The increase of 12/-per cwt. for the A Special and A pigs is approximately one-third of what was requested by the NFA. As one individual described it, it is a step in the right direction. Nothing was granted in respect of milk despite the substantial increase in production costs. This failure evoked a protest from a person normally not unfriendly to Fianna Fáil, the secretary of the ICMSA. It also evoked a protest from the NFA. Despite the measures taken by a number of bodies in regard to this problem and the efforts made by firms processing or utilising milk products, the situation has now developed in which we have a substantial surplus, with rising costs of production, and, so far as one can gather, the Government are satisfied to allow the increased prices obtaining in respect of cattle to cover up for the needs of the dairy farmers.
This brings forcibly to mind the question of what the Government and the appropriate bodies are doing about marketing and, if markets are not available, what decision will be taken to change to other lines of production. If ever a certificate was granted to mark the death of the NAC, yesterday's failure to increase payments in respect of milk spells the end of that body as a body entitled to any consideration. This has been emphasised by the Federation of Irish Industries report. It has been emphasised by the reaction to yesterday's decision. A body representing, or purporting to represent, either the farmers or industry cannot be handpicked merely because those so picked are Fianna Fáil supporters. That method is entirely unsuitable in the case of a body facing the problems these bodies will have to face, the problems which those whom they are supposed to represent are endeavouring to solve. It is ridiculous to expect that a handpicked body selected because of political affiliations can be regarded as either competent or sufficiently energetic to push the case and argue the interests of those whom they are supposed to represent.
In the Minister's speech yesterday and in the reports published of comments made by the Central Bank and other financial interests, there appears to be a sort of self-satisfied reaction because, it is alleged, last year was such a good year. If we examine the reports in the review of 1967 and the outlook for 1968, we find that the net output from agriculture last year of £111.4 million was almost identical with the net output four years ago, in 1964, when it was £111.8 million. In the intervening years, there was a drop and net output has only now caught up on the deterioration which occurred in the intervening years. The output for last year is, in fact, only comparable with that of 1964.
The Budget, while providing no incentive in respect of industry, with the exception of some promises in regard to minor tax changes, has failed to provide any of the incentives requested in respect of agriculture. This year every local authority was faced with the unpleasant task of implementing a very substantial increased demand for rates. The situation was a cause of concern to all local authorities and, in particular, to health authorities, especially the authority here in Dublin. This Party has consistently urged and recommended an appropriate and workable scheme for health services based on a graded scheme of contributions and a graded scheme of benefits. That policy was published in great detail many years ago. The Government at the time and the Minister for Health, in particular, resisted that proposal. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance admitted that:
The cost of the health services is rising so rapidly that it is necessary to consider alternative methods of finance in order to reduce the amounts now charged on the tax-payer and the ratepayer. A detailed examination is being undertaken of the feasibility of introducing an insurance or contributory scheme to finance at least part of the cost of the services available to the middle-income group. It will extend to the question of eliminating the hospital charges for which middle-income patients are now liable.
This is the latest recognition, and the latest adoption, by Fianna Fáil of large chunks of Fine Gael policy. Time will show the extent to which this policy will be implemented.
This year the County Dublin rate increased from 54s 3d in 1967-68 to 60s in 1968-69. The health charges last year were 13s 9d; this year they are 18s 3¾d. In Dún Laoghaire, the rate last year was 59s. Health charges were 20s 9.8d and, this year, the rates have increased to 67s 3d and health charges have increased from 20s 9.8d to 26s. This is a fact which has been repeatedly brought to public attention by us because we recognise that the present system of financing health services is not merely inequitable but entirely unsatisfactory in the cover it provides and in the range of services made available to those sections most in need of such services. It has taken six to seven years to get that home to the Government. Now we are promised an examination of the feasibility of a contributory system of health insurance. It is only reasonable to express the hope that this examination will not be shelved, deferred or frustrated in the same way as the examination of the rating system report was deferred or suppressed. We have consistently argued that the provision of adequate health services can be based only on a contributory insurance scheme.
The provision made in the Budget for social welfare recipients represents monetary compensation for the increase in the cost of living but the Budget omits to deal with a very serious problem. It fails to tackle in an enlightened and progressive way the whole question of social security. This is one of the matters referred to in the report of the Federation of Irish Industries. Comparisons are made in that report between the level of social services and social security services here with the provisions in EEC countries. A problem has been posed not merely for industry but for trade unions and those employed in industry. The comparative figures reveal that the percentage gross national product spent on social security in this country is smaller than in any EEC member country or in Britain. The Irish figure is 8.1 per cent whereas in Britain the figure is ten per cent and in the EEC countries ranges from 12.2 per cent in Italy to 15 per cent in Luxembourg.
