I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 11." This is the Resolution which imposes an additional duty of 1/4d. per lb. Customs and Excise, on sugar. As I have already stated, we expect to get £175,000 as a result of this duty.
Financial Resolutions—Report Stage. - Resolution No. 11—Customs and Excise.
It is a remarkable thing that when the Minister is moving the Financial Resolution to impose this duty upon sugar, he has not taken this occasion to explain to the House what he meant when he said that he notified the House, the farmers, and the beet sugar manufacturers that the time was coming when sugar would be expected to make a more substantial contribution to the Exchequer, and that ways and means must be found by these people to get themselves into a position to make that contribution. What does the Minister mean by that? Does he mean that he is going to reduce costs in the factory by insisting on lower wages there, or does he mean a lower price for beet with a consequent reduction in the wages of those who produce it; or does he mean that he is going to add a substantial additional impost to what he has already put on sugar? It is right that the House should know what the present position is. The price of sugar to-day is 31/- per cwt. in Saorstát Eireann; and in Belfast, for the same class of sugar, it is 19/1½ per cwt.; so that Fianna Fáil has managed to impose 11/- per cwt. on every cwt. of sugar consumed in this country. Sugar to-day is costing 3¾d. a lb., whereas on the other side of the water and in Belfast, it can be had for about 2½d. per lb.
When Fianna Fáil introduced their first Budget, they transferred the duty from sugar on to tea, and they were then talking about Christian government. I remember Deputy Moore getting quite sentimental over the Christian spirit that moved the Minister for Finance to lend his stout arm to the poor and to remove taxation from what he knew to be an absolute essential in the food of the poor. I did not hear any sentimentality from Deputy Moore since the tax went back. I remember also Deputy Norton working himself into hysterics of admiration at the paternal zeal with which the Fianna Fáil Party were going to relieve the breakfast table of the poor man by transferring this taxation from sugar on to tea, which might be described as a luxury, although we would be slow so to describe it.
What did the Deputy say?
I also joined with the Deputy in saying that if that were a genuine gesture I was prepared to support it and to vote for it, but if it were a mere veneer of hypocrisy I was not going to lend my support to hypocrisy, whether a veneer or otherwise; but when the Deputy, obeying the Fianna Fáil whip, goes back to vote for what he has already condemned, I will register my opinion of his bad faith. I will not rise like Deputy Davin and protest against a gross betrayal of faith through the imposition of taxation on the foodstuffs of the poor, and then, when Deputy Norton crawls at the feet of President de Valera and when President de Valera has thrashed Deputy Davin up and down the Chamber with his tongue, crawl into the Lobby after him and apologise for his daring in mentioning the fact that he had been betrayed and fooled by the present Government.
Who put you over there?
Deputy Davin waxed eloquent on the Christian Government which the Irish people had elected. He welcomed this departure from the hard-hearted indifference of the Cumann na nGaedhael Administration and he was glad to see the heart of the Minister for Finance palpitate with anxiety for the poor and the downtrodden. What has become of all the sentimentality now? What does Deputy Davin think of the gentlemen who fooled him and insulted him, and then drove him into their lobby? What does Deputy Davin think of his own leader, who wriggled uneasily when he ought to have been up in arms, defending his colleague, and who, instead of defending him, was explaining that President de Valera's insults and contempt for Deputy Davin were not as humiliating as they might at first seem; that ordinary men might expect Deputy Davin to resent them, but that he, Deputy Norton, thought that it was only peevishness on the part of the President and that Deputy Davin was not rolled in the dust, he only had his nose rubbed in the mud; that any man could clean up his nose, but that that was very different from asking him to clean his whole body. I suggest that Deputy Davin ought to be as brave in the Front Bench of the Labour Party as he is in the Labour Party room. Let him tell Deputy Norton here what he told Deputy Norton at the Party meeting.
Perhaps the Deputy would now tell us something about the tax.
It is precisely because of the tax, Sir, that I am referring to the actions of the Labour Party. This tax marks the degradation of the Labour Party. This tax demonstrates that the Labour Party is the most fraudulent and contemptible that has ever disgraced this Assembly. This tax shows that they have allowed themselves to be forced to swallow everything they said in public. It shows that they have allowed themselves to be dragged at the tail of Fianna Fáil into the Fianna Fáil lobby to vote for what they have publicly protested against.
