Before I reported progress I was speaking on the EEC.
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.)
I thought it was the Budget.
I am disappointed that so many of our people are giving a wrong slant to the situation. The whole subject should be debated intelligently in every parish in Ireland. Everybody should know where he is going and make up his own mind. We, as public representatives, have tried to judge it from the information we have received and our observation within the six member countries.
The approach of the Labour Party to this matter seems to lack that intelligent consideration that is necessary in a matter of this kind. There are only two alternatives—to go in or not to go in. If we do not go in we will be like a dead limb of a tree. We have been told that if we go in there will be thousands of our people unemployed. I should like to see this subject debated very carefully. I should like to see the pros and cons weighed up. I should like all our people who are interested in the EEC to visit Brussels and get information on aspects about which they are in doubt. None of us knows all but if we stay out where will we sell our products? Maybe certain industries we have here will suffer but I have faith in the Irish people. The Irish people survived in days of adversity. They survived the penal times and the famine. When the challenge is put to us we will be able to meet it.
If we do not go in, if we adopt the policy of the Labour Party, what will be our position? We will face the loss of markets. Every country must depend on its markets. The great United States could not stand alone and it is a vast continent. Prior to World War II they adopted an isolation policy of cutting themselves away from Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. They found it did not pay. Surely if a country like that cannot stand on its own, we would have very little chance?
Having said all that, I would like our people to go and find out for themselves and ask any questions they want to ask of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach or the Deputies in their particular areas. They are entitled to know all the facts if we are to have a referendum on certain aspects of the EEC. I do not like facts to be kept from our people. Going along the road one sees "No EEC" notices and all that kind of tripe without any serious consideration being given to the matter. This is one of the most vital steps this country or this Parliament has taken in our time. For that reason we could not know too much about it and the more often we debate this subject the better. I see I will have a little bit of help now.
The Deputy is doing rightly.
He owes it to you, Paddy.
He will be back to the Budget in a few minutes. He is talking about the EEC now.
The EEC is part and parcel of it.
Not this year.
This is a very important subject for the country and for the lives of our people.
There are very much more important subjects.
There will be a separate debate on this subject.
May I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, and claim your indulgence?
The Deputy did not thank Fine Gael.
I thank every Deputy who has an intelligent approach to an international subject.
You provided them with £10,000 I notice. That is a lot more than you provided for us to state the case against it.
If the Deputy, who is a master of economics, put up an intelligent argument we would argue with him but he just gave one side of the argument.
I want to refer to our housing position. We have built a lot of houses in Ireland in my time. About two-thirds of them were built by private enterprise and the local authorities built one-third. It has been stated here that we are not building enough houses. I am very pleased, as far as County Dublin is concerned, that the loans we require are available. The grants are there and the reconstruction grants are there also. Our loans have been increased. I know that we can only take out of the national pool what is in it.
Houses today are costing £4,000 or £5,000 and the people who are trying to buy them have to put down £700 or £800. Many of them cannot get loans from the county council because they are not large enough. We will have to look at the SDA loans with a view to increasing them. The building societies and the insurance companies are coming to the aid of people buying £5,000 houses. Even the normal three-bedroomed house costs over £5,000 in County Dublin. Land prices and other costs have gone up. We are living in a time of private enterprise. I have always welcomed private enterprise because we would not have so many houses built in the city and county of Dublin without private enterprise. About half the houses in the city were built by the local authority over the years. That is a big contribution.
The rates have gone sky high. We are trying to do in a few years what should have been done 20 years ago, with the result that the pressure on the rates is very high. The Minister is trying to introduce a voluntary health scheme. Our health services are getting more expensive every year. The health services are a headache in the wealthy United States and in other countries that have the advantage of more mineral resources and greater wealth than we have. This is one of the big headaches of our time. We are trying to improve the health services—and we are paying the staffs better—but it is very hard on people buying their own homes, and on all sections of our people, that the rates have gone so high. This is a grave national problem. If our balance of payment is reasonably good the country will be all right. We are looking at the rates problem very seriously. Young people today buying a house for £5,000 or £6,000 have to pay about £8 a week in repayments. If the valuation is £25 it has to be multiplied by £5 and the rates are about £130, roughly £3 a week. Between rates and repayments they have to pay out about £10 a week.
I welcome the provision the Minister is making for the health services. I dealt with the social services and I commented on the people who voted against the increases we were giving.
