Financial Resolutions. - Financial Resolution No. 3: Income Tax. – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Wednesday, 28 Oct 1970

Financial Resolutions. - Financial Resolution No. 3: Income Tax.

Mr. Colley

I move:

That with respect to the computation of income for the purposes of income tax for the year 1970-71 or for any subsequent year of assessment—

(a) section 64 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (No. 6 of 1967), so far as it provides that corporation profits tax paid by a company in respect of any accounting period is to be allowed to be deducted as an expense incurred in that accounting period in computing the profits or gains of the company for purposes of income tax, shall not apply;

(b) paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to that Act shall have effect as if clause (ii) of subparagraph (c) were deleted;

(c) paragraph 8 of Schedule 10 to that Act shall have effect as if, in clause (c) of subparagraph (3), "either falls to be allowed as a credit against corporation profits tax, or", where occurring before "cannot be allowed as a credit", were deleted.

Mr. O'Higgins

As a matter of guidance—I am not speaking to the Resolution—it is clear that there can be a general discussion on this, the third Resolution?

The Taoiseach

There can be, yes.

Mr. O'Higgins

That has been the understanding.

An Ceann Comhairle

The financial discussion first.

The Taoiseach

Sir, are we taking this Resolution and debating it to a conclusion?

Mr. O'Higgins

I think that matter is still under discussion.

The Taoiseach

I am sorry, I did not know that.

Mr. O'Higgins

This is merely to start the debate and is without prejudice to any arrangements made.

Mr. Cluskey

We have tentatively agreed to go on with Resolution No. 3 until 10.30 p.m. tonight.

Mr. Andrews

The Whips are meeting at 7.30 p.m.

Mr. Cluskey

The Whips are meeting at 7.30 p.m. to finalise the arrangements.

Mr. Corish

Let us adjourn until 7.30 p.m.

The Taoiseach

Could the Whip's agreement change the suggestion?

Mr. Cluskey

It could be changed in so far as the discussion could be continued tomorrow or we could have the vote of no confidence tomorrow.

The Taoiseach

Could it start tomorrow and continue next week?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Donegan

As this is a general discussion it affords me the opportunity to say, first of all, that this is not a mini-Budget of £5.3 million: it is a Budget of £21 million. If we examine the statement of the Minister for Finance we find he intends to borrow £8.7 million, to save £7 million and by extra taxation in this year to raise £5.3 million, which is a total of £21 million. I want to suggest that the savings are very unlikely to occur.

Last week there was to be a wage freeze which was to include the end of the 12th round. Those of us involved in negotiations on wages, salaries and conditions of employment, on whatever side we are, know the 12th round consisted of three instalments with a tenure of approximately 18 months. There were various types of first, second and third instalments and various reductions in hours and advantages for employees granted also in three instalments. The first instalment came around last April, the second was to have been around next January and the third the following April with a tenure of a further six months.

This was to have happened last week but when it appeared to the Government that they could not carry this wage freeze they immediately relented and said they would let the rest of the 12th round continue. This was the only just thing to do. Their attempt to do a most unjust thing was defeated by the action of the people, apart from politicians at all. I heard of this on the 1.30 p.m. news yesterday. Is it possible for any Department of Finance, any Minister for Finance or any Cabinet sitting around a table to assess exactly what the situation will be on savings in relation to a fundamental change such as this?

We had the revolt by the local authority employees who would have been deprived of a two-stage increase of 7 per cent and 10 per cent. We had the Civil Service in the same situation. In the middle of all the ganging-up by the Government party as to whether or not they would vote with or against each other, today they were capable of assessing exactly what saving there would be. Everybody knows that stopping inflation is something like stopping a ship at full steam ahead in the middle of the sea. There is a famous non-fiction book about the Andrea Doria where two huge ships three miles apart knew they were going to collide and could do nothing about it. The ship of state is a huge one and nobody stops it in one day. I want to make the point that no matter what is carried here tonight the ship of state will proceed on its way, people will live the same way, and the deflation in consumer spending which is suggested here will not occur overnight. People do not do things that way. It is quite an impossibility within 24 hours to assess exactly what the situation is on the saving of £7 million. I suggest this will not happen and if anything happens it has been based merely on a guess.

Let us see what is in the Minister's speech. The figure for extra taxation, apart from anything else, in a full year is £11.3 million. Therefore, this is no small Budget and is no small impost. It is a very serious impost affecting us in many ways. Very often speeches can be as interesting for their omissions as for what is in them. One of the omissions in the speech is where the £7 million saving is to come from. I do not know because I have not been told. If the Minister can tell the House tonight it will be a great help to know where it can come from.

Is this saving to come from housing, from a tougher interpretation of social welfare regulations, from economies in health provisions, from not sanctioning sewerage for villages and provisions for roads? If the Minister has acted as I suggest merely on a guess and now comes along and says he intends to make his guess good, he can do so, but only by further damaging the economy, by further depressing the poor people of this country who need housing, the people in the villages who need sewerage and the people who need roads.

It is quite striking the Minister did not say where he intends to save his £7 million. In the situation we face today it was incumbent on the Minister, as his predecessors did in their major Budget speeches, to say not only where he intended to raise taxation but where he intended to save. This was not done. It was a break from precedent. It is a mistake and is something which bodes ill for the necessary things we wish to do and the services we wish to maintain. You have the question of the borrowing of £8.7 million. There was a naïve suggestion from the Minister that because of the bank strike he did not know what the position is as far as the economy is concerned.

Mr. Colley

I did not say that.

Mr. Donegan

If the Minister clarified what he said it would help us.

Mr. Colley

I said in regard to the credit situation we did not know.

Mr. Donegan

That is exactly what I am speaking about, in regard to the credit situation he did not know. In other words, the Minister does not know if some fellow wrote cheques that placed him above the overdraft limit; neither at this stage do the bank managers know. However, the Minister does know the balance of payments position; he knows the balance of trade and various other figures; the figures for imports of consumer goods, the figures for imports of capital goods and the figures for exports. All these figures are available to him. Therefore, there was no need for the Minister to be so naïve about the situation. In regard to his £8.7 million borrowing he is almost certain to go to the banks. That means £8.7 million less will be available to the private enterprise sector. That means a credit squeeze, and the size of the credit squeeze can be far greater than the £8.7 million being removed from the funds available for private enterprise.

I wish to refer now to the question of the people who have not fully negotiated the twelfth round. I know of a factory in my constituency—a director of which was on the plane in which the Taoiseach returned, quite by accident I hasten to assure the House—who have not fully negotiated the twelfth round yet. They are in the process of negotiating with their 700 employees. Are they affected by this legislation? Are they to be allowed to make their bargain with their 700 employees or are these employees to remain at the same wage level until next December 12 months I know most of the twelfth round claims have gone through but there are certain negotiations which are not completed. I can give another instance where a pension proposal in relation to quite a large number of employees is not completed. Is this pension proposal frozen also?

These are the results of hasty legislation from a Cabinet that is split from top to bottom. These are measures which could have been introduced at one-tenth of their strength and viciousness about 18 months ago before a general election. However, the Cabinet, because of their own internal strife, let the country go to blazes and now have had recourse to such measures as will cause unemployment and the gravest dissatisfaction and upset for the people.

I want to suggest to the Minister that he knew right through the period of internal strife in Fianna Fáil that things were very bad. I want to remind him that were it not for the cement strike and the bank strike imports would have been far greater. Let him think of the amount of goods that would have been imported by any builders' supplier in this city, the amount of timber and other necessary goods, even the raw materials to make blocks. Let him think of the effect of such imports on the balance of payments. Let him think of the accidental —some say it was not accidental but I shall call it accidental—slowing down of the economy because of the cement strike and the lack of imports. It means that our balance of payments position today would be infinitely worse were it not for the cement strike. We have this Cabinet beating the heads off one another metaphorically while doing nothing to root out the evil that had become apparent before the last general election.

I do not want to weary the House with the statement already made by Deputy O'Higgins in regard to the crisis of 18th March produced by the ex-Minister for Finance and the fact that three weeks later, when a general election had been decided upon, everything in the garden was lovely; every housing scheme was sanctioned; every sewerage scheme was sanctioned; money was as plentiful as daffodils in the spring. Fianna Fáil have done what, perhaps, the greatest parliamentarian that has ever sat in this House said they would do before he left. I refer to the former Deputy James Dillon. He said: "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." I believe sincerely now that they have got enough rope and that politically they have succeeded in hanging themselves.

I wish to refer now to the particular financial resolution under discussion and to what, in my view, is an incorrect decision, the wage freeze. Fianna Fáil are like Lannah Machree's dog, going a bit of the road with everyone. If it was a fact that the employees had got a rough run—and there is still a wage freeze even though a portion of the twelfth round yet to be implemented is to be allowed to run its course— there was the necessity politically, so that the Fianna Fáil worker in the factory would be able to say: "It was not only I who was affected", to make an attack upon profits, dividends and various other items that would be regarded as affecting the proprietors of a business. For this reason and for this reason alone, and not for revenue purposes, at all, there is this provision whereby for the first time the income tax on the first £2,000 of profit of a company is not deducted before corporation profits tax is assessed. I want to say something that may not be a vote-catcher and will not endear me to everyone in this House, and, indeed, I remember the late Deputy Gerard Sweetman expressing the same view: part of the problem in our old established businesses is that they have not got enough profit and that they need profit for the purpose of re-investment to keep themselves abreast of the challenge of the Common Market and all the other challenges of the seventies. We are now putting a further tax upon Irish businesses and this tax is to remove a portion of their profits when they never needed them more. I suggest this is being done merely as a political ploy, that Fianna Fail thinking is: "We have had to be rough on the workers so we must be rough on the employers as well." This is not good financing. To approach this properly there would need to have been given at the same time an incentive for re-investment where re-investment would employ people or defend the jobs that were there.

