Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1971

Vol. 253 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 8: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

—(Minister for Finance).

Mr. Cosgrave

The comments that have been made on the Budget that was introduced yesterday are unanimous in their acceptance of the serious economic and financial position that faces the country. This position has been obvious for some considerable time. The precise proposals in the Budget make little or no difference to the overall situation. The proposals that have been introduced merely make some changes in respect of the substantial increase in the cost of living as it affects the social welfare recipients and some changes in payments in respect of agriculture to compensate for the deterioration in the position of agricultural producers compared with other sections of the community.

This is the first Budget of this year. We have now become accustomed to two Budgets in the accepted sense each year without taking into account additional increases of one type or another that are imposed as a result of individual ministerial or special Government decisions. Last year the Supplementary Budget made certain changes. The principal changes were originally designed to cover what was regarded as a package deal between the Government and the representations that had been made on behalf of trade unions and wage earners. That package deal involved an increase in company taxation and a proposal to impose by legislation compulsory prices and incomes proposals. As a result of strenuous representations the prices and incomes portion of that arrangement was withdrawn and the Government merely maintained and continued the other side of the package deal in respect of company taxation.

This is one aspect of Government policy that has been the subject of quite considerable criticism because of its effect on industry and the reaction on employment. No one pretends that the present position is easy or that it is entirely due to Government mismanagement. Outside factors have naturally some effect on our economy and on economic and financial aspects of life here. In addition there are reactions from action taken by individual groups in the community which have an impact on the national interest but when allowances are made for all of these effects and influences the present Government have neither acted effectively nor efficiently to deal with the situation.

Last October the measures that were introduced in the Supplementary Budget were introduced for the purpose of correcting the substantial gap that was arising, to act as a brake on rising prices and to introduce some order into the situation but, under pressure, the Government abandoned one part of that proposal and maintained the other. The effect of the proposal has been criticised strenuously, not merely by Deputies and by Opposition spokesmen, but by those directly concerned. The Confederation of Irish Industries, which in the past was not ever regarded as unduly critical of Fianna Fáil Governments, has repeatedly expressed the view that the increase in taxation imposed in the Supplementary Budget was harmful to Irish industry, that it raised for the first time company taxation here to a higher level than that obtaining in Britain. The recent British Budget reduced company taxation to 40 per cent. In our case it varies from a total of 74 per cent to 58 per cent. I do not think it is accepted that the calculations made yesterday by the Minister for Finance apply in many cases to companies here. In any event, the effective rate of taxation in most cases is higher than, or as high, as in Britain.

The increase in company taxation occurred at a time of rising unemployment. Last year we had a total of more than 7 per cent on the unemployment register and the early months of this year show a continued deterioration. When we couple that with the fact that our competitive position vis-à-vis Britain and the other OECD countries has deteriorated and when we examine the Government proposals to increase the subventions to the Industrial Development Authority, we are entitled to ask what precise economic policy is being followed.

Under the Capital Budget it is proposed to increase the amount of money made available to the IDA from £18.5 million to £23 million—an increase of approximately 22 per cent. This is to provide and stimulate industrial employment and to provide and assist the establishment of new industries. At the same time, we are continuing with proposals that raised company taxation in the supplementary Budget last year and which bring us to as high a rate as, and in the upper limit higher than, similar taxation in Britain. On the one hand, in the most expensive possible way, we are trying to generate and establish new industries and, on the other hand, we are taxing excessively industries that are established and that have been, and are, providing employment. We are preventing them from expanding, developing and meeting the problems they must face in competition with other countries.

One of the effects of company taxation has been to increase the tax taken from companies in respect of the Budget of last year from a total of £3.5 million last year to £6 million in a full year. This is being done when the growth of imports from British firms to this country has doubled in the last five years.

The Government proposals have not been adequately thought out. There is growing feeling that the failure of the Government to adopt a consistent, coherent policy in regard to industry and finance has been shown in this situation. The figures to which I have referred indicate the situation that has developed in industry compared with that which obtained prior to the Supplementary Budget of last year. This year we reached the half-way stage in the working of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. Since the agreement was concluded imports from Britain have doubled and most firms are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with British imports.

We can compare the deterioration in our trading position with the review which was undertaken by the OECD. In that review it is stated that a significant improvement as compared with Britain seems unlikely, even though the inflation prevailing in Britain has been described by the OECD as probably the most acute ever faced by any major country. In the past year our prices have risen by more than 8 per cent; 2½ per cent points of that were due to the increase in the turnover tax in May, 1970. We can compare that with the price rises in most of the countries of Europe with whom we must compete: there was a 4 per cent rise in Germany and a rise of between 5 per cent to 7 per cent in France, United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States.

There is no doubt that this increase has hit hardest the pensioners and those people on fixed incomes. The Budget yesterday merely marked time. The increases given to pensioners, social welfare recipients and those people who are covered in what might be described as the "giveaway" aspects of the Budget are designed merely to compensate for the actual rise in the cost of living that has occurred in the last 12 months. Moreover, there is the defect that, although the cost of living has risen eight points in the last year, the proposed increases will not apply in many cases until August and in other instances until October. At the same time, it applies only to those who are covered by social welfare benefits.

What has been done about pensioners or people who have invested their savings and made arrangements to cover their retirement years? These people, through their exertions and efforts during their years of employment, tried to provide for their declining years but because of the present level at which pensions are applicable they will not benefit.

The change in respect of income tax will mean very little in most of these cases. As was pointed out yesterday, the fact that 20,000 persons have been removed from the income tax net is insignificant when we consider that at present there are more than 500,000 persons eligible for payment of tax. While costs have risen in this country, we have seen what has happened in OECD countries and other countries with whom we are competing. Unit wage costs here were higher than in any of the OECD countries over the past 12 months. That has had an impact and, as Deputies are aware, and as the country is aware, the introduction of decimalisation has coincided with a price explosion. There is no doubt about it that price increases have been phenomenal since the introduction of decimalisation.

In the course of his Budget speech yesterday the Minister made a number of abstruse calculations on the effect of the increases in the price of beer and spirits. He eventually calculated the amount that would be available to Revenue and the amount that would be allowed to the trade. His calculations were obviously made on the basis of statistical information available to the Revenue Commissioners and his Department.

I want to come to another aspect of the Budget on which no similar calculation was made, that is, the health proposals. On this aspect the Budget is vague and imprecise. It is suggested that a total sum of £2 million will be raised from the proposed compulsory insurance. At this stage, with the amount of statistical information available on the number of persons insured in different categories, it ought to be possible to calculate precisely, or within a reasonable margin, what the stamp charge will be. I approach this matter with the very gravest doubts because of past experience of the Government's proposals.

When the 1947 Health Act was introduced, and when the present health scheme was established on foot of that Act, the claim was made that the increase in rates as a result of that proposal would not exceed 2s in the £. With the possible exception of the initial year, it was never as low at 2s at any time. It has rocketed year after year to such an extent that it became a political embarrassment to each Minister for Health and a financial embarrassment to each Minister for Finance. About 75 per cent of the present cost of the health charges is due to institutional costs. At present those who are liable are charged 10s a day. The Minister must have information either in the Department of Health or available from the health authorities, with regard to the charges in respect of those patients who are now benefiting under the health scheme. It ought to be possible, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, to calculate and to know the figures in respect of the health charges. The likelihood is that the proposals put forward will bear more heavily on those people than the 10s they pay at present.

It is bad national economics and bad financing to bring in a proposal of this character and not give more details at a time when we have more up-to-date statistics and more accurate information than ever before, with computers available in Revenue and in Government Departments. It should be possible to give more information than just a blanket figure of £2 million. This information must be available in some form in the Department of Health because not merely did the present Minister say that the scheme was being examined but his predecessor said that the situation was being investigated and considered.

If the present proposals are introduced, how much of the cost will fall on the rates? What additional burden will be placed on the rates? How much of the cost will be borne by the State? The proposals are quite imprecise and quite vague as to their effect on the community as a whole. For years we have advocated the idea of a compulsory insurance scheme. Many years ago when he was Minister for Health, Deputy O'Higgins introduced a voluntary health insurance scheme which has worked well. It was the basis of a health scheme coupled with the health scheme under the social welfare code. With the statistics available of the number of persons insured under both those schemes, it ought to be possible, within reasonable limits, to ascertain what precisely will be the effect of these proposals.

I want to come back to the real effect of the Budget on the economy. Last year was the third successive year in which this country ran heavy external deficits, heavy deficits on the balance of payments. As described by a distinguished economist, Professor Meenan, it was the third wasted year, a year in which prices have risen, in which unemployment has increased, in which the cost of every commodity to every section of the community has increased and which has seen there living standards depressed or worsened. There are no proposals for expansion in this Budget. There are no proposals of an imaginative kind to assist in the development of our resources. In fact, the capital Budget has been examined and the outturn for last year scrutinised and, in almost every case, a slightly revised figure was put into the Estimates for the coming year.

Why is this so? We have repeatedly pointed out that the present indecision and lack of a coherent economic and financial policy are characteristic and symptomatic of the whole Government approach not merely to economic and financial affairs but also to political affairs. This country has now had almost 50 years of self-Government, 50 years in which Governments have been producing Budget after Budget, years in which the ordinary machinery of Government has been in operation. In my memory, for the first time when the estimates of receipts and expenditure for the year ended 31st March were presented to the Dáil, they were presented in stencilled form. The significance of this is that it was a rushed job, that revisions were made in haste, and made for the reason which has characterised every aspect of Government policy in recent weeks, the need to backtrack on the decision on the dole.

I do not know whether Deputies have had a look at this document. At the second column of figures in respect of capital for the year 1970-1971 the figure is written in—written into a document presented on behalf of the Government to the people of the estimate of receipts and expenditure for the year. The reason it was written in is that somewhere lower down a figure had appeared and a correction had to be made to ensure that the right figure appeared earlier. It is not correct to argue that some mistake was made in respect of the dole order. Absolutely no mistake was made because the figure that was expected to be saved in respect of that order was shown in the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare in respect of unemployment assistance. There was a projected reduction there from £9,325,000 to £7,731,000. That could not be changed. That had already been printed when the Estimates, even the delayed Estimates, appeared, because the Estimates this year were, as far as I know, presented at a later date than ever before. They were probably a month later. In an era in which we are supposed to have more efficient statisticians, more efficient systems in the Departments, with computers, with every modern device, we get Estimates at least a month later and when we get the Estimates for Receipts and Expenditure a correction, first of all, is not even printed and, secondly, has to be handwritten in. This indicates the haste and the backtracking.

There is more to it than that. Nobody can accept the statements of Government or economic policy as representing any coherent system or any system that would indicate that the Government are united in where they are going and united in the policy they are pursuing. The Taoiseach spoke in Cork and is reported in the Irish Press of 27th March last as saying that the Budget “will be difficult”.

... he emphasised the Government's willingness to face up to unpopular decisions and actions, of which the current economic difficulties provided and example.

He might have said "one example".

Simply to continue the existing level of public services such as health, education, or social welfare, or aids to agriculture, industries and other sectors will call for substantial increases in Government spending.

That was the statement made by the head of the Government on 27th March when, with the exception of the last week's figures, the entire revenue returns were available to the Taoiseach. Where are the substantial increases in Government expenditure here?

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

£60 million.

Mr. Cosgrave

One of the claims the Minister for Finance made was that he found it possible to prune. To prune what? To prune on paper, because that is all that happened as far as this is concerned; to prune on paper, to make inaccurate calculations to such an extent that every six months we must have a budget in order to correct the mistakes of the previous six months, in order to have another look at how the economy is going. This is the case notwithstanding all the technical skills and assistance that are now available, notwithstanding the increase in Government Departments with the proposal to create a new Department of Public Service, notwithstanding the statisticians, the technocrats and as we are told, the team of skilled Ministers that are available. When the economy was smaller, when the Budget was lower, when the numbers employed were greater than they are today, when there were more people living in Ireland, it was possible to make an accurate assessment from year to year of public expenditure.

According to this Budget, less than £10 million has been provided to compensate old age pensioners for the sharpest rise in the cost of living in our history, and it is still rising. Decimalisation, as I said, has brought about a price explosion. What has happened to the prices machinery of the Department of Industry and Commerce? It is non-existent except to this extent: last March 12 months when the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, was Minister for Industry and Commerce he said there would be an inquiry into drink prices. In a few weeks he had gone to the Department of Finance and his successor in the Department stated in July that there would be an inquiry into drink prices. What happened? What is the result of these inquiries? The price of drink has increased and were it not for the tourist trade last year we would have been in very serious difficulties. Bord Fáilte estimated that as a result of the number of visitors coming to this country the effective employment is 250,000; in other words, the number of tourists coming is the equivalent of 250,000 more persons in employment.

