I congratulate the Minister for Finance on his appointment and on the introduction of this budget, the third in the short period of eight months. We all know what happened to the budget of 27 January which brought about the downfall of the Coalition Government. Deputy Bruton, the former Minister for Finance, introduced his first budget last July and it had a severe effect on employment and prices. It was highly inflationary and the cost of living soared.
Financial Resolutions, 1982. - Financial Resolution No. 6: 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)
I am having difficulty in hearing Deputy Brady because of the noise in the Chamber.
It is extraordinary that the Coalition Government did not learn any lessons from that budget in that only six months later the Minister introduced a budget for 1982 which was even more inflationary than its July counterpart. The Coalition Government went too far even for some of the Independent Deputies, such as Deputy Jim Kemmy, who had very faithfully and loyally supported them. He could not accept the measures introduced in January. The most appalling aspect of that budget was the introduction of VAT on clothing and footwear. Independent economists conceded that the measures taken in that budget would have caused an increase of at least 7 to 8 per cent in the cost of living, not 5¼ per cent as envisaged by Deputy Bruton when he introduced it.
We must remember that those measures were brought in by a Government who came into office with a basket full of promises which conned many of the people, particularly the housewives. Unfortunately, those promises turned sour and were thrown back in the faces of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties because of the dishonesty of the various undertakings given last June. It is fair to say that, because of the measures introduced in the January budget, the Coalition Government find themselves on the benches on the opposite side of the House.
The budget introduced last Thursday was along the expected lines. It was probably the most accurately anticipated budget we have ever had. The lines it would take were forecast many weeks before it was actually introduced. During the election campaign Fianna Fáil indicated the main measures of the budget and they were discussed throughout the country. The fact that we gained sufficient seats in the election to enable us to come back into Government indicates acceptance of the proposals by the electorate. It indicates that the electorate were in broad agreement with our proposals which have now been implemented in the budget. Those who oppose the major items announced last Thursday are once more opposing the views of the people who had their say a few weeks ago. The measures announced in many respects are very similar to Deputy Bruton's budget, but the direction and the emphasis are very different.
The budget is designed to reduce our borrowing requirements and to reduce the current budget deficit. It is also designed to help the less well-off and not to worsen their plight, as the January budget would have done. Everybody in the House agrees that our economic situation is bad and that it requires very careful attention to bring it back into shape. In January Deputy Bruton went to great pains to emphasise this, and the Minister for Finance is saying much the same, but that is where the similarity ends.
The Coalition Government preached doom not only to the nation but to the world and implied that receivers of the world banks were not only at the door but were in our living room to take away our goods, credit, currency and independence. They lost sight of our real assets, particularly the large number of young people we have. Raising finance became the god of the day, but it did not seem to matter one iota how that finance was raised, its effects on the country, industry and jobs. It did not bother the former Taoiseach, the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Bruton, Deputy John Kelly or the leader of the Labour Party that more people were losing their jobs every day and that nothing whatever was being done to replace those jobs. The Coalition Government, however, decided to raise more taxes from the people who had just lost their jobs. I refer to the proposal to tax short term benefits. Nobody sets out deliberately to lose employment. There are a few people who do this, but it would be grossly unjust of any Government to penalise 99 people out of 100 for the sins of one suspected person who deliberately wishes to lose his or her job.
It is a time of trauma and difficulty for the man or woman who loses a job after 15 or 20 years in employment. That is the time we should give every possible assistance, because that is when it is needed. There are abuses of the social welfare system but we must find another way of tracing the people who fraudulently abuse this system. Every Government should do everything possible to assist people who have lost their jobs to adjust to the new situation in which they find themselves.
The Government accept that our economy is not in good shape, but we are determined to solve our problems constructively over a longer period and in a far less disruptive way than the Coalition Government had planned. Every country in the west has economic problems. That is the price of the worst world recession we have had since the thirties. In this climate we should continue to borrow for capital investment to solve our unemployment problem. The Coalition Government seemed to develop a fierce hang-up about borrowing for capital investment. What did we find in Deputy Bruton's budget in January? He planned to borrow £1,661 million. I am not critical about this. I am merely pointing to the inconsistency of the previous Government in what they preached regarding borrowing and, about which they had such a song and dance. They almost succeeded in scaring the daylights out of our own people and in undermining our credibility abroad with investors and financial institutions. Any person with any experience of business will point to the good sense of borrowing money which becomes available at attractive interest rates, rates which are well below the normal rate of existing inflation. The fact that we in a small country can borrow easily at attractive rates is, I think, a source of jealousy among many other countries. World financial institutions will not lend money unless they have confidence in the ability of the borrowing country to develop a sound financial position and be able to pay back the debt. We are dealing with experts in world financial institutions and it is therefore to our credit that funds are so readily available to us. It is an indication of the goodwill and the reputation we enjoy abroad as a growing economy. However, it is important to ensure that borrowings are used for capital investment, to create jobs, to develop infrastructure, housing, industry, schools and so on. That is the only way forward. This Government will have the courage and the will to reach for these targets.
The Minister in his budget speech indicated that consideration was being given to a plan for the management of the economy over the next four or five years. I am pleased that that plan will give priority to what is vitally important for the development of the economy and particularly the development of an employment programme. I am also particularly pleased that the Minister has given recognition to the need to do something about the serious problems facing the inner city of Dublin. The north inner city area was part of my former Dáil constituency from 1977 to 1981 and at present I represent that area at city council level. Therefore I am completely au fait with the problems there. Most Deputies have to drive through the north inner city from time to time even though they may come from the south side. They can see for themselves the blighted condition of the north inner city. It is like an area that had been blitzed and had been allowed to deteriorate for years past. We have had urban decay of the inner city for several years now on the one hand and on the other we have had rapid growth of suburban areas. This has all taken place at the expense of the inner city. Decay has been rampant in the area which has the highest unemployment in the country. It probably has the worst housing conditions in the country. The many flat complexes in the inner city are totally over populated with resultant vandalism and crime and all the problems that go with such a situation. It is a very sorry picture and one may ask what can be done, seeing the situation has gone so far. The Government's commitment to establish a development authority is a start but if any impression is to be made a major commitment and huge capital will be needed over a long period.
In 1979 the Fianna Fáil Government issued a programme for the development of the inner city and since then a special committee consisting of public representatives for the area, officials of Dublin Corporation, the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the IDA, AnCO, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the National Manpower Service, the Confederation of Irish Industry and a representative from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That committee has been examining various proposals to develop light industry in the city area. Unfortunately, despite many meetings and many hours of discussion little or nothing has materialised from that committee. One is prompted to question the real commitment to doing something for the inner city over the past few years.
The development authority now proposed have a very tough job ahead because of so many different intertwined problems and the number of aspects that need to be tackled at the same time. To bring about a solution or near solution of many of those problems will require a lot of capital, effort, patience and time. The proposal to introduce the special tax on derelict sites is very welcome because this is one of the big problems of the inner city: there are too many derelict sites. The city is blighted on all sides but particularly the inner city where old houses have been allowed to deteriorate or decay. Whole areas have been allowed to run down; they are overgrown; there are vacant sites which are an eyesore for citizens and also for tourists.
Constitutional difficulties, if they exist, must be overcome as regards planning in the city. This is an area that has caused much difficulty and many problems at city council level. Councillors such as Deputy G. Mitchell are fully aware of the many debates and discussions that take place from time to time regarding planning. Most often we run into difficulties in relation to planning laws and legislation. We are dealing in the city centre with many different speculators and the value of various derelict sites increases with inflation from year to year. If the inner city problem is to be tackled this is one of the first aspects that must receive attention and I hope the Minister will give it priority.
The Minister proposes to make £1 million available to install bathroom facilities in a number of houses in the city centre. From my own experience I believe this will be very difficult if not impossible in many areas because of the condition of premises. Some of the complexes would probably be better demolished and replaced by modern housing. We have experience of Summerhill, Gardiner Street and the Sean McDermott Street area where the houses were reconditioned around 1948 and we know what has happened in that area over the years which eventually led to the demolition of those houses which has recently taken place.
The Dublin inner city problem is a very special one, without comparison in any other Irish city. I am therefore more than surprised at the reaction of various groups to the Minister's decision to tackle the problem and make finance available. Such opposition and criticism can only be interpreted as small-minded politics within a very narrow concept. It is particularly appalling that Deputies representing that deprived area in both Fine Gael and Labour have confined themselves to questioning and querying why the Government should make additional finance available to tackle the terrible problems of the Deputies' own constituencies. One would have expected that the former Tánaiste, Deputy O'Leary, and the former Minister for Sport, Deputy Keating, would have welcomed the long-awaited proposals to do something for their own constituents. It is an appalling situation to hear criticism from those Deputies who should be doing their utmost for their constituents in the neglected part of the city rather than coming here querying what we are doing.
I suggest that they go back to their constituents over the weekend to get their reaction to these proposals. I can assure those Deputies they will get a hostile reception for their approach to these proposals. I have heard it said that the former Tánaiste is reluctant to visit parts of his constituency. That speaks for itself.
Some time ago the National Economic and Social Council published a report "Urbanisation Problems of Growth and Decay in Dublin, 1981". That report dealt in depth with the decay in the inner city area and the statistics published were very frightening. In 1926 the population in the inner city area, within the canal range and incorporating four wards, was 268,851. That figure has fallen. In 1979 it was 132,000, less than half the 1926 figure, and since 1979 the figure has fallen even further because of the exodus of many thousands from the inner city area. Even the 1979 figure indicated a dying city. This cannot be good for the quality of life of those remaining. Employment has moved out of the city, and there are many reasons for that — transport difficulties, the cost of city property and so on. Many city areas which formerly provided employment for the people living there have been taken over by office blocks.