Remember that in page 7 of the Minister's speech that has been circulated he adverts to the drop in industrial production in the first half of 1970, the first drop that has ever occurred since I came into this House 16 years ago. Of course, that drop is the result of galloping inflation, of neglect by the Government. It is the result of the fact that the Government were prepared, for their own political purposes, to let the economy run riot as long as they got their votes and from their votes got their jobs. I find it extraordinary that some of the good friends I have in Fianna Fáil do not rise up against this, that they can find themselves living with that party, that they can find themselves within that consortium that are prepared to disregard economics, to disregard the measures that should be taken at certain times, to place the very livelihood and the jobs of our people in jeopardy so that everything can be related to the time of an election; so that the timing of benefits, when the jam gets on the bread, is before an election so that the timing of unpleasantness is deferred until after an election.

In this instance, there was the other major upheaval within Fianna Fáil. When that major upheaval was at its worst and when the people down the country were wondering whether or not they would support them, when there was this waivering by the uncommitted voter, it would have been political suicide to do what should have been done then, even half or quarter of what has been done tonight. There we were. We were slaves of this political machine. We were slaves of the monolith which is now split down the middle. We were slaves of the fact that Fianna Fáil comes first, God second and the people of this country a very bad third in a very badly galloped race.

If there was a £21 million deficit forecast—as is stated in the Minister's speech—on the Budget as produced on 23rd April, 1970, why did we wait until now? What happened in between? Were all the advisers of Deputy Haughey before 23rd April stone mad? I do not think they were. Those of us who have been here for some time, who have served on the Committee of Public Accounts, who have been involved in the business of this House and have experience of it, know that the estimates of the Revenue Commissioners — that loyal band of advisers — and of the civil servants — to whom everybody in this country should be grateful for their service — have always been accurate in the extreme. There have been occasions when it has been possible to balance the Budget to within one part of one per cent.

We now find ourselves with a Budget that was perfection on 23rd April, 1970 and, in the middle of the month of October, will produce a deficit of £21 million. What happened? How did the horse get out the gate? Who unlocked the gate? Was the Budget of 23rd April a fraud? Was it related to the election of June 18th? Was it a situation that allowed the restoration of Fianna Fáil to power, as they thought, for a further four years when the fact was that, at that time, it looked as if they could not get back?

Let us face it. The great surprise of the last five political years was the last election. The Opposition Parties had great hopes before the election. Everybody thought Fianna Fáil was out of favour and that Fianna Fáil would lose seats. What happened, in the event?

Mr. P. Belton

They increased children's allowances.

Mr. Donegan

Fianna Fáil played the same old card trick once again. They bought the votes. They increased the children's allowances. They gave everybody something. It was a distribution Budget containing within it a horrible and despicable doubling of the turnover tax. But the doubling of the turnover tax was something that did not hit immediately. The people did not just notice, when they went out, that they were paying 5 per cent instead of 2½ per cent — a shilling instead of sixpence — in every £. They forgot that this was an accumulating tax: when the husband bought a "pint" he had to pay his 5 per cent and when his wife went to the grocer, the butcher, the draper, and so on, she had to pay 5 per cent on her purchases. It was 5 per cent on practically every purchase made in coin or notes. The result was galloping inflation.

May I again quote the former Deputy James M. Dillon, for whom I have such great respect, and refer to the many times he told us in this House that the first stages of galloping inflation are the most pleasant time in the life of a State? Wage increases came along. Everybody was happy. There were not huge increases on beer, wine, cigarettes, and so on. There was just a doubling of the turnover tax but it represented £20 million in a full year. We are now talking of another £11.3 million in a full year and a deficit on the basis of a Budget produced by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, to balance. If I remember correctly, he budgeted for a slight surplus.

I do not believe that our civil servants and our Revenue Commissioners deliberately led Deputy Haughey astray. I do not believe our economy went utterly wild since 23rd April last. Deputy Haughey has come out within the past week and said that there is no need for these measures. I do not know if he will avail of the opportunity to take part in the general debate and say why he thinks there is no need for these measures. If this had been dealt with in a non-political way, if Fianna Fáil had not put their votes in the election first and if there had been constant attention to the economy over the past 18 months, and if there had not been this hell of a row in Fianna Fáil, such brutal measures as those now before us would not in any way, at any time, be necessary.

Added to this, and glossed over by the Minister for Finance in his statement, there will be a vicious credit squeeze. We have adverted to the effect of the cement strike and also to the effect of the bank strike. My constituency is close to the Border. Friends of mine down the country have been going to the north of Ireland with large bundles of cheques which they received for goods down here and on which they were trying to borrow money in the north. Consider the position of a business here buying £10,000 worth of raw materials each week from a firm in Britain and which had been doing so for 20 years. For the first four weeks or so of the bank strike the firm in Britain accepted, let us say, their cheques. When the fifth week came, they started to realise that their liquid pool was now £50,000 less and that they could not continue to accept pieces of paper because they had to pay their employees and they had to pay for their raw materials or, if it was a raw material taken from the earth, they had to process it. Quite clearly, they could not continue on lines and therefore there was a disincentive, during the strike, to industrial producers here to import. These people then ran down their stocks. They went to the north of Ireland and lodged large sums there in Irish cheques. To my knowledge, they were given accommodation up to three-quarters of the value of Republic of Ireland cheques which they lodged. They succeeded in buying, therefore, enough raw materials to keep their factories running.

The bank strike plus the cement strike damped down the economy to such an extent that there is no doubt that there is inherent in this situation a balance of payments difficulty such as was never experienced before. Nothing more than the utterly artificial and accidental situation that prevailed kept these facts from being available for all to see. They betoken a vicious credit squeeze at a time when the terms of trade have been in favour of this country. I am quite specific on this. The Minister for Finance has been very glib in his speech. He omitted to say how he would save £7 million. He said the price of goods coming into the country had gone up by 10 per cent in the previous six months or so but he did not mention by how much our exports had gone up in price in the same period. I want to correct this position. The terms of trade were in favour of this country during all the period when this Government put it in pawn. I almost used an unparliamentary expression instead of "Government". I am glad I did not do so for the sake of the dignity of the House which it is going to be so hard to preserve.

The terms of trade were all in our favour: we had good harvests: we had an extra trade for our cattle and things were going well and yet the Government allowed the economy to run riot. We are now facing a credit squeeze as sure as I stand here and I should like any Government spokesman to estimate how many million pounds worth of goods were not imported and, therefore, not written into the balance of payments figure in relation to the bank strike and the cement strike. Such a situation betokens unemployment. I am here 16 years. I lost my seat in 1957 at the time of the Suez crisis and the Korean War. I remember very clearly the present Tánaiste, who was naturally trying to get back into office, coming here day after day and asking numerous questions as the price of cattle fell. Every time he asked ten more questions the price of cattle fell another 5s per cwt. From that time I have had to endure, with other Members, the gibes from the Government about what happened in 1957.

What will happen now? Our unemployment figures are running on average at 10,000 more than for the corresponding week of last year. The Minister for Finance has adverted to a fall in industrial production. We have a balance of payments difficulty hidden by the facts I have now stated. We have £8.7 million removed from the economy when there was never more need for capital investment in businesses to combat Common Market competition and competition as a result of the Anglo Irish Free Trade Agreement and freer trade. A measure was introduced today that will remove £3.5 million this year from private business and £6 million in a full year in relation to corporation profits tax when there was never more need for capital investment in that type of business for the reason I have already stated — increased competition.

These are taking away the life blood of our economy, the preservation of jobs which is even more vital than the creation of new jobs. I know industries that came here and are doing well employing many people and exporting all their produce — exactly what we wanted. But remember we gave them freedom from income tax for 15 years. Then, go back to the good, honest Irish firm that has been employing people decently for decades and in some cases for the best part of a century. They now have to face an impost in corporation profits tax to the tune of £6 million when they most need a capital injection. They have to meet this dual blow of, first, the credit squeeze that is coming as sure as the crow flies, and then the removal from them of £6 million in a full year of profits utterly necessary for reinvestment at this stage.

I do not think dividends in this country have been spectacular. Most industries have had to think of freer trade conditions. Whether you are for or against this you must go with the tide and there was retention of profits and reinvestment afterwards. Earlier Deputy Corish rightly commented on the injustice of imposing a wage freeze on employees and at the same time only restricting dividends when everybody knows you can keep the dividends and distribute them at the end of the freeze period. In fact, that has not been the pattern in relation to profits in Irish industry in the last decade or certainly in the last six or seven years. The pattern has been to get more and more money by borrowing or to get as much as possible by profits and reinvest it in case they would be put to the wall by freer trade conditions.

