Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1964

Vol. 209 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 11—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.)

Major de Valera

My intervention will, I hope, be very brief. The only purpose of it is to try to bring the debate back to what I think should be considered a fundamental. The Opposition have roamed over a wide field of general criticism but I do not think I am doing them any injustice if I say they have not displayed any definite policy in relation to this Budget and have been able to do no more than to offer the type of criticism that it is so easy to offer and the type of criticism that I think can all too often be heard in this House.

We should not lose sight of the concluding paragraphs of the Minister's statement. He frankly and concisely said:

This Budget, therefore, is intended to favour saving, to increase investment and to put a slight brake on consumption.

And the Budget framed with that aim in view, was conditioned by the particular circumstances which we have at the moment and which were more fully dealt with by the Taoiseach in his speech.

The Taoiseach was constrained to say, as reported in the Official Report, volume 208, column 1787. that it appeared necessary to re-state some elementary principles in this matter. My purpose in rising now is to underline these elementary principles because even within the last few days we read in the news of the conditions of things in Italy where remuneration was up by 14 per cent but prices and costs were up by more than ten per cent so that the net gain was very considerably less than the apparent gain and the cause was that the increase in remuneration had outstripped profitable productivity.

There is a lesson in the very recent past and it is worth while recalling what the Taoiseach said. I do not know of any more succinct way of stating it than the way he stated it as reported at column 1787 of the Official Report of the same volume from which I have just quoted. Here is what he said:

When national production is rising at an average annual rate of 4 per cent this is the maximum rate at which incomes can increase in real terms. If nominal incomes rise faster than that prices will certainly move up to confine the real gain in incomes to what higher national production can support. This is a mathematical certainly.

It is perhaps even simpler than a mathematical certainty. It is one of the very elementary primitive facts of economic life.

At this stage, in a Parliament with 40 years' experience and where we have seen many Budgets, we should realise what these elementary facts are and at least base our criticism of Ministerial proposals in the light of these facts. That, of course, the Opposition, in the present debate, have outrageously failed to do. Surely we can grow up in this Parliament to the stage where we can get beyond the childish philosophy of trying to have your cake and eat it.

The only purpose of my intervention here is to stress such a reality. We listened to Deputy McGilligan last night. While I was sorry in one way because Deputy McGilligan has not been able to keep up, it was only too painfully evident, listening to him, that he was still thinking 15, 20 and even 30 years back. What the justification is for what he did or did not do so long ago does not really matter in this current context. What we had to do is to face the circumstances of the present day. But, having listened to a lot of what Deputy McGilligan said, I could not help thinking that, though he taunted other Deputies with not being long enough in the House to know, some of us who are long enough in the House to know have noticed the difference in the attitude of Deputy McGilligan as Minister and Deputy McGilligan in Opposition. However, I do not intend to chase after that too far. But I think it might be apt to quote him to drive home my point how Governments and how Ministers must have regard to what I call the facts of life and how the same facts of life are realities which must condition any responsible Government and any responsible Minister in the framing of his Budget. I think I might just quote Deputy McGilligan on some of the things he said when he was Minister for Finance. I will take his Budget of 1948 and I will quote from his Budget Speech as reported at column 1057 of the Official Report, Volume 110. Referring to arresting inflationary trends and profits and rents in particular, he goes on to say

The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such further advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services, have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice, and I would make a most earnest appeal to all employees not to seek further increases in monetary remuneration or improvements in working conditions, unless warranted by exceptional circumstances. Recent experience confirms that the benefit of an increase in money incomes is rapidly swallowed up by rising prices.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Major de Valera

Again he says in his Financial Statement of 2nd May, 1951, as reported in the Official Report, column 1878, Volume 125——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This is 1951?

Major de Valera

Yes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I thought there was some reference to not going back ten or 20 years.

Major de Valera

I am clinching my point. Maybe Deputy O'Higgins does not like it. As I was saying, Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance, was referring again to the problem of import prices and the necessity for balancing and he said:

When what we produce for export does not go as far as before towards paying for our import needs we suffer, as a nation, a reduction in the standard of living we can afford. Increases in remuneration offer no escape from this unwelcomed development; indeed, they can only accelerate the process of inflation and cause social injustice as between those able to improve or maintain their position and those who cannot enlarge their incomes and are therefore forced to assume an undue burden of hardship. For this reason, the Government ask for restraint in the putting forward of wage and salary claims and have taken measures intended to limit price increases to those justified by increases in costs.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Major de Valera

We know the measures taken. I want to emphasise that that view of the facts is the only responsible view. That makes it all the more reprehensible for a Deputy of the seniority of Deputy McGilligan to sail so far into the wind as to make suggestions that I can only characterise as incitement.

Deputy McGilligan was back in the past. We must deal with the present. We are concerned with Ireland in the present and the future and the building up of our economy. Whether anybody likes it or not there has been, over past years, a definite expansion in productivity which is proved by facts and figures and reflected by a certain air of advancement, if I do not call it prosperity, apparent abroad and so marked indeed that sometimes the Opposition describe it as euphoria. But there is real progress and it has been achieved through these plans that have been derided and sneered at by Deputies opposite, the two programmes for economic expansion.

What about this Budget? The Minister and the Taoiseach in sober terms, terms essentially not different from those used by other Ministers who are not of this Party when dealing with economic matters, have pointed out the fundamental factors in the situation, particularly in regard to prices and remuneration. We know from experience, if nothing more, from the experience of two Coalition Governments, what can and cannot be done in regard to controlling either factor. But, when there is a definite policy in Government and a definite trend established, progress can be achieved at the rate of approximately four per cent. That has been demonstrated here already and that progress has been maintained. We must all agree that for the benefit of the country in the future that rate must continue to be at least maintained, or else we shall not be able to reach the stage of being confident that we have a viable economy.

Surveying the present situation, I cannot see that the Minister could have approached his Budget on any basis other than that on which he did approach it. With singular frankness, he has, in the phrase I quoted at the outset, clearly defined his aims. It is always possible to argue as to the merits of these but I do not think the situation can be helped by the tactics that have been adopted and to which I have referred.

There is no point in my repeating everything the Taoiseach and the Minister, or indeed, any other speaker said, as the debate is growing old, but I want to emphasise the lesson which has been demonstrated, and is being demonstrated, in Italy that there is a linkage between remuneration and output and if the proper proportions are exceeded, the compensation comes by prices catching up on remuneration. There is no more escape from that than from the natural cycle of life in other respects. I should like Deputies to consider that after 40 years growing to maturity, we, as a Parliament, with the responsibility we have to the people, should weigh these factors as well as the factors that, perhaps, may be more remunerative when it comes to making political capital but upon which, if we are not careful, the people all too often pay the interest.

Mr. Clinton

It has been said that the Budget debate which is usually a long one is largely futile because nothing can be achieved by it. That is a point of view that we do not all have to accept, more especially when we know that we have a Government in power who change their mind and, in fact, make up their mind from day to day and hour to hour; a Government who have always failed to look ahead and make provision for any fundamental long-term future planning or development; a Government who have put a levy on milk today and when the pressure became hot, took it off and put it on cigarettes; a Government who on this occasion brought in a Budget and on the same night produced another Budget; a Government for whom the order of the day has been Supplementary Estimates and a Government also who have been guilty of retrospective legislation. In these circumstances, it is fair to say this debate might not be so futile and that something could come from listening to the sound, solid reasoning of those on the Opposition benches.

I believe that every day that passes the people are feeling more resentful and more bitter at the ever-growing load of taxation they are called upon to bear. They are all the more resentful and dissatisfied because they feel the Government are collecting this money and misusing it and that the new benefits are either meagre or non-existent.

The Government must admit that any of the valuable national assets we possess are the result of the advanced thought and creative ability of the people who carried on the Government of the country when Fianna Fáil failed to secure office. In support of this argument, I shall mention but a few things that I believe have been fundamental advances. I shall start with the ESB which did so much to enable the establishment and expansion of industry and has also done so much to provide amenities and comforts hitherto unthought of in the homes of our people. I mention the Sugar Company, one of our biggest industries at present and it also has done much for the people of rural Ireland. We all know the part played by the Industrial Development Authority. There is also the Land Project, the Agricultural Institute, the Local Authorities (Works) Act, the relief of taxation on exports, the 1948 Trade Agreement, the Whitegate Oil Refinery. These are some of the important developments which come to my mind at the moment. They are the result of advanced throught and creative ability and I would ask the members of the Government to contrast this with their own meagre contributions.

I think any Budget, any worthwhile Budget, should give evidence and expression to the future thoughts and ideas for national development. I believe the most efficient part of the present Government is their propaganda machine and ability to gull the people into believing that the nation is marching rapidly ahead under their inspired leadership. It is a well-known fact that every Minister and every member of the Government who stands up to speak at any function never fails to mention the magic title, the Blue Book, Programme for Economic Expansion. This, of course, is expected to arouse new hopes and expectations. It has a sort of magic ring in it. I think it would be a good thing if the Government gave up flapping their wings, got down to the hard facts about Ireland and gave up misrepresenting the people.

Some of the hard facts are these. The 1961 census of population shows that the number of people working in all our industries was 164,567 fewer than it was in 1951. I think any Government who have to face that record should bow their heads in shame, not only at their failure to increase the numbers in employment but even to maintain that standard of employment. It is quite obvious that the employment opportunities provided by the Government are totally inadequate. That, to me, represents absolute failure when we can go back 10 years and prove that, in 1961, there were some 164,000 fewer people in employment than there were in 1951.

It may be said that the incomes of these people are higher. I suppose if it is counted in the number of pounds, shillings and pence that they are getting it certainly is higher. But I wonder is the real value of that income any better? I think very few people realise that the man who, ten years ago, had a salary of £3,000—and there were not so many of them—today would need £4,000 to have the same purchasing power. These are not my figures. They are figures got here as the result of recent questions.

Let us bring that down closer to the ordinary working man. The man who, ten years ago, had £12 a week, would now need £16 to have the same purchasing power. This reduced working population is now being called upon to provide twice as much money to run the country than was required, say, seven years ago. In the present year they are being asked to provide £17 million in extra taxation, that is, the £10 million extra on the turnover tax and £7 million more on new taxation. Side by side with this, we will have a continuation of very heavy borrowing. All this additional borrowing has, of course, to be serviced and adds up to additional cost and additional taxation.

What then is happening to this money? What are the benefits, if any, that the people are getting? The Social Welfare beneficiaries are getting a halfcrown and everybody knows by now that this halfcrown is already eaten up by the increases in the cost of living. I believe they were entitled to more and I think everybody believes they were entitled to more. Many people would even be agreeable to bigger sacrifices to enable a higher increase to be given to the Social Welfare beneficiaries.

The farmers are being given 2d a gallon on milk. This, in my view, is already eaten up by the increases in the cost of production since they received their last increase. There is no incentive in this increase to the farmers of the country to produce milk of higher quality so that we could have greater diversification of our milk products with a view to finding a wider and more remunerative market.

