Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 May 1970

Vol. 246 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No.3: 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.
—(The Taoiseach.)

The last day I spoke I reminded the House that the raising of taxation by turnover tax was clearly decided by the people of this country in the General Election of 1965. The question of turnover tax as a method of taxation was a big issue in that general election and the people by returning Fianna Fáil to office gave them a mandate not alone to govern for a further period but also to operate the turnover tax system as a method of taxation. The only alternative I can see to raising taxation in order to provide additional services in the fields of agriculture, education, social welfare, and local government is to increase direct taxation. I should like the Opposition to say whether they intend to raise income tax to 9s or 10s in the £ in order to provide the additional services which this Government are providing by doubling the turnover tax.

I should like to hear the Opposition Parties say where they would get the additional £40 million to £43 million which is now derived from turnover tax in order to operate the services maintained by the State and by local authorities for the present financial year. We know this money is being used to provide better services in agriculture, health, education, social welfare and local Government. In addition, this money will be spent in providing more money for local authorities by way of subsidy towards rates and other things.

We are glad this increase in turnover tax is being used to pay increased subsidies for sheep and for the beef incentive scheme and also that it is being used to give an increase in the price of milk. We must remember that, apart altogether from the 1d increase in the price of milk for those who supply up to 7,000 gallons a year, the small farmers will also benefit considerably from the substantial increase being granted in unemployment assistance under the small farmers scheme and also from the increase in children's allowances, as announced in this Budget.

As far as the health services are concerned this money is required to provide better working conditions and increase the salaries and wages of health staffs and those employed in hospitals. It will also pay an increased contribution to the health authorities. If it were not for this increase in the yearly contributions to the health authorities by the State the rates would be far higher than they are. This money will also be used to provide better hospitalisation. We know the great progress which is being made at present in the provision of more hospitals and in improving existing hospitals and hospitalisation for people generally throughout the country.

I cannot understand why the Opposition should vote against the raising of additional taxation to provide for increasing the salaries and wages and improving the working conditions of health authority staff and for better hospitalisation for those in need of this service. This money is also required to enable the Minister for Health to introduce some of the more important regulations under the recent Health Act. Many more people will qualify now for medical cards as a result of regulations which will be brought into operation shortly. When these regulations are brought into operation the household income will no longer be taken into consideration in relation to medical card applications. Each applicant will have his application considered according to his own circumstances.

The same applies in regard to those in receipt of disabled persons' maintenance allowances. When certain regulations are implemented more people will qualify for disability allowances from the health authority because these regulations will provide for all applications to be considered on merit alone. No longer will the income of unmarried brothers or sisters be taken into account when considering applications for disability allowances, as has been the position since the Health Act of 1953 was brought into operation in 1954.

The money raised will also be utilised to pay for the substantial increases in social welfare benefits, as well as the 14 per cent for State pensioners and persons retired from the local authority service. The money will also be used for the extension of the free travel scheme for the wives and husbands of IRA medal holders and old age pensioners who have not been entitled to free travel up to now. Those who voted against the increase in turnover tax voted against the increased expenditure becoming available for these services.

In the field of education we require additional money. We know how successful is the scheme of free post-primary education and, more important still, the scheme of free public transport to post-primary schools. It is of vital importance to ensure that no child is deprived of free post-primary education due not only to means but also to remoteness from post-primary schools.

It has been reported to me by a number of persons that certain ruthless business people are overcharging for goods and services and that they are using the 2½ per cent increase in turnover tax as a pretext. The Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should set up an organisation right away to have these allegations examined and the necessary steps taken against any person who is proven guilty of overcharging. The public themselves will catch up on these people. If the public realise they are being overcharged by certain shopkeepers for certain goods and services they will move from these people to the business people who are not overcharging. Therefore these ruthless people will be caught between two fires: they will be caught eventually by the public and also by the State.

Overcharging could be very damaging to our economy as a whole, particularly in relation to our tourist industry. It is vital for our tourist business that charges should be reasonable. The few who overcharge hold up the whole tourist trade to ransom. I hope the Minister will set up an organisation immediately to deal with allegations of overcharging. Members of the public who come across clear cases of overcharging should not hesitate to report them to the Department of Industry and Commerce. A great responsibility in relation to overcharging lies with the general public, because unless they complain and give a certain amount of evidence to the Minister and his Department very little can be done.

It is to be hoped that those engaged in the building industry will not increase building costs and the prices of new houses over and above what is really necessary as a result of the increase in the turnover tax. I should not like to hear of any case where those engaged in the building trade would just increase the cost of each house by 2½ per cent without having regard to the labour content in which there is not a 2½ per cent increase and without regard to the servicing of the sites which had already taken place prior to the introduction of the turnover tax.

The Opposition should state clearly where they would get the £20 million extra to provide the additional services and benefits which are being provided by the Government during the present financial year. They should also say where they would get the £43 million which it is estimated will come in this year by way of turnover tax, since they claimed they would abolish the turnover tax if they were returned to office following the general election of 1965.

There are three grave defects in the budgetary proposals prepared by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey. In the first case, no definite action has been taken against inflation; secondly, not sufficient stress has been put on savings; and, thirdly, the form of collection of turnover tax is a bad one.

To return to inflation, I should like to point out to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, that since the introduction of this Budget something has taken place in this country which will have a very serious adverse effect on our economy as a whole. It puzzles me that the Government have done nothing whatsoever to deal with that situation. I am referring to the closure of the associated banks due to the recent dispute. On the last occasion the adverse effects came gradually to the public because the banks had been opening and functioning freely and there was free circulation of money in the economy.

Now, however, that has not happened and the Minister knows that a serious situation exists because of a grave shortage of money or of any facility for procuring money. A lot of people, in anticipation, had relied on the possibility of getting money from the big business houses, like supermarkets, to enable them to get the necessary funds to carry on day-to-day management. I am sure the Minister has read in the newspapers, the same as I have—it is common knowledge everywhere—that there has been a serious outflow of capital from the country, that all the money that is available is dovetailed into such banks as are open and instead of circulating freely that that money is going into those banks, being lodged there by people at excellent dividends. I believe that that money is being transferred outside the country to where it is earning up to eight per cent. Even where it is lodged inside the country it is earning six per cent.

That in itself may be advantageous to the new Minister for Finance—I wish him every success in his high office— because he is dealing with an inflationary situation and this, to a certain extent, can counteract inflation. That is all very well but it can have the adverse effect also of bankrupting the economy. It may curb inflation because when people have not got money they cannot spend it, but it will also disrupt and destroy our economy.

There are people at the moment going about with cheques for several hundreds of pounds. There are a lot of those in the foreign community, a lot of foreigners with cheques of £200 or more payable, say, on the Irish Sugar Company, but they are unable to secure money for those cheques. Does the Minister propose to make any arrangements during this dispute to ensure that such State and semi-State cheques will be cashable, along the lines of arrangements made at the beginning of this month for civil servants to cash their cheques for money made available through an arrangement with the Central Bank?

What about pensioners? There has not been any arrangement made for pensioners.

Does the Minister intend to make any arrangement to facilitate semi-State employees such as those in Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus, CIE and the Irish Sugar Company? What arrangement does he intend to make in that respect? Has he any plans to deal with those Deputy O'Donovan mentioned, pensioners who are hard hit?

If one went into a business concern to cash a cheque during the last strike it was quite easy to do so. On this occasion things are completely different because there is very little money in circulation and there will be less if the strike continues. Let us take cattle marts. We all appreciate that cattle exports are material to the solvency of the State. Now, any farmer who takes his stock to a mart will get a cheque which he cannot cash. Being a Dublin man, the Minister for Finance may not appreciate what happens in small country towns where there are cattle marts, where £30,000 or £40,000 might seem to be a lot of money. Farmers selling their stock are carrying cheques for hundreds of pounds which they have not an earthly chance of cashing.

Despite this very difficult situation, I have not heard a statement from any Minister saying that any attempt will be made to solve the dispute to prevent the country as a whole being held up to ransom. I do not wish to deal with the rights and wrongs in the dispute— both sides have their points of view— but I submit that the situation has been badly handled and we have been placed in a situation now in which there is no money available in Dublin or, indeed, throughout the country. All one can get from a business concern at the moment is a few pounds at a time. Unless a person has an account with the Bank of Nova Scotia or with one of the non-associated banks here he cannot get money. Just before I rose to speak a businessman from the north midlands told me he had cheques to the value of £6,000 but he had no money to meet his obligations and his only prospect is to close down. He cannot take money across the Border and people cannot cash even a Government cheque in the non-associated banks. Our economy is grinding to a halt and the Minister well knows it.

He is delighted. It is taking the heat out of the economy.

You can get out of an inflationary situation but get into bankruptcy overnight and, with the dire balance of payments situation at the moment, our economy cannot afford this situation. The Minister must give it serious consideration. The last Deputy who spoke said something which I cannot understand. He accused the Opposition of voting against the benefits accruing to old age pensioners and such people. Of course, such benefits will be totally negligible because of the increased cost of living due to the turnover tax. I particularly could not follow the Deputy's line of argument when he said that we had voted against the turnover tax which will produce £43 million at a time when the Government want only £20 million. What will they do with the balance of £23 million? Is it that we are facing dissolution of the Dáil and that the £23 million will be handy for the Minister for Finance to ladle out in benefits in marginal constituencies? Suspicion haunts the guilty mind, perhaps——

The Minister is hardly experienced enough yet.

I know where the £43 million came in. The Deputy was talking about the total yield from turnover tax.

I am quoting the Minister's colleague. He said the Minister for Finance wanted only £20 million and I am wondering what he will do with the £23 million extra. Will it go in social welfare benefits or is there an ulterior motive behind it? The Deputy over there may say it will benefit Wexford electorally.

I know Deputy Esmonde long enough to appreciate that he is not that stupid.

Let us leave that touchy subject, which is stirring my colleague over there.

He has got very touchy recently. He used to be a very pleasant Deputy.

I want to deal now with savings, which are the life blood of our economy. Before the bank strike, with all the money in circulation as a result of bigger pay packets and generally increased prices, there were ample opportunities for money to be saved. I understand only £75 million is available from the associated banks to be pumped into our economy. According to the statement made by the former Minister for Finance £50 million is going to be utilised for Government State projects and this leaves only £25 million available for private enterprise. The fact that there is only £75 million available in a country such as this indicates that people are not saving. The Minister for Finance should have concentrated on giving incentives to save; I hope the new Minister for Finance will do something about this.

One of the things militating against saving is the ever decreasing value of the pound. When people take their money out of their savings account they find it has nothing like the spending power it had when they originally saved it. Financial legislation should be directed towards encouraging savings. It is some time since I read the Minister's Budget speech but, if my recollection is correct, the only incentive he gave people to save was if they put money into the bank and left it there for three years they would get a small percentage on it. The Minister should bring in short-term investment with a guaranteed return on the capital invested and short-term loans.

Banks are the most usual places in which to save money and the more money put into the banks the more money there is available for national production. We are still a largely underdeveloped country, due to 30 years of Fianna Fáil government—I do not intend to go into that point—compared with other nations but if one were allowed to invest £5,000 instead of the present £1,000 in the banks before tax had to be paid this would serve as an incentive.

Another means of getting savings is through estate duty. I have consistently hammered this point over the years and Ministers for Finance have consistently refused to do what I have asked. I think the remission rate is now £5,000 flat. It goes up to a higher rate according to the number of children and dependants. That sum should be deducted from the whole estate. If a person has an estate of £22,000, which is not a very big sum nowadays, and the total remission amounts to £20,000, duty has to be paid on the whole £22,000. I would like to see the amount deducted from the whole. This would not cost the country much and, no matter what it cost the country, it would give direct investment here and that is what we want. If the Minister for Finance is going to be a good Minister he should concentrate on this in order to improve our economy.

Turnover tax seems to be the be-all and end-all of Fianna Fáil policy. I remember being told by a distinguished civil servant in 1963, when the then Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, was introducing the turnover tax, that he had been advised to introduce this tax as a means of solving all his problems in the future because all he would have to do each Budget day was increase the turnover tax slightly. The turnover tax was opposed tooth and nail by all commercial concerns. I understand the Revenue Commissioners advised against its implementation. They pointed out all the pitfalls of such a scheme. But the tax was imposed and the Revenue Commissioners were given the job of collecting the tax. The turnover tax practically wiped out small family businesses which, because they did not have proper book-keeping methods, found they were unable to keep accounts. I know a lot of people who died of anxiety trying to keep their businesses going.

At the same time as small family businesses were struggling to cope with the turnover tax supermarkets came on the scene. I have no objection to supermarkets provided they are Irish-founded supermarkets with Irish directors, but what happened in 1963 was that international supermarkets crept into this country. The supermarkets were able to undercut small family businesses and once they forced them out of business the natural sequence of events was that prices went up. The Government should have realised the resistance to turnover tax in the country at that time and they should have been aware of the harm that it could do to the economy. It brought an end to a lot of family businesses and it created instability. It brought about this growth of larger capital concerns which do not benefit the big people nor the small people nor anybody else concerned.

In other words, the shops were gradually being turned into supermarkets and these international groups were taking over here as I have seen them do in other countries. When you get big combines taking over you always find that governments are not inclined to come down on them because big combines are big subscribers to Government party funds and it is very difficult, possibly, for Ministers of Governments to turn on these combines and impose restrictions on them, that is, if they could. However, it has come to such a stage now that they cannot impose restrictions on them and they cannot control them. What is happening here is that the big combine is taking charge.

The Minister must admit that in this city there are large supermarket combines which are taking control. I do not know who is at the back of these combines or who is in charge of them but certainly they are deterimental to the national interest and to the housewife who has to shop in them. While big combines may be in opposition to each other the fact is that they will combine with each other to keep prices as high as they can once they have got control. About ten years ago I suggested to the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, that this was something we had to fear in the future. He accepted my suggestion very courteously and he largely agreed with what I said. I asked him if he could introduce any controlling legislation in the matter. Some time afterwards he said that he had been considering the question and that it was very difficult to control the advent and growth of supermarkets without interfering with the rights of the private individual, which is something nobody wants to do.

Shortly after that came the first turnover tax and now we have a repetition of it. The Minister for Finance must have accepted the advice of his Departmental advisers and increased the turnover tax and, hey presto, now there is no trouble. But there is trouble and it is very serious trouble as was evidenced at Question Time today. The Minister's successor in the Department of Industry and Commerce is possibly not as expert yet as the ex-Minister was in evading tricky questions. He was not able to stand up at Question Time today to direct questioning but it was painfully obvious that price control has gone haywire. Nobody knows what the charge should be or what the controlling price should be. There is no prices and incomes policy. The flood has been let loose and of course there will be demands for increased wages and of course the inflationary tendency will continue to rage. What is the Government's policy to deal with the situation? The policy is to sit still and keep the banks closed for as long as they can. I regret having to make that direct charge against the Government. They have made no attempt to solve the bank strike.

Another point which I should like to mention is that we are now at last— and I accept this as one of the people who regarded our difficulties as being considerable—on the verge of opening negotiations for entry into the EEC. Recently I read an article in a financial journal, the name of which I forget, in which it was stated that there were two countries in which wages were outrunning production: one was the United Kingdom and the other was Ireland. The article said that although in the United Kingdom wages were outrunning production they were not doing it to the same extent as here. The article, which was by no means inimical to Ireland, stated that the difficulties confronting this country in regard to its entry into the Common Market were considerable. There is no gainsaying that fact. We have imposed—and there was hell and indignation from Fianna Fáil when we voted against it—this extra turnover tax which in my opinion is going to wreck our economy.

As I have tried to show the House, the imposition of the first turnover tax dragged us into financial difficulties; what is going to happen now with the extra 2½ per cent? We do not know what the effects will be. The Minister for Finance does not know them either but he will soon realise what they will be when he has fully studied the facts in his Department. Obviously the price of everything is going to go up; obviously we are going to be priced out and faced with the greatest difficulties. No wonder the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, brought in a Bill to make houses smaller than they were before, in order to try to save the extra 2½ per cent. Today the cost of bread went up and it is obviously only the start. I do not mind the cost of non-essentials going up. If the Minister for Finance wanted money he should have gone for the non-essentials. He would not have wanted money if he had not let the cost of living go haywire. That is what has happened. The sky has been the limit and we have been experiencing a raging inflation.

Mr. James Dillon, a former Deputy, had been stressing for three or four years what was going to happen. How prophetic his words have been. The Government have created a financial mess and they have nobody to blame but themselves. I am sure when Deputy Colley, the Minister for Finance, the Wolfe Tone Republican, stands up to reply he will be able to answer all the questions I have asked and all the points I have raised. There is nothing in this Budget further to expand, safeguard or increase our economy. Indeed, I am afraid I have to say that it is one of the most disastrous Budgets ever to come before this House. However, as things change eventually, our political opponents over there may not be there for too long. The only hope they have is the £23 million which is stowed away somewhere. I can see the Minister for Finance smiling. Most of it is probably already earmarked for sinister purposes.