Today's mini-Budget stands condemned if only for the reason that on those two fronts it takes away the livelihood of workers and the opportunity of employers to keep their heads above water in the difficult times ahead, times of intense competition. We have seen action taken in the last 24 hours by the British Government indicating there will be no sentiment or sympathy for small nations and that we must be as good as, or better than our foreign competitors if we are to continue to preserve jobs which are so necessary.

When one adds turnover tax to the selective wholesale tax we have in this country now a purchase tax — as one may call it — of 25 per cent over a wide range and variety of articles. Quite properly Deputy Tully referred to the small car and motor scooter which people use to get to work. After he had spoken I referred to certain circumstances in which a person had to keep a car for business purposes, farming purposes or some other reason. The truth is that most cars in this country are not kept for Sunday driving and are not a luxury. We are a hotch-potch society. We have not a huge number of industrial employees or of millionaires or of any one class but we have a variety of people, some self-employed, some farmers, shopkeepers, industrial employees, employees in services and shops, civil servants and local authority workers and so on. In our kind of country and with our kind of population it is not possible, as it would be in the city of London, for so many to go in a tube train to work 15 or 20 miles away in as many minutes. That is not "on" in this country and Fianna Fáil have not helped the position with their spectacular closures of the link railway lines around this city. That is beside the point but it is a fact that up to, perhaps, 90 per cent of the cars in this country are not pleasure cars but are a necessary adjunct to the preservation of jobs.

I am sure Deputy Tully occasionally comes up the Ashbourne Road. I always do so. There is a large number of employees in the Finglas area, in Unidare and other firms, for whom no decent bus service is provided. If I go out in the evening at the end of work time I find myself in a trail of cars not one of which is worth £300, or certainly £400, and these are the cars to which Deputy Tully was referring, cars belonging to workers who must have them to get from the Naul or the Ward, or other parts, right into Deputy Tully's constituency and in some cases down to places beside my own constituency, to their jobs in the morning or perhaps at night. No matter what anybody says, to put a 25 per cent tax on a small motor car is a disgrace. You can talk about diamond necklaces, fur coats, yachts and so on if you wish but when you talk about ordinary priced small motor cars it is quite unfair to suggest that they are luxury articles. I never thought I would see the day when the unfortunate fellow, with a wife and children, who has perhaps to go in my constituency down to the GEC factory in Dunleer, where there is no housing for him and where he cannot live, and who has to buy a small new car, would have to pay 25 per cent to the Government and would then get no allowance for the cost of going to work even though the director would and would pay 5s 3d in the £ above the meagre allowance in his PAYE. This is what they have given to us.

Again, of course, it is a sign of the complete ineptitude of the present administration and of the fact that this was a hastily trumped up piece of legislation that when questioned on the matter of mobile homes the Minister for Finance replied that mobile homes with no wheels would be subject as caravans were to this additional and punitive selective wholesale tax. I want to assure him that that will hit the courts if he ever tries to apply it. I am glad that one of the legal luminaries of the Fianna Fáil Party, my good friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Michael Kennedy, is present, because he knows perfectly well that if you put a tax on caravans you then start to differentiate between caravans and various types of system built houses, or prefabricated houses or mobile homes constructed away from the site and then brought to it and you will have the greatest difficulty trying to put a tax on a mobile home. Perhaps "mobile" is the wrong word as far as the law is concerned. What is generally meant by a mobile home is a rather temporary type dwelling provided for an old person or a single person until the local authority can build a proper house for that person. I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that these are homes, these are houses and if there is an attempt, on the basis of caravans, to put a tax on something just because it was partially or wholly constructed away from the site the Government will have plenty of trouble indeed and they will end up where a lot of them were last week, in the Four Courts. However, that rather sad episode on the Government side must be out of order and I must not continue on that line.

In conclusion I want to refresh the minds of the people. At the time of the Cork and Kildare by-elections some time ago the Army got a rise in pay and 12 per cent, which was indicated as a proper wage increase, was given to every Government employee and the two by-elections were won by Fianna Fáil. I want to go from there to the 1965 election and the 1965 credit squeeze and refresh people's memories in regard to which came first, the chicken or the egg. Having done that I want to go back to the March 18th speech of the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, when he said there was a crisis, his succeeding speeches before the election of June, 18th, when there was no crisis, his Budget of April 23rd sandwitched in between, and a £21 million deficit tonight. All these figures put logically to the people mean that this Government are discredited, dishonoured and disreputable and they should go to the country. I refer to some of the advice tendered to the Taoiseach by some members of his party. The course of honour was open to him. In the present dishonour and discredit in which the Government stand for the reasons I have outlined if they do not go to the country they will be rather like the fox that would not run, they will be dug out and torn to pieces by the people.

Mr. Tully

When I was commenting on the April Budget I said that it appeared to be a lazy man's Budget presented by somebody who had his mind on other things. How right I was. We were assured by the Taoiseach, acting for the Minister for Finance, that the Budget was a balanced one and there would be no need to introduce a supplementary budget at a later stage. This was repeated again and again by Deputy Colley when he took over as Minister for Finance. The extraordinary thing about it is that there are so many contradictions in this effort put before the House today. I agree with a lot of what Deputy Donegan said but I disagree with some of the conclusions at which he arrived. One of the comments made today by the Minister was that the troubles in the north and our rapidly increasing prices must have deflected many tourists from our shores this year. I suggest that he could have said "the troubles in the north and the south" because I am associated with a tourist organisation and I am aware that the troubles in the south at a particular stage had a far more adverse effect on this part of the country than the troubles in the north.

The Minister also referred to the fact that while provision was made for the increase which it was expected would be paid to public servants and officers this year, because of what had happened only a small rise in revenue was expected. Do we forget what happened last year? There were fairly substantial wage increase granted but none of them was so great as those granted generally this year. For the last four or five weeks before the Budget we were working overtime here passing supplementary estimates and although the Budget of the previous year was supposed to have been struck in such a way that it would balance we finished up the year passing supplementary estimates amounting to £35,800,000 and there was still a surplus of £250,000 on the revenue for the year.

I suggest that, because of the substantial increase in wages granted before the credit boom collapsed — call it what you will: buoyancy of revenue, or anything else — the amount of extra revenue which will be collected out of the wage packets of the ordinary workers will be very, very substantial and I suggest that this effort today is not so much an effort to gather in increased revenue, as was suggested, but rather to damp down the economy, the economy which is, as someone said earlier, already seriously damped down because of the failure of the Government, particularly over the last six months, to do their job.

One thing which makes very sad reading in the Minister's speech is his statement that extra money is required because of increased payments for social welfare. He went on to add that those increased payments are due to the increase in the number of unemployed. For the last six months we have had a figure of round about 10,000 more unemployed than we had in the same period last year. Not alone have these unfortunate people to be paid unemployment benefit but they have to get unemployment assistance because many of them have run out of their unemployment benefit entitlement. We are, in fact, losing the revenue which should be coming from them for insurance stamps — not a mean figure — and from income tax. The Government moan and say that because of the increased number of unemployed extra money is required to pay them. Surely this is one clear example of the failure of the Government to do their job. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, said in this House that the test as to whether or not a Government were doing their job was the number of people at work and the number of people on the unemployment register. On that basis this Government have most certainly failed, and failed miserably, to do their job.

As was pointed out at the time of the last Budget there was absolutely no effort made to try to provide the additional employment necessary even at that time in order to bring the figures on the register down to reasonable proportions. It was obvious to those of us associated with the working people that a serious position was going to arise. This was exacerbated by the effects of the ill-conceived British Free Trade Area Agreement on this country: as the weeks go by the number of unemployed rise. I shudder to think what the position will be if we are ever unfortunate enough to be forced into the European Economic Community.

The Minister referred to the extra cost for Defence and the extra cost for Cyprus. He referred to the shortfall in the payment from the United Nations. Would the Minister let us know exactly what he means by that? If I got the picture correctly the Cyprus effort was supposed to cost us nothing except the cost of our soldiers. Our soldiers were being paid. We have not taken on additional troops. We have a standing Army and that Army is being used in the Cyprus operation. Where then does this extra cost come in? I understood the UN were paying their share. The former Minister for External Affairs was very shaky here on one occasion when he was questioned about whether or not the UN were paying their share; he eventually admitted that, while they were supposed to be paying, they owed us a considerable amount of money. Could the Minister say whether this money is money owed, money which is recoverable, or is it something which will be written off as a bad debt because the UN are not prepared to honour their commitments? Let us get the position clear. Let us also find out whether or not we can continue to afford the luxury of keeping our troops in Cyprus. At certain periods during the past year, maybe even now, some of us felt there was far greater need for our troops here at home than there was in Cyprus.

One of the things which amuses me, though it is indeed tragic, is the effort the Government put into their case that factors other than the Government had increased prices and costs here. We all know that the biggest single factor which caused increases in prices this year was the ill-fated increase in the turnover tax. We all know that greedy people increased the turnover tax by five per cent, having originally charged 2½ per cent over a period of six years, because they thought people had forgotten there was such a tax. Is it not true that the turnover tax more than anything else pushed up the cost of living? Is it not true that the only thing the workers could do was to look for compensation to repay them for the amount they were losing?

