The budget is now a matter of recent memory. Its effects are with us. We have now reached the winding up stages of the budget debate but the real verdict on the effectiveness or otherwise of the budget for our economy will be delivered outside the House by the electorate. It has been the essential case of those of us who have been critical of the budget that it did not face up squarely to some of the demands for fundamental reform in regard to taxation and that its reliance in the main on higher indirect taxation would put in peril the jobs of many in industry. Another criticism was what the higher indirect taxation would be conducive to increasing the rate of inflation in 1980. These were the serious charges made against the budget provisions.
I see little reason to alter my first reaction when the Minister had finished his budget speech. My immediate reaction was to predict a rate of inflation this year in the region of 20 per cent and to criticise the very large increase in the price of petrol. I am not laying the entire blame for this price increase at the Minister's door, but world events and the revenue which the Minister seeks from petrol will cause a very steep increase in the price of a gallon of petrol by the end of this year. On the evening of the budget I predicted that the price would be about £2 per gallon. I also foresaw an increase in unemployment as a result of the budget provisions. Those initial charges have been substantiated elsewhere since then as people began to examine in more depth the provisions of the budget. The verdict of other interest groups has been delivered. By their behaviour and the reluctance with which they have taken up gilts, the financial institutions have shown they are not convinced that the Government have the determination to put public finances in order and that the disarray which has characterised Government mismanagement of finances shows no sign of changing in the near future.
We had a highly publicised meeting earlier this week between the Taoiseach, flanked by other Ministers, and the building societies. When bank interest rates were increased recently the building societies indicated that they would be forced to follow suit. An increase in mortgage rates would spell hardship for many thousands of householders throughout the country. I understand that an interdepartmental committee has now been established and that is almost a recipe for procrastination. All the Government Departments are meeting to consider the problem. The Minister for Finance indicated during a radio interview that something might be done by way of a tax exemption measure when the Finance Bill comes before the House, but according to the building societies what is needed in the short term is a subsidisation of the kind which was implemented by the National Coalition Government when faced with a similar situation during a very difficult period. Of course it would cost money, but the point has been made by a trade union source and also by the Director General of the Construction Industry Federation that, if we take into account the unemployment levels which may be reached this year in the building sector, finances used to subsidise the building societies would not be mis-spent and would not cost as much as some people imagine.
The argument for some assistance to keep down mortgage interest rates is that an increase would cause grave hardship and would have a grave impact on the building industry, the biggest provider of employment. During a year in which we must worry very much about our balance of payments situation, it must be said that the building and construction industry is not one which adds appreciably to our balance of payments problems. We should try to maintain this industry in as healthy a state as possible so that it can provide the maximum number of jobs. There can be no doubt that if building society interest rates are increased unemployment will follow in the building industry. We await the work of this interdepartmental committee and hope for some concrete results rather than head lines regarding urgent meetings.
The building societies maintain that from the moment bank interest rates rose they were left with no choice but to make similar rearrangements regarding their own interest rates. They explain that their deposits were attacked in January and February and they must alter their interest rates in order to maintain the inflow of funds, I hold no brief for the building societies and feel that a good deal of sensible reform is required in the way they manage their affairs, but as long as they are the chief repositories of housing finance their ability to provide finance must be protected by the Government of the day.
I appreciate that we are asking for aid from a Government who have with heavy hand at times when it was not required spent taxpayers' money in a flagrantly profligate way. A good deal of the difficulties now being faced arise from the earlier ill-considered election largesse of this Government. They will not be doing anything odd or out of character if in this pressing case they meet, for reasons of social justice, the problems of householders and, for sound economic reasons, assist the construction industry.
The increase in interest rates certainly endangers jobs and, whatever remedial action is taken regarding building society interest rates, the budget has pointed the economy in the direction of a high increase in inflation. There is no doubt that throughout the year more jobs will be lost. The budget has no altered the dismal destination of recession towards which the economy is heading. The Taoiseach concedes that a growth rate of less than 1 per cent will be attained this year and that inevitably means the loss of jobs. This autumn some 50,000 school leavers will be seeking jobs and we can visualise the difficulty of that search in an economy which is winding down.
The next big test for the Government will be their ability to get another instalment or extension of the present national understanding. This is a very important test on which a great deal hangs. The Taoiseach has made it clear that he is very anxious to preserve industrial peace. It is generally conceded that the series of the national wage agreements achieved throughout the seventies—four of them by the Government of which I was a member—and the present national understanding have contributed to improving the industrial relations picture.