I could not agree more with the remarks of the previous speaker about the turnover tax. Since the introduction of this Budget I have had the opportunity of travelling around many towns. God knows it was depressing enough before to watch these rural towns decaying, particularly in the west. The original turnover tax was responsible for putting hundreds of small businesses out of business. That applies particularly in Mayo and especially in east Mayo. Towns like Swinford, Kiltimagh, Balla, Charlestown, Ballina, Crossmolina, Killala and many others, instead of expanding were dwindling. The Parliamentary Secretary looks across at me when I mention Killala. I know a small development was opened there recently, thanks initially to local initiative and thanks also in small measure to State help. I hope that that small development will only be the forerunner of greater things for that town.

I knew that town many years ago when it was a prosperous town and when the farming community round about it were prosperous too. It is not prosperous today and it will not be prosperous for many years to come. Indeed it is my belief it will never be restored to its former prosperity. I remember when the shops in the town of Ballina employed many hands and were packed with customers. The same was true of Crossmolina, my home town of Foxford, Charlestown, and many others. Mayo County Council has done a great deal in laying on water and sewerage and in carrying out certain house building for workers, but to no avail. The west has gone into reverse and is going backwards all the time. I have mentioned this before on many occasions: so bad was the position that a committee was formed comprised of churchmen of all denominations, merchants, farmers, professional people and others and protest meetings were held in Charlestown and in Foxford protesting against the treatment meted out to the people in the west and pointing out that the rural areas were becoming depopulated and unless the Government did something, the time was coming when very few people would be left in the west.

I know of nothing which has so crippled, so hindered and so inhibited progress in the west as the rule of Fianna Fáil and the imposition of the turnover tax. Small businesses all over the country have been crippled as a result of that tax. I know what I am talking about because I was engaged in business and I and people like me employed five, ten, 15 or 20 others. That sort of employment was widespread in the rural areas and it resulted in making rural families secure and happy on their small holdings. The wages were not very high but the cost of living was quite low. An eight stone bag of flour could be bought for 12s or 14s. I remember Fianna Fáil saying that, if they got into office, they would reduce the cost of living. We all know what has happened. Far from reducing the cost of living, an eight stone bag of flour today would cost in the region of £3 10s. I never see an eight stone bag now; it is all stones and half-stones. I am not sure of the actual price because the price has gone up several times. So has the price of the loaf of bread, of the pound of tea, of the pound of sugar, and all the other items. The situation might not have been so bad had the Fianna Fáil Government taken the necessary steps to provide employment. They did not do that, though that was a promise at every election. The picture in the West of Ireland is a sorry one. It is a sorry one in other parts of the country too.

I was in Longford/Westmeath recently and, despite the fact that the farmers there have quite good land, one could not but notice the depopulation. I know why that depopulation occurred. We had a market on our doorstep, the British market, a market fought for by the Danes, by the Dutch, by the Australians and others. The Fianna Fáil Government alleged that they would get us a market in Europe which would be more beneficial than anything our farmers had ever known. We remember the story about the shipment of 3,000 cattle to Germany. When the cattle trade was depressed the Minister for Agriculture at the time came in here and told us he had been in Germany and had struck a deal for 3,000 cattle to be shipped at once to Germany, with more to follow. The cattle never went out. The promise was not kept. I do not know what happened. These things result in loss to the farming community and it is very difficult for people on the land to climb back up once they have come down. I do not want to go back to the economic war during which a great many of our farmers were forced into debt and some have never really got back on their feet again. They are in no doubt as to the cause of their misfortune.

The 2½ per cent additional turnover tax will hit the poorest sections of our community. Speakers on the Government benches have tried to tell us that this imposition would not result in increasing prices but this evening we had one Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Foley, telling us that already prices have gone up and that overcharging is the order of the day in many shops in this city. There are ruthless business people in our community—they are not in the majority, thank God—who will take money wrongfully from their customers.

I hear complaints of overcharging but, when I ask these people if they will supply all the information, quite naturally they do not want to do so because they may be a little indebted in that particular shop and they are naturally reluctant to supply the information. They have no real protection against such ruthless treatment. They are the hardest hit section of the community today.

Fianna Fáil pretend that increased social benefits will not only cover these extra costs but will leave money to spare. That is not the case. It is not my experience. I have been speaking to business people in the past few days. These small shopkeepers, as Deputy Esmonde said a while ago, gave great service by providing credit for poor families to assist them until circumstances improved. They knew these families, their parents and relatives and all about them. It was the custom to give long-term credit which went into the book and when a couple of pigs or, perhaps, cattle were sold the family concerned came along either to clear the debt in full or reduce it to reasonable proportions. That type of trading is negligible now because small shopkeepers have suffered severely due to depopulation and lack of employment in small towns and rural areas and they are rapidly going out of business.

This week two of these traders told me the only breather they got in the past two months was the bank strike. While it lasts they feel they can go to bed with an easy mind but when the banks reopen they will not know where they stand. They told me they were trying to pay by cheque and were sailing close to the wind but while the bank strike lasted they could breathe a little more freely. On the other hand, we know how difficult it is for poor families to have ready money at all times. It cannot be done and today they are being refused on all sides. Along with that, we have a Fianna Fáil Government whose Budget imposes a further 2½ per cent tax on the weaker section of the community. Many people are already going hungry but, without exaggeration, before the year is out there will be thousands going hungry.

One cannot mention an item that has not already gone up or is not in the process of going up. Bread, butter, flour, tea, sugar, clothes and footwear all have the turnover tax added on. Recently, in a draper's shop I had personal experience of this. I was told the tax applied and I paid it. It did not hit me as hard as it would others, perhaps, but I can imagine the situation in which people will have to go without. In many cases if it were not for the secondhand clothes dealer parents would not be able to provide clothes and footwear for their children. That is a sad situation but it is one which I know exists.

Many of these people also have to bear a heavy rates bill. Along with the decline in trade they face increased rates in the coming financial year, to make the prospect still more gloomy. Hundreds of people told me last year that it was only with the greatest difficulty that they succeeded in paying their rates, that it was only due to the kindness of the rate collector who allowed them extra time and who had to raise money in the bank himself to cover these items. I can well imagine that next year in Mayo there will be a further increase of 10s in the £ in rates as a result of the imposition of the additional tax. The county mental hospital which has about 1,000 patients employs nursing staff; it also has maintenance staff to look after the boilers, the electricity and so on. As a result of the extra 2½ per cent we are bound to face further demands from the workers for wage increases. We have been warned of it already. Some of the staff have told me that their cost of living has gone up and that they will want pay increases.

Where will it all end? Nobody knows. We are and have been for a long time drifting along in the wrong direction. It seems futile to warn the Government. Deputy Esmonde referred to the warnings given by Deputy Dillon and others hundreds of times in this House about inflation. It seems to be all to no purpose. We have gone to the four corners of the world to borrow money, to Nova Scotia and God knows where else. The national debt today stands at over £1,000 million in round figures and is continuing to rise. Similarly, we are in difficulties with our balance of payments. Under Mr. Wilson they have succeeded in Britain in reducing their balance in this regard to manageable proportions but we are still indulging in this mad spree and nobody on the Government side seems to care.

In the west of Ireland we can boast of our wonderful scenery, rugged mountains, lakes and rivers. Many new hotels and guesthouses have been erected and others renovated on private initiative and in some cases with the help of Bord Fáilte. This would have been a good development if the tourist industry had been given a fair chance. Many of these people have gone into the business only in the past two or three years. Their overheads will be substantially increased by this Budget. Although we sometimes criticise them here, they work on pretty small margins for the most part. Sometimes we hear an outcry because somebody has been overcharged. This usually happens in the luxury type hotel. If we go to an ordinary guesthouse or to a hotelier we know personally, we usually find that the charges are reasonable. These people are faced with substantial increases in their food bills. They will also have demands for increases from their workers, their chefs, the staff who work at the tables. The tourist industry is very important but, at the moment, we are going along a road which will set us back for years and years.

Due to the cement strike and other difficulties, people who wanted to reconstruct their hotels, or build additions to guesthouses, or build new hotels, could not do so. There was not a bag of cement available. As I came along the road this morning. I looked into what was a concrete blockmaking plant up to a few weeks ago. There was one man roaming around the yard keeping an eye on the machinery. Some months ago 30 or 40 persons were employed there but not one concrete block was in sight today. I hope when the cement strike is over—and I hope that will be soon—that little industry in that part of the country, which is an area of smallholders with small valuations, will be able to start up again. The employment that industry gave helped those people to provide a way of living for themselves and their families.

These are the difficulties and problems that have been created by travelling along this road of inflation. One wonders whether one is wasting one's breath in referring to these matters at all. We have enough closed homes in the West of Ireland. I related this story here on previous occasions. At one time I was asked by the ESB if I would mind them stacking poles in my yard. I said I did not mind. I said: "Put them in such and such a place. They will not be in my way. You can leave them there as long as you like. Are you doing some further development work?" They said: "No. We are disconnecting a number of houses in this region." No fewer than 500 homes were disconnected and the poles taken up again. The Parliamentary Secretary can check that with the ESB.

Still we find people on the Fianna Fáil benches telling us that this country is prosperous and that the economy is on an even keel. They certainly will not convince me with their arguments. I live in that region. I have lived in it all my life and my parents lived there. I know how the people there live. Even in the days of British rule they could stay there. Even the British landlords of old failed to drive them out. The Fianna Fáil Government, their own Government, are driving them out. That is the thanks they get. In the days of Davitt and the Land League they stood firmly and solidly by faith and fatherland. They are now being driven out of their smallholdings by the policies of Fianna Fáil. The facts and figures are there. It is a cause of regret to me that I should have to mention these matters.

Not so long ago on a television show a certain television commentator showed a film of a certain section of Sligo and Mayo. I believe he was abused and insulted by many people for showing such film, but he showed things I see week in and week out. He showed the tumbledown homes of families I knew and did business with, and he was criticised for it. He must have a fairly good "leg in" since they kept him on, even though what he showed was true and honest and fair.

This country is plagued with strikes at present. When you get up in the morning and turn on your radio you do not know what new strike you will hear about. It is like a litany: cement strike, dock strike, bank strike, strike at the fruit market, strike somewhere or other every day. When one is settled, two more break out. I know there are a variety of reasons for this, but the main reason is that, while workers may get an increase of 5 per cent or 10 per cent, while the ordinary workers may get an increase of 10s or £1, and the boss probably gets an increase of £1,000, they have not got it in their pockets for a week until the increases, and more, are taken from them again. They are being driven to despair.

What is to happen about housing loan charges? What is to happen about the people who were marching in this city last year looking for homes, young men and women who want to get married? Can they afford to go into a house costing £5,000 or £6,000? Where will they get the deposit? I cannot answer that one. It is no wonder they are marching and there will be more marching before this year is out on that issue alone. This is into the barrow of the Fianna Fáil Party because, if this Government are in office for some time to come, I have no doubt that they will give the cement strike as an excuse for their failure to build more houses. Who is responsible? I do not say the Government are to blame for everything but they should have taken corrective measures long ago. Deputy Haughey, when Minister for Finance, went on television and announced a crisis. I forget exactly when.

18th March, 1969.

(Cavan): The 7th May was the next one.

"Beware the Ides of March." He went on television with a very serious face. I watched him in my own home and I said: "There is a warning and it cannot be ignored. That is bad news." A few weeks later they decided to have an election and he came back with another story, everything was again starting to go on an even keel, everything would be all right, not to worry. We remember: "Let Lemass Lead On to Prosperity". We remember him coming back to the House some years later and handing over to Deputy Jack Lynch. What an outfit he handed over. He got out because he saw the going was bad.

These are the people who tell us— and they get away with it, too, strangely enough—that they are competent men, who can be trusted to run the country. One thing is certain. They got away with it in the past but they will not get away with it in the future. When they pledge their word in the future not much attention will be paid to it. They are dealing with a different type of person now. People are not blinded by bitterness now. They look at everything calmly and coolly. In my opinion the day of reckoning is not far away.

We have had national loans over the years. Successive Minister for Finance have come to the House and put forward proposals recommending national loans to the House. From their savings our people have subscribed generously to them. That is a very good thing. The leader of our party, Deputy Cosgrave, and Deputy Corish have always recommended to our people to support these loans in the national interest. We were all glad to think that these loans were supported and that it was possible, as a result of the support which they got, to have development works and certain productive schemes carried out. It is difficult to imagine a Minister for Finance coming into the House asking people to subscribe to a national loan in view of the recent happenings. If a Minister for Finance is asking people to subscribe to a national loan one would like to think that the country was being properly run and that there was a responsible government in office. I can foresee a position in which there might be grave danger that our people would refuse to make their savings available to national loans. I regret that. Many useful works have been carried out by the money subscribed to national loans. The conduct and happenings in recent times have not been conducive to collecting money by means of national loans. Fianna Fáil have nobody but themselves to blame. I sincerely hope that there will not be difficulty in the future in regard to national loans.

Many people will be badly hit by the extra 2½ per cent turnover tax. Some of them are not organised and can do nothing. Deputy Tully, a prominent Labour Deputy, will confirm that many workers in the country do not belong to any trade union. Such workers are inclined to join a union for a short term to see if they can get any benefits. After they have got increases they become lackadaisical. I regret that such should be the case. It is important to belong to a good trade union with reputable leadership.

Many of our people are losing employment because they do not belong to any organised group. They are doing as their fathers did—going to England to find employment. Workers who get married and settle down there are unlikely to return. They may have an idea of returning some time but, when the children arrive, these workers find they must stay in England.

Many of the points I wish to make have been made by previous speakers. This Budget contains very little which would encourage the people in the West of Ireland. I appeal to the Fianna Fáil Government to realise that the west is dying fast. Whole townlands have been wiped out. If any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary cares to come down to the west I will accompany him around the territory and show him that this is true. It is still possible to do something concrete for these people. The problem is not being tackled properly.

Money is a serious problem. We need a large injection of money in that region in order to bring it back to its former prosperity. Regard must always be had, when talking about trying to restore an area to its former prosperity, to its natural resources. We have certain natural resources in the West of Ireland. Tourism is an important feature of our economy in the west. The roads must be improved and large sums of money must be available for this work. There are many areas which are well known to Dublin and cross-channel tourists but there are many places with magnificent scenery which are rarely heard about. I live in one such area. There are rivers and mountains there, and a little forest. I suggest to the Government to tackle the problems in the west by large-scale promotion of tourism.

There are still some good tracts of land in Mayo. In the regions of Balla, Straide, Crossmolina and Killala bullocks can be driven off the land fully-fleshed and ready for slaughter. Advisers should give every possible assistance and money should be available to the farmers in these regions to encourage them to produce cattle as they did formerly. Farmers are afraid to be enterprising because of shortage of capital. There are many drainage problems on their farms. The River Moy drainage was very beneficial. There are many minor streams and rivers still to be drained. It is a pity that the £4 million or £5 million which has been spent on that drainage scheme must be wasted unless something is done about the minor rivers. Drainage of these minor rivers could provide local employment. It would be productive employment.

Where land is drained, benefit can be derived the following year. I stress the importance of minor drainage schemes. There are many applications for drainage lying in the offices of the Moy Drainage Scheme in Ballina. This work should be continued. If it were, men would not need to emigrate. Some of the drainage workers went to drain the River Boyne but the majority of them went to England. This stop-go policy is something which this country cannot afford. Anything that can be done to provide employment, particularly productive employment, should be done. It will give a return to the individual as well as giving a return to the State.

We are fortunate in having a very long coastline and we have the sea at our doorstep with its almost unlimited resources. Very little has been done towards developing the potential of these resources for the nation. There was a big song and dance about the giving of a sum of £25,000 or £30,000 for use in Killala. We should tackle the job and be prepared to put money into the exploitation of our wonderful coastline because it is certain that we would get a quick return from wise investment. If somebody asks for a boat, there are so many formalities to be gone through that, in the end, the applicant almost loses interest. Indeed, the remark has been passed on more than one occasion that the Government do not know what they are doing and that they are only messing.

In the old days, we had a tradition of sea fishing in this region. Lives were lost. Take for example Darby's Point in Achill. For years and years, Ministers would come down there and promise to do this and to do that but, after 50 years of native government, only in the past three years or so have they begun to do something about it, and, even as it is, the approach is niggardly.