Then we have the increase in the price of grade A and grade A special pigs. This provides an inducement to producers of higher quality bacon. I think that is a good thing. But, due to the increase in the price of barley, which is small, but nevertheless is roughly 1/- a cwt, it leaves roughly about 3/- per pig profit extra. Labour charges and other rising overhead charges nullify the effect of that increase. Nevertheless, I think it would be impossible for the farming community to carry on if these increases were not given.

There is the relief in rates as well. The Minister said, I think, the rates position as far as the farming community were concerned would now be back to the 1957 level. He may not have put it in those words but the impression abroad was that they would have to pay no more in rates now than they did in 1957. That is a wrong impression. It is probably true that on their lands they will not have to pay any more but on their buildings they will. The cost of rates is rising rapidly every year; it is rocketing every year. All this increased taxation, the turnover tax and all the other taxes that have been imposed, has inevitably rocketed the cost of local government and, in turn, the rates.

Still on the farming side benefit from this Budget, it has been termed the farmers' Budget. I think that is a very wrong description to give it. If it could be called a farmers' Budget I think the Minister should have come in here and said he believed in principle with the NFA statement in relation to the requirements of the industry in the future and that he was coming in this year to provide the first instalment for the very heavy investment programme that lies ahead if agriculture is to play the part I believe it is capable of playing in this country. I think it is estimated in that document that to put it rightly on its feet would cost somewhere in the region of some £300 million. The Government were requested, between now and 1970, to subscribe something in the region of £100 million to that investment programme. There is no evidence that I can see in the Budget that that confidence is felt in agriculture and that need appreciated by the Government.

No matter what is said in the Blue Book, nothing would contribute more to the expansion of our exports than if we got down and put agriculture into the position in which it will be able to contribute its full share, and in which we could develop it to its fullest extent. The matter that has been lost sight of over the years is the fact that the investment has been far too small and its potential has been very much underestimated. Another part of the Blue Book stresses that the salvation of the country lies in the expansion of industrial exports. I agree that it is extremely important that we should develop industry to the maximum, especially if we can base it on home-produced raw materials, but I know we cannot stick to that. I have commented here before about the inadequacy of the machinery we have to deal with the establishment and expansion of industry generally. The people engaged in this important work of encouraging and attracting industry are doing an excellent job. They are first-class people but we have not got nearly enough of them and I believe that through protracted delays and due to the fact that we have not got enough people and authorities interested in the development of industry, valuable opportunities and valuable industries have been lost.

It is not unusual to find that it is six months or perhaps 12 months before a proposal can be fully processed and either agreed upon or disagreed with and many people lose heart during that period and give up the ghost and say they have never experienced this in any other country. That is something the Government should consider seriously. People engaged in this work are doing an excellent job but, in my view, they are overworked and are not able to attend to it.

I spoke about the increases given to the agricultural community and it is only fair to comment on the timing of these increases. The 12 per cent increase was agreed on and was paid to almost the entire population, from, let us say, 1st February, but the farming community had to wait until the Budget and the farm workers, the lowest paid section of the community, have to wait until 14th May for this increase. I cannot understand the mentality of a Government who see justice in that type of treatment for a very important section of the community.

I want now to refer to some of the taxes imposed in the Budget. I would agree with some of these taxes, provided there were corresponding reliefs elsewhere. For instance, I believe that the increase of 3d on the cigarettes may be a good tax in so far as it may act as a further deterrent to people who smoke excessively and may further protect the health of our people. The tax on Scotch whisky—I suppose I should say "on imported spirits"— looks a reasonable tax, although it is not a tax of 4d but of 6d because that is what the increase has resulted in. Before that tax was imposed, an effort should have been made to induce the whiskey distillers here to produce a blend of whiskey that would be acceptable to the people who normally drink Scotch whisky. I think the tax is premature and also that it is a fairly savage increase.

I am completely opposed to a further tax on the pint. I know that people in all strata of society drink stout but by and large it is the workingman's drink and indeed, in my view, it often represents necessary nourishment and certainly I would not have increased it.

I believe the tax on petrol and diesel oil was a most unwise tax. I know many people at present who have purchased their first car and they are finding it just as much as they can do to keep it on the road. They just have a car to take their wives and families out at the weekends and I think that this tax will put them off the road. It will also make our already inefficient and expensive transport system more expensive. It will increase the costs of that transport and add to the costs of industry and agriculture and eventually make us less competitive. In the EEC countries, that is one thing they believe in, a cheap and inexpensive transport system.

There is no adequate provision that I can see in the Budget for either education or housing. I remember on one occasion when the Minister for Health was introducing a Budget, he said that expenditure on education was not really, in the strict sense, expenditure, that it was investment. Of course any reasonable person would agree with him because, if we are to keep pace with modern developments and get where we want to get as fast as possible, education is the most important aspect of our economy on which we should spend money. If we are going to get anywhere, we will have to embark on very heavy expenditure on the provision of very many more schools and on sufficient teachers to man these schools. In this respect we have fallen down rather badly.

It is deplorable at present to see so many secondary schools "up to their tonsils" in debt and no provision being made in the Budget to meet these debts. At the same time, we see the qualified religious personnel teaching in these schools being taxed the same as single men in the outside world when we know that their salaries are going to pay off the outstanding building debts on these institutions. This is a great neglect on our part. We are fortunate that we have so many people with ability, service and dedication and on top of that, we expect them to spend what should be their leisure hours in running raffles and bingo clubs to pay these expenses which should be normally borne by the State.

Lastly, I wish to say a word or two about housing. There is something all wrong here. We are not taking the position seriously. A housing emergency should be declared, especially in the Dublin region. There is too much expenditure on luxury building; State offices, semi-State offices and other unnecessary buildings are going up at the present time to which the Government are contributing money when thousands of our people are without homes and have no prospect of getting them. I say these buildings are unnecessary at the moment because we could wait for a slump period to tackle them.

We have our skilled personnel engaged on these works when they should be engaged on the provision of homes for our people. There is a state of gang warfare throughout the country at the moment and it is not unconnected with the fact that many of our young people have no prospects of settling down and getting married and no prospect of a home, if they were so inclined. There has been no alteration in the money provided for SDA houses and there is no check whatever on the profiteering that I believe is going on. I know from my membership of a local authority the enormous gap there is between a local authority valuation of a house and the selling price of that house. That gap is so great that people buying a house have to provide anything from £400 to £700 out of their own pockets. Consequently, these houses are out of the reach of many of these people.

I am disappointed that no money appears to have been provided for improvements in the health services. The fact that there is a Select Committee inquiring at the moment into the health services is no excuse for not improving the present position. The upper limit for qualification for services under the Act was last fixed in 1958 and there has been no alteration since. Another deplorable omission is that there is no provision whatever for families who are unfortunate enough to have a mentally defective child and who have to face a lifelong burden with such a child if it has a normal expectancy of life.

My main complaint against the Budget is that there is no long-term planning in it. It is just providing what it is expedient to get by with at the moment but there is no real indication of a forward looking Government policy or of a Government prepared to develop the resources of the country as they should be developed.

Mr. Leneghan

I regard Budgets as nothing but a farce and a brake on the progress of our country. There may be some good reason for having a Budget in countries such as the United States or Russia but I see no reason for having one in a little country such as this. I see no reason why the whole tenor of our ways should be upset every year by this exercise in mental gymnastics on the part of our civil servants. There are well-known limited companies operating even in this country and on its borders who turn over more money every year than we turn over in this country and they do not introduce budgets or bring out statements such as we bring out annually. They bring out accounts to show how they are progressing, what might be called housekeeping accounts, but they do not keep on jumping up and down every year.

I do not see any reason why we should not have a deficit in this country for one, two or three years. As a result of the Budget brought in here last year, there was very little good reason for introducing this type of Budget this year. Taking a long-term view of things, matters would have righted themselves anyway and we could have let things jog along. The sooner we realise that this annual Budget racket is not essential and that it is little better than a waste of time the more progress we will make.

I have to admit to nothing but sympathy for the Minister for Finance because he has an impossible task. Whether he is right or whether he is wrong, he is always wrong. Last year he was wrong because, allegedly, he taxed essentials. This year, of course, he is wrong because he taxed luxuries. He was wrong last year because it happened that he did not give, as far as I remember, any very substantial incentive to the farmers. This year he becomes a farmers man because he did try to help them out.

That attitude towards the Minister for Finance does not make a lot of sense to me because I have to look at it in this way. It is remarkable that everybody here knows what is wrong but there is nobody here who is prepared to say what is right, nobody who is prepared to tell the Minister exactly what he should do. Worse still, there is nobody here who is prepared to say what he would be prepared to do if he got power, because he will not give away secrets. That is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with matters. It appears that we want higher benefits but, of course, lower taxes; we want better times for all but no increased charges; we want to pay everybody but to charge nobody. It does not appear to be a very satisfactory type of economics but it does appear to be the backbone of the Opposition's idea of economics. We in this House will have to live and see. Whether the Minister is right or wrong, he will be attacked. He is wrong in any case.

A peculiar type of mentality is at present being propagated in the country. To my way of thinking it is a rather irresponsible attitude towards our affairs but everything is being done to propagate that attitude. Certain papers are at it. They are trying to pervert public opinion and, in many cases, to slight public opinion. In fact, certain papers throughout this country go out of their way to hold Deputies up to ridicule so that they will not speak in this House. That is going on, as we know. The same attitude is being taken, of course, towards the Minister.

It is bad enough to see certain papers throughout the country carrying on that type of campaign against Deputies and against Ministers and to see the newspapers trying deliberately to stop us from opening our mouths. There is not a lot we can do about that outside of taking advantage of the very doubtful laws of libel. But, it is a very different matter when Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann enter into this and deliberately go out of their way to try to stop us from speaking. I agree that some of this may be more appropriate on the Estimate for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not seem to be a subject relevant to the debate.

Mr. Leneghan

I am referring to it because the position now is that throughout this country, it is well known, a deliberate effort is being made, by both Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann, to silence Deputies in this House and to hold Ministers and Deputies up to ridicule. I am not one bit surprised about this——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate is confined to taxation, expenditure and financial policy.

Mr. Leneghan

We are paying for these——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise in this debate. As the Deputy himself has said, it might be relevant on an Estimate.

Mr. Leneghan

I know it might be relevant on an Estimate but it is a shocking state of affairs when we are the people who have to pass the Estimate for Radio Éireann, for Telefís Éireann, for Bord na Móna.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is purely a matter for the Estimates. It does not arise in the Budget debate.

Mr. Leneghan

It is a shocking state of affairs. Telefís Éireann is controlled by what I can call nothing better than the woodlice of the Irish Times. I do not know if you will agree with me or not but I do think a deliberate effort——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not agree that the Deputy should pursue this subject, which is a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Leneghan

Fair enough, Sir, I am sorry. I will raise it on the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Sherwin

The Deputy may not be let.

Mr. Leneghan

If I am not allowed to raise it, I am afraid there will be a bit of uproar in this House. I am not one of those who will be cowed, no matter what efforts will be made to cow me.