Who voted against them? There was no vote on the Budget this year.
There was.
There was not. There was a vote on the resolution to increase income tax. Let us be accurate.
That is the point he is making: more money for more services.
Thank you, Deputy, for making that point.
It is accurate.
It is sailing very close to the wind.
It is the Deputy who is sailing close to the wind.
Could the Deputy indicate how much longer his sermon will be?
Does the Deputy want to get in?
I am wondering if "Father" Burke will be concluding soon.
Very soon now Deputy O'Donovan said that they voted against the resolution only.
Yes.
It is the Merchant of Venice again and the pound of flesh. Give all the social services you can, increase pensions, increase everything else, but do not put on any taxation. Where does the Deputy think we will get the money to give increases to these unfortunate people?
There is a fair bit of inflation, is there not? Is that not the great problem?
"I propose that we should increase all social services but as soon as you increase them I dare you to increase taxation". Is that not the position?
There would have been an increase of £20 million from income tax without any change.
May I refer to the people the Deputy did not want to see getting any increase?
Repetition.
Old age pensions, widows' pensions, disability pensions, maternity allowances, blind pensions were all increased.
Did they get any real increase? Did not inflation eat it all up?
The Deputy is inspiring me to greater things and I have to reason with him. The Deputy cannot have it every way. He decided that he would vote against any increase whatever.
The fact is that you are a wasteful lot.
You can take the pound of flesh but do not take blood. That is the attitude. They ask why do we not increase everything but as soon as we make an effort to do that——
Is this Fianna Fáil, Mount Street, or Fianna Fáil, Letterkenny?
It is just Paddy Burke, T.D., speaking.
What about the Mansion House last week?
Deputy Burke.
I want to nail this to the mast. We are a Christian socialist party and we are anxious to help every section of our people. People are holding up their hands and saying we are not doing enough for the poorer sections of our people but when we try to do something they vote against it. The learned Deputy Professor is a gentleman and a personal friend of mine and he tells me that he voted against the increase in income tax only.
That is what we voted against. That is a fact.
He voted against about 30 categories who were benefiting in the Budget.
We did not. You are getting £20 million extra out of income tax without changing it at all.
Deputy Burke.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I was born troublesome and I suppose I will be troublesome until the day I die. I wish to conclude on the note on which I started and to thank Deputy O'Donovan for his help. He said he voted only against the increase in income tax——
That is right.
——but he voted also against 30 categories of persons getting increases in social welfare benefits. Did he expect that the Minister for Finance could take the money from his own pocket to look after these people?
He was not satisfied with £20 million extra from income tax but he wanted another £5 million.
I cannot understand the Deputy's attitude especially since he is supposed to be a socialist. Perhaps some day when I have more time I will succeed in convincing Deputy O'Donovan that his economics are upside down in so far as political economics are concerned. I shall not bore the House by reading again the list of categories of people against whom he voted. Two or three months ago a motion tabled by the Opposition parties called for an increase in old age pensions but when we gave an increase in the Budget, they voted against it.
There is nothing in this Budget that would stimulate industry in the West where industry is badly needed. Reports have been submitted by various people suggesting the establishment of industries in rural areas so as to provide employment for our people. It is time we had a little more action and less lip service from the Government. If we had had industries in the West, we would not have had the uproar that we witnessed in connection with the withdrawal of the dole. Certainly, this allowance is a very meagre one but, worse still, I have always considered it to be very unfair insofar as women were concerned because women at no time were eligible to draw the unemployment assistance unless they had dependants. The budgetary proposals should be directed towards providing a sound infrastructure for the establishment of industry.
The telephone service in the West is not satisfactory and is the cause of much concern to business people and, indeed, to private subscribers. It is obvious that sufficient funds are not being provided for this very necessary amenity.
The Estimate for the Department of Lands totalled almost £4½ million but it does not appear as if this is money being well spent. In the constituency I represent, the Land Commission have acquired several estates but some of these have been in their hands for the past seven to nine years. It would be more economical if these lands were divided among the congests so that hardship would be alleviated in these areas.
In relation to social welfare, many widows have not yet been able to avail of the 1970 increase due to the mix up in relation to pension books. Some widows have as many as three books for the one pension. They have been given a separate book for every increase that has been granted with the result that some books have been mislaid in the post office and it is taking several months for the Department to locate them. The allowances for deserted wives were very slow in being paid. In fact, I know of one woman who had absolutely nothing. She applied for her allowance as far back as last October but got it only last week.