What has been done to attract more tourists this year? What has been done other than to publish vague advertisements? We have increased the price of drink and the price of petrol. We have increased the cost of living to such an extent that this country now has a cost of living comparable to some of the highest in Europe, and that hotel and restaurant charges here are as high as any in Europe. What are the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce doing about it? They are holding an inquiry that will never see the light of day, like the inquiry in respect of drink prices, like the inquiry in respect of everything else. The Minister's answer is that it is a complex problem. It is like the insurance question. We will set up a commission or establish an investigation in regard to it. It is like this question of the budgetary firms: because of the complexity of it we will do nothing about it. This is merely symptomatic of the malaise that is over the Government. The Minister is reported in the Irish Times as saying in an RTE interview on the Budget:

The economy is on the way back. State spending is £7 million down.

The report continues:

He claimed that there had been a £7 million reduction in Government spending since the autumn supplementary Budget.

A few minutes ago he said they were spending £60 million more. What precisely is the Government policy in respect of anything? One minute the Taoiseach says that the Budget will be difficult and that a substantial increase in Government spending will be called for, and then the Minister for Finance goes on an RTE programme and says it is down by £7 million. Have the Government any conception of what is involved in it?

Mr. Colley

Has the Deputy?

Mr. Cosgrave

There was a reference here in the Budget speech to the proposal in respect of what is commonly known as the dole provision, and apparently it was necessary to allay the fears of Deputies in rural constituencies. This matter has had three different presentations. There have been three separate efforts to elucidate what happened and here again an inquiry was promised. The Tánaiste, the Minister for Health, said that when the Taoiseach came back from the Canary Islands there would be a full investigation. We have not yet heard what the full investigation disclosed. Some speculation has been indulged in, in articles written about it in journals and they are probably not significantly far from the truth. However, in the Budget speech reference was made to the fact that the benefits would apply to residents of coastal islands. Did anyone ever hear a more obvious admission of the fear that was driven into the Government because of the action taken? There cannot be two dozen people living on coastal islands in this country. The only residents on any islands are on coastal islands. Yet there is a special reference to "coastal islands". This situation shows that the Government have failed to appreciate that this year we have the highest level of unemployment since the war; that we have the highest cost of living, and it is still rising, and that at the same time we have contributed by two major Government actions to an inflationary situation, first of all, by the doubling last year, contrary to the advice of the Central Bank and of economists, of the turnover tax. Further, the Government have failed to appreciate that we have mortgaged ourselves heavily to foreign borrowing—the most expensive method there is of raising finance. Again, this action was criticised by the Central Bank and by various economists who have re-echoed what the Central Bank said.

Table 2 of the Current Tables of the Budget indicate that last year the total servicing of the public debt amounted to £101 million so that it has doubled in the space of five years. We see that current Government expenditure as a percentage of GNP has increased from 24.3 per cent to 29.8 per cent. This is regarded in OECD and other reports as being very near the danger limit and out of line with a number of the countries with which we are expected to compete. What is the Government's policy on future trade negotiations? In a very airy reference, the Minister said that our negotiations for entry to the EEC are going well. Obviously, his statement was written before the present leader of the British Opposition made his speech last week. Is it not only realistic that we should face up to the facts?

One of the aspects of this whole EEC matter is that we go in because Britain goes in. At one time if one talked in this country about the British market one was regarded by Fianna Fáil as being almost a verbal traitor. It was an offence to the verbal Republicanism that they preached. However, we are still exporting 80 per cent of our agricultural produce to Great Britain while, at the same time, British imports to this country have almost doubled. The Confederation of Irish Industries expressed the view recently that 55 per cent of industries are finding it difficult to get into the British market and that, once the remaining tariffs finish, 75 per cent of our industries will be in trouble. We must approach this situation in a realistic mainner. What is to be our attitude if Britain does not become a member of the Community? We trade with Britain for purely traditional reasons. Despite every effort to get markets elsewhere, we are still sending substantially more to Britain than to anywhere else.

What is our share of the EEC markets? Figures for our domestic exports last year show that £49.1 million went to the EEC countries, while Canada and the United States took £47.5 million and the rest of the world —what one might call alternative markets—took £43.5 million. The Six Counties took £53.5 million, whereas Britain took £222 million worth. We must assess what the position will be if the British application for membership of the Community is not successful. In our present situation it is not sufficient for the Minister for Finance or for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say that we shall go it alone. The problems in respect of industry are considerable. We are told that steps have been taken to provide re-training facilities and to provide assistance to industry but what are the realities? In the OECD publication —Economic Surveys—Ireland, March, 1971 we read at page 30:

It would seem that current action in the field of industrial training and adaptation is insufficient: to take two illustrations, the annual capacity of the adult training centres is equivalent to only about one-fifth of the usual decrease in agricultural employment (some of which is accounted for by death, retirement or emigration, whilst others leaving agriculture may go into the service sector, or may not require retraining for industrial employment); and the number of apprentices qualifying annually, plus those leaving technical colleges or adult training centres, and employees undergoing training within industry, is equivalent only to an estimated 60 per cent of the average increase in industrial employment in the 1960s.

A very small effort was made in the Budget to provide additional funds for AnCO and the other training schemes which are mainly under the auspices of AnCO. Last year about 12,000 people left agricultural employment and the number absorbed in industry was somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. Employment problems in Britain have made it much more difficult for our people to get employment there. In fact, their unemployment figure is the highest for 30 years.

It is illusory to think that our problems are simple and it is an optimistic assessment to say that we are only 12 or 18 months away from EEC membership. On admission to the Community this country will be faced with the competition that has been described in OECD reports as putting us, in respect of labour costs and so on, at a disadvantage with countries with which we shall have to compete and at a disadvantage with countries which at present take only a very small proportion of our total output.

In fact, the significance of the figure to which I referred is that we sell as much to Canada and the United States at present as we sell to the EEC countries. It is not sufficient merely to put what can only be regarded as a token figure in the Estimate for the retraining of workers, or to pass lightly the reference the Minister made to the EEC negotiations and to imagine that everything will be satisfactory.

Let us look at the other aspects of our major social problems. Last year in the course of a debate when I was speaking on housing I was interrupted by somebody on behalf of the Government who said that our housing figure for last year would show an increase. We now see in the Capital Budget that the number of local authority houses completed last year fell to about 3,700 —I notice that if statistics are unpalatable an estimate is made; if they are good we receive firm figures—compared with 4,700 the year before. This year it is proposed to spend, on the proposal in the Capital Budget, a total of £36.82 million as against a total expenditure last year of £33 million and a provision of £35.6 million. This again has been referred to as an increase in spending in respect of construction.

I think it is correct to say that within the last three years building costs have risen by almost 50 per cent, that construction costs have simply rocketed and that to provide a nominal increase of the character referred to in the Capital Budget in respect of housing in no sense takes into account the serious problems of the housing situation in Dublin city and adjoining areas.

The position in other areas is also bad but those of us who represent constituencies either adjacent to the city or in the city appreciate the magnitude of the problem. The magnitude of the problem is such that thousands of families are living in subhuman conditions, and indeed many of them are living in squalor, and we have surrounding the city large numbers of people whose only home, and whose only prospect of a home, is a mobile home. In the Supplementary Budget last year one of the imperfections which was continued, and which was not removed under pressure, was the decision to tax these mobile homes. These mobile homes are no longer a luxury in respect of the people who live in them. In the past mobile homes were mainly used by holidaymakers, by people who rented them for the summer or for a holiday period, but that situation has changed dramatically. All over the fringes of the city, in County Dublin, in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, my own constituency, and indeed in other constituencies, we find that in county council schemes there are mobile homes that are as near permanent as it is possible to make them because the occupants can get no alternative accommodation for themselves and their families. The nominal increase in the Budget will not solve this problem.

The housing problem is a problem of national concern and should be tackled in an imaginative and realistic way, realistic in regard to the substantial increase in costs and in regard to the acute problem it provides for those affected by it. I do not think anyone wants to suggest that Deputies on one side or the other are more concerned about this problem than any other. It is a matter which any public representative who has to deal with the problems of the people must face. Naturally it is more acute in cities and in towns than in the rural areas. The substantial increase in building costs, the substantial rise in the price of land, the difficulties of local authorities in Dublin and the surrounding areas to get land, as well as the difficulties experienced by private builders and people availing of the Small Dwellings Act facilities, the problem of acquiring sites and the inadequacy of the amount of serviced land available, have all impacted very severely on people who are trying to provide accommodation.

The protracted cement strike— accompanied, for the most part, and extending beyond it, by a bank strike or a bank closure—meant that a great many people who were trying to make arrangements in regard to housing found it difficult to do so. The proposals here are insufficient to deal with the problem in the immediate future. One aspect of economic and financial policy that is essential if we are to make progress is confidence, confidence in the stability of the economy, confidence in the capacity of the economy to expand and develop. We, as I said, are competing with, if not the rest of the world, certainly with the rest of Europe—and indeed in some respects with the rest of the world—in economic development. Confidence is important for attracting new investment. So far as export industries are concerned we have provided benefits over the years and attracted to some extent industries that might have gone elsewhere; we provided incentives and encouragement in order to get people to come here and invest. Last year, as a result of the taxes imposed in the Supplementary Budget, a great deal of that valuable work was undone. The proposal in this Budget to give a certain depreciation allowance is designed to offset some of that. Here again it shows an effort to backtrack. It would have been far better to have reduced the extra taxation that was imposed as a result of the Supplementary Budget rather than to be giving an extra depreciation allowance which will probably have very little effect and which, in any event, according to the Minister's statement, is only to last until 1973. Investors who are anxious to expand and develop industry, or who might be attracted to come here, will not be attracted if there is uncertainty, indecision, or the lack of a coherent, constructive economic plan that will assure them that conditions are stable and likely to remain so.

The quotation which was given yesterday from the Central Bank Report, in reference to the prospects and policies for 1971, is one of the understatements of recent times. The report said:

To look back on developments in 1970 is disagreeable. It is obvious that the health of the economy would be gravely threatened by continuance of a deterioration which has left Ireland with one of the highest inflation rates in the western world, with the growth of national production cut to less than half its potential by excessive cost increases and prolonged industrial disputes, with unemployment raised and the balance of payments deficit running into a third year at too high a level.

Nobody can suggest that anybody other than the present Government has been responsible for these facts and developments. As Deputy O'Higgins said yesterday, they have now had fourteen years in which to put the economy right, fourteen years in which they have had a majority during a great part of which time import prices were relatively stable and in which no external factors comparable to the Suez crisis or the Korean war influenced prices. Despite that, we have this dismal record accompanied by a situation in which, so far as the tourist trade is concerned, hoteliers and guest house owners have already had many bookings cancelled and in which they are apprehensive that the political situation that has been allowed to develop here will react further to their disadvantage and to the detriment of the national economy.

Self-confidence is necessary for investment just as it is for an increase in jobs and industry or in gross national product. The most serious outcome of the present continuing crisis would be a loss of this confidence and the reassertion of the old pessimistic view that prosperity here could never be anything but transient. This Government will bear a heavy share of responsibility if, as a result of this bungling and incompetence, the future of our young people is jeopardised. Their ill considered policies have already had their reaction on industry and their effect on employment. Many people are concerned about EEC membership, not possibly because they are against it in principle but because they are concerned at the inadequacy of the preparation and the inability of industry here to compete when they consider the figures and assessments and examinations that have been conducted by OECD, the comments of the Central Bank and the examination of other tax economists who cannot be accused of having a political approach.

The important thing now is to regain confidence, to let it go out that if this Government are not prepared to do it and cannot resolve their personal and political or internal problems, this country which succeeded 50 years ago in achieving self Government has at present, either in her younger people particularly, or in any section of the community, people of equal patriotism, equal capacity and devotion and interest in the welfare of the country. What the country requires is effective, purposeful leadership, the continuance of a sound, consistent, economic policy so that we do not shift today before one draught and tomorrow before another and that, to use a modern phrase, we do not back-track in face of party or personal political differences; so that decisions are implemented in the national interest and not in the interest of a particular section or group. We must establish that there is no danger here for foreign investment but we must also make it clear that we shall not sell out our rights to those who want to make gigantic takeover bids and that we have no intention of mortgaging this country or its interests to secure foreign borrowings at excessive rates involving us in commitments that we cannot afford. We have the skill and capacity here. If nobody else will provide us with a living, if we are prepared to do it ourselves, we can provide ourselves with a way of life that will preserve our traditional values and at the same time enable us to provide our people with a standard of living regarded as good under modern conditions and in conditions of peace and security.