The increased allocation for Dublin Corporation housing to £76 million in 1982 is very welcome and I am sure will be appreciated by Deputy G. Mitchell who unsuccessfully endeavoured to obtain similar funds from the former Government. The further allocation for additional works will be very good for the city and will enable the corporation to proceed with their programmes as originally planned. There is also a further £750,000 for housing maintenance which has been badly needed for some time because maintenance of corporation houses and flats has been falling drastically through a lack of finance.
We can now increase the work force from 150 to 500 under the environmental improvements scheme. That means an additional 350 jobs, apart from the benefits the environment will receive from this financial injection. The additional funds are fully justified. The population in Dublin is almost one million people and most of them work within a few miles of the city. This in turn puts greater pressure on the resources of Dublin Corporation to provide necessary and essential services. Our capital should be a city to be proud of. It belongs not only to Dubliners but to the nation. Its appearance unfortunately has been allowed to run down over the years. Successive Governments can be faulted for the failure to provide the necessary finance to keep our capital city attractive. Tourists normally visit a capital city but what they see here is nothing to be proud of.
The increased allocation for housing in Dublin is very welcome. Public representatives in the Dublin area know only too well that the position is extremely bad. The application list for Dublin Corporation housing continues to grow. At present there are in excess of 6,500 applicants on the new list; there are over 6,000 on the corporation transfer list and there are many thousands of unfit dwellings. Too many people are looking for corporation houses. That is understandable when one considers the high price of houses in the Dublin area. Something will have to be done about this. The authorities must look at the possibility of providing low cost houses. They could help the people to buy these houses by providing a scheme which would ensure that the average worker could meet the repayments. This, in turn, would mean these people would take additional pride in the quality and appearance of their houses. We all know that if somebody owns something he will do everything in his power to look after it. That would be a very good thing for Dublin city.
Fianna Fáil have always been committed to better housing. What we are doing in this budget needs to be done urgently. It is not being done because of any special deal, as has been implied by Opposition speakers, and in these circumstances one can justifiably ask what all the fuss is about.
In any budget, and this budget is no exception, taxation, both direct and indirect, plays a major part. It is only fair that this should be so but we must ensure that a fair share of taxation is spread across the board. One of the greatest present day scandals is the massive evasion of tax. I would like to refer specifically to value-added tax. Recently a newspaper article detailed huge amounts of money lost to the Exchequer because of the evasion of VAT, and I have reason to believe that the position outlined in that article was understated. Millions of pounds are lost to the Exchequer year after year because there are so many who are evading not only their share of income tax but also their share of VAT.
It has been estimated that the realistic loss to the Revenue Commissioners in terms of VAT is in the region of £100 million to £150 million. This is a huge loss for any Minister for Finance but apart from that, there is the question of so much injustice to those taxpayers who are paying their share under both PAYE and VAT. It is extraordinary that there is practically no liaison whatever between the customs at import level and the Collector-General. One would have thought that in this modern age of computerisation, not only would there be liaison but that there would be practical working co-operation between the customs and the Collector-General's office in so far as the importation and subsequent sale of imported goods are concerned. Any importer having a VAT registration number is in a position to import goods to any value without having to pay tax at import source. What is happening is that many companies and individuals importing goods operate under a number of separate subsidiary companies. Some of these companies stay in business for a short while and then disappear overnight. Many of them disappear into oblivion without having paid any form of taxation. Recently a couple of cases were discovered which were an eye opener. In one case the company had been carrying on business since 1973 without making any return whatever to the VAT office. Other companies have been operating for two or three years without making any such returns. These are companies which on the surface appear to be very satisfactory and profitable business organisations. If one is to judge from the value of the imports into those companies, either the goods are being sold or, which is most unlikely, are being buried somewhere, but no returns in respect of them are being made to the VAT office. This is a disgraceful situation. One cannot understand why something has not been done in the past few years to tackle such blatant abuse.
From time to time questions are raised here about abuses of the social welfare system or about the evasion of tax but what we talk about in those terms is mere chickenfeed compared with what has been happening in terms of the large scale abuse of the VAT system. I understand that some time ago a measure to counteract this abuse was proposed to the office of the Collector-General and that the recommendation was that accountability at import level would be obtained on a bond basis, not seeking payment at the point of import but accountability which would be extended only on the basis of a bond. This would be very similar to the inward processing arrangement and would not have involved any payment whatever in the payment structure of VAT at that point. However, those recommendations were not accepted. In the meantime millions of pounds are going into the pockets of unscrupulous business people many of whom are not Irish.
The proposed change by the Minister to charge tax at the point of entry will catch most evaders. For that reason the move is very welcome. Unfortunately, though, the change will cause difficulties for many legitimate traders. They will suffer in a major financial way as a result of the change. According to the Minister the earlier payment of VAT will amount to £140 million. Might it not have been more feasible in present circumstances merely to make a greater effort to catch the evader? In this way we would not have been creating any great financial disturbances for the existing legitimate importer who has been paying his way honestly down through the years. The proposed change will involve many thousands of employers seeking additional finance to pay VAT, to pay for the stocking of goods at importation, for the cost of sale and for the cost of extending credit to their clients. In addition there will be for them the element of bad debt risk. The genuine importer is worthy of sympathy in this context. However, I hope this will be a once-off situation in that the Minister will endeavour to devise some method of dealing with the whole question of tax evasion and that at the same time bring about a more even distribution of taxes for everyone.
In recent years in particular there have been many references to the question of a campaign to bring the tax evader to heel but it would appear that the major culprit, the big evader, has been much more slick and cute than the Revenue Commissioners. Our laws are not stringent enough in this respect. There are too many loopholes. I have heard on good authority that this country is considered a haven for tax evaders. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why in recent years so many special sales days and fairs have been taking place. These traders slip in and out. They issue caretakers' addresses for tax registration purposes. Over a number of years we have seen many so-called cut price traders going to the wall after a few years' trading and owing up to £1 million to the Revenue Commissioners and other creditors.
As legislators we have a moral obligation to the legitimate traders who give good employment and contribute to the Exchequer to safeguard them from loss of business and bad debts, apart from tax liability, against the too many unscrupulous traders who are filling our cities and towns. Goods are brought in here called "direct from factory to you" or "slightly soiled stocks to clear" or "flood damaged stocks". They are brought in by the methods I have described. The Minister must give priority to this problem even if it means employing additional tax officers. It must be done, because it will bring positive results and it will be extremely rewarding and satisfying to everyone.
In recent years as a nation we seem to have taken on the mantle of being dodgers and evaders of tax or any money owing to authority. For example, this morning we read a report about TV licence evaders. This is appalling. According to the report, 160,000 people are not paying their TV licence this year. That is costing the Exchequer £8 million. According to the report, over the past ten years it cost the Exchequer £30 million. I do not have to go into the nitty-gritty of what we could have done with that type of money. We do not need to have a vivid imagination to realise that. It drives home to us more and more that methods of collection must be changed, and stronger measures must be taken. The present system is totally ineffective for collecting TV licences. Some change must take place because the honest citizen is paying for the dishonesty of his brothers and sisters. This is totally unsatisfactory and it cries out for urgent remedies.
Unemployment is probably one of our major problems. It is heartbreaking for parents and soul-destroying for young people who cannot obtain employment. This year we will have in the region of 40,000 young people leaving school. The Minister will be announcing specific measures, but we all know they will not solve our unemployment problem overnight. Some years ago it was much easier for youngsters to get work in areas such as the civil service, the banks, the insurance companies, the teaching profession, and so on. In all of those areas good employment was provided for young people leaving school.
I am not opposed to married women staying at work, but at present some consideration should be given to our young people who are seeking employment for the first time by other citizens who perhaps do not have to have two wage earners in the family. There are quite a number of reasons why it is a good thing for a wife to work outside the home, apart from financial reasons. We are living in exceptional circumstances. We are all aware that there are many families where the husband and wife are both at work. They have two cars. They are buying big homes. They take holidays abroad every year. They have all the luxuries one could wish for. Between them they are earning between £20,000 and £30,000 a year. We have to ask ourselves is that just when so many young people are unemployed, and seeking employment for the first time and seeking a start in life.
I should like to extend a welcome to the social welfare benefits provided by the Minister in his budget. I welcome in particular the availability of medical cards for all old age pensioners. I hope it will be possible to raise the means limit for other social welfare beneficiaries. Today medical costs are extremely high. Medical attention, medicines and drugs are very expensive. I accept that a refund of a specific figure on a monthly basis is made by the various health boards, but in the meantime finance and cash are needed by the persons concerned to enable them to pay their doctors and to purchase their medicines, or whatever, from the local chemist. Many people on social welfare are slightly above the limit for receiving a medical card. They find it not only difficult but impossible to meet that type of situation. I hope the Minister will try to see what can be done to help them.
I should like to refer for a moment to the money being made available for the provision of additional gardaí and for prison services as specified by the Minister in his budget speech. We all accept that we have a serious problem in Dublin with regard to the breakdown of law and order. Over the past few years the increase in the Garda strength has been welcomed very much by citizens. It has been very obvious on the beat. During the past six months — perhaps it was just coincidental that we had a Coalition Government — the strength and the presence of the Garda in Dublin diminished. There are a number of reasons for this. Many gardaí have either retired or resigned from the force, or have been transferred to other areas or other duties such as desk work or attendance at the courts. All this reduces the presence and strength of the Garda on our streets.
