Deputy Donegan was in possession. He had a good deal of time left but he is not here. Deputy Griffin, please.
Financial Resolutions, 1980. - Financial Resolution No. 19: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance).
Now that the mass hysteria and euphoria associated with the introduction of the budget has receded the people have had an opportunity to look in a cool and calculated way at the implications of the budget. It is the universal opinion that they are now totally disenchanted and disillusioned with the budget. As it was the first budget of the eighties people were justified in expecting that something new and original would emerge, something that would motivate people, particularly young people and galvanise them into action especially after the great build-up to the budget with meetings of a consistorial nature at Barrettstown Castle. People waited with bated breath for this great, monumental document, the first budget of the eighties. They were totally disappointed. The budget was noted for its mediocrity, with the Minister for Finance doing nothing more imaginative than falling back on the old reliables, petrol and tobacco, to get the extra finance needed.
To me it seems that the dead hand of the manifesto dominates the budget, although there are attempts at present by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance to distance themselves from that manifesto. Deputy O'Donoghue and the Tánaiste have stated in the House that the same political and economic philosophy of the manifesto that brought them into power still holds sway and was the basis for this budget. This budget has led us nowhere. It is totally inadequate to meet the pressures and solve the problems of the eighties. There is nothing in it for the youth and there is nothing to encourage employment in the future.
One has to be generous to the Minister. Social welfare recipients came out quite well as a result of this budget. Most payments have been increased by 25 per cent. With inflation and prices rising to perhaps 22 per cent, in real terms they may be better off by 3 per cent at the end of the year. Of course they needed this new increase to compensate for the many price increases they were subjected to in the past. They were shell shocked and numbed by the daily rises and by the many mini-budgets which were introduced virtually daily since the beginning of the year and immediately prior to the budget. We have been told that telephone and postal charges will also be increased in the immediate future. Therefore, I have no doubt the benefits of these generous increases will be eaten into by inflation and rising costs and by the end of the year these people may not be very much better off. Still, we must recognise the Minister's good intentions in this regard. This is the only aspect of the budget I find pleasing.
A few points dealing with social welfare payments have been brought to my attention over the last few years. Irish citizens who worked in America and decided to retire to Ireland and who are in receipt of social security from the US, are not eligible for the ESB allowance or free television licence. These people feel they are being isolated. The Minister might look into this matter because there cannot be too many people involved. As a gesture of goodwill he might extend this very worthwhile scheme to them.
Another anomaly was brought to my attention recently. An Irishman married here, went to England, got a divorce but his wife did not know anything about it. He died and she was told of his death. She applied for a widow's contributory pension but was told that as she was not a widow she was not entitled to a widow's pension. In my view a great injustice was done to this lady, especially as our Constitution does not recognise divorce. This is another area the Minister could look into and, exceptionally, grant widows' contributory pensions to such women.
The free fuel scheme is operated by certain local authorities but, in my opinion, it should be operated by all local authorities. A necessitous person irrespective of where he or she lives needs help. The present voucher of £1.50 is totally inadequate and should be increased.
I want to discuss disability benefit. I know a gentleman who has been in receipt of a disability benefit for at least 11½ years. After a year or two on this benefit, such a person should be automatically entitled to an invalidity pension. This would help to cut down the workload in the Department. At the moment this man has to submit a monthly certificate to the Department, taking up the time of the doctor and the civil servants. When it is obvious a person will never work again, having furnished adequate medical evidence to the Department, that person should be given an invalidity pension. This would cut a lot of unnecessary work and bring more efficiency into a very hard pressed Department.
All Deputies know people drawing unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance who are offered temporary work but are afraid to accept it because it might upset their claims. They know from experience it will take them a long time to get back into full benefit. As a result, they refuse this temporary work. If the system were simplified and geared to encourage recipients of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance to take up temporary work. there would not be so many calls on the Department and that would substantially reduce the number of unemployed. The Minister could give time and attention to that point also.
Deputies receive complaints from people in receipt of supplementary social welfare allowances. From time to time they have to visit social welfare officers in Victorian offices and have to divulge their private and personal affairs in public. Proper facilities should be available so that these people can discuss their personal affairs with the social welfare officers in private. This is another area the Minister might look into.
The Simon Community are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. They are charged the same electricity rates as guesthouses and hotels. This is unfair. The Department do not appear to appreciate the great work the Simon Community are doing for unfortunate people. Every help should be given to help reduce costs. This would be one simple way the Department could alleviate hardship and allow badly needed funds to be put to better use.
When local authorities are compiling their housing lists no recognition is given to single elderly men and women. In Tipperary town we have the sad case of four or five single, aged, homeless men, sleeping rough. This section of people should be put high on a list of priorities and it should be mandatory on local authorities to make a certain amount of houses available for a proportion of these unfortunate people. At no great cost to the State the Minister could look profitably at those five or six suggestions and I hope that he will, perhaps in the financial statement or at some future date, introduce legislation to comply with some of these suggestions.
I come to the section dealing with PAYE. On a first reading it would appear that the budget had been more than kind to the PAYE sector but on reflection and reading the small print we find that the single person, the self-employed, the housewife and the married man on a salary of £7,000 or less come out less well in this budget. As time elapses and people have the opportunity to study the small print, it will be found that the income split was a bonanza to the double income family who did come quite well out of the budget. However, most Irish households are in the lower income bracket from £7,000 per annum down and when the figures are worked out it appears that if they are any better off as a result of the PAYE improvement it is only minimally. This has been brought home to the PAYE workers. It must be obvious from the figures the Minister quoted in his budget speech that last year he got £732 million in income tax and this year he hopes to raise £977 million, an increase of 33.5 per cent or £245 million. Anyone must know that the money must come from somewhere and that the impression that the PAYE sector are getting off lightly is completely illusory and false. The Minister has worked a sleight-of-hand as regards that sector. Of course, he had to make a virtue of necessity and he did respond to the tramp of marching feet around Government Buildings but the end result is that the poor PAYE worker has to subsidise the rich.