Mr. Barron

The Deputy will be permitted to raise it on the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs. Leave it at that.

Mr. Sherwin

I raised something and I would not be allowed to raise it this evening.

Mr. Leneghan

That is fair enough. We can raise it on the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs.

Last week the financial expert of the Fine Gael Party, named Deputy Harte, made a most despicable attack on certain members of this House in the Budget debate. It was quite clear from Deputy Harte's statement that he insinuated that certain members of this House had been subjected to bribery. I want to say here and now that from the first day I came into this House until today I have never discussed with any member of this House the way in which I was going to vote and any effort which was made one way or the other to pervert my method of voting was made by members of the Fine Gael Party.

In all fairness, I think, Sir, I am entitled to read out Deputy Harte's statement of 16th April. It is reported in column 1971 of the Official Report of 16th April. It is a most reprehensible statement and there is no other meaning to be taken out of it than that certain members of this House were bribed. The statement is:

Last year, speaking on the Budget, I said there was one thing I admired the Fianna Fáil Party for— the manner in which they have succeeded in gulling the Irish people. They have perfected the art. They have held on to office by as little as one vote. No Prime Minister in the democratic countries of the world would have stayed in office in such circumstances. The housewives of Dublin protested publicly in the streets. Every organised body in the country protested. Putting Party before the nation, the present Government stayed in office on as narrow a margin as one vote. It could not have been narrower. Rumours circulated in the Lobbies in relation to certain vital votes. While most of us pay little attention to rumour, it was quite obvious that there were certain aspects of these rumours that could not be ignored. I fully appreciate that if I were called upon to prove these aspects, my task would be a most difficult one. Many things are difficult to prove, but they still remain facts.

That statement is beneath contempt. That vote was either mine or Deputy Sherwin's and I want to say publicly— any man in the House who knows me can prove this— I never even had a discussion in the House regarding how I should vote, much less about the question of accepting some financial reward. That comes from Deputy Harte from the beautiful constituency of East Donegal, the headquarters of the smugglers of Ireland.

Mr. Sherwin

He is too cagey to say it outside. He is afraid.

Mr. Leneghan

That was a despicable statement to make in the House. However, I would not expect anything better from the smugglers of East Donegal. This Budget has been called a farmers' Budget. It is a misnomer. It is possible to call it a big farmers' Budget but definitely it is not a farmers' Budget. I think it is only fair to say that the big farmers will be the men who benefit substantially as a result of this Budget.

If some Bill were introduced, or if other steps were taken to help out shopkeepers, I do not for one moment believe such a measure would be aimed at giving all the benefits to the big shopkeepers. However, this Budget is, generally speaking, aimed at giving the main benefits to the big farmers. Any system of aid to farming should be worked out on a differential basis whereby the small farmers, the struggling men, would get the main benefits from any allocation of State moneys. After all, it is the small man who requires it.

It appears to me—I hope I am wrong—that the man who will get the greatest assistance from this Budget is the farmer who, if he operated his farm properly, would not and should not get any benefit from Government sources. If I am wrong I should be glad to hear it from the Minister who, I hope, will examine this position and see that the small struggling farmers get the main benefits from any concessions given in the Budget. It is not the big fellow, the fellow who goes to the races, to the funerals and to the dogs who needs such benefits. If this Budget is aimed at giving such a farmer the larger slice, the small fellow will be sent west and to the dogs anyway.

The new social welfare allowances have not been by any means excessive. I suggest the Minister should have gone out of his way to increase these allowances further. If he had done so he would have had the backing of the House. It appears to me that in many cases the troubles of social welfare recipients are not by any means the making of the Minister, because the means used to investigate what some of these people have are the very same means used in 1916. I suggest the Minister should alter that or should endeavour to get the Minister for Social Welfare to do so.

A rather peculiar situation arises in regard to these allowances. The Minister has given certain increases but it now appears—I should like the Minister to clarify it—that as a result of recent increases, allowances under the income tax regulations will not be available to certain people. If that is so it makes anathema out of the whole thing. I am informed also, I do not know with what veracity, that the 12 per cent increase in wages and salaries will put a great number of people outside the scope of the Social Welfare Acts and that consequently they will be worse off after the increases than before them.

If that is true, it more or less makes a joke of the whole matter. I have this information from people who have come to me and made statements. Whether these statements are right or wrong I cannot say. I can say, though, that it is no use giving a man an increase in income and then discovering that he is worse off than he was before he got it.

There has been a great hubbub in industrial circles about the increase of 1d on the postage stamp and of the increased charges for telephones and so on. I should not mind that outcry if it had come from the ordinary person, the person who has to write to England to ask his son, daughter or other relative to send back money. Every company account I have read since I was born has shown an increased profit, year in year out. I have no sympathy for those people. They can take up a whole page in each morning newspaper in the State practically once a week, very often daily, at a colossal price, and I fail to see why they should crib about the penny increase on the postage stamp.

All my sympathy is for the poorer sections, for the man who has to go out into the bog and is often forced to pay income tax on his miserable wage, for the county council worker, but I have none for the big businessman who can juggle his accounts to avoid paying income tax or any form of tax.

There has been quite an uproar about the alterations in the prices of drink. I do not think anybody should take that very seriously, and I speak as a publican. When we are in a position to import the enormous amounts of drink shown on page 28, No. 10 of volume 29 of the Licensed Vintner for March of this year, it is past the time for us to cry halt to these imports. Surely, in a country like this where water is our chief commodity, it is nothing less than a public scandal that we are not able to turn out enough drink for ourselves without being forced to import it. The Minister should have done it long ago. There should be a much greater differential, in my opinion, between the price of Irish drinks and their foreign counterparts. I am not on the side of our Irish whiskey barons who refuse to meet either our or anybody else's taste. They are just a gang making so much profit that they do not give two hoots about anybody. On the other hand, any steps we take in relation to the taxation of drink, or anything of that kind, must be taken to help our Irish farmers and give them a chance of having their products properly utilised.

There has been a good deal of talk about education, lack of expenditure on education and our general backwardness, perhaps, in education. If we are to become a prosperous nation in the foreseeable future, able to hold our own, we shall have to do something about our present educational standards. In many cases, our schools are not fit for pupils at all. Our outlook on education is much the same as it was 40 years ago when, if one did not know Latin and Greek, one was an outcast, and certainly not a person of standing. Today, if one knows Latin and Greek, one is regarded as an oddity, and I think rightly so. We must bring ourselves into line with modern trends. We can no longer allow our people to leave this country with a pick, a shovel and a pair of navvy's boots. We must do something to ensure that, when our people leave us, they are in a position to earn a livelihood and compete with those amongst whom they will move in foreign lands. I make no apology to anyone for saying that. Money spent on education is money well spent. Scholarships must be substantially increased, and as rapidly as possible.

There is a great divergence of opinion with regard to agricultural and industrial development. With regard to future development, the position of our country is unlikely to be any different from that of any other country. Other countries are losing agricultural workers. The same appears to be the trend here. It is essential, therefore, that there should be some other type of work available. No doubt the mechanisation of agriculture has made it possible substantially to reduce the number of agricultural workers. Unless we make efforts in some other direction to provide employment for them, they will have to emigrate.

No matter what Opposition Deputies may say, industrial development is the only solution. It is only some days ago that Deputy MacEoin stated here that the big difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael was that the Fine Gael Party developed what were regarded as essentials while the Fianna Fáil Party developed what were regarded as non-essentials. I do not know where they would draw the line because, when Deputy MacEoin was in power, one of his first actions was to close down Bord na Móna, the Shannon Airport, and put a stop to progressive industries in the country. I should be very pleased if someone on that side of the House would state what they regard as essentials and what they regard as non-essentials. I am sure many of the younger generation would like to have the answer.

I note that in recent times the effort made some years ago to attract industry to the west appears to have slackened off. I think that is a very grave error. The potential in the west is enormous. The main body of our emigrants come from the west. They do well in foreign lands, even in highly industrialised countries. It must be accepted that, if they can do well in these highly industrialised countries, they could do equally well at home if they had the opportunity.

I am afraid—I hope I am wrong— that most of our Budgets now, and most of our efforts, too, are aimed at making Dublin a prosperous and progressive area. I do not think for one moment that prosperity and progress should mean merely bigger crowds in the pubs and smoke dens of Dublin. I do not hold that view at all. All our efforts should be aimed at ensuring a well-balanced population throughout the country, a population able to earn a livelihood in its own locality. That is very important, in my opinion. I feel —I am sure others feel it also—that this is one aspect that has been completely overlooked.

We should not be afraid to invest in our country's future. We are a comparatively new State. Those who have any experience of emergent contries, such as Nigeria, know the huge sums of money that are being thrown into the development of these countries, with complete confidence in the future of these countries. We have here, perhaps, the best country in the world if we are prepared to take the necessary steps to develop it. We should throw away our conservatism. We are far too conservative I would prefer a gambler's Government any time to a conservative Government and, the bigger the gamblers, the more I would be inclined to back them. We are far too conservative and until we reach the point at which we are prepared to take a chance, such as has been taken in other countries, we will not make any remarkable progress. It is unfortunate, but until we reach that day, I am afraid we will not see progress.

The Opposition have told the Government that the Government are wrong, but they have not said what the Government should cut out. Should they cut out the power stations, the airports, Bord na Móna, wheat production, or increased prices for milk? What should they cut out? They have told the Government they are all wrong, but not one Opposition Deputy has said what they should do. It would be wise for us to regard ourselves as a grown-up and responsible nation, and not just a number of excitable factions, as some people in this House seem to regard us. At this stage in our existence, we should turn our eyes forward and forget the bitterness of the past. We should not be afraid to invest in progress.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to refer to the statement made by Deputy Clinton in his approach to the whole question of the budgetary requirements of this country. He said that Fianna Fáil as an organisation and a Party are adept at gulling the public. It seems rather significant that in the quotation Deputy Leneghan gave Deputy Harte used the same words.

I have listened to speeches denigrating Fianna Fáil and their achievements. Denigration is a poor substitute for a constructive approach to the problems that face the country. In my opinion, the Budget is a reasonable and sensible approach to our financial requirements. It is based on the principle of putting taxation mainly on non-essentials and, at the same time, it is directed to expansion on the national front.

The Taoiseach pointed out in the recent by-elections, and reiterated here, that the question before the country was whether the people wanted national economic development and social progress, in the full knowledge that they would cost more. The electorate of Kildare and Cork, in very intensive campaigns, showed in a clear and unmistakable manner that they wanted further economic development and social progress. They clearly indicated, by returning the two Fianna Fáil candidates, that they wanted more assistance for agriculture, a further expansion of the tourist industry, more incentives for industrialisation, better social services and improved educational facilities, in the belief that they are required for the future of the country, and in the full knowledge that they would cost money.

