I am not certain how I should address the House so I hope the Chair will bear with me. I listened with interest to Deputy O'Malley's speech. It had a good deal of merit in it and we could say that he was objective. However, one could also say that in many respects he was selective which, I suppose, is what is to be expected from an Opposition member in debating any budget.
The attitude of the Opposition to the Minister's statement regarding the EEC fund has been somewhat unfair to the Minister. It has been suggested in Opposition circles that the money from the EEC could not be taken into account. There were suggestions that the country did not come into receipt of those funds. If you pay attention to what the Minister actually stated about the fund you will find that he acknowledged it. In his budget speech he said that it is estimated that the resultant gross savings in current Exchequer expenditure in 1973/74, after certain deductions for certain reasons, will be in the area of £29 million. He said :
In sum, taking account of the items I have mentioned, the net Exchequer gain on the current budget in 1973/74 from EEC membership is estimated to be of the order of £29 million.
It can be clearly seen that the Minister acknowledged the fact that this fund exists, and that this country is in receipt of that fund. It is a very important fund which we acknowledge on the Government side of the House. With regard to his description of the fact that it has disappeared in a sea of inflation, we can use this imaginatively, because what the Minister is referring to there is the fact that, looking at the revenue and expenditure problems, he was faced with an opening gap of £20 million between revenue of £734 million and expenditure of £754 million. If you like, when he opened his books, faced with a gap in terms of deficits of £20 million, while £29 million was to be taken into account which had not been there previously, the Minister was not starting from a very balanced situation. To that extent, to close that gap, £20 million was required. One might say that £9 million, on balance, of EEC funds was available.
In the area of social welfare the commitment of this Government in this year will amount to £51 million. and in a full year to £69 million. If the Government are to distribute social welfare benefits to the extent that seems desirable in present circumstances, obviously there is a very considerable shortfall, and that shortfall has got to be met from revenue. Revenue can only be got from taxation. Many of the speeches from the Opposition referred to the fact that taxation is necessary. It is obvious that, if the benefits are to be given to people in the area of social welfare, they must be paid for in some area or other of taxation.
Some Opposition speakers have stated that if the social welfare increases had any surprise it was in the level of their inadequacy. Objectively, if we look at the level of benefits in this area in comparison with budgets in previous years, we will see readily that there has been a vast increase in the level of commitment to the underprivileged people through the extent and the scope of the commitment by the Government. If it is surprising to Opposition speakers that there is an inadequacy in the social fund, obviously they will suggest that we should increase the level still further which again must be paid for by additional taxation. It seems to me that we cannot have it both ways.
Deputy O'Malley attempted to tell us the facts of life about inflation and how guarded we should be in our attitude to it. As a Government we have inherited quite a problem in that regard. Deputy O'Malley said that there is inflation throughout Europe. The recent OECD report, published in March of this year, shows that this country has had the highest rate of inflation within the EEC, and practically the highest of those countries within which the OECD has been involved. This country has had critical problems.
Broadly speaking, the budget could be staled to be a budget which has been fundamental in approach. It was introduced by a Government who were in office only a few short weeks. While this Government had commitments in many areas of national activity, it was not possible to implement fully all that was desirable within a limited time. It was fundamental in the sense that there was a commitment to redress certain imbalances in the distribution of wealth. In a sphere or an area of inflation, over the last three or four years, in which many elements in our society benefited very considerably through our involvement with EEC, and where our farming community has benefited, while people in other areas may complain about inflation, at least nationally there have been rates of increase which have helped to ease the problem. Without question, the major problem faced by any segment in this country was faced among the less privileged people whose source of income had not in any sense kept pace with the level of inflation or the increase in the cost of living. Fundamentally, the approach has been sound in that that imbalance has been redressed.
Not very long ago we talked about the problem of the reunification of this country without looking at the major catastrophe which has occurred on this island in the last three years —and it was stated by many people that there was a major problem in the area of social welfare benefits. Why would people in the North have anything to do with people in the Republic of Ireland because of the great imbalance in that area? It is significant that the Taoiseach, in his opening speech to the House on the budget, in referring to this showed that the gap between the social welfare levels in the North of Ireland at the moment and in this part of the country has been narrowed significantly. At the moment in many areas of social welfare the gap is marginal. In a space of three to four years this is a significant achievement.
