This morning's Irish Press, when describing this Budget —and one would expect it to describe it in the most attractive possible terms —described it as a good Budget for rich and for poor. That is true. One of my main objections to the Budget is the fact not so much that it is good for the rich and for the poor but that it does nothing for the man who is sandwiched in between these two classes of rich and poor. These would be the some 800,000 wage-earners who do not pay income tax, to whom Deputy Cosgrave referred here earlier to-day. These people get nothing. They face the forthcoming financial year, in a large number of the cities and urban areas, secure in only one fact, and it is a fact which makes them feel they are insecure, that there will be quite a steep increase in their rent, in cases where they are dwellers in corporation, county council or urban council houses.
The only possible atmosphere of happiness which could be generated in persons of this type by this Budget derives from a sort of promise that, at some future time, there will be an increased selective children's allowance. We, of the Fine Gael Party, welcome that selective children's allowance, but we do not pat the Minister or the Minister's Party on the back in respect of it. The last increase in children's allowances was in 1963, five years ago. Since then, the cost of living has increased by 23.9 per cent. It was 159 points in mid-May, 1963, and in mid-February of this year it was 197 points. Since 1963, there has been an increase of 23.9 per cent. We should keep that in mind because on the last occasion when the children's allowances were increased in 1963, there had been an increase in the cost of living between 1957 and 1963 of 15.1 per cent from 115 points to 138 points. Before that, between 1952 and 1957, the increase was 20 per cent. Taking the Government's own norm or standard for the time at which an increase should be given in children's allowances, that time does not arrive next year or the year after as the Minister indicated: it has arrived now or, in fact, arrived last year. It is not fair for the Minister to come along now and try to encourage the voters in the Limerick by-election with a sort of half-promise that they will get an increase in children's allowances, particularly having regard to the melancholy picture this country presents in regard to our existing children's allowances.
I want to quote a few examples. In Ireland at present a man with two children has a weekly allowance of 6s. His counterpart in Northern Ireland and Britain has 15s. A man in a similar situation in the Netherlands has 30s; in Luxembourg, £1 16s; in Italy, £1 10s; in France, £1 16s and in Belgium, £2 5s. By Irish standards, it is a small family that has only two children and so let us move up to the man who has seven children. In Ireland, he gets a weekly allowance of £1 16s. If he were lucky enough to have his children in England, £5; in the Netherlands, £6 16s; in Luxembourg, £7 19s; in France £10 5s and in Belgium, £11 19s. Why we must lag behind these countries in this regard and continue as a deliberate part of Government policy to lag behind is something I cannot understand and which I feel the country generally finds it hard to understand.
The Minister's approach to this matter has been much too slow, in my opinion, as indeed has been his approach to a problem which is agitating every section of the community at the moment and over the years, the only exception, it appears, to that agitation being the present Government. I refer to the impact of health charges on local rates. If it were not costing the ratepayers so much it would be laughable to observe the manner in which the Fianna Fáil Party are now in a sort of gingerly fashion putting their toe into the pool of Fine Gael policy with a view to rectifying that situation, because, as far back as five years ago, we presented to the country and to the Government a manner of equitably dealing with that difficulty. Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, who is in charge of health for our Party, then produced a system which was subsequently incorporated into our document entitled Towards a Just Society, namely, an insurance scheme under which the employer, the employee and the State would make three equal contributions towards a fund from which the health services would be met.
Now, as if it had come suddenly out of the heavens down to a Fianna Fáil Cabinet meeting, the Minister comes here and suggests that he might do this at some future date. This is clothed in the vesture of a brand-new idea of the Government. They know exactly where this scheme emanated from, and I am happy and pretty sure that the country generally feels the same way, because I assert here that were it not for our consistent advocacy in this Chamber and in local councils throughout the country, the ratepayers would still be left to shoulder the burden of health charges. I believe that as a result of the continual pressure brought to bear on them by us in Fine Gael, this concession is at last being made to the outraged ratepaying public. "Outraged" might sound a bit strong, but it is true that in my constituency of Cork city, the ratepayers this year had to pay an extra 11s. in the £ in rates. Of the 91s. rate, they must pay 31s. towards the health charges. We of Fine Gael in Cork Corporation took the opportunity to explain to the ratepayers that if our policy were adopted, the rate in Cork city this year would be 52s. instead of 91s. in the £. We are happy to feel that at last the penny has dropped on the Government side of the House and that they are now going to adopt what has been preached to them and to the people for the past five years.
