Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Dec 1974

Vol. 276 No. 7

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 4, 13, 11 (resumed) and 12. Questions will be taken from 2.30 to 5 p.m. and in the event of Questions concluding before 5 p.m., the House will adjourn.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach a question. Following the Imposition of Duties Act order imposed by the Government last night in relation to the price of petrol, the means whereby the order was imposed and the increase sanctioned by the Government, denied the Dáil not only the opportunity of voting on it but of a debate. With that in mind this party put down a motion asking that that order be repealed. I would ask the Taoiseach when he proposes to give an opportunity to debate that motion.

I understand that the Whips have been in communication on this matter and I gather Tuesday next has been suggested. We are agreeable to whatever day is convenient. I should point out that the procedure under which the order was made was in respect of an Act that was passed in 1957. The Act was sponsored at the time by the late Deputy Seán Lemass who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce and the procedure adopted was in accordance with the terms of that Act.

I have here before me the Official Report of 15th May, 1957, and what the Taoiseach has said is, in fact, true, that it was introduced by Seán Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1957. After a short introductory speech Mr. Norton, who was formerly Minister for Industry and Commerce and then Leader of the Labour Party, said at column 1339 of the Official Report of the debate:

This is exactly the same Bill that we left in the Department? Is there no further change?

Mr. S. Lemass: No.

I should not like the Taoiseach to get away with the idea that this was solely sponsored by Seán Lemass. It was sponsored by the Government of which the Taoiseach himself was then a member. However, I am glad that the Taoiseach has offered an opportunity for a debate and I ask for the entire day from 4 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday.

May I ask the Taoiseach whether this is an order made under section 1 of the 1957 Act, a document that can only have effect for a limited period? Or is it made under section 3 of the 1957 Imposition of Duties Act which would be made by the Minister for Finance and which would have a longer duration but which, of course, would be capable of being annulled if not confirmed?

It has to be confirmed subsequently by legislation.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. There are sections 1 and 3 of the 1957 Imposition of Duties Act.

This is under section 1.

That is made by the Government and for a limited period or until the next time of asking, in other words the next budget, and that is the longest it can stand unless it is re-enacted within that time? Is that correct?

It has to be confirmed by legislation.

But the period for which it may run?

It will be debated in any case on Tuesday.

I am merely asking for information from the Taoiseach as to whether under section 1 the operation by the Government of this order has a limited duration, limited by the date of the following budget?

It has to be confirmed by legislation.

Thanks very much for nothing.

I promise not to keep the House more than one minute. The Act under which this order was made yesterday was introduced by Mr. Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce having been prepared by Mr. Norton when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. The purpose of the Bill was to give statutory effect to the suspension of duties made possible by the Supplies and Temporary Provisions Act which was in operation during the war. The purpose of that suspension was to enable our manufacturers to carry on their manufacturing processes without the problem of duties being imposed on them.

I doubt if this is in order.

I want to make just one other observation. The sole purpose of that Act was to make these duties permanent so as to facilitate manufacturers and not to impose taxation. I shall develop that or it will be developed by this party but I just want to indicate at this stage that what I said yesterday — that this was taxation by sleight of hand — was in fact true when the Government rely on an Act of this nature to do so.

Trick-o'-the-loop.

Top
Share