It has been stated that we are not a wealthy country. We have a higher proportion of our people in receipt of social welfare than other countries. It has been estimated that, to a great extent, this budget will benefit over 700,000 out of our population of practically 3,000,000, which is about 25 per cent of our people. This, in my view, was the greatest need in relative terms and I compliment the Minister on his budget.
There has been a debate on the question of national policy in regard to rating. In this area the policy of the Minister is sound in tackling rating in a more fundamental manner by looking at the entire rating situation. There was a major weakness in the proposal by the Opposition prior to the last election that they would abolish rates on dwellings. While it would afford immediate benefit to dwellers, if implemented, it would create major problems in many sections of the community.
In a number of towns, relative to the population, we have inherited, as a nation of shopkeepers, a vast number of shops. Today we have rationalisation in the wholesale and retail trades. We have large supermarket groups emerging in our cities and towns. One of the weaknesses in the approach of Fianna Fáil was that, in suggesting rate relief on dwellings, they only went half way. Many people in declining trading situations in parts of the country, such as the part of the country I am from where there is a declining population, are carrying properties which were rated at a level which bore no relationship to the capacity of those people to pay.
This has been the basic injustice of the rating system. Many people in this House, regardless of their political persuasion, will subscribe to that. The approach by the Minister in tackling this problem more fundamentally and taking longer to reduce the total commitments is probably wiser in the interests of the country, is less of a short cut and is done less in haste. The budget, with the very substantial increase in the area of capital investment and through the substantially greater purchasing power in many sections of our community, will obviously benefit the business community, too, through the greater amount of money in circulation. I am glad, as someone from the West, to know that the Minister, due to an anomaly in the EEC situation for the moment, has a commitment to the extent of £5,000,000 to the sheep industry.
One or two Opposition speakers, in talking about the West in general, referred to the problems of communication. Deputy Callanan, I think, spoke about this. There are problems of communication by road from here to the West. I am inclined to agree with him in that. There is a major problem so far as communication is concerned, strangely not to the same extent in the West of the country as when we approach Dublin. For a number of years we have had a most appalling problem on the road from Enfield-Maynooth-Lucan into Dublin and, in the long term, the responsible authorities will need to take a serious look at this problem, because it would be in the interests of the country as a whole as well as in the interests of this part of the country and in the interests of our part of the country that something should be done about this road.
There are certain constructive points I should like to make to the Minister. They will require attention over the next couple of years. Where the farming community are concerned there is at the moment a more encouraging picture in the West for the very obvious reason that we are now members of the EEC, have significantly increased stock numbers and, at the same time. there is a tremendous increase in the value of land. There is a more hopeful position in regard to the development of land in so far as the development of marginal land is concerned. Until quite recently the development of much of this land in economic terms on a costbenefit analysis was a rather dubious type of pursuit. This is one area which has changed dramatically in the last 12 months.
There are two or three reasons for this. We are finding that the increased stock levels with EEC involvement, with our markets, and, in addition to that, new technology which is apparently available now to develop physically that resource which has not previously been available, opens up a new picture. However, that new picture cannot really be painted until there is adequate investment. I would commend to the Minister that he and his colleagues in government might discuss this question in a broad sense because, whilst we may talk about areas of national activity, areas of development and areas of growth, it is paradoxical that in a country of this small size the resource which is underutilised and underdeveloped to the greatest extent is that of land. This, in economic terms, does not make a great deal of sense. It is a matter which should be looked at.
I was interested to hear some Opposition speakers talking about the level of emigration. I could not agree with the tendency of one or two speakers to attempt to deal with emigration or unemployment in entirely national terms. One Deputy said he would hate to see emigration starting again and the ex-Minister for Finance referred to the fact that, for the first time since the Famine, emigration is almost non-existent. I would not be justifying my existence in this House if I did not refer to some problems which relate to this question of unemployment. One of the weaknesses at present is that, because of the fact that there are better statistics in so far as emigration is concerned, there is a tendency to forget there are problems in the West which exist in some cases to as great an extent as they did ten, 15 or 20 years ago. We have experienced substantial declines in population in Mayo, Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon and Donegal and this has been due to an imbalance in the structure of the population and a lack of employment opportunities plus the small size of the holdings and an inadequate creation of jobs in that area in comparison with the rest of the country.
It has been due to many factors and it has not stopped. In fact, the OECD report—we can at least agree that it is an objective report—points out that there is a problem in so far as unemployment is concerned. They state:
There are also quite large differences in regional unemployment rates, the provinces of Ulster and North Connacht are at one extreme, with rates approaching double the mean Irish rate, and the Dublin area is at the other extreme with a different rate. The falling trend in which the unemployment rate over the last two decades is largely reflected in declines in the most developed areas.