These improvements will help to make deeper the division between urban and rural Ireland. Unfortunately, in the recent past the PAYE worker has been turning against the farming community. It is unfortunate that both sections cannot see that they are complementary to each other, and the Government have not been helpful in this regard. They have played off one section against the other with the result that there is this deep division between the urbanite and the farmer living in rural Ireland. As a result of this division between industry and farming, attention has been drawn away from the crucial issues and time and energy are taken up in this useless difference between the PAYE worker and the farmers. As time progresses the PAYE workers especially will see that this budget has not been the bonanza they were led to expect and that they will be no better off materially, particularly those people under £7,000 per annum, than they were last year, especially when we take into account the expected 22.5 per cent inflation and the increases and the mini-budgets which no doubt will appear between this and the next official budget in 1981.
I seek in vain through the pages of the Minister's statement a commitment to the youth of Ireland. Great lip-service has been given to our youth. Undoubtedly they are the greatest asset we have. At the moment approximately 1,000,000 Irish youths are under the age of 18 and half our population are under the age of 25. That is a frightening thought, but from a positive point of view these people are our greatest asset, with the enthusiasm, drive and energy that our youth can put into our country and its economy, provided they are handled properly and adequate provision is made in the budget to meet the needs of this huge mass. Unfortunately, I see no commitment at all in the budget to meeting the problems that this huge number of Irish youth will create even in the short term, let alone the long term. What should have been central to any budget in view of that great number of Irish youth is a policy for job creation, but we learned that in the Department of Labour there has been a savage cutback in the employment maintenance scheme which was so popular. In 1979, £8 million was allotted to it and this year that has been reduced by more than half to £3.5 million. The work experience programme faces a cut-back of £1 million. Last year the amount given to that scheme was £2.8 million, this year it is £1.8 million. The National Hire Agency allocation improved from £200,000 to £500,000, but in the grant-in-aid for the youth and sport organisations there has been a reduction. This shows the utter hypocrisy of the Taoiseach and the Government when they speak of their commitment to youth. By their deeds you shall know them. When they have an opportunity to live up to their promises to do something for the youth of Ireland through the budget they cut back savagely on schemes that were there primarily to help the youth to gain employment experience and to get them jobs.
I need not mention the crisis facing us in education, especially in relation to the voluntary secondary schools. We are told that this autumn a number of these schools will be faced with closure because it is utterly impossible to continue to give the level of services at the miserable pittance in today's terms that they are receiving from the Department of Education. There are approximately 500 such schools catering for 180,000 youths. With the pressure for new schools, for rooms and positions, unless this question of education is tackled seriously by the Minister we will have a crisis not in the long term but in the immediate short term in the teaching of numbers of our youth.
When we look through the Minister's statement for some commitment to art and culture again we are disappointed bitterly. It is regrettable that after 60 years of self-government it must be stated that Irish cultural institutions have seen remarkably few additions and we are living still with institutions designed in the 19th century when cultural needs were more modest and Dublin was a provincial centre. It is quite staggering that not a single major building has been added to our cultural institutions—the National Gallery and its fine extension has been the sole exception—nor are there any publicly announced plans to meet the needs of any of these bodies. The pessimistic conclusion must be that not only are these buildings now inadequate in condition, in scale, in accommodation and in exhibition space and staffing, but that there is no evidence that the State is even aware of the extent of these deficiencies or has any plans to reduce them even in the long run.
Whatever about the absence of new buildings, the absence of official thinking and planning for future needs in the cultural sector is more staggering. It is a self-damning indictment of official negligence under past Governments. Above all else, the appalling performance of the Department of Education in the cultural field is painfully evident. To this day, arts and culture still play a peripheral role rather than commanding a more central position in the school curriculum.
This neglect of our artistic and cultural heritage is an affront to the youth of Ireland and can no longer be tolerated. Three generations of Irish youth have left our schools artistically and culturally retarded. The sad findings of the 1961 report by the Scandinavian Design Group, Design in Ireland, that the Irish schoolchild is visually and artistically among the most undereducated in Europe are as true today as when published 20 years ago. What an appalling indictment of our educational system and 60 years of independence.
What is now urgently needed is a searching examination by the Department of Education of their role in cultural affairs and a deep commitment towards rectifying, even at this late stage, the injustices perpetrated on our unsuspecting youth. This commitment must be backed by adequate financing to ensure provision for training of specialist teachers in arts and crafts, for in-service training of primary teachers, for proper facilities in schools and for the purchase of art materials and so on, together with a host of consequential changes. In view of the pending pressure on education financing in 1980 it is absolutely vital that the status of the arts is not once more placed in a peripheral or subsidiary position. All, however, is not doom and gloom and it would be highly remiss of me on this occasion if I did not mention the role that the Arts Council have been playing. It is encouraging to note that in this year's Estimates the Arts Council have got a rather substantial increase in funding. The Arts Council have played a magnificent role since their institution in 1951. They have continually, in my estimation, pricked the cultural conscience of the Irish people and their efforts at long last seem to be bearing fruit. I particularly welcome the recent announcement by the Department of Finance—although there seems to be some misunderstanding about it and I should be glad if the position were clarified here in the House—that under the Income Tax Act of 1967 a giving of money is eligible for tax relief when applied towards activities approved by the Arts Council. I sincerely hope that businesses and private individuals would avail of this facility to help the council and encourage them to sponsor our talented youth in whatever cultural activities they wish to pursue.
We in Fine Gael have a cultural policy and are committed to creating a stimulating environment for the promotion of a healthy artistic and cultural climate. We believe that in the youth of Ireland we have a great reservoir of latent talent waiting to be tapped and that, with proper advice, guidance and financing, with proper direction and encouragement, Irish artists can once again stride Colossus-like across the cultural scene as their predecessors did in the literary fields at the beginning of this century.
The recent finding of the chalice at Derrynaflann, or Killenaule, or, as Time magazine calls it, the Tipperary Chalice draws attention once more to the plight of our National Museum. With conditions there already reaching crisis proportions it is unbelievable in this year, in the knowledge of the various reports of the Board of Visitors, that in the Estimates there has been a massive cut-back of 15½ per cent. It must be very obvious that the Government are writing off this national cultural asset and that the demise of a museum must now be in sight.
The National Museum has been so much in the news in recent weeks that too much comment here might be superfluous. It is at once the most neglected of all the cultural institutions and one where the provision of an adequate building will at today's prices unfortunately be the most expensive. The last two decades have witnessed a remarkable development of museums everywhere in Ireland and, indeed, on the Continent, the erection of additional major national institutions, the creation of new or more specialised museums and a revolution in display technique. The National Museum has, unfortunately, fallen continuously behind. The gap now between the actual and the attainable is truly vast. In fact, the National Museum is unique in Europe among museum institutions. It is the only one whose floor space, staffing and visitor attendance have all fallen off over the decades. On all scores, it is now much worse than it was in the twenties. The responsibility of the Oireachtas is peculiarly involved because it got some of its accommodation in the twenties from the Oireachtas. Even the addition of some 10,000 feet of rented accommodation for office and exhibition usage in a new office block will not bring it back to the position before the twenties.
