Since the Minister sought to refer in a rather selective way to the record of previous Fianna Fáil Governments, I presume he was referring at least to the period back to 1957 in his calculations. That being so, I think it is only right that I should point out that he did not make a similar estimation in regard to his own tenure of office, but the undeniable fact is that since the Coalition came to Government, whatever the position of the taxpayer was at that time, and without getting involved in arguments of what might or might not have happened in previous years, it is now worse than it was because inflation has far exceeded the tax cuts granted, even if you include the ones proposed, which, of course, have to operate until the end of the present fiscal year, so that they would be covering a period up to the beginning of April next. Therefore, the position of taxpayers as taxpayers is now considerably worse in real terms than it was before the Coalition came into office.
Whatever about that aspect of the argument, the Minister seemed to be saying that, because the national pay agreement negotiations adverted to pay for individual workers without regard to their family commitments—he is quite right in saying that—the Government had increased the child cash allowances. It is true they did, but I do not think that even the Minister would try to boast about those increases. They were pretty miserly. For the first child there was no increase at all, and then it was 50p per month after that. I do not think the Minister would attempt to suggest that that went anywhere near redressing the balance that needs to be redressed. I am not suggesting that this amendment would go very far in redressing that balance, but I am saying that any step in that direction is worth while.
It was interesting to hear the Minister say that we should not rely on buoyancy of revenue for things like this. Speaking again from recollection, I think he said he relied for buoyancy on £60 million in his budget calculations. The indications up to now are that the buoyancy is exceeding his expectations. I do not know whether that will continue, but that would appear to be the position at the moment. He went on to point out the various commitments the Government have taken on since the budget calculations were made: additional food subsidies, a cut-back in revenue from farming taxation, and, more recently, the subsidy for town gas.
How is it that the Government, not having provided for such things, suddenly find that, despite their provision for revenue buoyancy in the budget, they can now make provision, according to the Minister, for all of these things, apparently, out of further revenue buoyancy, although he did not give details of that, but he cannot find £5 million to £6 million to increase the income tax allowance in respect of children by 10 per cent? If there is any logic in what the Minister is saying, and assuming the Government have been acting in good faith, it means that in their calculations there has been enough additional revenue going through to meet the various items he mentioned but they cannot go any further; that therefore, apart from the things the Minister mentioned and all the other announcements that were made which will involve a drain on the revenue, there is no possibility of the Government making any further announcement of commitment involving the expenditure of any further money, because the Minister for Finance has told us now that £5 million to £6 million for the purpose of raising the child allowances under the income tax code cannot be found. The money is not available out of revenue buoyancy because it has already been committed to the things he mentioned such as the cut-back in the revenue expected from taxation, increased food subsidies and so on.
I hope the Minister will adhere to that argument in the next few days and if, in fact, he intends to do otherwise, it is dishonest to come in here and tell us that such money cannot be found. If, on the other hand, his view is that further money could be found but he can think of better ways to spend it, then he should say so. But he should not tell us that the money simply cannot be found. If it cannot be found, then we may take it that there will be no further commitment by the Government to further expenditure other than that already announced.
I must confess to a certain degree of scepticism as to the outcome being no further commitment by the Government. I have a suspicion, too, that my scepticism may be shared by many people even outside the ranks of Fianna Fáil. If that scepticism is justified, then the Minister is simply misleading the House in what he has said. What, in effect, he is saying is: "I do not care what case there is for this. I do not care how difficult things are for people at the moment and the fact that a married man with two children on £2,500 a year will be saving a little over £1 a week in tax. I am going to refuse to find £5 million to £6 million to increase the allowance moderately by 10 per cent, not even keeping up with inflation, in respect of children which the person has to support." It is the Minister's prerogative to make that choice. I believe myself it is a wrong choice, an anti-social choice. He should have taken the opportunity he was given in this amendment and I think he was quite wrong not to do so. We will watch his antics within the next few days with considerable interest in the light of what he has said to us now.