Social welfare contributors who enter hospital under the impression that part of their bill will be paid by the Department of Social Welfare find that the cost falls on the local authorities. This sharp practice is very distressing.
From now on those who are self-employed will be forced to pay compulsory insurance against illness but there is no clear indication that this, in any way, will relieve the local rates.
Parity of pensions to retired civil servants and others was promised some years ago and it is being granted now in a half-hearted manner. Pensioners find that the increases in the cost of living are advancing at a faster rate than the promised pension increases. The increases in social welfare are not being granted until the 1st of October next. Many speakers have already referred to the increases in prices that were inflicted on the public under the guise of the changeover to decimal currency. We may expect that further confusion will be caused when the change to the metric system of weights and measures comes into operation. Flour, for example, which formerly was sold per stone is now being sold per four kilogrammes which is equal to eight and a half pounds and costs 7s 11d or 39 new pence. All other household commodities—the necessary foodstuffs, medicine and drugs—will be likewise increased. Even the bar of chocolate is being increased in price although reduced in size.
While I welcome free hospitalisation and transport for long-term patients in hospitals, there is no extra provision in the Budget for increased accommodation for the mentally retarded, for the psychiatric or for the geriatric patients. The facilities for the care and treatment of these categories must be the most backward in Europe.
This Budget is in no way an instrument for expansion. It is merely a device to bide time during which the Government can resolve their internal difficulties. It is not a financial measure but, rather, is it a political stop gap and the danger is that we do not know whether it may be but the first of the Budgets for 1971.
What is required more than anything else at this particular stage of our history, if we are to have the type of advancement and development that we all hope for, is confidence. Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Government cannot say with any justification that confidence exists among the people today or that anything has happened in the past 12 months to indicate that the Government have either the confidence of the people or the ability required to provide the type of leadership necessary. Nobody can claim that the Government now bear any resemblance to the Government for which the Taoiseach secured a mandate in 1969. For the past eight months particularly, forgetting about the difficulties of the arms trial and other similar happenings, most of the remedies that the Government have put forward as being in the national interest have, under pressure of various kinds, been withdrawn.
The present Minister for Finance indicated that a wages ceiling was necessary and that agreements freely entered into would have to be modified or we would face economic disaster. A Prices and Incomes Bill was introduced which, after being debated for a considerable time, wasting the time of the House and the energies of the Government and Deputies, was also withdrawn. After that, we had the threat of internment. No more was heard of that. Before the Budget the Taoiseach was telling the people that a very severe Budget would be necessary to keep the country from being completely submerged but when Budget day arrived the Minister for Finance had not quite the same gloomy picture to paint. These are some of the things that have brought politics in the minds of the people to probably the lowest level since the inception of the State. These are not things happening in one particular year and not happening again for some time. These tactics have been adopted for many years now. For six weeks or so before Budget day people are warned about the very serious financial position of the country and the very severe Budget that will be necessary to keep the economy right and when Budget day arrives, other factors probably having intervened, a different situation emerges.
I am sure that the facts and figures the Government had at their disposal in March and April when the Taoiseach made some of his warning speeches were very similar to those the Minister had when introducing the Budget. The only thing that happened in the meantime, as far as I am aware, was that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Brennan spoke in Arklow. These speeches were very critical of the Administration, so much so that it was necessary for the Minister for Finance to introduce a Budget with one eye on the economic situation and the other on the Government's political fortunes.
It will probably be claimed by many supporters of the Government that differences of opinion within the parties are good and that we should not be yes men. I think it is true that the differences of opinion existing in Fianna Fáil are so deep and, one adds with sadness, so bitter that the only place they can be resolved without doing the country further damage is in Opposition.
The attention of the Government should be fully directed to solving the problems besetting the nation but how can this happen when members of the Government must continually look over each other's shoulder to see what is happening? Budget day is generally regarded as the day of truth in respect of the nation's finances, the day when the Minister for Finance should put before the people exactly how the nation stands and the steps he feels are necessary to maintain the proper course for the economy. Can any member of the Government seriously claim that this is the position. In the past three years five Budgets were introduced by various Ministers of a Government that had set programmes, not for six months, but for five years. Many of their aims even in these programmes were as far off target as the estimates and proposals contained in Budgets in later years.