The comments made by the Minister today were rather amusing. He talked about his own experience with regard to workers and he rather decried my suggestion that he knew very little about what the ordinary working people have to put up with. I come from a working-class family. I know what I am talking about. I know there are people who, if they do not get enough wages to pay for what they need, cannot go to a bank and get an overdraft or borrow from rich friends. They go without. It is rather a pity that the Minister really cannot understand the position. If a worker gets an increase in wages and that increase barely enables him to live and then finds that, because of additional taxation, some of that increase is taken back from him, he is right back where he started. He and his family are living on a substandard diet, with bad clothes and very little entertainment. They cannot afford it. This is the position with a very substantial number of working-class families. I wish people would understand that. Some people were rather inclined to find this funny, but I wish they could understand that there are people who do not get 52 weeks wages in every year. Some may get constant work but, if they fall ill, they have to wait for weeks for social welfare benefit.

I consider this utterly unfair. Because of a shortage of staff these unfortunate people do not get their cheques in time and many of them go hungry. Can this be appreciated by those whose job it is to regulate the economy? Do they appreciate the position of a man who finds £5 or £6 deducted from his wage packet at the end of the year because PAYE was not operated properly? Out of his £14 he is asked to pay £5 or £6 income tax and he goes home to his wife and family with less than what will buy food for the week. This is happening. We are told by the Minister that these people should be able to pay tax and there should be no objection so far as turnover tax or any other tax is concerned. The State needs the money and that is that.

The Minister has increased the wholesale tax on what he describes as luxury goods. He includes in that category scooters, motorcycles and television and radio sets. He did not refer at all to something the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Brian Lenihan, talked about some years ago. Not a word about the fur coats. Not a word about jewellery. As Deputy Donegan said, many workers buy cars as cheaply as they can; on everything they buy for those cars they pay both wholesale and turnover tax. They get no remission in tax no matter how far they have to travel. They are expected to carry on and keep smiling.

These people could very easily stay at home and draw unemployment benefit for a period but they prefer to work and the State continues to punish them. A scooter used by a working man is regarded as a luxury; a motorcycle is regarded as a luxury. Admittedly, many young people buy small radio sets frequently as a status symbol but there are many old people unable to afford a television set and they are very glad to buy a cheap radio set. These people will now have to pay an additional 5 per cent for this luxury.

The Minister has given us fair warning that further steps will be taken if necessary. The sword of Damocles is over our heads and everybody will have to pay more. I am not sure whether the increase in the wholesale tax is a prelude to the added value tax the Minister's predecessor earlier stated he would introduce in next year's budget. The figure of 20 per cent will be in line with what the unfortunate people will be expected to pay when the added value tax is introduced.

The Minister has given a gentle reminder that we may expect an early Budget next year. The main heads of the Budget are prepared and he is considering next year's expenditure well in advance of the usual time. To me this means that we shall have an early Budget and, therefore, the amount of extra money which must be provided now is not expected to carry over to the normal Budget time.

Reference was made to the matter of wages and the package deal. It is true that the Government altered the original deal and allowed what the Minister was careful to mention here as the second portion of the 12th round wage agreements. The Minister is not so naïve as to imagine this would pass unnoticed. Male employees were awarded an increase of 50/- plus a second round increase of 34/- but the Minister must be aware that when the negotiations were proceeding his predecessor insisted that there would be the same percentage increase granted to women. There was a third phase inserted for women but what the Minister is saying today is that the men will get the full 12th round but the women will lose 17/- per week which will be due to them on 1st November, 1971. I consider they should have got the increase the men received. The Minister was a signatory to that agreement but he now says that only the second phase will be honoured. In effect, he is saying that the women will lose the 17/-per week The fact that the Minister at first refused to honour the agreement that had been made freely and to which he was a signatory—even though he reversed some of his decisions—means that he is dishonouring the position of Minister for Finance. The sum of 17/-may not appear of much consequence to him but to a working-class woman who is depending on her wages this is a substantial amount and I should like to make it clear to the Minister that he has not heard the end of this matter.

I should also like to point out that the arrangement which was made and broken by the Minister for Finance has meant the death-knell to phased agreements. When phased agreements were introduced our most difficult job in the trade union movement was to persuade workers that something like this would not happen. The workers often said: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and they believed that if they agreed to the policy of phased agreements the Government would certainly do something to interfere with the agreements. This is not the first time the Government have done this and the workers were fully aware of that fact. I believe that the policy of phased agreements will not be accepted because people whose phased agreements terminated before the standstill will have to be content with what they have got until the end of 1971.

The whole argument in favour of this package deal was made apparently on the assumption, as Deputy Corish pointed out, that certain things would happen which did not happen. The Employer/Labour Conference broke down. It could have been recalled. Let me enumerate the suggestions made by the trade unions because it is only fair that they should be on the records of this House. The trade union movement suggested that the 12th round settlements should be moderated; they suggested a bridging operation involving 18-month agreements for increases of £2 10s, and £1 10s in some cases, and nine-month agreements for increases of £2 10s in some other cases, with a cost-of-living review in both cases. They considered this bridge would lead the way towards general acceptance of real wage increases of 5 or 6 per cent per annum.

The galling point in this matter is that the 6 per cent now announced by the Minister for Finance with effect from 16th October is a lesser sum than that offered by his representatives who were discussing this matter and a lesser amount than that offered by the employers in the Employer/Labour Conference. This demonstrates that the Minister does not know what he is talking about. In addition, the idea of a percentage increase has for some time been regarded with disfavour by the trade union movement because 6 per cent to a person with £40 per week is twice as much as 6 per cent to a person earning £20 per week. This is basic economics and one does not need a degree to understand it. Yet, this is the suggestion now being made—that 6 per cent across the board is the amount that should be paid. The Minister has made a serious mistake; having backed out of some of his proposals, he would be well advised to reconsider the entire matter. There was a suggestion that electricians were seeking an increase of £19 per week. That is not true but it was one of the scare stories used by the people who wanted to create the situation where this so-called agreement could be introduced.

According to the Minister for Finance we are in dire need of money. I do not agree that that is the situation. I think he has introduced this Supplementary Budget for a different reason.

A very substantial sum of money was voted by this House for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland. Before it is pointed out that this has nothing to do with the Budget let me relate it to it. At that time I asked the Taoiseach if, in fact, some or all of that money had come out of State funds. The Taoiseach's reply to me was:

Some reports mentioned that the consignment was of the order of £80,000. I made inquiries as to what the quantity of arms in question would be likely to cost and I was told that it would cost probably less than half that amount—about £30,000. I made specific inquiries, too, as to the source of the money and if it had been paid. I was absolutely assured that the money did not come from any State funds.

We have now sworn evidence, and the whole country knows, that a substantial proportion of the money did come from State funds. There was mention of £100,000 less 11s. Would the Taoiseach talk to the Minister for Finance and suggest to him that he could get that money back? There are possibly people who would be able to give it to him without making the bank manager uneasy and that money would fill some of the hole. These people are in a better position to pay than are the working-class people of this country who are being asked to do it.

Mr. Gallagher

I shall be very brief. I cannot say that I welcome a Budget at this time of the year nor do I welcome the restraints and policies which are found necessary. The fact of the matter is that we are living in inflation at the moment. This is not entirely peculiar to Ireland. It is fairly widespread in Europe and in the free western world at the moment. Inflation has been galloping along faster here than in other countries. It surprises me to hear Deputy Tully say there is not inflation here and that we are running into some form of depression. There is a big problem and it can be seen in the demands made at the moment and envisaged in the 13th round. There is wholesale inflation. There is a projected deficit of something in the region of £21 million in the public services and this is indicative of very heavy spending. This is largely made up of wages. Public service remuneration projected for the current fiscal year is £8.2 million. I can only assume that there is an increase in wages and pay.

With reference to CIE despite the heavy increase in fares which took place, there is an additional subsidy of £3.6 million to the company. CIE employ a large labour force. All indications are that the wages bill has been rising at a rate not in keeping with the production achieved.

I have no doubt what the effect will be on the dividend policy. If this is something which must be done and a sacrifice which has to be made at this time it is only fair that we make these sacrifices. We are asked to make these sacrifices until 31st December, 1971. This is not just a policy of taxation. This is much harsher than what was employed in the matter of control of wages and in trying to get them down to a reasonable level. Comments are made in the newspapers and in this House on what is happening in regard to wages. There is no doubt that the demand made by the building workers was a flat £7. The current rate for a 40-hour week is 9s per hour and that produces £18. An increase of £7 on that £18 is quite hefty. It could be close to 35 per cent.

Mr. Coughlan

Is that for skilled or unskilled workers?

Mr. Gallagher

Unskilled workers— 9s per hour. Much comment was made about motor cars. Deputy Tully referred to luxury cars. Deputy Donegan referred to the necessity for workers to have cars or scooters in order to get to work. The people with the bigger cars are using them for the same purpose and paying substantially for them. Who pays the bill when the demands are high?

Dr. O'Donovan

The worker pays the bill.

