On Tuesday, May llth, the new Irish Minister for Finance, Mr. Sean ("Jack") Lynch, introduced to Dail Eireann the Finance Bill for 1965. Quite apart from the usual significance of the occasion, the Bill and the debate thereon are of interest in that they are pointers to the intent of the Irish Government to act according to its hints on social welfare at the recent General Election and to the intent of Fine Gael, the main opposition party, to act as a left-wing body.
In the event, the clues remained ambiguous. The Budget itself is a timid step forward from the position taken by its predecessors; the expenditure on housing, education, health and agricultural grants is increased, while various social welfare benefits (but not children's allowances) are raised more than . they were raised regularly in previous annual budgets, although there is a new and retrograde means grading in the Old Age Pension system. These increases are to be financed from larger impositions on petrol, alcoholic drinks, cigarettes and tobacco. On the other hand, the scope of death duties is to be narrowed,
That this Budget represents real social progress merely shows how little social progress there has so far been in Ireland. Yet the fact remains that it does represent at least an increased tempo for the Government's welfare progr= amme. It seems as though the pace will be maintained; Kevin Boland, the Minister for Social Welfare, has announced his intention to raise welfare benefits still further, while Lemass, who is, in fact, more responsible for the Budgets than his Finance Ministers, has declared categorically that a review of Irish Health Services should be ready during the year. On the other hand, it is extremely doubtful whether all the cost of the benefit increase has been met: it is extremely likely that ther will be an increase in contributions to meet the extra sums required; above ere has been avoidance of such problems as rural rates which affect directly the welfare of the small farmer. Such lacks are national complements to the bourgeois and elitist economic and social principles within which the [rish Government has chosen to run economic policy.
What does Fine Gael offer instead? A number of separate, and, in themselves, quite useful, ideas and changes in emphasis within the same context as is accepted by the Government. The most radical proposal made by the Party's new leader, Liam Cosgrave, was unconnected with the Budget, but concerned the possible creation of a Select Committee of the Dail to deal with state-sponsored bodies. It was interésting to note that it was Cosgrave's predecessor, the right-winger, James Dillon, who came near, at one stage of his speech, to pinpointing one of the weaknesses inherent in the Government policy of encouraging capitalism in a country situated off the shores of a land where capitalism is already highly developed.
All in all, then, Fine Gael's proposals varied between the "responsible" (which will no doubt be taken over by Fianna Fail) and the "demagogic", A significant example of the latter was in the party's handling of the agricultural questions; T.F. O'Higgins, its official spokesman on finance, speaking on Budget day itself, was most critical about the proposed increase in the cost of petrol, and divided the Dail on the matters; it was not until the National Farmers! Assoc= iation had spoken out against the Government's neglect of the rating question that Fine Gael spokesmen attacked on the matter,
But more saddening was the plight of the Labour Party, Corish, in his speech to the Budget, did attack on redistributory principles, But he never got beyond this to explain or publicise the only way in which principles could be adequately realised in Irish conditions. The successive Labour speakers (two of whom are, by no means, moderates) restricted themselves to individual ways in by which the Bill offended. The Labour Party seems to have been hurt severely by Noel Browne's loss to it in the Dail; it is doubtful whether his election to the Seanad can adequately fill the gap.