Much has been said by Fianna Fáil speakers about progress in the past decade. Nobody denies that the standard of living has improved but this is not something peculiar to Ireland. In the past ten years the standard of living has improved in every European country and in many at a faster rate than here. This Government have been in office continuously for the past 14 years and in that time they had the necessary majority to put on the Statute Books whatever proposals they had to solve the nation's problems. In spite of that we have 100,000 fewer people at work than in 1960 and there are now 80,000 unemployed.
The former Taoiseach once said and many members of the present Government agreed that the best test of a Government was their unemployment and emigration figures. The present Government cannot claim that test, which they themselves said should apply to any party seeking the electorate's support, would indicate that their policy has been successful. In view of this, was the Taoiseach justified in referring at Killarney on 1st May, 1971, to "these performances" and the performances of the present Government as particularly spectacular?
"To hell or to Connacht" was a spectacular performance. The deporting of thousands of people to the West Indies was also a spectacular performance. But these are not things we look back on with pride. I do not think anyone would claim to look back with pride on our policies for the last ten years which have resulted in 80,000 people being unemployed.
The Department of Labour have been in operation for a number of years and we are no nearer peace in the industrial field than we ever were. As a matter of fact if some television programmes are to be taken as an indication of the position which exists we are farther than ever away from the type of construction and co-operation which should exist in this field. We have modelled our relations in this field for too long and to too great an extent upon our nearest neighbour, Great Britain. We have not looked further afield to countries where a climate of construction and co-operation exists. With our impending membership of the EEC it is more important than ever that we should have industrial relations of the most friendly nature. The sooner we get away from the mentality of two sides in industry the better. We can only make the advances which are necessary when we have co-operation and trust.
Workers will have to be given a say in management and the present outdated system must be changed. There are too many people in industry today who want the fruits of labour without working for them. Approaches which were acceptable 30 or 40 years ago will not satisfy people today. There are many things in our way of life worth preserving but many things require changing. The Government have not made the changes necessary to meet the challenges of the day.
The 'Sixties were supposed to be the years when the social conscience of the nation was awakened to the difficulties of the weaker section of the community. This Budget does very little for this section and the increases given fall far short of what is required. The present level of social welfare benefits is totally unacceptable. The Minister in his reply will probably tell us about the percentage increases which have taken place over the years under Fianna Fáil. Percentage increases based upon a basic figure of 25s. a week will really bring home to the people the gap which exists between social services here and in other parts of Europe.
Every political party down through the years has expressed noble sentiments as far as the weaker sections of the community are concerned. We all pay lip service to these ideals from time to time. The words of Richard Mulcahy when he seconded acceptance of the Sinn Féin programme in the Mansion House in 1919 have certainly not been lived up to. He said, "No nation could be living and vigorous in which any section of the people were denied a fair share of the bounty bestowed by God on that nation to give it life and sustain that life." The Minister may ask where the money will come from but anyone who stands at Merrion Street at 5 p.m. will agree there is a certain amount of wealth in the country. Greater efforts should be made to ensure that some of that wealth at least is transferred to the weaker sections of the community. There is a duty on those of us who live in comparative snugness and comfort to ensure that the weaker sections of the community are not forgotten. The answer is not to deprive single men of the dole and at the same time allow Embassies increased expenditure for entertainment.
The proposals in the Budget for the agricultural community fall far short of what is required. At the moment there is a gap of £9 per week between the incomes of people living on the land and those employed in industry. This Budget contains £4.3 million for agriculture which amounts to roughly 40p per week for those engaged on the land. One old penny per gallon will be paid to suppliers of milk up to 10,000 gallons and payments under the hogget ewe subsidy scheme will be increased from 30s to £2. Do the Department of Agriculture really think an increase of that nature will bring about the desired increase in sheep numbers?
In the Second Programme for Economic Expansion it was hoped to increase the numbers of sheep from 5 million to 7 million during that five year period but instead of the numbers increasing by 2 million there was a decrease of 1 million. If the Government had introduced the hogget ewe subsidy scheme a year earlier they might have arrested that decline. One can appreciate it is necessary to give that increase for both hill farmers and lowland farmers but if the Government are really anxious to increase sheep numbers greater incentives should be given to the hill farmers because, as far as these people are concerned, one can rest assured that the ideas behind the scheme will be fulfilled. These people normally sell their sheep for breeding purposes whereas the Minister has to guarantee that the money given to lowland farmers will be used in such a way.