Health charges represent only one aspect of the rates. There are other charges which should just as equitably be put on public funds, such as vocational charges and others. I welcome the forward steps in regard to the Trustee Savings Bank for they also are long overdue and by no means over-generous. That is the general pattern of this Budget. Anything the Minister did is something he should have done long ago. The assistance to pig producers is inadequate and will not stir them out of the lethargy into which they have fallen as a result of years of neglect. The aids now given to pig producers in my constituency and in Deputy French's constituency are much too late. We have had one bacon factory closed down within the past 12 months simply because there were not enough pigs produced to keep it going. The fact that these aids are given at this stage to disheartened pig producers will certainly not have the significant effect on the pig trade they should have.
Generally speaking, I think the Minister was rather conservative when he budgeted for only £200,000 on brandy and wines. I mention that because I think it will become germane in a minute or two. As far as I can see from the latest statistics we have, we are drinking wines and brandy like mad. Home consumption clearances of wine in January, 1968, as compared with January, 1967, showed an increase of nearly 18,000 gallons, from 55,028 to 72,739 gallons. There is a fair amount of drinking in 18,000 gallons of wine, sparkling or still. The clearances of brandy were up by 2,500 proof gallons in January this year as compared with the same period last year. But the thing that is to me most surprising is this—and it is something that the Minister might have overlooked, and if he did overlook it, he probably has under-budgeted what he is going to get from the imposition on wines and brandies—that between January, 1957, and January, 1968, there was an increase of nearly 33,000 gallons in imports of brandy; the figures for January, 1957, were 11,578 proof gallons, and in January, 1968, 44,896 proof gallons. I do not know who is drinking this brandy or where it is going to, but certainly it is a significant figure, a rather mystifying figure, and a rather disturbing figure when you consider the approach of the Minister to the forthcoming financial year. The Minister more or less indicated that if over the next 12 months we led quiet and holy lives and did not spend too much, his approach was sound. However, to approach this quiet and holy life in the knowledge that we have imported four times more brandy in the first month of the year as compared with last year does not indicate that we are going to get this reticence in spending for which the Minister hopes; not alone did he hope for it but he budgeted for it.
The Minister hopes to maintain the 1967 growth rate, but this is largely dependent upon the success of the efforts not to generate too much domestic spending. He intends to keep price increases tightly in check. These are imponderables and nobody knows at any given time how the populace will react to the different stimuli they may receive throughout the year. Certainly, the figures I mentioned with regard to brandy and wine are not indicative by any means of a public who are ready to economise in the manner for which the Minister seemed to hope.
I do not know if the Minister has taken sufficient cognisance of the possible effects of the measures taken by the British Government following devaluation to restore the strength of the economy. These are most likely to have repercussions here. For one thing the British demand for imports and for consumer goods will diminish. Again, the income squeeze may reduce demand for foodstuffs such as meat, dairy products and such commodities. For that reason, I think the Minister is being unduly optimistic when he limits his worries to the possible restraint on demand for industrial exports. It is possible that the Irish exports to Britain will be preferable to those of non-devaluing countries, and exports to some of the non-devaluing countries, especially in Europe, might well be encouraged. Nevertheless, there are dangerous possibilities about the entire international situation which, in my view, the Minister has underestimated.