Mr. Tully

When the Taoiseach was speaking in Cork a few weeks ago he warned that the country was in a pretty bad economic state—indeed, we knew it—and that a very harsh Budget might be expected. It is wonderful what a speech can do—two speeches, perhaps, one after the other. The one I am chiefly referring to is that made by Deputy Blaney which suddenly turned an almost impossible Budget position into one in which the Minister for Finance was able yesterday to introduce what I describe as a standstill Budget: he did not hurt anybody too much and did not give too much to anybody; he decided it was safe to play an as-you-were game. What the Department officials must have thought of the situation I do not know. It reminded me of Deputy Haughey's effort in the previous year when he preached gloom and doom on 18th March on television and apart from almost crying himself he had nearly everybody else crying, but subsequently he came into the House and was able to produce a Budget which showed he was just "codding", shouting "Wolf, wolf!"

Not only is this a mark-time Budget, but, having gone through in the time available the wealth of documents produced, I have concluded that it is also a very phoney Budget which certainly could not be described as I described last year's Budget, as a lazy man's Budget. How right I was. Perhaps the Minister then was not lazy but he was not doing the job he was supposed to do; he had too many other things to interest him. This year the Minister for Finance appears to have used his very fertile brain to produce as many gimmicks as possible. Producing a rabbit out of a hat appears commonplace compared with some of the things the Minister succeeded in producing in yesterday's Budget. One example was when he spoke about removing what was given to income tax payers in respect of the first £100 in last year's Budget and said that taking it away would cost only £1 a month. When it was being granted, it was one of the greatest concessions ever to income tax payers: yesterday, it would only cost about a £1 a month or in old money 5s a week. Then he expects the pensioners and others to make a song and dance about the fact that they will get an increase which does not appear to me to be very much more than that the old age contributory pensioner will get an extra 50 new pence, or 10s a week, double what the income tax payer will lose. A person with an adult dependant on an old age contributory pension gets an extra 85 new pence or 17s a week.

Last year there was a very slick move which worked until the following Friday when people went to draw their pensions. When the increase was announced many people in their innocence thought the increase in pensions, et cetera applied to the man and his wife, if he had one. During the debate my comment was that it only applied to the man himself and I was told, “It is 17s”. What has happened this year? The Minister has given 85p to the man and his wife and a mere 50p to an old age pensioner himself.

In view of the increased cost of living during the last 12 months and the continuing rise in prices, particularly the prices of items which these unfortunate people have to buy, does the Minister realise what increases of this sort mean to social welfare recipients? Does he try to understand that if trade unions have persuaded employers, who are pretty tough, that it is necessary to increase wages by between £2 and £4 a week to compensate for the rise in the cost of living, by no stretch of the imagination, can increases of 30p or 50p be considered sufficient for old age pensioners, sick or unemployed people to buy what they need and pay the same prices for their goods. The Minister or his officials feel they are being generous if they give the same percentage to the unemployed, or insured person, as the worker is getting when in effect it represents a much smaller sum.

I do not know whether the Minister expects that people will be very grateful to him for what he has done. If he thinks he is putting the widow in receipt of a contributory pension, who is getting an extra 50p and 10p for each of her first two children and 35p for the remainder, on a living wage he does not know how ordinary people live. He does not know what costs are. It is an extraordinary thing, which is not confined to the Minister; it is confined to the type of person who has never been short of money.

Mr. Colley

This is an obsession with the Deputy.

Mr. Tully

It is. I used to think it was perhaps something I was being unfair about until I started checking up. I found a colleague of the Minister who felt there was no reason why working people should be short of money because they could borrow on a short term. I assumed he felt they could go to the bank and get an overdraft. People who have never earned more than £15 or £20 in their life and spend it before they get it do not get bank overdrafts. If these people need something they have to save for it out of the money they get, in this case on social welfare. If it could only be realised how hard it is for a widow with two children to save up out of a mere pittance for clothing, boots and all the other things children need, this approach would disappear. I do not think anybody would object to paying a little extra for these unfortunate people who through no fault of their own are left to the tender mercies of the State.

The position of non-contributory people is even worse because while it is true that contributory pensioners have paid insurance stamps for what they are getting there should be a limit under which nobody should be expected to live. The limit here of £4.25 is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone expecting people to live on that sum is absolutely stupid.

I want to refer very briefly to the schemozzle which occurred here last week over the question of the dole. I wish to point to the Minister for Finance and say I believe he is the nigger in the woodpile in this case. In his Book of Estimates he said a saving would be made by cutting off the dole from everybody. This was not something which occurred by mistake or was put in at the last minute; it had been thought out and was included in the Book of Estimates. The Minister for Finance, who is used to dealing with figures, knew the minute the figure was put before him what this meant. This was done without the OK of the Minister for Social Welfare, who is a kindly man and who in my opinion, as he said himself, would never have agreed that this should be done. This was included in the Book of Estimates but it was not disclosed until a leak occurred. Would it not have been the decent, manly thing to do to notify these people weeks before hand that the order was going to be re-introduced? Instead of that an order, which was almost being dealt with as a matter of official secrecy, was sent to the managers of the exchanges advising them that with effect from the following week these people were not to be paid dole. It was discovered because somebody talked and said this was going to happen.

A row was kicked up, and a member of the Minister's party came into the House and spoke against the decision —it is a pity he did not put his vote where his mouth was, because we would probably be in the midst of a general election if he had—another Member of the Minister's party voted against him and he was declared redundant by the party. Following this and the general row which must have occurred within the party, because I am sure they put on as much pressure as we put on the Minister and his colleagues, it was decided to make a change. I would like to know if the new arrangement operates from the date on which the original order was made? Are these people to be paid, or is there going to be a vacuum of a couple of weeks in which they do not get anything? When the Minister says that those over 50 in rural Ireland are to get this would the Minister like to tell me what those under 50 are to do?

I objected last week when somebody suggested that this would encourage emigration on the grounds that I felt emigration was not likely to take place because the people would not be able to find the money, and I was particularly thinking of the old age group. I am not so happy either about the position with regard to the younger age group. I am quite sure there will be a drift from the country areas into the towns and cities. It will be a question of doing that or starving—to Hell or to Connacht in reverse—and if they can by any means raise the fare they will emigrate to Britain and elsewhere, even though emigrating to Britain at the present time is not the right thing for anybody looking for employment because there is a large amount of unemployment there.

Is the Minister for Social Welfare correct when he said here that there were 16 urban areas which would still be included with regard to urban dole? Does it mean that only those with a population of over 7,000 are being included? Or will we have the same regulation which operated in previous years when, in fact, most of the towns were included and only the really rural areas were excluded? If it is a question of only the cities and the larger towns being excluded, then the position is a thousand times worse because youngsters in centres of population under 6,000 who are unable to find anything to do and unable to get any money from anywhere will almost certainly leave those areas and eventually the country.

These are matters that should be clarified. The whole sorry business is a disgrace to any Government. A Government who have reached the stage at which the only way they can think of saving a few thousand pounds is at the expense of the poorest of the poor are a pretty poor type of Government. It was said here originally, when employment orders were being made, that it was quite all right because there was employment to be found in rural Ireland. Deputy Corish has already dealt with this and all I wish to do is to reiterate that it was all right to a certain extent when a farmer in the spring or in the summer needed half a dozen men for a couple of weeks to do planting, haymaking or harvesting. But that situation no longer obtains. Most agricultural work is now done by machinery in a very short period and over 12,000 people per annum are leaving agriculture.

I should like to know what the Minister thinks the people who are being left without any income will do. I should like to know also, as a matter of interest, whether or not he considers that, for those laid off the dole now, there is some special help for them to get employment. Remember that in the towns, cities and rural areas industries are closing down; industries which employed small numbers, perhaps, in the country districts are closing down for one reason or another. One was closed down in Deputy Corish's constituency. The industry was making pipes. What happened? The Government gave a very substantial subsidy to a firm to start making pipes within the same catchment area in which this industry was operating. No fewer than 35 men will more than likely be laid off in the near future and 22 men in a neighbouring factory are also likely to be laid off, while this new factory, which cost a fantastic sum to build, will employ only 22 men because they have the most modern methods of doing the job.

It is almost impossible to find employment in this country. Indeed, this whole question of employment and unemployment has been dealt with in an entirely incorrect way in this Budget. It used to be the practice that, when a Budget was introduced, it mapped the economic position of the country for the following 12 months. Yesterday, we had a Minister for Finance introducing a Budget and just not bothering with the economic position of the country for even the next 12 months. There was a reference to the training of a small number of people by AnCO and an additional small number proposed in Cork. That is where the Taoiseach lives. If he lived in Navan we might have got this there.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

Or Galway.

Mr. Tully

I am sure the Minister for Local Government would not object. Maybe he will be Taoiseach in ten or 15 years time. This sort of thing leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. No reference of any kind has been made to any effort to create full employment. Everybody admits that the only saving of the country is to have a programme of full employment. The First and Second Programmes for Economic Expansion were very optimistic about what should be done, how to chart this and how to estimate that. This is no longer done. Programming is now a dirty word and we do not have the Government indulging in it. What they do is, instead of taking the people off the employment exchange, they take the benefit off them. If that is considered smart then the Government are entitled to regard themselves as very clever indeed.

In addition to all this there is a reference to a reduction in capital expenditure. The Minister was a trifle smart on some of his television interviews over the past week or so when he referred to the Budget being over £70 million—I think that was the figure—less than what was originally being demanded. He gave the impression that there was a saving of this amount. Those of us who went to the trouble of going into the matter got the right idea: this was the amount which had been decided on, an amount less than what the various Ministers were looking for to run their Departments. I assume that is what the Minister meant. But that is not what he said.

Will the Minister spell out for us now how this saving will be effected because the references here to it yesterday were quite insufficient. There is a reduction of this amount and that amount here and there. Will this result also in a reduction in employment? I want to know if, as a result of this, fewer people will be employed on arterial drainage. I want to know, particularly in relation to my own constituency, if the current rumour that a substantial number of men are being laid off the Boyne arterial drainage is true.

I also want to know something else. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government, when he intervenes at a later stage, may be prepared to say something about this: how does the Government think the services of the State and local authorities can be carried on and improved, as they claim they are improving, if they get a lesser amount than they got last year, or only a small increase on what they got last year. Apparently, it is now the "done thing" to ignore the fact that there has been a very big increase in costs of every kind. If a local authority got £70,000 last year for road works why should they be expected to do the same amount of work with £70,000 this year? That is the impression certain people are trying to create, but the Department of Local Government must know that costs generally have risen by 10, 15 and 20 per cent in the last 12 months. Because of the increased use of machinery it has been possible, or nearly possible, to live within estimates, or grants, but the stage has now been reached at which I must warn the Minister that there is a danger of very substantial further unemployment, particularly in rural Ireland, unless an effort is made to increase the grants to compensate for the falling value of money and the increase in costs over the last few years. We had an example of this last year when local authority employees got an increase in wages and, but for the fact that local authority members and officials mortgaged the county rates to make extra money available, the net result would have been substantial unemployment because the Department of Local Government said they could not find any money to pay the increases.

We have another example this year. Everybody knows that the forestry programme is something of which we should all be very proud. What has happened? This year men are being laid off, men who were employed on forestry for years. Why are they being laid off? Is it because there is no work for them? Not at all. It is because the Minister for Lands says the Government would not give him the money to keep these men employed. If this is the policy of Fianna Fáil in 1971 then the sooner Fianna Fáil disappears into Limbo the better it will be for ordinary people. It is shocking that this sort of thing should be allowed to happen. Nobody can deny that forestry will eventually be a very big money spinner. Nobody can deny that last year for the first time over £1 million was obtained for timber by this State. The thanks given to the people who built this is to be told: "We are very sorry. There is work for you but the State will not provide the money so you had better sign on at the unemployment exchange for a few months. You cannot go on the dole because there is no dole for you. You can emigrate." This is what we do with our trained employees. Men who have worked for a number of years in a forest know their job.

We heard a reference this morning to the reduction in the number of local authority houses. The Minister has made the usual excuse, the one that is given for everything from the fact that there were less mushrooms grown last year to the fact that houses have not been built, that there was a cement strike. The cement strike is not the full answer and it certainly does not explain the tremendous drop in local authority housing. The Minister for Local Government, now sitting on the front bench, knows the answer. I sometimes have sympathy for him when we ask him why certain local authority schemes have not been sanctioned. I do not blame him for not saying: "We sanctioned the scheme but we have not got the money to build it." That is what happened. Plans are sent to the Department; they are sanctioned; they go for tender; the tenders are sent to the Department, they are sanctioned, an application for a loan to build the houses is made and there it comes to a full stop. The Department start looking for alterations in this, that and the other until we are sick talking to people who are looking for houses and trying to put them off because they must know now, as well as we do, that the whole thing is, to use an expression of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, a charade, for the purpose of codding the people and giving them the impression that something is being done. This is not fair. It would be far better if a Government Minister would stand up and say: "We have spent all the money we had and we cannot spend any more." If that is the position let us be told.