The most notable omission in the Budget yesterday was the failure to do anything about family allowances. The present rate of family allowances was fixed in 1963. Until the increase of 2s 6d in respect of dependent children of social welfare recipients was included in the Budget yesterday, no increase had been granted in that allowance. This fact was brought to public attention by the report of the Revenue Commissioners in 1967 and in the White Paper issued by the then Minister for Health, the late Donogh O'Malley, in 1966. That report showed that there were over 800,000 persons on the general medical services register. The report of the Revenue Commissioners indicated that of over 942,000 children in families only about 153,000 were in families whose heads paid income tax, in other words, that almost 800,000—certainly threequarters of a million—were in families whose heads were not liable to income tax.
The present rate of family allowances was fixed in 1963. Since then the cost of living has increased by just 24 per cent. The tax remissions granted in the Budget yesterday in respect of managerial or technical categories and the benefit given in respect of lower income groups provide no relief whatever for this large category who are above the social welfare categories and below the managerial classes. This omission is one of the most remarkable in the Budget and highlights the urgency of the need for a comprehensive, satisfactory, planned social policy. That there has been no increase since 1963 is particularly harsh in a country where there are large families on whom the rise in the cost of living is a real burden.
The urgency of the need to prepare a proper social policy in the light of EEC membership has been mentioned not merely in the report of the Federation of Industries but by the trade union organisations. The existence of that need is a condemnation of the preparation which has been made for EEC membership. A proper social policy must include provision not only for proper health services but for a proper system of social insurance. We have expressed the view and have advocated that a graded contributory system is the only means of providing a satisfactory service and the essential cover for those entitled to it. The present position must be contrasted with the aims and objects of the Treaty of Rome in which reference is made to the need to harmonise social policies and to secure that social policies in general in EEC countries would conform to the same standards.
In this country the rate of family allowances compares unfavourably with the rates in operation in a number of other countries and, in particular, in a number of the relatively poorer countries in Europe, some of which are in the EEC and some of which are applicants for membership of that community. We have consistently advocated that the rates relief granted in respect of agriculture provides no relief for the urban areas. Fine Gael have advocated and recommended that rates relief must be provided for the urban areas also.
One of the proposals brought forward in yesterday's Budget is one which has been advocated by Fine Gael and which was strenuously recommended by us in 1965 when the Finance Bill was going through the House. I refer to the question of estate duty in the case of widows and orphans. At that time there was considerable debate here and objection made to parts of the 1965 Finance Bill part of which was abolished when Part VII was changed, and now the remaining objectionable feature has been removed in respect of widows and orphans. The provision in the Finance Bill of 1965 was strenuously opposed because we regarded it as imposing hardship on people least able to look after themselves and least able to meet the problems of widowhood and the problems inherent in inheriting businesses.
We have advocated that the present health charges must be removed from the rates. A defect in the Budget is that the proposal to examine the problem postpones any relief. Not merely does it postpone relief, but ratepayers this year have to face the very substantial increase in rates, most of it attributable to the health charges. The time of this House was wasted in the Health Committee that considered this problem some years ago. Only now has a decision been taken to examine the problem.
The same is true in respect of education. The proposals made now and which are to be implemented go some way towards meeting the recommendations which were made in our education policy in respect of university education and post-primary education. The decision now taken to examine the health services does not provide the remedy for the acute problem of rising rates affecting particularly the urban areas this year. The rise in the cost of living, the added burdens in respect of rate demands, has spiralled because of the failure to introduce a system comparable with that recommended and published by Deputy O'Higgins some years ago. We believe that the problem which faces urban ratepayers is one which should be tackled without delay and without waiting for an examination such as is being suggested here.
As I said yesterday, this scheme can be put into operation. It was described at the time—by, I think, the then Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee—as a poll tax. Every system that involves a personal contribution can be so described. Every system that involves a contribution by an individual, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his family, could be criticised in that way. It is now admitted and recognised that no workable scheme, no relief in respect of the problems affecting ratepayers and no comprehensive health assistance can be properly undertaken except on a contributory basis. We have advocated that the system should be graded, that graded contributions will not merely provide a better scheme but provide a workable scheme. This system can be put into operation without delay if the Government have the will and energy to do it.
One of the decisions announced yesterday by the Minister for Finance was a decision to introduce here a decimal coinage system comparable with that to be operated in Britain. It is generally recognised that the system adopted in Britain is not a satisfactory one. There was a good deal of opposition to the unit there because it would make it difficult to operate in respect of taxes where small units are necessary. It is not easy for this country to operate a different system from that which operates in Britain. It is for many reasons more convenient for trade, business and ordinary commercial transactions to operate a similar system. The system to be put into effect in Britain was adopted with considerable misgivings by large interests and representative organisations over there as well as by a number of MPs. When that system was adopted, the Federation of Irish Industries recommended an alternative.