When one takes into account the number of sheep throughout the country one can understand the necessity for a nationwide subsidy. There is no increase in the mountain sheep subsidy scheme. How can the Government expect hill farmers to increase sheep numbers unless they are encouraged to do so, particularly when the cost of wintering them on the lowlands is taken into account? If the target of 7 million sheep had been achieved one can well imagine the very desirable effects that would have had on our balance of payments and on our economy generally. So far as this particular industry is concerned it is always a matter of too little too late.
The Minister mentioned that his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, will be announcing an increase as from 1st May in the minimum price of liquid milk to producers in the Dublin and Cork areas. Why can the Minister not give the details now? Let us hope the proposals will not be similar to those of two years ago. These had to be quickly withdrawn. There should be no strings attached to this increase when it comes.
The Deputy must not know that the order has been made as from the 1st of this month. It has been operating since the 1st of the month.
One of the arguments I see against the present blanket credit restriction is the fact that young people, particularly farmers' sons who have only limited capital but possess all the necessary enthusiasm, knowhow and technical knowledge, plus the will to work, are not in a position to buy suitable farms when they come on the market. This causes frustration and discourages the very type of person we should be bending over backwards to help. I am sure many Deputies have met with this problem in their own constituencies, but no positive steps are ever taken to introduce a scheme to help out in these cases.
In many cases the security these people have to offer is three times as great as the amount of money they seek. Yet, they cannot get the necessary capital. Credit restrictions, such as have been introduced here over the years and such as we have to contend with when there is an economic crisis, are always of a blanket character and in many instances they retard the type of development we want. They help to make the rich richer; they increase their prosperity and their possessions while those who should be provided for, if things were right, cannot make any advance because of lack of capital.
The Minister mentioned the introduction of the value added tax. He said at column 719 of volume 253 of the Official Report:
... I consider that it would be preferable to avoid any major alteration in the scope or impact of the tax at the time of the changeover. I shall, however, look at the position most carefully when the new tax is fully in operation and shall consider what modifications might be desirable.
I should like to know from the Minister whether he intends including livestock marts and the meat processing industry in the scope of this tax. This question is exercising the minds of many at the moment. The inclusion of the livestock marts and the meat processing industry would have a very detrimental effect on the industry as a whole. This is something the Minister should consider prior to the introduction of the tax. He should discuss the matter with the various interests involved.
Many speakers have mentioned the tourist industry. It has been said that the target projected by the Minister for Transport and Power will not be realised. Everyone must agree that the number of tourists, particularly English tourists, is down considerably. In my constituency tourism is the most important industry; it is worth £33 million; agriculture is worth close on £3 million and manufacturing industry is worth another £3 million. In the light of those figures the value of tourism to County Wicklow is more than apparent. No real steps have been taken to ensure that the bad publicity the country has received over the last number of years will be counteracted. This bad publicity has not resulted solely from the problems in Northern Ireland. The mass media are culpable in many ways. When there was flooding in Bray the television cameras were there. When there was rioting the television cameras were there. When there were protest marches against the Springboks the television cameras were there. When, however, the television people wanted to show Irish people happy and peaceful, enjoying themselves at the seaside, no resort in County Wicklow was picked for this purpose.
This would be a detail for an Estimate.
The Minister should provide more money in his Budget to ensure that the right type of publicity is given to our tourist resorts, publicity not alone here at home but outside the country as well, to attract tourists here in ever-increasing numbers.
Another matter which has affected the tourist industry is the decrease in the number of gardaí in rural areas and the increase in vandalism and hooliganism as a result of that. This is something the Minister for Finance could help to solve by providing more money for the Department of Justice. When the gardaí were not paid overtime they were expected to work 80 hours a week. Now that they are entitled to overtime they are not being asked to do anything more than 40 hours a week in many instances.
I should like to refer now to the proposed scheme of compulsory health contributions for the middle income group to ease the burden of health costs on the Exchequer. If I remember rightly the amount of money paid by people who are eligible for £2.50 a day for hospital treatment was in the region of £650,000. As a result of the proposals in this Budget the Minister will receive contributions to the extent of £2 million. This will not improve the health services or reduce health charges. In actual fact, as a result of these proposals, the Department of Finance will benefit to the extent of £1,350,000 more than they did under the old scheme. This is just another blister on the taxpayer. Anything that eases the burden of taxation in one direction must result in imposing extra taxation in another direction.
