That is another difference between the 1952 and the 1955 situations.
Let us consider also that in bringing in this Budget the Government, in implementing their aim to get down the cost of living, before they were many months in office had reduced the price of butter by 5d. per lb. and had accepted responsibility for the subsidy which that entailed, costing something in the region of £2,000,000. It is quite true that if that commitment was not honoured and if the commitment to the civil servants was not honoured, the Government would have £3,000,000 or so to spare. We felt that £2,000,000 was well spent in reducing what is perhaps the most essential food for the people.
I do not know what Fianna Fáil's view on that is to-day, but this much is certain that if Fianna Fáil had been returned to office in the last general election the price of butter would not have come down. Not one of them will deny that. It was not their policy to get down the price of butter, by subsidisation in any event. The Government honoured the arbitration award and the Government held down the cost of tea.
I know Fianna Fáil Deputies are under orders to sneer at what the Government have done in respect of tea. I once more would like to ask them to answer honestly before this debate is over what would they have done. Is not it true that if Fianna Fáil had been re-elected after the last general election they would have allowed the price of tea to go up and to continue going up without any effort to control it?
The Government during the course of the year dealt promptly with the question of the floods which occurred. I have already referred to the bank rate and to the loan. The Government have made it clear what they propose doing during the coming 12 months. They are continuing the butter subsidy. They have made provision for substantial increases to the old age pensioners and others. They have given important income-tax concessions. They have provided for additional health services and, of course, they are continuing the reliefs which were incorporated in the Budget of 1954 and of which Fianna Fáil are so proud.
Some Fianna Fáil speakers, including their last spokesman, Deputy Carter, have been gibing at the increase given to old age pensioners. Deputy Carter spoke about it as "this mangy 2/6 per week". I want to remind Deputies that when Fianna Fáil increased the old age pension by 1/6, in 1952, they did it as nearly as they could on a callous mathematical basis. They worked out that the effect of the removal of food subsidies was going to cost something in the region of 1/6 per head and therefore the very maximum to which the old age pensioner would be entitled was 1/6.
Deputy Burke looks as if he does not believe me. It is hard to believe, but that was the Fianna Fáil attitude in 1952. There was no question of easing the situation for old age pensioners and others. It was a question of giving them what the Government had decided was the bare minimum of what they were entitled to. In fact, it did not measure up to the damage that was done in the Budget at all.
Deputy MacEntee, in his 1952 Budget speech, at column 1139, Volume 130 of the Official Debates of the 7th April, 1952, had this to say:—
"On existing rations and at present prices, food subsidies reduce weekly expenditure per person on rationed foods by approximately 2/-. This 2/- per week has, of course, to be met by general taxation, that is to say, it has first to be collected from the general body of taxpayers before, by devious channels, it finds its way back to them: surely a wasteful and nonsensical procedure. The rise in retail prices consequent on the changes I have mentioned will not, however, amount to 2/-; in fact, on the average, it should work out at some 25 per cent. less, or almost 1/6 per head per week. This, then, is the outside limit of the burden that will be imposed on any individual, and, therefore, of the compensation that need be given in necessitous cases."
Then he goes on:—
"On this basis——"
—on the basis that that was the outside limit and that it was compensation for the damage the Government were doing—
——"the Government have decided to increase the old age pension by 1/6 a week..."
That was the Fianna Fáil attitude to the old age pensioners in 1952 and now they have the nerve to stand up here and talk about an increase of 2/6 given in this Budget as being a mangy increase. I suggest to Fianna Fáil Deputies that this Budget is a good Budget. It is a Budget with which the people are satisfied. Deputy Carter spent his concluding moments in reading out a list he had compiled of people who got no relief under the Budget. The real people who got no relief from this Budget are the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party because they cannot think of any argument to make against it. They have not yet told the House whether they propose voting against the Budget or not.
The Fianna Fáil Party organ anticipated what the people of the country wanted before the Budget was introduced and the Evening Press, having made a survey of what the people wanted, of what would be considered a good Budget, interviewed a person from Deputy MacEntee's constituency, who was described as “Mr. Average Married Man”. He said he would like to see the £85 income-tax allowance for each child increased to £100. In regard to the old age pensioners he said: “These old people deserve more money.” He would consider that a good Budget. The Fianna Fáil Party organ, having made their survey, gave that last opinion as what the average married man would consider a good Budget, and that was before the terms of the Budget were announced.
The day after the Budget was announced the Evening Press made another survey. They did not go back to “Mr. Average Married Man”, needless to say. They knew his views and they were not going to go near him again. They went around Dublin and they got some other views on the Budget. They gave only three, so we can imagine that the views they were getting did not suit. They gave this view, in any event:—
"I am glad to see the old age pensioners, the blind and widows getting the money—I would like to see them getting a good deal more.
"I think the Government did very well considering how little money they had at their disposal. The increase of £85 to £100 in the income-tax allowance for each child is also good for people with large families —but it does not benefit me, as I am not paying income-tax."