Deputy D'Arcy is in possession and has 15 minutes left.
Financial Resolutions, 1980. - Financial Resolution No. 19: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law in relation to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance.)
I am glad the Minister for Finance is here because I want to back-track on what I said about farmer taxation. There were specially designed measures in this budget aimed at extracting money from the agricultural community, irrespective of income. These are rates, £46 million, the resource tax £7 million, and levies, not considered as a tax by the Minister but which are considered as tax by the agricultural community, which will yield something in the region of £10 million. Taking these and other measures into consideration we are speaking of a yield of approximately £100 million. The Minister cannot say the Government do not have in mind a predetermined yield from the agricultural sector because as I have shown they have. Approximately £60 million of that money will be extracted from the farming community, irrespective of income.
Never has there been such a lack of confidence in a government shown by those engaged in agriculture. The measures in this budget did nothing to improve the position; in fact they further aggravated it. The Minister for Finance will be able to get full information from the Minister for Agriculture about the farmers' refusal to buy the necessary winter feeding for their stock and, more important, about the slow movement of fertilisers and lime. If there is a serious reduction in the application of fertiliser, that will seriously affect agricultural production.
When Deputy MacSharry became Minister for Agriculture one of the first things he said was that he hoped to regain the confidence of the agricultural industry. To date we have seen no sign of any action taken by him, nor have we heard anything from him, to remedy the present situation. His remarks in this House on the budget were regrettable. He said everybody was selfish and one-sided. Of course, everybody is selfish and one-sided, but it is his duty as Minister for Agriculture to encourage the agricultural community.
Your pious platitudes in your budget speech are also regretted because they appear to be trying to con the farmers. You said a strong and developing agricultural sector was basic to the economic well-being of the nation. Everybody accepts that. You said that but you did not follow it up.
Through the Chair, not across the House.
I am sorry. I have to speak quickly because I intended to say a great deal more on this matter and I will not have the time to say it now.
It appears from the Government's attitude, particularly since 1979, that the agricultural industry no longer play an important role in the economic development of the nation. The Minister for Finance will quickly find that the contrary is true. The agricultural community have always played a very important role and it is essential that the tax system should encourage the expansion of agricultural output in the interests of the nation.
I want to raise the question of the notional basis of assessment. Your predecessor, Deputy Colley, in the 1978 budget said that the notional basis of assessment would be in operation for a further three years and that any farmer who declared himself for that assessment would have to stay on it for a three-year period. You are withdrawing that.
I must again remind the Deputy to address his remarks to the Chair. The Deputy might say "the Minister" because when he says "you" he means the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I do not want to take responsibility for the actions of the Minister for Finance.
The previous Minister for Finance told the farmers they must stay on the notional basis for a three-year period. The 1980 budget said there would be no notional basis of assessment. These farmers have not kept accounts and the Revenue Commissioners will be asking them for their accounts for 1980. What accounts are they expected to use?
In my own county in 1979 the reduction in the application of lime was 30 per cent and the reduction in in-calf heifers 7 per cent. This is the result of the uncertainty which prevails at present. Do the Government not realise that agricultural exports amount to £1,100 million per annum? This is a very big help to our balance of payments. Any reduction in agricultural output will drastically affect exports.
We hear a lot of talk about what the commercial banks intend to do. During the latter half of 1978 and the first half of 1979 they played a very poor role in developing the economy. They shoved out money during that period but now we have a different situation. They are charging penal interest rates, 18 per cent, and, according to the newspapers, are looking for a further 2½ per cent. I want the Minister to resist this at all stages because it is their fault that there is such a scarcity of money. They did not put their money to productive purposes in the last half of 1978 and the first half of 1979. They should live off the exorbitant profits they made during that period.
I welcome the foreign borrowing of £25 million made available to the ACC who play a very important role in agriculture. There are many organisations looking for deposits, such as building societies and commercial banks, and this shortage of money must be affecting the ACC. I am glad there are a few questions down to the Minister about this issue. If the ACC need money there is only one place they can borrow it, and that is the foreign market. If there is any sign of a shortfall the Minister should give the necessary authority and he must carry the Exchange rate. These people must be in a position to guarantee that the money for agricultural development is available and that money is available in a great number of cases just to carry on. Agriculture is in great difficulty and it may get worse. I am not satisfied that the Central Bank in their directions to commercial banks carried out their function in 1979. They knew the trends in the world money market and I was disappointed that they allowed commercial banks to give out money for whatever purpose in the first half of 1979 and as a result of this there is now a lot of pressure in relation to drawing in money from people who cannot afford to pay.