As a city dweller, I know that some people fail to appreciate the necessity for laying emphasis on agriculture in the Budget. If one is impartial, one must agree with the statement recently broadcast by the Minister for Agriculture, when he said that, if the farming community were in trouble, the rest of the country would be in trouble, and, if the farming community are prosperous, the rest of the country is also prosperous. I accept that with just one reservation. There is one class in the community who will never be prosperous, the old age pensioners. I know that Fianna Fáil Governments down through the years have never shirked their responsibilities towards those classes and, on every occasion the economy permitted it, they have given them increases.

I share in the disappointment expressed not only from the opposite benches but from this side of the House, with the amount of the social welfare increases. I am also keeping in mind the small increases in Old IRA pensions. In these days when there is an air of affluence in society generally, we owe a special responsibility to those classes and particularly to the Old IRA who bore the brunt of those glorious years, especially those Old IRA men who are incapacitated and unable to follow their former occupations. I hope that in future Budgets the Minister will not only make more generous provisions for old age pensioners, but that he will also keep in mind the claims of the diminishing numbers of Old IRA men.

Reference was made in the Budget to the injection into the economy of the 12 per cent wage increase. I welcome that, and I feel it will help to maintain the level of commercial activity which has been a marked feature of the economy during the past year or so. More money in circulation means more goods and more luxuries are in demand. In that connection, I appeal to the manufacturers, who, as I know, are conscious of the need for developing their business, while concentrating on their export business, not to neglect the home market. With the lowering of tariffs, more competitive goods are coming in here, and that may result in a lessening demand for home products.

Public representatives, trade organisations and responsible interests have always stressed the value of Irish manufactured goods and have said they were as good as imported articles. We must remember that some of these imported articles have generations of skill behind them which our salesmen may find it difficult to counter. I hope manufacturers of Irish goods catering for the home market will not neglect to watch that trend, and take the necessary steps to meet it.

Reference was also made to the housing situation in Dublin and throughout the country. I should like to point out that this Budget provides double the amount provided in 1957 for housing. As a member of the Corporation, I know that the Corporation can proceed with their programmes for housing in the full knowledge that adequate moneys will be made available. That is in marked contrast to the situation that developed here when the Opposition Parties formed a Government a few years ago.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a sitaution which has arisen as a result of the exorbitant prices paid for building sites in Dublin. Prices of up to £800 and £900 have been sought and obtained for building sites.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that would be a matter for the Estimates? It is a detail in the housing question.

Mr. Timmons

Surely it arises under the Budget? It arises in relation to profiteering in building sites. I want to point out that because of this development people are being denied an opportunity of availing of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I do not know what steps can be taken to suggest a way to deal with it but I honestly think that in the public interest the matter should be dealt with. I urge the Minister to give it his attention.

That is all I have to say on this important measure. I congratulate the Minister on other aspects of his Budget.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I have offered on a number of occasions now, since the commencement of this debate on the Budget, and it was always my intention to preface my remarks by saying that it is anything but a good Budget. Having listened to Deputy Booth yesterday evening one would get the impression that it is a wonderful Budget and that the Government should be acclaimed. It is very fortunate for Deputy Booth that there will be no general election in the near future, or he might find it a difficult task to persuade the housewives of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area. I think, by now, the people of this country must have lost all faith and all confidence in the Government, and particularly in the Minister for Finance.

Twelve months ago, when the Minister introduced his Budget, he brought in a new form of taxation to this country in the nature of a turnover tax. On that occasion, he said that one of the reasons he introduced this new type of taxation was that the old reliables of petrol, cigarettes, beer and spirits had reached saturation point as far as taxation was concerned. I feel the Minister was very sincere when he made that statement. I feel the Minister believes at the present day that such is the case.

I believe that the 2½ per cent turnover tax would this year have been increased at least to 3¾ per cent but for the strong opposition the Government met last year not alone from this side of the House but from the country as a whole. The Minister thought it wiser not to increase the turnover tax but to fall back again on the old reliables of petrol, cigarettes, beer and spirits.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister anticipates an income of £14 million from the turnover tax during this coming year, he found it necessary to look for a further £7 million. Out of that £21 million he has found it possible to contribute £730,000 to the non-contributory old age pensioners—in other words, an increase of 2/6d per week or, with the present-day spending value of that amount, an increase of roughly 10d a week.

We are asked to forget about the past. We are asked to think of the present and to look forward to the future. I have no doubt that the old age pensioners will never forget 1964 with the ever-increasing cost of living and their increase in pension of 2/6d a week.

I would advocate a minimum pension of £5 per week for any old age pensioner and his wife. I have no doubt that the taxpayer will not grudge paying extra taxes on luxuries if the extra taxation is devoted to giving the old age pensioners a little comfort for the remaining years of their lives. I do not say that £5 per week will give them luxury. I think it would barely give them an existence. Those people who have worked all their lives as labourers or unskilled or even skilled workers but who were not in a pensionable position have contributed to the progress of the country. For the remaining years of their lives, they should have at least enough to give them an existence. I strongly appeal to the Minister to consider an increase to this class of people to a minimum of £5 per week.

I come now to the subject of petrol. An increase of 3d per gallon in petrol is, in fact, approximately an increase of five per cent. This tax will cause widespread hardship. Every section of the community will be affected. The cost of collecting and delivering essentials—milk and all other food-stuffs—will be affected. When we consider the amount of petrol consumed in the country, five per cent is a very big increase. Taxi drivers are a very wonderful asset, in their way, to this country. They have now to face an increase of five per cent in the cost of their fuel. They should have been considered for exemption, like CIE.

The Budget ought to provide greater incentive and encouragement for future economic development. Unless confidence can be inculcated, our economic targets will not be achieved. I suggest that a proper scale of priorities should be planned in order that investments may be made where best results can be achieved.

If our economic growth is to continue, the assurance of markets for our agricultural and industrial projects is absolutely essential and here I think the Government have failed very badly. I think that marketing is largely neglected by the Government. Producers, agricultural or otherwise, must be certain of their markets. Our traditional market is in England and the Government should explore every possibility of improving that market. It was always Fine Gael policy to negotiate agreements wherever possible. The Department of Industry and Commerce should form a marketing division as an internal measure. It is very important that something should be done to guarantee markets for our producers.

While I am not a farmer or an agricultural Deputy, I have studied very carefully the demands of the NFA and I feel their demand for 4d a gallon was justified. I thought they put up a very good case for it. Although they have been granted 2d a gallon, from Friday morning, the Dublin housewife will have to meet a 4d a gallon increase, an eight per cent increase, in the cost of milk alone. Over the past few years, we have been advocating increased consumption of milk and now consumers must meet this eight per cent increase. Up to this we have no idea how it will effect the price of butter.

The Minister referred to the need for further savings and any policy that will lead to that goal would be of great service to the nation. Our percentage of savings, 12 per cent, is very low in comparison with other European countries which average around 18 per cent. A better balance between savings and investments is required.

The smaller businessmen in the cities and in rural areas expected some relief in this Budget, either in rates or taxes. They must be most disappointed by the Government's failure to give such relief. That has given the green light to foreign multiples to come here and open supermarkets. Eventually, it will only be a matter of time until the small businessman, the family groceries that have given valuable service over the centuries, will be obliterated. By failing to give that section of the community some relief, the Minister has virtually told them: "Your days are numbered."

I was very glad to see the Minister gave some extra contribution to housing. Only we in Dublin know the housing situation where at present there are cases of up to 16 and 17 persons living in two-bedroom houses. There is nothing we can do to relieve that situation but I am glad the Minister has given some extra help to ease the position.

Deputy Booth boasted about the wonderful achievement of the Taoiseach this year in arranging the 12 per cent increase in wages which was accepted by the Congress of Trade Unions. I do not think for a moment that, on the occasion of that agreement, Congress thought that the price of commodities and services would increase by so much in such a short time. I cannot see how this 12 per cent agreement will last for two years.

Mr. Sherwin

I was amused listening to Deputy O'Keeffe. I do not think he was serious. Walter Lippman is a very shrewd political observer and he said that politicians had a habit of seeming to say something they do not mean. That applies to all politicians. I would agree with the £5 a week to pensioners which the Deputy suggested and I would vote for it, if he first tells us from whom the £40 million is to be collected. We are told that the 2/6 increase costs £700,000. In that case, 10/- extra would cost about £3 million. If we jump from 35/- to £5, you must multiply by six and you get £18 million and —not forgetting the odd 5/-——

Mr. O'Keeffe

I said £5 for man and wife.

Mr. Sherwin

I do not think the Deputy said man and wife.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I did.

Mr. Sherwin

I accept that. That would mean an extra 15/-. If it takes £700,000 to give 2/6, we must multiply that by six. That applies only to the non-contributory class but if they get 50/-, the contributory class would have to jump also. That would cost another couple of million. You cannot give one class of social beneficiaries a substantial increase and ignore others. One thing about this Government is that whenever they give an increase, they give it all round, but the Coalition Parties never did that. If they gave something to the contributory pensioners, they did not give it to the non-contributory class, or if they gave it to the non-contributory class, they did not give it to the unemployed. Always, they gave it to only one or two sections and therefore they were doing it on the cheap.

To the best of my recollection, every time this Government gave an increase, it was an all-round increase, to pensioners, widows and orphans and unemployed and, even in the past couple of years, disabled persons. You cannot substantially increase allowances to one section without doing the same for all the other sections. No matter how you look at the suggestion, it would cost at least £10 million. I accept that. But on whom would you put the £10 million? It is all right to say "luxury goods" but what luxury goods? Would that put luxury goods out of business? Would anyone buy them? Can they be exported? Would it mean thousands unemployed? I want to know what luxury goods, and I want to hear exactly and specifically what would be got on each specific luxury article. If it were television sets, how much would be got? What would you have to tax to get so much? That is how business is done. It is no use seeming to say something and not meaning it. If you say that £10 million more should be given to those people, I agree, and I shall vote for it. That is the difference between me and the Opposition. I shall vote for it but they will not. I shall vote for all the taxation.

I voted for a halfcrown this year and a halfcrown last year and if the Government put on 10/- this year, I shall vote for it, and if they put on taxation of £20 million, I shall vote for it, but the Opposition will not. There is no use in saying something and not meaning it. It is all very fine talking and saying you will do this and you will do that. I have strived for those people in my own way and I believe as an individual I have done more for them than anyone in Dublin or Ireland. I go about the thing sensibly and intelligently. I ask myself: who will pay for this and how much will it cost? I reason out things. Is it feasible? I do not seem to say it and not mean it. I mean it.

Here in Dublin Corporation, I pressed hard to get certain reductions for a certain class of people by way of social benefits and, through hard work, I got certain decreases in differential rents. I did that and they benefited by £13,500 per year. I went about the thing sensibly. I said to myself that the manager would not reduce the rents, but that he might reduce them for the old age pensioners. I approached him and argued it out. He said: "All right; I will not object to this for old age pensioners but it must go on the others."