Mr. Gallagher

These financial provisions are selective. There is no doubt about that. They are aimed at the sections of the community who can best afford to meet them. Certainly they are aimed heavily at business people and at people who can afford cars and other such luxuries.

Up to quite recently the number of cars in the country was few. Now there are many cars and I want to see many more. Driving from the west nowadays one can see on many evenings of the week tremendous numbers of cars pulled up at modern saloons and hotels. They belong to ordinary people out for an evening of enjoyment, and good luck to them.

Mr. Coughlan

Does the Deputy object to that?

Mr. Gallagher

No, but when somebody talks about the poor fellow with the car——

Mr. P. Belton

Those people make the money themselves. Fianna Fáil do not give it to them. From the way the Deputy is talking one would think Fianna Fáil give them every bloody thing.

Mr. Gallagher

I did not imply that. Somebody said there was not any inflation or any need for these remedial measures. Such people are closing their eyes to reality. It was because of the serious indicators of inflation that these measures were introduced. Somebody suggested that our exports were not being affected. Such a person has little experience of the export position. I can assure him our exports were affected.

Mr. Coughlan

What about the speculative building? Will the Deputy confine himself to speculative builders?

Dr. O'Donovan

And the price of houses.

Mr. Coughlan

Particularly in the building industry.

Mr. Gallagher

——and if this is not checked it can have serious consequences and could lead to an increase in unemployment.

Mr. P. Belton

One effect of these measures is that many Taca men will be caught in the net, particularly in the surtax net. In these measures the wholesale tax on certain commodities is being increased to 25 per cent. Cars are included among these commodities but as many Deputies have said already, a car is not a luxury in many cases. Many workers employed in the building industry come from places as far away as Drogheda and further north as well as from Counties Kildare, Meath and Wicklow each day to work in Dublin. Usually two to four people travel together. These people will be hit hard both by the increase in road tax and by the increase in the cost of cars. The Minister has said that there is no purchase tax on second-hand cars but, of course, the cost of such cars will be increased indirectly. If a new car costs another £50, a second-hand car will go up in value by £30 or £40.

In relation to surtax I presume that the allowance against income tax on the first £2,500 will remain at 7½ per cent. If this tax were increased it would hit small businesses. Above the figure of £2,500 there will be an increase from 50 per cent to 58 per cent or, approximately, 1s 6d in the £. What I do see wrong with this is that Irish companies are now being taxed while those drawing a dividend from English companies are not taxed at all because we have no say in English companies. This can encourage people to take money from Irish companies and invest it in English companies. I am not sure of the figure for English companies but it is about 42 per cent—that would be the total amount—whereas here it is now 58 per cent. This is doing no more than making more money available to the Government. It is merely another way of collecting tax. It is not providing any incentive for people to save and it will not prevent people from overspending.

A person who draws a dividend now can still live well. Why not impose surtax on the actual money he draws out of a company this year even without freezing dividends? If he leaves his money in the company he will be able to get shares at the end of this freeze. Also there are many people working, for instance, in Guinness who invest their money there and who might be earning £400 or £500 per year from their investment. These provisions will mean that many people will pay corporation tax to the extent of 1s 6d in the £ extra on each £1 they earn. A man living on a small amount of money—I think the limit is £500 per annum—is not entitled to social welfare benefits. Such a man cannot get an increased dividend. Those wage earners who have received the 12th round increase can receive an increase of 6 per cent while a person in the category I have been speaking about can get no increase whatsoever. Would it not be better to pay out the money now and then impose a blanket for a number of years if necessary?

There are many architects, solicitors and other professional people who will pay nothing extra under these measures. I have no wish to speak about people in any particular profession but I might say that some of them are getting a lot more than many businessmen, those who export and otherwise. This is particularly true when these professional men are Taca tainted.

I have not been able to understand Fianna Fáil policy for many years. It seems to me that they devise their policy as they go along. When I came to Dáil Éireann in 1963, shortly after the introduction of turnover tax, I saw many Fianna Fáil Minister and Deputies running up and down the corridors of Leinster House offering building jobs and various other jobs so that they might win a vote. They won that time by one vote, but after that the cost of living escalated and the Government, of course, had to find more money to pay public servants and so on. What they did was to have a credit squeeze. This was the first cause of inflation. Three years ago they foresaw inflation as they foresaw it 18 months ago when the then Minister for Finance warned the nation about the dangers of inflation but made no mention of any such danger in the Budget introduced shortly afterwards.

Fianna Fáil were warned by Fine Gael, by Labour, by economists, by businessmen, by trade unions and many others that turnover tax would ruin the country but they said they knew better. I hope it was not the civil servants who advised them. Deputy Tully described the last Budget very aptly when he called it a lazy man's Budget. Deputy Haughey was too busy sharpening knives for the Taoiseach to bother about the Budget, so he took the easy way out and doubled the turnover tax.

An incomes policy will work only if the Government's policy is co-ordinated with it. Generally there are two methods used to balance the Budget. One is to increase indirect taxation which reduces personal spending—it is indirect taxation that we have here— while another method is to declare a credit squeeze which stops investment. That is the package deal that the Minister for Finance has given us. Undoubtedly, increased taxation increases the cost of living. A credit squeeze creates unemployment and an increase in unemployment reduces the demand for goods and services. If there is less demand for any product, that puts up the unit cost of that product, which again starts the race to inflation.

I do not believe that under any circumstances this is a 12 months job. The Minister will keep it in operation for as long as he can, or until the trade unions or others make him change it. When it ends, what will happen? Will we have increases of 20 per cent or 30 per cent in the following year? What good is that? There must be some other solution. The Minister is allowing no increased rate for increased productivity. I believe that where increased productivity can be shown there should be an increase in wages. Lately I heard—and I think this is wrong—that there will be a "go slow" campaign by various unions if they cannot get an increase.

There was some discussion about the building industry and the Minister was questioned about it. The Government should have their priorities right. To me the priorities in building are housing, schools and hospitals, and office blocks should only be built, and this money injected into the economy, at the stage where there is no demand for houses or hospitals or schools. I shall deal with that later.

For years the unions were blamed, employers were blamed, prices were blamed, everything was blamed for inflation. I never heard the Minister say that the Government were to blame or even 1 per cent or one-tenth of 1 per cent to blame. For some years past we have had inflation in this country caused by Fianna Fáil. I will give examples of that later on. During the past number of years we have had nobody governing this country. If we pick up the paper tomorrow morning we will see ten Ministers opening this and opening that. Sometimes they open schools. I do not see the point in that. Surely the key can be turned and the children let in without opening the schools officially and having a wine or a beer party afterwards. Ministers are opening this and that when they should be sitting in their offices doing their jobs instead of going around the country looking for publicity for themselves and for the Fianna Fáil Party. They are looking for votes in the next election and not running their Departments.

During a by-election campaign a Minister took six weeks off before the election. That is the way the country is being run. About 18 months ago Deputy Haughey, then Minister for Finance, told us on television that we were really in trouble and that there was a credit squeeze. They then decided to hold an election and things were all right two months later. If they had allowed that Dáil to run its full course, without holding the election at that time, we would have realised the state the economy was in and we would have been ducking all over the place with guns being fired because they were all involved at that time with both things running at the same time. They held the election a year earlier and they are now in power but they will not stay in power for very long. If they had held the election a year later we would have known about the arms trial and the bank strike.

Taxation which affects the workers must certainly put them in a position in which they will make demands. I cannot see these measures lasting unless the Government set about doing their job properly. We must make sure that all the ESB charges are controlled and that indirect taxation is controlled. If there is any increase in taxation, rates must be controlled and I am not speaking only of the rates on a sizeable house. Rates are paid on corporation houses. Everyone pays rates.

When you buy a pound of butter or a pound of sugar you are paying for the rates on the supermarket or shop. If you buy a drink you are paying for the rates on the shop. It is included in the price. The same applies to the purchase of drapery goods. Wherever you buy anything you are paying for the rates which are built into the price. Rates must be controlled if taxation goes up. Shortly before the Minister introduced this provision he said that after this debate no prices would go up. It is amazing to note the number of firms who jumped in the day before: the FUE, the employers' organisations and others. I would not blame them for that. They were 100 per cent right. Who led them? CIE led them. The day before, they got their increase.

The post office got their increase some three weeks earlier. Over the past 12, 13 or 14 months the post office increased their rate by 50 per cent and then they increased that rate by 50 per cent. To give an example, a very short time ago a telephone call cost 4d. It now costs 6d. and it is going up to 9d. Most business people were told that the wage increase was to be 7 per cent and, depending on the amount of labour employed, it was to be less than that, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 per cent. The cost of a telephone call— and this is not taxation in the Budget —went from 4d. to 6d. and is going up to 9d. That is an increase of 125 per cent against the 4 or 5 per cent on average allowed to business people and the 16 to 25 per cent wage increases.

I cannot give the exact figures in relation to bus fares, but the increase is in the region of 40 per cent. The figures vary at different stages. The 1s. fare is now 1s. 5d, an increase of approximately 40 per cent. It can be averaged down to a little less. In my own constituency, because there are not sufficient schools in Bonnybrook and Kilmore, a child has to go to St. Patrick's, Drumcondra, to school and the mother must go with him four times a day. It costs her 10d per trip and 5d for the boy. She has to pay 5s a day because there are not enough schools in that area.