The cost of housing has gone out of all proportion. The Government claim that they built 26,000 houses last year. As far as Wexford County Council are concerned we had a reduction in the number of houses built although we had an increase in money. This is because since 1976 the cost of houses has doubled. The position in relation to private building is very serious because people just cannot afford to pay the money that contractors are asking for houses. The cost of a house in a small scheme in Gorey, which is a small rural town, is £19,000. A loan of £12,000 from the council plus a loan of £6,000 from the banks would cost a prospective buyer about £60 a week and what salary can afford that type of thing? Because the cost of houses has escalated rapidly in the past two and a half years the county council list for local authority houses is getting longer and longer because people just cannot afford to build their own houses. From 1977 the Wexford County Council list has increased by 30 per cent and we certainly do not want any more applicants on it because the number of houses being built is reducing all the time.
The 10 per cent restriction in relation to local authorities is not a good system. County councils have always consisted of a very reasonable body of men who carried out their functions down through the years as far as the ratepaying public were concerned. We have had this restriction since the 1978 budget. I cannot understand why we need restrictions and I appeal to the Minister to have a rethink on this. Wexford County Council take care of a coastline which is 130 miles long and practically 75 miles of that coast is affected by coast erosion. We cannot raise the money even to give protection to people with houses on the coast, and we cannot levy the money. The Board of Works have not given us any support in relation to coast erosion. There is one scheme in Rosslare and the county council are now providing £35,000 per annum for this. We have no say over it, the Board of Works are completely in charge and it puts us in a very difficult position.
The Deputy has two minutes.
I am happy about the change of ministry in relation to nuclear power which is a very delicate issue particularly in Wexford. The attitude of the previous Minister, Deputy O'Malley, was objectionable.
That is hardly relevant to the budget debate. There will be a debate in the very near future on that. I doubt if there is money in the present Estimate for a nuclear station.
It is a very important issue and I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Colley, is more reasonable than his predecessor. The previous Minister only inflamed the situation in Wexford. In any decisions that are taken the Wexford people expect the Wexford County Council to be involved at all levels.
The outlook for 1980 is that the Government and the Minister for Finance have set themselves a very difficult target. They have created a situation that they will have to live with. By the end of next year we can expect a deficit of about £400 million and borrowings will probably be £1,000 million at least. Worst of all, the inflation rate will be somewhere in the region of 20 per cent. Any budget that creates further inflation in our present inflationary situation of from 4 to 6 per cent, presents an awful outlook for the future. There is nothing in the present budget to improve the situation. The outlook is very poor. People in small industries will have crippling interest rates, we will have further unemployment and people will not invest in business in the present circumstances. The Government created the situation by their great manifesto of 1977 which is now defunct and is only fit for a museum. We are on a disastrous course——
We are also on overtime.
It is very important that we motivate our people in order to produce but we are on a disastrous course and I can see nothing to redeem this budget.
The debate so far has been no different from that of any other year and next year's budget debate will run along the same lines of endorsement and opposition depending on which side of the House the speaker is. Many Opposition Deputies have privately agreed that this is a good and an extremely honest budget. However, politics ordains that Opposition speakers must take a critical role. That is expected but the budget introduced three weeks ago by the Minister was anticipated and even forecast by Opposition politicians and by the media, with a good degree of accuracy. The pre-budget figures had shown that the country was living beyond its means, that foreign borrowings were excessive and that the cost of servicing the national debt was becoming a crippling obstacle to national development. This was very detrimental to progress in other essential areas of national development.
Experts and commentators had forecast higher taxation on an indirect basis, on tobacco, spirits, fuel, petrol and so on and also predicted that social welfare allowances and PAYE allowances would be improved. The Taoiseach had already announced at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that the Government were appointing a special commission to look into the whole structure of taxation. All these predictions had been made, so one is entitled to be somewhat puzzled by the reaction of the Opposition Deputies who have thrown up their hands in despair and have run out of a vocabulary in describing the terrible effects the budget will have on the economy. That is what debate is all about in the House. The political commentators in the media have been very fair in their assessment and have been constructive in their observations. Any reasonably minded person will understand and accept that if one wishes to distribute extra resources to any one area one must budget for its provision and extract it from another area that can afford to contribute. No Minister for Finance, irrespective of what Government he may be in, has a magic wand. There is no bottomless well of resources and the business of running the country can be compared with any ordinary commercial undertaking. If you wish to expand you must make resources available from some other source. This is a simple principle that many Opposition Deputies do not yet appear to understand.
The 1980 budget was responsible, well planned and, above all, a caring budget for those less well off. It helped considerably the old age pensioners, the needy, the disabled and the blind and it gave worthwhile increases to social welfare recipients, indeed the largest increases in the history of this State. That is as it should be. The Government would have wished to do even more, if possible, to expand the welfare services. The Taoiseach when he was Minister for Health and Social Welfare was referred to generally as the most caring Minister holding that portfolio. That reputation was gained because of his approach to those less well off and their needs. That approach is well and truly stamped on the budget package in so far as social welfare is concerned.
The Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Cluskey, has, to say the least, been most unfair and indeed destructive in the speech he made to the House on the day following the budget, but one has become accustomed to that type of contribution and each time less gracious, which has not one iota of constructive comment. During his speech he referred to the Taoiseach's style and operation and went on to liken that style in some way to the budget presented. I am not quite sure what Deputy Cluskey had in mind, but if that phrase which he used relating to the budget "all dressed up and nowhere to go" can be applied to any individual I would suggest that the Deputy in question is certainly one of the front runners. It is clear that the Opposition parties are upset and perturbed because of the constructive, practical and farsighted measures taken in the budget. It could very well be referred to and termed as an old style, old-fashioned type budget on the grounds that it takes from those leading the good life to give to those in greater need and above all brings some equity into the taxation system.
One of the greatest handicaps affecting the ability of Opposition Deputies in contributing to the budget debate is their reluctance or inability, I am not sure which, for whatever reason, to put forward any alternative constructive measures or suggestions as to how they would handle the PAYE or taxation system. That has been very evident since 1977 and certainly the public, the person outside, cannot be blamed for asking the question, if the Opposition Deputies are so anxious to reform the taxation system how would they do so and from where would they take the extra moneys required? Not once have we heard any of the Opposition Deputies say how they would go about bringing this type of equity into taxation. Both parties have been very vocal in demanding a better deal for the PAYE sector but they have never said how they would go about it or how they would raise the moneys necessary to bring the type of equity into the system that the Government introduced in this year's budget.
It is the easiest thing in the world when in Opposition to say that we should do this or that and one can be very irresponsible in making such contributions, promises and statements. I do not think that anybody expected the swift and major moves taken by the Minister to ease the burden in relation to the much publicised PAYE sector and he proved that actions speak louder than words. The Government have shown by their proposals their very genuine desire to bring equity into the taxation system. There is no doubt that the PAYE sector had a very real grievance and now that has been recognised by action on the part of the Government. We await with interest the findings in the future of the commission to be appointed to investigate the whole system more deeply and thoroughly.
I was extremely glad to see the response to the budget proposals by the ICTU and only the very irresponsible or the mavericks will at this time wish to continue the demonstrations, one-day strikes and so on in the so-called pursuance of tax equity. Nobody will disagree that the biggest single problem that continues to damage our industrial image abroad and at home and our prospects of an economic survival is the strike weapon. We have said before and must say again that we are putting our economic development and employment prospects for young people in total jeopardy. The vast majority of our people, our workers, trade union officials and employers, are realistic and fair-minded but too often we are held to ransom by a very small minority who seem to dominate large numbers. This country has made tremendous advances in recent years and one must ask why a small number seem so determined to wreck the efforts of this development and the great plans to be made for the future. In disputes everybody suffers but none more so than the weaker sections of our community. In the recent past, during last year, we had so many strikes and disputes that the disabled and the old had difficulty in getting their pensions and in going to collect them. They were unable to use their free travel and to travel in public transport. They were left without heat and light. These are only some of the areas. The very existence of needy sections of our community was affected. The better off always get by with some inconvenience but not the weaker sections.
Following the general recognition of the inequities of the PAYE system by the Government in the budget, I hope that all workers will reflect on the damage that strikes cause to the economy. In negotiating wage increases during the coming year, responsible-minded trade union officials, workers and, indeed, employers should recognise the need for restraint. As a member of the EMS, we shall come under severe pressure from our European partners to keep our financial structures in reasonably good shape. The more affluent and efficient EEC partners, such as Germany, France, Holland and Belgium, have settled for much lower wage increases, in single figures. It will be argued, and quite rightly so, that inflation in those countries is also in single figures, but price rises follow wages and this is something that many of our people fail to, or do not want to recognise. It is however, a fact of life which we have experienced over the past few years and so often seen happen.
Where there is a dispute, it is vital that the strike weapon should be used only as a last resort. Claims and grievances should be dealt with in a manner that would avoid disruption of service and, in particular, disruption of the essential services which have a major impact on the welfare and day-to-day convenience of the general public. Industrial peace is a must if we are to survive as a viable, economically sound nation. If necessary, the tiny minority who ignore their trade union and are keen to make their own rules, to the detriment of everybody else, must be forced out of any position of responsibility and influence. A great onus is on all responsible people, trade unionists and employers, to bring about peace and harmony for our future good.