Each year I do that. I go my own way and I have managed to arrange that these increases in the differential rents do not apply to the old age pensioners in the Corporation. I take the facts, work them out and get results. That is very different from merely saying that pensioners should get something. The question is: how much is it and who will pay for it? What can be got on those commodities about which they are talking? Will they get £1 million or £10 million? Speaking for myself, if the Opposition make a specific proposal that certain goods should be taxed in order to give them 10/-, I shall vote for it. If the Opposition, a month before the next Budget, decide that they will vote for increased taxation, I shall support them. If the Opposition had sent a deputation to the Minister for Finance and if they told him straight away: "We will vote for increased taxation if you give so much to the old age pensioners", I believe the Government would have accepted it.

One of the reasons the old age pensioners cannot get enough is that the Government are fighting the Opposition tooth and nail for every farthing they give. Do not forget that. Every solitary farthing the old age pensioners get every year, the Government have to risk losing a general election in order to give it. To get the money to give the miserable—lousy, if you like —halfcrown, things have to be taxed and the Opposition vote against it. The Government have to face this. In other words, the Government have to face murderous opposition every year and are in danger of being thrown out of office for every single penny they give those people. They have to fight to get a halfcrown, or whatever it is, and they are taking a terrible risk.

It should not be forgotten that the Government have other responsibilities than just the old age pensioners. They have never confined their benefits to the old age pensioners. They have granted benefits all round—the unemployed, the widows and the orphans. The unemployed have done well and have admitted to me that they have done well. Last year they got not only an extra 5/- but an increase in children's allowances. People can spend money only in proportion to the amount they get to spend. You cannot talk about the cost of steak and caviare when the fellow you are talking about does not buy steak and caviare. You can only talk about the things he buys and the amount he has to spend. Therefore, if you deal with it in that manner you will say to yourself: "He has 5/- to spend. What did the 2½ per cent cost him? "It must work out that it cost him only a couple of bob. What did he get last year between the 5/- and the children's allowances? It worked out at 10/- or 11/-.

We all agree that the old age pensioners do not get a lot, or so it seems. The fact remains that they got a halfcrown last year and a halfcrown this year. That is 5/-. The halfcrown last year at least covered the turnover tax, because, notwithstanding all the exaggerations, it did not cost more than three or 3½ per cent, even with profiteering. By reason of the fact that a person has only a certain amount of money to spend, the turnover tax will cost him only so much, no matter how it is worked out. So it can be said that, even if it is not a lot, the halfcrown this year is an increase of a halfcrown in the old age pensioner's standard of living. If last year's halfcrown was absorbed by certain increases, at least this year's halfcrown is a halfcrown improvement. It is not a lot, but it is an improvement.

One can argue whatever way one likes because, no matter what things cost, the old age pensioner can spend only 30/- —that is all. Therefore, whether the turnover tax is 6d or 9d in the £1, out of the 30/- he has to spend, how can it cost him more than a bob or two? He does not buy steak or caviare. At least the 2/6 this year is an increase and I am hoping that there will be another increase next year. I expect things will settle down. Arising out of the recent Budget, there may be increases here and there, but I expect that in a short time, prices will settle down and that next year with a balanced Budget, the Government will be a bit more generous.

It is no use coming in here and talking foolhardily about giving people pounds unless it is said with honesty and said by people who know what they are saying. I read a lot of tripe in the papers every night, and see figures affecting one thing or another, by people who do not know what they are talking about. A wise man said to me not to answer them for I would have to write every night.

I want to make one thing clear. I will vote for any extra money for the old age pensioners. I say, and repeat it, if a deputation goes to the Minister one month before next year's Budget and says: "Give those people an extra 10/- and we shall agree to your taxation; we will even allow that you need more money for other things besides old age pensioners," and if the Opposition agree to vote for taxation, the old age pensioners will be better off by 10/- or £1 next year. But will they do it? They have never done it before.

Let us come back to this business of talking about what they will give or what should be given. The fact is that they actually fight tooth and nail against a solitary penny being given to old age pensioners. They bitterly fight every penny of taxation and they work up the people who have to pay it so that they march around, as they did all last year, and the Government in giving a few shillings in reliefs risk their political lives. Last year we were told that they should have had the traditional taxes. This year, there is what are called the traditional taxes and still the taxes are all opposed. Whether we like it or not, the Government wanted £7 million. I am not a farmer, but I understand that those people make a big contribution to the economy, and I understand that two-thirds of our exports consist of agricultural goods. I believe the Government must have studied this matter carefully. The Government do not give away money for nothing. They must have found it necessary to give this money in order to boost the economy and encourage people to export, to engage labour and so on.

As I said, the Government are in a position to know what they should do and if they think this is the best thing to do, then I accept it. If they had to give £5 million, all right, but then they had to find another £2 million for other essential purposes. There was a time when there was very little taxation but that was at a time when the old age pensioners went into a poorhouse, when widows did not get anything, when there was little or no industry, no money to invest in industry, or to subsidise industry, and when there was a handful of well-to-do people and a mass of paupers. In fact, from the day when more enlightened opinion decided on taxation, it has been bitterly opposed. It has been fought on every rung of the ladder. The first taxes were introduced in the Napoleonic period when income tax was introduced to pay for the Napoleonic wars. That was bitterly opposed by thousands of marchers who marched around London and they have kept on marching down the years against every form of taxation. When the British Government decided in 1910 or 1911 to give the 5/-old age pension, there was murder in the Commons: people said the country would go bankrupt, that there would be a revolution.

Every £1 of taxation is fought, whether it is honest criticism is another thing. We all know, as I said before, that politics is a hanky-panky business and whether the Opposition believe in it or not, they are compelled by this form of Government, this form of democracy, to oppose. If they do not oppose and if they do not put the Government in the worst possible light, they can never get back. It is all very fine to do that and I suppose the Government will have to put up with it. The Opposition had to put up with it when they were in power. Last year, I listened to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, telling us about the misrepresentations of the Fianna Fáil Opposition and all the things they did on him when he was Taoiseach.

That is why I suppose it does not do to become excited in here. As my colleague, Deputy Barron, said to me: "Don't get excited. Develop a thick skin; you have to have it in this game". I suppose so, but it is amusing to think that we are regarded outside as being serious. I do not take all these objections to the turnover tax seriously because they are all codology. The day we stop taxing people will be the day the country will go down. Taxation means that somebody is being relieved, somebody is being helped; the country as a whole is being helped in an industrial sense.

The remarkable thing is that despite all the talk, the country is doing well and everybody is happy. Do not mind the odd moan. In regard to the turnover tax, all the alarms that were expressed were just figments of the imagination. The tax was a very small one and once the people received the 12 per cent increase, they reasoned that the 12 per cent was better than 2½ per cent and that ended the turnover tax. You can work it out what way you like, but I am satisfied that those who received the 12 per cent increase are still 70 to 80 per cent on the right side. It is no use saying that this cost so much and that cost so much.

If you take the new increases for postal services, you will see that it will cost the worker little or nothing. I do not believe that a worker sends a telegram once a year or that the average worker uses a telephone once a month. If he sends a letter, it will be at Christmas or on an odd occasion to somebody in England. These increases do not affect the workers at all. They affect the people in business who write many letters daily and send telegrams for business purposes. It was better to put these increases on that class of person than on the worker. If we did not get the money, we should have had to increase the £7 million referred to in the Budget to £9 million. Perhaps I have said a little too much about this matter. We do not take ourselves seriously but the people outside do and that is the unfortunate thing.

I like to read Deputy Dillon's speeches because, as Leader of the Opposition, he is supposed to represent the alternative Government. He referred to an expansion of industrial exports. That takes money. The people engaged in that business have to be helped by subsidies of one class or another. It means we keep people employed and help our balance of payments position. He says that there must be better plans for agricultural exports. Again that takes money and the Government are helping those people. Whether it is rich farmers or poor farmers who are getting the benefit, I do not know. Politicians will break it down and they will have an argument about it.

I am satisfied that the Government knew what they were doing. He says there should be more money for education. That takes money; that there should be more for housing, and we have got more for housing. All of the things to which Deputy Dillon referred require money and that means more taxation. Deputy Dillon has a habit which surprises me because, as Leader of the Opposition, he is supposed to see things on a loftier plane.

Mr. Corish

The Leader of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Sherwin

Yes. He has a habit of asking small time questions, questions that relate more to a local authority. Half the questions put down on the Order Paper are questions that could be asked of any city manager and thus time is wasted here. He is always harping on the subject of houses falling down. The houses that fell down were anything from 150 to 200 years old. They were there in his time and if all those dwellings should have been demolished, well, he was in power seven years ago and he was in power for ten years from 1922-32. He was in power on three occasions. Therefore it was as much the responsibility of his Government to have those houses demolished. It could have happened that those houses could have fallen down eight years ago when he was in office. I am making a point about all the small talk in which he indulges and tries to blame the Government or the Corporation because houses fall down.

It was the hope of the Corporation that they would be able to tackle the problem of the big families on the waiting list and then tackle those dwellings but unfortunately some of them fell down and now we have to give all our time to dangerous dwellings. Deputy Dillon cannot understand that but, if he does not understand it, he should leave the matter to his colleagues who are members of the Corporation. They are the worst attenders there, but, even so, he should leave it to them. Instead of doing that, he says things here in the hope that ignorant people outside will accept what he says.

I want to quote here the minutes of the Municipal Council for 1957. This was the year the Coalition Government were beaten and the present Government came into office. Councillor Larkin was then chairman of the Housing Committee. He was an active labour man and a member of this House and to a large extent he always dominated the proceedings of the planning section of the Housing Committee. If anybody is responsible for the work of the planning section, it is Councillor Larkin. I am not saying there is anything wrong with his work, but, if Deputy Dillon is right, he is attacking Councillor Larkin who is an active labour leader and a good active member of the Corporation.

It is recorded in the minutes of the Municipal Council on page 155 that Deputy Larkin wanted to know the number of dwellings under construction during the years from 1948 to 1957. The last Coalition Government came into office in 1954 and went out in 1957. In 1954, the total number of houses under construction was 2,638. On 1st August, 1957, a couple of months after the Coalition went out of office, the number was 963. That was the crash in housing development brought about by the Coalition during their three years in office and that is what started the big decline. There is no hanky-panky business about it; it is there for everybody to read.

Only 963 dwellings were under construction on 1st August, 1957, but on 1st August, 1954, 2,638 dwellings were under construction. Taking the same date, the total number of men employed, skilled and unskilled, on 1st August 1954, was 2,378. On 1st August, 1957, the total number of men employed was 925. Does that answer all the questions?

Councillor Larkin also asked a question about the number of men employed on site development. That has to do with the period when Fianna Fáil took over office because, if there was no site development, they could not build. Site development is carried out years in advance. On 1st August, 1955, there were 233 men employed and on 1st August, 1957, there were only 134 men employed on site development.

There we see the whole momentum of housebuilding slowing down. Where there was no site development we could not continue to build more than a certain number of dwellings. In the same years, 1956 and 1957, all SDA loans ceased and all building of private dwellings ceased. I am not blaming any Government for that. The only thing a Government are expected to do is to see that the money is there but we never had any trouble about money until 1956 and 1957. Then there was no money. The banks would not lend us any money.