At one time it was unknown for a person to be robbed in broad daylight in a centre city street. Today, unfortunately, that is a very common occurrence. Only last week a friend of mine was walking in O'Connell Street at 10.15 a.m. She was thrown from behind by a youth of approximately 13 years of age, her handbag snatched, the usual procedure. On reporting the incident to Store Street Garda Station she was informed that that was the seventh incident that had taken place in that area that morning. That is an appalling situation. Citizens seem to be reaching a stage at which they are inclined to accept this as the norm. Every safeguard measure is being taken such as avoiding certain streets, not carrying a handbag openly and so on which is a breach of the freedom of the citizen in our city. Far from the situation having improved in any way for some time past it has been worsening and at present is at one of its most critical stages.
We are all entitled to ask what plans do the Department or Garda have to deal with this problem which has been escalating? On the other hand, the Garda have their version as to the limitations on their powers. We seem to have reached a situation in which there are different urgent requirements in tackling the problem, in dealing with culprits once they have been caught. The ordinary citizen can see nothing being done in this respect by way of improving the situation. Fianna Fáil's commitment to increasing the Garda force by a further 2,000 over a period is welcome and constitutes a practical step in the right direction. At the same time it must be said that the solution will not be brought about merely by increased Garda presence. While certainly that will help, much more is required. One must question the courts legislation in so far as many of these cases are concerned because the same people are being brought into Garda stations day after day and week after week. Yet the same people are to be found on our streets day after day and week after week. Therefore one must question how this can be. How can such culprits continue to get away with larceny, other crimes and with instilling fear into our citizens? It is vital that this matter be tackled urgently because, if not, our city streets will very quickly become no-go areas.
Certainly I would welcome any additional finance provided to improve Garda presence and the prison services, in respect of which much more needs to be done. That takes me back to the question about which I spoke earlier regarding the problems of the inner city. There are there difficulties in regard to housing, unemployment and so on, all of which help in no small way to create further vandalism and a breakdown in law and order.
I should like to say a word regarding the increased PRSI contributions announced by the Minister. All of us in business are concerned in so far as healthy business creates jobs and employment but there are today extremely high costs incurred by the average employer. For instance under this budget corporation profits tax is being brought forward three months, the first instalment thereof now being due some seven months after completion of the company's accounts. The PRSI contributions of both employer and employee have been increased substantially. It must be said that the high cost of employing people nowadays is acting as a discouragement to employers and creating a situation in which more and more of them are employing people on an unofficial basis which, in turn, encourages evasion of taxes, PAYE, PRSI and so on. Where people are employed unofficially it must be said that in that capacity many are also in receipt of unemployment assistance, leading to a doubling-up situation which is also bad from the point of view of the Exchequer. In so far as employers are concerned today the high costs of maintaining business and employment are becoming more and more discouraging. Some incentives should be made available to them in respect of continuous employment of additional workers. For that reason I hope we are now in a ceiling situation in so far as PRSI contributions are concerned. The cost of wages today is extremely high. The average employer is paying now, on top of an employee's wages, something in the region of 11½ to 12 per cent by way of PRSI contributions. This places severe strain on the capital of many employers and companies.
I compliment the Minister on what I consider to be a balanced and fair budget and wish him every success in his office over the next four or five years.
I join with the Deputy who has just spoken in wishing the Minister well in his new office. He has a difficult task ahead of him. We shall all endeavour to offer him constructive advice, support and criticism where necessary.
The reasons for the budget of January last, which caused the last general election and which in turn caused this budget to be framed in the more general and real way it has been framed compared with other Fianna Fáil budgets in the recent past, was the state of our economy and the borrowing requirement situation in which the Government found themselves. I should like to place on the record of the House that in January 1977 the national debt stood at £3,600 million and, per head of working population, that amounted to £3,324. In January 1981 the national debt was £7,900 million, or £6,840 per head of working population. In June 1981, immediately prior to the supplementary budget, the national debt had reached £8,843 million, or £7,690 per head of working population. By the end of the year the national debt figure had reached £10,000 million, an alarming figure. That is where we pick up the mess which has become the Irish economy of recent years. At that time the interest being paid, per head of population, was £920. Probably it is now somewhere in the region of £1,100 per head of working population annually. When one knocks on constituents doors during an election campaign, or at any other time, and talks to ones constituents, particularly the older members, they will tell one that they always pay their way, they never borrow. Such people do not realise that for every man and woman working in this country it is estimated that the Government are paying £1,100 or thereabouts in interest. Therefore approximately 80 per cent of all moneys collected by way of income tax is paid out of the country by way of interest to foreign bankers, sitting back enjoying themselves in Geneva or other European capitals, and very little of which is enjoyed in our capital city.
I should like to deal with a number of points raised by Deputy Vincent Brady in the course of his contribution. He told the House that funds were readily available to the Government, an indication that we have a sound economy. He implied that we are such a great country that people want to throw money into it. It is like the widow on the low fixed income being asked by a HP salesman to sign on the dotted line and then finding she cannot meet the repayments, leading her into grave difficulty. Our economy has reached that stage. There are many foreign moneylenders prepared to make funds available to us, but they have the power to pull the rug and call the tune. Constantly there is an erosion of parliamentary democracy as we know it. Decisions are being taken not just outside this Chamber but outside the country by people who do not have any responsibility to the electorate. That is frightening and something that must be rectified. An effort was being made to rectify it for the first time in a planned way by the last Government. That Government brought home to us the reality of having to put that situation right. If it is not rectified now our enormous youth population, the fastest growing youth population in Western Europe, will not have employment in the future. If we do not take those corrective measures now we will find ourselves in a very difficult situation later. The last Government, in the best interests of everybody, made us face up to that reality.
I should like to compliment Deputy Vincent Brady on his partial accuracy in the reference he made to the north inner city and short term social welfare benefits. The north inner city will certainly benefit greatly by the deal negotiated between Deputy Gregory and the Taoiseach. In all honesty I cannot criticise Deputy Gregory too much. All Members are concerned about their own constituencies, but one must ask: is finance to be allocated on a regional basis and, if so, is it done on an economic basis? In Dublin an allocation has not been made to the south Dublin inner city which is equally as deprived. That area suffers enormous unemployment, has very bad housing, ugly sites and many other disadvantages. I have represented the area for the last seven months, but those issues were raised by many of my predecessors and they did not meet with any great success. Suddenly huge sums of money are made available for the north inner city. In my view that form of financial discrimination is questionable and I do not feel there is any objectivity in those proposals contained in a signed and witnessed document.
With regard to short term social welfare benefits, I am sure all Members are aware that some people are better off if they take six weeks holidays each year at the expense of the State because the social welfare income they receive, together with the reduced income they receive from their employer — this is particularly the case of State employment — exceeds what they get while at work. We must also bear in mind that when they return to work they have an accumulation of tax free allowances with the result that they receive a rebate of tax. That is further encouragement to people to take time off at the expense of the State.
I do not think reasonable people would argue that that should be encouraged or that it is fair or right. I had occasion last night to talk to a man who is out of work due to illness and he told me he was in receipt of more money now than he will be when he returns to work. That man agreed that the system was crazy. Members on the Government side who contend that we should not tax short term social welfare benefits are talking nonsense. In making that statement I am conscious of the fact that I represent a constituency that is largely working class. I am bearing in mind also that those people will have to pay for this through their PAYE contributions. If one poses the question to any reasonable person: "Do you think it is reasonable that you should be paid more by the State for being out of work than you are paid while at work?" I am sure the answer would be "No". Our proposals were to tax people in such a way that they would not have more income while out of work than they would receive while at work. There was not any question of taxing any other benefits such as widows pensions or invalidity pensions. We wanted to ensure that people were not encouraged to take a number of weeks off work at the expense of the State. I do not think anybody could argue against that.
Deputy Vincent Brady also referred on a number of occasions to the fact that I am a member of Dublin Corporation. I have been chairman of the finance committee of that body for three years. In that capacity I should like to express my regret at the announcement, by way of circular letter, by the Minister for the Environment that Dublin Corporation will be required to introduce local taxation to raise £2.6 million this year. That is a considerable amount of money which will have to be raised from a population of about 500,000 — I do not know the number of taxpayers who live in that area. In my view this decision amounts to the thin end of the wedge as far as the reintroduction of domestic rates is concerned. That money is to be raised mainly on planning applications. Annually about 3,000 such applications are made to Dublin Corporation and that figure includes applications for extensions and improvements to domestic dwellings. If the corporation are to charge £100 per application only £300,000 will be raised. Therefore, presumably the Minister has in mind that they should charge considerably more for those applications. This introduction of local taxes for the first time is a move we will oppose when the Minister introduces the necessary legislation. The announcement has gone unpublicised and many local authorities have not read those letters because estimates meetings have not been held. But local taxation by local authorities is now a fact. The Minister wants Dublin Corporation to raise £2.6 million this year and he has not told us how we should do that. Certainly, it will have to be done by way of raising the fee for planning applications and by charging more for water use and the waste disposal service. We will have a lot to say later about that proposal and the manner in which it was introduced.
Before I conclude on the comments of Deputy Vincent Brady I should like to deal with his reference to the purchasers of medicines and drugs in excess of £12 per month. Particularly in cases of ongoing illness requiring regular monthly purchases of drugs, there is room for innovation. The dreadful situation exists in my own area at present where the Eastern Health Board will take into consideration, not just the purchases made in a month, but some person sitting in some office decides, if a person bought £20 worth of drugs in the third week in January, since only a week's supply of those drugs has been used in January, the remainder can be used in the following month. Accordingly, the remainder is apportioned to the following month, reducing the repayment to the applicant. This is not a satisfactory situation.