Unemployment continues to be one of the major problems although since Fianna Fáil came back into Government in 1977 they have done exceptionally well on the jobs front, despite many difficulties over the last two-and-a-half years. More jobs have been created than ever before in the history of this state. Much money was invested by the Government through the IDA and the Government's decision in the budget to increase by £30 million the state's interest and investment in industrial promotion is to be welcomed. It is vital that every encouragement be given to private enterprise to increase their efforts in the role of job expansion in the area of productivity. This has benefits, not only in giving employment and creating more jobs, particularly for young people, but also in the spin-off to other ancillary services and industries and, of course, to the economy itself.
The IDA have done excellent work in jobs promotion during the years, in attracting industries from abroad, in the face of mounting competition each year from within the EEC. It is an unfortunate reality that job losses each year reduce considerably the gains due to the increase in new industrial developments over the years. Apart from that, I have no reason to doubt our ability to reach full employment within the eighties. The IDA still need the full financial support of the Government to implement their plan to continue to attract foreign investment to this country.
We, as a nation, could do a lot more to help home industries and secure more jobs in our factories, by being a little more patriotic in a very simple and painless way. I refer to the "Buy Irish" campaign. For years now, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been preaching the theme "Buy Irish" and a very good campaign has been in operation during the past two or two-and-a-half years. Its success, however, must be questioned very seriously. Deputies Ahern and Corish, speaking in the House yesterday on the budget, referred to this aspect and to their disappointment that this campaign had not been more successful and I agree with their views. To be fair, there are two very important points as far as buying Irish-made goods is concerned, the first is price and the second is quality—some people might place them in the reverse order. Amazingly, in many foreign countries the quality of our Irish goods is considered to be world class. At home, however, their quality is questioned. Perhaps this is a trait in Irish life. If the consumer would only purchase an additional 3 per cent of Irish goods or spend an additional 3p in the £, an extra 10,000 jobs could be created. This is an easy opportunity to display a simple form of real patriotism and every effort should be made to encourage people to think well before buying foreign-made goods, if Irish-made goods are available.
The most effective way of promoting Irish-made goods, of course, is in the hands of the stores and shops. If these are not stocking a sufficient quantity of Irish-made goods, it is difficult to blame the consumer who wishes to purchase goods, perhaps specific goods, and is very reluctant to return home empty-handed. While shopping for furniture, I was amazed to find, in a leading store in Dublin—I shall not mention the name—one Irish-made suite in a display of about 25 or 30. This is one of the main reasons why the "Buy Irish" campaign has not been completely successful. The particular Irish item on display was something in the region of 25 per cent more expensive than its foreign counterpart. It did not look attractive and was not typical of Irish made goods available in that category. Quality wise Irish goods are equal if not superior to anything made abroad and furniture is no exception. Irish made furniture can match anything coming from other countries. I queried a salesman regarding the display of Irish goods and was told that they are more expensive and that the quality was not as good. That is dreadful irresponsibility on the part of any assistant in a leading Irish store and it does nothing to contribute to the success of the Irish goods campaign which could bring about better employment in Irish industry. The Minister should consider some other means that would encourage or assist stores to stock or promote the sale of Irish goods. Valuable jobs could be achieved in this way. It would mean a beneficial contribution to our balance of payments and a general improvement in our economy.
Much has been said about housing during the debate. Housing continues to be a Government priority and the Estimates published show an increase of 20 per cent over the moneys expended in 1979. Every Deputy is aware of the dire need for better housing, particularly in the city. I hope that in future more people will endeavour to provide their own homes. In this respect it is well to note that Ireland has one of the highest private house ownership populations in the world, as high as 70 to 75 per cent. This amazes many foreign visitors and, while we can take pride in it, we must be aware of how much remains to be done. There is a great problem in Dublin city, which is not surprising in view of the size of the population and the number of people Dublin has to cater for. It has a population of over 850,000 people. One of the reasons for the housing shortage in Dublin is the large number of young people who come there to study and take up employment. More and more of them are going into self-contained flats. At one time they went to hostels or digs but fashions change. Consequently many young married couples are finding it extremely difficult to get even flat accommodation.
We are building as many houses this year as any other year but the problem is made more difficult because of the increase in the number of people seeking local authority housing. Young employed people earn big money and the new budgetary proposals on taxation will increase take home pay considerably. I should like to see more couples striving to buy their own houses. Young people should be encouraged to save for their future. It is accepted that the cost of housing has soared in the last five or six years but so have incomes. Young people interested in saving for the future are in a fortunate position and have great opportunities. They can save substantially for the future if the will is there.