Its staffing is inadequate and below former levels. It is deficient in conservation staff; and the insufficiency of laboratory space and staff is alarming, relating to a bygone age rather than the needs of a living and growing institution which our National Museum should be. The building is out-dated for exhibition purposes. Apart from the reported dry rot and dampness there is evidence of further deterioration in the building. The offside storage space suffers from the same deficiencies so that not only is the museum inadequate but the survival of non-exhibited items is at risk.
The neglect of the museum has been so total and so little has been done to meet its needs that a major reappraisal is now urgent. I support a recent claim for a public inquiry because nothing less than that will help to resolve its many difficulties. This appraisal will have to be carried out in the knowledge that the provision of adequate museum facilities is not cheap. A long-term solution will be moderately costly, approximate to that of a middle-sized hospital. The museum needs more staff and conservation facilities. This needs to be spelt out. Accommodation is a complex issue. The museum, as the institution confined to major collections of great artistic, cultural and monetary value, needs a new building on another site or the retention of the existing building combined with another building containing both substantial exhibition space and office and laboratory accommodation.
In the report of the Board of Visitors for 1977-1978——
The Chair was beginning to wonder how long the Deputy was going to spend on the museum. It is in order to deal with the finances provided for the museum but to debate the whole question of the museum would not be in order on a budget debate. I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude.
I should like to bring to the attention of the Chair and the Minister for Education the report of the Board of Visitors for 1977-1978. I understand there is a more recent report but I do not have it to hand. I will quote a few relevant extracts——
The Deputy has dealt with the provision of finance for the museum. The matters he is now raising would be relevant to the Estimates when they come up dealing with the National Gallery and the National Museum.
Surely I am entitled to speak on the museum and I can devote if I wish the whole hour to it.
The Chair does not accept that at all. The Deputy is entitled to deal with the provision of finance or the lack of it for the museum. To go into every aspect of the museum on a budget debate would not be in order.
That is at my discretion.
It is at the discretion of the Chair.
It is under Vote 29, Office of the Minister for Education.
It will come up on the Estimates.
I can devote my full allocation of time to this aspect.
The Deputy will have to accept the ruling of the Chair, I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude.
The report states:
In this context it should be stated that members of the board have reached the conclusion that no useful purpose is being served by them in their present relationship with the Government and with the Department.
The report makes dismal reading. It indicates the Government's total lack of commitment and concern for this great national institution. As I wish to comply, as I have always done, with the wishes of the Chair, I urge the Minister to do something while there is still time to preserve the museum.
The magnificient finds at Derrynaflann or Killenaule, County Tipperary, highlights the need for another look at the National Monuments Act, 1930, which was amended in 1954.
Now the Deputy is getting into another field. He is dealing with the promotion of legislation which also cannot be dealt with on a budget debate.
I am glad to note that the Minister for Finance indicated that he hopes to introduce towards the end of the year a new National Monuments Act. I assure him that he will get every co-operation to ensure that the new Act will safeguard our national monuments. There is a danger that with the enthusiasm engendered by the recent finds some over-enthusiastic and amateur archaeologist will go prospecting in the hope of finding treasures similar to those found recently. The Minister by way of announcements on television and radio should instruct people as to the rights of landowners and the exact legal position in regard to these monuments so that they will not be vandalised.
The recent "A Sense of Ireland" exhibition in London was an outstanding success. I commend all who were responsible for putting on this fine display. It has done a lot to dispel the unhappy image the British people have of Ireland in view of the tragic circumstances in the North. It allayed doubts and showed that we are not all barbarians. We can be justifiably proud of that fine exhibition. It would be impossible to put on the full exhibition in Ireland but a lot of good would come if some sections of it could be put on display in Belfast and in Dublin. We have more in common than we have in difference with the people in the North. Our cultural and artistic ties would be a meeting point for the two communities. I urge the Minister to think seriously about running portion of it in Dublin and Belfast.
I was pleased to learn from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it is hoped to negotiate cultural relation treaties with more countries. At present we have them with only two countries. France and Norway. I was surprised to learn from the Minister that he intends in the near future to negotiate further treaties with European countries, especially members of the EEC and particularly Germany.
The Wood Quay issue was disastrously handled by the Government. That site is of immense importance in the study of urbanisation in western Europe. It presented a unique opportunity for the Irish people to learn about the development of out capital city from its earliest beginning. To destroy it before systematic excavation took place was to rob all Irish people of an irreplaceable part of their culture and heritage. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the time limit was further extended to enable more excavation to be carried out but the whole issue is a sad reflection of our regard for our heritage and past. If new legislation is to be introduced concerning national monuments adequate provision should be made to ensure that such areas are not handled imcompetently in future with a great loss to our cultural heritage.
The Newgrange sites, although off the beaten track, have attracted numerous visitors and few will deny that their preservation and restoration have been a valuable contribution to our cultural heritage. They have provided an added attraction for our tourist industry. How much more valuable would the proper excavation of Wood Quay have been? Would Georgian Dublin have been pulled down and the city emptied of residents to make way for monstrous office blocks? We should call a halt and declare that the Wood Quay site must not go. Are we not entitled to one beautiful vista, the view of the cathedral above the river, and could we not have preserved Wood Quay as a source of national pride and satisfaction?
The Deputy has gone into an area that does not arise on the budget. I have given him a lot of latitude because he is spokesman for his party on cultural matters but they do not arise on the budget which deals with taxation and financial matters.
I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to an item in the Estimates for the national museum for archaeological excavation.
We are not dealing with Estimates but with taxation matters generally. Expenditure, financial policy and other matters may be dealt with in so far as they are connected with financial policies in the budget. If I permitted the Deputy to continue. I would have to give the same concession to other Members.
Wood Quay is an intrinsically valuable part of our heritage and it has been recognised by international groups as a valuable part of European heritage.
The Deputy should leave the matter at that. The Chair is trying to keep everybody on the rails.