The same applies to private building. The Minister knows that either because of the shortage of inspectors or the fact that inspectors have been told not to carry out inspection it is almost impossible to get an instalment of a grant when somebody is building a house. Over and over again people will write to the Department, telephone the Department, come to people like me. The Minister is shaking his head but I am talking about something I know quite well. He has in his Department the most courteous and loyal officials that I know. They will never say there is anything wrong. They will always try to be polite and try to give a reason why the inspector has not called or, if he has called, why payment has not been made. But if the Minister was travelling around and he must, in his own area—though I understand it is not so hard to get a grant west of the Shannon—but if he was travelling around the midlands or the eastern part of this country he would meet people who would tell him they have been living in a house for six months and still for some footling reason they have not even got the first instalment of their grant.

Mr. Corish

Maybe there is no knocker on the door.

Mr. Tully

He would find it extremely difficult to give an explanation which would be accepted by these people. This is something that has built up in this country. We have not got a group of Government Ministers who are prepared to stand up to the facts. I would give credit to any man who would stand up and tell the truth. As the Minister possibly knows, I have a reputation for calling a spade a spade and I have great respect for anybody who will do so. I do not like the idea of somebody just putting things off and trying to give the impression that things are as they are not. The whole situation with regard to grants—house building and water and sewerage grants has become chaotic.

The Minister's predecessor some years ago asked for a list of water schemes and of sewerage schemes to be sent to his Department from every county and he was going to wipe them out in 12 months. He nearly died when he got, within a week, £35 million worth of work. He wrote back to the councils saying he wanted the water and sewerage schemes to be put on the one priority list. When this was done he started listing them off and promising to do small amounts. I know some of them that are No. 1 and No. 2 on council lists and they are still shelved and are likely to be shelved for many months, if not years, to come.

Either money is available or it is not available. Chickens come home to roost and if a Department, particularly the Department of Local Government, say they will do certain things or give the impression they will do certain things and then do not live up to their promises they can blame nobody but themselves if they come in for very severe criticism. This is one of the reasons why this Government have got themselves into such serious trouble. If they say they are not in serious trouble they could test it very easily by declaring a general election and they would find out what trouble they are in.

I shall come back to the question of income tax. I referred earlier to the fact that last year it was a great thing to give a remission on the first £100 taxed and this year it was only £1 a month; it was not worth talking about when the remission was being taken off. The Minister gave some remission under other headings but he did admit, under cross-questioning yesterday evening, that while the cancellation of the remission on the £100 would yield £6 million the extra concessions he was giving would give back £1 million. That is a net £5 million. That was a nice little stroke of the pen.

I have said again and again in this House and I will have it put on the record for the umpteenth time that there is a group of people in this country who are being shamefully treated by the Department of Finance. They are the people who travel to work. They do not stay at home and say: "There is no work within striking distance." Either as individuals, or as a group of three or four, they succeed in getting transport. I know of people travelling as far as 45 miles in the morning and the same in the evening and working hard all day. The income tax authorities will not give them any consideration for what it costs them to travel. Deputy Charlie Haughey, when he was Minister for Finance, said here on one occasion that he had great sympathy with them. Sympathy is one of these things that is not worth a damn to anybody. These people cannot buy petrol with Deputy Haughey's sympathy. Even if they got sympathy from Deputy Colley it would not buy petrol either. They are the people who are keeping the wheels of industry turning and they are getting no consideration from the State. They are treated as if they were living next door to their jobs. I commented on a radio programme yesterday evening that they were getting no concessions and a gentleman who lives only 100 yards from where he works—I do not know whether "works" is the right word— and uses a car for pleasure said: "There is no increase in the price of petrol and therefore they are getting a concession." He was forgetting, of course, that he can use his car, as any of us can, driving around enjoying ourselves and we will not thank the Government for that. The people about whom I am talking leave home as early as 6.30 or 7 a.m. and return home in the evening at 7.30 or 8 o'clock. They work all day, many of them on building sites, many with Bord na Móna, many in factories in cities and towns or scattered here and there throughout rural Ireland. For this they get no concessions whatsoever.

I know of one instance where men who travel to a building site work for an employer who leaves work after they do, who travels to his office, to the building site, to his home and back again. However, he can claim concessions in respect of the whole lot. He gets an income tax allowance for using his car in the course of his employment, but the workers get stuck. Something will have to be done to ensure that such workers are allowed to live by giving them a concession. They have outgoings of between £4 and £5 a week if they are single and between £2 and £2.50 if they are married, as well as the income tax they have to pay. A reasonable case again and again has been made for them and I do not see why this situation should be permitted to continue.

As far as employment generally is concerned, the State has got to face up to the situation that it is not sufficient to say the number on the unemployment register is being brought down, artificially or otherwise. It is not sufficient to say the State has given grants during the years. No programme or no effort is being made by the Government to try to ensure that the necessary jobs will be provided for those people. Perhaps it is that the Government do not understand that if a person is working he is contributing each week to the State but if he is not working he is depending on the State to contribute to him. There is no hope of our ever making the State pay its way so long as we have more than 70,000 unemployed.

In his statement, the Minister referred to a new scheme of insurance for health purposes. I think the Minister for Finance is either very naïve or else he thinks the Members of this House and the community at large are a lot of damn fools. He suggests in a vague way that a scheme will be introduced for what he vaguely referred to as the middle income group so that they will not have to pay 50p per day in hospitals. We have here vague references to a scheme which is not spelled out and which I doubt very much can be administered. How can the Minister decide who is in the middle income group? Is he to say, "You are in the middle income group" to one person and to another "You are out because you have 50p more per week"? If such a scheme is to work it must be all in or all out. The only way it can work as at present suggested is to have hordes of inspectors or, as Deputy Paddy Smith used to say, to have fieldfulls of inspectors.

Mr. Corish

That was before that boy's time.

Mr. Molloy

I am getting old.

Mr. Tully

The Minister for Finance would have to fill the country with inspectors to find out who was in the middle income group and who was not. I do not know what he proposes to collect from them or how he would collect it. What and how much will be collected from those who are paying voluntary health insurance? Is it intended to include them as well? What about the domiciliary services? Does he intend to cover that in any way? What about a person who has been at home sick for a period with a doctor coming to him once or twice a day, giving him prescriptions for which he has to pay a substantial sum? This kind of thing is apparently unknown to the Minister for Finance and he does not include it in his proposed scheme.

The oddest part of it is that if this money is collected by the State it will not mean anything to the local authorities. They will still be expected to pay the 50p per day. Who gets the money that will be collected by the State in the operation of such a scheme? How is it to be passed on? Will an additional grant be given? As I have said, either the Minister considers that we are a very stupid group of people in this House and that he does not expect us to understand him and he is chancing his arm, or he has unusually high intelligence and he is unable to transmit this to ordinary mortals. To me it is impossible to understand.

Mr. Corish

Of course this has been announced after all the rates have been struck.

Mr. Tully

Not all. There is Waterford, with which he will deal one of these days, and there is Wexford. This year the rates have gone sky high mainly because of health charges. The State has given a little extra but not very much. At the same time, an impossible position is building up, something the Government have not taken into consideration. It is the question of what is happening with regard to the new health boards. Possibly the Minister may have it at the back of his mind that he has here a nice little nest egg with which he can pay the expenses of the health boards. Nobody has made provision for them and there is no provision in the Book of Estimates to pay for them.

All we have here is the skeleton of fairly expensive new machinery to look after health but they have already walked themselves into considerable trouble over the way in which they are administering it. It appears that in some areas not only will people not be paid benefits but some people in the service may not get their wages and in many cases there may be a complete closedown from Monday next because of the stupid approach of some people. If the Minister thinks he will cod this House by asking that money be put aside and that it be paid out for the health boards, he has another think coming. Of course he will manage to get it through as long as he gets enough people to vote for him. However, when he is replying we want to know from him what it is all about and whether it is what we think it is.

Agriculture is included in the Budget and the Minister spoke about improvements. I had a discussion with some ordinary farmers and I heard organised farmers on the radio. The Minister had better realise that no Irish farmer was reared on a couple of shillings a week, and knowing farmers as I do, I know that giving them a few shillings a week will not help to make or break agriculture. I have my own views on the ways in which agriculture is being run and subsidised. I want to say here that so long as we have a stop-go attitude on the part of the Government to agriculture—do something one year, do something else next year until something happens and then change back to the original arrangement—we will have trouble in Irish agriculture. For years, Irish farmers have been kept quiet on the dream that round the corner was the EEC, with lots of money waiting for them. They would not have to get up in the morning because the money would be put into buckets and given to them in bed.

The position, of course, is entirely different. I was glad to hear Deputy Cosgrave this morning make a comment which showed that the blinkers which had been on the eyes of Fine Gael Deputies as well as Fianna Fáil have been torn away. It was not people arriving with buckets of money to the farmers in Belgium who caused riots in Brussels last month. It was not anyone bringing milk and honey to the farmers who caused the riots in Brittany last year. We do not want our Irish farmers to be placed in a position where they will have to resort to strikes and riots before they get what they are entitled to. It is untrue to tell them that they will get more in the EEC, and those who tell them so must know that this is one way of causing trouble in the years to come. The farmers are no longer satisfied to accept the statements about our future prosperity in the EEC whether we go in with Britain or, as some front bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party have said when they got carried away, when we go in alone. It is entirely wrong to mislead them in this fashion. Agricultural prices were fixed at a high level a few years ago. These prices were not increased until last year, and then the increase was only 6 per cent. I hope we do not go into the EEC but, if we do, by the time we arrive in the Community the same prices will prevail both inside and outside the EEC.

There has been much consideration of the size of the farm in the EEC. Over the last weekend someone explained to the farmers of this country that it was in their interests generally that the non-productive small farmer should be replaced by the economic big farmer. In my opinion, next to the workingclass of this country, the small farmers are the backbone of the country and have been so down through the centuries. I will give my fullest support to the fight which they will make to hold on to what they have so dearly earned, no matter what this Government or any other Government do about it. We, in the Labour Party, should state where we stand. It is in the farmers' interests as well as in the interests of the workers, that we have taken the stand which we have on the EEC. Wealthy industrialists and farmers with big estates may be able to make much money in the EEC. These people make money anyway because they have little respect for the rights of those who are poorer than they are. It has been said that it would be an excruciating experience for the people of this country if they were ever unfortunate enough to get into the "rich man's club" of Europe. We are doing what we can to keep our farmers out and if they do go in we will protect them against the efforts of those who would squeeze them out and send them from their small farms to the factories in Germany and Belgium. There is double-thinking and double-talking in this country at the present time. It is time that the views of each political party were made very clear.

I was glad to hear references from the Fine Gael benches about the present attitude to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. When that agreement was being debated here nobody seemed to be overjoyed. The Fine Gael front benchers were enthusiastic about what it would yield. They pointed out that it was not as good as the 1948 agreement which Mr. James Dillon had helped negotiate but they said that it would be a wonderful thing for agriculture and Irish industries to be protected. What has happened? Irish agriculture has got nothing out of it and Irish industry has reached a stage where, day after day, the death-knell is being sounded. It is nearly impossible in this city or in any country town to buy an Irish-made article in a shop.

Recently, I was trying to buy an article of household ware as a wedding present. A particular friend was involved and I was anxious to get something good and to pay a high price for such an article. I could not get an Irish article. English articles were offered. I settled for an article manufactured in Northern Ireland. When I protested about the lack of Irish goods I was told that the shops were no longer stocking such articles. I was told that the Government encouraged this policy. When I said that that was not so, I was told that the shopkeepers were business people who had to deal with matters in a way that would suit themselves. In other words, the shopkeepers found that there was a bigger cut on the British article. No attention was paid to the "Buy Irish" campaign. The only important matter to the shopkeeper was to get a few extra pence, old or new, into his pocket.

I blame the Fianna Fáil Government for this situation. They have been in power for a long time. For 14 or 15 years the Government have been allowing the situation to deteriorate. Nowadays we cannot find jobs for our people. Irish factories have practically no protection and are closing down. Irish goods cannot be bought in the shops. Foreign goods are being bought in preference to them. The Government do not seem to care.

At times the Government spokesmen talk in this House as if we were in the Commonwealth or in the EEC. They discuss the way affairs are run in other countries. They do not seem to understand that we are an independent republic and that we must eventually solve our own problems. Instead of the grandiose schemes which have been thought up from time to time Ministers should concentrate on our own problems. They should forget about gunrunning attempts and about the fact that they must prove themselves to be republicans. The Government should remember that they are being paid to run the country properly and to ensure that everybody gets a better deal now than ever before. The Government would get more encouragement from the people on this side of the House if they concentrated on these important matters.

There are many matters in the Budget which could be discussed. I will deal with one or two other points. Reference has been made to the fact that £0.5 million is being made available for local improvements schemes which will create additional opportunities for employment in rural areas, especially in the west. No one anywhere else in the country will expect to get a job under that scheme. It has been said here that if one is looking for a job on a special employment scheme he will get it either in the employment of the county council, if the county council are doing the work, or through the labour exchange. What incentive is there for someone who has been drawing the dole and maintaining some of his family on the money he has received, to continue signing on, when he knows that he will not get even a kindly look the next time he goes to sign? How does the Minister expect that such a man will be considered for a job, if and when it comes up?

