asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to what extent the price of petrol and oil has been affected by the closure of the Suez Canal; and whether the price of such commodities will be reduced when the Suez Canal is again open to shipping.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Petrol and Oil Prices.
24.
Because of the closure of the Suez Canal, a temporary surcharge of 2d per gallon was imposed on all petroleum products in July, 1967. This surcharge was subsequently reduced and eventually removed from all petroleum products except petrol. In the case of petrol it was not removed because equivalent extra costs were incurred on the devaluation of sterling in November, 1967. The position, therefore, is that the prices of petrols and oils do not contain any element in respect of the Suez Canal closure.
I am not in a position to say what effect the reopening of the canal would have on the price of petroleum products. Prices of petroleum products are under constant review in my Department and, if there is any major favourable change in conditions of trading, the oil companies will be expected to adjust their prices accordingly.
Surely the Minister is aware that the reopening of the Suez Canal would have no effect whatsoever on the price of petroleum products because the super tankers which now ferry the oil from the Middle East are too large to use the Suez Canal?
Perhaps the Deputy would get that message across to his colleague, Deputy Ryan?
The Minister might have mentioned that in his reply.
I try to be as exhaustive as I can.
Is it a fact that there was no increase in the price of petrol following on devaluation? Is that true?
That there was no increase in petrol prices?
I am just asking was the price of petrol increased following on devaluation?
Yes.
If that is so, there is an apparent contradiction in the reply.
No. The point is that the surcharge was not removed in the case of petrol because equivalent extra costs were incurred on devaluation of sterling in November, 1967.
I want to ask this question because it is relevant to the Minister's reply.
Of course there is nothing about devaluation in the question.
The Minister mentioned devaluation in his reply. He said the increase was not taken off due to devaluation. Am I right?
This question relates to the Suez Canal and not to devaluation.
The Minister says they did not remove the increase, because of devaluation. In actual fact, following devaluation the price of petrol went up.
That is a separate question.
It is not. It is relevant to the reply and the Minister knows it is. He is trying to get out of it by showing ignorance.
I am not trying to show ignorance. The fact is, as the Deputy knows, that the price of petrol has gone up since devaluation.
I asked did it go up immediately following on devaluation. That is what I am asking.
I have no information to indicate that it went up immediately but, if the Deputy reads my reply, he will see that I said: "In the case of petrol the surcharge was not removed because equivalent extra costs were incurred on devaluation" which means that there was an additional cost.
I am now telling the Minister that an additional charge was imposed after devaluation.
I told the Deputy that.