The Minister for Health should make arrangements with the Pharmaceutical Society for its members to carry the burden of waiting for the refund from the Eastern Health Board, as many do now on a voluntary basis, the person who purchases regularly from the chemist drugs for his own use for a specified illness paying the chemist the maximum of £12 a month, the chemist awaiting the refund. He can best afford to do so, having credit from the suppliers for 30 or 90 days, as the case may be. Many chemists are already operating this scheme on a voluntary basis. The Minister should take up this matter with the Pharmaceutical Society with a view to formalising such a scheme.
Deputy Brady asks that something be done about the numbers on local authority housing lists. Something has been done. The Coalition Government around Christmas introduced the Housing Finance Agency which was opposed by Fianna Fáil.
That was not so.
This agency was opposed, tooth and nail, paragraph by paragraph.
The speaker should clarify. It was not opposed.
Fianna Fáil were afraid to oppose it.
This Housing Finance Agency, which was introduced by the Coalition Government, had as its aim the object of raising funds during the month of April and having funds available for applicants towards the end of May. Application forms had been already issued before the last Government left office. I implore the Minister to ensure that this agency gets the £50 million which we promised and perhaps a little more, because of the clear interest shown by a huge number of people. I can speak only for the Dublin region where particular interest was taken in this very imaginative proposal by the Coalition Government in their short time in office.
Deputy Brady spoke at great length on the subject of tax evasion, and I agree with him. As an accountant I am only too well aware of the opportunities for tax evasion. More will have to be done to tighten up in this area, although a lot has been done. In many cases there is a very thin line between evasion and avoidance. Avoidance is the nice man's legal way of avoiding tax, sometimes very questionably legal. The Fianna Fáil attitude in keeping the discretionary trust provisions which the Coalition Government had proposed to abolish is an encouragement to evasion by another name, nothing more. It is to pay off the Fianna Fáil supporters for their party loyalty, the type of loyalty which has this country in its present mess.
With regard to Deputy Brady's reference to vandalism, there is absolutely no provision in this budget — not one penny — for additional gardaí, Garda overtime, extra facilities or equipment. Why are Fianna Fáil talking about the problem of vandalism? Perhaps the largest single problem facing this city is vandalism, probably as a result of bad housing, unemployment and other related matters. I attended immediately prior to the election a meeting on the subject in my own constituency in Rialto, at which 500 people were present. A tannoy system was used as people were queuing to get in because of the lawlessness which had crept into that community. We approached that problem with certain proposals, not making it a party political issue. However, prior to the election it was made an enormous issue. We will be pursuing this matter to ensure that the money is provided, unlike last year when the Minister promised an additional 2,000 gardaí and did not provide for as much as one extra salary in the budgetary proposals.
Deputy Brady is quite right in referring to citizens being robbed in broad daylight. Some of the budgetary provisions certainly fall into that category. I have already dealt with the Housing Finance Agency. We also introduced the Youth Employment Agency — two very real, specific organisations, in an attempt to come to terms with a growing problem of unemployment which has been facing this city for some considerable time.
As I said in my contribution to the budget debate last September, to take a constructive view of why we find ourselves in the position of needing such harsh measures at this time, golden economic opportunities which presented themselves to the Fianna Fáil administration were absolutely thrown away by the shortsightedness of politicians greedy for power, who did not take into consideration the real needs of our people. Those opportunities were wasted because of reckless and totally unnecessary promises. I am speaking about the promises made prior to the 1977 General Election. The National Coalition Government, led by Mr. Liam Cosgrave, brought us through the first real economic recession of recent times. There had not been many people who could remember that type of recession. That was the most talented Government in my memory, although I cannot go back too far. It brought us through the most severe economic recession in modern times and left the country — Minister Power looks amused — at the time of the dissolution of Parliament in 1977——
Hans Christian Andersen will never be dead.
——with unemployment at 106,000, an inflation rate of 6¼ per cent, and a current budget deficit of £201 million. I refer the Minister to the Economic Review and Outlook for 1978, published, not by Hans Christian Andersen but by the Central Bank.
The outrageous promises made by Fianna Fáil to win power resulted in the complete reversal of our steady economic climb and produced a situation where the figures for late December 1981 equivalent to those I have just quoted were: unemployment 124,700, despite the fact that in the region of 25,000 jobs were created in the public service where no jobs existed. It was a question of luxury unemployment benefit, which continues to have to be paid to this day — the real figure would probably be more in the region 150,000. Unemployment rose at that time by 40 per cent during the term as Taoiseach of Deputy Charles J. Haughey. It is against this background that we must look at the present budget. Whereas inflation was reduced by the Coalition Government to 6¼ per cent, it was 21 per cent in the summer of 1981, the current deficit of £210 million had gone up to £945 million in the summer of 1981 and would have been £1,200 million by the end of this year if the July budget had not been introduced by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Burton. We must be very clear as to why we are in the present mess. Certainly there are major international economic factors to blame also, it is not all the fault of Fianna Fáil but my valid, objective point is that the Fianna Fáil administration recklessly threw away economic opportunities, misgoverned the country in economic terms and did not follow the good example of the economic performance of the Coalition Government who were in office from 1973 to 1977. Instead, Fianna Fáil brought upon us many of the difficulties which we are now experiencing and which could have been solved. When they left office, the national debt had crept from £5,000 million to £10,000 million. We had not borrowed as much in the previous 25 years as we borrowed during the four years of the Fianna Fáil Government from 1977 to 1981. That fact cannot be disputed.
The present Fianna Fáil Government approach is, again, a reversal of the honest openness of the previous administration. They are again showing signs of recklessness and are failing to take advantage of opportunities which were presented to them by the outgoing Government. The public know we are in a mess. There is no point in talking about bloom and boom. People need a Government which will give real leadership. That cannot be done by mirrors, public relations, smiling at the press or at Mrs. Thatcher. It is not a question of finding out where the crowd are going and getting ahead of them, it is about leading people where you want them to go because it is in their interest. In fairness, one must say during the recent election people were very receptive to the harsh measures which were introduced because they felt they were necessary and the outcome of the election clearly shows that they were prepared to accept that severe measures had to be taken. There would not have been a change in Government except for a swing in one or two constituencies.
There is a total lack of honesty in the Fianna Fáil administration. Some people regard this as smart and slick and showing great political acumen. Unfortunately the press do not help either in this regard because their objectivity in these matters is increasingly coming into question. The overriding factor is one of profitability for their employers rather than objectivity for their readers, but that is a question for another debate. Pope John Paul delivered a sermon recently in which he referred to honesty and the way language is abused and used in such a way that the mass of people no longer know the value of what a politician or a public figure says or, indeed what non-political public figures say. He said the whole question of honesty was being undermined and that this was having an enormous effect on the community. Nobody knew what was meant by any specific statement. This is one of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I feel that the public do not accept what our political leaders are saying, the business world does not accept it and other political leaders do not accept it either. This is a small island without the complications of a large economy and we should be able to straighten ourselves out. If we have an honest, truthful Government, as was provided by the Coalition, the economy will soon be back to normal. There will be time to do this as there is no election imminent after yesterday's manoeuvring so we can ask the Government to take on this task and tell people what the situation is. They are wiser about the situation than politicians give them credit for and they are only waiting for good leadership.
On the information given in this budget, I cannot say if we have been told the truth. I mentioned the sermon given by Pope John Paul because it stuck in my mind. I cannot honestly say that the estimated current budget deficit at the end of the year will be under £700 million as the Minister said. That is why I brought up the question of honesty because the books were cooked last January and accurate information was not given to the House.
The undisputed facts can be found in the Official Report in a series of questions which I asked the Minister for Finance and which were answered by written reply on the day the Dáil rose for the Christmas recess, when all outstanding questions were dealt with and an enormous number of questions answered. It was probably for that reason that the written replies given to the questions I asked lost their significance and were not picked up by the press. I asked if the Minister would state in respect of his Department the amount by which the January 1981 Estimates under-provided for charges known to have existed at the time of the approval of the Estimates by the then Government and, in the case of the shortfall in provisions in relation to basic pay if he will state the areas in which such shortfalls occurred and the number of weeks basic pay which the shortfall constituted for each such area. The reply was:
Minister for Health (Mrs. E. Desmond): The major financing difficulty which arose in the health sector in 1981 was due to the approving of higher levels of expenditure for the main health agencies than was justified by the provision for Exchequer grant made in the Book of Estimates. On that basis the under-provision by way of grant amounted to £43.8 millions.
The books of the Department of Health were cooked to the extent of £43.8 million for Estimates known to have existed at the time of the calculation of the budget but taken out by sleight of hand. That was made up of £20.8 million in respect of pay and £15 million in respect of non-pay elements.
The then Minister for the Environment Deputy Barry, replied:
The Estimates for my Department, as approved in early 1981 by the then Government, under-provided to the extent of some £23 million for commitments then known to be arising during the year. There was no shortfall in provisions in relation to basic pay for my Department.
Now we come to the other Departments:
Minister for Defence (Mr. Tully): The provision made in the original Estimate for the pay of the Permanent Defence Forces was inadequate to the tune of £10 million. This represented the equivalent of seven weeks' pay for NCOs and privates.
Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Kavanagh): In respect of the Department of the Public Service, the under-provision in the 1981 Estimates amounted to £190,000. This arose entirely on the pay subhead and most of the posts concerned were in the Central Data Processing Services of my Department. The amount of £190,000 represents 2.6 weeks shortfall in salary costs for the Department as a whole.
