I apologise for deviating. This Budget has been framed around such phrases as: The people are living beyond their means; the standard of living is too high; if a man cannot balance his family budget he must take drastic steps to do so as soon as possible. It seems extraordinary that such harsh budget proposals should be introduced at a time when the unemployment situation is in such a parlous state. If there has been an abnormal increase in unemployment of approximately 10 per cent. over the last nine or ten months the only section that must take responsibility for that is the Fianna Fáil Party and its leaders. There were such pessimistic speeches from the Government Front Bench and such talk about crisis, doom, disaster, bankruptcy and incompetency that there was a definite recession in business and businessmen were afraid to either buy or sell. The result of that was unemployment and the laying off of many men. There was another reason for unemployment and that was the go-slow policy of the Department of Local Government in relation to not alone housing projects but other public works as well. Indeed, there still seems to be an effort on the part of Local Government in relation to housing, water supply, sewerage and different other public works to save money, not so much to tell the local authorities they will not be given a particular loan or grant but to keep holding up proposals from the local authorities for weeks, for months, in an endeavour to have the financial year passed by without the expenditure of moneys notified to them.
Deputy Briscoe, a few moments ago, went to great pains here to show us, by way of letters from his constituents, the effect of the Budget on the normal family. If the Minister for Finance wants £15,000,000—and I make him a present of that, for the sake of argument—where does he propose to get it? I think it is a scandalous thing that he proposes to get it from such sources as bread, tea, butter, sugar, the bottle of stout, the pint of beer or the packet of cigarettes. This Budget is certainly going to impose severe hardships on the ordinary working-class family. But what will it do to people whom we generally describe as rich people, people who have money? Will it put the Chrysler car off the road, will it have any effect on the man who runs the Chrysler car, any appreciable effect? Does it do anything to that section of the people, however big or small it may be, who frequent and frequent daily the cocktail bars of this city and of Cork, Limerick, Waterford and other big provincial towns? Is it going to affect their standard of living or their cost of living? Will this Budget prevent people from still going to every single race meeting that is held in this country? Will this Budget prevent people who have been in the habit for years of going across to the City of London and enjoying week-ends? Will this Budget prevent a certain section of people from stioll buying mink fur coast, will it impose any hardship on them? Of course, I know that to talk in that particular strain, especially from these benches, leaves oneself open immediately to the crack that one is either a Socialist or a "Red." I suggest that the particular section of the community who have been in the habit of doing these things I have mentioned can still do them, that they can still buy these things without any appreciable hardship. It is true they will have to pay more for tea, bread, butter and sugar and that may mean 10/-. 15/-or £1 per week. That does not have any effect on them. I would not say it would have any appreciable effect on the type of person to whom Deputy Briscoe has referred, the 5,000 or 6,000 odd who, again admitted by Deputy Briscoe, have net incomes of £2,000 per year.
There is no use in talking here for an hour or an hour and a half about how it is going to affect the ordinary working family. As soon as the terms of the Budget became known, every single father or mother in a household could get out a piece of pencil and paper and in five minutes reckon what this Budget was going to mean by way of extra cost to them during the week. Would anybody refute these figures?
In the case of a man with a wife and three children, if he purchases a mere 2 oz. of tea for each during the week the extra cost to him would be 1/5½d. That is on the basis of tea being 5/- per lb. Does anyone deny that increase? Deputy Briscoe is usually well informed; he has told us about the various prices of teas in other countries in Europe and I gather from him that the price of any decent or fair quality tea will be in the region of 5/-. If that family of five purchases the 2 oz. per person per week it will cost them an extra 1/5½. We understand that butter is going up 10d. per lb. There have been various suggestions and rumours that 10d. is the minimum increase—that there is the possibility on the 1st July that the price will be 4/2 per lb. Let us take it even on the basis of 10d. increase. It will mean to that family of five buying the ordinary ration an extra cost of 2/1 per week. If the same family buys the ration of sugar—and many people may regard it as inadequate—the 3¾ lb. will mean an extra cost of 9½d.
In the case of bread, let us take again the ordinary rationed amount— and every single one of us knows that every family purchases more and is able to purchase more than the ordinary rationed amount of bread. I think the Department of Industry and Commerce in this Government and in the last have been responsible to a big extent for the laxity regarding the distribution and general rationing of bread, to the detriment of some local bakers. In any case that family of five purchasing the rationed amount, 30 lb., will have an extra cost of 6/3.
The total extra cost on that family for tea, butter, sugar and bread will be 10/7 per week. That is not the real increase as there are allowances in the way of increased children's allowances, which I reckon will be 4/-per week to that family of five, leaving that family to pay an extra 6/7 for these commodities.
That is not mentioning the cigarette or the bottle of stout. It seems to be high treason for one to mention a bottle of stout or a cigarette here. I do not allege that they are the be-all and end-all of a man's life from one end of the week to the other. I would not describe them as an absolute luxury, nor would I describe them as an absolute necessity. Should it be necessary to say that again in respect of certain workers, especially in the rural areas, who have neither parish halls nor cinemas nor any other form of amusement after their day's work is done but to go down to the local public house and get two bottles of stout and, to give it the name by which it is called in parts of County Wexford, to pass the time "soolaying" the two bottles of stout for two hours? You could have, say, Deputy MacBride, Deputy Allen and myself doing that and talking about a football match or the dogs or anything else. That is the importance of the two bottles of stout. It brings men together in rural areas; it brings them into the low-ceilinged, cobweb-bedecked public house and gives them company. From that point of view, one might err by calling it a luxury, but one could also err on the other side by calling it just somewhat a necessity. A couple of shillings a week on a wage in a rural area of £3 10s. is a substantial sum. These people should have concern for the balance of payments, they should have concern for the observations in the Central Bank Report, they should have concern for the general finances of their nation; they have some concern, but the one thing that is of importance to them during the week is what money they have to spend. Would the Minister blame them for being interested only in the fact that a man with a wife and three children will have to pay an extra 6/7 per week? That man with three children or with four or five children cannot understand why he should be expected to make a substantial contribution towards bridging that gap of £15,000,000 when he sees certain things around him, the things which I described a few moments ago in my speech.