Much has been said about the increased taxation on petrol, tobacco and alcohol. As I mentioned earlier, the Government needed revenue for the purpose of bringing greater equity into taxation, social welfare and to increasing the finance required for additional employment and other essential services. Nobody in their right senses, taking all the circumstances into consideration, would argue that this was not the correct course to take. We consume more than £1½ million per day in alcohol. All responsibly minded people have a right to be concerned about the future when one reflects on this kind of figure. Young people are by far the biggest spenders on drink and any publican will tell you that the big spenders on spirits are young girls. Price increases on alcohol would be useful, apart from the financial reasons, if they meant that alcohol would be consumed in moderation. The same arguments apply to tobacco. I look forward to the Minister for Health, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, closely monitoring the situation in relation to smoking, as the former Minister did in the interests of the health of young people.
Fuel and energy will become the scarce commodities of the future. The price rise in petrol will make many people think twice about wastage. Too many motorists use their cars on trivial journeys. Some of my own friends, neighbours and acquaintances take their cars to the corner shop and to the church which is about three minutes away. Motorists use their cars at weekends for unnecessary journeys. They go out for a few hours on Saturdays or Sundays. We are all entitled to do these things but we must pay for the wastage. Opposition speakers shed a lot of crocodile tears for motorists. In this respect memories are short. In 1976 the then Minister for Finance put on an additional 15p on a gallon of petrol. At that time that represented a much larger percentage increase than the increases stated in this year's budget. Shortly before that motor taxation had been increased drastically by 24 per cent to 50 per cent depending on the size of the car. Let us not have criticism from Fine Gael or Labour. Motorists will not fall for that.
Economic planning is a hazardous occupation these days due to the ever-increasing costs of energy. Every user of energy, and particularly the motorist, can play their part in conservation. It is time to tackle this problem. If the budget proposals contribute to a slowing down in the use of petrol it will have achieved a good service for all.
In his budget statement the Minister announced the introduction by the Revenue Commissioners of a mobile tax advisory service. This looks very well on paper, but I would suggest to the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners that they should have a long hard look at the PR image of the existing information services available to taxpayers in the Dublin district. As a Dáil Deputy I get excellent assistance in any contacts I have with the various tax offices. However, I am told frequently by many taxpayers who have queries of one sort or another that they do not receive a very civil response, in their view, from many of our paid servants. I would hope that type of attitude would apply to a very small minority only of our State employees.
The public are paying for this service and they are entitled to be treated in a normal, courteous, businesslike way. Such complaints, I might add, are usually levelled against younger civil servants. Perhaps it is caused by immaturity and it takes a little time for them to mature and to get their feet back on the ground. However, where this discourtesy takes place, the public should be encouraged to refer their complaints to a higher officer, or for other staff investigation. The emphasis being put on the new advisory service will, I hope, make all inquiry officers think about the service they must give to the public.
For some years now much has been threatened about those who abuse our social welfare benefits and evade paying their rightful share of tax. The Minister told us that over the past few years there has been a significant increase in the number of cases where proceedings were initiated successfully. It has been recognised that, through legitimate means and otherwise, many businessmen and private persons, particularly professional people, have not paid sufficient tax. As far as non-payment through legitimate means is concerned, it should be easy enough for the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister to close any loopholes which may exist and to eliminate areas of tax avoidance.
In the case of the professional person, whether he or she be a member of the medical, technical or services professions, or whatever, I advocated previously that a person paying for services should have some tax allowance extended to him or her. I can appreciate the administrative difficulties could be overcome but surely in these days of computerisation such difficulties could be overcome easily and without much cost, with the additional spin-off in collecting additional taxes and bringing further equity into our taxation code. In this city alone there are thousands of people, perhaps, offering various services to the public. One has only to look at the advertisements under the heading "Useful Services" in the evening papers to see advertisements by back-lane car salesmen, motor repairers, panel beaters and furniture makers. The list is long and varied.
The abuse of our social welfare system is an area which causes much frustration and bitterness. I am delighted that the Minister for Social Welfare is implementing further measures to control and detect abuses of unemployment and disability schemes. It is felt that many of the self-employed tradesmen who are making big money and evading income tax are also drawing unemployment benefit and all the other welfare benefits which are available. If that is so, it is a downright disgrace and an injustice to be punished with the full rigours of the law. Every effort must be made by the Department to stamp out these abuses and, in doing so, no expense should be spared.
The budget has been accepted as constructive and progressive. The challenge is there for people to work harder and show more initiative. Let us all hope that this challenge will be taken up in a constructive way and that the proposals before us will prove to be a stepping stone to greater progress for all and the improvement of the economy.
We have been debating the budget for a month now. The public debate on the budget has gone on far longer because, for many weeks before its introduction, we had a great build up to what was suggested would be a doomsday situation. A climate was created deliberately to ensure that people feared February 27 when the Minister would present his budget to the House. That is nothing new. People have become quite used to it. It was the habit of previous Fianna Fáil Governments to create that kind of an atmosphere: things were not going well and the budget to be presented by the Minister would hurt everyone irrespective of their walk of life.