I understand the difficulty Dublin Corporation have with regard to the provision of new offices but the issue was mishandled from the start with a tragic loss to Ireland of finds of great archaeological and cultural importance.
The budget does not do anything for tourism. There is no doubt that as a result of the British budget yesterday we have lost our ability to attract British tourists to Ireland. The unnecessary and massive increases in the cost of petrol, drink and cigarettes will not make this country more attractive. It had been hoped that this year we would gain £314 million from tourism but I do not believe we will reach that figure. It was hoped that tourism would increase by 7 per cent but in view of the increase in the price of petrol that figure will be reduced to 5 per cent. We are in competition with countries such as Spain which enjoy a sunnier climate and as a result we must give incentives to tourists to come here. Tourists compare the price of certain items before deciding to travel abroad. British tourists will be aware that they will have to pay £1.50 a gallon for petrol compared with £1.32 in their country; 61p for a pint of beer compared with 46p; £8.20 for a bottle of Scotch whisky compared with £5.70 in the UK. The difference in the price of cigarettes is to our advantage in that 20 cigarettes in the UK cost 74p while in Ireland they cost 67p. We must remember that many people depend on the tourist industry for a living and a lot of school-leavers find temporary employment in that industry. If we want to maintain the work force in that industry we must investigate the possibility of giving tourists a petrol subsidy. On the point of entry into the country tourists should be given coupons to subsidise the cost of petrol. A lot of money has been ploughed into the development of hotels and the improvement of guest house accommodation, mainly in rural areas, over the years.
It is accepted that the top nine inches of our soil is our most valuable asset, much more valuable than the minerals that may be found deeper, or the oil off our coasts. However, in this budget the Minister for Finance has been totally insensitive to the plight of our farmers, particularly by the introduction of the resource tax for which there cannot be the slightest justification. The Minister has referred to equity and the PAYE workers. By all means extend equity to one sector, but why impose such an unjust tax on the farming community.
No doubt the Minister is aware of the attitude of the two farming organisations to the resource tax as well as to the multiplicity of other levies and taxes since Fianna Fáil came into office. On top of that the Government abolished subsidies on food, cheese, artificial manure and lime. In the manifesto, that ill fated document which Fianna Fáil are afraid to hear about, farmers were given a commitment that the notional system of taxation would be retained, and in complete defiance of that undertaking the notional system has been suspended.
In Tipperary South Riding 1,125 farmers will be liable to pay the resource tax and 2,612 farmers will be introduced to taxation. The resource tax is being based on the PLV system which generally has been accepted to be totally inequitable and which is more than a century old. Even the payment of rates based on that system is accepted to be inequitable.
Irish farmers are being assailed inside and outside the country, at home by these further levies and in Europe by the super levy on milk surpluses, by a reduction in the beet sugar quota and the suspension of beef intervention from April to August. This comes at a time when the farmer never needed confidence more. I have been speaking to them since the budget was introduced and I know many of them were seriously contemplating getting out of farming, particularly those engaged in dairying. They feel that their contribution to the Exchequer is not appreciated. They are being lampooned and victimised in order to give a sop to the PAYE people.
The Minister comes from a rural constituency and he must know that 1979 was a disastrous year for Irish agriculture. In real terms farmers' losses were about 28 per cent. This year there is a proposal in Europe to give them an increase of 2.4 per cent when they are seeking 7.9 per cent as an absolute minimum. It is doubtful if they will get more than the 2.4 per cent at a time when inflation is rising to a rate of 22 per cent and when the inputs into farming are increasing in cost.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to have another look at the resource tax and to avoid the oncoming, standing confrontation with the farming communities with consequent loss of time and energy in what would be but a futile confrontation with the Minister for Finance. I hope he will do everything possible to avoid such a confrontation.
The 1980 budget must be judged differently from all previous budgets. Circumstances and general conditions in the country have changed. and the Government have changed. They are a Government elected with the biggest majority in our history who came to office committed to curb inflation and unemployment, to abolish car tax and rates on private houses and to give a subvention to the first-time buyers of new houses. The Government are composed of a party who did not acknowledge that there was a world economic recession between 1974 and 1977. They flatly rejected that the inflation in those years was due to external factors, dearer oil and dearer imported raw materials. During their two-and-a-half years in office they have not attempted to deliver the promises of the 1977 manifesto.
Food subsidies on basic food items such as bread, cheese and butter, which were introduced by the Coalition in order to reduce the cost of living for the lower paid and the less well off in our society, were withdrawn. The ESB bill in 1977 was £46; in 1980, before the proposed 10 per cent increase announced in this morning's newspapers, it is £174. If this is the Government's idea of curbing inflation I do not know what to say.
The price of an average three bedroomed semi-detached house rose from £11,000 to £22,000, an increase of £11,000. Consequently it is outside the reach of any young married couple. What good is the £1,000 new house grant? Surely it should be at least £3,000 to keep up with inflation.
More and more farmers were brought into the tax net. On a principle of taxation equity, this would have been acceptable to farmers; it would have been in accordance with the manifesto. But there is discrimination regarding capital taxation, with capital allowances restricted to 30 per cent against 100 per cent in other sectors. In relation to capital acquisitions tax the amount claimable was raised from £100,000 to £150,000 although land values have increased by 400 per cent since the main threshold relating to the family farm was introduced. The Minister has refused to revise the threshold in line with the consumer price index. To sum up the budget in relation to farmers, they now have a number of taxes—income tax, resource tax, rates on land. They also have increased tax on petrol, 20p a gallon plus VAT making an increase of 22p a gallon on petrol and 5p a gallon on diesel. Tax on petrol will not be a conservation measure because it will not suppress consumption. On the contrary it will add to the costs of manufacturing industry, of the transport industry and of agriculture generally. Manufacturers and hauliers will pass on the increased cost to their customers thereby adding their little bit to inflation. But the farmer will be called upon to absorb the extra cost unless Brussels give a similar price increase. The first ever budget proposals by any Government which failed to be implemented because the injustice of the proposals and provoked such public outrage that the Government had to abandon it was the 2 per cent levy on farm output.
We see already the cost of the election manifesto regarding the building of local authority houses, the upkeep of our roads, the provision of services and so on. The increases in the cost of building materials, road material, fuel and oil over the past 12 months have been in the region of 25 per cent. How the Government propose to build houses and roads and maintain services with a 10 per cent increase over last years' figures is beyond comprehension. What is comprehensible is that fewer local authority houses will be built, that our roads will be in a bigger mess than ever and that there are fears of mass unemployment among local authority employees. Can the Minister give any guarantee that the essential services run by local authorities will be maintained even at the low level they are at present? It appears that the present Government will leave a legacy of bad roads and bad houses to the next Government, which will be Fine Gael.