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Professor Dooge): I would refer the Deputy to columns 1068-1078 of the Official Report of 3 December 1981 in which I detailed the amount of under-estimation in the 1981 Estimates for my Department. With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question the under-estimation in relation to pay represented 4.4 per cent of the total required for the year.
They are figures that cannot be disputed. They are on the record of the House. They are in reply to questions which I put down to the Minister for Finance, given in written replies. They clearly and indisputably indicate that the books were cooked last January, and I am asking if they are being cooked again. We have no means of knowing — there is no facility available to me as a Deputy to enable me to find out on behalf of the people who sent me here if the figures are accurate at all. Has the accountant got his hands on the books again? Has he done a few little tricks of sleight? We do not know.
Since the facilities are not yet available for Deputies, there is a job there for some investigative journalist who has the interests of the community at heart. It is a significant point which should be pursued.
In case people get the idea that cooking the books does not occur, I would point out that in the commercial world it is a regular occurrence, so much so that last year the Investors' Chronicle published a guide on how to camouflage company accounts. Indeed the Consultative Committee on Accountancy Practice regularly issue standard statements on accountancy practice for accountants to follow so that they will not easily fall into accounts window dressing. I could count umpteen examples of how to camouflage a set of accounts. If an accountant gives me a set of accounts I can present them in a number of different way so that they can be read by different people to mean different things. It depends on how you treat certain items in the balance sheet, and it can be made to appear as if the company is solvent or insolvent.
It is for this reason that regular standard accountancy practice statement are issued. This kind of thing has occurred so much in the past that accountancy bodies regularly review the situation. One company improved their liquidity by £37.6 million in a very famous case simply by making an adjustment in the balance sheet. Therefore, it can be seen that an experienced accountant who has the knowledge can very easily cook books and business can be shown to exist which does not actually exist. Somebody could take a meaning from figures which they do not mean. Experienced accountants would know how to arrange that.
So there is need for us Members of the House to have available the facility to examine and investigate these matters. Members have been putting up with the nonsense for years. There should be a real attempt to ensure that the Members of the House will assert their authority in regard to public finances. There is simmering anger on the backbenches of all parties about the total lack of input by Members, many of whom have fewer facilities than the most junior civil servant, in regard to involvement in public finances. In fairness I must say that the present Taoiseach, now and when the was Leader of the Opposition, as well as Deputy FitzGerald, have shown a keen interest in making reforms in this area. I hope it will be pursued because many changes are necessary.
I will now deal with specific budget proposals which I consider to be worthy of critical examination. I refer to solvency and the camouflaging of accounts. I suggest that in particular we should examine critically the bringing forward of revenue from next year to the present financial year. It is another form of borrowing. We are borrowing from next year's finances. Indeed we are borrowing from hard-pressed industry because we are saying to industrialists: "Instead of paying your taxes when they fall due next year you will have to pay this year, and we are going to force you in turn to borrow from the banks and they, in turn, will have to borrow from international institutions." Overall this will not improve the position of the State one iota. This form of gimmickry is not in anyone's interest. It is not productive and the sooner we stop messing with figures in this way the better.
I regret that the Minister did not see fit to proceed with the tax credit system. If a taxpayer has a mortgage and happens to be paying interest of £2,000 a year, if his tax rate is 25 per cent or 35 per cent, he would get 25 per cent or 35 per cent of the £2,000 in tax saving. If his tax rate happens to be 60 per cent he would get 60 per cent of that as a tax saving. Therefore, the better off the taxpayer is, the higher income he has, the more supplement he will get from the State. It is a crazy situation which has existed for a long time.
In the previous budget we took steps to introduce a credit system which would mean that £1,000 tax credit would be equal in the hands of a taxpayer who pays 25 per cent and in the hands of a taxpayer who pays 60 per cent. Indeed if I had my way it would be biased the other way, that a man paying the 25 per cent tax rate would get a higher supplement. We aimed at equality, but the Government now have decided that they want to continue the old system, the discrimination against the lower paid taxpayers. They were the taxpayers who marched through the city seeking reforms. This is not just and it is one of the things the Government will regret when the marches begin again because they have not seen Fianna Fáil doing anything about tax reform. Indeed they saw them nipping in the bud the Coalition's commencement of tax reform. It is one of the most regrettable parts of this budget.
I want to draw attention to the low increases for the exempt categories, mainly elderly people and those on low incomes. The increase is hardly over 10 per cent, whereas social welfare increases are in excess of 25 per cent. Here we have people on very low incomes, £4,000 for a married couple, and all they are getting is slightly over 10 per cent. This means that old age pensioners paying tax on a pension — and most old age pensioners pay tax now because their social welfare pensioners and any retirement pension they might have are added together to form their taxable income — gets an increase of about 13p a week. It is an insult to put this proposal before the House. These are people who have paid taxes all their lives and when they should be having some sort of relaxation and some enjoyment from life they are offered an increase of 13p a week. The least we could have done was increase the allowance by the inflation rate and increase the exemption limits. If we had introduced the tax credit system that would have been better again. But to offer an increase of 13p a week is the greatest insult of all time.
Earlier I mentioned the problem of decisions being taken outside this House and the problem of international bankers becoming more and more the people who call the tune. I regret that we, as Members of this House, have permitted this to happen and have permitted steps to be taken whereby Ministers can announce things outside this House which should be raised here and questioned. I refer particularly to the unprecedented announcement some weeks before the budget of increases in the prices of beer, cigarettes and so on. It gave the budget the appearance of something soft. We should have been told the truth and that we must all manage our financial affairs better. This is an appalling situation and if I was occupying that Chair as Ceann Comhairle I would call the relevant Minister before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for abusing the privileges of this House in selecting what would or would not come before this House. I am appalled and I hope that precedent will never be followed in future.
When one sees people in the 60 per cent tax bracket who have plenty of money in their back pockets getting added encouragement from Fianna Fáil, it is not surprising to see that people in the capital gains tax bracket are also getting a few bob from Fianna Fáil. We proposed to introduce capital taxes which would have increased income by £6.5 million. We are the people who introduced a capital gains tax in the first instance to tax gains which up to that time had been totally exempt from tax. When Fianna Fáil came into Government they almost abolished these by the introduction of the time reduction qualification and the multiplier, giving back to these people who were making enormous windfall profits on all sorts of capital deals money which they should have been paying in tax saying, "Take it back, thank you very much for your support. Continue to support us and we will continue to look after you." When we came into Government we said that these people would have to pay their fair share and we increased capital gains tax which would have raised £6.5 million. But Fianna Fáil came back and, with the support of some of our socialist allies, reduced to £2.7 million the £6.5 million that we were going to take from the capital gains tax class. They have given £4 million to their capital gains tax class supporters just as they have given back money to the 60 per cent tax bracket supporters.
This is totally retrograde step which, when one takes into consideration the additional reversal of our proposal in regard to discretionary trust which is really a vehicle for tax avoidance, makes one wonder if Fianna Fáil are serving the whole community or only the very well off members of the community. It seems that that is the case. These are the people who line the coffers at election time. The sooner we get around to providing funds in the annual budget for political parties to fund their election campaigns so that they will not have to depend on these people the better it will be for the country. It might mean introducing a supplementary budget. However, I would ask the Minister to consider introducing into the annual budget of this House a provision to fund the political parties so that they will not have to depend on these characters and therefore will not have to reward them, in this case to the tune of £4 million. This is a priority and the sooner it is given serious consideration and brought before this House the better.
Much has been said about how great are Fianna Fáil's proposals to keep down the consumer price index. The consumer price index needs to be kept down particularly for the poorer classes since the Government have increased the direct tax burden on them. The import VAT imposition will mean that there will be a great deal of registration and a great deal of income, but many businesses, particularly the freight sector, will be brought to a halt and that will encourage unemployment. I do not oppose import VAT in principle, but now is not the time to impose it. We should be taking every possible step to see that unemployment is decreased, but these provisions could have a serious effect on employment. Again this is just a book exercise, something that the Minister for Education, the then Deputy Martin O'Donoghue, came up with during the general election when faced with the problem of where Fianna Fáil were going to get the money to implement their proposals.
I wish to draw attention to the provision of the £5 million for the National Enterprise Agency. This follows on the Government's decision not to proceed with the National Development Corporation. The National Development Corporation as we planned it has had its role reduced. We proposed to provide it with £20 million and we provided for that in the budget. Fianna Fáil are calling it the National Enterprise Agency and are giving it £5 million. In these times with such high unemployment, why can we not invest in encouraging industry and other enterprises to create employment? I cannot understand why on any objective basis the money was reduced. It was in part a contribution for the extra votes which were bought for the election of the Taoiseach. I cannot understand why the provision for the National Development Corporation was reduced to £5 million. The Government have further reduced the tax-free allowance for children. We reduced it last year. I suppose in time it will be abolished altogether however, the £500 allowance given for incapacitated children has not been increased. It was one of the few allowances which were not increased. An incapacitated child does not cost a lot of money to look after. We have just left the year of the disabled behind us and yet the Minister did not increase the incapacitated child allowance. It could have been increased without costing the Exchequer too much. I ask the Minister to consider increasing it by 20 per cent at least.
There are many people in receipt of social welfare child benefits who should not be in receipt of them. There is no reason why the State should pay allowances on a monthly basis to people with a sizeable income, for example, a Government Minister. Yet the State, year after year, continues to provide it. If we reduce child tax-free allowances because the child social welfare benefit is being increased, that is fair enough, but we should not pay out State funds to millionaire classes who do not need them. I have an interest in this since my wife gave birth to our first child this week. These provisions should be made available to those who need them.
