asked the Taoiseach if his statement of 1 November 1978 indicating that public expenditure may be cut, means that a choice has been made between the options for expenditure reduction listed in the Green Paper; and if he will state the option, if any, that has been chosen.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Expenditure Reduction.
2.
I assume the Deputy is referring to my speech to the Leinster Society of Chartered Accountants: that address did not contain the alleged statement attributed to me by the Deputy. I rather indicated that it is the intention of the Government to reduce Exchequer borrowing in 1979 from the budgeted amount of 13 per cent of GNP this year. I also referred to the Government's responsibility to strike the correct balance between expenditure revenue and borrowing.
The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is an extraordinary state of affairs that these expenditure reduction options would not be before the Government now had they not proceeded to do away with the revenue that would have come from the wealth tax and the capital gains tax? The revenue from that this year would have gone a long way towards preserving the food subsidies and would have removed the danger of taxation of children's allowances?
That is an argument.
I agree that it is an argument. The question asked if a choice had been made between the options. A choice had not been made and the options are still open for the Government to make a decision at the appropriate time.
Will the Taoiseach state if the phasing out of children's allowances is still in prospect?
Will the Taoiseach state if the same is true with regard to the question of taxation as suggested by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development about taking back the money given in the car tax and other remissions? Is it the case that that matter has not yet come before the Government either?
It has not, and if it had I would not tell the Deputy. Neither would I tell him at this stage if any decisions had been taken. The Minister was not correctly reported in the newspaper report.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the statement by Ken Whelan, a reporter in The Irish Press, in which he recounts what happened, is false? Is he accusing him of lying because that is the apparent implication? This is a very serious matter.
It is a long way from accusing a newspaper reporter of making a false statement and lying by suggesting that what was reported as having been written by him was not correct. I adhere to that statement.
Does the Taoiseach not accept that this morning's newspaper contains a statement by the reporter concerned in which he states precisely what happened, that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development asked a series of rhetorical questions including "that the middle and higher classes have had extra cash through the abolition of rates and car tax—why should the Government not take some of this money back, especially when money was scarce"? Is the Taoiseach suggesting that the reporter not merely misreported the speech originally but that he is now persistently lying in the matter in order to discredit the Government?
I am not alleging lying. As the Deputy may be aware from his legal knowledge, lying has a mens rea content. I am not suggesting that the reporter was lying. I am saying—and the Minister has said it publicly—that he was not reported accurately.
Will the Taoiseach say if the Minister for Economic Planning and Development has reported to the Cabinet on his statement, as was reported in today's papers?
He reported on his statement. He reported on what he said was an accurate account. Not only that, he also reported to the party meeting today. I accept entirely what the Minister for Economic Planning and Development has said.
Will the Taoiseach enlighten us as to whether the words quoted on Monday morning and again today were true, that the Minister repeatedly said that money was scarce and that in the circumstances it was not unreasonable to take back some of the money that was given to the middle and the higher income brackets by the relief of rates and the abolition of car tax? Did he make that statement?
I do not believe he did.
Is the Taoiseach accusing the reporter of inventing this?
We are in some difficulty here. The reporter who was present at the meeting——
I do not know how he got there.
He said he was invited.
He got the distinct impression the Minister was unaware of his presence, which explains a good deal of what happened.
This meeting was reported on Monday morning. Later that day the Minister for Economic Planning and Development said he had been misreported——
We must move to the next question.
——and again this morning, this reporter repeats his account of Sunday's meeting——
I have not had time to read what the reporter said but I am accepting entirely what the Minister told our party and our Government when he said he was inaccurately reported. What he said was that it was Fianna Fáil policy, no matter what taxation policy is introduced not to affect adversely the weaker sections of the community.
It is a pity the Government did not remember that in last year's budget.
When the Taoiseach has had a chance to study the report in this morning's paper, would he consider making a statement to the House in the matter?
I have no intention of doing that. I accept the word of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.
But not the word of the reporter in The Irish Press?
I have no obligation to the reporter in The Irish Press.
It is more likely that the Minister might fail to recollect the full content of what he said and the reporter would not invent words that were not spoken.
The Minister for Economic Planning and Development is a man of very high intellect and I would not challenge him in any recollection he has of what he said.
A number of us have an intellect that is reasonably high but we can forget things.
Question No. 4.
Deputy M. O'Leary put down Question No. 3.
I postponed Question No. 3 because discussions are under way in Bonn.
As we are both here I thought we would take it.
Since the real action is in Bonn I thought we might leave this question until tomorrow and see if the Minister brings home the bacon.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 3 postponed.