By virtue of the amazing political events of the past fortnight in this country, which have interrupted the debate on the Budget, it might be thought that we have almost forgotten about the 2½ per cent turnover tax but, before this year is out, our poorer sections will be very much aware of the serious and insidious nature of this cruel imposition. It will eat its way into the meagre incomes of many of our people and cause uncalled-for hardship to them.

The contribution by the last speaker was startling because of its contradictory nature. As one who has seen the introduction of ten Budgets in this House and paid careful attention to the debates on these Budgets I cannot but wonder if Fine Gael will ever learn anything so far as the thinking of our people is concerned. With Budget after Budget, Fine Gael adopt the same approach. They subject this House and the country to gloomy speeches and gloomy forecasts. The sky, according to them, is falling down on everybody. Surely Fine Gael must realise that the gloom they try to project does not exist throughout the country? Our people are moving forward. Undoubtedly, we have our weak spots and our poor spots throughout the country. If we thought of the national good rather than of political and party advantage we would all work together in a united effort to try to solve the problems which confront us with a view to improving in a very positive way the lot of our people in general.

This Budget cannot take any other direction because this is how taxation is imposed in Europe today. With a view to getting into the EEC, we shall have to travel along certain lines or else find ourselves faced, on entry, with a type of taxation that is completely out of accord with that to which we are accustomed. It is a startling fact that out of £20 million which this Budget provides for, no less than £10 million will go immediately on increases to civil servants, garda and teachers. If half of that £10 million was diverted towards the strengthening of the economy along our western seaboard it would have a tremendously beneficial effect on the economy there. By outside standards, no doubt the civil servants, garda and teachers are entitled to the increases but the fact remains that while large sections of our community are not well off, a curb on increases of this size is desirable. It is the duty of every Member of this House to unite in calling for a halt to this type of procedure until such time as we can effectively help the weaker sections in the community and particularly help people to increase their production. That line of thinking should be projected in this House rather than gloomy prophecies which are of no help to the hard-hit people along our western seaboard and elsewhere and which certainly do not raise their spirits.

Our small shopkeepers and our smallholders whose incomes in many cases do not even reach the level of £6 a week must contribute towards increases, the lowest of which is £3 a week and progressing up to £10 a week, for the people for whom the £10 million is set aside. It is ridiculous. This House should be concerned about this matter. While this type of thing is allowed to continue, more and more of our people from the western seaboard and, indeed, from other parts of the country, who are living on a depressed standard of living and who cannot increase their income, will leave their native place and work elsewhere for better wages. They will leave the land or the little family businesses which were handed down to them. Because of their small incomes it is impossible for them to attempt to increase their holdings.

This is a matter about which the House must be concerned. If each Member of the House approached the matter along those lines, it might be possible to curb the demands of the organised bodies in their efforts to get a larger slice of the national cake at the expense of these other unfortunate people. I would hope that the time would come when the demands of these organised bodies would meet resistance from all sides of the House at least until such time as the poorer sections are brought in line with other sections.

I agree with many of the points raised by the previous speaker in relation to the problem of the west especially in so far as it is necessary to view the problem in a realistic manner. Very often in the past we have been given details of one scheme or another which never materialised. In many cases the schemes are drawn up by civil servants. We hear it said quite often that nobody should be expected to live in the west on £6 a week or less. Nobody has the right to say what a person should or should not have.

The Deputy has said that the workers should not be seeking increases.

When I said that I was speaking about the organised groups of workers. I am not against anybody seeking an increase but I am merely pointing out that smallholders in the West of Ireland whose income ten years ago was £6 a week are still at that level and that these people are now being asked to contribute a sum of £7 per year of their entire income so that certain organised groups of workers might be given an increase of from £3 to £10 per week. I am not talking of the ordinary organised groups of workers, but of civil servants, gardaí and teachers who, if the figures are correct, are getting away with £10 million of the £20 million provided in the Budget. We must not continue to support one section of the people to the detriment of the remainder. There are too many endeavouring to live on very low incomes.

One industry which would have great potentiality for the West of Ireland is fishing but this has not been developed as it should. In this day and age we should be capable of earning about £30 million a year from fishing. This would give employment to about 30,000 people along the entire west coast. Foreign trawlers came here in other days and found it profitable to do so but because they are not now finding the fish as plentiful as in those days they are not so inclined to come. We should take advantage of this and develop the industry to its fullest extent. More processing plants should be erected all round our coast and, in particular, along our west coast where fishing grounds are very good. Enough money should be provided for this industry so that people would be encouraged to take up fishing as a livelihood. The approach to our fishing industry in the past has been completely negative.

In my own area and particularly in Dingle I know of people who bought expensive boats from time to time but who were unable to have them serviced because there was no provision for this purpose. I know of a man in Portmagee who has been waiting for an engine for his boat since September last but without any luck so far. In the meantime he is endeavouring to carry on with the old engine which is giving a lot of trouble. This type of approach has bedevilled our fishing industry. Very often I have seen boats of seven or eight different makes in one area whereas if they were all fitted with the same type of engine it would be much easier to obtain parts for them. During war years and in other times this industry was brought up to a high level of production and I cannot understand why that is not the case today. I would hope that even at this late stage the Ministers concerned would ensure that this valuable industry is developed along lines that would make it worth while.

Another useful industry which should be developed to a greater extent in the west is forestry. There should be more energetic efforts to obtain land for planting. I believe that if the Forestry Department sought the land they would secure it. This is an industry which would give very useful employment. If it were developed to the full it could give employment to 4,000 men along the west coast. It is the type of industry that gives employment to the older person. If we are lax in availing of the labour we have, the day will come when we will not have the labour force needed for this. There should be a more energetic drive in the west to have the maximum amount of land taken over for planting. The rate of acquisition would appear to be static or even downwards in my part of the country.

Tourism is, of course, the big hope for the west. I feel there is not co-operation between all the Departments concerned towards the development of this very valuable industry. All too often, in my own part of the country, when people are anxious to go in for guesthouse development and are ideally suited for it, we cannot get water or sewerage facilities and sometimes roads are the cause of the trouble. If we are to develop this industry to its full earning power there must be coordination and co-operation between all Departments concerned. Along the entire west coast it should be possible for the hotel industry to employ up to 10,000 people. I would not be surprised if the greater part of that number were employed already because in Kerry anyway a 100-bedroom hotel gives employment to about 70 people. It is a small factory in its own way and most useful. If the guesthouse business is developed to its full potential it should be capable of giving part-time employment indirectly to up to 25,000 people. Those are projects that can solve the problem of the west and if planned along the lines suggested, if we can get co-ordination in all Departments and get tourism looked at objectively, it should be possible to provide the type of employment that would help everybody in those areas and indeed would better the nation.

Tourism is capable of being developed satisfactorily in the scenic areas of the west. The type of houses built there are suitable for conversion and, above all, many of the married women living there have been in America or England at some stage and are fairly well trained in housekeeping and cooking. They are ideally suited for running guesthouses. I often wonder whether, with all the drive in tourism, our people at the top, particularly in Bord Fáilte, are as alive to the potential of this development as they should be. The guesthouse tourist business should have progressed much further than at present. All too often the Town and Regional Planning Act interferes with developments, showing that there are Departments working one against the other rather than with each other. That is causing a lot of trouble.

I do not think it would arise on the Budget.

I was only referring to it as it affects the tourist industry. It is one of the things that bedevils the tourist industry in Kerry. The major hope, of course, for the west, outside of those things, is industry. We have one of the greatest assets in Europe available to us along the west coast in the intelligent and virile labour force available. We have boys and girls now leaving school with their intermediate or leaving certificate. These people have proved very successful in County Kerry. This is what industrialists look for. Not that higher education is always necessary, but it shows that a person is keen and intelligent.

A much more energetic drive must be made in relation to continental industrialists. I hope to speak on this on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is necessary to go out and try to get the industrialists who are available in Europe to come in here. I am not satisfied that the effort made is anything like as good as it should be. We are not getting across to the people in Europe. I have found that out on my recent visits there. We have lost a number of industries that we could have got in this country. They have gone to other countries. I should like to see, from now on, every effort being made in this direction. The literature, the advertising and the approach in Europe is not getting across to the industrialists at all. There must be new thinking and we must try to bring home to industrialists the advantages and the facilities we have in the west. The Europeans—Germans, in particular, and Swedes—prefer to get into isolated areas, areas away from built-up complexes. They like to get into scenic areas. We should avail of this and do everything in our power to get those people to come here. I know they can be got to come here. They will be the saving of the west, the saving of our smallholders, who could go to work in industries for five days a week. These smallholders make the best and most contented workers.

The previous speaker said that sufficient money is not being directed to the west. A special board should be set up with a minimum of £5 million for the development of the west. This could cover industry, forestry and tourism. This should be separate from the rest of the country. To have a crash programme is the only way.

Something that is overlooked, particularly where the west is concerned, is the development of farmyard production. This is what kept our people 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago—the yellow meal which provided very cheap feeding. This can be a big help towards the salvation of small farmers, particularly pig producers. There should be some scheme under which they could obtain the best feeding materials to engage in pig production more extensively. Many small farmers are producing cattle at the moment but if they were enabled to finish as much of their land as possible it would help them to keep their cattle for much longer rather than having to sell them off at an early age when somebody else gets the benefit of the work they have put into producing those cattle.

We must try to get across to our people the necessity to buy home produced goods. Very often we hear of people who look for Irish goods and cannot get them in some shops. I remember six or eight years ago when Deputy Corry and I went into a shop in Grafton Street to buy Irish socks we could not get them. There were references in this House to this matter and it hit the headlines. The following week we had every shop in Grafton Street stating: The most discerning Deputies in Dáil Éireann can get Irish socks here.

I was amazed recently to be told by a lady who went into the same shop to buy a jumper that she was told by the person behind the counter that the Irish jumpers they had were not very attractive, that the colours were not good but that they had beautiful Scotch and British jumpers. The lady refused to buy those jumpers. She said she wanted an Irish jumper. The person behind the counter, who has to be a member of a trade union, said: "You are foolish. Those others are much better". What hope have we of selling Irish goods if this is the attitude of our trade union employees in our stores in this city?

I have been informed that the management in many of those stores buy British goods because they get three months' credit whereas they get only one month's credit from Irish industrialists. When material is coming in here, if there is duty payable, it must be paid on the spot. Management then push those British goods to the extreme against Irish manufactured goods. It is disgraceful that that should happen in this country. We find all through the country imported foodstuffs being sold in all the small shops. This is something which should not happen.

Often, while going through London Airport, I have tried to get a bottle of Irish whiskey. On two occasions I could not get it at all and on another they had only one type of Irish whiskey. They certainly will not make any effort to push our goods to the detriment of their own. Our trade union people here have a duty to do their best to push home produced goods. They will thus help their own people in the various factories manufacturing those goods. All Deputies should do their best to ensure that as far as possible Irish materials are pushed at all times.

Last Sunday evening I had occasion to "tick" off somebody in my own county. I had driven through some of the most beautiful scenery in the county and I took a friend into a particular place and asked for a whiskey. The girl asked if I wanted Scotch or Irish. I ticked her off and said I never wanted to hear her trying to sell Scotch whisky before our own. This is what is doing great harm to our industrial products and is causing so much trouble in our balance of payments.

The Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Education should try to educate our children with regard to the purchase of Irish goods. Those children will be the mothers and fathers of tomorrow. Irish goods are second to none. I felt very proud in Germany, in Brussels and in many other countries and cities I have visited when I saw the magnificent display of Irish goods. In one shop in Germany I saw a crowd around a counter where Irish goods were sold while there were very few people around some of the other counters. This shop was selling Irish knitwear. Our trade unions should instruct their members to promote the sale of Irish goods at home and they should do their best to see that Irish goods are also sold in England and on the Continent.

I should like to thank the Minister for the increases given to social welfare recipients. I should point out that there is one section of our people who are still left out, namely, those who are infirm or who through ill health were unable to work and obtain stamps but who have not reached the qualifying age for the old age pension. Those people are dependent on home assistance from local authorities. The local authorities are already over-loaded and cannot give very much to those people. I would ask the Minister, if possible, to bring in those people now or, if not, to bring them in under next year's Budget.

There are people on stretchers or in beds, people of 30, 40 or 45 years of age, who do not qualify for anything because of the conditions that are laid down. Seeing that the Budget covers such a wide number it is a pity they were forgotten, but perhaps the Minister would have a look at the matter. There cannot be a great many such people in the country and it would not cost very much to compensate them for the increased cost of living.

There is another question which I have raised here several times before, that of the widows of Old IRA men. They should be eligible for some of the pension that was payable to their late husbands. They were men who gave up everything in other days to help the country in its hour of need and to give us what we have today. Many of them did not come out of the struggle in the best of health and their widows were left with little or nothing; perhaps some of them were not pensioners at all, but even at the old age pension age they would have nothing else. These are people who stood faithfully by their husbands and were proud of them. They are entitled to some recognition by the State as their husbands were not in a position to leave them in the comfort to which they were entitled.

On the whole the Budget is a fair one to the extent that any Budget can be considered fair. By and large Budgets are not acceptable to the people. However, in view of our projected entry into Europe we must keep in line with what is happening there and raise money in the European way. As Budgets go, it was an easy Budget and probably the people did not expect to come out of it as easily as they did.

In the light of our entry into Europe many problems face us, and I should like to see all sides of the House coming together to discourage demands from the higher paid people to enable us to distribute a bit of the wealth of the country to the poorer sections. If all sides of the House were united in this regard it would induce the people who earn the top salaries to show restraint until such time as we are in a better financial position to meet their demands.

The matters to which I wish to refer arise mainly from the remarks of the previous speaker. While I do not agree with all he said, I find myself in agreement with some of his remarks. A more positive approach should be taken towards the problem of lower paid workers in the public service. Last year, 1969, a forward step was taken, but we are still awaiting the outcome of those negotiations to see a definite improvement in their conditions. We would hate to think that the negotiations last year were brought to a rather speedy conclusion simply because it was a general election year.

There is, I am sorry to say, serious neglect and a lack of interest in the Department of Finance regarding claims for lower paid workers. There is nothing more frustrating or infuriating for a trade union official than negotiating a claim on behalf of employees of the Department of Finance. That Department covers almost every range of Government activity. The claims may be very minor ones in respect of working conditions, apart altogether from wage increases, but it takes far too long to get any decision on such claims. If our employers generally took example from the way the Department of Finance handle these claims industrial relations would be in a sadder state in the country today. I am speaking particularly about isolated groups such as Board of Works employees or forestry workers. The patience and tolerance of these workers is sometimes strained to the limits. I would urgently appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to bring about a vast improvement in that situation. Let me tell him there is ample room for improvement in that area, and if he wishes I can give him precise examples of what I am talking about.

The previous speaker referred to the necessity to buy Irish and implied that the reason why so many non-Irish goods were being bought in the shops at present was the fact that trade union employees were pushing British goods. Of course this is altogether wrong.

I agree there is a serious and frightening imbalance in our trade position vis-à-vis the United Kingdom but it certainly is not due to the people behind the counters. The trade union movement are very conscious of their responsibility in this respect. They were against the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement for the reason Deputy O'Connor spoke about this evening—that it would result in flooding the Irish market with certain commodities. The results of the agreement which we can see in our trading figures at present are due mainly to the bad thinking behind that agreement and not to any laxity by any group of trade unionists or any one trade unionist, as Deputy O'Connor seemed to suggest.

The Budget situation in general is one that has to be looked at in conjunction with increases in the cost of living because this Budget more than any other in the history of the State has accelerated increases in the cost of living. There appears to be complete indifference, a complete lack of ideas on the part of the Government, towards dealing with the continuing rise in the cost of living.

The housewife who goes on her shopping errands finds that prices of foodstuffs continue to increase day by day. We have a so-called prices control body but they obviously will not be able to cope with the situation that developed in recent weeks and that will continue during the coming months, brought about mainly by the increase in the turnover tax as a result of which almost every item has increased in cost during the past number of weeks, and not just once or twice: I have had complaints about the prices of commodities, particularly foodstuffs, increasing three or four times in the past few weeks.

This situation has got to be controlled very quickly or the side effects will be many and great. Rating authorities are being affected by these increases. Some Deputies from the Government side spoke in this debate about tax increases, ignoring altogether the substantial increase in rates already this year and, indeed, during the past few years.

These two forms of taxation cannot be separated any longer because the two are mutually dependent. Local authority members find themselves unable to do anything about rate demands when the estimates are made out: members of rating authorities have no option but to adopt the rates. We saw what happened in Dublin and Bray last year when members did not adopt the rates necessary to provide the services.

