asked the Minister for Supplies if he will make a statement regarding the authorised increase in the price of sugar as announced in the daily papers of 1st November, 1939.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sugar Supplies and Increased Price.
Mr. Byrne
asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state the total amount of sugar which, on the instructions of the Government, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, have arranged to purchase for immediate delivery as being the balance of the country's requirements of sugar up to the opening of the 1940-41 manufacturing season; and if he will state from what country of origin it is intended to obtain this supply.
asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state (a) the circumstances in which the price of sugar was increased recently by 50 per cent. and (b) the grounds on which the increase is based.
asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state how much of the present increase of 50 per cent. in the price of sugar is due to increased cost of manufacture; how much of the retail price of 4½d. per lb. is represented by revenue or excise contribution and how this contribution compares with the amount levied when the retail price was 3d.
asked the Minister for Supplies whether the increase of 50 per cent. in the price of sugar applies to the stocks held at the date on which the increase was authorised by (a) retailers, (b) wholesalers, and (c) the Irish Sugar Company.
asked the Minister for Supplies whether he is aware that the increase of 14/- per cwt. in the price of sugar represents a burden of £1,400,000 per annum on the consumers of sugar; and, if so, whether he will take steps to ensure supplies of sugar for the poor by rationing and by removal of the 14/- per cwt. recently imposed.
asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state whether any examination into the price of sugar was made by the Prices Commission before the price was raised by 1½d. per lb. as from the 1st November, 1939; if so, whether he has received a report from the Prices Commission, and if he will circulate this report to Deputies and, if not, if he will state why, in view of the Emergency Powers (Control of Prices) (No. 1) Order, 1939, the price was raised without such examination and report.
I propose to deal with questions Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37, so far as it is possible for me to do so, in a general statement which I will make later to-day.
Can the Minister reconcile the undertaking given personally by the Taoiseach in the course of the debate on the Emergency Powers Act, that the Government would not use their powers under that Act to impose taxation, with his action in imposing taxation of 14/- per cwt. on sugar? Is that not a flagrant breach of the honourable undertaking fully accepted by the Opposition from the Taoiseach, not to use the powers under that Act for that purpose?
No taxation was imposed by order.
In any case it is a separate question.
I submit that the question arises directly out of my enquiry in question 35. This matter has two aspects. One is the general aspect as to the propriety of the procedure. The other is the aspect arising out of the Taoiseach's personal undertaking which was accepted by this House.
Question 35 has no reference to taxation.
It does make a query about imposing a burden of £1,400,000 per annum on the consumers of sugar in this country.
Quite.
In the light of the agreement announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the sugar company would pass over to the Government any surplus profit they made on imported sugar, to increase the price of sugar by £1,400,000 so as to pass into the Exchequer that surplus profit, and collect a tax, was a direct violation of the Taoiseach's personal undertaking which the House accepted, on his word, that these powers would not be used to impose taxation.
The powers were not so used.
I say they were.
I desire to give notice that I will raise the subject-matter of question 36 on the Adjournment of the House.
Am I to understand that a statement is to be made by the Minister—I presume in the course of the Budget debate?
Some time in the afternoon.
And the Budget debate is to be carried on until then without Deputies having the information asked for here? I submit that that is completely wrong. We ought to have this information before we proceed to discuss the Budget statement.
I should like to ask the Minister if his recent action conforms with the statement he made on the 18th October, that they did not anticipate any immediate change in the price of sugar? The Minister made that statement which is reported in column 742 of the Parliamentary Debates.
I should like to suggest that it might be more advisable if the Minister would make his statement now, so that we will be in possession of the necessary information when we come to debate the Budget statement. It would be much more satisfactory to hear his statement on this matter and consider its effect on revenue in advance of the Budget statement.
We have no desire to squeeze the Minister. We merely want certain information. Will the Minister, at the end of questions, undertake to make the statement to which he has just referred?
No.
Is there any means at our disposal to get this information, which is so vital to the debate that will take place on the Budget and which the Minister now categorically refuses to give?
The Chair has no jurisdiction in that matter, as the Deputy knows.
The Minister has refused to answer these questions in relation to sugar. That is the position at the moment. He has refused to give an answer.
I propose to make a general statement in the course of the day.
And the Minister expects the most important item of all to be debated in the absence of such vital information as has been asked. It is another indication of the contempt of this House shown by the men on the benches opposite.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister circulate a copy of his statement in advance, so that we will be in a position to discuss it, if we get an opportunity to do so?
No.
Will the Minister's statement be a separate statement made by the leave of the House, or will it be made as a contribution to the discussion on one of the Budget Resolutions?
It will be made in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the House.
Will it be made as a contribution to a discussion on the Budget Resolutions, or does the Minister intend to ask leave to make a separate, a detached statement?
I do not propose to ask the leave of the House to make a separate statement.
Then it will be a contribution to the Budget debate?
Yes.
Is not the attitude of the Minister now a confession of the completely unjustified attitude he has taken up in this matter of sugar? He is afraid to give the information to the House, so that it can be properly discussed.
The Deputy will have ample opportunity of discussing everything connected with the matter.
I submit that this order imposes an annual charge of £1,400,000 on the consumers of sugar in this country, and in the light of that fact, does the Minister maintain that the Constitutional Opposition in this State is not entitled to some information from the responsible Minister?
What order is the Deputy talking of?
I am referring to the steps the Minister took whereby the sugar company is permitted to rob the people of 14/- on every cwt. of sugar, not for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the Exchequer. Is it the position of the Executive Council that they will not tell Parliament anything, and is the Taoiseach betraying the word he gave to this House, that he would not use these powers for the purpose of betraying the democratic institutions of this country?
The Deputy will be told everything.
I should like to put a question on procedure. How can we get this information on the Budget statement if it has nothing to do with taxation?
How can we deal with the Budget statement in the knowledge that the Minister's statement is coming?
Wait and see—that would be the wisest thing to do.
That matter does not arise now.
The pledge is broken.