I welcome the idea of parents of certain classes of children being entitled to free travel in order to visit their children in institutions such as a hospital, a school for the mentally handicapped, a reformatory or an industrial school. This is a step forward. Some local authorities already operate such a scheme. I am glad that the Government have accepted this responsibility.

Public service pensions are something I have been talking about for a long time. The late Jim Ryan, when he was Minister for Finance, told me that he would establish parity. He gave me the impression that this would come about over a couple of years and I assumed that it would take about five years. It is now 15 years later and we are still as far away from parity as ever.

We are now giving parity with pensions up to 1st June, 1969. Would the Minister for Finance not make a once-for-all effort, establish parity and leave it at that because this is something which must be done eventually and the sooner it is done the better it will be for all concerned? It is unfair to those who are not getting parity if they have to live on those very small pensions in the meantime while some Minister is making up his mind that parity is to be achieved. This should be done.

Let me welcome the decision that the widow of the military service pensioner will from 1st October next be eligible to receive a pension of half her husband's pension, subject to a minimum of £1 a week. This is a very small sum and, while it might be a help, it certainly will not mean a great deal to many people.

I want to refer to the question of tourism. I believe a bad mistake has been made by the State with regard to the question of tourism. Tourism has been lauded as our second industry, agriculture being regarded as our principal industry, and yet we are not prepared to put enough money into it. The figure is something around £5 million this year. While I personally have not a very great objection to the idea that people who can drink a lot should be asked to pay a fair share of the cost of running the State through tax on drink the Minister has not done the tourist industry any good by his recent increase, particularly on beer and perhaps also on spirits. One of the complaints I get, mainly from foreigners when I meet them, is the high price of drink in this country. There was a time when people came here, not literally for the beer, but they came here and enjoyed it because of the fact they were able to get drink cheaper here and have a good night out much cheaper than they would elsewhere. They now say it is the dearest country for drink. There is no point in telling them that it is stronger than what they were used to. They will tell you they did not want strong drink, that they only wanted a night out and to be able to drink a certain amount of beer, or whatever their drink is, over a period.

It is now regarded as the status symbol for youngsters to drink brandy because they feel that other workers cannot afford it, so perhaps brandy should be taxed fairly heavily. I would not object to this nor would I object if cigarettes had been taxed in the Budget because that would be making a virtue of necessity. The Minister has in fact taxed beer and spirits and I believe he has struck another blow against tourism. I had a letter which was sent from a travel agency in Britain to their opposite number here who were in the habit of making hotel arrangements for the tourist season and although it was past the normal time for bookings they regretted that this year they had succeeded in getting only six bookings for the season. If that is the general pattern, and this was a fairly sizeable tourist organisation, then there is something seriously wrong.

I know our Tourist Bord have in fact been carrying out certain arrangements with regard to advertising and I think they have realised, maybe a little bit too late, since the bulk of the people who come here come from across the water, that the bulk of the advertising should be carried out over there. They have been acting on the assumption that cross-channel tourists will come anyway and they have been spending colossal sums of money in the Americas and other places in the hope that they will encourage people to come here. From the peculiar card index system of checking what people spend in the country they have decided the Americans spend three times as much as the British.

That has not been my experience and I have been in the company of both British and American tourists here. I find while the British tourist has a certain sum of money which he will spend anyway the American tourist coming here is usually on a package deal and will make sure he will not spend one cent over that figure if he can possibly avoid it. The English tourist or the Scotch tourist will go into a pub or a hotel and will pay for drinks. In my experience the American does not want to do that. He simply wants to come along and get whatever he has agreed on in the package tour and he does not want to spend anything over and above what he has agreed to spend. I do not know how this assessment is made up that the Americans are spending three times as much as the British. I think it is a short-term policy where we have this year put the tourist organisation into the position that they had to cut down right, left and centre. It is said that there is too much hotel accommodation in the country. If it is said that there is too much of the super class hotel accommodation I will go along with this but I do not think there is too much accommodation of the more reasonably priced type.

I am often amazed at the attitude of the tourist organisation. I knew of a person who wanted to build a guesthouse and after getting full advice from the Tourist Board as to how it should be built and costings from their architect this person proceeded to build it. Three times during the building the costings and plans were changed. Eventually it cost £6,000 more than the original estimate. The result is now that Bord Fáilte having agreed to pay a certain sum on the interest over a period of years find they have not got the money because three years ago they spent this year's allocation and they are three years behind with the money. People who built hotels and guesthouses cannot get the money because Bord Fáilte have not got it. They have not got it because the Department of Finance are penny pinching and deciding that this is not terribly important, that if you can get tourists in by spending so much, why should you spend any more.

A good deal of money should be poured into tourism and an effort should be made to encourage people to come here for holidays. We have not got the sun and the heat which other parts of the world have and I am afraid some of the hotels have been giving the impression that we have not got the Irish courtesy or catering which we brag about. The welcome mat which used to be out seems to have got a bit dirty with all the people who walked across it over the years and the welcome is not too obvious in some places at the present time. I would suggest that the Department of Finance, in co-operation with the Department of Industry and Commerce, should make a big effort to ensure that value is given for money spent on tourism in this country and that they should make money available and ensure that it is spent in the best possible way, not just frittered away because somebody likes a trip to South America or somewhere like that for the purpose of opening a tourist office there.

I asked some questions when the Minister was not here and I would like to repeat them now, in case they get lost in the welter of material which he will have on little slips of paper by the time this debate is over. I would like to know under this new compulsory health scheme for the middle income group (a) what it will cost per person, (b) who will decide who is in the middle income group and who is not, (c) who will get the money that comes in. Will it be paid to the local authorities by way of grant or will it be kept there and will the local authorities carry the can anyway? I would also like to know whether or not domiciliary services will be covered by it. In many cases they cost a lot more than ordinary hospital expenses. In nine out of ten cases the people who go to hospital either recover in a short period or they die but people can be ill at home for a long time and this costs a lot of money. I want to know exactly what is likely to happen with regard to that.

This debate is likely to continue for a long time and I know that many Deputies are anxious to make contributions to it so I will not detain the House any longer. I am anxious to know, when this Budget comes to be talked about later on, as all Budgets are, how it will be described. Perhaps the Minister would forget for a minute that he is a politician and that he is in fact defending a Government who are in an untenable position and would say if he seriously believes that this Budget, with the taxes it imposes, is the Budget he or his successor will be referring to this time next year? Is this just a standstill Budget which will get him over a difficult period? Most of us who have been long enough in the House are able to read the signs. Major changes must have been made at the last minute. Deputy Blaney's speech must have driven Fianna Fáil up the wall because instead of the tough Budget which the Taoiseach spoke about some weeks ago the Minister had to forget that and present something that would allow his party to go to the country perhaps in June or July. I should be glad if the Minister would be honest enough to say if that is correct. If not, I hope to be able to remind him of this next year.

Mr. Colley

I will let the Deputy into a secret. I thought it was a tough Budget.

Mr. Tully

I will accept that from the Minister having read of some of the things he thought.

Mr. Moore

When speaking on the Budget it is usual to congratulate the Minister on his statement and I wish to do so now. The highest praise I can give him is that one of the major points about the Budget was the concern shown for the less well-off section of the community. He has given us a message. He said "We reject the concept of strength through misery" and this shows the social thinking of Fianna Fáil. People may criticise our party and say there are differences within it. As in any great institution such as our party there are differences but there is no difference in our attitude of keeping in touch with the people and of framing a Budget as a document of some social justice.

I am not an economist and I would not dare to try to examine the Budget statement as such. However, perhaps the fact that I am not an economist leaves me less inhibited in my suggestions on the matter. People may criticise what the Minister has done in regard to social welfare increases and say it is not enough. There is no State in the world, whether democratic or totalitarian, where it can be honestly said that the social services are perfect. What is important is the eagerness, the attention and the ability of a Government to try to conserve resources, and to promote the common good.

The Minister has made provision for travel facilities for parents visiting children in institutions. To my mind, this bears the hallmark of a great Minister. In all the cares of State and the fact that he must find the money to finance the many services, he has thought about a very small section of the community that is in need of help. This proves his sincerity when he stated "We reject the concept of strength through misery". In the past it must be stated that many of us accepted this concept. I do not refer to the Government but to each of us who may well have stood by and watched the struggle of the lower-paid worker. The vast majority of the people now have a standard of living as never before. For some of us it can truly be said that we have never had it so good, but this imposes a responsibility to think of those who have not had it so good—the lower-paid workers and the people who cannot find employment and must emigrate.

It has been said that we will always have emigration. Due to historical reasons our people have gone abroad, either through necessity or choice. Nobody wishes to stop a person emigrating if he wishes to do so but those who cannot find employment and must leave have a tremendous longing to return. The only way we can bring them back is to develop our resources to ensure that we have full employment. This is the aim of the Fianna Fáil Government—an aim not easily achieved. However, because of the good work of the Government and the imagination they have displayed, we can make a break-through very soon which will ensure full employment in this country. This is the test of any democracy—the ability to look after people and to create conditions whereby the citizens of the State can improve the quality of their lives.

The benefits announced in this Budget are part of the general pattern to improve the economy and to help the people. A few years ago the benefits now given could not have been considered. I am not saying that we have done better than any other Government but the Fianna Fáil social policy has never been bettered by any Government.

The Fianna Fáil Government have at all times set a headline in looking after the needy. In fact, some benefits, like children's allowances, were introduced here many years ago long before some of the so-called welfare states thought of them. In our small economy it is no mean achievement to be able to count off the dozen or so social welfare benefits listed by a Minister. This gives the lie to the people who accuse the Government of having lost touch, of not understanding what the people want and of not being wanted by the people, those who say this is an election Budget. If social justice should be an election issue, and I believe it should, anyone who cares for social justice must record his approval of the Budget if given a chance at the ballot box. If that is a political issue, we on this side of the House have no fears as to what the verdict of the people would be on this Budget.

The fact that the Minister was able to give these increases at a time when there are very serious inflationary trends is all the more credit to him. Last year industrial incomes increased by 13 per cent and we had an 8¼ per cent increase in consumer prices. Therefore, any action the Minister has taken to try to curb inflationary tendencies must be welcomed. Nobody suffers more from inflation than the lower paid worker and the recipient of social welfare payments. It was asked this morning: will the Minister talk about his Budget this time next year? I think he will. Some of us thought that it would be a much tougher Budget and that there would be a touch of the hair shirt in it.

The Minister was able to cut back on Government spending by £70 million on the original Estimates. The classic way of curbing inflation is by cutting back public spending. We are asked how can we cut back on public spending without depriving certain sections of State benefits. Deputy Tully mentioned a slump in house building. While I may have a complex about Dublin I must say that the figures have never been so high in the public sector of housing in the city. At the moment almost 2,500 dwellings are under construction and a similar number is at some stage of development, whether site development, or tenders received, or immediate plans made. In two years we will have well over 4,000 new dwellings provided. The number on the approved waiting list for houses is just over 4,000 and therefore we could say that in two years time we will have the housing problem solved. Of course that would be an overstatement and not quite true.

If the population of the city stayed as it is, we would have solved the housing problem but a city like Dublin, which is growing at a tremendous rate, will need more houses in two years time. This will go on as long as the city is a living and great city. We must face the fact that money will have to be found for the tremendous housing drive we need. If this is the case in Dublin, it is also the case in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and all the other cities. I always advocate keeping house building going to the maximum capacity. The building trade can be regarded as the national economic barometer. If the building trade is doing well, you will find that the economy is in a sound position. It has been said that housing is a good social investment but not a good economic one. This I reject. If anything is morally right it follows, in broad terms, that it is economically sound. There is no more important issue in any economic sphere than housing.

It was said here this morning that the increase in the price of drink will affect our tourist trade. I am sure that nobody who buys that commodity will welcome the increase in price. As the Minister explained yesterday, demands were in for increases from distillers and brewers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce decided to allow some of these increases—I am sure not all of what they looked for but partial increases. The Minister has done very well in tying the new increases to a slight increase in taxation. I think it was Edmund Burke who said that no man is wise enough to tax and please. Therefore any tax put on by a Minister will displease someone or some section.

In seeking the common good the Minister must hit some section. I am sure Deputies will agree that he has hit a section which can best bear it. It would be very nice, indeed, if our prices were lower than those in Britain or Europe. If we had greater expertise in production, and if we could perfect our production methods to the point where production per man was greater than that of other countries, we could have lower prices despite the fact that we might have very high wages. We could have higher wages if we had higher production. In the first NIEC Report some years ago these men, representatives of the Government, the employers and the trade unions, said that wage increases should be tied to some extent to production increases. It is basic economics to say that unless we can sell the goods we produce we will not have many jobs left.

