Last night I spoke with regard to the effect of the abolition of food subsidies and the general situation arising from that. To-day, I want to make a few remarks with regard to the Government decision to increase the price of petrol by 6d. a gallon. Deputy Booth, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, indicated yesterday evening that as far as he was concerned he would condemn the Minister and the Government in connection with the increase in the price of petrol if he could find any alternative tax which might be applied. My heart bleeds for Deputy Booth when I think of how he could have spread himself if he had been in this House just a year ago when the Fianna Fáil Party were occupying these benches.
Deputies will remember that a tax of 6d. a gallon was put on petrol in the 1956 Budget and a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies put on record their reactions to that tax. We had contributions on that occasion from Deputy Lemass, as he then was, the present Tánaiste, from the present Minister for Justice, Deputy Traynor as he then was, and from other Fianna Fáil Deputies. For the edification of Deputy Booth, I propose to show him what he missed, how he could have spread himself if he had been over here just 12 months ago, holding the views which apparently he holds in connection with the petrol tax.
I should like to start with Deputy Cunningham, who contributed his views on the Budget Resolutions on 8th May, 1956. As reported in the Official Report for 8th May, 1956, at column 70, Deputy Cunningham had this to say—I do not know how Deputy McQuillan put his foot in it, but this is not my remark, I want to assure Deputy McQuillan in advance; I am simply quoting:—
"Surely Deputy McQuillan is not so innocent as to think that an increase of 6d. a gallon on the price of petrol is not going to increase the cost of production on farms and that it is not going to affect the agricultural community? Every Deputy knows that farm production, or a great part of it, is hauled by petroldriven lorries and other vehicles of that kind. Accordingly, an increase in the price of petrol must affect the cost of agricultural production and will be passed on to the consumer. The new tax will also affect hackney owners about whom there was such wailing and moaning in 1952. It will be a serious blow to these people. Although tractor oil is exempted, still a large part of farm produce will be affected by the increased price of petrol."
That was one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies speaking from these benches in May, 1956. That Deputy is now occupying a seat behind the Minister and the only result of that change so far as petrol is concerned is that another 6d. a gallon goes on petrol.
The Tánaiste, when he was over here, spoke on the General Financial Resolution on 17th May, 1956, and in the Official Report for that date, at columns 624 and 625, he also recorded his view. Apparently, it is too much to hope that he was recording his views for the guidance of future Ministers for Finance. This is what he had to say at that time:—
"The extent to which petrol is used for purely recreational purposes is quite small, and probably would not represent 10 per cent. of the total consumption of petrol annually here. If the Minister had in mind, therefore, the getting in of additional revenue from a luxury, he has hit a great deal more than those who use petrol as a luxury. He has hit every business in the country which requires to use road transport. He has made another addition to our industrial costs, and, goodness knows, they are high enough. It is certain that, to some extent, every price in the country will have to be adjusted upwards because of this additional charge. But, over and above that tax on petrol used for transport, the Minister has imposed another tax on industrial fuel oil."
That was the Tánaiste in May, 1956, when petrol was being priced at 6d. a gallon less than it is being priced under the Fianna Fail Budget of this year.
The Minister for Justice, then Deputy Traynor, spoke here on the 23rd May, 1956. He had certain remarks to make with regard to the increase in the price of petrol. Again, I would ask Deputies to bear in mind that petrol was then being priced at 6d. less than it is being priced by the Fianna Fáil Budget of this year. When I made some remarks regarding the abolition of food subsidies, I pointed out that the abolition of those subsidies would probably lead to increased charges in hotels and that that would not suit the tourist industry. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Traynor, when he was in the Opposition Benches, was thinking along similar lines in connection with the price of petrol and on 23rd May, at columns 832 and 833 of the Official Report, he left his record behind him. He told us of a discussion he had had with an Englishman a few days before the Budget of 1956 was introduced. He told us that this Englishman knew that he, Deputy Traynor, was a parliamentary representative and he said the Englishman thought he would have some influence in the framing of the Budget. Deputy Traynor gave his recommendation to this man as being a good friend of Ireland. I quote now from Deputy Traynor's speech:—
"He asked me if I would be good enough to use my influence to see that the petrol tax was not raised. I replied that the petrol tax here was not nearly as high as it is in England. He said that he knew all about that, but that was not the point, that the point he wanted to impress on me was that, if we want to get English visitors to this country, we must offer them a cheap means of touring the country in their own cars—for instance, cheap petrol"
Deputy Traynor then gave a further account of his discussion with this English friend and finished up by saying:—
"I assured him that I had no influence in framing the Budget."