All too often the cost of services is determined by the policy of the Minister for Finance. We have this double form of taxation which is most unjust, and the relief the small shopkeepers, small farmers and householders get from rates is very meagre indeed. I do not see, therefore, how we can postpone a complete revision of the rating system. With increases in central taxation, the time is opportune to review the rating system. If in order to provide essential services we have to force small shopkeepers out of business and tax the food and the clothing of the poor and needy, obviously something is very wrong in our whole tax structure.

The problem of unemployment is still widespread and although increases in unemployment benefit are always welcome they are not the solution to the unemployment problem. I met an unemployed man in County Longford during the recent by-election campaign. He told me he was canvassed the previous day by a member of Fianna Fáil who was then a Parliamentary Secretary and who is now a Minister. The unemployed man asked the Parliamentary Secretary what prospect of employment he had and the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was: "Well, are we not giving you good money for it?"

That attitude, to say the least of it, is very complacent. That individual is now a member of the Cabinet. I hope he will not express that view at the Cabinet table about unemployed persons. In one small area in my constituency, Castlecomer, there are up to 400 persons unemployed. At the same time, many much needed schemes to provide water and sewerage facilities are awaiting implementation but because of lack of finance from the Minister for Local Government they cannot be started. Finance should be provided for those schemes. They will have to be done sooner or later and the sooner the better because as well as providing necessary services they will also provide employment. The cost of providing these services at present would be much cheaper than in five or six years time.

I feel this is a matter for the Estimate rather than the Budget debate.

I agree, but I was trying to make the point in relation to unemployment that the policy should be to provide employment. The schemes to give employment are there; all that is required is the necessary finance. Socially, it would be far better to look after our unemployed in this way.

I want to add my voice to that of the previous speaker and point out the large gap which exists in our social welfare code. An attempt should be made to provide for the incapacitated person who has not got the necessary insurance record to enable him to avail of benefit. I know of married men with families who, when they meet with an illness for a prolonged period, because they are self-employed in what is known as task work in rural areas, are left at the mercy of the local authorities. Local authorities are limited in the amount they can give to such people. This is a glaring gap in the social welfare code. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary here this evening, who is responsible for social welfare, to look into this matter and try to provide some scheme to help cases of this kind. The revenue available to local authorities becomes more limited as the years go by and the Department of Social Welfare should take over some of the assistance schemes operated at present by the local authorities.

In conclusion, I want to express the abhorrence of the Labour Party at the complete disregard this Budget shows for the effect which it is having and will continue to have on the cost of living. I hope there will be a definite attempt to tackle this problem at source. Shopkeepers very often find that the prices of goods are put up before they reach the shops and they have no option but to put the prices up to their customers. Because of the problems this is causing I feel the price control committee should be enlarged and sent around the country to investigate some of the many complaints which public representatives hear every day of the week.

(Cavan): This Budget must be considered and assessed in the light of its economic and financial background; it must be considered and assessed in the light of the state of the economy and the financial state of the country which prevailed before it was introduced. If we look, first of all, at the balance of payments we find that in 1967 we had a surplus of £15 million, in the following year that surplus was converted into a deficit of £22 million and by 1969 the deficit had increased to £60 million. In 1970 we are told that, if things go on the way they are, the deficit will substantially increase. Various estimates have been put forward and various guesses have been made as to the figure which the deficit will have reached by the end of the year; some say £90 million and others say £100 million. The former Minister for Finance was well aware of our balance of payments position. When he introduced this Budget, after giving the figures which I have just given— with the exception of the last figure —he went on to state at column 1720 of the Official Report of 22nd April, 1970:

This trend has grave implications for the economy. Unless we abate the excessive increases in domestic consumption and costs, the gains of the past decade and our potential for further progress in the seventies could be put in jeopardy.

The Minister for Finance fully realised the serious position regarding our balance of payments. He fully realised we were importing more than we were exporting and that this could lead to disaster.

The next word of warning struck by the former Minister for Finance in this Budget dealt with the cost of living. He pointed out that the consumer price index had risen on average by 6 per cent over the last two years, a rate, he said, exceeded by only three OECD countries namely, Iceland, Yugoslavia and Portugal. I think the former Minister for Finance was rather conservative when he referred to a figure of 6 per cent. I believe that a figure of nearly three times that for last year would more accurately represent the increase in the cost of living. However, the Minister fully realised that this was the position because at column 1721 of the Official Report of 22nd April, 1970, having given the figure which I have given, he went on to say:

If prices continue to rise and our unit wage costs to increase as they have been doing, our goods will cease to be competitive on either the home or the export market. Employment will suffer and, before long, our living standards will fall well below the level to which we have become accustomed in the last decade and which we now take for granted.

There is no doubt the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, fully realised the serious position facing the country under the headings of balance of payments and the cost of living and he wrote it into his Budget Statement in black and white.

Those were not the only obstacles and the only difficulties confronting the country as this Budget was introduced. We had serious industrial unrest; strikes and more strikes, as Deputy O'Hara pointed out. Over the past 12 months we had an RTE strike, a vocational teachers' strike, a cement strike and a bankers' strike. It is rather significant that all these strikes are taking place in semi-State companies, State-sponsored concerns, or concerns enjoying a monopoly. Cement Ltd. enjoy a monopoly. RTE are a State-sponsored body. The vocational teachers are really a section of the Department of Education and the bankers enjoy a monopoly. These strikes are serious for the country.

That was the position facing the country when the former Minister for Finance prepared his Budget. However, that is not all of it. We are facing and have been facing for some time a serious cutback in the tourist business. We had the Minister for Transport and Power conceding in the House today, and on other occasions recently, that cancellations in tourist bookings are and have been taking place. The Minister for Transport and Power attributed these cancellations to the happenings in the North of Ireland six months ago. The tourist business is one of our most important industries. The Minister for Health, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, pointed out that it was second only to our agricultural industry. It is being attacked on various fronts at the moment. There is no doubt that the situation in the North of Ireland has prejudiced our tourist business. People in England and on the Continent find it very difficult to differentiate between one part of Ireland and another. When people hundreds of thousands of miles away are told there is trouble in Ireland they find it very difficult to sort it out and say that trouble in the north of Ireland does not affect the south of Ireland.

That is only one aspect of it. Our tourist industry in recent years enjoyed a certain amount of protection. We were in a privileged position because the British tourist could spend more money here than he could bring abroad. That situation was altered recently and the amount of money an English holi-daymaker can bring to the Continent has been increased. There is also no doubt—and I was going to say that a former Minister for Finance could not have been expected to know this when he was introducing his Budget, but that is hardly correct because if the Taoiseach's prima facie thinking is correct he would be one of the people who could be expected to know—that the recent attempt illegally to import arms, and the dismissal of Government Ministers by the Taoiseach, is also certain to affect our tourist industry. There can be no doubt about that.

People going on holidays certainly do not want to run into trouble; they do not want to go to a country which is embroiled in strife of one sort or another. It has been known for some time that the Six Counties were suffering from civil strife, from something in the nature of warfare between one section of the community and another, but I am afraid the recent disclosures by the Taoiseach will put the country as a whole in a very unfavourable and very unsettled light. A couple of years ago when there were rumours of trouble in Spain, involving the Basques, people were very slow to go there. If we are presented to the world as a divided country, with civil strife within the Six Counties and threats of an extension of that, it is bound to affect our tourist industry.

In those circumstances one would have expected that the former Minister for Finance, when he sat down to prepare his Budget for the coming year, would have realised the position regarding the balance of payments, the position caused by inflation, that he would have been aware that the country was bedevilled by strikes and that he would also have been aware that the tourist business was under heavy pressure. Indeed, he did realise all those things and he mentioned most of them in his Budget speech. He warned that the balance of payments was out of hand; he warned that the cost of living could not go on as it was and I think at some stage he referred to the unsatisfactory industrial relations position. The first half of his speech was all right but in the light of events since then, and without being frivolous, one would nearly imagine that he wrote the warning portion of his speech and then got involved in some other activities which distracted his mind from what he was doing, and then he came back and completed the Budget which, in the words of Deputy Tully, is a lazyman's Budget. We are entitled as serious people, dealing with this matter in a serious way, to ask what has this Budget done to cure or improve the maladies about which the ex-Minister for Finance warned us? What will the taxation provisions of this Budget do to improve our balance of payments? Can anybody deny that the taxation provisions of this Budget will worsen our balance of payments and will make it more difficult for us to increase our exports? Will not the taxation imposts of this Budget increase the cost of everything we have to sell thereby pricing us out of world markets? What will this Budget do to reduce the cost of living about which the ex-Minister spoke in such striking terms?

If prices continue to rise and our unit wage costs to increase as they have been doing, our goods will cease to be competitive on either the home or the export market. Employment will suffer and, before long, our living standards will fall well below the level to which we have become accustomed in the last decade and which we now take for granted.

Surely the provisions of this Budget will drive up the cost of living. Some Budgets in the past increased the cost of luxuries. Some Budgets increased the cost of some necessaries. This Budget goes hell-for-leather to increase the cost of everything. This Budget will worsen the position from the point of view of inflation, the inflation about which the ex-Minister warned us.

I come now to the tourist industry. The tourist industry, a very important industry, is under heavy fire from several directions. Will this Budget do anything to relieve that position? We cannot guarantee the weather but, up to now, we could compete as one of the cheaper holiday countries in the world. That will no longer be the position. A former Minister for Transport and Power spent a great deal of money developing the car ferry business. He boasted, perhaps, with some justification, that the opening up of the car ferry business would mean a big influx of tourists. How will this Budget affect that business? Will it not increase the price of petrol by at least 2d per gallon? Is that sensible? Some people drink all the year round. Others drink only when they are on holiday. What will this Budget do to the price of drink? Will it not put up the price? The cost of beer here is higher than it is in Northern Ireland. This Budget will drive the price higher still. Will that not affect our tourist industry? The cost of everything the tourist buys will go up. Hotel prices will go up. This Budget represents an extraordinary approach by a Minister who fully realised the position. And this is the way in which he deals with that position.

We have quite a record for strikes. We had the maintenance men's strike last year which was blamed for a great many things. The current cement strike is just as serious. It is causing a great deal of unemployment. The bank strike is much more serious than people think. In former bank strikes there was money lying about and the cash stores acted as bankers. They accepted cheques. That is not the pattern now. Businesses which take in large sums of money are not going to cash cheques; they are investing this money in banks which are still operating or they are sending it to Northern Ireland or Britain and enjoying a return of 6, 7 or 8 per cent. Before long there will be a scarcity of ready cash. A great number of bank employees have left the country. They will find ready employment elsewhere. This strike will drag on, I believe, until grave difficulties are created.

There is no point in Deputy O'Connor standing up over there on the benches opposite and appealing for restraint in certain areas. He seemed to make a distinction between workers organised in the Civil Service and workers organised in trade unions. He appealed to one section to restrain their demands. How can he do that as a member of the Government Party at a time when the cost of living is being driven up by direct Government action in this Budget?

If strikes are to be avoided and proper industrial relations established prices must be controlled. The cost of living must be controlled. Above all, the workers must have confidence in the Government. They must respect the advice given by Government Ministers. Because of recent events and because of the disrepute into which the Government collectively and individually have fallen it is futile to expect any section of the community to take the Government seriously or to accept advice from the Government. The people are bewildered and it is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect that, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach, or anybody else in the Government, appeals to workers or to business people to exercise restraint the answer will be: "Sure, we cannot take them seriously".

Arising out of this it is relevant to point out that day after day statements are made by State or semi-State bodies or by the Government Information Bureau which are being contradicted. I shall not go in detail into the accident in which the former Minister for Finance was involved but we have at least three versions of it; that he was hit with a gutter pipe; it was released to the newspapers——

None of these arguments arises in this debate. The Deputy will appreciate that this matter was debated for 37½ hours in the House and why he should raise it on the Financial Resolution I cannot understand.

(Cavan): With respect, I shall try to convince the Chair that it is absolutely relevant. I am dealing with the question of strikes and making the case that if strikes are to be avoided workers should be able to accept Government advice and Government statements. I think I am quite justified in pointing out that when you have three versions of the same accident in which a Minister of State was involved, followed by a Press conference to clarify the position, it is bound to have an unsettling effect on the workers.

The Deputy may not pursue that topic. It does not relevantly arise in this debate. I cannot see how the Deputy can work in the details of this accident.

(Cavan): It would be very difficult to sort out the details but I am dealing with it only in a most general way. I think I shall have established my case if I say that at present the people as a whole, and particularly the workers, who are asked to exercise restraint and to accept as responsible statements statements made by Ministers, cannot do so. Further, they cannot be blamed for not doing so. They cannot be blamed for querying whether what a Minister or what the Taoiseach says is serious or whether it is said with an ulterior motive or to cover up something else. That is one of the greatest difficulties the country faces now, that we have in power a Government that have lost the confidence of the people, of the workers, of the business people and the industrialists and until that Government are purged, not by a vote of confidence of their own members, as the Minister for Transport and Power suggested, but in the only way that any government can be truly, honourably and decently purged, by a general election, there will be chaos financially and economically and there will be a free-for-all——

The public did not show that. They did not agree with the Deputy.

(Cavan): Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to explain what he means?

Yes, our national collection has gone up threefold.

(Interruptions.)

It was a bad time for financial business yesterday.

Deputies should get back to the debate.

(Cavan): I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced that matter because my information is that there were Fianna Fáil tables out yesterday in places where they never were before and that there were more Fianna Fáil workers at the tables than ever before. This was whistling while going past the graveyard. This was an all-out effort. I was not at Mass in my native place yesterday but I did—and I should like to deal with this now that the Parliamentary Secretary has interrupted——

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted the Deputy does not make the matter relevant. The Fianna Fáil collection does not arise.

(Cavan): I am told there were far more cats than mice, far more people at the tables than people subscribing.

This has nothing to do with the Budget.

(Cavan): It is very hard to refrain——

I agree. The Parliamentary Secretary should not have interrupted.

(Cavan): I do not know what the position was in Galway but I am saying what it was in Cavan but, of course, things are not so bright for Fianna Fáil in Cavan at present. To get back to what I was saying, this great lack of confidence in the Government and in every member of it is bound to militate seriously against good industrial relations and only by a general election can we hope to have the position clarified.

The former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is on record, at least in the Press, as saying that an injection of £16 million into the agricultural industry this year was the minimum that would satisfy him. If things had not turned out as they have, one might think the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in making that statement was trying to embarrass the former Minister for Finance but as both of them were sacked together by the Taoiseach we must assume that they were reasonably good friends and that the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would not try to embarrass his friend, the former Minister for Finance. Instead of £16 million being injected into agriculture by this Budget a comparatively paltry £5 million was provided.

The Government's agricultural policy has been deplorable. A few years ago the heifer scheme was introduced with a view to driving or encouraging farmers into milk. The result was to provide much wealth for larger farmers. When the scheme was introduced farmers who never had a cow milked on their land rushed into milk and were drawing the heifer subsidy of £15 on literally hundreds of heifers. That scheme was of very little use to the small farmers of Counties Monaghan or Cavan or to those in the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency, where farmers at that time were carrying all the milch cows their farms could feed. Events have proved that the scheme was not advisable, not in the interests of the country, and provided more milk in a country where there was already an overflow of milk; it provided more milk when there was a world surplus of milk.

Surely the advisers to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of those days must have told him that was the position. They must have advised him that there was a glut of milk on the world market and that it was foolish in the extreme to produce more milk here. Events have proved that was so, and now we have the beef incentive scheme. That is a right about turn. I believe the beef incentive scheme is probably the right scheme, but it does not help the small farmer as much as he should be helped. When people speak of small farmers they are inclined to think of the farmers who are being assisted by the farmers' dole, and they are the type of farmers Fianna Fáil were talking about in the Longford-Westmeath by-election.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that, unless he has a very large family, a farmer who can avail to any extent of the small farmers' dole is not a farmer at all. There is the in-between farmer who does not qualify for the small farmers' dole and he is not reaping any substantial benefit from the beef incentive scheme because the first two cows are excluded. He is not allowed to sell the milk of the first two cows to the creamery or for any commercial purpose at all. This scheme is calculated to confer far greater benefit on the large farmer, and the larger the farmer the more he can draw from the scheme.

Why not include the first two cows in the case of the unfortunate man on the small farm? There is a complete lack of thinking in most of these schemes. Surely it could be written into the scheme that in the case of a farmer who has only six, eight or ten cows, the first two would qualify, but that beyond a certain number, the first two would be excluded.

I dealt in an indirect way with the turnover tax. The indiscriminate turnover tax as written into the Budget will prejudice our balance of payments. It will worsen the position of our balance of payments. It will increase our cost of living. It will damage our tourist business. The fact of the matter is that every shopkeeper in this country, large or small, has been turned into an auctioneer, collecting 5 per cent on everything he sells. The point is that he does not retain the 5 per cent for himself. He has to hand it over to the Government.