This atmosphere was created deliberately so than when the budget was presented people would say—and I am sure many did say on this as on previous occasions—that it was not so bad after all. This gave a bit of a lift to the Minister and to the Government. People have had time to see what exactly is in the budget and various sections of the community have realised gradually that budget day was not such a good day for the country. Many people may say: "It did not hurt me directly" but, as they perused the various statements and figures presented, they realised that nationally it was not a good budget. There were those who were hurt by what was presented on budget day, some more than others. Other sections of the community benefited a little and some, one might say, a lot.
Overall it is now generally accepted that the budget presented by the Minister for Finance on February 27 was intended just to tide over. The Taoiseach, speaking in the House some time later, confirmed that. On 5 March he told the House, as reported in the Official Report at column 1320, that:
As the year unfolds, developments will be watched and assessed. We shall maintain our supervision over the economy during the year because we regard this as a dangerous, difficult and crucial year from the point of view of the Irish economy.
That statement, and a number of others made later, has confirmed the view of many that we are likely to have another budget this year. I do not believe the Minister, when presenting the budget, was convinced that he was budgeting for a full 12 months. Perhaps the Government were hoping for some financial injection from the EEC, or some other source, or were expecting an oil find which would distract people from the effects of a second budget.
It is a pity that the Government did not face up to their responsibilities. They took off on a number of weekend holidays and went to Barrettstown but, having considered the budget, one wonders what went on there. Those weekend sessions were made to look serious but I should like to know if they were merely political gimmicks. Were they used to bring together the Cabinet to overcome the differences and personality clashes which existed between the various Ministers? The budget does not give the impression that they were serious "think-ins". In my view those sessions were used to patch up political differences rather than seriously to consider the nation's affairs and the budget that was presented in February.
When the budget was presented I wonder if the Government were sure that its provisions would be put into effect. When I first entered politics I learned that once a Government made a decision they did not go back on it. A Minister who was being forced to change his mind would resign rather than yield. Even though certain decisions were greeted with protests and great opposition people accepted that Government decisions were final. The Minister for Finance announced a resource tax in the budget and later the Taoiseach told us that it would be a short-term expedient. If that was his view the Minister for Finance should have made the House aware of it when introducing the budget. A lot of thought goes into the preparation of the budget speech and more time is devoted to it than to any other Government statement. Therefore, it is hard to understand why, if it was the Government's intention to make the resource tax a short-term expedient, that information was not given to the House by the Minister on 27 February. In the course of his budget statement the Minister said:
The resource tax on all holdings of £70 RV and over at a rate of £3.50 per £ RV will be introduced from 6 April 1980. It had been intended that this tax would have been payable in one instalment on 1 September. But, in line with what I have already indicated in relation to income tax, I propose that this date should be 1 October. Marginal relief will apply to holdings between £70 RV and £79 RV.
The Minister did not give any thought to the possible reaction to that statement. Last year we had the imposition—or was it?—of the 2 per cent levy and this year we have had the climb down on the resource tax. The action of the Government can be compared to the antics of the three card trick player at sports fixtures, "Now you see it; now you don't". On 27 February there was a resource tax but on 5 March there was a paring down of it. Why was it necessary for the Taoiseach to say in this House on that day:
We do not pretend that the package contained in this budget is perfect. In particular, we look on the resource tax as a short-term expedient.
I wonder if the motorists who were so severely affected by the increase of 100 per cent in the road tax, the increase in the driving licence fee and the 20p on the gallon of petrol had mounted a similar campaign to the one the farmers mounted would the Taoiseach have come in here on 5 March and given some relief and some ease to them. He probably could not do it in relation to petrol because it was increased immediately but he could have reduced the 100 per cent increase in the road tax or indeed made it a short-term operation.
When was the decision made that the resource tax would be a short-term expedient? When did the Government look on it as a short-term expedient? It certainly was not before the budget was presented on 27 February. I do not think that the decision was made on that night when there was what seemed like an uproar from the farming community because perhaps the Government thought that their protest might fizzle out or it might just last for the papers the following day and then ease off. If it was made on that night then I believe the next member of the Cabinet who was to speak in this House would have made a similar statement to that of the Taoiseach on 5 March. That was his successor in the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, who spoke on the day after the budget.