The Deputy is not a millionaire, is he?
That is correct.
While I bring the best wishes of the House to your good wife, I must remind the Deputy that he has three minutes left.
Thank you very much. The statement the Minister made that there would be no change in the income tax relief provisions in respect of existing mortgage holders requires detailed explanation. What is happening is that the Government are saying we need to make certain changes in the mortgage interest provisions but we dare not do so to our supporters or to the people we are depending on. There is no question of whether it is right or wrong but only whether they will lose support. The Minister should explain this provision. Does it mean that a person with an existing mortgage will continue to enjoy the mortgage interest relief position as it applied prior to the introduction of the budget? In other words my rate of interest can be relieved at up to 60 per cent, whereas a person who takes out a mortgage now and may be hard pressed to meet repayments will be restricted to the standard rate of tax. Is this what it means? If it is, it is discriminatory and does not have a hope in hell of succeeding in the first challenge that is made against it in the courts. There is no doubt but that it is unconstitutional. One cannot make a provision for some people and leave others out. The Minister for Finance is not here but I should like to have this information and ask him to arrange for it to be sent to me. How will this provision function? I should like to know if it will be as I suggested. With regard to the 1 per cent levy on insurance companies, this will further increase the cost of motor insurance which is already outrageously high. This will have an enormous effect on young people and on the number of people who will not insure their cars and will drive without insurance. I do not condone this.
The money for Dublin Corporation is very welcome. However, the way in which it came about is regrettable. There is no question of objectivity about it. Any attempt by the Minister to continue to interfere with the autonomy of Dublin Corporation will be resisted by this side of the House. The Minister has already caused the roadway proposals made by the Fianna Fáil group in the city council to be reversed in one fell swoop. This is because of the voting situation in this House.
The Deputy must conclude; he is on borrowed time.
The provision of additional funds in this way does not mean that the Minister becomes Dublin Corporation. We have local democracy and any interference with that will be resisted.
The Deputy must conclude. He has gone two minutes over his time.
I ask the Minister to increase medical card rates in relation to the increase given in social welfare because if not it will only result in some people falling out of line.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this budget. It is not often that we have two budgets so quickly. I welcome Deputy MacSharry to the position of Minister for Finance and Tánaiste and compliment him on his budget. It has gained nationwide acceptance and very little adverse comment. One would need to be a nit-picker to find any flaws in it, I am sure the Minister will effect further improvements in the years ahead as he produces other budgets.
To make a comparison between the last budget, Deputy Bruton's brutal budget, and the present one, they both set out to do the same thing and give us an indication of the basic differences between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Sometimes people who do not study politics ask what are the differences between the two. If one analyses the approach to the budget one will see what the differences are. In January we had a budget introduced with a long dissertation on the country's ills, a lengthy explanation of the causes of our trouble. Most of the causes, of course, were attributed on that occasion to the Fianna Fáil Party, and while the diagnosis by the then Minister for Finance may have been right, the medicine he forced us to take was very unpalatable indeed and was rejected. It was rejected by us, and anyone can understand that because we do not belong to the Coalition family. It was rejected even by their allies on whom they depended, except for one ally who is still with them and he appears to have a digestive system that would allow him to accept any type of medicine. Above all it was rejected by the Irish people. It is fair to note that when you introduce any legislation not alone must it be accepted here in the House but in the long run it must be accepted by the Irish people also.
Our Minister had a very short time to formulate his budget in March 1982, a matter of weeks in fact. It is understandable that he had to take on board the framework and most of the financial provisions of the previous budget because of the financial and time restrictions that were forced on him, but he adapted and adopted very well. First we felt we had an obligation to honour the election promises made by our party and we honoured those commitments in full. We canvassed and we informed people at the doors that VAT would not be imposed on clothes and footwear as far as we were concerned and that we would keep the subsidies on essential foods. We did not renege on those promises. We did not make the excuse that when we had a quick look at the books and saw how bad the country was and how little money was in the coffers, we could not keep those promises. Those promises were kept in full and we managed to introduce a few nice touches also which will be appreciated widely by the people. We raised the same amount of taxation. The current budget deficit is £679 million. In January last the expected deficit would have been £715 million, so we have gained a little plus there. We gave the same reliefs to the people as were promised in the previous budget but did it in a different fashion and we kept the overall Exchequer borrowing requirements to £1,683 million which compares very favourably with £1,661 million in the January budget. That is a difference of £22 million, a very slight minus. All this is despite the concessions we made on VAT, subsidies and other benefits and despite the loss of revenue which we have suffered because the budget was not introduced in January and had to wait until March or April.
A previous speaker this morning accused us of sharp practice when we got an opportunity of introducing some of the provisions in the previous budget before the budget proper was introduced in the House. That was a good book keeping exercise and a very realistic one because any revenue that this country needs at present should be gained as quickly as possible. Above all else the budget shows a humane, caring approach by Fianna Fáil and it is generally accepted that for some reason or other, maybe practice, maybe luck, we seem to be able to do the job a little better than those who tried to do it in January.
I agree that the budget had to be tough, but it is a toughness tempered with humanity and reality. To my mind the January budget was a typical Fine Gael budget born of a rancher mentality. I know that ranchers and all big farmers are supposed to be interested in grass roots, but the January budget was very far removed from the grass roots and the reality of this country. Any Taoiseach or Minister for Finance should remember the word "acceptability", that the people should accept it. This budget was not accepted; it was rejected in the House and subsequently in the general election by the Irish people. To frame a budget that will be rejected in that way is political suicide. I understand the Fine Gael mentality. It is in keeping with my opinion of them and their track record up to this. However, I cannot understand how four Labour Ministers sat at that Cabinet table and listened to that budget being framed. What were they doing to allow this draconian, Cromwellian type of legislation to be included in the budget? Were they sleeping partners, had they any interest at all or were they hypnotised by the theorists? Were they afraid to voice their views? It is hard to understand how anyone who had pretensions to membership of what is called the Labour Party and to representing the plain working people of Ireland could have been a party to the recommendations in that budget.
During the discussions that followed on the night this budget was introduced we on this side of the House were asked to explain our vote in the January budget, and I will endeavour to do so now. I had not an opportunity on that night, although Deputy Woods, now Minister for Health and Social Welfare, explained his reasons for it. It is fair to remark that the first vote that happened to come up in the January budget concerned the price of beer. Our intention was to defeat the budget, to defeat the total tyrannical package presented to us, and we were convinced that we should use every opportunity of doing so. The first opportunity we had, the opportunity which the whole country wanted us to grasp, was given to us at that time and we used it to reject the total budget package. We voted against it and others joined us and the people, in the election, condoned our action. Nobody that I met at any door during the canvass agreed that it was a good budget in any way. The people did not even say it was a fair or middling budget. The verdict was that it was a bad, bungling budget and I heard it described as naive, stupid and thoughtless. I think those terms are correct.
We were accused by Fine Gael and Labour speakers in the House last week of not being consistent when we put 2p more on the pint of beer. We produced an acceptable package here last week and it would be the height of hypocrisy to look at our budget and analyse it on the price of beer alone. Deputy Woods, now Minister for Health, rose to explain that he could accept the extra tax on beer and spirits because of the good items that were in the budget. I found it very acceptable because it allowed us to provide the money for other items and enabled us to keep our election promises regarding VAT on clothes and shoes and the retention or restoration of food subsidies. It enabled us also to allow parents to send their four-year-old children to primary school and to pay for the teachers and the extra places that would be demanded for those children.
Those are the issues on which we fought the election. Those were the issues on which Fine Gael fought the election. They were planks in their political programme and people of Ireland rejected those planks. Even Fine Gael and Deputy Garret FitzGerald himself were prepared to throw these principles overboard in a last frantic effort to hold on to power just before the 23rd Dáil resumed here. It appears that sacred principles that were defended by poor Deputy Boland, former Minister for Education, as best he could with regard to the four-and-a-half-year-old child, could be thrown overboard when the trappings of power began to slip away. It appears now that Garret the good, the man with the flawless pedigree and the purest political principles, the straight man, was quite prepared to do U-turns, double U-turns, five-point and three-point turns, and back somersaults and cartwheels if necessary when he felt he might be able to pull the game out of the fire. It is no wonder that Deputy Burke found it necessary to renounce his Fine Gael allegiance yesterday, retire from local politics and go to Brussels to serve Ireland again as Commissioner there — indeed, the reluctant attributes that were paid to Deputy Burke here this morning——
Like those paid to Deputy O'Kennedy.
——indicate that his merits and talents are much more apparent to us on these benches and much more readily perceived by our Taoiseach than by those who paid grudging tribute to him this morning. I join in the genuine tributes paid to Mr. Burke and wish him well as Commissioner. During my time in Europe I had first-hand experience of his work there. The European Community is a place where one submerges one's party affiliations and places first the interests of the Community and Ireland.
Mr. Bruce Arnold in today's edition of the Irish Independent accuses Mr. Burke of betraying his party and he, too, seems to be blind to the national merits of the move initiated by the Taoiseach. As a journalist with pretensions to literature, I doubt if Mr. Bruce Arnold will ever attain the dizzy heights of his namesake, Matthew Arnold, although in his efforts to discredit our Taoiseach he has the ability to emulate the other Bruce — try, try and try again.
I know the Minister has the capacity for making the life of the Chair easier by relating all this to the budget.