This Budget, obviously, was introduced without thought. It was introduced by a divided Cabinet. Strange as it may appear, I had intended to speak on this Budget before the debate was interrupted and I had intended to say that it was obvious to me that the Government as a whole could not decide between themselves where taxation should be imposed and, as an alternative, somebody said: "We will tax everything". That is exactly what they did.

I wonder whether the present Minister for Finance is completely satisfied with this Budget? I wonder whether he has confidence in it? As I said here the other night, a constituent of mine was strongly of the opinion—and he is not a very politically-minded person; he is a businessman—that there should be a full-scale inquiry into this Budget and that it should be vetted and advised upon by a firm of international consultants——

Not more international consultants.

(Cavan):——in view of the fact that the Minister who should have introduced it was, in fact, under sentence of suspension or dismissal at the time it was introduced.

I am glad that the old age and widows' and orphans' pensions have been increased. No Minister could introduce a Budget which imposed taxation on everything without increasing social welfare benefits. Indeed, the social welfare increases do very little more than try to cushion the increases in the cost of living imposed by the Budget.

The concluding part of the Financial Statement dealt with the itinerant problem. I have been advocating for some time past that the only way to rehabilitate the itinerants is to educate them. I have said that there does not seem to be any point in housing itinerants if you do not house-train them before you house them. I am glad to see that the subsidy to the local authorities for providing social welfare workers to rehabilitate itinerants is to be increased from 50 to 90 per cent. That is a move in the right direction.

When I saw that in the Budget I was forced to think about a section of the community about whom I have been preaching here for some years, namely, the people who live in boreens or by-roads or lanes. They are every bit as much second-class citizens as the itinerants. I know of seven or eight or ten families living in a lane which cannot be brought up to a passable standard unless the local authority or the Minister for Local Government comes to the assistance of those living there. I know that if I went into detail on this topic I would be out of order. I do not intend to go into detail but this is a particular problem in Cavan and I see nothing in the Budget to solve it.

I see nothing in the Budget to improve the lanes giving access to the houses of hundreds and hundreds or perhaps thousands of people. This is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government if they intend to encourage people to live in these boreens. They are doing something which is absolutely absurd. They are giving housing grants to people to build houses in lanes a mile long and they will not increase the grant in County Cavan beyond £30,000 to enable these lanes to be made passable.

As I say, I know that if I went any further on that line of country I would be out of order, but it has occurred to me to ask the Minister for Finance who has just taken office whether he thinks this Budget will serve its purpose until the end of the present financial year. The Minister has been in office for some days and I am sure in that short time he has had an opportunity——

Some days and nights——

(Cavan): I am glad Deputy Cunningham interrupted. Deputy Cunningham used to have a habit of interrupting me and I had a nasty habit of reminding Deputy Cunningham that he was the only Fianna Fáil Deputy from Donegal who had not got a State car. I am genuinely glad that that has been righted.

It was well earned.

(Cavan): I am glad Deputy Cunningham has been promoted. Let me take this opportunity of congratulating him. Deputy Cunningham at least has more sense than Deputy Paudge Brennan. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether he thinks the Budget will last for a year and if he has had an opportunity of examining it in full detail?

I do not think that is a fair question. It would take longer than a week to do that. It might even take months.

(Cavan): The present Minister for Finance is in an unenviable position. He did not write this Budget speech; he did not introduce the Budget. This Budget is now handed to Deputy Colley, Minister for Finance, to work on. I do not think I am being unreasonable if I ask the Minister, when concluding, to tell us whether he is satisfied with it. I ask him to tell the House whether he believes that it will work and whether he believes that the maladies outlined by his predecessor in the opening pages—the situation about the balance of payments and the cost of living—are really as serious as his predecessor thought. Does Deputy Colley consider that these problems of our balance of payments and our cost of living are as serious as was pointed out by his predecessor in the Financial Statement? Does the present Minister think that this Budget will improve or worsen those problems? I think that is a fair question.

The Minister will never answer it.

(Cavan): I think it is reasonable that the Minister for Finance should deal with these points when he is concluding. My own opinion is that the people of this country will not accept this Budget as genuine. The people do not accept the present Government as genuine. They do not accept the present Government as reliable. I would be out of order if I were to talk about law and order. The people of the country could not be expected to respect anything that the present Government would say, nor could they be expected as workers to accept the warnings given by them. Business people could not be expected to accept the warnings or advice given by this Government. There is only one way in which confidence can be restored to this country and that is by holding a general election. If there were many Deputies present on the other side of the House I would probably be shouted down or ridiculed for saying that. This country has gone through a shattering experience in the last few weeks and the confidence in public men, in government, and in public institutions has gone through a shattering experience also. Irrespective of how this might affect the Taoiseach or his Ministers, in the long run it would be good for the country to have a general election. It would give the people of the country the feeling that they were still the masters.

The Deputy must speak on the Budget

(Cavan): Reference to recent happenings is relevant in so far as we are being asked by a Minister for Finance of the present Government to pass a Budget which was introduced by a former Minister for Finance who has been removed from office. We are being asked to pass a Budget and to accept a Budget which has been put forward by a Government which has lost the confidence of the people. The people of this country will be expected to respect the taxation provisions of this Budget. The people of this country will be expected to respect the warnings contained in it regarding inflation, the balance of payments and industrial relations. I ask how could the people be expected to accept as serious anything which has been written into a Budget produced by the former Minister for Finance and accepted by his Government?

(Dublin Central): There is very little I can add to what has already been said. We all know that it is difficult to prepare a Budget which will be popular. I do not know of any way in which reliefs, such as are contained in this Burget, can be given without having additional taxation. The problem facing the Minister for Finance on this occasion has been recognised by the people generally. The Minister was looking for an extra £20 million. I cannot see any other means by which he could have raised the money. We all realise that it is the duty of the Government to protect the weaker sections in our society. Today, by and large, the people can be broken down into three communities—those engaged in business or otherwise who can very ably look after themselves; those in professions and trades who are also protected by their associations and trade unions; and those whom it is the duty of the Government to protect. This third category consists largely of social welfare recipients such as old age pensioners, widows and orphans. A Government must examine positively how they are going to obtain the money to raise the standard of living of these people.

In an inflationary economy the weaker section of the community always suffer. The Government face a great task in ensuring that as other sections of the community get a higher standard of living they will contribute in some way towards helping our weaker brethren. This is the primary objective of a government. The Government realise that this money cannot be raised without a sound economic policy. Unless our economic policies are right it will be impossible for the Exchequer to have sufficient money for transmission to the weaker section of our community. We should concern ourselves with our economic situation and our balance of payments. We should try to reconcile the differences between employers and trade unions. I consider that the exercise here for the past fortnight was an exercise by the Opposition parties solely with the view to gaining political advantage.

Is that relevant?

It is as relevant as what the Cavan Deputy Fitzpatrick had to say.

Talk about the lowly paid workers for a change. The Deputy is talking about social welfare recipients.

Let the Deputy make his own speech.

If he must talk rubbish, I cannot stop him.

(Dublin Central): My speech is as relevant as other speeches and certainly it is as relevant as that of the previous speaker, my namesake from Cavan. He did not relate his speech very much to our economic situation and the solution of our difficulties, social and economic. Our exports last year were the highest on record. This is particularly gratifying in view of difficult world situations. Each and every one of us here must devote our utmost energies to maintaining present progress and accelerating it to the greatest degree possible. We must ensure that no sector of the economy takes an unmerited share of the national cake which is what the Budget represents.

We are all concerned about the lowly paid workers. Special attention is and must continue to be given to that section of the community. By and large, my constituents are working people with whom I am in very close contact. I know only too well how difficult it is to live on a small income. I realise how difficult it is for a man with seven or eight children to maintain himself, his wife and his family. I should like to see the day when, if increases were to be given, we would give particular increases to this section of our community.

Hear, hear.

(Dublin Central): It is the duty not alone of the Government but of the Labour Party and of Fine Gael to contribute their share in the work of hammering out a policy to improve the lot of the lowly paid worker without any escalation at a higher level. That must be our objective if we are to have justice in our society.

As we all know, industrialisation has increased considerably in this country down through the years. To change from our industrial policy now would be disaster both for existing industries and for the economy in general. We should encourage people to come to our country and to establish industries here. Our trade unions and our political institutions should be able to guarantee a stable industrial climate.

It must be agreed that this Budget seeks to spread the burden of taxation as equitably as possible over the community. There has been criticism of the turnover tax. On the other hand, small shopkeepers are finding it very difficult to collect this tax. The shopkeeper carrying a great many lines has difficulty in collecting this tax. Deputy Tully mentioned today that excessive profit is being made through abuse of this tax in certain instances. The Department of Industry and Commerce should take action against anybody who capitalises and makes excessive profit on this tax——

Some of them are collecting it on everything.

(Dublin Central): On the other hand, I would remind the Deputy of the traders who are finding it difficult to collect that tax. If the Department are satisfied that abuses are taking place in respect of this tax then such abuses should be investigated. The shopkeeper is entitled to pass on only the 2½ per cent—no more. If the turnover tax is collected in the proper way then revenue should accrue to the Exchequer to such a degree as to make it possible to aid still further social welfare recipients. Successive Fianna Fáil Governments have sought in every Budget to give the maximum benefit possible to social welfare recipients. Whatever extra amount can be given to them is not too much. The inflation we experience hits hardest the weaker sections of the community.

Ten years ago, £9¼ million was allocated to education. There is a vast improvement in that respect today: the increase is practically 100 per cent. It is essential to spend this money on educating our young people so as to prepare them to meet whatever competition lies ahead of them within the European Economic Community, if we should become a member. It is all too easy to criticise the turnover tax but the same criticisms would have been levied against any other system of taxation which might have been applied. In his wisdom, the Minister for Finance considered the turnover tax the best way of collecting the money he requires for the various expenditures under Government Departments.

Housing is of primary importance in our society. We are not denying that there is a shortage of houses but considerable progress has been made in this sphere. We are continuing to make progress but it is not possible to cure at once all the ills of our society. Between 1960 and 1970 about 90,000 houses were built. This is no mean achievement in a society which has had a very late start. We had not the advantages of an industrial society as have other countries in Europe and neither did we have available the revenue or resources. However, we can be proud of the advances made in housing.

In my constituency of Dublin Central we have the old Liberties. The problem posed by this area will be tackled by the Minister for Local Government in the very near future. There is a community there becoming extinct. When plans are drawn up by the Department I hope the community spirit there will be considered and also the background of these people. Perhaps flats could be provided there so that these people could continue to live in that part of the city in which their grandparents before them lived. I am confident that the Department of Local Government will have regard to these matters.

One of the biggest problems facing our industrial sector today is the amount of unrest and dissatisfaction that prevails among our community. I would hope that employers and employees alike would try to come to peaceful and constructive agreements because if all these strikes are allowed continue they will have a detrimental effect on our economy. Common sense must prevail among both employers and employees.

From the employees' point of view, it is often found that salaries are not the most important factor. From speaking to people one sometimes discovers that such matters as a pension scheme or conditions of employment are as important as an increase in wages. This aspect is often overlooked. Therefore, I should like to see closer dialogue between management and workers so that employers would be aware of the wishes of employees. If workers knew the prospects for expansion in their particular firm and if these prospects were good, they would be happy to know that they were in a secure position. When these other conditions I have referred to are lacking, workers think solely of wages. I can only hope that a peaceful solution will be found to the unrest from which this country has suffered during the past few years.

This Budget has been generally accepted throughout the country. An indication of that is the fact that the Fianna Fáil national collection has increased by 50 per cent. This is an indication of the people's acceptance of the Budget. People by and large accept policy that may seem unpopular provided the Government continue to act responsibly. That has been the attitude of this Government. Before this year has come to an end it will be seen that the policy adopted in the Budget was the right policy for the country—a policy that will continue to bring progress and prosperity to all our people. This Government will continue to ensure that whatever prosperity there may be will be distributed among the weaker sections of the community. Despite what may be said by the Opposition about what should or should not take place, I am convinced that we will be here to introduce many more Budgets as successful as this one.

We were wondering what would happen if a decision was popular but irresponsible at the same time.

As a newly elected Deputy I find it incredible that a Government which claims to be responsible and sincere could allow our economy to deteriorate to such a critical state that we are faced with economic disaster unless, of course, corrective measures are applied immediately.

Within the short space of three years our balance of payments has changed from a surplus of £15 million to an estimated deficit of £60 million. This year it will be considerably higher. Incomes will rise to twice the level of national output. Prices are increasing much more rapidly than in other OECD countries with the exception of Iceland, Yugoslavia and Portugal. Industrial unrest is widespread. Lawlessness goes unchecked and socialist revolutionaries are proving an ever-growing menace to our society. Our national debt is at the highest ever peak of almost £1,200 million at the end of this financial year and an estimated £101,647,000 will be required to service it.

On a point of order— I did not wish to interrupt the Deputy before he finished the sentence—does not the Deputy's allegation that lawlessness goes unchecked cast a reflection on the Department of Justice?

I thought the Deputy was calling for a House.

Acting Chairman

The Chair has allowed a certain amount of latitude for the debate on the Budget but the Deputy has not overstepped that latitude.

The Government seem to have lost control of the situation completely and I seriously doubt if they have the resolve or the moral strength to tackle with any measure of effectiveness the serious problems which beset us at this time. In 1967/68 our domestic resources were adequate to finance expenditure on the public capital programme. At that time, foreign borrowing was not necessary. During that same financial year it required only £63,718,000 to service our national debt. Industrial production increased at the rate of 11 per cent and reached a record level in 1968.

We achieved a 30 per cent expansion of industrial exports and agricultural exports, too, showed a very substantial increase despite the supply difficulties which limited the volume of cattle and beef exports. We also enjoyed an excellent tourist season. In 1968 our exports began to rise steadily; consumer expenditure increased by 5 per cent compared with 1½ per cent in the previous year and in the second half of 1968 the British import deposit scheme came into operation. This scheme seriously affected our exports. It is surprising that, when negotiating the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, the Government did not guard against such a contingency.

I think I am right in saying that we did not react with any counter measures whatever to reduce our import excess. It was very obvious at that stage that unless some restrictive measures were taken our balance of payments would suffer a very serious setback. In a feeble effort in that direction the Government introduced their mini-Budget in November. We had had a balance of payments deficit of £20 million in 1968 and with increasing imports and a reduction in exports it was obvious that the situation would become very much worse. Showing a natural anxiety for the adverse trends of the time the former Minister for Finance, using all the news media at his disposal, warned the people that we were facing a financial crisis. This has often been stressed by the Opposition Deputies in the House. I feel it needs to be stressed and emphasised again because the people have lost faith in what the Government Ministers have been saying for quite some time. After that warning that we were in dire circumstances the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, returned within a very few weeks and told us that the crisis had passed. He did this, of course, because there was an election coming off the following June. This is the type of hypocrisy which has the economy in its present desperate and pitiful plight.

A very social Budget was introduced with a sharp eye on the election. The improved social welfare benefits were, indeed, very welcome even though they were not sufficiently high to offset the sharply rising cost of living. Particularly welcome was the extension of the scheme of allowances to people looking after incapacitated pensioners, the limited scheme of retirement pensions and invalid pensions. However, the growth rate of 4 or 4½ per cent was not sufficient to sustain the increasing demand for higher wages. Prices were allowed to rise steadily. Profits were very unequally divided in the industrial sector. Employees' incomes only made up 60 per cent of the total. Steady increases in the consumption of imported consumer goods were giving cause for alarm but the Government still preached the doctrine that all was well. They claimed to have been active in alerting public opinion to the dangers involved in sharply rising prices which affect particularly the lower paid and weaker sections of the community and, indeed, threaten employment but they had cried "wolf" much too often and the general public gave very little credence to these utterances.

Now we have reached the most unenviable position that we have one of the worst records in the world for strikes and industrial discontent. Last year our exports rose by 11½ per cent but our imports increased by 19 per cent and the former Minister for Finance tells us that our export rise and our net invisible receipts are not sufficient to match the rise in imports and he warns us that if prices continue to rise and our unit wage costs to increase, as they have been doing, our goods will cease to be competitive on either the home or the export markets, employment will suffer and before long our living standards will fall far below the level to which we have been accustomed in the last decade and which we now take for granted. Is the Minister for Finance not ensuring that this, in fact, will be the case by imposing the system of added value tax? His assertion that the rise in prices attributable to the proposed increase in turnover tax should be little, if anything, in excess of 2½ per cent, that is to say, about 6d in the £, is totally ridiculous.