The Government get the money to spend and I do not know where it goes. It must be like the £100,000 which disappeared a short while ago. Fianna Fáil make up their minds as they go along along. I do not believe they have any plan. An ordinary business man or a trade union plans for two, three, four or five years ahead but Fianna Fáil make up their minds as they go along and, if they get stuck, they add on something extra. This is proved by the introduction of two Budgets each year.

The worst thing I have seen done for a number of years was the introduction of retrospective taxation for death duties. In business or in politics the one thing a man has is his word of honour and he should keep it. There is not much of that around nowadays judging by some of the things that have happened. We saw the 12th round agreed on. We saw the Minister cutting across the agreement and refusing to pay the second part of it. He asked local government employees and civil servants to be responsible and to take a 7 per cent increase and he would give them 10 per cent later. Shortly afterwards he told them they would not get the second part of that increase. Now he has changed his mind because there is pressure on him, because there could be a split and Fianna Fáil might have to go to the country, not because of this but for other reasons, and he decides to pay the second part of the agreed increase. Is the Minister implementing the twelfth round in toto or is it just a cash involvement? I do not know the Civil Service grades but a person in, say, the second or third grade, was to get a certain increase plus the 17 per cent. Does this person get the increase for his grade or does he not?

In 1958-59 a house of about 1,100 square feet cost about £1,900. That house would cost £5,500 today. Land at that time was £575 to £600 an acre. It is £10,000 today. This is how prices have increased. Since 1957 there have been depressions and crises and Fianna Fáil always came up with the most fantastic excuses—the Suez crisis, the Chinese war, Vietnam or the Korean war. They have no excuse this time. They have made a mess of the economy and they must take the blame. Do not start blaming trade unions, employers or workers for it. Blame yourselves and your own mishandling of affairs. For as long as I remember, Fianna Fáil have not planned for anything but a stop-go economy.

The phased agreement was one of the finest things introduced into free negotiation between union and employer. The unions kept their side of the agreement. As Deputy Tully said, very often the officials had trouble with the members who wanted the whole increase at once but the officials convinced them that to take a phased increase would be better for them in the long run. How many unions will accept this now? Would anybody here, as a member of a trade union, tomorrow morning accept a £4 increase at the rate of £2 now and £2 in 18 months time? Would Deputy Colley, the Minister for Finance? Not likely.

We have seen the introduction of a group of people known as Taca in this country, a group brought together to supply funds to the Fianna Fáil Party. Members either give an election subscription or an annual subscription and they get in return patronage from a Minister or a Fianna Fáil dominated county council. One has only to look at the list of names at the front of any Government building—the architect, the engineer, everybody concerned —and one sees that 90 per cent of them are Taca people and of the other 10 per cent some of them have been there for years. The builders are Taca people. Again the odd one has been there for years. Go to Collinstown and see who does all the building out there or look at the machines used for road widening around the country and look at the names on them. Shortly before the Wicklow and Cork by-elections on my way from Cork I saw machinery with a certain name on it. I decided to check on who he was. I was out in Greystones and he turned up with a Fianna Fáil sticker on his car. It is known in the building community in this city, of which I am a member, that if one has a problem, if one wants to get land passed and there is a slight doubt about it, there is only one way to do it and that is to get a Fianna Fáil architect. If that is not done it will not be passed. Go to Local Government tomorrow morning and you will see the Fianna Fáil architects walking in. I never pass by without seeing them walking in. I know them. I was at school with some of them. How can the people of Ireland and business people be expected to be honest when they see this in Fianna Fáil? The people have become a little more enlightened lately on account of what has happened in the courts. These things have been kept under the carpet for a long time. For years we cried "Wolf" here and even the newspapers said we were only shouting about it. Now the people understand it.

I cannot see this pay pause lasting but if it does last will the Fianna Fáil Government get down to work and try to get agreement about proper negotiation and fix up trade union matters instead of shouting and doing no work? We should try to get all demands into a two month period. If May and June is the period all payments should be retrospective to the 1st May. We should do away with leap-frogging because leap-frogging does no worker any good and it does a lot of harm to the economy.

I want to ask the Minister what will happen to the person who has not got any moiety of his twelfth round? Will he get a twelfth round? Will the female worker in the Civil Service or semi-State body, where it has been agreed that on a phased basis female workers will move on to the male scale of pay, get her increase? Will this be allowed in the twelfth round, or is it just money with no side benefits? I presume that, if there is a clause in the agreement referring to an increase in the cost of living, that also goes. When Mr. Wilson brought in his controls in England he spelt them out. It was not a panic situation like that here. I presume that, if there is an incremental scale plus the 12 per cent, the man gets it. If there is an apprentice carpenter who is senior he must get senior rates and whatever goes with it?

I want to say something about office blocks. One or two were built on a trial basis and all the space was taken. As a result three or four more blocks were built. Then a couple of companies were formed, and I guarantee none of the people in Fine Gael or Labour were directors of them. As soon as the office space was available the banks, the insurance companies and the Civil Service took it and they paid a price of 25s to 30s per square foot for it. Private enterprise would have paid nothing like that for it. The Civil Service, the banks and the insurance companies should have left those office blocks alone and let demand and supply work out the cost.

What happened? We had the ex-Minister for Finance saying he intended to get a big office block built. The Bank of Ireland and insurance companies wanted them also. They got them but they paid for them. They are now paying from 30s to £2 per square foot for space in those office blocks. During the next 18 months the cost will increase to £3 a square foot. If they left those office blocks to private enterprise at the beginning the cost would have been 18s a square foot and it would then have gone up gradually to 25s and 30s a square foot.

Who is causing inflation? It is the Government who are causing it. They inflate everything they touch because they do not know the value of anything. A businessman would laugh at the way they act. No businessman would employ anybody on the front bench over there because they are not capable of running anything. The Minister for Finance says that he will control house prices. How will he do this? If he controls the land he cannot build. How will he control houses? If he puts a price on them they will cut down on the cost and instead of using a four-inch skirting board they will use the next size.

We should make a law tomorrow morning that, if there is a new house for sale, it should be compulsory for the builder to state the floor area and then the tenant would not be completely in the dark. I do not mind a man buying a bad suit because he will buy many in his lifetime, but very often a man will purchase only one house in his lifetime. Anybody who breaks his word on an agreement is not worth his salt.

The local government employees had an eleventh round where they were allowed a percentage increase on a floor rate but before they negotiated the twelfth round they were told there would be no bar. They could look for grade increase and if they did not get them they could get their 17 per cent. They agreed to accept the 7 per cent first, unlike other workers who looked for the higher percentage first. When the first part of this increase went through, the Minister for Finance said the second part was not being given. He then changed his mind. Will those grade increases which have been agreed on be honoured? Will the grades who had their claims in before April 1st get their settlement in full? As far as I know, the Minister said that those whose claims were in on 2nd April would be settled by having the first half given from the 1st October and the second half on 1st April, 1971. I should like the Minister to clarify those matters.

There is also the case of the Civil Service where a particular grade must go for their increase before another can go for it. If one man gets his increase, although he may be junior to the man above him, he gets more than the man above him unless the Minister lets this go through. The Minister's Department must be very short of money because the draughtsmen in Dublin Corporation are being paid back twelve months to last October. The Mayo County Council and a few other county councils have not been paid.

Mr. P. Belton

The Deputy might be. In the case of the banks there was an agreement between them that, subject to reasonable competence, all ladies on scale 2 who at present have more than twelve years' service will be advanced from the date of resumption of work to the appropriate service point on scale 3. It is further agreed that when they have completed their twelfth year of service all ladies will be promoted to a more responsible job carrying the scale 3 rate provide they are generally competent to carry out such duties. Will that be implemented or not? Will we have them out on strike again? It might suit the Government to have them out on strike again. I have many more things to say about this but I will leave it to the vote of no confidence because the one thing a person has in business is his word of honour. I have said this many times and I will never get tired of saying it. Either the Minister for Finance has not the ability or he has no word. Either way he should get out. Anyway it will not be very long before he will be moving, and I shall have more to say about that when the vote of no confidence comes before the House.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Our party's position on these proposals has been rather fully stated by the Leader of the Party, Deputy Corish, and by our spokesman on Finance, Deputy Tully. I do not want to add much to what they have said because I do not think anyone here on the Opposition side wishes to protract this debate. What the country wants to see us get to is the motion of no confidence. They want to see how long they will be stuck with the most incompetent and disastrous Government in our history as an independent State.

I just want to concentrate on one point on which I should like the Minister to answer some specific questions. This arises from the Minister's statement in which he lists the items, or some of them, on which the Government's Estimates have been very widely exceeded. We have got used to these under-estimations and we now take figures like these very much in our stride. However, there is one of them about which I should like to know much more for obvious reasons. On page 15 of the Minister's speech he says:

The principal non-capital items exceeding the budget provisions are as follows:

	£m
Public service remuneration	£8.2
Additional assistance to CIE	£3.6
Social Welfare	£3.6
Health	£2.8
Defence	£1.6

I do not propose to comment on the first four of those items. We know something about those increases, but I do want to ask some questions about this excess in Defence expenditure. Further on the Minister says:

You have not, because there is no quorum.