Knowing your appreciation of literature and poetry, I conclude on this point by saying that the obstinate refusal of this journalist to see any apparent good in the new Commissioner gives him a common bond with blind John Milton. When I speak of Mr. Burke's renunciation of Fine Gael and his departure to Brussels, I am sure the Chair will appreciate that an extract from Milton's Lycidas is quite appropriate:
At last he rose, and twitched his mantle blue:
To-morrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.
Fágfaidh mé an t-ábhar seo mar atá sé agus guím rath Dé agus beannacht ar an gCoimisinéir de Búrca san Eoraip.
Unemployment is the most important domestic problem facing this country. We listed it as a priority but the January budget did nothing to provide one extra job, apart from setting up an agency whose merits I doubt. During their seven months in office the only jobs provided by the Coalition were for their cronies and immediate relatives. It was an example of shameless political patronage. There were front bench occupants who pushed their relatives into jobs as advisers at frightful cost, not only in terms of money but in terms of credibility and honesty. This disgraceful chapter was commented upon by Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan. Even his indelicate susceptibilities were offended by the actions of the Coalition, although he is on record on television programmes as supporting political patronage and jobs for the boys, all things being equal. I can well understand that Deputy Flanagan may not have been too happy with jobs for the girls as well. The only redeeming feature of this unhappy episode is that these people have had their advisory services terminated and I am satisfied that the various Government Departments will be well rid of them and will get on quite well without them.
We have made an honest attempt in this budget to provide jobs and I would refer to the restoration of grants under the farm modernisation scheme. The Minister for Finance has restored these grants to pre-September 1981 levels and the £4 million will be welcome this year. When the percentage was reduced by Deputy Dukes, the former Minister for Agriculture, drainage and land reclamation work came to a standstill in my county and neighbouring areas. Agricultural contractors who had invested huge sums in machinery were out of work and the machinery was lying idle. A County Laois firm, Fleming's Fireclays Limited, who produce about a quarter of the nation's needs for land drainage pipes had to close down because their stores were full of pipes which nobody wanted. The restoration of these grants has given hope to these people and they have been in contact with me since. I know that the Minister's knowledge of farming and his sympathy with the plight of farmers will allow him to update the grants later to current prices. This will be money well spent.
One of our greatest resources is the cattle industry and I hope every endeavour will be made to cure the ills of our meat industry, which are principally due to the decline in our herd numbers. A closure is at present taking place in Munster and there will shortly be another in Leixlip. Three meat factories in my constituency are on short-time working. Much has been said about live exports and I believe there is a place for a limited amount of live exports but that every incentive should be given to provide jobs here and add value. Our meat should be exported not only in carcase form but also vac-packed to give the maximum amount of added value.
The deliberations about farm prices and the long-term view of agriculture should include some type of market security because there have always been peaks and valleys in the marketing of cattle. It is important that farmers who embark on programmes to build up herds or flocks should be assured of the prices they will get in several years' time.
Certain remarks were made about our proposition to impose VAT on imports at the point of entry and it was claimed that this would have a detrimental effect of jobs. It may have some effect on the cash flow situation but in the main people import only what they will sell and the Minister has indicated that firms who find themselves in extreme difficulties can turn for special attention to Fóir Teoranta.
I wish to give an instance where this measure will have a beneficial effect. There are two knitwear factories in Monasterevin who are finding things difficult, although they are keeping their heads above water. The provisions of the January budget would have meant that the manager selling £100 worth of goods to the local supermarket would have had to charge them £118 because VAT would have had to be paid straight away. The same supermarket could have imported goods and not paid any VAT until the goods were sold. There was an inbuilt assistance to the importation of foreign goods at the expense of home industries. It is no wonder that those people, former supporters of the party to which Deputy Molony belongs, should have put up their own posters asking people to vote against VAT because of the danger that it would cause the closure of their factory. This new move will help to preserve jobs at home. I agree that it may cause cash flow problems to some firms but if we have an opportunity to help people to help themselves at home we should take it within the EEC regulations. This is a very brave and helpful move.
There was not anything in the January budget which would be of assistance to the building industry but there are definite amounts of money in last Thursday's budget to provide jobs, particularly in the building industry. There is no other industry which can provide instant jobs from a green field situation. The £50 million provided is needed and will help to bring people back to work immediately. Already those involved in the construction industry, suppliers and contractors, tell me that an air of confidence is beginning to come back.
The record of the Coalition Government with regard to local authority housing leaves a lot to be desired. Deputy Molony will appreciate that when one is judging anybody one cannot always look up the form book. In the seven months the Coalition Government were in power there was no money allocated to my county for any new starts. There was no new house building at all in Kildare except for one big effort which was made. I was a member of a deputation to the then Minister of State, Fergus O'Brien, asking for some money to be given to start some new houses in Droichead Nua. He provided £50,000 to allow approximately 50 houses to be started there. The fact that se need between 400 and 500 houses is something people may quibble about but the allocation of £50,000 was a start. It is worthy of note that Fergus O'Brien has decided to opt out of the team and has now gone back to the ESB. I was sorry to see him going because he was quite a good man. I suppose he knows his own mind best.
That will be very temporary.
It probably was not as big a shock to Fine Gael when he went to the ESB as ex-Deputy Burke's move was. I wish them both well. The only other item the Coalition Government can claim credit for in my county was the erection of 19 isolated cottages scattered here and there throughout the county. There is a great need for housing and we must do everything possible to provide houses all over the country. I can appreciate that the Minister for Finance would have liked to do more in the budget than Deputy Bruton hoped to do. We will endeavour to improve the position.
The extra money has been provided for the construction of roads and schools. I am pleased that the Department of the Environment will restore house improvement grants where houses are in need of structural repair. There were no grants for windows, doors or the restoration of roofs under the previous administration.
I would like to refer to some good news in the budget relating to my Department, for the veterans of the War of Independence. I am sure all sides of the House share with me our indebtedness to the people who played such an important role in the foundation of the State. I regard the veterans of the War of Independence as being in a very special category. It is gratifying that this year's budget contains certain improvements in the concessions to veterans, their spouses and widows available from my Department. Those improvements will become effective from 1 July next and will cost £250,000. The funeral grants will be increased from £200 to £300. Those grants were first introduced in the 1969 budget when I first entered the House. They were then £25 and were payable in respect of special allowance holders only. The amount was increased in subsequent budgets and the categories of people in respect of whom those allowances were payable were also widened. The grant is normally paid to the widow of the veteran but where there is no widow it is paid to the person responsible for the funeral expenses.
Before this budget a number of widows of veterans were not eligible for the allowance of £296 per year because their late husbands never applied for a special allowance. Provision has now been made to extend the allowance to such widows, subject to certain conditions in relation to means, and also to the widows of disablement pensioners whose wounds were received in the period from 23 April 1916 to 11 July 1921. It is proposed from 1 July next that a free bottle gas scheme similar to that operated by the Department of Social Welfare will be introduced. As soon as the details of the scheme have been decided the availability of this concession will be published in the newspapers.
I am sure we would all like to see more improvements made in concessions to the veterans of the War of Independence and their widows but I am sure the House appreciates that because of the present restrictions it is not possible to go beyond the measures I have mentioned. Prior to the 1969 budget most Ministers of Finance looked on the Defence Estimate as a means of paring back and when any pruning had to be done unfortunately it was done in that Department. It is unfortunate it took the troubles in the North and the spill-over down here to make us realise the need for our Defence Forces. We have a very loyal and well trained Army and their good work in emergencies like oil strikes and blizzards can be appreciated by everybody. Our Air Corps meet the needs of our times and are suitable for a country like this. The Air Corps do all their work very efficiently. The best way we can show appreciation of their work is to provide funds for them. I know the Minister for Finance will remember them in his budgets in 1983, 1984 and 1985.
It can be said that the social conscience of any party or any country can be judged by our attitude to old people and how we treat the less well off. I would like to commend the Minister for Finance on the fact that GMS cards are now available for social welfare recipients who are old age pensioners. That is a very humane gesture.
We all welcome the decision to throw overboard the decision of the Coalition Government not to recruit gardaí. We need those extra gardaí on the beat. Law and order have practically broken down throughout the country and the gardaí are stretched to the limit. We should do everything possible to bring back respect for the law and give old people living alone a sense of security.
There has been some talk about the foreign travel tax. We have changed things in relation to this. I do not believe the new tax will do any harm. A fee of £2 on a sea ticket bought here and £3 on an air ticket is not a lot. I am positive it will not interfere with the flow on tourists into the country because they normally buy their tickets abroad and have return tickets so it will not effect them. People who do not take the advice of seeing Ireland first or who do not believe they have not seen half of it yet and who want to sample the delights of overseas travel should be prepared to pay £2 or £3 to enable them to do that.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned decentralisation. This is a policy dear to my heart, even though I am pretty near Dublin, because I am convinced that it is no help to the overall well-being of the country that Dublin has become so top heavy and that one-third of our population live in the greater Dublin area. I have experienced difficulties that have been foisted on our own county because of the spill-out over the Dublin border — difficulties in planning permission, difficulties experienced when planning permissions were granted by a previous Coalition Minister for Local Government who had the audacity to grant planning permissions himself — this was before an Bord Pleanála came into being — in Dublin and expected us in Kildare to provide sanitary facilities to accommodate his scheme just across the Dublin border.
While our programme of decentralisation has not gained the momentum I would like to see, it is a step in the right direction and I know it will be continued and it will help to redress the imbalance created by the congregation of people in Dublin. We should consciously encourage people to live and work elsewhere. That would mean that we would have to provide the infrastructure, communications and roads, telephones and telex for industry. Airports will also be required. These are incentives to industrialists to base themselves away from Dublin. The fact that we have made the move with some of our Government Departments is a step in the right direction.