There is practically no change—that is, over the last two decades—
—in the two highest rates in Ulster and North Connacht and the differential between high and low seems, therefore, to have widened.
This puts the problem of unemployment, particularly in the province of Connacht, somewhat into perspective, when we read such damning statements in an objective report by responsible people.
In regard to the problems we experience in the West I was glad to note that the Minister referred to the attitude of the Government on the question of regional development. The Minister referred to the fact that the Government are pledged to work for a community regional development policy that will assist Irish agriculture and our western and other underdeveloped regions:
We intend in accordance with this pledge to do our utmost to see not only that decisions are implemented ...but that they are implemented in a manner and a scale which reflects the major importance of regional policy for the future development of the community.
Obviously problems of this nature cannot be tackled overnight. They require time, but that is a commitment of the Minister in this very important area of activity. It was interesting to note in today's paper that Mr. Spinelli of the European Commission stated at a Press conference that it was his belief that the regional fund would not be of much use if it consisted of less than £450 million. This is a major possibility. If this comes to pass obviously a country like ours on the periphery of Europe will stand to benefit proportionately to a much greater extent than will some of the wealthier countries in Europe.
Again, to highlight the problems in the western part of the country, it would be useful to put on record some of the levels of development there in comparison with other parts of the country and in comparison with other parts of Europe. The average personal income in the West is quoted at £73; in the East it is £173. We have nearly double the unemployment rate. Compared with what are termed the other peripheral areas of the EEC we have the lowest density of people, with 23 per kilometre; the national average is 42 and the European average is 166. We have the highest proportion of population in primary employment, such as agriculture, in which we have nearly 50 per cent; the European average is 10 per cent. We have double the proportion of population in primary employment than are contained in the worst areas of the EEC in the other European peripheral areas. In terms of economics, of development and of population statistics there is, as development takes place, a correspondingly lower proportion of people engaged in primary employment. If we still have at this stage nearly 50 per cent of our people engaged in this kind of activity that gives an indication of the extent to which there are problems that need to be looked at in a broad and fundamental sense.
The history is poor because, in 1952, the Underdeveloped Areas Act was passed. This was an attempt to create employment to a significant extent in the western part of the country. Yet, since 1952, Mayo has been reduced in population from 141,000 to 108,000, a drop of 33,000, or approximately 25 per cent of the total population. It is a tragedy that this should have occurred. If one looks at it in another sense, through the catastrophe of earthquake or national disaster, one might think national resources should be mobilised to do something about it but, because it happens in dribs and drabs, it has not altogether helped the situation. Recently a job was advertised in Castlebar, not a very well-paid job, and there were about 78 applicants.
While we may talk about national prosperity there are areas in the country in which there are very serious problems. The point I should like to make in regard to the European Regional Development Fund is that this fund has been set up to create a politically stable community in Europe in the sense that the longterm future of Europe depends on political stability apart from the areas of economics, law, education and many such things and from a desire that there will be peace in Europe. The purpose of the regional fund is to reduce the disparities between income levels so that there is a better political situation with more contentment generally. If, seeing our position relative to the EEC, we feel that we need special policies from the EEC in the field of regional development, I would hope that as a nation we might begin to appreciate the sense of deprivation that has been felt in western counties within this country.
I know that the Government will have sympathy with the West when the regional fund emerges, when we have got our proportion of that cake. It is all very well to say that all Ireland is on the periphery of Europe and, of course, it is in relative terms but within this country if that fund were to be distributed entirely pro rata it would not have the effect of redressing the imbalance that exists. I hope consideration will be given to the special problems in the western counties and that a good proportion of that fund will be utilised to bring up the level of development. There are problems in certain areas which should be looked at.
Industrial development is of major significance because it has been the major area in which employment has been created. Before I became a Member of this House I had something to say on this topic. There is a tendency to suggest that there is an adequate differential in the area of incentives to industry coming into this country. There is a tendency among unthinking people to concentrate entirely on the grant as the major incentive. We tend to forget that of very significant importance is the concession in the area of taxation under which we allow 100 per cent relief to exporting companies on their exports over a period of 15 years and for a further period of five years. It is all very well to suggest that nationally in the area of grant there is a 15 per cent, 20 per cent differential and this seems significant because you are handing out lumps of money to people but companies coming into this country are more concerned with return on investment than they are necessarily with the input. Obviously multi-national companies which do not have any particular financial problem are very concerned with the return on investment because these are the kind of companies which are not usually short of funds.