There was no site development and later on our skilled personnel went to England. There was not then so much need for housebuilding as many of our workers had gone to England but there was need for a lot of flat building. We could not build the flats because no sites had been developed. In 1959 and 1960, many of our people were going to England. Half the people who had been engaged in site development were sacked. We had houses for thousands of people but we did not have the flats we needed and we could not build them because of lack of sites.

It takes years to gain momentum in housebuilding, to get the machinery and the men moving. When the whole thing crashed and the men went to England, we found ourselves with practically no skilled men available. That is the reason for the present position, so let us hear no more about housing. Things are said here by people who do not know what they are talking about. I gather that Deputy Dillon gets his information from his supporters but they know very little about it as they are the worst attenders at the meetings of the Corporation Housing Committee. I am surprised that he leaves himself open in this way but I wish I could get him on television, with him on one side and myself on the other. I would love that.

I will not delay the House any longer except to say that I will vote for increased taxation next year if the Government are prepared to give better benefits to the old age pensioners and other social welfare beneficiaries. If the Opposition want an extra 10/-a week for these classes next year, let them go to the Minister for Finance and give him a guarantee that they will vote for increased taxation and I believe they will get it. Let them give up this business of seeming to say something which they do not mean.

Mr. Mullen

In considering the effects of this Budget, there are a number of serious questions which we must ask and to which we expect serious answers. For instance, I cannot understand the contradictory attitude of the Minister with regard to Irish manufactured goods, having regard to the protective tariffs that exist here at the moment and the moves made to reduce the tariff wall. The Minister is setting about increasing tariffs, for instance, on imported spirits. I cannot understand why the distillers, if you like, are being favoured in this connection and why other producers of Irish manufactured goods are not being favoured. The Minister undoubtedly must realise that cloth manufacturers are suffering a great deal of redundancy, gradually, as a result of the breaking down of the tariff walls. That being so, surely the Minister should have another look at this matter, particularly when he finds himself in the position of being able to take the action I have referred to in relation to imported spirits.

Incidentally, may I say that I agree with the idea of putting a tariff on imported spirits, because, if nothing else, it does display to all and sundry, an interest in the production of Irish goods. But I do not believe such action on the part of the Minister should be one-sided because we do not seem to be in a hurry now about entering the Common Market or, at least, it appears that it can wait for a while. I also want to point out that repeated representations have been made to the Minister's colleague with regard to his reduction of tariff walls because of the heavy impact that has had on Irish industry.

I want, at this stage, to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance for the manner in which he spoke in favour of a number of unorganised workers throughout the country. I earnestly hope his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will take notice of what the Parliamentary Secretary said because, on previous occasions, when Deputies from these benches endeavoured to draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to what was happening to unorganised workers and to the fact that a considerable number of employers were deliberately contravening the Constitution, the Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to do anything about it. We know, in fact, that the majority of catering workers are in a state of servitude almost, but nothing has been done in the Department, because the people who employ them are allowed to deny them the simple right to join a trade union.

I must express disappointment that the Minister has not faced up to the problem of the housing situation, not only in Dublin but throughout the country. I do not intend to enter into a discussion about the houses that fell down. I want to make a few simple points in relation to the houses that are being built and in relation to the obstacles that confront some persons trying to obtain houses. Take young couples intending to get married. The Minister has done nothing up to the present time and he is doing nothing in this Budget to afford an opportunity to people to get houses by way of purchase, for the simple reason that he has neglected to do anything about the maximum of £16, above which income, even if it is exceeded by 1d only a person is not entitled to obtain a loan or grant from the local authority.

While that most unfair situation exists, young couples intending to get married are being asked to deposit £300 to £400 for a house. They might as well be asked to produce £3,000. Nothing is being done in connection with that problem. I deplore the fact that the Minister has not wakened up to that position. I should have thought that the Minister for Local Government would have drawn his attention to it. Surely, by now, the Minister must realise the need that exists for the extension of a total loan to such people and the need to prevent builders from exploiting them?

Mention has been made of the differential rents system and I do not intend to elaborate on it. We know the effect the increase in the maximum differential rent has had on the people of Dublin. They should be assured by the Minister that there will be no further increase in the maximum differential rent next year or the year after or, perhaps, until the next round of wage increases, and that might be before the end of this year.

The Minister has neglected to face up to the problem affecting people who have to pay rents. Again we go back to the potential house purchaser. There are a very considerable number of people who have saddled themselves with heavy rents and who have to face up to the taxation that is brought about, in the main, as a result of levying health charges which should come from the national Exchequer. Deputy Sherwin adverted to some statements made by Deputy O'Keeffe. I am not here to defend Deputy O'Keeffe but he did suggest that a case should be made for taxation and that people should see where the taxes go.

If we levy taxes and find ourselves with a certain number of millions of pounds to disburse, we must ascertain who needs it most. It is most ironical that out of £7 million taxation, the Minister has decided to devote only £750,000 to social welfare beneficiaries. I say that is loading matters against the people who really need help.

I was shocked to hear Deputy Sherwin state, in referring to the 12 per cent wage increase, that the workers concerned were now better off to the extent of 70 to 80 per cent. I know he did not mean that they had obtained a 70 to 80 per cent increase in wages but he was implying that of the total 12 per cent increase they obtained, they required only 20 per cent to catch up and the other 80 per cent makes them better off. That is absolute nonsense. The smallest child in the street can refute that statement. It is perfectly obvious that Deputy Sherwin has not familiarised himself with the increase in the cost of living that has taken place. I shall not refer at length to what Deputy Sherwin said about workers using the postal service. A considerable number of workers in Dublin, for instance, send home money to their relatives in the country every week. They are not that neglectful. There are a very considerable number of people who write to each other. Families are not so estranged that they do not write to each other.

There is another point I want to make in connection with social welfare benefits. It demonstrates the Minister's inconsistency. The people concerned did not get a 12 per cent increase. Yet, there was a national agreement for a 12 per cent increase. Employees of the State got increases in wages but those people on the lowest rung of the ladder, the people who could not defend themselves, the people who are unorganised, the social welfare beneficiaries, did not get 12 per cent. They did not even get the Taoiseach's eight per cent. These people got about 4d a day. If Deputy Sherwin wants to interest himself sufficiently, he will realise that some of that money is already being eaten up in many ways and more of it will be eaten up.

Then I come to public service pensioners. They get an increase of five per cent. I wonder would the Minister prevail on his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, to do something for the existing CIE pensioners? Some of them have pensions of only 12/- a week. We come then to the point I made originally: who needs it most? Since the introduction of the Budget and, we are told, as a result of it, certain commodities have increased in price. The Minister may contradict it, but there is no doubt that milk is being increased in price by a halfpenny a pint. Can we be assured there will be no increase in the price of butter, in the price of cheese, in the prices of the many other commodities made from milk? We are entitled to get that information from the Minister.

Furthermore, I should like to get from the Minister a positive assurance that there will be proper price control in the wake of this Budget. It is no use suggesting that investigations will be or are being carried out. We need a positive understanding now on price stabilisation. Otherwise, the 12 per cent increase in wages and salaries, for which Fianna Fáil have repeatedly taken credit—unjustifiably, as everyone knows—will be quickly nullified and we shall find ourselves looking for further increases.

That would be a most serious consequence when we take into consideration the Taoiseach's warnings that the country could just about afford a six per cent increase in incomes, that the highest we could possibly afford was eight per cent. If the organised workers look for more, the blood is on the Minister's hands. He must have a proper understanding with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on methods of controlling prices. I am not one to give vent to rumours, but recently I was told that before the recent increase in drink prices the Minister for Industry and Commerce had a survey made of prices in this city. I understand the result was that there were large profits. However, the report of that inquiry never came to light. It went into the waste paper basket. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister for Finance should keep a wary eye on prices following this Budget.

Mr. Browne

The Budget annually affords us an opportunity to pass judgment on Government policy and I rise tonight to comment on Government policy as illustrated in the Budget Statement. I have been in the House for most of the debate and was unfortunate enough to have to listen to two contributions from Deputy Sherwin. He seems to take it on himself to come into the House on all occasions and conduct himself as a lecturer addressing his remarks to the Opposition. What heights Deputy Sherwin has attained that would qualify him to become the lecturer he professes to be I do not know.

During the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, we had fierce verbosity from Deputy Sherwin, made up in the main of complete nonsense. This was carried a stage further in his contribution on the Budget. He told the House he was an honest man. I do not doubt the honesty of Deputy Sherwin as an individual but I take him to task on the honesty of his statements. He used the privilege of the House during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely what any Deputy said in a previous debate would not arise on this one.

Mr. Browne

Then I can take him to task on what he said some minutes ago on the Budget. He came into the House to abuse the people from his constituency who wrote letters in the evening newspapers criticising his attitude in last year's Budget debate to the 2½ per cent turnover tax. He said he did not consider it fitting that he should answer them, but he then came into the House to cover himself with its privilege to abuse these people who were only exercising their democratic rights.

In discussing the Budget in general, I shall relate my remarks to the statements of four Deputies who spoke on it. I propose first to take the statement of a friend of mine who originally came from my county, a man recognised as the spokesman for the Fianna Fáil backbenchers. Before I make any remarks about his contribution, I should like to say I am glad to see him back in the House in good health. I hope he will continue with us for many years. We are all glad to see him back after his brief illness.

I refer, of course, to Deputy P.J. Burke. He said, in his eloquent address to the House on the Budget, that this was not a farmers' Budget. I could not agree more and I am particularly pleased to hear a Fianna Fáil Deputy say so. Deputy McQuillan said the entire policy of the Government was aimed at removing the people from the land of the west and replacing them with cattle.

Deputy Leneghan from my constituency said tonight that the Budget was not a small farmer's Budget. With him I also agree. Then we had Deputy Harte from Donegal, who said the country cannot afford Fianna Fáil. I come from a constituency made up, in the main, of small farmers. I preface my remarks by saying that in days gone by the small farmer was the backbone of the country. In the west, the small farmers are in the majority. They survived hard and difficult times, including those of Cromwell. I am satisfied they will survive the present Government and their efforts to destroy and annihilate them.

I am not a practising farmer. I make my living from commercial interests, but I concede, as must any businessman, that we derive our living directly or indirectly from the incomes of farmers. We are facing increased emigration. Small villages are disappearing and, if not already dead, small towns are dying, all as a result of the lag in the incomes of the farming community. It is conceded by all economists that our basic industry is agriculture. Our exports come in the main from agriculture. The Irish farmer feeds not only the Irish community but his exports pay for the machinery and raw material of Irish industry generally. The fact remains that the greater part of the £140 million of our exports last year came directly from the produce of the land of Ireland.

We had hoped in the west that, as a result of statements made by the Taoiseach and responsible Ministers during the year, some effort would be made to set about solving the grave problem that exists in counties such as Mayo, Galway, Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal, Kerry, and West Cork. We had hoped that, if the Government were sincere in their efforts to put this country on a proper footing, some real, genuine effort would be made to put the small farmer on a sound economic basis. The small farmer represents the biggest producing section in our community. That stands to reason because you have a far greater number of small farmers than you have of large farmers. If we are to put agriculture on a sound, economic basis, is it not logical to conclude that it is the small farmer who must be put in a healthy position? If one removes counties like Meath, Westmeath, Kildare and parts of Wexford, the remainder of the Republic consists in the main of counties in which there are only small farmers.