The Taoiseach said on one occasion here that the increase per individual would be in the region of 1/6 per week. Nobody believes that that is so. It just could not be 1/6 per week. The minimum in my opinion on the figures I have given, assuming that the individual will purchase the now rationed amounts, would be 2/1½. per week. We can surely examine that increase in relation to the old age pension. Deputy Flanagan was taken to task here by Deputy Briscoe for alleging that the old age pensioner lived for his pint, that the only reason he got up in the morning was to get his pint and the only reason he did anything at all was to get his pint. I do not think that Deputy Flanagan or anybody else in this House would make that allegation or even infer anything to that effect, but it is an important factor in the lives of many of our old age pensioners. When a man reaches 70 years of age, or 75, 80 or 85, what much more has he to look forward to, provided that he does drink, than his pint or his bottle of stout? As we know, all or most of them take a nip of whiskey or brandy. They take it not for amusement, not to get merry, not to dance, but to keep the life in them. An old friend of mine, an old lady of 85, endeavours to drink a half glass of brandy every night. It keeps her alive and she will probably live to be 95 because she is able to save or to make available the few shillings for that luxury if you like. It is the only thing she lives for and the only thing that keeps her alive.
Deputy Briscoe took the example of nine in family and I think he said that the increase to this family would be about 14/- per week. He asked me to refute his figures. I reckon that the family of nine purchasing 18 oz. of tea will have to pay an extra 2/7½ from the 1st July; the family of nine who will purchase 4½ lb. of butter, the rationed amount—and we all know that that is not sufficient—will have to pay an extra 3/9; that family who will purchase 6¾ lb. of sugar will have to pay an extra 1/6; purchasing 48 lb. of bread they will have to pay an extra 11/3. Deputy Briscoe said that this family would purchase 32 lb. of bread. God help the family of nine who will consume a mere 32 lb. of bread per week. I rather imagine that if the father is a tradesman or has a weekly wage he would not be able to give many mutton chops or steaks to his family. Their principal diet, as Deputy Briscoe described it, the staff of life, would be bread and the minimum they would purchase would be 48 lb., the rationed amount. The increase to that family, therefore, would be 19/1½ per week. The concession to them would be 10/-per week so the net extra burden on that family would be 9/1½ per week.
I listened to Deputy Dr. Browne yesterday and I thought from the major portion of his speech that he was not in favour of this Budget. But it seems to be the fashion in this House when one does not agree with one Party or another or when one is confronted with some proposal for which one does not want to vote, to say that it is a cheap political trick. The basis of Deputy Dr. Browne's objection to the Parties on this side of the House was that their opposition was a mere political trick. That may be all right here in debate but it will be extremely difficult for Deputies Browne, ffrench-O'Carroll, Cowan or Cogan to go back to their constituents, to go back to a family of five, and be asked why that family of five should have to pay an extra 6/7 per week on foodstuffs.
Deputy Dr. Browne paid a compliment to the officials of the Department of Finance and said that surely these very clever men, these brilliant men, would explore every single avenue, every single channel in an effort to discover whether the burden of taxation could not be placed somewhere else. By inference he said that the only conclusion the Department of Finance could come to or that he could come to was that portion of this £15,000,000 should be got by the withdrawal of the food subsidies. I do not think that anybody who heard Deputy Dr. Browne could take any other meaning from his concluding remarks. It is extraordinary that a man with Deputy Dr. Browne's reputation, especially when one has regard to his concern for the mothers and children of the State and to his express concern for the tubercular afflicted people of the State, should, with his colleagues, Deputies ffrench-O'Carroll and Cowan, walk into the Division Lobby in this year, 1952, and vote for an increase in the price of butter. the price of bread and the price of sugar and vote as he did, even though he strongly objected to it yesterday, for the abolition of the tax on the dance halls. Deputy Briscoe spoke about the abolition of the tax on dance halls. He dismissed it with a wave of his hand as to him it meant a mere £140,000 or £150,000. It may be a small sum when one has regard to the colossal amount of £15,000,000 but it would be a contribution and it seems strange, therefore, to hear Deputy Dr. Browne criticising as severly as he did yesterday the abolition of the dance tax when we remember that two weeks ago he walked in a very docile fashion into the Division Lobby to support that proposal.
This Budget has been rightly described as harsh. I would describe it as something that is very near to Deputy Dr. Browne's heart, a nomeans test Budget, inasmuch as the major reliefs, those with regard to children's allowances, are applied to every single section of the community.
We had a lecture from Deputy Briscoe and others about food subsidies. We were asked in rhetorical fashion whether or not the Irish people wanted to be beggars, mendicants. We were asked were we a race who would accept charity? It seemed funny coming from a Deputy who is a member of a Party that insulted the people by offering and giving them, in the 30's, free beef—not even money, but beef that they had on their hands and could not get rid of.