I share the Minister's hope for the national wage agreement. Let us offer our congratulations to the employers and the trade unions. They overcame great difficulties and produced an agreement which at one time I thought would never be achieved. We pride ourselves on believing in a system of free enterprise with free negotiations on salaries and wages. We believe this must be upheld. We must also remember that we have a responsibility to people who have not the benefit of being members of a trade union or some other organisation and have to live on fixed pensions, some of them woefully inadequate. Every increase in the price of goods hits them hard.

This is what the Minister has in mind when he says that we reject the concept of strength through misery. Because the vast majority of our people now have a very high standard of living, let us not forget the people who have not got a very high standard of living and the fact that there is an onus on us who believe in Christian teaching to see that these people are looked after by the State if they cannot do it through their own efforts. It is the duty of the Government to create conditions whereby even the humblest of our citizens is assured of his place in our society.

The Minister has made concessions to deserted wives and unmarried mothers. He is to be congratulated on this because, even though both of these categories are very small on the national scene it shows an awareness on the part of the Minister and the Government of the needs of even the smallest section of our people. The Minister has also given assistance to another section, the Old IRA widows, about whom I had a question down for answer on the previous day and which the Minister deferred. Again, I congratulate him on this concession.

Dr. O'Connell

A mutual admiration society.

Mr. Moore

It is not a mutual admiration society. I do not want to be nasty but we would never join a mutual admiration society with the Deputy's party in regard to social welfare. I become waspish when I think of their efforts in that direction, so I will just leave it at that.

Dr. O'Connell

The Deputy's statement did not sting.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Moore has been restraining himself very carefully and Deputy O'Connell did not notice it in what he said before about the record of the Deputy's party in social welfare. Do not tempt him.

Dr. O'Connell

I will tempt him. I would like to hear about it.

Mr. Moore

I will get the Deputy a copy of the budgets of the Coalition Governments. There stands testimony——

Dr. O'Connell

What about Deputy Foley's speech?

Mr. Colley

Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare.

Dr. O'Connell

Deputy Foley is a man of courage.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Foley is not a Minister. Might I put it to Deputy O'Connell, through the Chair, that if he calls tenpence a week for old age pensioners social assistance, then thank God I am not a socialist.

Dr. O'Connell

At least we have learned one thing from the Deputy: he is not a socialist.

Mr. Moore

I am certainly not a socialist of the Labour Party type.

Mr. Colley

Which type is that?

Dr. O'Connell

I will say this much——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might wait and say it some other time.

Mr. Moore

I am sorry you spoiled that, a Cheann Comhairle. However, I am sure that Deputy O'Connell is an honest man at heart and does care for people who are badly off. I will say that for him. Therefore, I cannot understand how he stays in the Labour Party.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Moore

It is easy to mention small things against the Fianna Fáil Party. I am reminded of a speech made by the Minister—I am digressing for a moment—in which he said that in 20 years time people will still be predicting the fall of Fianna Fáil. As long as the Opposition are satisfied with predictions we are quite satisfied to stay here.

Dr. O'Connell

It is nice to have a little interruption now and again.

Mr. Moore

If the Deputy wishes I can again go over the social welfare benefits in the Budget. I never get tired speaking about those. Deputy Cosgrave spoke this morning on the need for confidence in the administration of the Government and the economy generally. He thought that, perhaps, foreigners would think twice about coming in here and investing and might go off somewhere else. Let me say, again, that what foreigners fear most is that there might be at some time confiscation of their assets if certain people with rather extreme left wing ideas assumed power here.

We in Fianna Fáil believe in free enterprise. We believe it is the best system. We also believe that where free enterprise is unwilling or unable to undertake a development the State should then step in. It is no harm for me here to urge the Government to increase State expenditure. We have had some tremendous successes like Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna and a dozen other enterprises which have developed our resources and given our people good employment. At the same time, we are a free enterprise country and can assure anyone who wants to invest here that we will remain a country of free enterprise as most advanced European nations are. I like to think of a European nation like Sweden which calls itself a socialist country and yet we find that 95 per cent of industry is privately-owned. The same goes for many other European countries, and I see no harm, on the economic side, in following these because they have developed their resources, can maintain their population at home and can give their people a very high standard of living through free enterprise. Deputy Cosgrave need have no fears that foreigners might think we would become a totalitarian country and interfere with free enterprise.

This is a 48-page document and if one were to go through each paragraph it might give one great satisfaction because each paragraph indicates a step forward towards the goal of making us a self-sufficient people and giving us, as far as the Government can do so, a quality of life equal to that to be found in Europe. I have not got the time or the ability to examine each paragraph, but if one looks at the whole Budget one will see the Minister has tried to help those who need help most and to find taxation where it hurts least. It may be the increase in income tax will not be very popular but I believe that after a while people will come to realise they are not paying this just to the Government but, perhaps, to their next door neighbour who is a widow, an orphan, a disabled person of the widow of an Old IRA man or any of the people whom the Minister has assisted in this Budget.

I hope that this time next year when the Minister comes again to present his Budget he will do at least what he has done in this Budget and that the difficulties posed by the present inflationary tendencies will have been removed. Let us hope also that, in so far as we can influence matters, industrial peace in our part of the country and general peace in the whole of the country will have been achieved.

During the year the three points that I would like to see emphasised in Government thinking and policy are (1) the setting up of an incomes policy for the lower-paid workers in a manner that will not start another wage round—I know that would not be easy because if the lower-paid workers are given an increase, the other workers will probably try to maintain the margin of difference between the two categories—(2) that we would think more about our emigrants and, (3), that no matter what unexpected difficulties may arise, the housing drive will not be hampered in any way by lack of money. In this connection I might say that during the years since the 1930s when Fianna Fáil have been in office they have always been able to maintain the housing drive and I have no reason to fear that this drive will not continue in the present financial year.

Mr. Begley

This Budget is a very slick one. On first reading of it a person would be deceived. However, I am sure that when the working people of Ireland receive their income tax assessments and realise that, in the case of a single person earning more than £9 per week, almost £1 a month extra will be deducted and that in the case of a married person earning more than £14 a week an extra £11 a year will be deducted, it will be seen that it is the lower-paid group who will be hardest hit as a result of this extra taxation. This is very unfair because, as everybody knows, these are the very people whom we are trying to keep in the country. Those in the higher income groups can be reasonably happy but it is the working man who is struggling to make ends meet who will find that foodstuffs, clothing, entertainment and drink have all been increased.

The increase of one old penny in the price of milk is an insult to the dairy farmers and the Minister should be ashamed of himself in this regard. Already members of the ICMSA have refused to tax their motor cars and it is not difficult to foresee that this campaign will be stepped up. It will be only a matter of days until the farmers are on the streets again. In their statement this morning, the NFA are gravely disappointed in the increases given to farmers. Perhaps the Minister is not aware that he is sitting on a time bomb, a time bomb that is ready to explode on the streets.

Our fishermen are gravely concerned about the implications of EEC membership. In this Budget the Minister had a golden opportunity of allaying some of their fears and suspicions— fears and suspicions that are well founded—but I am surprised that he did not allocate a certain amount of money for research into our coastal waters. The waters around the various harbours should be charted and a conservation programme should be drawn up because it is well known that if we enter the EEC the days of the fisherman here are numbered unless there are certain safeguards for our fishermen. It is for our Minister for Foreign Affairs to get those safeguards. If the Minister had taken this golden opportunity and if the Minister for Foreign Affairs had been able to get certain safeguards, we would, on becoming part of the Community, have had our own conservation programme ready so that we would be able to fill the harbours and the bays with spawn whether it be lobster, crab or any other shellfish. Instead of this no steps have been taken to protect the fishing industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

These matters would be relevant to the Estimate for Fisheries but they are not relevant to the Budget.

Mr. Begley

They are relevant at the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

They may be relevant but not to this Budget.

Mr. Begley

These fishermen are being taxed and that being so, surely they have some say?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to say it but on another occasion.

Mr. Begley

I thought that the debate on the Budget was wide ranging enough to take in farmers, fishermen, civil servants, Deputies, Senators, doctors and the lot.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not the position.

Mr. Begley

However, I have made the point. The Minister might have another look at this matter. If he is here this time next year—which I very much doubt, I expect he will be on this side of the House—I hope that he will take account of our fishermen.

Mr. O'Hara

He may be in Belmullet.

Mr. Begley

In relation to social welfare I am also disappointed that the Minister did not grant bigger increases to those people who are not able to provide for themselves. I refer to old age pensioners, widows, orphans and anybody in receipt of social welfare benefits. If the Minister had put an extra tax on, say, cigarettes in order to give a little extra to the categories of people I have mentioned, I do not think anybody here would have complained.

We have had three orders from the Department of Social Welfare in relation to social assistance, each one contradicting the other. Last Thursday the motion by the Opposition in relation to the dole was defeated by only three votes, but now the Minister has more or less adopted the proposal that was put to him then by the Opposition parties. In other words, he is saying that we were right while he was wrong. Is it any wonder that the order almost broke Fianna Fáil? This morning's newspapers carried the story of Deputy Joe Lenehan's expulsion. He was expelled because he took a strong line on that issue, as did all rural Deputies on every side of the House. However, it is amazing that no action has yet been taken in the case of the other two dissidents, Deputy Foley and my good friend, Deputy O'Connor.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Budget either.

Mr. Begley

Of course, these two Deputies belong to the group and it is a well-known fact that, if Deputy Lenehan had belonged to it, he would not have been expelled either. However, unemployment assistance is now being restored in the case of persons of more than 50 years of age but the Minister should have gone the whole way. I suppose that when it was decided to specify a particular age, the Minister had to pick on some age; but what about those men who are younger than that, those, say, who are between 45 and 50? Some of these men may be living with a married sister or brother. The unemployment assistance gave them a certain amount of independence and this is a very important factor in so far as rural Ireland is concerned. The man of the house did not have to put his hand into his pocket to give the person concerned a couple of pounds on a Saturday night because he was able to get his dole on Thursday. The Minister should take another look at this matter. Some of these people are handicapped people who are kept in the house. They are not in receipt of disability allowance but they are backward, and the Minister should ensure that such people would get some form of assistance because, as I said, it gives them a degree of independence.

As far as the tourist industry is concerned it was disastrous to increase the price of drink. Coming from a tourist county, I often meet tourists and their general complaint is the price of drink and the price of food. When you get a meal in a hotel there is 10 per cent service charge and another charge for turnover tax. Two extra items are added. The Minister should exempt hotels and guesthouses from turnover tax because with the service charge and with the price of drink we are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The tourist industry, which is one of our largest industries, is one which everybody should be trying to encourage. Many people with the help of Bord Fáilte were encouraged, and rightly so, to go into the tourist business and they made a go of it. Some of them spent their earnings doing so, some came back from America or England, and people generally went about it in a businesslike way, and therefore it was very wrong, with the situation we have, with troubles in the north and troubles in the south—and God knows we have our portion in the south—to have increased drink prices. We have a bad image abroad. There is no point in saying otherwise. English and continental papers exaggerate these troubles but these newspapers think differently and they blow up the troubles out of all proportion and all this is having its effect. Already two hotel managers in Killarney have informed me that bookings are down by 40 per cent on last year, and last year was not a great year. By November, December or January more solid hotels will be going into liquidation, going bankrupt, or being put up for sale. The Minister should have had very great reservations before he increased the price of drink because of the reaction on the tourist industry.

An increase of 40 new pence to old age pensioners is very niggardly indeed. It would just about buy the Irish Times for them every day of the week, or any newspaper for that matter. Everybody knows that the cost of living for old age pensioners has escalated in the last 12 months. Bread has gone up by 1½d, butter has gone up, sugar has gone up, tea has gone up, the price of coal has gone up 20 new pence per hundredweight and clothing has gone up. Everything that an old age pensioner requires has gone up in price and an increase of £1 would have been more in keeping with the increase in the cost of living than 40p. If there is another budget in the second part of the year, as many of us think there will be, I hope that the Minister will give old age pensioners at least £1 increase. These people have nobody to speak on their behalf and their children, through no fault of their own, have had to emigrate. Now some of those old people will have no alternative, because of the cost of living, but to apply for admission to county homes. I can see the day very soon when there will be a rapid increase in the number of old age pensioners in these homes.

A question which I raised with the Minister before and to which I did not get a very satisfactory reply was in regard to providing free travel facilities for those wives of old age pensioners who are not themselves old age pensioners. When you reach the age of 70, unless you are particularly hardy, the chances are you will have to go to hospital because of some ailment or other and it is dreadful that old age pensioners' wives, who may be 67, 68 or 69, have to pay to travel to see their husbands in hospital. With the new developments in regard to hospitals people may have to travel greater distances and the Minister should introduce a special concession for these people especially as the cost of travel has increased so much. In 1965 the return fare from Dingle to Dublin was £3, now it is £11, an increase of £8. One can imagine the cost to an old person from Cahirciveen, West Cork, or even Mayo, Sligo or Galway, who has to travel to Dublin to see a husband or wife who needed specialist treatment in Dublin. The Minister by a stroke of the pen could have extended free travel facilities to the wives of old age pensioners. I appeal to him to look at the matter again and when the opportunity arises to do something for them.