This is a question which might be further considered before a final decision is taken. It is not easy to operate a different system from that which operates in Britain. But in respect of taxation like the wholesale tax and the turnover tax and the added value tax, if it is operated here, where small units are concerned, the system in operation there—because it is not strictly metric, I understand—may make it difficult to operate except to round off to a much higher level than provided for in the actual incidence of taxation.
The most notable failure of the present Budget is that it fails to provide the incentives which are necessary, that it merely marks time and that it is too cautious in facing the challenge and problems of the future. It is not sufficient for the Government or for the Minister to say there are particular international and external problems in the world and that we live in difficult times. That is true of any area at any time. We have always been existing in a situation in which, if there was not an international crisis of one sort or another, there was a war somewhere. This country cannot isolate itself from the effects of these and must live and compete with them. We must tackle the great problems of emigration, of providing increased employment and the great problem of housing our own people. It is notable in the Budget, in spite of the increase in the Capital Budget, that for every £11 only £1 of the increase goes to housing. In fact, the total increase for housing this year is only £2.3 million. That barely covers the increased costs in respect of housing. It will enable local authorities merely to maintain their existing output. It will only enable private building to be continued at the same level. In fact, it provides only for the increased costs of building.
There is in this Budget not merely a general lack of imagination but a general lack of determination to solve the problems of housing and health services and to provide the incentives necessary for agriculture and for the provision of increased employment, to show the decision and energy necessary to make this country capable of taking its place in the EEC and capable of meeting the competition which will be inevitable, either with the continuation of the present Free Trade Area Agreement or inevitable in whatever regrouping may take place in respect of Common Market membership.
The Budget was described as being more or less as expected. It provides some compensation in respect of pensioners and some relief in respect of those affected by the rising costs of living. But in so far as it fails to provide an energetic, comprehensive plan to deal with the economic and social problems affecting the country, it merely marks time. Worst of all, it fails to provide, as was emphasised in the OECD Report, any carefully worked out plan dealing with prices and incomes. This is one of the matters we have adverted to. The only reference to it in the Minister's speech is a reference in the early stages and the promise that if prices and incomes rise unduly, there will be another Budget later in the year. That is not providing a solution. It is not providing the lead accepted as essential in the review of the failure of the Second Programme, which is accepted and emphasised in the Federation of Industries report and which has been accepted by the NIEC —that the real direction and real sense of purpose to put the Programme into effect must come from the Government. We have had exhortations to industry and agriculture and to the trade unions, but the failure to give a lead stems from the Government.
In that regard it is well to reflect on the number of failures which have taken place in respect of proposals arising from Government activity. One was again referred to yesterday. There is a sort of suggestion that because particular cases of State investment are raised here, there is opposition to and criticism of what is being done. This is public money. The public are entitled to know how it is invested and how it is spent. In respect of three notable cases in recent times—Galway Textile Printers, the Potex factory in Galway and the Potez factory in Baldonnel— substantial public investment has been made and in each of these cases an unsatisfactory report of the results has been presented to this House. Some time ago a promise was made and an undertaking was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that after an investigation a full disclosure of the facts would be made in respect of Potez in Baldonnel. The only recent information in regard to Galway is an announcement that the receiver is in.
In these cases where public money is being spent, care must be taken that the facts are disclosed, and every effort must be made to ensure that our competent skilled and trustworthy personnel are accepted here as people of trust, and people in whom the country can express its confidence. I believe that when such a situation arises, there is an inescapable obligation on the Government to disclose the full facts. From an examination of the national accounts as presented by the Minister yesterday, as shown in the returns, from all the figures and facts and publications that have been made, has come a clear impression that this country is marking time. We are making no real progress economically or socially, or in the way in which we must make progress if we are to face the challenge of the 70s and the problems that cannot be avoided if we are to compete with other countries either as a member of the EEC or as an independent economic unit determined to provide a good standard of living and to provide the services to which we consider our people are entitled.
Our people are paying substantially more in taxation, substantially more in rates, substantially more in respect of every commodity. Possibly a limited few are getting a reasonable standard of living. In so far as providing a better standard of living for an expanding number of people and providing more jobs for greater numbers is concerned, the Second Programme has been a dismal failure. That cannot be camouflaged by announcing that a Third Programme is to be initiated this year. The failure of the Second Programme in spite of favourable external causes has been due to internal facts and has been due in the main to lack of Government leadership and is the most emphatic repudiation and rejection of the Government's policy and plans.