The recent agreement had even more ambitious targets for employment and for taxation reform. Discussions have taken place on a tripartite basis between the Government, employers and unions. There has been a great deal of complaint from the union side that the undertakings given by the Government have not been fully lived up to—presumably, the Government representatives will hear much more of this in the forthcoming talks. It is arguable that the budget about which we are talking here has an important bearing on what happens with regard to inflation and a bearing on the way financial institutions look at Government performances. Arguably, on a similar level of importance is the ability of a Government to negotiate a national understanding or wage agreement, whichever term is preferred, with which the economy can live for the year ahead. There is a very big test of this Government coming up now on the national understanding. One wonders whether the budget has contributed to success on the part of the Government in getting a reasonable extension of the present national understanding, one which will give wage increases consonant with an expansion in economic opportunities by more jobs. One wonders whether they have brought that prospect nearer, or have made it more difficult to obtain.
The Taoiseach referred recently in Limerick to the dream of young people for unity of the country. He may well be right, that that is the dominant dream of young people of this country. Certainly I can say, with some sureness, that there is no doubt that the quest of young people for jobs or their quest for housing and accommodation throughout this year of 1980 will certainly acquire the immateriality of a dream. The Taoiseach may be right that they will be dreaming about unity throughout 1980 but the dream of a house and a job will certainly become very illusive indeed. These quests will acquire dreamlike dimensions, because the jobs will not be there and certainly, if the building societies go ahead, the houses will not be there and the ability to get a house of one's own will not be there.
Much of the criticism from the trade union movement was related to the fact that the budget had done very little, or that the Government had not done sufficient last year and coming up to this year on the whole case of tax reform. Undoubtedly in the budget some attempt was made to deal with some of the demands in the tax reform area. This, of course, makes sense from the Government's point of view. Undoubtedly one of the major contributions to turbulent industrial relations at the tail end of each year has been the frustration felt by many PAYE people throughout the country. That frustration has taken effect in higher wage claims. It makes sense, therefore, that any Government which wishes to have peace in industrial relations should try to gain that peace by fundamental reform of the tax system, especially as it bore on the PAYE wage and salary earners.
We had the mammoth marches of last year. One does not wish to predict like demonstrations in the future but by the end of this year we may find similar discontent to that of the past year, despite the changes made in the budget on the tax front. Of course, the effect of these changes is uneven, to say the least, in the taxation area. It cannot be forgotten that the combined effect of income splitting and the increasing of the tax bands does little more than restore the real value of the 1974 budget in tax terms to the taxpayers. A married couple now, for example, will be able to earn the same amount of taxable income in real terms as they had in 1974, before going above the standard 35 per cent rate of taxation. In his budget speech the Minister referred to this fact by saying that the tax burden on married people would now—and I quote—"be less than at any time" since 1974 or 1975. He made no similar statement about the position of single people since 1974, except to say that 90 per cent of them would benefit by comparison with their position in 1977 to 1978. He made no mention of the fact that their tax burden has increased since 1974. It is also forgotten that single people form about two-fifths of all PAYE wage earners. Single people make up a very large category indeed.
The budget recognises that PAYE taxpayers are at a disadvantage by comparison with the self-employed because they pay tax on an on-going rather than a previous year basis and, more important, the biggest single distinction between the PAYE wage and salary earner and the self-employed person is that the former is unable to escape the payment of tax. To take account of this the Minister introduced a special schedule E employee allowance of £400. Welcome though that concession might be and leaving aside the fact that, intentionally or otherwise, on the Minister's behalf the claim was made in his budget speech that this was the allowance introduced, apparently he forgot to mention that part of that £400 allowance was already conceded from the end of last year as part of the national understanding.
In relation to that £400 allowance granted to all PAYE workers there was a failure on the part of the Minister to index this allowance or, indeed, any of the other tax free allowances. As a result of this failure the real value of these tax free allowances will be eroded as we go through the year. The actual reforms in this PAYE area will mean less as wage increases move up during the year and by the autumn we may be back to a level of simmering discontent similar to what we had last autumn. There are implications outside the economic sphere for that possible scenario for the Government in their term of office. This is something that I referred to a year ago.
