I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), lines 15 and 16, to delete "seven shillings and sixpence" and to substitute "six shillings and sixpence".
This amendment, which relates to income-tax, and all the other amendments on the sheet appearing in my name, have for their purpose the reduction of certain taxes to the level at which they were before the Budget of 1952; not merely to reduce the income-tax to the pre-1952 level but also to reduce the taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco. These are the taxes which members of the present Government stated at the time and on many occasions since were unnecessary, the taxes which they undertook during the course of the recent election campaign to repeal, the taxes which they stated could be repealed immediately. However, the legal members of the Government may parse and interpret the phraseology that was used during these election speeches, there is no doubt that they caused the people to believe that the Fianna Fáil Government had imposed unnecessary taxation, and that it would be the function of the new Coalition Government to rectify that situation by revoking these unnecessary taxes.
The purpose of submitting these amendments to the Dáil is to give Deputies opposite an opportunity, if they want it, of redeeming their election pledges, an opportunity, if they do not want to redeem those pledges, of withdrawing them, and an opportunity to the Government of explaining why it is not possible to do now what a few months ago they were saying they could and would do. These amendments, of course, pose to Deputies opposite a question which affects the reputation of the Government and of each individual supporting them. What is that question? Perhaps it would be better if I were to put it in words other than my own. I think it will help the Dáil to realise the character of the question they have to answer on these amendments if I put it in the words of a member of the present Administration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. When these taxes had been put into operation and were subsequently under discussion by the Dáil, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donnellan, spoke as follows in Dáil Éireann. I am quoting from Volume 131, column 639, of the Official Debates, and this is the quotation:—
"I notice in a Sunday paper that a certain question was asked by Deputy McQuillan. The same question was asked by Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. The question was that if there was a change of Government would the same taxes be left on or what would be done? That was an intelligent question and I congratulate both Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll on it. As Deputy John A. Costello, the ex-Taoiseach, and Deputy McGilligan, ex-Minister for Finance, explained, the answer is that there is an overestimate here of, roughly, £10,000,000. With a change of Government and with the help of men like Deputy McGilligan again, taxation to the extent of that £10,000,000 could be reduced. That is the answer to the question that was asked."
That was the answer of Deputy Donnellan before the election. Are we going to get the same answer from the same Deputy or from his colleagues in the present Administration to-day? Do they still contend that the taxes to which these amendments relate were unnecessary and can now be revoked? Are they going to adhere to their undertaking to the people who elected them to revoke these taxes immediately ?
I note that when we discussed this matter last week there was some doubt raised as to whether the undertaking of the present Government was or was not to revoke these taxes immediately. The present Minister for Finance stated earlier that the present Government had not promised to reduce taxation at all, but Deputy McGilligan last week qualified it by asserting that the Government had not promised to reduce taxation immediately. He said last week—I am quoting from Volume 146, No. 4, column 506:—
"We made no promises about immediate reductions in taxes. Nobody who now holds ministerial rank"—
I want Deputies to note the subtle qualifications inserted there—
"and that is what is referred to in the motion—made any such promises and we will ask the ex-Tánaiste to go through any quotations in every newspaper and nowhere will he find a promise of that kind."
I do not know what is the exact significance of a promise to effect a reduction of taxation immediately. I asked how quick was "immediate" and I got no answer to that question. But we find on examining the records that a specific time had been mentioned by the present Taoiseach and by some of his colleagues in the present Government within which they would effect these reductions in taxation.
On the same occasion as that upon which Deputy Donnellan, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, gave that specific reply to a question which some Deputies had asked, Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Finance, made a rather remarkable prophecy.
He foretold that if it should happen that Deputy Costello was transferred from the Opposition to the Government Benches there was not a single measure, a single tax, imposed in Deputy MacEntee's Finance Bill that he would repeal. Whether that was an accurate prophecy or not will be demonstrated, no doubt, in the next couple of hours. It was made, and perhaps it is worth quoting now because immediately Deputy MacEntee had made that prophecy—the prophecy that there was not a single one of those taxes that Deputy Costello would repeal if, in fact, he was transferred from this side of the House to the other side—Deputy Costello intervened in the debate and he said, as reported in Volume 131, column 1439:—
"I would repeal every one of them if I were over there."