That was in May, 1956. Deputy Traynor is now Minister for Justice and I assume that he has some influence in framing the Budget. Apparently, so far as English visitors and other tourists are concerned, so far as the ordinary people of this country, the farmers, the hackney owners and taxi drivers, for whom Deputy Cunningham spoke 12 months ago, are concerned, the only result of Deputy Traynor's translation to the other side of the House and his influence in framing the Budget is that an additional 6d. goes on to the price of a gallon of petrol. I do not want to weary the House with further quotations from Fianna Fáil Deputies when they were on this side of the House. I think it was Deputy Booth who issued an invitation, I thought very reasonably, to those who were participating in this discussion to make some constructive suggestions as to how the position might be dealt with.
When I finished speaking yesterday evening I was referring to the suggestion made by Deputy Costello regarding the levies. I think that is an eminently sensible suggestion and one which would have relieved the position in a full year to the extent of something like £4,250,000. The suggestion was that the proceeds of the import levies should be put into revenue rather than into capital account. I think that could be done and I think it should be done. I am quite well aware of the fact that when Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance and was announcing the imposition of these levies that he made it clear that he intended devoting the proceeds of the levies for capital purposes. That was a decision taken in particular circumstances. If those circumstances altered to make it desirable to use the proceeds of the levies for current purposes, purposes of current revenue, I do not see why the proceeds should not go into revenue.
Deputy Costello also suggested the examination of the question of capital gains tax. I do not see why that suggestion could not be taken up. I do not know to what extent a tax of that nature would raise funds for the Minister for Finance, but I assume that it would at least make some impression. I pointed out yesterday that both in the 1952 Budget, when Fianna Fáil increased the price of the loaf, and in the present Budget when Fianna Fáil are again increasing the price of the loaf, on each occasion the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance in his Budget statement took the opportunity of referring to the entertainments duty position. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason, if a choice has to be made on the one hand between the price of essential foodstuffs and entertainment duty on the other, why the price of entertainments should not be increased. The Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance might well have been able to secure additional finance in the present year by further impositions of entertainments duty. At least it can be said for the inter-Party Government that during their period of office they did their utmost to see to it that they would prevent the price of essential commodities rising.
There are many people, particularly those who by neglecting to vote in the general election brought about the situation whereby Fianna Fáil were returned as the Government, who will to-day feel sorry for their neglect and for the fact that they did not prevent Fianna Fáil regaining office. Those people will now appreciate that the work of the inter-Party Government was work which was being done for the people of this country. They will appreciate that they endeavoured to keep down costs and that the interParty Government were sincere in their endeavours in that direction. I am not claiming that they succeeded entirely, but we can say that the interParty Government did not, by deliberate action, shove up prices particularly of essential commodities. There was that distinction there. The approach of the inter-Party Government, if money had to be found, was to tax non-essential and luxury type of goods. As far as I am concerned, if a choice has to be made and if money has to be found, I shall support the Government that will adopt that policy of taxing non-essentials and luxuries rather than taxing people's foodstuffs.
Another suggestion I would make is that it might be possible by some adjustment in the administration of children's allowances to see to it that those allowances are not paid to people who do not require them. I think a saving could be made there and quite possibly a very substantial one.
The Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works mentioned the other day, and I think he referred to it yesterday also, the difficulty of finding productive employment in the City of Dublin. Deputy Murphy asked a question yesterday in regard to the allocation of the additional £250,000 which is to be provided for employment and he inquired how much of that was to be devoted to employment in Dublin. There is no doubt in my mind that having regard to the size of the unemployment problem in Dublin the Government should devote a very substantial share of that money to alleviating the position in Dublin. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed the view that it is difficult to find productive employment in Dublin and I appreciate the position and what he has in mind. I think he gave a figure of something in the neighbourhood of £25 a week as the cost of putting a person into employment in Dublin and paying him a wage of about £7 or £8 a week.
I want seriously to suggest that the Government could save money and at the same time help to reduce unemployment in the City of Dublin by approaching the matter from an entirely different point of view. I believe that the Government could put into operation some system of a remission of income-tax to employers who would give employment, on the basis of receiving a bonus for each person, over a given number, taken into employment. If that bonus were allowed by way of remission of income-tax, I believe very many employers in this city would respond to that gesture by the Government. I believe they would endeavour to give employment and the Government would be able to save some of the moneys which they are allocating for relief schemes.
There is one other suggestion I want to make. I would like to make it clear that it is purely a personal suggestion. If it would ease the position in any substantial way, I certainly would not be opposed to the reintroduction of some system of bread rationing on the basis of giving a liberal ration of subsidised bread to those who need it and allowing the system to obtain, very much as it did during the days of the first inter-Party Government, in which the wealthy, those who could afford it and who wanted to get bread of a particular type over, above and outside the ration, were required to pay the full economic price for it. In that way, money was secured which enabled those who needed it most to obtain their bread at a subsidised price. I certainly would have no objection to the Government re-examining that position, if that would ease the situation.
I understood from a speech which the Taoiseach made over the week-end —I think it was at Mitchelstown—that his view was that the Government had not abolished food subsidies because of any doctrinaire economic principles, but because they felt it was a matter of necessity. I think that was the line the Tánaiste took on this matter also when speaking here yesterday. I believe it is true to say that some members of the Fianna Fáil Party, and at least one member of the Fianna Fáil Government, have put themselves on record as being hostile to the principle of subsidies. I am referring particularly to the Minister for Lands. Discussing the General Financial Resolution on the 12th May, 1955, in the Dáil Debates of that date at column 1470, he said:
"We have never yet had any explanation from the members of the present Government either when in opposition or at the present time, of how it was possible for other countries with socialist administrations—not conservative administrations—some of which had been neutral during the war and had made fortunes during the war, to reduce or abolish their subsidies for exactly the same reason as here and what could make it possible for us to retain the full panoply of subsidies when rationing ended and when, quite obviously, it was essential that there should be an adjustment in the standard of wages and salaries rather than a continuation of subsidies, because to a certain extent they had become unreal."
I do not think is the only time the Minister for Lands went on record on the question of subsidies. However, I understand from my reading of the Taoiseach's speech over the week-end that the Government did not take their decision to abolish the food subsidies on grounds of doctrinaire economics, but because they felt it was a necessity in the present financial position.
I am suggesting to them that there were other avenues which could and should have been explored. I believe, if the Government took a formal decision to get rid of the subsidies and believed it was the right financial policy to pursue, a lot might be said in favour of that; but if that decision was based on financial and economic grounds, they should not have put it into operation all in one year. They should have announced their decision and operated it gradually over a period of three or four years, rather than do it in the manner they have done it, which is bound to be a shock and a jolt for the entire economy of the country.
I do not think I have anything further to say other than to remind the Government again that they will have to render an account of their stewardship to the people. It is a great pity that it is not possible, by reason of the majority they have succeeded in obtaining in the House—due mainly, I think, to the number of people refraining from voting in the last general election—that the people's judgment on this first Fianna Fáil Budget cannot now be obtained, but it will be obtained sooner or later.