It must be granted that the Government did not carry out the threats of certain of the papers in 1978 and 1979 of those people who are now gone to the backbenches. However, the present Minister was a member of the Cabinet which probably approved of them. Remember the threat in these papers to tax social welfare benefits and children's allowances. To remove food subsidies was another option to raise additional revenue. There has not been any recent indication that it is their intention to take that road. If there is any flirtation with that possible set of options, I would advise the Government to forget that if they are trying to get an extension of the national understanding. As I said at the start, if the Government are to get an extension of the present national understanding—something of the same sort as we had this year—union leaders, for their part, will look very carefully indeed at the non-wage elements of that agreement. The Minister and his fellow negotiators should note in any eventual talks with the unions that there is wide disenchantment throughout the trade union movement with the failure of the Government to live up to the employment targets and other matters relating to the national understanding.
Employment has been the chief casualty in the recent budget. We all know that employment will suffer during this year of 1980 as a result of the high inflationary economy that the Government are prepared to live with. The increases in indirect taxation will obviously increase this year's rate of inflation — some people argue to over 20 per cent, but annualised it will be somewhere around 20 per cent. This will have a severe effect on living standards of social welfare recipients. The increases which have been given will not in any way make up for the inflation now in prospect. It cannot be forgotten that when the unions looked for certain increases in welfare benefits they assumed that the rate of inflation this year would be 15 per cent. It is now way ahead of that. The welfare increases come into effect from April onwards and will just about keep the most defenceless section of our community in line with the cost of living taking into account this year's rate of inflation.
I believe it will be the Government's continued treatment of the PAYE sector that will ensure the continuation of national wage agreements and an understanding with trade unions. If the Government fail they will be faced with a trade union movement that will engage in plant-by-plant bargaining throughout the economy with possible disruption in the improving industrial relations position. A point not dealt with by the Government was that trade union spokesmen had looked for a special tax free allowance for expenses related to travelling costs incurred by employees in connection with their work. Our ramshackle public transport system makes it vital in many parts of the country for employees to provide their own transport. It is to be regretted the Government did not see fit to deal with the problem. The tax treatment of travelling expenses of employees by comparison with expenses of the self-employed has been highly discriminatory. The self-employed can claim in relation to travelling to their work but the same is not true in relation to the PAYE sector. The increased petrol duty imposed by the Government magnifies the problem. Despite the fact that employees will have to pay more to get to work they will not be able to claim tax relief on the additional costs. At the same time the self-employed will continue to receive favourable tax treatment in this matter. This is a small but important injustice in the context of the higher costs for petrol and I suggest that the Minister for Finance should consider the matter.
With regard to company taxation, the budget was not very acceptable. There is a very low rate of tax on the profits of banking and financial companies as well as on many manufacturing companies. In the current year corporation tax will yield about 6 per cent of tax revenue. This is quite unfair when compared with the contribution of the PAYE sector. No major changes were made in this area and from what one can gather it does not appear to be the Minister's intention to undertake any changes here. He made a change in relation to entertainment expenses for tax purposes but it was a minor one. He evaded the main question of how we bring the corporate sector fairly into the tax net like other elements in the economy. I am not talking of penal taxation on production — I am talking of a fair return to the Exchequer from these companies in accordance with their ability to pay. It need not endanger jobs. Other economies tax in this area and there is no reason we should not do the same. The omnibus plea that employment would be threatened no longer carries conviction. I know a commission has been set up to consider the matter. I hope it will not be like other commissions and that progress will be made. The annoyance engendered by the feeling of being discriminated against, of others getting off scot-free or of receiving more favourable treatment, is a real part of the discontent felt by the PAYE sector. If the Government are anxious for good industrial relations, they should deal with this matter and not run away from it. Above all, they should not think that setting up a commission will be mistaken for action by those who are looking for reform.
The budget was highly unsatisfactory with regard to capital taxation. Wealth tax was abolished from 1977 and that left us with only two capital taxes — the capital gains tax which has been emasculated and the capital acquisitions tax which has been substantially modified. It is interesting to note that if the pre-1975 death duties legislation was still in force, the yield from estate duty last year would have been £44 million whereas the capital gains tax and the capital acquisitions tax will yield only £10,500,000 this year. There has been no change in this area and that has been a disappointing reaction from the Government. Any Government who refuse to tackle the question of capital payments either by way of capital gains or wealth tax, cannot expect the PAYE sector to take them seriously. Any attempt by them to evade reform in this area will not be borne by those concerned.
