number of people needed to be lulled into a false position and that projection was reduced by the Minister for Finance to somewhere in the region of 11 per cent or 12 per cent. This was also challenged by Deputy Colley. The sizeable increase in the cost of living in the first three months of the year is an indication that we are well on the way to meeting the Minister's target already after a period of three months.

It is remarkable that the troubleshooter, the man who has proved he is able to lull the people into a false sense of security on the basis of upswings and downswings, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has not spoken in this debate, to offer his words of conviction and his assurances from his study of the situation that we can rely on his promises. I wonder why he has not contributed to the debate. It is traditional for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to speak on the Finance Bill.

Leaving aside agriculture, we are hoping the IDA will be able to create jobs which are so necessary and which the Minister in his opening speech promised would be created, without going into any great detail as to the manner in which they are to be delivered. We are very dependent on the IDA. We are very dependent on Córas Tráchtála to find world markets for our produce. We had the threats to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions prior to the introduction of the Finance Bill. One of the reasons for the delay in its introduction was to make sure that the national pay agreement was signed, sealed and delivered. There was an undue delay in the presentation of the Bill to the House. There was an undue delay in taking Second Stage. Part and parcel of that was the private commitment made by the Minister for Finance, which he has fallen down on although he went some of the way with it, on farming taxation. In Chapter II of this Bill he went part of the way to meet farming requirements and demands.

The Taoiseach said in January that the Finance Bill would be circulated within six weeks of the budget, but it then became clear that it would not be circulated until the national pay agreement was signed and the Minister and the Government had, if you like, slipped one across the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Eventually this Bill was not presented until 26th April and then we had a milk and water approach to the farming tax problem.

Yesterday Deputy Haughey drew attention to the fact that what we need are incentives. It is quite clear from the maladministration of the Government and the various threats by the Minister for Finance to farmers that the production incentive has been taken out of farming. We have the benefit of EEC membership in that we have increased prices for farm products, but we have not had the benefit of the increased productivity which is so essential to our wellbeing. Deputy Haughey elaborated very eloquently on this yesterday. The fact that we have not had increased productivity should force the Minister for Finance, in the remaining days available to him, to ask himself where he has gone wrong. The difficulty is that he would have to look down so many roads that it would be difficult to expect him to find the answer.

Instead of the four-and-a-half year old promise of price stability, prices have doubled over the past five years. The Taoiseach and his spokesmen go out of their way to blame external influences but the fact is that taxation and Government action conductive to inflation have been responsible for more than half the price increases we have had over the past four-and-a-half years.

When we were in Government we were continually attacked about our prices and incomes policy. An economic plan has been talked about over the past four years but we have not received it. I remember being on the far side of the House and listening to the present Minister for Finance talking about the necessity to introduce a further programme for economic expansion. At that time he was very conscious of the value of those programmes and plans and he pressed the Government for the preparation of another programme. All pressures for the production of another plan and another programme evaporated four-and-a-half years ago. We got a Green Paper which called for a plan about 12 months ago, but there is still no sign of it. The difficulty the Coalition group have is that it is impossible for them to agree on a plan. The only sign we had was the kite flying indulged in by the Minister towards the end of last year when he talked in terms of withdrawing school buses.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share