If the Deputy continues along those lines I shall ask him to resume his seat. The Deputy is being deliberately disorderly.

Dr. O'Connell

Is it in order for Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to discuss matters concerning the Department of Defence?

An Ceann Comhairle

No, not in the present debate. I have already told the Deputy that.

Mr. Lemass

You will have your chance.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This speech includes a reference to £1.6 million excess expenditure on Defence as a reason why we are to pass these measures. How can the Chair tell us we cannot discuss Defence? The Chair must give us some reason for this.

An Ceann Comhairle

I agree that the Minister mentioned it in passing and so did the Deputy. The Deputy cannot hang a debate on defensive measures in this debate.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am not trying to hang a debate on anything. The Chair is trying to protect Deputy James Gibbons.

Mr. Dowling

Do not sulk.

Deputies

Adios, amigo.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Grow a moustache and be like Hitler.

Dr. Byrne

We are asked to agree to increased taxation of the nature of 25 per cent on motor scooters, motor cycles and motor cars. In many cases these are necessary. Very few motor vehicles in this country are used solely for pleasure. Rural Deputies have stressed the importance of a mechanically-propelled vehicle for the purpose of transporting people to their places of employment. The same applies in the city areas of Finglas and Ballymun, for example, where residents of those areas have to travel to factories on the south side of the city. It is completely unjust to introduce this measure and to ask us to agree to increased road taxation in a situation where no allowance is made from the point of view of income tax for the taxation paid in respect of such vehicles. The Minister for Finance has made a big error in introducing a proposal to increase from 15 to 20 per cent the wholesale tax on luxury goods—specifically in regard to the purchase of caravans.

The Minister for Finance is completely out of touch with what is happening at the moment. Many newly-weds and homeless families are housing themselves in caravans or mobile homes. Sometimes they live in them for many years. If one drives along the Naas Road and around Clondalkin one sees caravans parked alongside the road. The Minister proposes to increase the tax on this necessary method of housing for so many of our people, unfortunately, by at least 6 to 7 per cent——

Mr. Dowling

So you want people to live in caravans now?

Dr. Byrne

Unfortunately some of our people have had to provide housing for themselves by way of caravans or mobile homes because of the disastrous handling of the housing problem by Fianna Fáil. Apart altogether from the crows' nests in Ballymun Fianna Fáil has now turned some of our people into a new tinker class in Clondalkin, for example. Not only that but Fianna Fáil are also trying to drive them off the road. It is a disgraceful attempt to batten on the inevitable result of the housing problem in this country. In Ballymun, there are young families living in flats which are 16 and 17 storeys high. There is a town in Ballymun which has not been visited by the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Dowling

That is a lie.

Dr. Byrne

It is a town which the Minister promised last year to visit.

Mr. Dowling

I was in Ballymun with the Minister.

Dr. Byrne

The Deputy was run out of it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is not discussing housing, per se.

The rate at which differential rents are charged is frozen.

Dr. Byrne

But it is a fact that they can still be increased?

Mr. Colley

Is the Deputy serious?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Coughlan

The beginning of what?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Coughlan

All differential rents are increasing every day of the week. Maximum rents are being increased——

Mr. Dowling

Dr. Byrne

——and which resulted in the return of Fianna Fáil to government with a majority. This will never happen again.

Mr. Dowling

We heard it before.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Coughlan

The deals have been made. You have patched up your problems for the time being. We all know that.

A Deputy

Have you done that?

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Byrne

Earlier, we were asked by the Minister to consider the first Resolution here concerning luxury goods. All agree that jewellery and yachts and such things are luxuries but I feel the Minister has overlooked the very grave problem in housing and has contributed greatly to putting the lower priced home, the mobile home and caravan out of reach of lower paid workers many of whom use these to provide themselves with housing.

The third Financial Resolution will result in a decrease in the amount of home investment, a decrease in industrial development and in the number of jobs. This is all contrary to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the IDA are attempting to do. We had the ridiculous situation in the last Budget where the Minister was referring to inflation. That Budget was defended by the present Minister as the previous Budget was defended by him as being a proper one at that time. Now he is trying to rectify the shortcomings of that Budget. Under Resolution No. 3 the Minister will contribute to the extinction of certain borderline companies. It will not affect foreign companies coming in as they will still enjoy 15 or 20 years taxation exemption but it will certainly affect some of the older home industries.

We are going to have an increase in the number of unemployed which, as the Minister should know, will result in an increase in the number of social welfare and unemployment benefits paid. We are going to have a decrease in the moneys available to these industries for expansion, a decrease in the amount available for re-investment in their business. It is a type of taxation which while attempting to hit the moneyed people is, in fact, going to have an adverse affect on the workers. It will result in increased unemployment and it will backfire.

In many ways it is weakening many industries at a critical time, when we are at a critical stage in negotiations for our entry into the EEC. It will reduce the capacity of some of these companies to survive when we do enter the EEC. In fact, it is the opposite type of resolution which should be brought in in order to encourage these companies to strengthen themselves and to increase their capacity for expansion and survival and thereby provide more jobs and thus help to alleviate unemployment.

The Minister has made a big mistake here, just as he made a mistake in some of the other Resolutions. He cannot be expected to see everything; he is looking over his shoulder an awful lot, but certainly he should see some of the more obvious flaws on which he is asking us to vote. The Government have got to get more money there is no doubt about that. Government funds have obviously been mishandled. We still do not know the date of payment of the Seven Days Tribunal or who is going to pay for the arms trial but money will have to be found. Obviously, the money is going to come from the taxpayer's pocket to pay for these two fiascos, these two circuses. It is a pity to see the Minister at this stage attempting to block the crippling inflation which we have, attempting to put off, perhaps, the inevitable devaluation of the pound. Already he has relented in regard to the second stage of the 12th round because the credibility of the Government front benches is such that no employer or employee could have any further confidence in any wage increase negotiated. We opposed this and we opposed it as strongly as we could and as a result of our opposition and of the counsel of others we have succeeded in getting the Minister to reverse that decision to limit the increase in the second stage of the 12th round.

The Government have obviously lost touch completely with the working class people. The increase in road tax on motor cycles and scooters indicates to a certain degree the shortsightedness of the Government. Many of these vehicles are necessary for different sections of the community to get to work. The milk man has to be in at a time when there are no buses running and very often the shift worker on his way home has no means of transport other than a scooter or motor cycle. None of them has an allowance for their small vehicles. Many of them, perhaps, would rather travel by public transport but as it is not there they cannot do so. On many occasions we have appealed for a certain tax exemption to be granted to those who have to travel over two miles, but this has been ignored. This is a section in regard to which the Minister should give consideration for exemption in regard to road taxation just as he should reconsider the possibility of investigating the financial circumstances of people who buy mobile homes or caravans. As Deputy Donegan pointed out, to differentiate between a mobile home and a caravan will be practically impossible. To include mobile homes which have not got wheels will be challenged in the courts. There is also the question of including radio sets as luxuries. I do not think they are luxuries any longer.

One of the most unpleasant things which we witnessed was the way in which CIE and the Post Office got in with their increases before the Minister clamped down. This possibly would indicate that there was a leak to certain quarters that a freeze was coming and that they should get in with their increase as soon as possible. The Minister earlier referred to the fact that he was aware that poverty existed but I think he has forgotten how severe poverty can be. As late as a year ago members on the opposite benches were stomping around the country announcing different policies and solutions for borders and so on but they have rapidly forgotten that those as well were part of their policy.

One thing which I regret to see is the necessity for an increase in the Defence Estimate caused by our troops keeping the peace overseas, along with the British troops. If the United Nations owe us money they should give us the money and the bill should not be thrown once more on to the tax-payers. This is not solely a Budget which hits the well-off sections of the community because it hits many of the lower paid people. Because of that it is going to create hardship and lead to a greater tightening of the belt than is apparent at first glance. The Minister obviously has not had time to think of the many innocent people who will be caught up by the imposition of these Resolutions.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is one matter to which no reference has been made so far in this debate. That is the major cause of the inflation in this country. Deputy Gallagher seems to think the ordinary workers were responsible for it. I have no doubt at all as to who the people are who are mainly or wholly responsible for it; they are the people sitting on the front benches over there.

The Minister referred today to current expenditure by the State of £490 million. We are told GNP has gone up and the Minister quoted a capital programme of £190 million, making a total of £680 million to be completed. Let me compare the year 1970 with the year 1960. What was Government expenditure in that year? In case the Minister has not learned it since he took up office a short while ago let me enlighten him: it was under £200 million. Now he and his Government, in the year 1970, are going to spend well over £600 million. Very much worse than that is a matter to which I have referred time and time again here—the creation of credit by the commercial banks. In October of last year the commercial banks created credit to the tune of £25 million for the Government. We learn from the Quarterly Bulletin of the Central Bank, which we got a few days ago, with regard to Government stocks that £25 million worth of an issue of 8½ per cent Conversion Stock, 1973, was taken up by the associated banks at the end of March. We are told in the annual report of the Central Bank, which could not say a good word about Government expenditure, that in the current financial year to 31st March next of the £75 million extension the Government are to get £50 million and the rest of us £25 million. The Government are employing directly and indirectly at the very most 200,000 out of the 1,000,000 who work. Yet, they are to get £50 million out of the £75 million additional credit to be created by the commercial banks.