Last year, we had relief for the farmer in the form of rates relief, a contribution from Central Funds in the form of a subsidy towards agricultural rates. I am a member of a local authority in County Mayo and I can tell the House that the rate relief given to the majority of my constituents was practically nil and the volume of money pro rata with other counties was insignificant.

Again, this year, we had a similar effort made by the Government to bring the rates on farmers' land back to the 1958 level. Many people, however, lose sight of the fact that in the past ten years, through hard work and out of their own savings, with some little assistance from Government funds, practically all the small farmers in the west have raised their standard of living and built new houses or reconstructed existing houses. In an effort to expand agriculture from their own resources, they have improved their outoffices, their cowbyres, their piggeries and so on. The Government, shrewdly and wisely, gave no rebate to the farming community in relation to that very important aspect of rating. In fact, it is accepted in my county that those who built new houses have had their valuations increased by approximately £5 on average and those who reconstructed dwellinghouses have had their valuations increased by approximately £1 and 30/- on average.

In addition to Government taxation, we have had to stand in Mayo an increase in rates over the past two years of approximately 15/- in the £. Add that increase in the past two years alone and one finds that a farmer who built or reconstructed a house has to pay something in the neighbourhood of an extra £4 per annum in rates, irrespective of the relief he is getting on agricultural land.

Last year the Minister for Agriculture introduced the heifer scheme. I said at the time that the scheme would not benefit the small farmer, that it would benefit the big farmer only, the farmer who could put in 40 or 50 heifers. I said we would be fortunate if the average small farmer in my constituency drew one 15/- from this vast scheme.

This year, the Government claim they have allocated increased aid to agriculture to the extent of £5 million. I do not accept that figure as correctly showing State aid to agriculture because, if one subtracts from that figure approximately £1½ million that the Government have saved on the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, the net figure finding its way into the pockets of the farming community is something less than £3½ million.

This Budget has wielded the axe on the small towns in the west. We are badly hit because of lack of industry with vast numbers of our people leaving the country, compelled to do so by Government policy, leaving behind them locked doors. We were hoping that the small shopkeepers, who derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the hinterland population. would get some benefit in the form of rates relief. There is no mention of any such relief despite the fact that the Taoiseach, when it looked as if we might have a general election, said in one of his after dinner speeches that the question of rates would have to be tackled at national level. We hoped that these people in the small towns and, indeed, in the few big towns like Ballina and Castlebar, would get some relief from Central Funds to help them meet the problem of ever-increasing rates.

This year the rate struck in County Mayo is one of the highest in Ireland. The small shopkeeper, the man who runs a garage, the private householder has to pay a rate of 67/- in every £ in this year of 1964. If the Government are sincere in their policy of rehabilitating the country they must grapple with the real problem. In my opinion the real problem is to ensure that agriculture remunerates those who derive their living from it at rates reasonably equivalent to current national earnings in other industries.

I spoke quite impartially on the Land Bill, despite its being introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government. I said I approved of the Bill because I believed it would benefit the areas most in need. I come from an area which is made up, in the main, of congested, uneconomic holdings. By no stretch of the imagination can I see any Minister of State making every uneconomic holding a 45-acre economic holding, because the land is simply not there, and statements to that effect do not impress me. Neither do they impress the unfortunate people who have to live on these uneconomic holdings.

However, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. That is, perhaps, an earnest of the Minister's goodwill, but I want something more than merely an earnest of goodwill. A little bit of help is worth more than too much sympathy. If we are to put the small farmer on a sound economic basis, we must make use of every inch of every small uneconomic holding. It is in this respect I find fault with Government policy because the small farmer cannot depend for a livelihood on what he produces on a small 20 to 25-acre farm or even, indeed, on a 30-acre farm.

I know from my experience of the farming community that, if a farm is made up of 30 acres of land, the farmer must till a certain amount of land to produce potatoes for home requirements; he must till a certain amount for grain purposes and for feeding purposes; and he must retain a certain amount for putting into meadow or hay. He has the remainder for grazing. It must be deduced from that that the amount he has left does not afford him much opportunity for producing in large quantities. For that reason Government policy, and our minds, must be diverted towards establishing a sound economy for the farmer in the form of pig production, egg production, poultry production, horticulture and vegetable production in general.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be going into the realm of agriculture. Most of those points would be relevant to an Estimate rather than to the Budget.

Mr. Browne

I submit to your ruling, Sir. I thought it would be relevant to explain to the House and to the Minister the inadequate contribution he is making towards a sound economy based on agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not in the detail into which the Deputy is going.

Mr. Browne

I shall try to avoid going into detail. I should like to refer in general to agriculture inasmuch as we rely upon it to keep our trade balance right, and the position we find ourselves in as a result of Government policy. I do not wish to kick egg production around because it was kicked around many years ago, but I would say we have lost our place on the British market in regard to egg production. Far be it from me, a young Deputy, to try to teach my elders, but I feel the day is fast coming when we will become an egg importing country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Browne

I bow to your ruling. With a view to alleviating the economic ills that have resulted from Government policy, the Government should consider the possibility of improving horticulture——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Budget.

Mr. Browne

I am making a suggestion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The suggestion is not relevant.

Mr. Browne

Last year the Government told us they were imposing a 2½ per cent turnover tax because the old faithfuls, whiskey, stout, beer and petrol, had been taxed to the fullest extent, and were no longer able to carry any additional taxation. Indeed, we had Deputy Sherwin, in the very same seat, gesticulating with his hands, and being as vocal as his vocal chords would permit, saying the Minister had no alternative. Indeed, I heard him mention the figure of 5/- despite the fact that he denied that today.

At first the country thought the Budget last year was mild, but then they felt the full implications of the 2½ per cent tax. When the results of the Dublin by-election became known, it was apparent to the Government that the 2½ per cent tax was neither economically nor politically good. The Minister for Finance came back this year and made no mention of the turnover tax which he lauded last year. He reverted to the old forms of taxation on whiskey, stout and petrol. I am not particularly bothered about the tax on whiskey, and certainly not about the tax on Scotch whisky. I do not drink very much myself but, when I do, I prefer Irish whiskey. I feel that whiskey drinkers should be able to pay the tax, but I have sympathy for the pint drinker. It is nourishment as well as a drink for the poorer sections of the community who rely upon the pint. I think it was unfair and unjust and I think it was imposed upon that section of the community which can least afford to pay it.

I take exception to the 3d on the gallon of petrol, because I know the state of affairs that will result from that increase. There will be increased fares and increased carriages. The taxi driver who takes the poor old age pensioner living in a remote part of Mayo, Galway, or Roscommon, to Mass will have to increase his charges.

It is a terrible state of affairs that a Government, who indicated to this House that they were going to the left, should now give the old age pensioners a miserable increase of 2/6 per week. The small farmer and his wife who started work at approximately 20 years of age, and are now old age pensioners, got very little reward from the State in the past 50 years. They are the people who built up this State. The contributory old age pension is £3 10s. but the small farmer and his wife will get only 37/6. The Minister will say that the contributory pensioner has been in insurable employment.

Mr. Boland

£4 7s. 6d.

Mr. Browne

I know the Minister will say the man who has been in insurable employment has contributed, but is it not a fact that the small farmer has contributed equally but did not have the opportunity to be insured? I think it is wrong that the small farmer and his wife who have to remain on a small holding until they go to their graves should find themselves in that position. I do not want to be personal—I am speaking generally—but the Minister for Social Welfare told us that an income of more than £127 10s. —that is £2 10s. a week—excludes a person from the full old age pension. I should hate any Government Minister, or any individual, to try to live on £2 or £2 10s. a week. Yet the Government have indicated that an income of more than £127 10s. deprives a man or a woman of the old age pension.

Mr. Boland

The full old age pension.

Mr. Browne

I agree. I think the time is ripe for the Minister to come into this House—I do not mind if it is next year—and say he will not increase the old age pension but that he will increase the income to £300. Any Deputy with experience of going to the Department of Social Welfare knows that the greater part of his time is taken up fighting the case of people he thinks are entitled to old age, widows' or unemployment benefits. The time is now ripe for the Minister to make some effort to increase the income allowance.

I am very disappointed with the Budget. I had hoped for something in it which would alleviate the many problems that affect the people in my constituency. I do hope the Government will get wise in the not too distant future and will establish for the small farmers something on the lines of Father McDyer's scheme. I hope we shall see more State aid for sheep farming in the form of fencing and sheep dipping. I hope more capital will be made available for buying stock in the form of both sheep and cattle. I should like to see a particular effort to encourage small farmers to go into apple production.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These are matters which would be more appropriate on the Estimate.

Mr. Browne

Agreed, but £1 million worth of applies were imported last year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant. It does not arise now.

Mr. Browne

I agree, and apparently it is not even relevant to the Government, but I hope they will give it some attention in the not too distant future.

Mr. Calleary

I do not intend to make a long speech but, in my opinion, this is the best Budget that has ever been introduced since——

Mr. McQuillan

——Brian Boru.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——Moses struck the rock.

Mr. Calleary

I have been in politics since 1916. I know the people of my area. I thought when I was coming in here that I would hear my colleague from North Mayo describe the "penal Budget" which he talked about down the country.

This Budget has been introduced and the ordinary person may complain that petrol has been increased 3d a gallon. If it has, this country is certainly one that has petrol cheap. Beer has been increased by 1d on the pint. We are well able to pay that 1d on the pint, thanks be to God. Cigarettes have gone up 3d on a packet of 20. Let us smoke one cigarette less a day and we will not worry about the 3d. That is definitely correct. Let Deputy McQuillan smile as much as he likes. Doctors might say it is good if it reduces the number of cigarettes that are smoked and that we will have far less lung cancer. Therefore, if the Government are introducing something that will make cigarette prices a bit dearer and will make people smoke less, surely it is best for the nation?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Calleary is not a doctor.

Mr. Calleary

I have listened to the talk about the poor farmer. I come from the same constituency as the Deputy who has just spoken but never did I see better times in my area or in my county. That is a big statement I am making and I am able to stand over it, thanks be to God. The standard of living in North Mayo is better than it ever was. The people have more money. Business is better than ever it was and that is something good.

I wonder what would the Opposition do if they got into power, not that they have any chance of getting into power. Fine Gael have as much chance of getting into power as, I would say, a Party that does not exist. They have not the least hope of getting into power but they make speeches. I thought I would hear about the "penal Budget" but all I could hear was that we had increased the price of petrol, beer and cigarettes and I will say that there is not a bit of harm in that. I know my area inside out and I never saw times as good in my area as they are now. I especially say that when I consider that the small town of Crossmolina from which Deputy Browne came was never better off than it is now. Never were the villages in North Mayo as well off as they are now.

Mr. Browne

Why does the Deputy not talk about Killala?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Browne

It is a good town.