In the normal way people who think they have been overcharged for goods can go to Priceline offices throughout the country and make an official complaint. In relation to CIE this is more difficult. There is however one avenue open to dissatisfied CIE passengers. Under the Consumer Information Act the Director of Consumer Affairs is obliged to ensure that the public get accurate and true descriptions in advertisements. CIE's advertisements give the impression that one can travel in comfort and in safety. My experience would prove otherwise.
Mr. Murray, the Director of Consumer Affairs, should check out the accuracy of the CIE advertising campaign. On 18 March I travelled by train to Dublin from the west. The train was crowded and there were 64 passengers in the compartment in which I travelled. There was no heating whatsoever and some of the windows were in such poor condition that they could not be closed, although it was a bitterly cold day. I felt sorry for the ticket checkers who were subjected to so many complaints from passengers. The treatment of the general public by CIE is nothing short of an insult, particularly in the west. The incident I describe is not an isolated case. In mid-February I had occasion to travel by train to the west and conditions were somewhat similar. Again the train was crowded and the passengers complained of the cold. Only two of the four lights in the compartment were operating and passengers were unable to read. These conditions are disgraceful. Why is it that such trains operate in the west? Those in use in the south are a little better.
This is a dreadful budget. Again there are to be increases in postal and telephone charges. The service in the west is very poor and it is almost impossible to get through by telephone to any part of Ireland. Even local calls are difficult. The postal service is abysmal and it can take as long as six days for a letter from Roscommon to reach the village of Tulsk.
In the dying days of the budget debate we have an opportunity to review the details of the budget in an objective fashion away from the heady days of tension and excitement in the House. We also have an opportunity to look at the Book of Estimates and see the Government's intentions for the various Departments during 1980. This debate also provides an opportunity to look at the economy and the performance of the Government since they assumed office in 1977.
Trying to give an objective opinion of all these factors, I am driven to the conclusion that this is a dishonest budget. It fails to tackle the basic problems of our economy and does nothing whatever to stimulate the growth needed to provide jobs for young people or to deal with the problem of rising prices. It fails to take measures to tackle the problem caused by the fact that we are living beyond our means. There were heady promises in the 1977 manifesto under all these headings and these were repeated by the new Taoiseach in the few public statements he has made since he assumed that office. I looked forward to this budget on the basis that the mistakes of the past few years would be set aside and there would be a new approach to solving the problems of our economy, but the budget has failed to take the necessary action.
There were promises in the manifesto about reducing State borrowing but these promises, like so many more in the manifesto, have not been kept. The result is that year by year we have taken on debts of hundreds of millions, mortgaging the future of the country to be repaid by future generations. The national debt had risen by 31 December 1979 to a figure in the region of £6,500 million and this does not reflect the full picture, despite the enormous increase of over 50 per cent since this Government assumed office. One must also bear in mind that, in addition to the national debt, a huge sum is owed by the local authorities, a sum of the order of £1,120 million. Furthermore there is an unquantifiable or unquantified figure which is related to the capitalised sum to pay the inflationproof pensions of the public service. Despite a request to the Minister for Finance, I have not been able to get the exact figure. These commitments must be met and many people feel they must be taken into account in assessing the true picture. Finally, there is the huge debt of the semi-State bodies, which is not included in the figures. We are faced with the fact that borrowing has been increased to an alarming degree and that the budget, while doing nothing to reduce the rate of borrowing, will in the current year add at least £1,000 million to the existing figures. Nobody interested in the future of the nation can look with equanimity on such housekeeping.
There have been cuts in the Estimates in a number of areas but there has not been an honest attempt to streamline our national finances and assess the major item of current expenditure, that is, the payment of the public service, which accounts for approximately 50 per cent of the entire current budget. The Government should have the political courage to tackle this problem and consider whether we are getting full value for money. Is productivity in the public service increasing? Are the people who are doing such excellent work being let down by a number who are not pulling their weight? We must look at the biggest figure in the account.
No attempt whatever has been made to do this or to make any suggestions as to how this figure might be streamlined. In fact it is fair to comment that the much trumpeted employment efforts of this administration since 1977 have been devoted largely to adding on a further load to the public service, thousands of extra people, without, as far as I can see, any clear assessment of the benefit of so doing to our economy, forgetting altogether the fact that a job created in one year in a non-productive sector in such a situation, will involve the State in paying the salary of that person for the rest of their working life and their inflation-proof pension thereafter. I make the positive and constructive suggestion that in future this Government must take a hard look at this whole sector. Indeed the efforts made to add to that problem rather than streamline it do no credit to this Government.
What are the other main factors concerning people about our economy? There is no doubt in my mind that the problem of rising prices is one that constantly affects our people, particularly those on fixed incomes, those in the lower-income bracket. Many of these people were affected by the promises of this administration made prior to the 1977 General Election. They believed what they were told. They felt the glossy manifesto produced contained the answer to that problem and in their substantial numbers, created very largely on such promises, they voted this Government into office.
The House may recall the impact of the programme outlined in that manifesto which was to lead to a reduction in prices in 1977 of 1 per cent, in 1978 of 2 per cent and in 1979 of a further 2 per cent. What is the reality? As a result of the policies of the Coalition Government inflation was down to around 6 per cent in 1977. Let me be honest and say that some contribution was made to that reduction by the budgetary measures of 1977. But, by and large, the effort to reduce the figure to 6 per cent in 1977 was almost totally the result of the policies of the last Government.
Therefore, looking at the problem objectively, I suggest that this is the base line. How can one view Government performance on prices in that context? I have to say that their performance can be termed only as disastrous; each week, almost each day, there are different price increases, and the result is that, even prior to the budget, we were back to double figure inflation, 15 per cent to 16 per cent.