Let us look at the grant situation allied to the tax situation and try to compute it on a return on investment level. For example, if you invest £1,000 in the east of the country with a 30 per cent grant and in the west with, say, a 50 per cent grant, the initial investment in the east is £700 and in the west £500. If we presuppose there is a profit of 10 per cent on the investment in this situation there is £100 profit both in the west and in the east but we must bear in mind that both of these companies avail of a major concession of total relief from income tax because they are exporting and that total relief from income tax in a country in which the normal rate of tax is 50 per cent is a major consideration. So you end up with a return on investment, for example, in the east of 14 per cent on investment and 20 per cent in the west. You are now down on return on investment to a differential of 6 per cent where in the area of initial grant there was a differential of 20 per cent. The gap is now narrowed to a return on investment of only about 6 per cent but in addition to that companies in the western part of the country have to bear very serious problems in the areas of freight and communications. So, correspondingly, it could be suggested that the differential is inadequate. Other countries have looked at such problems and very few countries in Europe offer tax concessions; some countries do on the American Continent but what they have tended to do where there has been disparity has been to look at their tax concessions as we look at our grant concessions here and they have arranged differentials in the level of tax concessions as well as that. The previous Government over the past 15 years shall have taken a fundamental look at this problem and at the imbalance which has denuded a great deal of our part of the country of people.
So far as Dublin is concerned it has been stated from time to time that it was Government policy, and presumably it is Government policy, that Dublin will not develop beyond the level of its natural increase, that there will not be special subsidies or special incentives. It would seem to me that we should be clear about what we mean when we state this. It would seem to me particularly that where the tax concession is concerned and where we offer a relief of major significance, 50 per cent relief on exports, that possibly such a policy in relation to the city of Dublin should be looked at. I know there are many interests within Dublin which would commend a lessening of the level of development and it would certainly help the country at large if a serious look was taken at this matter. If any change was envisaged in this area it would in no way affect the position of manufacturing companies who are in this country and who have got commitments from the Department of Finance or from the IDA.
I was glad that the Minister referred to the proposed new Department of the Public Service which is contained within his Department. I am making my maiden speech and referring to my part of the country without any apology. We may talk about the problems which we have and the very basic fact that we need investment because investment is equated with jobs and if the input goes in in the areas of agriculture and industry the output comes out but in a small country like this we should be able to arrange our affairs so that a reasonable level of employment is created. I can be very critical of the previous Government in many specific areas. At the same time, I can say broadly that successive Governments have had major problems due to the level of our underdevelopment basically as a nation. I believe that with the emergence of EEC funds there will be a great change in the level of development but if this is to happen structures are very important. The Devlin Report, that major report which was received with commendation by most people interested in that type of thing, pointed the way to some of the solutions. At many of the conferences held here over the past two years—for instance, the Western Alliance Conference which took place in Galway—in the plans produced by Macra na Feirme, the community council proposals of Muintir na Tire —all these point to certain solutions for the structural problems we have had.
It is interesting that at the Western Alliance Conference a speech was made by the Director of the Institute of Public Administration mainly dealing with this question of structures and regionalisation and about the extent to which it exists or does not exist. He reiterated some points that many of us have been making for some time, that is, that this country is extremely centralised and that there is complete centralisation of government within this city. In the remainder of the country there are regional offices of many organisations or branch offices of national institutions, but each is responsible to a head office or Government Department in this city. There appears to be only one organisation in which there appears to be a level of economy and which has an entirely different structure from other organisations. I refer to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. Indeed, its structure is different entirely from the structure of other organisations in the Western area from North Kerry to Donegal.
It is interesting to note some of the results that have emerged in the Shannon and mid-West regions. We find there that the attitude of organisations is distinctly different and that the level of development and of job opportunity is very high. Apart from Dublin, the area has the highest development level in the country. Yet, economically those regions in the mid-West are almost as far from Dublin as are other parts of the West. The region has also a very high level of tourist development. Consideration of the structure of development there raises certain questions. The general concensus of opinion may be that SFADCo has been a reasonably successful operation within the limitations of its resources. It could be suggested that if other parts of the country had similar resources and structures they, too, could have equal levels of employment and development.