Everyone knows that the cost of living has gone up enormously since the introduction of this Budget. We had this so-called assurance from the Minister for Finance that prices would not rise by more than 2½ per cent. As I mentioned today at Question Time many shopkeepers are now imposing a turnover tax of 5 per cent on top of the increased prices on all goods. I understand the Revenue Commissioners have informed the retailers that in order to recover their liability under the 5 per cent turnover tax they should increase their prices by 5¾ per cent. They should do this, they were advised, because they are, in fact, being taxed on the increase in turnover tax.

Because of the very large increase in prices on all goods I am quite convinced that if the Government wanted to raise money it would have been far more just and equitable if income tax had been increased. At least it would prevent widespread racketeering which is certainly going on at the moment. One instance that comes to mind is a single jar of coffee which I had occassion to buy one day in a supermarket. The price had been increased by 6d from 7s 4d to 7s 10d and then I was charged a further 5 per cent on top of that. That increase in price had come within one week. I remember, too, being rather horrified at being charged 3d for a box of matches. This was a 50 per cent increase in the price of matches. Many people have come to me over the past few weeks to know if shopkeepers are justified in imposing 5 per cent turnover tax on top of very much increased prices. There is very little I can do for them.

People generally are realising now that the cost of living has risen enormously and that there is no justification whatever for the Minister for Finance to tell us that prices would increase by 6d in the £. I submit that is totally ridiculous. It is particularly deplorable that all essential items such as foodstuffs should be subjected to this form of taxation. The cost of living is spiralling annually. Is there anything that can be done about it? The Government certainly have not found any answer. Their pleadings for restraint ring very hollow. They have given no positive lead and they are totally lacking in honesty and sincerity in this regard. If we are to continually improve our social services, to give higher and more realistic allowances to the old and the infirm, the unemployed and the handicapped, to improve our educational and health facilities and to ensure all sections of the community enjoy a decent standard of living we have need of more and more money every year. That money must either be raised by extra taxation or by effecting very considerable savings. Our total current expenditure this year comes to an estimated £453 million. This is extremely large for a small country such as ours. I can readily see the dangers of drastically reducing our capital expenditure which might well damage the whole structure of our economy but I am not convinced that the £223 million which is required this year could not be used to much better advantage by improved management and greater co-operation between the different Departments of Government.

The public service remuneration at £120 million seems inordinately high. I feel there is much duplication of effort here because of the present structure. The Government have declared their determination to carry out the changes which are needed to ensure the public service is efficient, economical and adaptable by adopting the recommendations of the Devlin Report. Let us hope then the specialised staff units in each Department will be formed as soon as possible. The establishment of those units might well be the first step in containing the ever growing cost of the public service. Unit wage costs have far outstripped production particularly in the last few years. Every sector of industry is crying out for more and more wages. Indeed, it is very difficult to blame them for this because of the ever increasing cost of living. I submit the Government have not given any lead in correcting those very inflationary trends.

Where then does the trouble lie? I believe the blame for the present trend could very well be shared by workers and employers and to a very large extent by the Government. We have in this country far too many trade unions. This is a well-known and well accepted fact. Those trade unions are bargaining collectively on behalf of their members. This is perfectly legitimate. In this country we must come down to individual firms. In this regard there is a total lack of communication and a lack of dialogue between workers and management. Most workers are convinced their firms are making huge, handsome profits every year but this is not the case. I am convinced if management and workers were to get together much of the present difficulties could be overcome.

There is no firm in this country which could not benefit from advances in science and technology, advances in management techniques, and there is no firm which could not benefit from a review of their whole structure. Whether they require a qualitative or quantitative improvement, improvements are very necessary. The workers in each case must be told exactly what the situation of their particular industry is.

Profit participation might well be used to greater advantage here. I participated in such a scheme in England for a company which never experienced any industrial unrest whatever. All of us workers in that company knew that our income for the year would depend entirely on our output and our achievement. I do not believe, quite honestly, there is any difference between the workers in England and the workers in Ireland in that regard. If the facts are placed openly before the workers in any section of industry in this country I believe they will reciprocate, but they should be given a fair share of the profits.

One thing which has been most detrimental to this country is the graft and corruption which exists here. This is very relevant because everybody seems to be climbing on the bandwagon. A number of years ago I was teaching in western Nigeria and I remember one evening when a number of us, all Irish teachers, were complaining bitterly about the graft and corruption which exists in that country. We were all shocked immensely by it. It was so blatant that it was quite terrifying. Out there one had to pay I think about 10s. to get a form for one's road tax. One had to pay about £100 to get a passport and there were very few who could afford it. If one drove a lorry one had to be prepared every few miles of the road to stop and give a certain amount of money to the local policeman who, in turn, had to give his wages to the officer in charge. So it went on all along the line.

There was nothing honest or straight about that country. When we were discussing this matter for a few hours a very wise old priest who had been listening to us, who had just returned from leave in Ireland, turned to me and remarked: "Gerard, wait until you go home. Look around you for six months and then see if you can talk about corruption in Nigeria". He was a very wise priest. I did exactly as he told me, and I was more shocked here than I had been in Nigeria. At least one could say that there it was not covered up, but here it is done very stealthily. Because of this the whole moral fibre of our people is being destroyed. Our traditions are being deserted. Our people are becoming very materialistic.

The Taoiseach made some attempts —one of them he certainly made in Cork—to make Taca respectable. He tried to invite members of the various professions. It failed dismally, because the general public know Taca for what it is. Indeed, I was not surprised to see the Tacateers flocking into the House when the crisis debate was being conducted here.

The Deputy is stealing from Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan.

Does the truth hurt?

Would it trouble the Deputy too much to furnish one shred of evidence in relation to the wild statements he has been making?

I do not think the Deputy is asked to give particular statements here. He is expressing his opinion, as he is entitled to do.

As long as it is recognised that is what it is, it is all right.

I thoroughly disagree. In fact, I am more than surprised at the Minister for Finance making such a statement. Up to this he commanded quite a high respect from me for his integrity and his intellectual ability, but if he is to descend into the middle of the Tacateers and if he is to justify this graft and corruption with which our country is reeking——

My question is: what graft and what corruption?

——he loses all my respect.

It is a simple question.

I do not think I should abuse the privilege of this House by quoting instances and details to the Minister for Finance. If the Minister is here and now prepared to give me an undertaking that he will investigate any cases I bring to him regarding Tacateers and that he will see justice done in each and every case, then I shall gladly furnish him with the information he requests.

If the Deputy has evidence of graft and corruption by anybody he ought to furnish it immediately.

I do not think I should abuse the privilege of this House by naming individuals who are not here to defend themselves.

When I say "immediately" I do not mean here and now, if the Deputy does not want to mention names here. It is not fair for Deputies to paint a picture of the country reeking with graft and corruption if they do not produce any evidence of it. If the Deputy is prepared to produce evidence of it here or elsewhere and if it is proved that this is so, then he is entitled to make that case. That is the only point I am making, and I shall not interrupt the Deputy any more.

Acting Chairman

I think the Deputy is making a general statement. He has offered to produce evidence to the Minister and that should satisfy the Minister.

The Minister for Finance reminded me of the picture which the Taoiseach tried to portray the other evening of the glorious achievements of Fianna Fáil down through the decades. I submit that this glorious picture may well turn out to be like the Picture of Dorian Gray, a terrifying image, when the facts become known.

I mentioned that the Government and particularly the Department of Labour should seriously examine this question of profit participation on the part of workers. As well as that we must expand our export markets. There is no point in relying completely on the British market. We have learned a very good lesson from the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the subsequent treatment we received from the British Government through the import deposit levy scheme. I should like to see trade missions established in the embassies abroad. We are a very small country and we cannot afford status symbols throughout the world. If we take the figures from the different countries where our embassies are established we shall find in most cases that the balance of trade is to our disadvantage. We import far more from them than we export to them.

I should like to make a very brief comment, too, on the neglect of the resources of the sea around us. These are not being utilised fully. If I may be allowed to quote one instance from my own constituency, that of Ballycotton in County Cork, I think a grave injustice is being done to the people there and to the economy as a whole by not utilising the potential of that harbour. As many as 40 trawlers fish off Ballycotton. An ice plant was erected on the pier some years ago. These trawlers would be delighted to land at Ballycotton because at present they spend very many hours travelling to landing ports which could usefully be spent at sea. This would be a tremendous advantage to the local community. I might add there is not very much employment at Ballycotton. Most of the people there are drawing unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance.

Deputy Fitzpatrick of Dublin a few minutes ago said that the Fianna Fáil Government were looking after the weaker sections of the community and that we on this side should concern ourselves with the balance of payments position and with reconciling the differences between employers, workers and trade unions. The Government are the party in power and it is up to them to show a lead in that direction. However, now that the Government have lost all credibility in the minds of the people, I fail to see how they can achieve any of those ends. Because of that, because I place the interests of the nation before the interests of any party, I say the Government should go back to the people to seek a mandate to govern.

I come from a constituency which includes Ballyfermot, Drimnagh, Bluebell, Chapelizod, Walkinstown and parts of Crumlin. I can tell the House emphatically that there is not a single site available in that area on which to build a factory, and I ask Members from the opposite side to come with me on a tour of my constituency and they will see what economic progress is in reality.

During my activities in the recent by-election there, I asked the people listening to me to open their eyes to the reality of what was happening around them—each morning when they went to work and each evening on the way home, to look at the prosperity around them and to ask how this prosperity could have come about. Of course the answer is that because Fianna Fáil have been in Government for so many years this prosperity became a reality in Dublin south west. Now I ask the people of the rest of the country to do the same thing, to look around them on the way to work and on the way from work to see just what is the prosperity we are talking about—the buildings, the schools —and to ask themselves how that prosperity came about. It was during Fianna Fáil's period of office and it is because Fianna Fáil were in office.

As the youngest Member of the House, and speaking directly to the Resolution, I should like to point out that I am disappointed in at least one provision in the Budget. It is the provision of £100,000, initiated last year, to support youth activities. We were told at that time by the then Minister that this sum was the first contribution towards youth activities in Ireland—that it was the first step to prove to the youth of Ireland that the Government were taking not just a passive interest in the problems of youth.

Accordingly, I expected this year to see this grant increased. Unfortunately there has not been an increase. The £100,000 has been maintained, the amount which last year was distributed throughout our national organisations. That sum has been distributed to provide the atmosphere and the environment in which citizens of this country can develop themselves physically as fit individuals. This is important from the point of view of our people being enabled to play a more effective role in industry because if one is not physically fit one cannot be expected to meet the demands made by employers and so forth.

Last year it was intimated that this grant was merely a start. This year when I read of the provision of a further grant of £100,000 in this European Conservation Year I particularly noted the Minister's statement that in the main this extra sum of £100,000, given to conservation, would be devoted to meeting the immediate organisational costs of the development of a comprehensive national programme of conservation.

Honestly—not that I am critical of our efforts in this direction in this year of conservation because we in Ireland must be as active in this sphere as any other country—I should like to have seen in this Budget the same words being applied to youth and sporting activities. That is one of the few critical points that could be made about the Budget.

Deputy Fitzpatrick from Cavan asked how we could accept the Budget and he qualified his question by pointing out that it was the former Minister for Finance who had introduced it. I should like to ask him and every other Deputy to go back to their constituencies and ask their constituents what they think about the social welfare and other benefits that have been provided in this Budget.

I will try to be a little more constructive than some of the previous speakers: I will try to explain some of the benefits provided. One of the first that caught my eye was the improvement in the income tax regulations. The allowance for single and widowed persons has been increased to £125 and to £225 for married couples.

Only if their incomes are under £500 a year.

The allowances have been increased to £125 and £225. A new feature in earned income relief is the increase in the minimum allowance to £125 for single and widowed persons and £225 for married couples.

From what is the Deputy quoting?

From page 17 of the Budget, 1970. The new reliefs will affect about 50,000 people. In other words, 50,000 people who would not otherwise have qualified will now get relief and will not pay income tax.

On a point of correction. At column 1732 of the Official Report of the 22nd April, 1970, when he spoke about minimum earned income relief the Minister for Finance said:

The new relief——

this is the relief which the Deputy has referred to,

——will benefit all single and widowed taxpayers with earnings less than £500 per annum and married taxpayers with less than £900 per annum.

Deputy Sherwin should read the whole paragraph.

It will do what the Deputy said it will do, it will remove 50,000 taxpayers from the tax net.

That is what the Government say. If the Deputy wants to quote he should quote the whole paragraph and not take something out of context.

I would suggest that in future the Opposition do likewise and not take things out of context. I want to emphasise the words: "About 50,000 taxpayers will be removed from the tax net." This is a simple fact.

The former Minister for Finance said that. He has also said a lot of other things since then which we do not believe.

I am not a disbeliever. If the Deputy is, that is too bad.

It is too good.

The former Minister for Finance also proposed that the first £100 of taxable income will be charged at two-thirds of the standard rate, namely, 4s 8d in the £ instead of at 7s in the £.

One hundred seven-pences.

Irrespective of that the Deputy cannot say what is one hundred sevenpences.

The Deputy would say a lot more if that was the figure being imposed.

I am only trying to balance this whole debate by explaining more clearly than some of the Opposition Deputies have done the benefits and the reason why the turnover tax was increased. The former Minister went on to say that the principal objective of the relief was to introduce an enhanced measure of graduation into the system.

When dealing with people on small incomes the former Minister said that people who have been earning less than £450 had not been taxable up to now. The former Minister proposed to raise this limit to £500 and to provide that the relief will be a flat £125 where the total income is below that limit. Here is another area of relief where people are being removed from the tax net.

Turning now to social welfare benefits it must be very hard for the Opposition to accept that in every Budget for a number of years past increases have been given to social welfare classes and notwithstanding the increases given last year the Government have seen fit to give further and greater increases this year.

Not greater.

Greater increases.

Does the Deputy not consider the increase of the contributory old age pension by 17s 6d a week to £5 a week a great increase?

That is for a single person.

I do not care.

That is the trouble.

I do not think Deputy Tully should interrupt.

I am only wasting my time anyway because the Deputy does not understand.

The Deputy has said that 17s 6d is not a great increase but I am saying it is.

For a single person it is but for a married couple it is not; it is only 17s 6d against £1 last year.

Are there not old age pensioners who are single?

Of course there are.

Is this increase going to benefit them?

I am glad the Deputy has admitted that. The Minister has made the point that all benefits have been correspondingly increased. This indicates to me that every pension has been increased, according to my interpretation of it. The non-contributory old age pension has been increased by 10s a week to £4 5s a week.

Five shillings each.

Up to this Budget a person in receipt of a non-contributory pension has been getting £3 15s a week and after this Budget he will receive £4 5s.

The rate of disability and unemployment benefit is to be increased by 15s a week to £4 10s a week. This means that a person receiving disability or unemployment benefit who has been receiving £3 15s a week, when this Budget is passed will receive £4 10s a week. I am making these points to try to bring home to Members of the Opposition that these increases are real, far-reaching and will be received very well by the recipients. Because of economic reasons 50 per cent of the people of this country are dependent on the other 50 per cent, whereas in England there is not the same proportion of dependants. I am confident in years ahead when our economic progress has increased at an even faster rate than it is increasing now we shall be able to attract back the working force, this group between school-leaving age and retiring age, and this imbalance of the wage-earners will be corrected.

The rate of unemployment assistance is being increased by 10s 6d a week to £3 12s and £3 6s a week in urban and rural areas respectively. Widows' contributory pension will be increased by 15s and 12s 6d a week as appropriate to £4 10s a week. Admittedly, that is not a fantastic amount but when one balances out the amount of money being given by way of increases one sees that it is a fair slice of the cake. I am confident that in future Budgets—and even if there is another Budget before next year's annual Budget—more money will be given to these necessitous groups of people.

My personal opinion of the turnover tax is that it will give the Government more money than has been estimated, and this will enable further allowances to be given next year. Widows' non-contributory pensions are to be increased by 11s 6d a week to £4 5s a week. Just to clarify the matter for Deputy Tully, the increases in other rates follow a broadly similar pattern.

But not for the dependent relative. Nothing except a personal increase. That is the point the Deputy is missing.

For a dependent relative?

There is no increase in this Budget for a dependent relative; there is just the personal increase.

Deputy Tully wants to tempt Deputy Sherwin into telling us what the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party did when they were in office.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister for Finance is trying to cover up something which is irking him.

When I came into this House I resolved not to bring up the affairs of those days. I was not too old in 1952 and 1957 but I am aware that on a Thursday night my father, who was a bricklayer in CIE, was paid and I used to go to a window at the top of the stairs from where I could see him coming, this was not to greet him, although I suppose I did that, but because he was returning home with his pay packet and then I used to rush to the shop to get what we would regard as a dinner for the evening. In the same street there were men who were not paid until Friday and the wives of these people often dropped in to look for a loan until the following night. Perhaps this is still going on but I am sure that nobody opposite would say that it is as prevalent now as it was in 1957. I am not a bit ashamed to admit that there were hard times in 1957 and at other times but I would put the blame for that on the handling of affairs in 1957. However, I did not come in here, as the youngest Deputy, as a person elected in the seventies, to resurrect the old taunts that were thrown from both sides during that period.