What would one expect from a Government introducing a budget, a Government supposedly committed to the concept of slowing down the rate of inflation? One would expect a budget that would make some effort towards reducing that appalling figure. What do we find? We find certain proposals in the formal budget presented in this House. Outside that formal budget, in announcements made by different State and semi-State bodies, a series of price increases and a series of proposals in the budget unfortunately—and I take no pleasure in saying this—will result in a huge inflation rate here this year. There are disputes among economic experts as to what exactly will be the figure. I do not pretend to being an economic expert—I do not intend to enter into that dispute—but, even on the Government's own admission, this figure is now predicted at being over 20 per cent. The Leader of our Party feels that unfortunately it will be somewhat higher. How can any Government face the people of this country and introduce a budget which will have the effect, not of reducing the rate of inflation or of slowing down the rate of price increases but rather of increasing them to such an extent? Have they any conception of the burden this places on our people? Have they forgotten so much their contact with the ordinary people so as not to realise what this will mean to every household? On that score—and again I take no pleasure in saying so—this budget is a total failure.
Next one must look at what is perhaps an even greater problem facing the country, that of unemployment. Again, looking back, there were the promises of the reduction in the figures involved, the commitment to a programme, the impact of which would constitute a reduction in unemployment figures in 1977 of 5,000, in 1978 of 20,000, in 1979 of 25,000 and, in 1980 of 30,000. How could anyone interested in the future of this nation not vote for such a programme? Yet disillusionment has now set in, as it is quite clear that the Government have neither the will nor ability to deliver on that particularly important commitment. One might have expected that a budget would have provided substantial ground to enable that problem to be tackled, or even halt tackled. This budget does nothing of the kind. In fact the estimates of moneys for youth employment programmes, work experience programmes and so on will do the very reverse. Unfortunately we are faced now with unemployment which may—I hope not—run into six figures before the end of this year.
I suppose the other major worry people had in regard to their personal situations—and highlighted by the protests and marches—was that of their difficulties in regard to PAYE tax. While we must remember that, as Members of the Dáil, we are included in that sector and I suppose should have greater sympathy, I have no doubt, particularly in the lower paid bracket, these people had a very serious grievance. We had the Supreme Court decision which forced certain actions on the Government. We anticipated that there would be a major alleviation of the lot of those people, particularly the lower paid, in the PAYE bracket.
What is the result of the budget? Changes were made that clearly can only be termed cosmetic because the net result is that anybody earning less than £8,000 will, in fact, overall pay more tax in 1980. How can a Government pretend to have any social philosophy if that is their solution to the problem particularly bearing in mind that people in the £15,000—£25,000 bracket will gain from this budget? The tax benefits they get will outweigh the increases, in normal terms, in indirect taxation on personal expenditure. Surely, while in cherishing all citizens of the State equally we cannot discount people earning £25,000 a year, the major concern of the Government if there are to be reliefs should be that they must be distributed in the lower brackets and thereafter the middle brackets.
These are some of the major grounds on which I term this budget to be a failure and even term it to be a dishonest budget because of the hope and promise held out to all of us that these serious problems would be effectively tackled.
One can assess the budget in the context of the efforts we make in different sectors. I am particularly mindful of its effect on the farming population. The position of our farmers up to relatively recently was one of having to contend with the cheap food policy of the United Kingdom. Because of our entry to the EEC, because of the sterling efforts of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton, there was a degree of confidence aroused in the agricultural community which was unprecedented. In my own area, and I am sure members of the House can vouch for it in their respective areas, form the amount of development taking place not only on the agricultural level but in looking after the wives, giving them a share of the benefits and improvements in houses, it was quite clear the farmers felt that they could face the future with confidence, invest in that future, improve their land, put up buildings, put down concrete and generally plan for the future. This confidence has been largely shattered in the past couple of years.
I am surprised that this Government should hold the farmers in such low esteem and give the agricultural sector such low priority. Do they not realise the benefit to this nation of a prosperous and confident agricultural community? Do they not even see for themselves the huge benefits brought to our balance of payments, the huge exports contributed by the agricultural community? The Government's efforts seem to be almost deliberately designed to shatter that confidence with the result that we now have an agricultural sector starved of finance for development, paying enormous interest rates on whatever moneys they borrow in the past for development purposes and threatened from week to week and from year to year with a different series of levies and taxes almost all of which are totally unrelated to their income.
That is the real inequity and injustice of these measures. The Government approach has contributed to a shattering of the confidence of our farmers and has resulted in a situation where I believe there will be a considerable slow down, if not a full stop, in agricultural development. I do not say farmers should pay no tax—that would not be an honest approach. I believe farmers should pay a fair share of tax like everybody else but I certainly object to measures which will result in farmers paying levies and taxes totally unrelated to their income. If there is justice and equity in taxation measures surely we must look at the basis on which other sectors of the population pay tax. Generally, taxes are based on income—the more you earn the more you pay. That is generally a fair system. If one accepts that as the manner in which taxes should generally be paid, as the basis for taxation, how can one justify taxes which bear no relation to income? How can one justify the various levies imposed by the present Government? Are they afraid or unable or unwilling to produce a fair tax system? Apart from the 2 per cent levy last year we had a series of other levies so that farmers told me that there were, I think, five levies being taken out of their creamery cheques. Many of these are very small farmers with valuations of approximately £8 or £9 whom in any situation I could not see as being liable to income tax because their incomes would not bring them anywhere near the tax bracket. The Government are totally misguided in their approach.
Would the Deputy mention the five levies?
A fair question. There was the 2 per cent levy——
That was not taken out of the milk cheque.
The Deputy will have to make his own speech.
Perhaps the Minister is not aware of the levies that were imposed. I will tell him what happened to some of the levies and he can pick out what he is interested in. The artificial manure subsidy, the lime transport subsidy and the beef cattle incentive scheme were abolished. The 2 per cent levy, the levy for disease eradication, the dairy inspection levy and the CBF levy were introduced. Is that enough or does the Minister want more?
They were not taken out of the milk cheque.
It is quite clear the Minister is out of touch with the farming community.
I am not, but the Deputy is.
If the Minister is unaware of these facts he should go back to his own area and ask his constituents. I have seen these cheques with these reductions. The Minister need not try to cod me, the House, or the country about what this Government have done to our farmers.
I like the truth.
The Minister should seriously consider, to the extent that he has influence in the party, the damage being done not just to the farmers but to the economy by the shattering of the farming community's confidence since this Government came into office, compounded by the weakness of this Government's approach in Europe. The result is that any farmer who could face the future with confidence when Deputy Clinton was Minister for Agriculture now does not know if he will even be able to meet his bills in the year ahead. That sector has to be looked at and the performance of the Government in this area has to be assessed.