He is another Cabinet member who either had not yet been told that a tax which caused such an uproar in the country as announced by the Minister the previous day was being tapered down, because if the decision had been made or if it had been due to an oversight that it was not in the Minister's brief then I am sure that would have been corrected on 28 February, the day following the budget, if not by the Government certainly by Deputy Woods who spoke on the budget in this House the next day. Some may say that he represents a city constituency and might not be interested in farmer taxation or how the farmers were screaming at the tax which the Minister for Finance was proposing. I will grant that. But on 4 March, the day before the Taoiseach spoke on the budget in this House, the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy Power, spoke and the same excuse cannot be made for him because he represents a rural constituency and I am quite sure that if there had been a Government decision prior to 4 March that Minister would have been very pleased to announce it in this House; it would have been welcome news to many people in his constituency.
I wonder was this a Government decision at all or was it just a decision of the Taoiseach. It would not be the first time that we had a serious and major public announcement by a Fianna Fáil Minister which was not a Government decision and which the Government were stuck with. I am convinced that if this had been discussed at Cabinet level and if it had been a Cabinet decision then the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry could not possibly have made his budget speech in this House on 4 March without referring to it. If one were to look at it from the point of view of pleasing one's constituents it would have meant more to Deputy Power than it would have meant to the Taoiseach. So what I am saying is that the Taoiseach, on reflection and having considered the amount of uproar there was in the country with regard to the resource tax, decided before coming into this House that he would have to ease the blow. What a great pity that the motorists did not take the same line as the farmers. Is it not a great pity that the motorists did not organise meetings up and down the country and make the same fuss about the increase of 20p on the gallon of petrol, the 100 per cent increase in the road tax, the 200 per cent increase in the driving licence fee? Did they not have as much reason to create as great a fuss as the farming community? Would they have got the same hearing if they had done this? Would the Taoiseach have made the same decision in relation to them before coming in to deliver his budget speech as he did in relation to the farmers?
I suppose we are getting used to this day by day Government. As I said, it is like the three card trick, "Now you see it, now you don't". We know what happened last year when the 2 per cent levy was imposed. Do the Government know where they are going or are they governing from day to day? The people are beginning to think less and less of us in this House because we cannot rely on the Government to think out their programme, announce it to the country and then stand by it. Many decisions are made which on reflection are seen to be the wrong decisions and pressure groups are likely to have an effect on the voting strength of the Fianna Fáil Party. If pressure is strong enough we have a reversal of the decision made a day, a week or a month before.
The imposition of 20p on the price of a gallon of petrol is having a far greater effect than was anticipated even by the correspondents who covered the budget. It was not considered at the time to be a great increase but it is having an effect on the price of many commodities. We have now reached the stage, never known before, of having to pay for milk deliveries, although this was the case before the budget. This charge will now be increased because of the additional cost of taking the pint of milk to our doorsteps.
Many excuses are made for the increase in the price of petrol, and Deputy Morley referred to the need to conserve energy and reduce our dependence on oil imports. However, I do not believe that was the Government's intention when imposing this 20p increase. If it were why did they increase the driving licence from £2 to £3 and the registration fee for cars from £5 to £10? Many people consider that there has been a re-imposition of road tax. If nobody says anything about the 100 per cent increase in the registration fee this year, is it not likely that there will be a similar increase next year which would bring the charge to £20, the amount paid on many cars before road tax was abolished? The registration fee for motor cycles has been increased by 400 per cent from £1 to £5.
What headline is set for anyone feeling the pinch and thinking of increasing prices? The cue was taken up by others involved in the provision of services for motorists. Many people, mainly shop assistants, had been accustomed to use the parking area between Henry Street and Parnell Street where the charge was 50p per day. On the Monday after the budget, following the cue given by the Minister for Finance, the charge was increased by over 250 per cent to £1.80 per day. The Minister also continued his policy in regard to cheques, the cost of which was increased by 200 per cent.
The Government cannot complain when those supplying services or producing commodities look for increases because they themselves have set the headlines. Again I must ask whether the Government know where they are going. Have they a plan or are they governing from week to week? What has happened to the efforts made by the Government when they first took office to provide employment? Has this been forgotten about? There was very little reference to it in the Minister's speech and what reference there was could not be taken seriously because the Government are apparently engaged in other things, in sorting out other difficulties, perhaps internal difficulties. Not only have the Government lost their drive to reduce the number of unemployed, but they are adding to the list. I say this because some firms have complained to me of their being unable to collect money due to them from Government Departments. One small firm, for instance, who provide office equipment to the Department of Justice have not been able to collect on a bill for £9,000 despite having sent many reminders to the Department and having phoned on a number of occasions. That is a deplorable situation. Apparently, Government Departments cannot be relied on any longer to pay their bills.
That is a matter that should be taken up with the Minister concerned. It is hardly relevant to discuss on the budget the question of unpaid bills.
One would imagine that in regard to any budgeting the first concern should be for the amount of money owing.
The matter to which the Deputy refers is one that should be raised with the Department concerned.