The Minister extended free travel to parents who have to visit retarded children in institutions and this I genuinely welcome. I hope that the Minister will approach CIE and ask them to let old age pensioners travel free on trains at Christmas and Easter. It is absolutely dreadful that CIE officials should turn away old age pensioners from their platforms in Christmas week and in Easter week. It is dreadful to see these old people with their pension books in their hands being told at the booking office "go away, you cannot travel this week; it is only for people who can pay". It is time everybody knew what was happening and that the Minister should tell CIE——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going into details of administration which are not applicable in this debate.

Mr. Begley

With all due respect it is, because the Minister extended free travel facilities in the Budget for people in receipt of social welfare benefits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Extension of free travel facilities to a particular section does not permit discussion of details in regard to a particular——

Mr. Begley

I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has the same problem as I have that in this day when old age pensioners arrive at the station in Christmas week, which is the time parents can go to see their children, as far as the western counties are concerned—and many of those children are either in England, Dublin, Cork or Galway—they find they cannot travel. The children are married there and the parents like to be with them at Christmas. It is only Christian charity that they should be allowed to go; they are allowed to go all the year around except in Christmas week and Easter week. It is time for CIE to come down from the clouds and let these parents, the backbone of the nation, have an opportunity of visiting their children wherever they may be. It is only right that should be said here.

The Minister dealt at length with the compulsory insurance scheme for the middle income group but he used jargon which I believe nobody on this side of the House understood because of its vagueness. When the Minister makes announcements like that he should spell out the details. I am sure everybody wants to know if this compulsory health scheme will interfere with the voluntary health scheme at present existing. When people went into the voluntary health scheme they were told they would be covered if they paid so much for so many units. They are now worrying in case they may have to pay twice, having regard to all the money they have paid since they went into the voluntary health scheme in 1956 or 1957. The Minister should not be so naïve as to tell the House that he will give details later or that the Minister for Health will do so in his Bill.

We were also told that the new compulsory health scheme will be based on a means test. Who will adjudicate? Who will be eligible? Who will be excluded? Will it be any person with £10, £30 or £50 valuation or anybody earning more than £1,200 a year? How will it work? The whole thing is so vague that I think the Minister should not have referred to it at all unless he was prepared to give details and not have us asking questions because we shall be asked those questions when we go back to our constituencies this weekend. Will this compulsory health scheme be another form of income tax and add to the £11 or £12 that the worker must pay every year from now on?

I was disappointed that the Minister did not tell us that he had extra money for the people atáag maireachtaint sa Ghaeltacht. Chualamar cúpla focal as Gaeilge ón Aire ach ní raibh mórán ann. Níor thug sé geallúint dá laghad do na daoine bochta atá ag lorg tithe, atá ag lorg deontas agus atá ag iarraidh maireachtaint sa Ghaeltacht. Tá a fhios ag gach duine go bhfuil an Ghaeltacht ag dul i laghad gach seachtain. Go deimhin, is ceart a rá go bhfuil an Ghaeltacht á bánú agus is mór an trua nár thug an tAire breis airgid chun monarcha de shaghas éigin a bhunú chun na daoine a choimeád sa Ghaeltacht. Tar éis an daonáirimh beidh a thios ag gach duine an laghdu uafásach atá tar éis teacht ar an Ghaeltacht. Tá na scoileanna á ndúnadh agus na daoine ag imeacht. Má phósann fear ón Ghaeltacht i Sasana, nó i mBaile Átha Cliath nó in áit ar bith eile cailín nach bhfuil Gaeilge aicí nuair a thagann an dís abhaile chun maireachtaint sa Ghaeltacht níl an fear abálta aon deontas d'fháil chun teach nua a thógáil toisc nach bhfuil Ghaeilge ag an bhean. Is ait an scéal é nach féidir le fear ón Ghaeltacht atá chun maireachtaint sa Ghaeltacht agus chun a chuid páistí a choimeád sa Ghaeltacht deontas d'fháil chun teach a thógáil toisc nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge go líofa ag a bhean-chéile. Iarraim ar Aire na Gaeltachta anois, fear a bhfuil meas mór agam air, rud éigin a dhéanamh chun an dlí ait sin atá an Státseirbhís ag cur i bhfeidhm ar Mhuintir na Gaeltachta a chealú.

This is a clever, sly Budget. The options are open and one can see that if the group within the Fianna Fáil Party comprising Chub, Des, Deputy Blaney, Deputy Haughey and Deputy Brennan, decide to put on the pressure then we are for the road. I am sure it is a consolation to Deputy Lenehan from Mayo that what he stood for is now being brought in even though he was expelled for voicing his feelings although members of the group got away with it because they belong to the coalition which is keeping the Fianna Fáil Party in power.

Mr. Cooney

When the Minister discussed his Budget speech on television last night he indicated there were three main problems which had to be solved : inflation, balance of payments difficulties and the question of growth. I was interested to compare the Budget speech of this year with the Budget speech of last year in relation to those problems and to compare them also in relation to what I might call their political implications.

We shall hardly ever forget the circumstances in which last year's Budget arrived here—and that very fact may cause us to overlook some of the details it produced for us—but as far as the public was concerned its two main features were wide ranging increases for all social welfare recipients which were financed by a sharp increase in turnover tax. At that time I described it as a "lazy" Budget. It was also a dangerous Budget because the source of revenue which it sought, the increase in turnover tax, was a highly dangerous inflationary agent. It was a lazy Budget in that the Government had to give something out and get something in.

This Budget made noises about inflation, balance of payments and growth but it did not tackle any of those problems and, in my opinion, during the past year there has been no improvement in relation to those three problems. I respectfully submit that this year's Budget also fails to grasp those three nettles. This year's Budget is a good political Budget from the point of view of a Government which will have to face the people in the near future. It gives the impression to the man in the street of being a bland and mild Budget. Beer and spirits have been increased but the magnitude of that increase is obscured to some extent by the changeover to decimal currency. There are social welfare increases for certain recipients and the Government may, perhaps, suffer by the changeover to decimal currency here in the sense that the description of these increases will also be in terms of pence. The increases, though not wide ranging or generous in size, are welcomed, such as they are.

They are financed, mainly, by widening the income tax net by the simple device of taking away the allowance on the first £100 of income, which is no longer taxable at two-thirds standard rate but at the full standard rate. This is not immediately obvious to the man in the street, it is not a dramatic thing, it has to do with a technical point of assessment of income and to that extent it is an extremely cute piece of political taxation. The Government get what they want without causing a furore in the process. As far as politics go and as far as short-term political aims go the Minister can be well satisfied with this Budget but so far as the economy of the country is concerned it leaves much to be desired. Like last year's Budget it makes pious noises about the three problems affecting us but it does not go any distance in tackling them.

The most serious feature of our economy for some years past has been galloping inflation. The recognition which this problem receives from economists, trade unionists, employers' organisations, the farming community, politicians and, above all, from the Minister and his colleagues in Government, is notorious. Every speech on any economic subject makes reference to the problems of inflation and highlights the dangers of inflation on our economy and all the evils that will come unless inflation is kept checked. Yet, last year the Minister came into the House with a Prices and Incomes Bill, which he stated was to be the panacea for the evils of inflation. There is no doubt about it if he had had the courage at that time to implement it, even though it was a harsh Bill and might have worked unjustly, all his pious statements would have made sense. We would have known that he meant what he said and that his colleagues meant what they said when they stated they were determined to tackle inflation. In the face of political pressure and public opinion the Minister withdrew. Indeed, it is a clear characteristic of this administration that it is prepared to sacrifice principles for expediency.

A recent example in support of this proposition was given to us by the activities of the Government in the reneging of their decision concerning the suspension of the dole for all single men throughout the country. They have so far reneged that those who are now exempt must be very much the minority of dole recipients. At this stage I would suggest the Minister completes his withdrawal on that particular front and restores unemployment assistance to the few single men who are left without it.

The Minister makes no proposition in his Budget statement adequately and positively to control inflation. He relies entirely on the national pay agreement which was negotiated following the withdrawal of the Prices and Incomes Bill last autumn. He stated quite frankly in his speech that there are elements within that agreement which make it inflationary. It seems to me perverted logic which seeks to cure inflation by relying on something which is in itself inflationary. The Minister's exact words are, "the agreement is clearly inflationary".

The review for 1970 and the outlook for 1971 are also pessimistic about this agreement. The best it will do is produce some easing of inflationary pressures. I submit to the Minister that in our particular predicament something more than an easing of inflationary pressures is required. Very positive action to dampen down inflation is necessary because all the evils which have hit our economy and the inflation we have will continue to have adverse effects on our economy, unless they are removed from it quickly and positively. The bank strike has clouded and obscured the real position obtaining at the moment. Even though there may be some optimism about some of the statistics available in connection with exports and production, nevertheless there will be a delayed adverse reaction from that bank strike. I can tell the Minister quite positively that up and down the country small businesses and small manufacturing concerns find themselves in a very critical condition. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told me recently that in a period of three months from December to February of this year the number of companies which went into liquidation was twice as many as for the same period last year. He would not agree that this had anything to do with the bank strike, but I submit to him that anybody in business, or anybody who practices a profession, as I do, in rural Ireland knows very well that these adverse effects are due entirely to the bank strike and to the financial mess in which ordinary people now find themselves as a result of that drastic episode.

Another weapon the Minister states is available to him to deal with inflation is monetary policy. Last year in the Budget Statement this was also mentioned as one of the chief weapons to deal with inflation. Monetary policy, as I understand it, in this context is to ensure that credit be not available for non-productive spending. The control of credit is normally exercised by the banks at the request of the Government. It is one of the main weapons, and it is stated to be one of the main weapons, in the control of inflation; but I ask the Minister how he can ask us to accept that it is a weapon he is prepared to use when he and his colleagues allowed the banks to remain closed for the better part of last year, with the result that credit was taken to an alarming degree by the general public? I forget the exact figure; it was published in the newspapers in the last couple of days. The banks only now know the amount of non-permitted credit taken by their customers. Human nature being what it is, it was only to be expected that this would happen and nobody should be surprised that it did happen.

This has two effects. It has the effect on the economy of inducing an inflationary pressure by making all this money available for uncontrolled spending. It makes nonsense, absolute nonsense, of the Minister's claim that monetary policy is one of his weapons and that he applied it because, if the Government were doing their job, they would have ensured that the bank strike would not have taken place or, having taken place, would not have continued for as long as it did. From a very early stage it became clear that the bank strike was nothing more than a classical employer-employee confrontation in which the directors of the banks were out to teach their employees a lesson. In the event, it is the directors who have learned a lesson because they have now paid to their employees far more in overtime and wage demands than if they had settled the original wage demands. The upshot is that the economy suffered and the Government have been exposed as being afraid of the banks, unable to control the banks, and certainly without influence on the banks. This makes nonsense of the Minister's claim that monetary policy is one of the weapons with which to fight inflation.

A further effect which this uncontrolled and unrestricted taking of credit has had is that the banks have been forced to try to recoup from their customers the credit their customers took without authority. In their efforts to do this the banks have been extremely harsh and their efforts have had a snowballing effect because, if customer A is under pressure, he, in turn, puts pressure on his customer, and so on. The sequel is a disastrous cash crisis in rural Ireland as a result of the banks' action. The Minister has stated here on several occasions that he is satisfied the banks are not putting on this pressure. I do not know from what evidence he is satisfied, but I speak from experience of the people who have come to me in my business to know if there is any means by which the pressure of the banks could be eased on them. I know these pressures have resulted in the liquidation of companies and in many personal bankruptcies. One has only to read the notices in Iris Oifigiúil to see these have increased at a dramatic rate. Why the banks have been allowed to do this, allowed to pursue tactics which are positively harmful, must remain a mystery. It would be naïve of the Government to accept a statement by the banks that they are not putting on pressure. One must assume, therefore, that the Government did not ask the banks and, if they did not, they were neglectful of their responsibility to small business people up and down the country.

There is a third possibility, the possibility that the Government have turned a blind eye to the activities of the banks in this regard, with a view to closing the stable door after the horse has gone—in other words, exercising a policy of monetary restraint when the credit has already been taken. In any event, the action of both the Government and the banks over the past year makes a mockery of the Minister's claim to be fighting inflation through the use of monetary restraint or monetary policy.