In spite of the fact that there are 100,000 fewer at work now than in 1960; in spite of the fact that there are 80,000 people unemployed; in spite of the fact that there is a lack of faith not alone in politicians but in everyone associated with public life; in spite of all these things, the Minister introduces a Budget that can be summed up in five words: "Leave things as they are".
In speaking on these proposals I should like to refer to the last comment of the previous speaker: "Leave things as they are". That is the main idea the Minister for Finance had when he introduced this Budget. It reminded me of the situation 12 months ago when his predecessor as Minister for Finance came on television and painted a dismal picture and told us we could expect a hard-hitting Budget. I do not want to refer back to the happenings of the past 12 months, but shortly before this Budget was introduced the Taoiseach, speaking in Cork or Killarney, referred to the Budget we might expect. It was the same old story, preparing everybody for something tough that was coming in the Budget. It has become normal now to regard this as the first Budget of the year. I cannot say at the moment on what date the autumn Budget will be introduced in this House.
Although this debate has been on for practically three weeks now, people may think that everything that could be said has been said. It is no harm that we, as public representatives, should remind the people exactly what has been happening. For instance— lest anybody might be misled—the Budget relief in relation to company taxation will have no effect until next year; it will have no effect in mitigating the disastrous increases in company taxation which were introduced in October, 1970. Company taxation is running at 58 per cent here as against 40 per cent in England.
During the last few months we have seen, week after week, companies, firms, going into liquidation, going bankrupt, and workers losing their jobs. What action have the Government taken? They have taken the same notice of this situation as they took when the banks closed in May, 1970. They sat back and did nothing. It was called a closure. Of course if it happened in any private company it would not be called a closure: it would be called a lock-out or a strike. I accuse the Government—and I make no apology for doing so in this House— of doing nothing over those months to try to have the banks reopened.
It was due to that closure that many people find themselves in difficulties today. This applies to small business people as well as large firms. I put it down to the failure of the Government or of the Minister concerned to take any action in the matter. I will admit honestly in this House that there were probably people who took chances. You will find that always, but there were decent people who never intended to defraud anybody, and they found themselves in difficulties when the banks reopened.
While I am on that subject, I should like to refer to the question of credit restrictions. It is generally known at present that there is not one penny to be got from the banks. People and firms who have overdrafts are being constantly pressed. I believe that the Government have scraped the bottom of the barrel.
In the past year prices here have risen by more than 8 points and 2½ points of that were due to the increase in the turnover tax in the Budget of May, 1970. Compared with this there was a 4 per cent rise in prices in Germany, a rise of 5 to 7 per cent in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that this increase has hit pensioners and people on fixed incomes hardest. Yet the Budget has merely marked time because the increases given to pensioners and social welfare recipients and those people covered by what might be described as the "give away" points of the Budget are designed merely to compensate for the actual rise that has occurred in the past 12 months in the cost of living. The unfortunate part of this is that although the cost of living has risen by 8 points in the year the proposed increases will not in many cases take effect until August and in some cases until next October. At the same time, it only applies to those who are covered by social welfare benefits. Even if these meagre increases were to apply from the date or within a week of the Budget I would think that in 1971 they are very meagre increases to any old age pensioner, widow, orphan or any social welfare recipient. What has been done about pensioners or people who have invested their savings and made arrangements to cover their retirement? These people through their own efforts during their years of employment tried to provide for their later years but because of the present level of pensions they will not benefit. The change in respect of income tax will mean very little in most of these cases.
In relation to health services, 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 information available on the number of persons insured in different categories, it should be possible to calculate precisely what the stamp charge will be but to date we have not been given this information by the Minister.
They have the answer to the sum but they have not got the figures which make it up.
I thought they might have found them last week. I was away. When the 1947 Health Act was introduced I was not a member of this House but I was a member of Carlow County Council. It was claimed then that the cost would not exceed 2s in the £. With the possible exception of the initial year it was never as low as 2s in the £.
It is now £2.
I would hate to tell the House what it is costing in Carlow today but it is over 30s in the £. I hope that when the Minister is replying he will be good enough to let the people know what exactly will be the cost of this compulsory stamp.
