I regret to say that last night I was diverted from the tenor of my way, to stray into what might have sounded like customary political polemics. That was not my intention. I pointed out that the origin of this social welfare legislation had come about when there were in this State progressives and conservatives. Our party and the Labour party at that time were the promoters of the first social proposals in this direction. In 1933 it was this party who passed the first Act mentioned in section 1 of this Bill. The party with which the Labour Party is associated in Coalition today was the Conservative Party. I adverted to the facts of that situation to put this pertinent remark into perspective.
When this legislation was being developed at that time the Labour Party were in favour of it, as were the Fianna Fáil Party. As I pointed out last night, one has only to read the first section of this Bill and the dates to see the record of Fianna Fáil in social services. I want to associate that social record with a vital factor. That programme was possible and, more important, it was effective. It was more than a formality, not because it was enacted here, not even because funds were provided, but essentially because it went a long way towards a progressive, developing, expanding economic policy, where the economy of the State was expanding, the economic activity was growing and the capacity to pay and support these services was expanding. The difficulty I see in the present situation is that that corresponding environment and supporting activity are not here. I fear that as a result of this Bill—I am not disparaging it, nor do I wish to do so—we are not concomitantly developing the resources to support this measure in order to make it as socially effective as similar measures were in the past. In all fairness I concede that we are in a period of regression. I concede also that much of today's difficulty stems from an overall environment, that there are factors which the present Government or, indeed any Government sitting over there are unable to control fully. I do not want now to indulge in the political polemic of throwing all the blame on the Government regardless of reason but we must, nevertheless, face the facts. There are certain difficulties of recession and I would be failing in my duty as an Opposition Deputy if I did not point out that I see nowhere in current programmes the expansionary economic activity which to my mind will be needed ultimately to make this legislation effective.
Approaching this Bill with that principle in mind and, on that principle, I must refer, again briefly, to keep within the terms of order, to something that has come up on nearly all the Bills which have preceded this Bill. This is really part of a series of financial legislation. It has come not because of what has happened in its old context as a purely social service Bill to be taken independently and looked at in the light of the economy as a whole and treated as a unit but rather as part of a series of financial legislation. I think this is somewhat unfortunate. I do not want to broaden this but it is extremely difficult to disentangle this Bill from the series of operations, particularly through the Minister for Finance, in legislation still before the House and legislation that is pending. This Bill can only be interpreted as part of a series of enactments implementing the budget; the Capital Gains Tax Bill, the Wealth Tax Bill, and the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill are all part of the budget. I hesitate to say this because it looks like a device to try to get out of order, but it is a very genuine difficulty in trying to assess this Bill. There is nobody in his sane senses who will argue that these benefits should not be given. I will go further and say that I am very glad in the circumstances the Minister has had to take into account to give these benefits, but I would like to be sure that this crutch will be backed up by the power to make the reliefs effective. It is here, as I see it, that we come into the difficulty of financing and treating this as part of the financial business.
Two things must be said about this Bill; the increases in benefits are obviously necessary to keep the benefits in line with inflation. That is absolutely necessary. If the Minister has been able to do a bit better than that—I think he claims he has—more power to him. Now what about the cost? What does it mean? How real are these benefits? Where will they come from? Where will they ultimately come from? A few points are pertinent. Because of the factors I have mentioned about financial legislation and in justification of my claim that this is only part of a series of financial enactments, can the Parliamentary Secretary deny that as far as getting the money is concerned— I shall come back to this again in relation to the accounting of it—if the Minister for Finance has given income tax reliefs to the vast majority of people who are working and earning wages and salaries, is he not taking those reliefs back in the form of social service contributions? The Parliamentary Secretary will have every chance of answering me and I shall be delighted if I am wrong?