The Government failed to lower the threshold for liability to capital acquisitions tax; in fact, they increased the threshold for farmers by raising the upper limits in respect of special agricultural relief. The fine print of all these matters will be pored over by those who are serious about taxation reform and if there is no action in areas like this the campaign for wider tax reform will continue and become stronger.
When the Minister introduced the budget he made much play about the fact that he had been fair and just in the social welfare area. The budget increased the short-term social welfare benefits by 20 per cent and the longer-term benefits by 25 per cent. At first glance these might appear to be reasonably generous but when we take into account the inflation expected this year it will be seen they just about keep the unfortunate recipients level with the price increases expected, In percentage terms it must not be forgotten that the social welfare increases apply only from April. One part of the increases in the social welfare area that I shall have to refer to critically is the new found distinction between short-term and long-term benefits and the lower rate of increase for the former. Why should recipients of unemployment assistance benefits or disability benefit or supplementary welfare allowances be penalised in this way? No satisfactory answer was given when this question was raised before in the House. This is the second year running in which this has happened. I do not see anything from the Minister or his colleague in Social Welfare to indicate that it will not happen again next year if they are around.
The Minister conceded that children's allowances are an important element in the range of social benefits. He said it had never been the Government's intention to cut back on these allowances — shades of the Green Paper because obviously that was one of the options mentioned in 1978. The present rates of children's allowances are £3.50 per month for the first child and £5.50 for the second and subsequent children. These are being increased by the budget to £4.50 and £7 from July. Before saying that is a good improvement we should recall that children's allowances were last increased in 1974. I do not know what the consumer price index was in that year but since then it has risen by about 135 per cent. One could say, being strictly accurate and abiding by the real value of money and what these increases really amount to against the background of the increased cost of living, that if the present children's allowances were truly meant to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since 1974 the kind of increase we would have been looking for would give £5.50 for the first child, £7.75 for the second and something in excess of £9 for the third. Such increases would be needed if we wanted to keep up with cost of living changes since 1974.
The point has been made by a trade union spokesman that the dropping of the third and higher rate of children's allowance in 1979 for which the Minister argued — but his arguments might be more acceptable if there had been a levelling upwards of the other allowances rather than a levelling downward — has meant that the larger family has lost out as a result of the changes made.
One makes these points because the electorate we are dealing with is no longer one that can be bamboozled by a budget day speech. We are now dealing with a very sophisticated electorate when it comes to allowances and what they are entitled to. The remarks I am making here are being made elsewhere in the country. Certainly, one hears them in trade union negotiating circles and they will be heard when the Government meet in tripartite sessions in the national understanding discussions. Arguments and points like these will be made. It is regrettable that in a budget which it was proclaimed should be regarded as one which tried to tackle social problems so little was done in the case of one parent families. No special concessions were made in this area. The increased allowances for child dependants being brought in line with other benefits was the only change. The only specific recognition given to one parent families was in the taxation area. While that may seem a great concession it would be interesting to know how many one parent families are in the taxation area. I suggest there are very few. One suspects that the actual benefit to one parent families arising from taxation changes is minimal because the parent of such families is usually not employed.
There is no change in pensionable age. During the seventies we had a gradual reduction from 69 as the old age pension qualification age in 1973, to 66 in October 1977. We had given an undertaking of a continued reduction on an annual basis. Obviously, that has been forgotten. In an economy where we are looking for job opportunities for young people, the more we can encourage people voluntarily to resign from work at a certain age, say in their early fifties, the more it would be beneficial if financial help could be given to such people so that they did not have to go on working beyond a certain age and could devote themselves to the leisure which the Taoiseach was so anxious that the young people in Limerick should discuss at their recent Fianna Fáil Youth ArdFheis. Unfortunately, we know that other effects of the budget will mean that too many young people this year will be victims of enforced leisure, arising as a result of growing unemployment. It is regrettable that we had no action on the matter of pensionable age and also regrettable that we had no indication of any early Government commitment to continue the policy of reducing the old age qualification introduced by the Coalition Government. I think the cost to the Exchequer as a result of the gradual reduction was not as large as some criticis would maintain and in the context of opening up more job opportunities it was very necessary.