Immediately afterwards, Deputy Mulcahy, the present Minister for Education and Chairman of the Fine Gael Party, intervened and said:—
"He would remove £10,000,000 in ten minutes."
Later on in the same debate, Deputy Costello again intervened and said:—
"I would resign the next minute, rather than proceed with any single provision in the present Budget. I would be no party to any provision in this Budget."
I urge Deputies opposite to consider carefully before they decide this afternoon to put the Taoiseach in the embarrassing position of either having to eat his words or resign.
Nor were the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Education alone in that declaration. Deputy McGilligan spoke at a public meeting which was reported in the Irish Independent and said the following:—
"If we could get the present Government out by July 1st, a new Minister for Finance could in a ten-minute speech save £1,000,000 a minute and thus wipe out the £10,000,000 that was being asked for. I do not even despair of being able to save another £5,000,000 as well."
Deputy McGilligan said that members of the present Administration made no promises about immediate reductions in taxation. He said that nobody who holds ministerial office at the present time made any such promises. He went further than that last week—and Deputies sitting behind the Government will note how definitely their election speeches are now being repudiated. He said:—
"We do not believe that...there was anybody on this side foolish enough to say that big reductions in taxation, immediate reductions in taxation, were practicable."
Is it true that no member of the present Administration stated that neither big reductions nor immediate reductions in taxation were possible? I have shown that the present Taoiseach has said that he would resign the next minute if he became Taoiseach and found himself unable to repeal these taxes. I have shown that the present Minister for Education and Chairman of the Fine Gael Party said that these taxes would be repealed in ten minutes after the change of Government. I have shown that Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance, even put a figure on the amount of the reductions that would be achieved in ten minutes—£10,000,000.
Deputy McGilligan last week challenged me to show that any member of the present Administration promised immediate reductions in taxation. Well, I have covered two of them already. I do not have to remind the House of the very formal declaration made by the Chairman of Fine Gael in his election address:—
"The first task of the new Administration will be to lighten the burden of taxation which is now crushing the people."
Let us get down to other members of the Administration.
The present Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at a public meeting in Naas, reported in the Irish Independent of the 5th May, said the following:—
"Fianna Fáil Deputies by voting for the increased prices of tea, bread, butter, sugar and flour and for the higher taxes on cigarettes, beer and tobacco, have been active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living. In this reactionary policy Fianna Fáil was implementing the policy which the Central Bank had sought to induce the inter-Party Government to adopt but which that Government had spurned."
Are the Deputies in this House who support the present Government now becoming active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living? Is this "reactionary policy" attributed to the Central Bank now being accepted as the policy of the present Administration?
During the course of the election campaign, the present Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, issued a circular to all the licensed traders in his constituency, on the 3rd May, from his election headquarters at the Railway Hotel, Kildare. This is the circular:—
"A Chara,
As you are an elector in the County Kildare constituency, I take the liberty of enclosing herewith a copy of my election address and would kindly invite your attention in particular to the portion of the programme set out in page 3 under the heading ‘Reduction in Prices.' In view of the serious effect of increased taxation on cigarettes, beer and spirits, which no doubt has had an injurious effect on your trade, I trust you will find it possible to give me your No. 1 vote in the forthcoming election and kindly ask your relatives and friends to do likewise, so that with the aid of the Labour Party I may advocate in the new Dáil a reduction of the taxes which so adversely affect your business and consumers generally."
Now, this is the day of testing. Is the Leader of the Labour Party, and are his colleagues here in this House, going to avail of this opportunity to advocate a reduction of these taxes upon cigarettes, beer and spirits? Either this afternoon or to-morrow, they will have to advocate them and vote for them, or they will have to vote against them. No doubt those who, in response to the circular, gave Deputy Norton their votes—and their relatives and friends—will be very glad to see precisely how these election pledges are going to be redeemed.