I have allowed the Deputy to proceed very far. Criticism of that kind is permissible on certain occasions, when a Deputy wishes to refer to the actions of other Deputies, but now I think it is time that the Deputy should come to the Resolution itself.
On a point of order, Sir, I suggest that, instead of Deputy Dillon being admonished in that way, a doctor should be sent for to examine him, because it is quite clear that he is not normal to-night.
Is this a point of order, Sir?
Deputy Dillon should be given some castor oil or something.
The doctor should be sent for before this debate proceeds further.
I do not blame the Leader of the Labour Party. It is a humiliating occasion for him.
A cat could not be blamed for laughing at the Deputy.
I think that Deputy Norton's position is perhaps the best illustration of the situation with which we find ourselves face to face. This Government is going back on every undertaking it gave, and this Government has openly proclaimed its intention of taxing every commodity which the people of this country have to buy if they are to exist. The Minister for Finance knows that the revenue which he is now collecting from sugar under this Resolution, and the revenue he says he is going to collect in the future in larger quantities from sugar, is going to be collected almost exclusively from that section of the community which is least able to pay it. If there were any urgent reason why the requirements of the State could not be carried on without imposing this tax, it might be patiently considered; but when we know that the necessity for this tax arises only from the political folly of the Minister and his colleagues, then I think it is time to draw the attention of this House, in no doubtful way, to the iniquity of imposing such a tax.
I should be interested to hear the Minister (1), justify this imposition, and (2), explain to this House what he meant by his reference to his expectations of the yield of revenue from sugar in the future. I think also that the Labour Party ought to put up Deputy Norton to explain whether he thought President de Valera's references to him were nothing more than the evidence of peevishness and to tell us if he still thinks that Fianna Fáil should collect the revenue that is proposed to be derived from sugar and that even more should be collected in the future from that source at the expense of those who produce the sugar beet or of the labourers who manufacture it, or the poor who consume the sugar.
Will Deputy Dillon agree to putting a super-tax on nonsense?
I thought at first that this was a discussion on Resolution No. 11 but after this display of histrionic talent by Deputy Dillon to-night I thought his contribution was more suitable for a burlesque in a city theatre than a serious contribution to a debate in a legislative assembly. If there ever was a political crocodile in this House, Deputy Dillon bids fair to be that crocodile and to occupy that position. He has treated the House to a torrent of the most unadulterated nonsense to which the House has listened for many a year. He then goes on to talk and says that Deputy Davin should clean his nose. Deputy Dillon's nose is being rolled in the dust and it would take the Deputy a long time to clean his political nose, because his record in this country will not stand beside the record of Deputy Davin or the political or national record of the Labour Party. Deputy Mulcahy smiles—
No wonder I would.
I do not wonder he smiles. If he saw some of the leaflets his Party issued in the Kilkenny election in 1917 about the political Party with which Deputy Dillon was then associated, the Deputy would have another laugh.
Has Deputy Norton to go back to that?
It is not so long a time since the Party to which Deputy Dillon now belongs accused the Party with which Deputy Dillon was then associated that they cheered in the British House of Commons the Dublin executions in 1916. I will produce the political leaflet in which the Party which Deputy Dillon now supports charged the Party to which he then belonged with cheering the 1916 executions in the British House of Commons.
Are we going to have a dissertation on past history, because if so I am prepared to meet Deputy Norton on it?
Will both Deputies please sit down.
I am prepared to meet Deputy Norton, and it will not be the case of shooting a man behind the ditch.
I allowed Deputy Dillon four minutes in which to debate certain tariffs, and I have allowed Deputy Norton three minutes.
And we have had a sugary debate.
Deputy Coburn made the charge that Labour men shot people behind a ditch. One thing we know and it is this, that the Deputy never took a gun in his hand.
Deputy Norton would not have the courage to do it.
Deputy Coburn has been making a charge against the Labour Party that he would not make outside.
Certainly; it would only take ten minutes to go outside.
The Deputy accused the Labour Party of shooting men from behind a ditch.
I did not hear Deputy Coburn making that remark.
I said they would not have the courage to do it.