The third weapon the Minister mentioned—it was also mentioned last year —is fiscal policy. In the context of last year's Budget that was a ludicrous statement; it was ludicrous to pretend that such a policy was being used to fight inflation when the one tax applied by that Budget was in itself inflationary, the turnover tax, which was itself quite indiscriminate in its application. This year, the taxation imposed will take £11 per year from every taxpayer and it can hardly be described as a weapon under this heading. I suppose every little helps. That is the best one can say about it.

The Minister mentioned the balance of payments as one of his problems. Here, again, we are used to pious platitudes without any action. Last year it was pointed out in the Budget statement that a surplus under this heading of £15 million in 1967 became a deficit of £22 million in 1968. In 1969 it shot up to £60 million. It was stated that the aim must be to get back to a moderate deficit as quickly as possible; it would be too drastic to try to go back completely to equilibrium or even to a modest surplus. He stated that for a start the objective would be to keep the deficit at £50 million. Instead we find that the actual deficit for this year is £52 million which is something in excess of 20 per cent over and above the figure, a long way off target. This is not surprising because I could see no action by the Government during the year to keep the balance of payments down so as to achieve the aimed at figure of £50 million.

The normal action to keep control on the balance of payments problem is to discriminate against imports. As I said here last year, we are quite entitled to discriminate against imports under the terms of the GATT when we are in a difficult balance of payments position. Our economy is small enough for us to be able to pinpoint imports against which we should discriminate either by way of tariff or quota. I know the argument is used that if you curb imports you will be denying the economy capital goods. The whole advantage of living in a small economy is that you do not need to introduce blanket measures; you can introduce measures which will discriminate against consumer goods specifically which are not required for the growth of the economy. I do not imagine there should be any great administrative difficulty in devising such control. The only difficulty I see is political cowardice on the part of the Government, that they might be apprehensive of the reaction of the country exporting to us. I would suggest to the Minister that there is no need for such apprehension. We are quite entitled, when we are in a difficult economic situation, to take these steps.

I remember last year looking up our trading with some countries. In the case of Hong Kong, with whom we have a substantial adverse balance, one of the main items of import was human hair. I do not think anyone could point a finger at the Government if they decided, with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, to limit the importation of human hair.

Mr. Kitt

We could both do with a bit.

Dr. O'Connell

That is a bald statement.

Mr. Cooney

In one's own time one might regret that, but not yet. I remember, too, the case of Germany which had a very high adverse balance. No doubt a lot of capital goods come in from that country and perhaps it might be politically inopportune, when negotiating for entry to the EEC, to discriminate against a European country but I certainly would not have any hesitation in recommending to the Minister that the import of German motor cars could be curtailed because it was the single biggest item contributing to the adverse balance.

It is important too that there should be a reduction in the import of consumer goods because it would ease the pressures which go towards building up a wage claim. A lot of the pressures behind a wage claim are psychological. People see exotic, foreign goods in shops, they are seeing these on the streets and there is a natural enough desire to want their share. This, in turn, leads to pressure for increased wages to purchase these things. If these things were removed from our economy altogether—I am not advocating a hair-shirt regime but certainly I would advocate the removal of foreign luxuries from our shops—it would ease the pressure for wages and would make the national pay agreement more likely to succeed, more likely to be observed in both the spirit and the letter.

The Minister in his statement does not give any indication that he is prepared to tackle the balance of payments problem. It was suggested to me here before that to do anything about it would only be to compound inflation. If it is tackled in a discriminatory fashion it cannot have any such effect. It is disappointing that it is on the increase. If it is not immediately controlled it will continue to increase and if it continues to increase it will have a very serious effect on our economy. It will affect the economy seriously and adversely internally. Apart from that, it will cause our future colleagues in the EEC to look askance at us and at our policy of managing our own affairs. They will begin to have doubt, if they have not got it already from the reprehensible events of the past year, about our status, about our size, as an independent nation.

The Minister in last year's Budget speech, when he was dealing with the capital programme and its financing, which luckily for the Exchequer did not reach the projected figure, indicated that there would be residual borrowing amounting to £75 million needed. He indicated that the banks would be asked for the bulk of it and that some already had been arranged by way of a dollar loan but that the balance he hoped to obtain from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development if discussions then going on were successfully concluded. As it happened the amount to be got by residual borrowing was not £75 million as was projected at that time but was £52 million. Of this £35 million was raised from the banks here, presumably the associated banks, and £17 million from bond issues. However, one wonders what was the result of the discussions which this time last year were taking place with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Were we turned down? The Minister is silent on this. It would have some relevance to this year's Budget as to where and how the Minister will fill in the residual borrowing he needs to finance the capital programme for this year.

This year there is a figure of £73 million projected for residual borrowing and the factors which last year faced the Government—the cement strike and the deferment by Aer Lingus of certain expenditure—will hardly be available again. This year the Minister in his speech indicated that he will have to get this residual borrowing from the banks and from the non-associated banks. He does not want to go abroad because he considers that although our foreign indebtedness is relatively modest he is afraid funds might not be available.

I wonder is that a way of saying that funds might not be available to us rather than that funds are not available on the international market. I do not think there will be any shortage of funds, but perhaps the Minister does not want to pay the price or to risk a refusal. He is consequently forced to go now to the non-associated banks. The associated banks, as I have pointed out, are not in a position to lend the Government what they need under this heading because of the amount of credit that was taken involuntarily during the strike.

So the Minister now has to go to the non-associated banks. I would have expected at this time of the year that the Minister would have been in a position to tell the House how much he is getting from the non-associated banks but, instead, in reply to a question here last week, all he could say was that discussions were going on. The Budget has been drawn up on the basis that these discussions will be concluded successfully. I can only hope so, but it would be interesting to know how long they have been going on, the reaction the Minister has received from those people, whether they have been conclusive and what their point of view has been about lending to the Government.

They are a comparatively new growth in this country and their attitude towards the Government and what they represent might be expected to be different from that of the traditional banks. One wonders are they in any way cautious or coy about acceding to the Minister's request. The Minister stated there had been a considerable inflow of foreign capital into the country and that the flow had not diminished. What type of money this is, what it represents, what its source is, is something we do not know. We know that by and large it is going into the coffers of the non-associated banks but one would want to know exactly what type of money it is. If one knew this it might explain the slowness with which those banks seem to be prepared to accommodate the Minister.

It is very nice and gratifying, in figures of external reserves, to point the finger at this type of money, but it could be very flighty money, and I personally do not see what the attraction of this country is for money from abroad. Here there is no sophisticated financial market, here opportunities for the investment that this type of money normally wants is not available. One must therefore come to the conclusion that it is front money, hot money, and that the banks must be therefore inhibited in lending such flighty money on a long-term basis to the Government. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on what I have said in relation to the type of money these banks have.

In relation to the capital programme, it is disappointing to see that the amount available for investment in the coming year is not only not increased over the actual amount expended last year but is less than the amount budgeted for last year. As a layman unversed in economic matters, it seems to me that if this country is to grow, the economy must at all times be adequately primed with capital and in an inflationary situation where the value of money is yearly decreasing one would expect a vastly increased capital investment (a) to make up for the decrease in the value of money and (b) to give the extra kick that the economy needs. Instead, we find the budgeted figure less than the figure budgeted in 1970-71.

The actual expenditure under the heading of capital last year was down from the estimated expenditure under a number of heads, one of them being the Industrial Credit Company. This, of course, was due to the abnormal situation which prevailed last year and which can be laid at the door of the associated banks. The ICC are one of the main sources for injecting growth capital into the economy where it would have most effect in the towns and the other parts of rural Ireland. The estimated expenditure last year was £9.2 million but, disappointingly, this year that has been reduced to a little more than £8 million.

I am glad to see that the Agricultural Credit Corporation figure has gone up, though only marginally. It would seem to me that if we are to have growth there must be capital to ensure that growth. There will not be some sort of spontaneous combustion within the economy which will lead to mushroom growth overnight. By and large, investment must come from the Capital Budget and it is accordingly depressing to see that the Capital Budget has been reduced.

As I said when I started, looked at as a political exercise the Budget has more to commend it from the point of view of the Fianna Fáil Party than last year's Budget. The present Minister in this Budget has shown himself to be a cuter politician than his predecessor, notwithstanding the reputation of the latter. This is a bland Budget. It gives without hurt. It does not give very much and it does not hurt very much because it gets its money from income tax payers on the technical adjustment of the basis of assessment.

This is something which is not immediately and painfully obvious. The Minister gets his money from increases in beer and spirits. This fact is clouded by the fact that the increase is expressed in terms of new pence. This does not impinge on the beer drinker's consciousness. Last year's Budget was a lazy Budget. It brought about a big increase in turnover tax. The present Minister is scoring over his predecessor in terms of pure politics. The Minister has nothing to claim in regard to this year's Budget as it affects the economy as a whole. Neither had his predecessor last year. Neither Budget attempted to tackle realistically the problems which beset our economy —inflation, the balance of payments and slow growth. Neither Minister was prepared to introduce the measures which are needed to control these things. I have already indicated the reason why they have not been able to introduce such measures. The reasons go back to Government mismanagement and political affairs. The present Government are not prepared to do the disciplined thing which our economy needs at the present time. This is not something which affects the man in the street. It is comparatively technical stuff.

We must look at this Budget and then proceed to make some projections as to what it is meant for. In my opinion, this Budget is meant for an election. It is a bland Budget. The country is being conditioned into being aware of the difficult economic times in which we live. It is being conditioned in that regard. Hard fiscal measures were expected to rectify matters. Instead of getting what the economists indicated was needed we got some adjustments in taxation and the prices of beer and spirits were increased slightly. The Minister cannot be so dishonest nor so ignorant that he does not know that the economy needs more than this Budget gives. The Minister's colleagues and the Government cannot be so ignorant or dishonest either. Consequently, one is led to the conclusion that they are ignoring what is needed and do not want to give what might be politically unpopular. The Government have decided for the sake of political advantage to have a bland Budget in a situation where an election is inevitable. It is regrettable that this should be so, but it is not surprising. The hallmark of the Minister, his colleagues and his party has been to ensure, first of all, the survival of their party, even if this means doing harm to the economy of the nation. It is not at all surprising that that philosophy and those standards can now be seen written into the present Budget.

Dr. O'Connell

In discussing this Budget we must look back on the last year. We must look at what the past year has been like for our country and what the Government of the day have been doing during that period. I look on this country as a ship of State with the Taoiseach at the helm, accompanied by his crew. It seems as if there has been a mutiny and the ship is foundering on the rocks of inflation and economic chaos. The people in charge are not concerned about the ship; they have been concerned about each other and this tremendous lust for power. They have shown contempt for what is happening on the economic scene because they are hellbent on destroying each other. This has been unfolded to us over the past year. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien could easily produce a fine drama on what has happened in the Fianna Fáil Party over the past year.

When the party should have concerned themselves with the economic affairs of the country, we have seen dismissals of Ministers, resignations, and the arms trial. All this has happened when the Government should have been concentrating on the economy. We have new Ministers looking casually at the state of affairs, and we have previous Ministers not too happy about the situation. The Comhairle Ceanntair dinners used to be availed of for making public statements, but now they are used for the launching of broadsides in the party. An ex-Minister went to Arklow and fired a broadside at the Taoiseach. The expected Parliamentary question was asked about what the Taoiseach was going to do. An answer was given that the Taoiseach would deal with the matter in his own time. The Taoiseach at another Comhairle Ceanntair dinner in Cork fired a broadside straight into Blaney territory. This is the position as we see it and as the whole country sees it. The Taoiseach hurled this attack into Blaney territory. The Taoiseach could not go to Deputy Blaney and discipline him; he had to go to the Comhairle Ceanntair dinner. As an afterthought the Taoiseach said that we would have a tough Budget. I do not think that this really absorbed the Taoiseach's attention at all. We are now waiting for the next shot. Who will launch the next one?

We see corruption and we know that power corrupts. We have seen men in power who are not content at being dismissed. No matter what happens to the country they are determined to destroy each other. The people are not being given an opportunity to register their protest and to decide what Government they want. They are being deprived of this right and privilege because the Fianna Fáil Party feel that they have a divine right to rule. Democracy is thrown to the winds. It has been said that this monolithic structure of Fianna Fáil is invulnerable. Perhaps we, as an Opposition, have not been competent enough, but the explosion has taken place from within and has destroyed the party. Now is the time to go to the people and let them decide.

A quick job has been done to cover in the cracks. We have had a duplicate sheet of estimates and expenditure prepared at the last minute. Deputy Blaney has spoken. He is on the attack. The message has got around that things had better be changed immediately. This is not in expectation of increased buoyancy. This is in expectation of a general election. There is no doubt about this. The Fianna Fáil Party think that they will be able to cover up again and to hoodwink the public as they did in 1969 when they brought in increases and nice concessions were given, only to be taken off in a later autumn budget. This Budget is a fraud and a farce which has been perpetrated on the Irish people by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.