Take, for instance, the United States programme to strengthen the dollar. That could—and a lot of people are apprehensive that it will—result in a slowing-down of trade which would undoubtedly have its repercussions here. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us if he considered all these aspects of the matter before he came to the House with his statement yesterday. I think we can fairly expect an increase in the import of capital and other goods, but the figures quoted earlier on occur to me, those for brandy and wine imports. There is also a possibility for the reasons I mentioned—that is, the present conditions in England and the steps taken there—of a fall in our exports. This should certainly lead to a deterioration in the balance of payments about which the Minister is much too sanguine.
In discussing the balance of payments, I should like to refer the House to something about which I have consistently agitated here over the years. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Industry and Commerce I baited him both in the House and publicly in our constituency about this matter, which gave me worry and continues now to disturb me, and not alone continues to disturb me but continues to disturb those who are intimately concerned in the matter. I am referring to imports from the Iron Curtain countries. Year after year I used to put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce asking him how much we had imported from the Iron Curtain countries, and how much they had taken from us; and year after year I used to get the most depressing replies, and so bad was the pattern that one was almost afraid to ask the question.
I should like to think that as a result of pressure of this nature, there was eventually passed in this House a measure which enabled this country to guard its economy in this connection by taking restrictive steps in respect of imports from those countries. Incidentally, I often wonder whether the goods which we purchased from these Iron Curtain countries are produced in ideal trade union conditions. That is only a thought which occurred to me. However, it is quite true that despite our taking the legislative right to restrict imports from these countries, there has not been any noticeable improvement in the situation in so far as this country is concerned.
In today's Cork Examiner, there is a report of a meeting which will take place in Dublin tomorrow, that is, the general meeting of the Irish Exporters Association. They refer in terms of no small perturbation and gloom to the situation to which I have referred here and to which I have often referred in years past. They point to the distressing imbalance which exists in the trade figures between the Iron Curtain countries and ourselves. These are not people who sit down and complain that this is dreadful and wring their hands and do nothing about it; these are gogetters who are anxious to do what they can to attract trade from the Iron Curtain countries. They actually made advances to the Russians in the matter, and to put it in a rather delicate way, they say they found a lack of warmth in the reception they got from the Russians. This is exactly what we legislated for. If we experienced a lack of warmth amongst our brethren on the other side of the Iron Curtain, we had power to do something about it.
I would be very glad if the Minister, the Taoiseach, or somebody, would tell the House, the Irish Exporters Association and the people why this is allowed to continue. I would be glad if they would tell us why we passed this legislation if we are not going to use it. I think there was one luke-warm effort made to use the legislation, but certainly we have forged a weapon and we have put it into a scabbard, or worse, but we have never used it as effectively as we could have used it and as, perhaps, we should have used it. Surely this is the acceptable time to unearth that legislation again, a time when the Minister, quite rightly, is worried about the imbalance in our trade which might occur.
I share the Minister's apprehension in that regard. I have a feeling that possibly deep down within him the Minister is not quite as happy as he might appear to be about the ensuing 12 months. I have a feeling he might have been viewing the immediate future in Limerick with one eye while viewing the more remote of the next 12 months with the other. Limited words of good cheer went from the Minister to the electorate in Limerick. I would be afraid that somehow the reasonably happy frame of mind in which the Minister appears to be here might prove to be unfounded. I would suggest that one step he could take is to investigate as soon as possible how he could warm the reception which our trade negotiators would receive if they went behind the Iron Curtain simply asking for the same kindness and consideration from the business interests behind the Iron Curtain as we appear to give to them when they come here selling their goods to us.
One of my main objections to this Budget, and I feel sure it would be the main objection of many other people were they privileged to come to the House to give their views on it, is that it does nothing to improve the employment outlook for the forthcoming 12 months. It does not even presume to do so. At the very best, it is a sort of standstill Budget from that point of view and we are going, possibly, to hold the ground we are supposed to have gained last year. That is a very distressing prospect. One would expect from a Government who have been so active in producing programmes for economic expansion, from a Government whose Taoiseach once promised 100,000 new jobs in so many years, that the Minister would come in here and give some indication that they were still looking for these jobs and still hoping to place some more people in employment. Instead of this, the Government choose to overlook the fact to which Deputy Cosgrave referred today—and there is no harm referring to facts like this now and again—that it was stated from a very good British source last week that 33,000 Irish emigrants passed over the British coastlines in the previous 12 months. Having rid ourselves of these 33,000 people, we found ourselves on 11th April this year with 5,500 more people unemployed than there were at the same time last year. The figures were 58,547 on 14th April, 1967 and 64,193 on 11th April this year.