Deputy Dillon waxed eloquent to-night and made a display of mock indignation at the imposts that were put on the poor under this Budget. If the Deputy were to talk until to-morrow morning, having regard to the history of the Party of which he is now a member, I would not believe in his indignation or that it amounted to anything so far as the Deputy is concerned. The Deputy is a member of a Party which in its time imposed taxation on sugar and tea and cut the old age pensions, and while Deputy Dillon may imagine he has changed the Party since he became a member of it, the fact remains that they taxed tea and sugar, and Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy O'Sullivan can give him day and date for the time during which they imposed taxation on tea and sugar. The Deputy is therefore appearing in a hypocritical rôle in pretending that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party never imposed taxes on tea and sugar. Everybody knows that not only did they impose taxes on tea and sugar, but they cut the old age pensions of the poor and they tightened up the means qualifications in every way.
The Deputy is entirely wrong. They took off the tax on tea.
Does Deputy Mulcahy deny that there was a tax on tea and sugar during his Administration?
The tax was taken off.
Who put it on?
It was completely removed once we got away from some of the expenses that the Party opposite put on the people of this country through the civil war.
Taken off just before the removal of the Party from office.
Deputy Mulcahy does not deny that during his period in office there was a tax on tea?
On sugar.
Yes, on sugar. I was not overlooking the fact that Deputy Dillon appears here to-night as if the Party of which he is now a member never imposed a tax on sugar. Deputy Dillon ought to get familiar with the past history of the Party of which he is a member. I know the Deputy would like to blot out that history. It is an inconvenient history and it is a long history of bleeding the poor, but the fact remains that during their period of office the Party to which Deputy Dillon belongs and about which he now talks so much, imposed a tax on sugar. Knowing that, the Deputy ought to try and moderate his language when he talks in this indignant manner about imposts and burdens put on the poor. The Deputy might talk in a milder and softer key. He should have some regard for the feelings of Deputy Mulcahy who has now taken the second bench to the new noise expert beside him. The Deputy ought to have some regard for the feelings of the Party of which he is a member. He ought not to make speeches— intemperate tirades which have no regard whatever to the feelings of the Party of which he is a member. We find Deputy Dillon to-night in this hypocritical rôle denouncing attacks on tea and sugar and on sugar particularly in this Resolution.
The Chair was in doubt as to what the matter under discussion is.
If you were here, Sir, when Deputy Dillon was talking, you would have a much bigger problem than now.
You would have my opinion of the Labour Party if you had been here, Sir.
If there was a tax on Deputy Dillon's speeches I really think there would be no need to impose a tax on sugar. The Deputy appears here to-night to denounce in unmeasured language the tax upon sugar.
Is there any rule against repetition? I have heard Deputy Norton repeat these words 12 times in a few minutes.
The words are very annoying apparently to Deputy MacDermot.
There is a rule against repetition.
The Deputy dislikes a repetition of the fact that the Party of which he is now a member imposed taxes upon sugar.
That now is the 13th time he has repeated himself. It is quite boring.
The imposition of the tax on sugar during the period of his Party's administration had much more than a boring effect upon the poor.
What does Deputy Norton think of this tax now?
I will tell you in a minute. I know what Deputy Morrissey thought about the tax on sugar when it was imposed.
And I voted against it. That was the difference between me and Deputy Norton.
Deputy Morrissey votes against every tax.
Against every tax on the poor.
If you change from one Party to another you are bound to be right some time, and Deputy Dillon knows that.
Deputy Norton did not change at all. He was swallowed.
He has not been digested yet, judging by the attitude he has taken up.
So the President told us the other night.
I approach this question of the tax upon sugar from an entirely different standpoint from Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon, of course, is opposed to a tax upon sugar, and I take it that he is speaking for the members of his Party. But it is clear that Deputy Dillon and the Party he speaks for are only opposed to a tax upon sugar when they are in opposition. When they are in office they are in favour of a tax upon tea and a tax upon sugar, but when they are in opposition they are not in favour of any tax upon tea and sugar. Is not that rather an extraordinary rôle for a Front Bench Deputy of the Fine Gael Party to be in? He is in favour of a tax upon tea and sugar, but when the people say. "we have no more use for you here, you ought to get over there," Deputy Dillon, the moment he is removed from the Government Benches, is opposed to a tax upon tea and sugar. Is that the kind of responsible opposition we are going to have? They are in favour of a tax upon sugar here, but when they change to the opposite benches they are opposed to a tax upon sugar. I think that is downright hypocrisy. In any case, so far as this Party is concerned, I can say that they were always opposed to a tax upon sugar, and opposed to any taxes upon the foodstuffs of the people.