At a conference held about a year ago, the Chairman of SFADCo, in his opening remarks, referred to a debate that took place in this House, the summary of which emphasises the point I am trying to make. This gentleman stated that in a Dáil debate in October, 1959, the then Minister for Transport and Power in relation to a question about the need for financing a new State company at Shannon, was asked why could the job not be done by existing institutions and that the reply was that it was essential to have a group of people who are specialists and who, literally, dream Shannon and eat and drink Shannon during the day, that this requires a special board and executives who know all the answers, who have inquiring minds, who have the ability to conduct market 'research and to advertise on an extensive scale.
I agree with the point made by the Minister at that time, that is, that in certain cases of development, existing institutions are either inadequate or need reform. We have had experience since 1959 of what has happened in the mid-West. One of the biggest complaints that has been made during the past decade has been that the Government have not paid attention to the lessons to be learned and have not reached certain conclusions from the type of development. The time has now been reached when it is reasonable to ask whether that operation has been a success or a failure, whether it should be encouraged or discouraged, whether it should be phased out or, if it has been a success, should we use it as a model on which to shape the development of other parts of our country in which there are problems.
I know that Devlin tackled this to some extent. It referred to the great anomaly that exists in respect of regionalisation, yet nothing happened in that regard. Devlin said that regionalisation is not yet a coherent working concept in Irish government, that it is being developed in an uncoordinated manner by several separate authorities and that in the central government area there is a proliferation of overlapping regions in so far as the services of Departments are concerned.
At the Western Alliance Conference in Galway someone spoke of the situation of a roan living in Roscommon. It is one matter for a central government agency to consider regional problems but it is of equal importance to consider them from a micro-economic point of view. It was pointed out that, so far as a man living in North Roscommon is concerned, his regional centre is the regional health board in Galway and that if he has a Civil Defence problem he goes to Galway also. However, if he is in the tourist business, he is in the Midland Region, the headquarters of which are in Athlone and that his physical planning area is also Athlone. But that links him with only four of the six counties that are joined in the tourist interest. If that man wishes to send his child to a regional technical college, the child must go to Sligo, whereas a child from South Roscommon would go to Athlone. This is the sort of mess we have got into because of the various Government organisations and agencies each going their own way and evolving their own regional structures. That is all very well from their own point of view but it is disastrous in a national context. The Minister and his colleagues may be faced with fundamental decisions in this area during the next two to three years.
I am glad that the Minister referred in his speech to a Department of Public Services. This is an indication that the Government are giving serious consideration to the questions I have raised. It would be apt, too, to make a few remarks in relation to the Report of Roinn na Gaeltachta which was made available some time ago but in respect of which no action has been taken. This was a substantial document and many people put a lot of work into its compilation. It contains some very useful comments and it is to one of these that I wish to refer in particular. This concerns the economic development of Gaeltacht districts, an area in which we are also running into problems because of overlapping and a lack of the right approach.
If we consider Connemara, for example, we find that the south of the area is fiór-Gaeltacht while the north is largely English speaking, but that at the same time both areas are much the same economically. However, there is an overlapping of State agencies in regard to the development of these areas and this overlapping can act sometimes to the detriment of the regions. We find much the same problem in the Erris area. This area is about the size of County Louth and has as its centre, the town of Belmullet. We find there that two or three economic agencies have functions in a confined area, separating an urban area from a rural area, that this leads to major problems. In economic terms, one agency is concerned with one matter and will not have a function in regard, for instance, to the siting of factories in the economic interest of the area and where emphasis on language is possibly being used to the detriment of the economic advancement of the area.
My own view is that, in so far as Gaeltacht areas are concerned, certainly where national identity is concerned, there is a need for a separate entity that is charged with such responsibility but that in the economic area there should be a closer working together of economic agencies within the State, irrespective of whether these areas are Irish speaking or English speaking. There is one specific example to which I would refer. This illustrates some of the problems and it was referred to by Roinn na Gaeltachta in their Report. In Gaeltacht areas, where Gaeltarra Éireann rather than the IDA have the function of creating employment, there is an insistence on equitable participation by (the Board of Gaeltarra Éireann in cases where the level of investment is above a certain limit—I think it is £20,000. Any industry that is creating major employment will have investment above that level.