On the matter of discrimination against women in the budget it is fair to say it contained no indication of any commitment by the Government fully to implement the European Community directive on equality between men and women in social security matters. We still have no progress in this area, no progress on such outstanding anomalies as unemployment benefit which is still payable to married women for 42 weeks only compared to 65 weeks for any other qualified person. That is discrimination and there is no indication of any action. There is no action about the fact that married women still receive a lower personal rate of unemployment benefit, injury benefit and invalidity pension. Married women will still not qualify for unemployment assistance except in very special and limited circumstances. These are not extraordinary demands; they are cases where we should be complying with or making haste to comply with the relevant EEC directive.
On the general economic front the budget has not assisted in the winding down of inflation but has contributed to inflation with the obviously bad consequences for the economy that the high inflation rate will have throughout this year. It will adversely affect employment. On the other ground on which the Government sought our support, its advances in the social area, the budget could not be considered as an honest attempt to meet some of the anomalies and injustices that still exist. It did not even begin the work in many areas of ridding us of these differences and injustices. The budget raised benefits but not sufficiently to keep pace with the kind of inflation we expect this year. The budget has perpetuated an unacceptable distinction between long-term and short-term social welfare recipients. It increased children's allowances but not enough to compensate for the recent increases in prices. For the larger family, as a result of changes in the third child allowance, these families must lose out.
It gave no special recognition to one-parent families, recognition which could have been given by an increase in the allowance for child dependants. The budget did not give any recognition to the plight of elderly workers because it did not reduce the pension qualifying age. It also failed to meet many of the anomalies which married women still suffer from at work and failed to eliminate the remaining aspects of discrimination against them as laid down in the EEC directive.
There is no doubt that employment remains the chief casualty of this year's budget. The implications of the Government's White Paper on the economy are that we can expect little or no growth in employment in the next few years. Without overstating the problem, it is obvious that we are facing nothing short of a crisis on the employment front in the next few years. We will have a continuing increase in the country's labour force but a decrease in our capacity to provide the requisite number of new jobs. Budgetary policy can only make matters worse. The ESRI, in their commentary earlier this year, estimated that investment in 1980 would fall by 3 per cent. They made that prediction in January but I believe they could record an even together verdict now. The January forecast represents a massive turn-around on the 16 per cent increase in investment experienced last year. Of course, we must remember that preceding the budget, but as part of the budget package, were the Government cut-backs announced in the Book of Estimates. Those cuts will accentuate the deflationary impact of the cut-back in investment predicted by the ESRI.
The Book of Estimates, which outlines the Government's plans for current expenditure, and the public capital programme, were published a few days preceding budget day. We learned from those that when the public sector pay rises are excluded the Government intend spending only 5 per cent more on current goods and services this year. When that intention of the Government is set against inflation, which is expected to be about 20 per cent this year, we can see that there will be a severe reduction in investment in real terms. The sequel is inevitable, higher unemployment and less recruitment to the public service thereby reversing the trend of recent years. This adds force to what a colleague of the Minister was saying recently, that the higher interest rates make sensitive many industries. That was a euphemism for saying that there will be bankruptcies in many Irish firms.
In a television broadcast before Christmas the Taoiseach asked us to make 1980 the year of good industrial relations and industrial peace. So effective has that message been that he has persuaded some of his Cabinet colleagues that good industrial relations have come about as a result of that broadcast. The Minister for Labour has been telling us that quite frequently of late. Retention of one's post in the Government can bring about this kind of zeal which we see on the part of the Minister for Labour. That zeal is the chief characteristic of the survivors in the Cabinet at present. Who is to blame them if they look and see some supernatural power in the Taoiseach's appeal for good industrial relations? There are other reasons which suggest why we had less strikes in the economy so far this year. To put it at a very cynical level, it would be difficult to have more than we had last year. The year 1980 is more likely to go down as the year of bankruptcies as a result of the economic decisions adopted in the budget. The cost of money is rocketing and the ill-effects of such happenings cannot be avoided by those running small industries. Commentators have recognised that small firms provide most of the new jobs throughout the country but those firms will suffer as a result of the budget. One of the greatest faults of Governments in recent times has been their proneness to consider large firms to be the main providers of jobs in our economy. Small firms have provided most of the new jobs and may be relied upon to do so in the future but that will not happen this year. Those firms will be so busy trying to avoid bankruptcy that they will not be in a position to create new jobs.