When I mention airports and infrastructure and some of these items that for social and other reasons we feel should be based away from Dublin, we should discuss white elephants for a little while. It appears that certain scribes think they have some God-given gift that enables them to identify white elephants immediately. It would be well to remember that it is hard to be sure what is a white elephant. Rather like the Arctic bear or fox, with the passing of different seasons they tend to change colour and what appears white at one stage can be grey or even black at a later stage.
To take a local example, around 1948 the Government decided to erect a turf burning generating station at Allenwood to use local fuel to provide electricity. A former Minister for Finance — now departed — classified it as the greatest white elephant in the area at that time. Little did he realise when it became operational in 1951 that it would continue to 1982. It is still continuing to provide electricity and has now become very viable and economic because of the increased oil price in the meantime and it has given generations of people employment in the Allenwood area. People who attempt to identify white elephants could be wrong.
Another example worth mentioning is that of Shannon. In the very early days of Aer Rianta and Foynes we were presumptuous enough to think that we could build an international airport at Shannon. James Dillon at that time forecast that rabbits would play on the runways there eventually. I can understand that he may not have been aware that myxomatosis would come to this country and that rabbits would become scarce. I think now that Shannon can be classified as the greatest success story this country can show. Not alone is it a success as an international airport but around it the Shannon complex grew up attracting clusters of industry and a whole new town giving employment of a very sophisticated and economically viable nature has been created there. Jobs have been found for people at the mouth of the Shannon where before only mud flats existed. James Dillon, for whom I have a high regard, may have been wrong on this occasion and some of the scribes who now refer to the Connacht Regional Airport at Knock as a white elephant also might do well to think about the situation.
We once had a Buchanan Report and, if we had accepted that, we would have blindly accepted that only particular areas in the country could have become growth centres — Galway was one and Limerick another — but people in Mayo, in Castlebar and Ballina and smaller places would have been condemned for ever to go to Galway for work, apart from the work that could be given locally in a small way on the land and in forestry or perhaps on the sea. Again, Fianna Fáil thinking proved that we should diversify and that areas like Ballina and Castlebar should also be designated as growth centres and that industry should be attracted there. I believe that the Connacht Regional Airport at Knock — I am pleased despite criticisms that we have persevered at that — will be built and could well emulate what has been done in Shannon. There is also room there for an industrial complex and 20 years hence we may experience an economic miracle in that area which has already experienced a miracle of a different nature. Therefore, people who feel so sure of themselves when they denounce projects may make better historians than prophets, because things have a habit of not working out exactly as they might wish.
I come now to a matter fairly dear to my own heart, the racing industry. There are 9,000 people directly employed in the racing and bloodstock industry in Ireland. They make very little noise in comparison to the 9,000 — which is probably the figure that would apply — in the fishing industry who seem much more vociferous in their demands. The racing industry gets no grants of any kind and the only money the Government are involved in is that taken out of the industry in tax. We take the success of the industry very much for granted and I think it is time to decide to tread warily now when the first distress signals are to be seen. The racing industry is our greatest shop window in which to display our wares — the success of our race horses and bloodstock. This happens year after year.
In the year just gone by we saw the success of Irish breeding in Shergar. I am pleased to note that the Aga Khan has made a financial sacrifice in bringing back Shergar to Ireland where he will stand at stud at Ballymany, County Kildare. We had a success story as far as Irish trainers are concerned when Dermot Weld trained Blue Wind to win the Irish and English Oaks. Blue Wind has now gone to the US and I am sure her performances there, while not successful to date, will do us credit in the future.
Horse racing represents a great industry for us. It provides jobs with a very good income and it must have a very beneficial effect on our balance of payments. It is an indigenous industry, and very successful, and we should not wait until it goes downhill to take measures necessary to safeguard it. To own a horse at present one would want to be a philantrophist, have a lot of spare money; because people who own horses, contrary to expectations, do not make money — they may have money. It is no harm to get people with money to become involved in and to be prepared to invest in this country. Eventually, those who own horses finish up with less than they started with. Prize money and the assistance horse owners get is not sufficient and it is necessary that somebody put back what they take out.
I appreciate that the Minister for Finance had to accept the Coalition budget in most of its forms because to produce something along these line would have taken more time and thought, but I am confident that when he examines the situation, efforts will be made in the next budget to help this industry which is under the Department of Agriculture. I hope we set up a commission to look into all aspects of the bloodstock and racing industry, that it will report back soon and then action will be taken. We already have a very good analysis of that industry done by Professor McCormack and this, if acted upon, would be very helpful.
I saw a submission recently that a racing training centre should be established in the Curragh. This would give employment for up to 100 people a year and would provide training for 40 people — jockeys, apprentices, farriers, stud grooms and those engaged in stud farm management. The need is there, not alone in the Curragh but in training establishments in Tipperary, Cork and elsewhere. This is an industry we should apply ourselves to because an industry which has its roots in the country is most likely to succeed. People all over the world appreciate our native expertise in this area.
I do not agree with training people for jobs abroad but the fact that some of our young jockeys, stud grooms and those engaged in the industry might eventually go abroad is a help to the industry. Every race meeting, whether it be Cheltenham, Epsom, Aintree or the Curragh and every horse show in the RDS, Aachen, Hickstead or anywhere else is a very good advertisement for the Irish horse. The people involved in this industry are doing their best and we must show our appreciation.
I would like to comment on the attitude to this budget displayed by Opposition Deputies. Deputy G. Mitchell laboured the theme that he was not convinced of our honesty, that he was worried about our lack of honesty and that he could not accept we had made honest efforts. All I can say is that he must be mixing with the wrong people. Deputy Bruton showed that when he was shorn of his civil service back-up he was a very normal man. I saw a very big difference between the Deputy Bruton who stood in this House on 27 January and the Deputy Bruton who spoke on Budget Day. In January he was haughty and confident, with 80 pages to deliver. Not alone had he had the time to give us all the bad news but he interlaced it with lectures on how we should mend our ways. That confidence evaporated when he found himself on the other side of the House. He even advanced the theory that he would need more warning to comment on the budget. In my view the general performance of the Opposition speakers showed they were hardly able to raise a gallop. As a doggy man I am sure Deputy Bruton will forgive me if I say his performance appeared as if he had run unsighted.
Deputy B. Desmond said the budget was a carbon copy of previous budgets and attributed most of the provisions to the Taoiseach. We all made an input into the budget and I am proud to be associated with a budget into which the Taoiseach had an input. I would like to know where was the Labour input in the Coalition budget? Did they feel very proud of their performance? From what he said it appears that Deputy B. Desmond spent his months in office as Minister of State at the Department of Finance combing the files for pieces of scandal. Such muck-raking is no help to anybody. He would have been better employed if he had done the job he was asked to do. He seemed confident that he had found many things in the file about which we should all be aware. If he has any evidence he should produce it. I would like to know about it.
The Opposition parties must feel shattered by their failure to bring in their budget and by the results of the subsequent election, but it would be better for everyone concerned if they put up a better show. I advise Deputy Molony to tell his colleagues to pull themselves together and give us a better game because the performance of any Government can only be as good as the Opposition they meet. If people feel they do not need to play well they are likely to relax and not give of their best.
I agree with Deputy Wilson when he classified the Opposition performance as nitpicking. They mentioned taking VAT off books. They had the opportunity to do something about that, as we did, but they did not do anything about it. Now we have got around to it and the VAT is off books, particularly school books. We had pharisaical platitudes as to what was a missal, what was a missalette; what was a pamphlet, what was a magazine? We had this type of grudging tribute. Deputy Shatter wanted to know the difference between a cot and a pram and referred to demountable moses baskets, or carriers people took into the house after taking the wheels off. That type of criticism does not do any good.
In conclusion I want to tell the House that this was a good budget, and if the Opposition were honest they would admit it. It has helped to restore confidence at home and abroad, as the people who are genuinely interested in the good of this country agree. For too long we have been listening to such things as "we will all be ruined Mrs. Hanrahan if the rain don't stop" and it is high time the Coalition dropped that attitude. Thank God this ocón agus ocón is over and the sack cloth and ashes and the rending of their garments by these political pharisees is settled. We heard their swan song last January. Now light and hope have dawned and the people are glad Fianna Fáil are back in office, that the country is back on the rails again, and that the hand on the helm can be trusted. I welcome the budget and hope the Minister will have equal success in all the budgets he introduces in future.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to comment on some of the points made by the Minister for Defence. I was astonished to hear him refer to what he described as the U-turns adopted by the last Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, in an attempt to stay in power. When one considers the Gregory deal in all its aspects and the efforts made by the present Taoiseach to grab power earlier this month, one readily appreciates the thirst for power that exists on the Government benches. I am sorry to see Deputy Power leaving the House because I would like to refer him to certain other U-turns in Fianna Fáil policy that were highlighted in this budget.
I recall the promise of the 1977 election to do away with car tax. It was not done away with It was reintroduced at £5 and increased by 200 per cent, and they were perfectly happy to adopt the Coalition's position on that. There was never any explanation of their change in policy or why car tax was not to be justified. In 1977 they said it was a penal tax, hard on young and hard on everybody. In 1982 such arguments did not apply.
I was sorry to hear Deputy Power speak about Knock Airport. He did not say whether he supported that idea and I find it hard to discover which side he is on. Many people in Fianna Fáil have expressed grave reservations about the building of Knock Airport, while some are totally opposed to it and others have expressed total support for it. There is no doubt that one cannot compare Knock Airport with Shannon Airport or Knock Airport with some of the projects he referred to.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.