Perhaps that is so but word has reached me that instructions have issued from the top to the various sections of the Department of Justice who have responsibility for settling accounts that they should not pay and I am wondering how many other Ministers have issued similar instructions to their Departments.
Is the Deputy saying that the Minister for Justice has issued such an instruction?
The Chair has told the Deputy that he should not raise a matter of this kind at this time. If what he alleges is happening it is a matter that should be raised by way of question to the Minister or, perhaps, during the debate on the Estimate for his Department.
One would have thought that the non-payment of debts by Government Departments would be something that would affect job creation.
It appears to the Chair that an administrative matter of that kind should be raised with the Minister concerned.
It could be a financial matter. It is not a question of the civil servants not doing their job. The problem is that the money is not available and to this extent the matter must relate to the budget.
The Deputy has raised a specific matter of money owned by a Department to a specific individual but this is a matter that should be raised either by way of question to the Minister concerned or during the debate on the Estimate for his Department. If the Deputy wishes to make the statement that what he is alleging is happening generally, he may do so.
I was coming to that. If instructions have issued from the various Ministers to the civil servants that they are not to settle accounts, employment must be affected in so far as many private firms are concerned. Some instances have been brought to my notice of where firms are very hard pushed but are not able to collect from Government Departments the amounts due to them. Is this the Government's contribution to employment? It is very regrettable that small firms depending on weekly or monthly turnover must now wait many months before being paid by Government Departments. Up to now one could be sure of being paid by the Government for goods supplied or for services rendered but apparently that is no longer the case. There is not much point in paying a small firm after they have had to lay off staff because of the delay in being paid what was due to them.
I should hope that the next Minister to intervene in this debate would either confirm or deny that the position is as I have outlined. Is this action on the part of the Government an example of the corrective measures that the Taoiseach spoke of in terms of slowing down the flow of money? If so, there is a rough time ahead because if the Government cannot pay their bills, what hope is there for the rest of us?
In his contribution to this debate the Taoiseach said that the budget has the distinctive stamp of a caring social philosophy and that it has been accepted with relief and gratitude by a wide section of the community. He suggested that critics of the Government might have been gracious enough to acknowledge the achievements in the social sphere. These words were from the man who, as Minister for Social Welfare, had the opportunity of giving us an example of that caring social philosophy. Unfortunately, we have not had any evidence of any such philosophy in the two-and-a-half years since Fianna Fáil's return to office. All we have had from them has been a desperate effort to keep the less well off sections at the level at which Fianna Fáil found them. Fianna Fáil have been making desperate efforts to maintain that standard of living since they assumed office. Indeed it is true to say that the present standard of living of those people is far below what it was when Fianna Fáil took over.
During the present Taoiseach's term in the Department of Social Welfare not one piece of legislation was put through this House to improve or extend our social services. There has been no expansion whatever of any social service during Fianna Fáil's term since 1977, and heaven knows there is ample scope for extension of many of the services being provided. Let us equate that with our "caring, social philosophy", to quote the Taoiseach. Let us compare that record with that of the National Coalition during their four and a half years in office when, for the first time in the history of the State, recognition was given to the plight of the single woman who reached the age of 58 and who was given an allowance. That allowance constituted an expansion of the social services. For the first time also prisoner's wives and children obtained an allowance, as did also unmarried mothers. Those also constituted an extension of the social services. Then there was granted also an extra £1 per week for pensioners living alone, being a recognition of their plight, never thought of by Fianna Fáil despite the fact that they had been in Government for many years. Also under the National Coalition Government the means test was eased. Probably the most significant of all was the reduction of the qualifying age for old age pension from 70 to 66. Despite the fact that we, when in Government, had committed ourselves to reducing that age still further, there has been no move by Fianna Fáil to bring it down to 65, as had been expected. That did not happen. Why? Because there was a change of Government. This is the caring, social philosophy of the former Minister for Health and Social Welfare, of the present Taoiseach and his Government.
For the first time also under the National Coalition Government in related benefit was introduced in 1974. If one compares what was done by the National Coalition Government in respect of the improvement and extension of the social services with the lack of any activity in that area since Fianna Fáil assumed office, one would be forgiven for thinking that it was a member of the National Coalition Government who uttered the words of the present Taoiseach in this House on 5 March: "I believe that this budget carries the distinctive stamp of our caring, social philosophy."
What has it done? The only indication given of a caring, social philosophy of either the Taoiseach or Fianna Fáil was the reduction in the qualifying age for a blind pension from 21 to 18. Not even that was done by the present Taoiseach when Minister for Social Welfare. The only indication we have been given of this caring, social philosophy is that reduction of three years in the qualifying age for a blind pension and the increase in the amount of blind persons' earnings to be disregarded when assessing their means for pension purposes.
Debate adjourned.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.