I congratulate the Deputy for that. The Minister for Finance should not be trying to tempt the Deputy to say things——

(Interruptions.)

It does not take a lot of tempting for me to say this. I am sure Members on all sides welcome the new scheme for assisting deserted wives which is to come into operation on the 1st October. Under the scheme deserted wives will be in receipt of a weekly allowance equivalent to the non-contributory widow's pension which, as the Minister indicated, will be increased from £3 15s to £4 5s. Not only is the widow who is in receipt of a contributory pension benefiting by the increase from £3 15s to £4 10s a week but the deserted wife, whose husband has not fulfilled his obligation of supporting her, will receive an allowance of £4 5s. This must be welcomed as one of the most positive steps in recent years to try to cope with this great social evil. I would not say that this problem is more prevalent in my area than in other areas but because the people in it are mainly working-class people, perhaps, the social environment is not as good as it should be and this, taken in conjunction with other factors, has meant that there is a large number of deserted wives in the area and they are delighted that this increase has been introduced.

Children's allowances have again been increased and this, too, must be a sore point with the Opposition. Last year the increase which was given cost an extra £5 million and this year again the Government have come to the assistance of families with a large number of children. The increase given this year is 2s 6d a week for every dependent child in both the contributory and in the assistance classes. What is more important, as we are in the era of free education, the Government have kept things in line and have raised the age limit for these allowances to 18. This age limit does not merely apply to those receiving fulltime education because that was already in effect; it means that every child in receipt of children's allowances is going to continue to receive them until the age of 18.

I am disappointed with the large number of parents who abuse the children's allowances. We hear people saying that the well-to-do should not get children's allowances. There is some justification for this opinion but from my questioning of people in that bracket, the more well-to-do, I have found that they use the allowances in a much more constructive way than the other sectors do. They may purchase insurance policies with the money, or they may give the children extra pocket money when they receive the allowance, or they may provide them with an extra item of sporting equipment. The point I am bringing out here is that in this instance the money is going to the children and this is where the benefit is mainly directed. Unfortunately, because of the situation in which many families find themselves they have to use the money to pay rent, or to pay their ESB bill and so on. It seems a pity that Dublin Corporation insist on the payment of practically all the money when people go into arrears. The people who are abusing this benefit, utilising the money which should go to the children to pay off bills that have accrued—although I must say the corporation have announced that they are introducing a more equitable scheme by which arrears of rent do not have to be paid in full——

I did not know there was a corporation.

There is. There is no city council.

Consisting of one man?

The city council has been abolished.

A corporation consisting of one man?

The corporation consisting of all the officials.

Is he Lord Mayor?

Would Deputies allow Deputy Sherwin to speak?

I want to go through these increases systematically because Opposition Deputies seem to have overlooked a great many of them. They have not been constructive in their approach to this Budget.

In the Estimate for the Department of Health there is a provision of £10,000 for voluntary groups and organisations which undertake specialised services, such as home nursing, meals on wheels, community activities, and so on. In the Budget there is an extra £150,000 made available for this purpose, making a total of £250,000 in all. We are indebted to those voluntary organisations which do such excellent work.

With regard to itinerants, in Dublin South West we are very proud of Labré Park. This is a very positive effort to solve the problem of itinerancy. We are disappointed that other local authorities have failed to avail of the incentives provided by the Minister for Local Government for the purpose of making serviced sites available for these people. It is proposed in this Budget to increase from 50 per cent to 90 per cent the existing subsidy in respect of social workers employed wholly or partly in the work of rehabilitating itinerants. This is another indication of the Government's awareness of the problem of itinerancy. I hope every local authority in the country will provide properly serviced sites for itinerants within the next two years thereby alleviating the burden placed on those authorities which have already provided such sites.

There were several references to wage increases and the associated problem of the cost of living. A wage increase should not be something sought merely for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses. A wage increase should depend on an increase in production. I agree with the Opposition Deputy who said he would like to see profit sharing in industry. This is very desirable because it would be an incentive to the worker to increase production. This is not the brainchild of the Labour Party. Any socially minded Government would like to see this introduced, but it must be done freely by the employer and employee alike.

So we cannot expect the present Government to do anything about it.

I think the present Government speaks for itself.

It surely does.

It is for the owners to see how a profit-sharing incentive scheme could be introduced. If this were done I am confident we would have better production and better production would inevitably mean a better standard of living for our people. It is true to say that the builder's labourer in Dublin earns more per hour than his counterpart in London. That has been the position for a couple of years now.

Sure, they are not working at all now.

The present dispute has put people out of work and I endorse what other speakers have said about bringing this dispute to an end quickly. As the Minister has indicated, the machinery is available. After the maintenance dispute there was a reappraisal of the part played by the trade unions in that and into the efficacy of the movement. The inquiry showed many weaknesses and indicated that the trade union movement would want to put its own house in order. This dispute may be another example of the need for that.

Everybody takes a kick at the trade union movement.

Deputy Sherwin.

Seeking wage increase after wage increase seems to be a form of blackmail. It is obvious that one of the main purposes of seeking an increase is to enable the workers to go on overtime earlier than they otherwise might.

What has that to do with wage increases?

Any increase given merely means you reach the 40 hour rate of pay at an earlier stage in the week and that thereafter you are on overtime and, therefore, you are, perhaps, getting much more money out of the firm than you are entitled to get.

The Budget proposal for a new savings scheme is, perhaps, one of the most positive developments in recent times to encourage workers generally to use wage increases more constructively by saving some of them. I find that when a wage increase is given it invariably means more spending power. I should prefer people to regard it not as more spending power but as an incentive to saving. Why not say it means more saving power? If people save more they will be better off and so will the country. The Minister proposes to institute a new type of saving scheme under which those who save by regular monthly instalments over a period of one year and retain their savings on deposit for a further two years will be paid a bonus of 9 per cent compound interest. Apart from the compound interest, the important thing is that the bonus will be free of tax. I understand more details of this scheme will be introduced later. Up to now prize bonds have been available only at certain times and it is now suggested that one should be able to purchase prize bonds all the year round.

The previous speaker referred to what he described as the "infamous Taca organisation". Fianna Fáil have two fund raising activities, one, the national collection which is taken up openly at church gates in country areas. I am sure Deputy Tully, much to his annoyance, sees the money piling in——

I saw them last Sunday standing at empty tables all over the place.

The previous speaker on this side, Deputy Fitzpatrick, reported that throughout the country the Fianna Fáil national collection had been virtually doubled. When Fine Gael members smile at this they should remember that we can produce documentary evidence of our national collection.

This is not relevant to the Budget debate.

May I take issue with what a Fine Gael Deputy said during his contribution?

Are the figures for Taca published?

I shall come to that in a minute. We publish the figures for the Fianna Fáil national collection. This is the main source of revenue for carrying out the functions of a political party. We also have the Fianna Fáil fund raising organisation which is known as Taca. For the enlightenment of some who do not know, Taca is the Irish word for "support".

I believe that organisation has now gone underground.

Have Fine Gael since their inception as a party produced any documents to indicate where they get the money and how they run the party or how, for instance, in the recent by-elections in Kildare and Westmeath, they could provide expensive and well-produced documents and equipment?

We did not get it from the mohair gentlemen.

£20,000.

Has Fine Gael shown at any time where they get the money? We get it at the church gates and in Dublin city and the larger towns we collect from door to door. We say boldly: "We are collecting on behalf of Fianna Fáil." We get the contributions except in the case of families that do not support us. That is how this party is able to say: "We are not afraid to produce our records. This is the money we collected last year."

Where did the money for the guns come from, if it did not come from the Budget or from——

That whole affair is an alleged affair and until it is proved——

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy should come to the Budget. Deputy Sherwin should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I think you are right, Sir.

A Deputy opposite said that we had Tacateers in the Gallery——

They were all there last week.

It is a very serious allegation against the superintendent of the House to suggest that he allowed more representation to Deputies on this side than to those in Opposition. As everyone will admit from the benches opposite when you went along for your ticket to allow a member of the public to attend in the Gallery, you were limited to one ticket, as I was.

The Deputy is getting away from the Budget debate.

This allegation was made.

It does not arise.

Apart from the last few minutes, I have tried to speak constructively on the Budget. The increases given in the Budget are real increases. In the case of the contributory old age pension it is an increase of 17s 6d a week to £5; in the case of the non-contributory pension, it is 10s a week to £4 5s. I want to emphasise that after this Budget people will be in receipt of a greater amount of money. I do not think I need repeat the points I have already made because it is clear that when next October comes, when most of the increases will come into operation, those receiving increased allowances will be very happy with their increases. We are not happy with the size of the increase. This is how we organised the £20 millions which is being sought to finance this Budget. This is how we propose to split it up.

It is rather sad that the only thing that Members of the Opposition have seen fit to mention is the 2½ per cent increase in the turnover tax. Nobody wants shopkeepers to exploit their customers. Not alone should the Minister intervene when he is given proof of exploitation but, prior to an increase in a tax such as this, he should have his inspectors out in the field to stop this exploitation at the outset. In my own constituency I have been approached by shoppers who told me that some shop had increased prices a full 5 per cent but, when I investigated this, I found that the shop in question had not increased the price of their goods since the tax was introduced.

In 1963?

The increases since 1963 when the turnover tax was first introduced were caused by increased wages, maintenance and the normal cost of living increases which can take place.

Does the Deputy believe that?

The day we see no increase in the cost of living will be a sad day for this country or any country. Some Deputies mentioned the price of a box of matches and I rather shyly informed them that there are no halfpennies or farthings left.

So it is all right to charge 3d for a 2d box of matches?

There are very few shopkeepers who increased the price of a box of matches to 3d.

They would lose their customers.

In my area there is hardly one shop in which the price of a box of matches has been increased. If a shopkeeper increased the price of a box of matches or any small item by 1d the people would be quite willing to boycott that shop. Where you have supermarkets and a range of shops there will be competition. There are a number of supermarkets in Dublin in which the price of goods has not been increased.

Supermarkets?

Shops in general.

Can Deputy Tully define a "supermarket"?

People can see that in one shop they will have to pay the increased prices and in another shop they will not. With competition shoppers have the opportunity to shop wisely. This brings the question of the small shopkeeper into focus. The sympathy of everybody must lie with the small shopkeeper trying to compete against a large consortium or supermarket. This is not just a question of monetary policy. It is an inevitable development in every country. America has had that problem. I am sure England has that problem. We have it. It is a hardship on small shopkeepers who must try to maintain their customers. The personal service of the highest quality provided by these shopkeepers will help them to maintain their customers and I do not think that they should be unduly worried about losing their custom. When people know a small shopkeeper and when he is a personal friend of theirs, they will remain on as customers whether or not there is a price increase.

The last speaker from the Fine Gael benches mentioned that the Minister had said there would not be an increase beyond 2½ per cent or 6d in the £, and said that was impossible. I agree it is impossible because there are certain items which could not be increased by 6d in the £. I want to refer him to the Minister's statement. I want to quote from page 27 of "Budget 1970":

I want to emphasise that the rise in prices attributable to the proposed increase in the turnover tax should be little, if anything, in excess of 2½ per cent, that is to say, about 6d in the £.

The Minister is a reasonable man, a practical man and a realist.

Which Minister?

The Minister for Finance.

All Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party are reasonable and practical men.

He said that the increase would be little, if anything, in excess of 6d in the £. This emphasises the fact that where there are abuses the housewife has the weapon in her own hand. She ought to notify her local representatives or people who would be interested enough to bring it to the notice of the Government that there are abuses. She can also go to another shop.

As I said, we can look around us and see the prosperity in the country. In most of the built-up areas throughout the country there is a wide range of shops. This helps us to realise the prosperity in the country. Business people are not fools and they will establish their businesses where the demand is greatest. The fact that this wide range of services is provided means that business people want to tap the spending power of the people right on their own doorsteps. The fact that big firms come out from the centre of the city and set up premises in Ballyfermot and other areas like that, and look for sites for their advertisements, is a clear indication that there is money, spending power, in those areas.

I was talking to a man who travels for a brandy firm who said there was something very interesting about my constituency, which is commonly known as Ballyfermot. I should like to explain that Dublin South-West includes Drimnagh, Bluebell, Chapelizod, parts of Crumlin and Ballyfermot. This man said that my constituency was the one which consumed the largest amount of brandy in this country.

At 9s 6d for a small one?

I am sure they will not be glad to hear their Deputy say that.

Does the Deputy think that the people of Ballyfermot are not entitled to drink brandy?

They are, of course. I did not think they were the heaviest drinkers of brandy.

They will not thank the Deputy for telling the country that.

I am glad to see the Deputy is a follower of Father Mathew.

I am proud to be the wearer of a Pioneer pin. That does not mean I will not go into a pub with friends. May be the Deputy is alleging that I do not want to spend a few shillings.

I do not mean it in that sense at all.

The working class people of Ballyfermot are the highest consumers of brandy in this country. This is very striking. I stated that if I could succeed in a by-election in this area it would be a great test. The people in that area showed their trust in Fianna Fáil. They are, in fact, following on their prosperity, realising very clearly that Fianna Fáil have brought this country to a very high level of prosperity. I did not want to brag about my constituency. It is marvellous to see that Dublin South-West, which has been maligned so much, is so prosperous. It is not surprising that other Deputies from a different type of area might try to speak disparagingly of Ballyfermot and to say that the people of Ballyfermot are not entitled to brandy or to a certain type of rum, or to any other expensive drink, or are not entitled to go into high-class lounges which exist in that area.

This Budget has given everyone the clearest indication of the Government's concern for the less well-off section of our people. They have shown regard for the single man who is trying to save, by removing the tax payable on the first £100. This concession is not a great one but it is a saving of £35——

That would not buy much brandy.

Deputy Sherwin should be allowed to continue. He is being given bad example.

I wish to emphasise one other aspect of the income tax system. Until now there was a funny situation where a man and his wife had a combined allowance——

That was not funny.

Perhaps "funny" was the wrong word. It is a rather sad situation where the personal allowance of a husband and wife should be less than the personal allowance of two single people. We in this party tried to convince the Minister for Finance that the situation should be rectified. In this Budget the wife's earned income allowance is being increased from £45 to £74. This means that the combined married allowance is equal to the allowance of two single people. This is a very important point. An attempt has been made to cloud over the benefits of this Budget. Members of the Opposition do not like to talk about increases in children's allowances and increased incentives for saving. They do not like to talk about social welfare increases. With their record it is not surprising that they do not talk about these things.

In case the Minister might feel we are all going to accept this Budget without some form of criticism, I should like to emphasise my role as a youth leader and as the youngest Deputy in this House. I feel annoyed that an increase was not made in the £100,000 allotted to sport and youth activities. There has been £10,000 allotted for the last number of years. Last year £100,000 was made available in the Budget, making a total of £110,000. This year's Budget contains a figure of £100,000. I am disappointed that the Minister did not increase the amount allowed. I am quite hopeful that this will be corrected in a supplementary——

The Deputy can be sure of that.

I should like to make it known that the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party are proposing to establish a separate committee to deal with youth activities and sport. Since I became a Member of this House I have been approaching our education committee on this subject. We will soon announce the setting up of a subcommittee to deal with this problem alone. This emphasises the desire of the Government to show young people that they will not be neglected. As the youngest Member of this House, I should like to invite youth organisations to get in touch with me if they want their case presented to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Finance and the Government. I should like to make my services available to such bodies. I will ensure that their views will be heard at Government level where it counts. There is no use talking to Opposition Deputies who cannot do much unless they are in Government. I do not think they could form a Government in the foreseeable future, unless they combine.

The Deputy will not be much older by then.

I have not much more to say. I should like to commend this Budget to the House. So many people at different levels in the social sphere will benefit to such a degree from this Budget that it is indeed a positive step in the right direction. Taxation is imposed under this Budget on the basis of "the more you buy, the more tax you pay". Although it does impinge on foodstuffs, it certainly does not alter the fact that if you buy you will pay tax. The person who will pay most under this Budget is the big spender. The fellow who buys the big, luxurious car, and so on, is the chap who will pay most tax under this Budget. He is the fellow from whom, in social thinking, Governments such as Fianna Fáil wish to take as much tax as possible and, in turn, to distribute that revenue among lower paid workers and necessitous people.

I have noticed a trend among Dublin Fianna Fáil speakers to emphasise the prosperity of Dublin. I welcome this prosperity in Dublin: it is a good and necessary thing. However, I would recommend those Dublin Deputies to take a trip around the country—

Waterford, say.