Mr. Calleary

I live in Killala. I know more about it than Deputy Browne does. My people had a business place in it. I cannot make as much out of the present Fianna Fáil Government as Deputy Browne does. He knows what he is getting for the land he is putting up and selling.

Mr. Browne

On a point of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a point of order.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why not hear it first?

Mr. Browne

Is it in order for the Deputy to say that, because I am a successful auctioneer, I am getting money from the Government?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Deputy might cease talking about Deputy Calleary.

Mr. Calleary

I said that I cannot make as much money under the Government as Deputy Browne does. The Deputy objects to what I say. If he does, I am sorry. As far as I am concerned, North Mayo was never as prosperous as it is now and North Mayo does not mind paying the little extra, so long as times are as good as they are.

Mr. Browne

Why does Deputy Calleary not make his own speech? Let him stop talking about me. Let him make his own speech. Has he no speech to make?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The Deputy was not interrupted when he was speaking.

Mr. Browne

I did not speak about Deputy Calleary.

Mr. Calleary

I shall not mention Deputy Browne's name.

Mr. Browne

Do something for the constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Browne does not cease interrupting Deputy Calleary he will have to leave the House.

Mr. Calleary

Bear with what I say and listen to it. I definitely am entitled to criticise what the Deputy said in his speech. I am quite certain when I say that the position in North Mayo never was as good.

Mr. McQuillan

That is the fifth time the Deputy has said that.

Mr. Calleary

I do not see why I should be asked to mention my little town of Killala. I live there and intend to live there and my family will live there. It has not done as well as Crossmolina. Crossmolina has done very well out of the Fianna Fáil Government and Crossmolina knows that. I have no objection to telling the people of Crossmolina——

Mr. Browne

Damn well the Deputy knows how Crossmolina voted the last time and they will vote the same way again the next time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I shall have to ask Deputy Browne to leave the House if he does not desist.

Mr. Calleary

The Deputy is getting vexed over what I say because it is the truth. I did not say a word to interrupt the Deputy when he was making his speech.

Mr. Browne

I am vexed because the Deputy is mentioning me. He should make his own speech.

Mr. Calleary

The Deputy should know how properous North Mayo has become. I saw North Mayo in the bad days but now things were never better there. All the area in North Mayo has done very well out of the Fianna Fáil Government. At Bellacorick, we have something definitely established. We have Bord na Móna; we have a new factory in Ballina; we have the Moy drainage; we have the Geesala grassmeal project.

Mr. Browne

It is making a fortune on grassmeal.

Mr. Calleary

They are working— every one of them. Deputy Browne never gave much assistance to the establishment of any of these. If he did, I shall apologise and withdraw.

Mr. Browne

It was before my time.

Mr. Calleary

I am delighted to be able to get up here and talk about what has been described as a penal Budget. It is called a penal Budget because it increases the prices of petrol, beer, spirits and cigarettes. We are doing our best for the farmers of North Mayo. We realise that the farmers there are small farmers. We realise that they must get some help and assistance. We realise that the new Land Bill introduced by the Minister for Lands will help the farmers of North Mayo. The farmers in North Mayo, the people of North Mayo, never had better times. I go through the country. I have seen all the new houses that have been built under Fianna Fáil. If the rates in North Mayo have gone up, it is because Deputies who are county councillors have allowed them to go up. It is the North Mayo County Council who have increased the rates.

Mr. Browne

Why does Deputy Calleary not run for the county council? He only runs for the Dáil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The matter does not arise

Mr. Browne

I withdraw.

Mr. Calleary

Will the Deputy kindly shut up and not interrupt me? I did not interrupt him. If I have aroused his anger, I am sorry, but it is good to know that I was able to do it. He said that this was a terribly penal Budget but I say that it is the best Budget ever introduced since——

Mr. McQuillan

Brian Boru.

Mr. Calleary

——this State was established. All we can complain about is the increase in the price of petrol, beer and cigarettes. The increase on cigarettes is definitely good for the nation. The country was never as good as it is now and very few will object to the Budget which I think is the best ever brought in.

Mr. McQuillan

Hear, hear.

Mr. McLaughlin

I want to speak about the hardship which, to my mind, the Budget imposes on our people. It is all very fine for a Deputy like Deputy Calleary to speak as he has spoken. Being a Fianna Fáil Deputy, naturally he could say nothing else. That is what he is schooled in and what he will say while he is here. It is necessary for us as Deputies to come in on occasions such as this and point out to the Government and the Ministers concerned the conditions that prevail in our constituencies. When I speak for Sligo-Leitrim, I feel I am speaking for almost all of the west of Ireland.

Let us examine what the Budget does for our people to see if it improves their lot. Why are our towns and villages almost stripped of their population if the great prosperity we are told about exists? Where are the people who were there when we were young? Where is the bright, lively little village that we entered ten, 12 or 14 years ago? Today the air of activity is gone. When the people go, the heart and soul of the countryside go and that is the position that prevails in my constituency. We have no employment whatever. Everything that must be bought is taxed to capacity. In the name of God, how can any fair-minded man say this is a really fine Budget?

It is necessary to tell the Ministers these things because the Ministers do not go to these areas to see for themselves. We Deputies meet them at functions organised when a new hospital or school or something of that kind is being officially opened. They attend functions where a fine lunch is served and Deputies and councillors and others are invited. That is about as far as Ministers go. They never see for themselves as we do who have to convass for votes. They never meet the constituents. They do not see the position of the people as we see them.

If we had employment, we would not be here tonight complaining about increased taxation. We would be satisfied that the people could bear some increase in taxation but, instead, we come from rural areas, towns and villages, where there is not as much as the smoke from the smallest industry to be seen. What is left for the boy or girl of 16 or 17 but to think seriously of going to England or getting some petty job in Dublin? Often they get a job in Dublin and some might think they are getting security but the job is not sufficient to enable them to keep themselves decently. They often have to get money from home to keep them in the boarding house or hostel. That is what drives our boys and girls across to England.

They are going every day of the week. Nine or ten left the other morning from the area known as Glenfarne. The only thing we can look forward to in my constituency is a few weeks' work on the roads. In the past, our people could anticipate a few periods of council work in the year but, again, new methods have been introduced and Roadstone, which has its parent place in Kildare, I think, moved down to those counties, set machinery in motion and reduced employment to the very minimum, with the result that those employed heretofore had to go to England.

Let the Government remember also that the farmer who lived comfortably in the past cannot do so now even by making a greater effort because in the past the housewife kept the home going by bringing her eggs to the local shop. That day is gone. The housewife today would scarcely bother going out to the shed to collect the eggs at this time of the year. Somebody told me in February or March that eggs were being sold at 1/8d a dozen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a detail for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. McLaughlin

I thought it was relevant to the Budget to point out the danger of imposing such heavy taxation when there is so little money to be made at the other end. There is no protection on the one hand and every attempt made to impose taxation at the other.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy could describe the Budget as a bad egg.

Mr. McLaughlin

There is another side to the question of increasing taxation. Many people are in receipt of pensions and in many cases these pensions give them no surplus. These people are in very poor circumstances at present. Every little increase in taxation means their cost of living goes up still further. The fact that the price of petrol has been increased means that the extra cost will come back eventually on the customer who goes into a shop as he will have to pay more for his goods because the shopkeeper has to pay more for his petrol. He has to pay more for his cigarettes and many other things. Somebody said that this was not the small farmers' Budget. Certainly it is not. The subsidy towards the relief of rates and the increase in the price of milk apply only to the bigger type of farmer. In the west of Ireland, milk production is millions of gallons lower than in County Cork, which means that the west stands to gain very little. The individual farmer will gain very little. The same holds in the other milk-producing counties such as Limerick, Tipperary and the other southern counties.

The subsidy which is designed to bring rates down to the 1957 level will not be of great benefit either. I can assure the Government that rates will have to be kept at a certain level because we are reaching the time when our small population will not be able to carry the huge burden being imposed on them through the rates. In Leitrim, we struck a rate of 57/- in the £, or almost £3, which is a shocking rate in an area where there is no employment, no industry and very little money circulating other than the social welfare benefits. Those are made available for the sole purpose of keeping people alive. I would stress the need for increasing the old age pensions and other pensions as well.

Dr. Ryan

We have done that and you will not pay for them.

Mr. McLaughlin

The State will pay for them. I have met old age pensioners in rural areas and I really felt for them. They told me that the 35/-——

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy felt for them but he will not pay for the increases.

Mr. McLaughlin

——was not sufficient to meet the demands that fall on them. Half-a-crown is only about four-pence a day and the Minister knows——

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy will not pay for it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister is not in a hurry to give it to them.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy will not pay it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why not give it to them from the time of the introduction of the Budget?

Dr. Ryan

Would the Deputy pay for it? He wants it both ways.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Minister wished, he could get an increased allowance for the old age pensioners.

Dr. Ryan

Who would vote for it?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Everybody.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy never voted for a tax in his life.

Mr. McLaughlin

I see thousands of pounds being spent on roads that perhaps are 20 or 25 feet——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of roads is a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. McLaughlin

I see roads being widened by two feet——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the responsibility of another Minister. It would arise relevantly on the Estimate.

Mr. McLaughlin

It is a very good comparison. We are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on roads when pensioners are in dire need, and I am not exaggerating. In the past I referred to the heifer scheme and said that it should have been introduced as a calf subsidy scheme and I still maintain that. I have discussed it with farmers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The heifer scheme is not relevant on the Budget.

Dr. Ryan

Except that we brought it in and therefore he is against it.

Mr. McLaughlin

I am not against it. I think it is relevant, Sir, because our people are taxed to capacity and every attempt should be made to put something into everybody's pocket. If a small farmer has six cows, and that is the maximum his land can carry, then the heifer scheme is no good——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not go into details of agricultural policy.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We were told this is a farmers' Budget. That is what the Taoiseach told us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These details are relevant on the Estimate, not on the Budget.

Dr. Ryan

Except that Fine Gael are opposed to everything done by us and will pay for nothing.

Mr. McLaughlin

I do not know if the Chair will object to what I am going to say but I will say it anyway. We have county homes in the country and if the Government were doing their job, they would put bulldozers to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would now come back to the Budget. County homes are not relevant.

Mr. McLaughlin

I feel it is no harm to raise this matter in this debate.

Mr. McQuillan

Does the Deputy mean that the county homes will not be able to hold all the people?

Mr. McLaughlin

That is the stage we have reached, because the people are not able to live on their meagre allowances outside. It is too bad that we should not have comfortable institutions in centres in these counties instead of having these people dragged 60 miles where no relatives——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The policy of hospitalisation is not a matter for the Budget.

Mr. McLaughlin

This should be brought to the notice of the Government. Let them do what the inter-Party Government did and build hospitals.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The erection of hospitals does not arise.

Dr. Ryan

Does the Deputy want the inter-Party Government back again?

Mr. McLaughlin

I had intended putting down a question in regard to my next point but I shall take this opportunity of mentioning it. I refer to the question of housing. The housing of our people is very important.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 30th April, 1964.