The public capital programme shows an increase of 15 per cent. At first glance that appears to be a bright picture but on examination one can see that that increase in real terms represents a standstill rather than an increase when one takes into account the expected rate of inflation. Only in the areas of telecommunication and energy is any substantial increase in expenditure projected in real terms. Expenditure on building and construction will experience a minimal real increase but within this category the real outlay on house building will actually decline. When one considers the implications of those facts one can see that it is not simply doom-boding on the part of the Opposition when they say that 1980 will be the year of increased unemployment and the year of bankruptcy problems in many industries. With the completion of the NET project real spending on industry will also fall substantially. If one excludes the NET project from the reckoning one will see that the increased expenditure on industry in real terms will be minimal. Real capital expenditure on hospitals has been frozen. There is also a reduction in the amount for the roads programme. Mike Murphy will have plenty of material for his radio programme and his pothole competition. The road at Westland Row daily becomes more like what I imagine the side roads in the capital of the Congo to have been, a pothole from one end to the other.
The case has been made that the fall in educational investment will be greater than the rate of inflation. That cut has been made by a Government which welcomes the challenge of young people. What kind of challenge is it to cut down on the rate of investment in education? It is no wonder that the Taoiseach in Limerick wanted the afternoon to be devoted to an anodyne discussion on leisure. There are so many real problems stalking the land for young people, no jobs, cut-backs in education and a high rate of inflation. What a land of promise the Government are creating for our young people.
The Minister for Finance has preserved an almost ominous silence on the question of employment, as well he might. Looking at the Government's plans for this year the most honest thing for them to do is to preserve silence on the matter. It would be dishonest to be sanguine about employment prospects for this year in the light of these expenditure charts. When the Minister and his colleagues meet the trade unions they will face questions from the trade union leaders on the commitment in the national understanding to an average increase in employment of 25,000 a year. The Minister did not avail of the opportunity provided in his budget speech to say what concrete plans he has in mind to underwrite the shortfall of 10,000 in the jobs target in the national understanding. I am talking about specific undertakings, apart from windy rhetorical commitments to provide employment. The Government are heavy on rhetoric but what are the specific plans?
The Minister may evade these questions today, but they will be asked and they will be a necessary prelude to any extension of the national understanding the Government hope to get in the next few weeks. In the past, I worked with employers and unions to achieve national agreements and I believe the system has worked reasonably well. It had its faults and imperfections but, until someone comes along with a better system, I do not know of any better in our situation. If it is important to get an extension of the present one, then it will be necessary for the Minister to come forward with specific proposals on the employment front. Otherwise he will face the prospect of what is called euphemistically a free for all, that is, plant by plant industrial bargaining which means a very rough ride for industrial relations for the remainder of the year.
The opportunities open to the Government for Fundamental reform in this budget were closed off to a great extent by the Government's earlier behaviour. The days of wine and roses of 1977 have been replaced by statements about wage moderation and cutbacks in 1980, but that is the kind of country we now live in. People are impatient for reform and are looking for the elimination of injustice. Their attention is focussed very closely on the taxation system. If the Government have cut off the possibility of widespread reform in many areas, they have plenty of room to manoeuvre and sufficient scope for action is still open to them. I and others have referred to their failure to act in the whole area of capital taxation. Of course a committee is looking into that, but it would be a mistake for the Government to think reform in this area can be postponed indefinitely by the stratagem of appointing committees.
All in all, my disappointment with the budget arises from the fact that the Government were elected in 1977 — and what could be referred to as their change in management occurred before Christmas — with the announced prospect of more competent handling of our economic problems. We have not seen that in this budget which has been described as a high risk strategy by one respected firm of brokers in Britain. The term "high risk strategy" was given by that firm specifically to the strategy adopted by the British Prime Minister, and we know the reactions of the British trade unions to that strategy, its effects on wage bargaining in Britain, and the chaos and mayhem which have occurred in British industry. I would not be over-confident that a similar result can be avoided here because of the high risk strategy we have adopted.
With a high rate of inflation and growing unemployment, I see little reason to amend my first reaction to this budget that the rate of inflation will be of the order of 20 per cent. From the point of view of democracy it is good to note that it does not matter what majority the Government have in this House. The real verdict on the effectiveness of the Budget will come from outside this House. The people will form their verdict as the time approaches inevitably when the Government will go before the people once more for approval or otherwise. I speak for a selection of the elected. I represent the city and county of Dublin in the European Parliament and I can say there is widespread disillusionment with the budget.