The Minister need not tell me how inflation has been created. That lying crowd over there, as they are now proved to be, need not tell me how this inflation has come about. I know how it has come about. How many ordinary people are spending today 3½ times as much as they were spending in 1960? But the Government are doing just that. I asked the Minister a question about the sale of gold by the Central Bank. He did not enlighten me. I notice the information is in this document. I am sure the Minister knew the answer. They have sold an additional £5 million worth of our small supply of gold between the end of March and the beginning of June at 35 dollars an ounce. The price of gold is up now to 40 dollars an ounce. Are we trying to jettison everything? Are we selling the country out? This is how it appears to me.

There is only one good aspect in this whole thing and, strangely enough, the Minister did not refer to it; I refer to the fact that our exports, in spite of all the talk about wages on the part of the Tánaiste, have increased more than our imports. That is an important factor because it means that the percentage deficit in our balance of trade is down. It was 60 per cent last year and it is down to 50 per cent this year. Our exports as a percentage of total exports and imports are about ten per cent more this year than they were last year.

What is the use of the Minister coming in here with all this nonsense, for that is what it is? I know why this has happened. It has happened as a result of all the talk by the Tánaiste; it is in all the publications by the NIEC and the Central Bank and all the rest of them. But there is no real evidence to support it. It is an attack on the people with the lowest incomes, the ordinary workers. That is what it is. It is a dirty, filthy business. I do not mind how it is embellished or what swank words are used to describe it. I could not care less. I have seen this thing too often and I know too much to swallow something from a man who was over in the Department of Industry and Commerce for a number of years, a Department in which they did not bother any longer about serious problems.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Dr. O'Donovan

An additional £16.6 million was used for conversion of 8½ per cent Conversion Stock, 1970, of which £18.2 million fell due for redemption and then the redemption of important other stocks could not be carried out. That, of course, will be done in the same way. Foreign issues amounted almost to £18 million in the eight months ended last August. Foreign issues by the Government amounted to £18 million. Is the Minister old enough to remember the time his party put the sign of the pawnbroker on every hoarding in this city when Deputy McGilligan was issuing an internal loan here? It happened in the year 1950. That party opposite put the sign of the pawnbroker on every hoarding in this city.

And that is not the whole story. In addition to these loans the Government negotiated in August a credit facility for £12 million with a number of foreign banks. That, of course, is the same as using the printing press. What is the printing press? It is the best known method of inflating. There is nothing to compare with it. The ordinary worker has no printing press. But the Government has unlimited facilities for using the printing press and they were doing it good-oh while the banks were closed. It had to be done. Otherwise the economy could not have kept ticking over.

The other day the Taoiseach said that the rest of us had no figures. How could we have any figures when the Government ceased to issue the Exchequer statements when the banks had been closed for a month? They could have issued something in substitution, if they felt like it, but that did not suit their book. Yet the Taoiseach comes out blandly last week and says: "We have the figures and you have not". In fact, the Government have no more real figures in relation to the economy than we have.

This whole thing is somewhat irrelevant to the whole situation and that is why the Opposition parties when they saw these Financial Resolutions said: "Ach, this is stupid". The Government have destroyed their own creditability and they have destroyed the credit of the country. They destroyed it in the Autumn of 1965 when they went from America, where they were refused a loan, to the International Monetary Fund, to Germany from Germany to Britain, and, in a loan of £5 million, the only genuine subscriptions amounted to about £250,000 and another £250,000 came from an insurance company which is really operating in this country and the subscription was, therefore, part of their normal subscription to our National Loan. Ten years earlier the Government could have raised £50 million in London at the drop of a hat but, when the Government went for a loan of £5 million, they got genuine subscriptions of only £250,000 and the underwriters sold the loan down three or four points within a couple of weeks. The Minister need not talk to me about what is creating inflation in this country—the Government are the chief creators. Inflation is now the fashionable word. In reply to a question some time ago the Minister told me that inflation exists all around us. It is worse in this country than in Western Europe at present and I do not think the Minister would deny that fact.

Mr. Colley

On the contrary, this is what I have been trying to get across.

The House will also see what I mean by waste and extravagance. All this money is going in subsidies of one kind or another. Subsidies are all right if applied in limited fields but subsidies should not be granted for everything.

I do not wish to talk about the generality of the provisions in this Bill except to offer this observation. In this country we have come to accept venality and corruption as the norm from Fianna Fáil and this is not surprising. We are keen on festivals and in the last few months we have had such a festival of lies that people are no longer surprised at anything.

One of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, who distinguished himself in the last few days by scurrying for cover, told me a few months ago at a by-election that although Fianna Fáil might not be distingushed by their morality or intellectual ability at least one had to admire their political intelligence and their skill as operators. What strikes me about this Budget is its extraordinary stupidity. It is belated and inadequate and, after the passage of almost half a year, a rather irrelevant intervention in relation to a situation which apparently went unrecognised by the Government when the Budget was introduced in April. The failure to understand what was being said with extraordinary unanimity from all directions—from different political parties and economists and others—was a mark of stupidity, incompetency and ineptitude. We will spend time in a few days recalling to some of the financial experts on the far side of the House the marvellously ridiculous things they had to say a few months ago. I do not propose to do it now. I want on this occasion, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, your guidance on this point. I am using the typescript of the Minister's speech and I want to refer to the last item on page 15:

"The principal non-capital items exceeding the Budget provisions are as follows:

Whether the agreement is valid or not I have no intention of holding the Minister out. I conclude by saying that in my view the inclusion of this section in the Minister's speech and in this legislation is improper, that it is an error of judgment on his part which he might see fit to rectify.

Mr. Clinton

It appears I have now five minutes, according to the arrangement entered into between the Whips. In any case, all I have to say I can say quickly. The real reason why we are here tonight discussing an autumn Budget, the reason why the Minister had to come to the House today and shamefacedly admit to us that the economy of the country had been allowed to drift into a deplorable state, is simply that we have had no Government in the country for some considerable time past.

Instead of a Government concerned with efficiently and effectively administering the affairs of the nation, we had a warring group of Fianna Fáil Deputies and Ministers, concerned about their own internal troubles and engaging in matters that have done irreparable harm both inside and outside the country—outside the country when it was never more important that the good name of the country and our ability to govern ourselves as a nation should be evident to all.

In the first page of his statement the Minister referred to the necessity for prompt and effective action. After 32 years of Fianna Fáil Government we have an admission about the deplorable state of the economy, about the way employment is dropping, the way the balance of payments has gone against us.

I understand now that there has been no agreement between the Whips. Nevertheless, I do not wish to keep the Minister out, but I should like to say that we should not be deceived by messages of one sort or another to the effect that there has been agreement.

Mr. Tully

In the Dáil it does not matter if you tell lies. That is the new procedure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair was perfectly clear by indicating that all it had was information on this matter. The Chair made a query in regard to it.

Mr. Clinton

We are told about the prompt action the Government are now taking, a Government which have been noted for their irresponsible promises prior to elections and prior to by-elections—a crisis today and no crisis tomorrow, avoiding taking action to try to keep themselves together. Keeping themselves together as a party and as a Government has been practically their sole occupation for some considerable time. I understand that in the past hour there has been another meeting and that now there is a new agreement, that Deputy Blaney has come around and that he is now to toe the line. Now, therefore, there is a new decision to hang on and not let the people have a hand in trying to save the country.

We have heard about this prompt action. On page 2 of the Minister's speech we are told the consumer price index rose, on average, by about 3 per cent during the decade 1958 to 1967, and that this trend started to change in the latter year. We had a 5 per cent increase in 1968, this rose to 7½ per cent the following year and it is now running at 8.4 per cent. Still we are told about the prompt action.

Some of these people maintain that everybody has gone mad here, that we have no Government and no security.

Mr. J. Lenehan

None of us has been in a mental home.

Mr. Clinton

We are told that the real growth of national production is only 2 per cent in 1970. Everything that we have been told this evening spells out clearly the failure of the Government to do their own job. We are told about the extra cost for Defence and for extra security precautions but we are not told in any detail why this extra security was needed. However, most of us have a good idea as to why it was needed. Certainly, it was not needed because of any increase in the numbers in the Army or because of the purchase of better equipment. Neither was it caused by increased fishery protection. Last spring we were presented with a crude Budget, a Budget that was designed, one would have thought, to create inflation. It was obvious that it was a Budget prepared by somebody who was not doing his job and whose time was engaged in other pursuits. Certainly it was not prepared by someone who was concerned with the circumstances of the time.

Barry, Peter.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Joan.
Burke, Liam.
Burke, Richard.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Hugh.
Clinton, Mark A.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cott, Gerard.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
Desmond, Barry.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Enright, Thomas W.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Finn, Martin.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Fox, Billy.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Keating, Justin.
Kenny, Henry.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lynch, Gerard.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Donovan, John.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Reilly, Paddy.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Séamus.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Taylor, Francis.
Thornley, David.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies R. Burke and Cluskey.

Question declared carried.

Resolutions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, reported and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29th October, 1970.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 28 Oct 1970