I should have mentioned when I was speaking on the rise in the cost of living over the past 12 months that while a lot of it is due to the doubling of the turnover tax since decimalisation was introduced on 15th February I am told prices have increased. People tell me they are finding it much more difficult to make ends meet. I am not against decimalisation but people suspect that advantage may have been taken in some cases of the change to decimalisation. I would not like to say that that has happened but we do hear this criticism and it is only right that we should ask what the Department of Industry and Commerce and all the prices advisory services have been doing.
With regard to income tax it is well that everybody should know now, in case it has not been spelled out, that in the present Budget it has been set out that the first £100 of taxable income that every taxpayer earns will now be liable to the full rate of income tax. This is a new departure. The Minister mentioned the number of people who will be exempted from the register of taxpayers but I have not got it here. It is infinitesimal as against the number who will still be on the tax register.
They will be allowing off £1 million and they will collect £6 million in extra taxation.
In his Budget Statement the Minister said:
As regard agriculture, the Government are sympathetic to the situation that farmers have found themselves in over the past couple of years whereby as a result of inflation incomes in certain other sectors have increased at a faster rate than those of farmers.
I am glad to hear that someone is now becoming sympathetic towards the farmers and it is jolly well time. We all know what happened a few years ago. Some members of the Fianna Fáil Party were not too sympathetic towards the farmers when they were left outside in Merrion Square.
And in Mountjoy. Anyone who paraded outside the gates since was not brought to Mountjoy. That is selective justice. That is what Deputy Blaney was talking about in Arklow.
The Deputy is an expert on justice.
I know a little about the injustices in the country at present. It is time that members of the Fianna Fáil Party did something about it. There will be anarchy in the country in a year's time if lawlessness is allowed to continue. The Government are afraid to tackle it and so are the judges and justices.
Deputy L'Estrange should allow Deputy Governey to make his contribution.
I want to refer now to the beef incentive subsidy scheme. I am disappointed that there has been no addition to that scheme under the Budget. My criticism is that there is nothing for the first two under the beef scheme. It is unfair that a big farmer with, let us say, 500 head of cattle gets a subsidy on 498, while the poor man with four gets it only on two. It would not cost a great deal to give it on the first two and it would mean a lot to the less well off farmers and the small farmers.
A few months ago an attempt was made by the Minister for Finance to introduce a prices and incomes policy of a sort. He was on television with the hard cheek out and there was to be no retreat. He did not take long to change his mind. I suppose this is nothing new from this Government of indecision. We had a repetition from the Minister for Labour and Social Welfare on the dole question in the rural and urban areas. Within a few days it was all a mistake. Seemingly some poor civil servant was supposed to have made a mistake, but what about the notice that went out to the labour exchanges?
When you are playing golf you do not know what is happening.
What about the Book of Estimates?
I am at least glad that the dole was not withdrawn from the urban area but I am sorry it was withdrawn from the rural area. I want to say this quite clearly. To my mind the worst thing is that the Minister has discriminated between people because they live in different parts of a county. A person in the town of Carlow in my constituency is entitled to draw the dole but a person in a rural area in Carlow is not. What is the difference if neither of them can get work? Is this an attempt to shift the responsibility over to the local authorities to meet any needs with home assistance?
I will not say much about the increase in the price of spirits. I suppose it will be said that anyone who can drink spirits can afford them. I will say that the new penny on the pint is a hardship. I do not look on the pint as a luxury. I regard it as food and nourishment for the ordinary working person. I often drank a pint myself. There are many people working on the docks in Dublin, and down the country, whose main nourishment or meal at mid-day is a pint and a sandwich. Year after year the pint is taxed. When the turnover tax was introduced it was supposed to cure all our ills——
Turnover Joe is gone now.
——yet year after year we have had increases in taxation on spirits, beer, petrol and so on.
It is unfair that the delays should be so long in the payment of benefits to recipients of social welfare. I know the case of a person who left his employment due to his wife's illness and he was automatically disqualified for six weeks. I suppose that might be understandable.
That was because he told the truth.
That was a six weeks disqualification. Wait until you hear the best part of the story. The person who brought this case to my notice told me this week that that man has now been signing for 18 weeks and he has not yet got a penny. When we make representations to the Department of Social Welfare I should like to see more than that little note: "Fuaras do litir...". These are just a few brief points I wanted to refer to. I hope that on Tuesday next I will be able to add a few more observations. I can well understand why the Budget was not given full consideration. The Government had too much on their mind in trying to keep things floating within their own ranks.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 7 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday 25th May, 1971.