One of the problems about Gaeltacht areas is that, if substantial companies come into this country seeking to employ their resources and to create employment, it is distinctly possible that many of these companies would fight shy of Gaeltacht areas for the very clause which is inserted in the charter of Gaeltarra Éireann, namely, the insistence on equity participation. Most companies coming into this country are confident of what they are going to do and, while they might borrow funds from lending agencies, they are normally not very interested in seeking equity participation by other companies or interests. This insistence that there should be investment by Gaeltarra Éireann is possibly forcing them into other parts of this country to the detriment of the very interests which we are supposed to be serving with this type of policy. There is a need to take a very hard look at this problem.
I made a few remarks in regard to the SFADCo structure and the level of development in the mid-West region. Since then regional development organisations have been set up in other parts of the country, and the IDA regional offices have been based on the areas on which the regional development offices have been set up. It is important to remember, if we look at the regional development organisations, that they bear no relationship at all to the SFADCo structure because of the fact that they are entirely consultative and merely give advice to local authorities, Government Departments and semi-State bodies. To that extent they have very few teeth and are very limited in the extent to which they can propose solutions to our problems.
There is a further anomaly in the regional picture in that a few years ago county development teams were formed employing county development officers who were officers of the Department of Finance. It appears that this system has worked very well, but subsequent to that regional IDA officers were created and to an extent there was an overlapping of functions, again indicating the anomalies involved. The Minister in his speech referred to the Department of Public Services, and in looking at such problems as regional development it will be found that fundamental decisions will be necessary, especially in so far as the North-Western counties are concerned, the counties of Mayo, Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal, possibly Cavan and Galway, and that the solution will rest in a devolution of authority to some type of development board in that province which would be agreed through consultation with various interests. The creation of such a development board would reflect the views which have been expressed for a number of years by all the relevant authorities and vocational groups in this country who have sought this type of development.
Numerous requests were made to the previous Government to look at the question of the subsidisation of freight from the West of Ireland. Many speeches were made but nothing specific was done about the matter. I think CIE have brought out in some modified form a proposal of their own, but it is one of considerable limitation. It was suggested by the ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, that there was a problem because of our commitment to the EEC and obligations there in regard to the implementation of such a freight concession. It appears there is not much foundation for what he said, because at a conference in Galway about a year ago Professor Romus of one of the divisions of the EEC stated that freight subsidy did exist within the EEC at present in relation to the movement of certain goods from factories in Southern Bavaria to the North German ports. Therefore it seems there is a precedent. A submission was made to Deputy Colley a number of years ago by Mayo Industrial Association in relation to this matter and we produced statistics to show that of every eight railway waggons, or something like that, coming into the country full of goods, seven were going back empty and only one was going back full. The case was made that without it costing the national Exchequer an additional penny, something could be done in the area of freight.
Before concluding, I wish to revert to the budget in broad terms, and again to compliment the Minister. He has made commitments in his speech in relation to many aspects of what we have discussed. Deputy O'Malley referred to the death duty situation and accused the Government of reneging on its promise in this regard. That is not so, as is evident from the Minister's speech. It is a little unrealistic to expect the Government, within six weeks after taking office, to produce a budget which would contain totally what had been its pre-budget promises. I would have more respect for Opposition Members if they came into this House in a year's or two years' time and then said: "Nothing has been done about death duties." Their criticism might be valid but the Minister said in his speech in relation to death duties:
The Government, before taking up office, undertook to abolish estate duty and to replace it with a new form of taxation of capital.
His next sentence is:
This commitment will be honoured.
The Minister for Finance is a man of integrity, and I do not think that has ever been questioned. In my view, the simple sentence that this commitment would be honoured has certain substance and should be given the respect it deserves. He goes on to say:
However any radical re-shaping of our present system of taxing capital is a matter that requires detailed consideration.
That is obvious.
The question is being studied in depth and a White Paper will be published as soon as possible. This will afford all interested parties an opportunity to give their views on this important and complicated matter. The speed at which it will be possible to replace estate duty by anew form of taxation on capital will, therefore, depend on the co-operation of the interests concerned.
Of course, he has allowed for certain minor benefits in that area. However, the fact that he has stated that the commitment will be honoured means a considerable amount to me, at any rate.
In relation to the capital budget, the vast increase in capital expenditure will generate growth and this is to be welcomed. In a period of massive inflation, certain sections of our community have benefited a great deal. The fundamental objective of the Government in redressing the imbalance and providing for higher levels of social welfare and for health is merely the first step to further measures that will be taken by this Government to the benefit of the country.