Another thing which stirs me very much, indeed, is the housing provision in the Capital Budget because I come from a constituency in which there has been a continual starvation of houses, particularly in the city where unbelievable slums still exist, although we live in the year 1968. The Capital Budget says that the provision for local authority houses in 1968-69 is £14.5 million, an increase of £2 million on the original estimate for 1967-68. Having regard to the increase in the production costs of housing—as far as I recall, Deputy Cosgrave also made this point—this represents no increase in the number of houses the Government hope to provide this year. That is not good for the tens of thousands of fathers and mothers who are aching to bring up their children in proper conditions.
Not so long ago we were patting ourselves on the back here for what we were doing for education and on how much we were spending to give youth an opportunity. Why not spend equally on youth at its most formative stage so that a child can grow up happy in the knowledge that it is living in decent conditions and that there are not four or five children living in one or two rooms to which the bread-winner must return tired and weary and in a state of mind in which he is quite likely to take steps, if possible, to send the children out to play on the streets so that he can get some peace in his garret? These are the sort of conditions which have led to many of the ills which are damaging the structure of our society and, in addition, costing enormous sums of money to eradicate them. These are the sort of conditions which give rise to ill-health and make it necessary to have the health services to which I have referred already, the sort of conditions which give rise to juvenile deliquency which has become so great a menace in recent years.
Again, I appeal to the Government not to be content just to produce a sort of standstill Budget. While I am on that subject I should like to refer to one local matter which has rather mystified us in Cork Corporation. When the National Building Agency advertised for tenders for the building of 1,800 houses in Cork contractors were notified in the advertisement that they would have to provide the finance themselves. Naturally that was a very important aspect of any tender sent in. Naturally, again, it would have been very difficult for some firms to provide finance of the nature required and never, so far as any public representative in Cork city knows, was there ever any intimation to would-be contractors that this condition would subsequently be dispensed with and it was not until everything in respect of the tender accepted had been completed and contractors had been appointed that we found out, in the most incidental way, in Cork Corporation that the funds were coming from the Local Loans Fund. I have nothing against the builder. The firm is a most reputable one.
I do not know the reason for or the significance of this, but I should like someone to enlighten us as to why there was this change and I should like an assurance from the Minister that the fact that this money is now being provided out of the Local Loans Fund to the successful contractor will not affect the corporation's right to obtain from the Local Loans Fund moneys for their own housing programme because, concurrently with the building by the contractors of the National Building Agency, the corporation intend to build some 200 to 250 houses a year and I live in dread that the corporation will be told: "Listen; you cannot get any money from the Local Loans Fund. Messrs. Sisk have already got enough to build 700 houses this year," and "You are very lucky; congratulations." That is not what the corporation was promised. That is not what the corporation expected. That is not what the people of Cork were led to believe. It is not what the Corporation of Cork will accept.
Finally, there is just one small item I would commend to the attention of the Minister and I am sure Deputies on both sides will be with me in this. I would ask the Minister to reduce one Estimate by 30/- or £2, or whatever sum it would take. There is an estimate for heating the Oireachtas. Would the Minister take a few pounds off that? I have yet to meet a Deputy who does not complain about the dreadful atmosphere. This overheated atmosphere is very bad; it can make you thirsty as well as everything else. It is a very difficult atmosphere in which to think properly and to work as hard as one would like to work. This request may sound frivolous, but it is not by any means frivolous. This overheated atmosphere is something that should have been rectified long ago. If this were a business premises, I am quite sure the staff would have gone on strike long ago; the boss and everyone would complain and something would be done. It is about time something was done and I hope the Minister will now turn the heat on on those who should do something about it.