What!
Deputy Morrissey should allow somebody who has been longer in the Party than he has, to speak for that Party. We have too many newcomers speaking for that Party.
Did you vote against a tax on food last night?
No.
Wheat and butter?
This is not the first time the Labour Party did that.
We were told by the President the other night that it was necessary to tax foodstuffs, that it was necessary to raise £175,000 by the tax upon sugar, and that the Budget could only be balanced in the way suggested by the Minister for Finance. I said last night, and I say again to-night, that I do not believe that statement. I believe that there are abundant sources of taxation within this country from which the necessary money could be raised without imposing a tax upon the foodstuffs of the people.
Why keep them secret?
What about the tax upon property?
I am prepared to support a tax upon property, but I am not prepared to support a tax upon working-class homes. I voted against that tax because the Minister would not give an assurance that he would not tax them. If the Minister brings in a tax on the property of the well-to-do or business people, I am prepared to vote for it.
Let us have some of the ginger we used to have in the old days.
The Deputy seems to have had a lot of soda-water, not ginger. If he could blend the ginger and the soda-water he would be better off.
Did the rest of the Party do wrong?
We are asked to believe that the only way in which the Budget can be balanced is by imposing a tax to the extent of £175,000 a year upon sugar. As I said, I do not believe that is necessary to balance the Budget. I would prefer to see a Budget unbalanced to the extent of £175,000 in the hope that some of those taxes which appear to me to provide for a conservative yield would realise the £175,000 required by the Minister in the form of a tax upon sugar. I think there are abundant sources of taxation within the country upon which £175,000 could be raised without imposing any tax upon sugar. I suggest to the Minister, now that he has heard the views of the House, and has observed that there is no enthusiasm in his own Party——
Yes, they are quite cheerful.
That is clear from their silence.
Keep us out of it altogether—settle the row yourselves.
Now that the Minister has observed that there is no enthusiasm in his own Party for this tax upon sugar—in fact, the imposition of this tax has done one remarkable thing: it has kept Deputy Donnelly silent during the whole of the discussion of this Budget——
It will not keep me silent on the Budget in Laoighis next Sunday.
Deputy Donnelly is a fair barometer of the enthusiasm, or, otherwise, of the Party. When things are going well with the Party and the Budget is popular, the Deputy is irrepressible. For the last few days he has been silent. There is no clearer barometer of the Party's feelings on the Budget than the silence displayed by Deputy Donnelly.
It is set fair.
Deputy Donnelly, when he goes to Laoighis on Sunday next, will see that it is very gloomy and he will have some views on the subject for the Minister for Finance on Tuesday. I suggest to the Minister, therefore, that he ought to reconsider the whole matter and drop the proposal to impose a tax upon sugar. Not only will the tax impose a burden on needy people, who must perforce consume sugar, but the imposition of the tax upon sugar will also have the effect of increasing the price of other commodities of which sugar is a necessary ingredient.
The whole lot of you voted for the Budget.
We did not, and well you know it. Read the Resolution we voted for.
Order! Order! If Deputies think that this is not a serious debate, they should end it.
The Minister seeks to raise £175,000 by this tax upon sugar. I quoted last night declarations by the President in this House, in 1932, to the effect that in imposing burdens he considered it was more equitable to impose those burdens on backs capable of bearing them; and that the lightest burden should be imposed upon the backs least capable of bearing them. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that philosophy. If he does, it seems strange that the backs of the poorer sections of the community should be the backs selected to bear a tax of £175,000.
Schedule A taxpayers.
It may be suggested that sugar is an article of general consumption. That is true, but, at the same time, if the Minister for Finance cares to examine the statistics he will find that sugar is used much more generally by the working-class sections of the community than it is by the wealthy sections. For that reason, the imposition of a tax upon sugar will necessarily fall heaviest on the poorer sections of the community. If the Minister were anxious to implement the philosophy to which the President gave expression in 1932, he could well have saved the consumers the burden of bearing this heavy tax. If the Minister had done that, he would have received commendations from his own Party and commendations from other Parties.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday, 24th May, at 10.30 a.m.