Another matter unrelated to that sector but which has to be considered of major importance is this Government's record in industrial relations. We all know the damage that can be caused to our economy when there is industrial strife. Open promises were held out to the people that there would be dramatic changes and that Fianna Fáil would virtually remove industrial strife. What has been the record of this Government? Since they came into office there has been an increase of 200 per cent in the number of man-days lost owing to industrial disputes. The figures for 1977 were 442,145 man-hours lost.
From what document is the Deputy quoting?
I am quoting from a document I prepared based on the details given in reply to a parliamentary question. In 1978, 624,266 man-hours were lost. If that was not bad enough, the figures for 1979 were 1,427,000. That is the barometer of Fianna Fáil's performance in the area of industrial relations since they assumed office in 1977, despite a promise in their infamous manifesto to show special concern that good relations would exist between workers and employers and for the attainment and maintenance of industrial harmony. It is quite clear that in that very important area the Government strategy has been a total disaster, one that puts this country at the very bottom of the European league, or, unfortunately, in the context in which they prepare these figures, at the very top.
One would have expected that this budget would have given the Government an opportunity to improve the situation. Do the Government expect an improvement in industrial relations when, because of a combination of increases in indirect taxation and income tax concessions, there has been a reduction in the standard of living of those earning under £8,000 a year? I genuinely believe that this type of strategy will not make any contribution to industrial harmoney.
There is one other very special area that concerns me and that is the commitment of this Government to provide aid for the Third World. In a time of financial constraint it is very easy for us as a nation to take the easy way out and to say that the people in Lesotho, the Sudan or Tanzania will not have much impact on electoral results here and if our development programmes have to be cut back there will not be much reaction. This does not show a Christian concern and I believe that in the national interest it is ill-advised.
As a result of cut-backs in foreign aid our development programmes to the Third World have been substantially affected and our credibility in developing nations has been severely affected. What is even worse, the commitment given by this Government when they supported the United Nations resolution and the resolution of the EEC Council of Ministers has been reneged on. This Government are doing a severe disservice to this country by putting the knife into foreign aid.
What are the facts? There were some increases under the heading of official development but the Government can claim no credit for them. They were obligatory as a result of our membership of certain international bodies—the United Nations, the EEC, the completion of the Lomé Agreement and membership of the World Bank. What is the performance of the Government in regard to non-obligatory payments? A cut of 38 per cent. I do not know that my arguments against the Government would convince them to reverse what I think is an appalling stand on this issue. Perhaps worse than the cuts under this heading is the fact that the previous commitments of the Government—this Governement and the last Government—have been reneged on.
The efforts to reach the international commitment of .7 per cent of GNP on a planned basis which had been started by Deputy FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs—and which, in fairness, had been followed up by Deputy O'Kennedy when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs—are now gone, and this is the worst aspect of the Government's foreign policy in this area at the moment. This was made clear in the Dáil by the present Minister in reply to a question by me on Tuesday last when he indicated that he, and presumably the Government, were reverting to the 1973 policy of paying as our resources permit. That was the policy prior to 1973 which resulted in a level of foreign aid of pitiful dimensions. The Minister may look at me and say "So what? We will get by with that." If that is the Minister's attitude, obviously he is unaware of the real problem, nor is he aware of the recommendations of the Brandt Commission and of the evidence which was adduced by that commission which shows that it is in the interests of this nation and of all developing nations of the world to pursue a policy of aid towards the developing world.
In that situation the Minister would be unaware of the fact that, for instance, between 1973 and 1977, in the developed world five million jobs were created because of exports to Third World countries which came about through foreign aid. Obviously that type of statistic is not known to the Minister even in relation to our own country. If we have to talk about self-interest and the benefits which we derive in promoting foreign aid, there are the evidence and arguments which prove that apart from the moral aspect, which should be the main one. We believe as a Christian nation, in that context, it is in our interest in developing our economy to do what we can by way of development aid. The result of the cut-backs would be a total loss of credibility. It would mean a cutback in the plans for development in the four main countries of concentration. Our name was good in the Third World as that of a non-colonial power and of a nation which threw off the yoke of colonialism and forced its independence thereby giving rise to a feeling of sympathy and understanding in those nations which were in a similar situation. But as a result of the cut-backs that good name is now damaged, and unless the Minister and this Government are prepared to reestablish the name originally established by Deputy FitzGerald and developed by Deputy O'Kennedy when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, this nation will suffer in its own economy. Whatever one's motivation, it is clear that business does result from foreign aid contacts. This Government are very short-sighted if they do not realise that it is on that basis they must assess the situation.
Therefore, in examining this budget one has to accept that it is a totally dishonest one. It is totally in keeping with the performance of this administration since they assumed office in 1977 on foot of the manifesto which made so many promises which have resulted in so many shattered dreams. I do not propose to bore the House with the litany of broken promises, but it is important that we remember them for reasons which I will explain hereafter. When we remember the promises about the abolition of ground rents and matters of a similar nature, it is not just the fact that the promises have not been kept that is the real difficulty. When one holds out hope and promise to a people one is fuelling the process of cynicism and disillusionment when those promises are not kept. That is happening inexorably in this country in the present day. There is the realisation among the people that they were conned in 1977.
As I am an Opposition spokesman one would expect the natural reaction on my part to be "Well, tough luck on Fianna Fáil, they got found out, they got caught". However, that is not my prime reaction to this situation. Democracy is a fragile institution. When people become disillusioned and cynical, inevitably their thoughts turn to alternatives to the democratic system.
Fianna Fáil have done irreparable damage to that situation in this country because of the disillusionment and cynicism so widespread throughout the country today resulting from their nonperformance in office and from their broken promises. That is the real danger and my real concern is that this administration do not even realise that. Their concern, presumably, is concentrated on cosmetic changes here and there in an effort to lay the groundwork for a further electoral victory, not seeing further than their noses. It is clear that the people of this nation will not fall again for that kind of approach. Behind it all there is the whole question of honesty in politics and the results of dishonesty. A Government who are so short-sighted and have so little vision that they do not appreciate that, are in danger of doing irreparable damage to this nation and to the democratic institutions in which we in this House believe. This is a totally dishonest budget. It will do nothing to tackle the major problems which affect our economy, will result in further loss of confidence and lead even further to the general spread of disillusionment and cynicism affecting this country—largely as a result of promises made by this Government party, largely as a result of their performance since they assumed office.