What part of the country?

West Cork?

The Deputy's party always goes up north——

——threaten to go up north.

Acting Chairman

I think Deputy Collins might be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

If Deputies want an example, I would cite the concern in Waterford at the unemployment situation there. I and my colleagues in Waterford have gone to the IDA to discuss that matter. The Government have done very little to decentralise industry although it is supposed to be Government policy. The great preponderance of industry is in Dublin and the countryside is being drained to a certain extent of its population. I decry the city versus country attitude displayed by some Dublin Deputies; it is unfortunate.

To come to the Budget, naturally I welcome the social welfare increases: this party voted for them. While welcoming the increase in the non-contributory old age pension I would point out that there is no increase for wives or dependent children; this is important. It is unfortunate that some allowance was not made in that regard.

I am pleased with the increases in the disability and unemployment benefits, but, again, no provision is made for dependants. The widow's contributory pension has been increased by 15s a week but, again, no allowance was made for dependent children. The same can be said about the widow's non-contributory pension. The new scheme of assistance for deserted wives is welcome. It was, indeed, a gap in our social security structure. Again, however, no allowance is made for dependent children. It is unfortunate that the increase of 2s 6d for every dependent child is limited to children whose parents are in the contributory and assistance classes. It is unfortunate and, I think, unnecessary.

I welcome the extra £150,000 the Minister for Finance has allotted to voluntary organisations undertaking social work, especially those connected with care of the aged. I have some association with and knowledge of the good work being done in this field of endeavour. I expect there will be greater expenditure under this heading in coming years which, in turn, will help to reduce the expenses of the Department of Health. It is rather expensive to keep a person in an institution whether it be a hospital or a home for the aged. Many hospital beds are taken up by old people some of whom need hospital attention but many of whom should be living with their sons or daughters or brothers or sisters, as the case may be. For the coming year, the total vote on this account is about £¼ million. I look forward to a greater expenditure under this heading in the coming year.

I welcome also the extension of the free travel concession to the categories to whom it will now apply. In this regard, I think that the easier the system evolved by the Minister the more favourably it will be accepted. Any concession, free travel or free television, and so on, which is complicated or bound up with red tape is not to be welcomed. The broader the field it encompasses, the better.

The increase in pensions is welcome. There is some dissatisfaction about pensions in various spheres such as among the Garda. The new Minister for Finance should examine the position here with a view to satisfying all pensioners. Those who live on pensions should be treated very generously by the Minister for Finance. I am certain no party in this House would be niggardly in voting to help their lot. When a person reaches the age of 65 or 70 years he appreciates all the help he can get and we should endeavour to give these people as much help as possible.

I wonder what percentage of the increases in social welfare will come back to the Exchequer by way of either direct or indirect taxation. If one takes into account the probable rise in consumer prices during the next year it is fair to say that there will be a consumer price increase of about 10 per cent so that if a pensioner has £5 to spend the increases in prices will amount to 10 per cent or 10s. That reduces the real benefit of the increases given in the Budget.

If it takes place.

The Parliamentary Secretary has made the biggest joke ever.

Deputy Collins put it up to be knocked down.

Acting Chairman

The Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Dr. O'Donovan should not interrupt the Deputy who is in possession.

Before the introduction of turnover tax expert opinion was that there would be an increase in the consumer price index as there was last year of about 7 per cent; but since we must add to that at least 2½ per cent by way of increase in turnover tax, it will be approximately 10 per cent this year.

Therefore, there will be an extraction of 10s from the pension of these old people because of this increase in consumer prices. Old people are directly affected by the turnover tax. This particular form of taxation is hurtful and regressive. In real terms, then, 17s 6d given to old age pensioners will be worth only 7s 6d and if a man has a wife this means an increase of 3s 9d each. Incidentally that will not buy him any brandies.

If the Deputy continues on those lines he will accuse us of taking money away from them.

He might not be far wrong.

Acting Chairman

Perhaps if the Deputy would address the Chair he might not suffer so many interruptions.

Of course, I always endeavour to address the Chair. I suggest that the increase of 10s. given to the non-contributory old age pensioners will in effect be a nil increase. This is caused directly by inflation.

Quite right.

During the past number of years inflation has continued to be pushed by Fianna Fáil who, if they claim to have done many things for the economy, must also accept blame for the inflation from which we have been suffering and from which we will suffer during the next few years. However, I shall deal with the question of inflation at a later stage. I suggest to the House that the increase to pensioners mean nothing in real terms and that the contributory and assistance classes are not much better off at this point of time as a result of the Budget.

We must remember that it is these pensioners whom the turnover tax will hurt most. They will be hurt most by inflation. Ninety-five per cent of the expenditure of these people goes on such commodities as tobacco, the humble pint of Guinness—which, incidentally, the people of Ballyfermot do not drink, according to Deputy Sherwin—shirts, socks, bread and all these necessities about which the Government do not seem to care. This Budget only slightly helps the pensioner classes—these people who cannot go out and fight for their incomes.

The increases given in the Budget to the agricultural community amount to approximately £5 million. This amount falls far short of the £15 million which was expected by the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, but perhaps that is to be expected since he first mentioned that a week before the recent by-election. I suggest that he got a severe rebuff from another former Minister, Deputy Haughey, for having made that promise. That particular brand of politics is no longer effective with the electorate. It certainly proved to have an adverse effect in Kildare and in Longford-Westmeath. The Government's policy in relation to State aid to agriculture must be viewed in the light of money that will be extracted from the agricultural community by way of price increases. In fact, the £5 million which the Government is supposed to be giving by way of benefit and subsidies will be more than offset by the extractions by way of price increases.

Offset twice as much.

I would agree with the Deputy. Any subsidy given by a Government to any sector of the community should essentially be of an incentive type—a subsidy that would aid productivity. I shall deal, first, with the sheep subsidy. I welcome this subsidy. During the past four or five years the sheep population has fallen to a very low level. Sheep, particularly the spring lamb and the hogget, are very marketable commodities, far more marketable than other agricultural produce, but only now, at a point of crisis, have the Government taken any helpful stand in the matter. In fact, the present sheep population does not allow the trade agreement quota for Irish lamb to the British market to be filled. I hope, from the point of view of the agricultural community, we will see a radical increase in the numbers of sheep in this country.

What of the so-called increase in the guaranteed minimum prices for top-grade pigs up to 150 lbs. weight which was announced in the Budget? At this point in time this is a mythical figure. The Minister for Finance provided £240,000 for increases in the cost of bacon in respect of export price support during the year. This was supposed to be reflected in a 10s per cwt. dead weight increase in price. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries have not yet sanctioned an increase by the Pigs and Bacon Commission to the factory of 10s a cwt on top-grade bacon and pork. Until this is done the so-called benefit of the Budget cannot be passed on to the farmer and I am wondering whether, in fact, the Ministers involved will increase by 10s a cwt. the price of top-grade pigs. Certainly the increase has not yet been reflected in the prices given to farmers. I wonder why there is such a delay?

One of the unfortunate aspects of the Government's agricultural policy in the past year has been the reduction in the price of milk to large-scale milk producers. This will be evident in the coming summer. It will cause quite a decrease in the income of large-scale milk producers. There should not be, as a result of Government policy, a downward trend in milk prices at any point of output. It has a very damaging effect. It damages the farmers' confidence in the Government. Since the State was founded the two commissions of inquiry into agricultural production and marketing emphasised this point: that there should never be a radical or a whimsical change in Government policy in matters of agricultural produce. There is concern among farmers in certain areas about this change in policy. They are worried. They fear the Government are trying to reduce the output of milk. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may well say that this is not so but it is a fear which has been engendered by the change in policy.

The support price for beef requires comment. Unfortunately, the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, reduced the guaranteed price by 1¼d per lb. to the Irish meat factories and consequently to farmers at large vis-à-vis the English guaranteed price support level. This is unfortunate and is having a very damaging effect on the price which meat factories in Ireland can offer to Irish farmers. It has a further damaging effect in that many cattle—forward stores and beef—are going up to the Six Counties to be finished and slaughtered. The Six Counties have additional subsidies to aid the meat factories. The Government should be concerned to protect the Irish meat factories and, of course, the Irish farmer from this sort of disadvantage.

The full guaranteed price scheme, as accepted in the trade agreement with Britain, should be passed on to the farming community. There should be no difference between the support price paid to Irish farmers and the support price paid to British farmers or indeed to farmers in the Six Counties. I would urge the Minister to look into this seriously with a view to remedying the situation. The 1¼d is a big loss on the price support scheme. The farthing is for the board of CBF. I do not see why that board should be financed purely from dead meat. After all, it advertises the marketing of livestock as well as beef. I feel that the proper system of financing it would be through an Exchequer grant, just as in the case of Coras Tráchtála. I would ask the Minister to look into this problem.

The whole question of agriculture is a vital one and I am sure the Minister for Finance accepts this, especially in view of our supposed entry into the EEC. If we do ever enter the EEC this sector can benefit, but we must be very careful. We must have sound policy and be fully equipped for the EEC. It will not be all one-way traffic.

The income tax reliefs given in the Budget are to a certain extent to be welcomed but I feel they will complicate the tax structure whereas we should be trying to simplify it. People will have difficulty in understanding the reliefs in the language in which they are couched and they may be difficult to administer at local level. This is a pity. I feel that a simple global relief should have been adopted.

I welcome the increase in the wife's earned income allowance from £45 to £74. This is a good thing. It will encourage married women to go out to work where it is possible and does not cause any trouble in the home. There are some areas in the country in which there is a shortage of women workers. I feel this will be an incentive. However, I want to emphasise that the Minister for Finance should be trying to simplify the tax code rather than complicating it.

In regard to the structure of taxation in Ireland there is one field which is causing quite an amount of unrest. I refer to rates. The rates structure is rather complicated and is not very democratic in its working. Some time, some Minister, some Government must take the bull by the horns and do something about altering the present structure of rates. At the moment we have a very strange breakdown of rates. Under the new Health Act we have 50 per cent as a basic subsidy towards the health services and a supplementary grant given in each case. Rates are not a solid basis for financing such a necessary expenditure as that incurred under the Health Act or indeed under the various Acts administering the building of houses and the subsidisation of houses.

Rates throughout the country have increased quite radically during recent years. In the Waterford borough council in 1955-56 the rate struck was £1 18s 6d and in the year 1970-71 it is £5 12s 6d. That is a very steep increase over such a period and is giving rise to concern all over the country. People on the differential rents system and people on the basic rent are finding it very difficult to pay the increase now being demanded. This is also a deterrent to people building their own houses and to people building new factories or engaging in large-scale extensions to old factories. Those people find that the valuation officer comes along and puts quite a big increase on the poor law valuation. The rates structure must be altered as soon as possible. I would urge the Minister to look into this problem—that is of course if we do not have a general election next week or some time soon.

The Deputy can relax on that point.

I notice the Minister is relaxed on that, too.

The sale of prize bonds throughout the year is to be welcomed. I wonder if the Minister would consider reducing the nominal cost of prize bonds from the present level of £5 to say £1. This would allow many people, who could not otherwise afford to do so, to buy prize bonds and it would help to increase the savings of the ordinary working man, which is something the Government want to do.

The increase of the turnover tax to 5 per cent has caused widespread complaint. As I have already said, it is a regressive form of taxation. I am satisfied that the increase in turnover tax will be far in excess of the 2½ per cent announced in the Budget. It will probably run to the order of 7 to 10 per cent. It is the experience of the ordinary man in the street that the large shopkeepers, the publicans, the supermarkets and the drapery stores are all increasing their prices by more than 2½ per cent. The price control section of the Department of Industry and Commerce are not geared, have not got the manpower and perhaps do not want to investigate those unnecessary increases in the prices of different commodities.

It is all right for the Taoiseach, any Minister or any Fianna Fáil Deputy to come in here and say that inflation is being caused by an excessive increase in the level of incomes. Unless those people can back up that statement and say to the people that they are prepared to control prices and to set up the necessary machinery which can act effectively in the control of prices it is no good coming in here and saying that the trade unions should not ask for so much. In order for any sound, comprehensive incomes policy to succeed it must be backed up by a sound, comprehensive price control policy. This is something which is acknowledged by the experts.

It is a pity the increase in the turnover tax was made effective from the 1st May because there were quite a number of outstanding credit accounts run by shopkeepers at that time. They were only given approximately a week in which to advise their customers and to clear those accounts. This is not possible. It is a pity this turnover tax did not become effective until the 1st June. This would give the shopkeepers the necessary time to collect outstanding debts. This would have been some little help to those people and would have made the pill a little more palatable.

I agree with what the leading spokesman for the Labour Party said when he referred to this as a lazy man's type of taxation—just one stroke, sit down and forget about it. It is certainly a very tough taxation. I suggest that when we are finished with this, apart from the actual increase in turnover tax, apart altogether from the inflation of prices due to the turnover tax, we will have an increase of between 5 and 7 per cent in the consumer price index on top of the inflation which will occur because of other increases in prices perhaps due to increase in imports or genuine increases in costs. This is something which occured when the turnover tax was first introduced seven years ago.

I do not believe the Government, the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce are concerned that this should happen. I know there are other problems on their minds at the moment. However, this is an important national question. The Government have not set up the necessary machinery to keep note of increases throughout the country, and increases far in excess of 2½ per cent have been added to a number of commodities. Not only have commodities been increased in price but I believe that people living on professional fees will take advantage of the situation.

It must be remembered that the turnover tax is in addition to the wholesale tax. The wholesale tax is quite a hurtful tax but it is not seen so much by the consumer. It is a hidden tax at the wholesale or manufacturing level and the man in the street does not feel the brunt of it as he feels the brunt of the turnover tax. It is the poor people the Government are hurting with the turnover tax.

And the wholesale tax.

And the wholesale tax but, as I say, the wholesale tax is hidden.

That does not prevent it from hurting. In other words the Deputy is saying: "Hide a thing and it does not hurt; produce it in the open and it does hurt." That is great economics.

The point is you have not only got a retail tax of 5 per cent but also a hidden tax of 10 per cent.

My point is that whether it is hidden or in the open it has the same effect on prices.

I am merely making the point that the turnover tax is felt more by the man in the street. It has a psychological effect.

It is nearer to you.

Yes. There has been a fierce increase in taxation in the last ten years. It is all very well to say there have been increases in benefits. I accept there have been such increases and that there is a higher standard of living now than ten years ago, but we must remember that the increases in social welfare benefits have been at a very high cost in taxation. If one were to have a cost-benefit examination in regard to social security and taxation, it would be found the benefit is not as great as the Fianna Fáil Party says. It has also been at the cost of inflation and at the cost of emigration.

Would the Deputy say where the social welfare increases are lacking?

If the Parliamentary Secretary were here at the commencement of my speech he would have heard me welcoming the benefits.

I was. The Deputy did not explain himself properly.

I think I explained myself rather well and I have no intention of repeating myself. I came here tonight to make a constructive contribution and not to snipe. This is an important Budget which will have serious consequences for the economy. My point is that when one takes into account the cost of the social security benefits as against the amount of taxation——

If we increase old age pensions and other benefits the money must be found somewhere. Would the Deputy tell us where else it is to be found?

I am not denying that for a moment. I am saying that if there is an examination of the cost and the benefit over the last ten years it will be found the benefit is not as great as Fianna Fáil would like to make out. It has had a damaging effect on prices. It has affected employment and it has caused emigration to some extent.

To what extent?

I shall discuss that when I come to deal with the Report of the Economic and Social Research Institute. Perhaps I could commend it to you: broadsheet No. 2, March, 1970, or I can lend it to you after my speech.

Acting Chairman

If the Deputy would address the Chair perhaps he would avoid generating interruptions.

I want to discuss inflation and I intend to refer to a number of reports, very damning reports, recommending positive policies in the field of inflation which the Government may not feel like hearing, and reports on which the Minister for Finance has refused to act to safeguard the economy. The extent of inflation is reflected in the Financial Statement, which I quote from, column 1730, volume 245 of the Official Report of the 22nd April, 1970:

Taking a realistic view of these commitments—

In relation to public service pay

——in the light of an overall cost of remunerating the public service now in the region of £120 million, I am providing £10 million to cover them.

In other words, the Minister for Finance has now to provide £10 million to cover the cost of increases in pay in the public service. This is quite an amount.

It is a large public service.

In fact, the increased expenditure in this Budget includes £10 million for public service pay and £20 million which he gave away in his Budget. In other words, of the £30 million which was given away either from buoyancy or from increased taxation, no less than £10 million had to be provided for public service pay before he could deal with benefits and subsidies.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th May, 1970.
Barr
Roinn