I refer to the Minister's speech on introducing the budget of 1980 which will go down in history as the time when a Government turned their back on, undermined, and attempted to emasculate their unpaid army of tax-collectors throughout the country, namely small shopkeepers, publicans and those who, over the past number of years, have collected tax for successive Governments here. With the stroke of a pen and in one brief paragraph the Minister in the part of his speech which relates to the taxation of self-employed persons, has taken the carpet from underneath the livelihood of practically every marginally existing small, self-employed businessman.
I represent an area which is a constituency of small shopkeepers—the Smithfield and Cabra areas of this city—businesses which have been handed down from generation to generation. Here, in this budget the Government, for the first time, are asking this army of self-employed businessmen and solid citizens who make up the population of our island of small shopkeepers and small landholders to pay taxes during the current year of business. He is asking a person in this category to do the impossible, to pay taxes, not only on his profits of last year but on his profits of this year. I was very surprised that the Minister used such simple language when introducing this anomaly in his budget. It makes no sense whatsoever to anybody who understands an iota of the Queen's English. It would be impossible for any businessman to know how much profit he will make during the current year and to pay income tax on this alleged profit on 1 October of the current year. We will take an example of a year dating from 1 April, 1980 to 1 April 1981. A self-employed businessman will have to pay tax on a projected profit for those 12 months, all of it, on 1 October, 1980.
Many people who have contributed to the debate since the Budget was introduced may have overlooked the significance and the dangers implied in this section for many of our people. Not only is the Minister attempting to change the payment of tax in two equally divided amounts on 1 September and 1 January and to have it all paid on 1 October in one year for the previous year's profit, but he says in his speech under the title "Taxation of self-employed persons":
The fourth major element in my income tax package this year is to devise more uniform treatment of employed and self-employed persons.
Self-employed persons are normally charged to income tax in any year on the basis of profits of the accounting period ending in the preceding income tax year.
What has been said so far by the Minister is entirely logical but—and I continue with the quotation:
In present circumstances, when both incomes and profits are rising rapidly in money terms each year, this results in a substantial advantage to the self-employed compared with taxpayers in the PAYE sector, where tax is charged on current earnings.
This sentence has me, as member of this Dáil, confused. Admittedly, one does not necessarily have to be a member of this illustrious House to be confused, but it certainly has caused a great deal of confusion. Tax cannot be imposed equally upon everybody. Many feel that PAYE contributors were possibly being taxed at an unjust rate. This system of taxation was effective in collecting taxes. However, a week in the year of the PAYE person whose wages are paid every week and the stoppage made from those wages, is a totally different kettle of fish from the position of a self-employed businessman, who is compared here by the Minister to a PAYE tax contributor.
A business may differ in the amount of money it takes in from one week to the next. Many businesses are seasonal. The publican's business is a very seasonal one and yet a small publican down the country, or in my constituency in Cabra, will be asked now to pay, not as heretofore on 1 September and 1 January income tax on his previous year's profits, but on 1 October 100 per cent of his income tax for the preceding year and for the current year. The publican or the shopkeeper must look into a crystal ball, with the help, no doubt, of the Revenue people, and say "I shall be making so much profit in 12 months's time that I can pay my income tax on 1 October this year for money that I am going to make in 12 months' time". The poor man might not be alive in 12 months' time. His business may well have faltered and the bottom may have gone out of his business.
As I have said, for decades the small businessman has been collecting VAT and turnover tax, and he has been stopping PAYE, social welfare contributions and other money from his employees. In other words, he has been the unofficial unpaid taxpayer for successive Governments. And what is his reward as we go into the eighties? The Minister for Finance comes here in February and announces that he will make every self-employed person who made or who did not make a profit in the current year pay tax in advance of profits in order to make more equal the tax method as between the PAYE and the self-employed sectors.
I submit that this is reversing the role completely. It is putting an unfair onus of taxation on the self-employed, the backbone of our community as we know it. Asking anybody to pay tax in advance of his known income is ridiculous. It is the worst injustice I have seen any Minister for Finance impose. I will quote further from the Minister's budget speech in relation to taxation of self-employed persons:
I propose to provide that all income tax other than PAYE will now be payable in one instalment on 1 October in the year of assessment. This change will yield £24 million in 1980.
The amount of £24 million is a magical figure in the history of the National Coalition Government of whose supporters I was a backbench member. That Government introduced the wealth tax which was scheduled to return a lot less than £24 million. I think it cost more money to try to collect it than was actually collected.
Here we see the Minister attempting to collect £24 million in income tax from the self-employed people. I predict that in attempting to do so the Minister will rapidly come up against the law of diminishing returns because many people will realise there is not a profit left in working for oneself here. I could not imagine that the Minister would move so far to the left in his political approach as to tax private enterprise. Private enterprise has always been the backbone of our society. It started from the bottom up with the small shopkeeper, the small self-employed businessman, the professionals who do not throw any load on the State, the vocational groups.
Here is the first big mallet to be used by a Minister for Finance, a man who in his previous capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs attempted to interfere with the freedom of individuals here, the sporting groups. He attempted, unfortunately with a certain degree of success, to intimidate the IRFU, one of the bastions of the traditions of this country, an organisation that straddles the unfortunate political border we have, an organisation which do not recognise any stigma in our Thirty-two Counties. As Minister for Foreign Affairs the Minister for Finance attempted to intimidate them into recognising his view as to who should be allowed in here to play rugby. A mixed racial team was travelling over from South Africa to play the four countries in these islands, and before a Cabinet meeting had taken place the Minister said that the Cabinet had decided this mixed racial rugby team was not welcome.
The Minister's pattern has been consistent in every senior office he has held—he has attempted to do something to minimise the degree of individuality and initiative that might be asserted by individuals in the fields of commerce, sport and culture. He is not the progressive thinker our Minister for Finance should be. Here we have the Minister attacking our smaller, weaker business people for the sake of £24 million. He has reached the stage when he will see diminishing returns in revenue. A small businessman, a taximan or a shopkeeper thinking of opening another premises or of expanding a little more, finds that the budget which brings us towards the end of the century is, as sure as the bell is ringing for Question Time at the moment, ringing the death knell of the small private entrepreneur. This is an unfortunate budget, a sad budget. A Minister who would do this is wishing trouble on himself. He is entering a field of taxation with which he is not familiar. He is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but inside the nut he will not find anything left to collect.
Debate adjourned.