I particularly welcome the principle enshrined in this Bill. I think it is a principle we can all accept, that is, that we should give some consideration to those people in receipt of State pensions, particularly at the season of Christmas. It has been an accepted practice over quite a number of years by very many employers—I could safely say by the majority of employers—to give a double payment at Christmas to their employees. It has also been the practice for all charitable organisations to do likewise. Therefore, as I said at the outset, I agree with the principle.
I am in total disagreement on four grounds with the reasons put forward by the Minister for the introduction of these proposals. In the first place, the proposals before us to-day are made as a suggestion to compensate persons in receipt of old age pensions, blind pensions and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions for the increased price of tea. I think that is not a very justifiable reason and is one to which we should not give our approval.
Last January, the Government, as it were, took a gamble. They gambled on maintaining the then existing price of tea and made an arrangement with Tea Importers, Limited, that the banks would provide accommodation to enable the quantity of tea required to be sold at the then existing prices. When the announcement was made in January last, the Labour Party, in particular, claimed great credit for having maintained the price of tea.
Later on, an invitation was issued. I think it is a good thing that we should make as many contacts as we possibly can, particularly when these contacts are with the heads of foreign countries. As I say, an invitation was issued to the Premier of Ceylon who was a guest of the Taoiseach. He made a statement which was utilised to bolster up the gamble that was being made. That gamble turned out to involve the country in no less a sum than £1,500,000.
We now have, as a result of questions and answers given in Dáil Éireann, the information that the maintenance of the tea price over the 12 months results in consumers having to pay no less than 3d. per lb., not on the original price of tea, but on the price paid to the bankers, as interest on the moneys advanced. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made the announcement in Dáil Éireann that it was proposed to allow tea to find its own level and that tea prices would be increased by 2/- per lb. Members of this House—there are a few members in the House who are engaged in this particular business— will agree with me that no wholesaler or retailer of tea at the present time can sell the tea. The sum of 2/- was just one of these things that was mentioned in order to minimise the position. Tea has been increased all round by no less sum than 2/6 per lb.
The Minister made another very enlightening remark in the introductory statement, to the effect that the consumption of tea in general was something about 2 oz. per head. Of course, that related to the time when tea was rationed. He suggested that he proposed to bring in a Bill in order to compensate the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and those other sections of the community, and that is the Bill we have now before us.
If we examine the Bill, we find it does not even do exactly what the Minister promised to do on that occasion. It makes provision to give a number of those people in receipt of various allowances an additional allowance on 23rd December, but we still have the very obnoxious means test we heard so much about in recent years. A person in receipt of 6/- or 9/- per week old age pension will not receive the compensation of 6d. per week which the Minister promised in order to compensate him for the increase in the price of tea.
This whole matter poses another very pertinent question. How did the Government come to the decision, and how did the members of the Labour Party in the Government accept it as a reasonable one, that of all the commodities which have increased in price during the past 12 months, only one commodity should be provided for in the case of those in receipt of the various pensions to which this Bill applies? Mind you, it does not provide for a very large section of the people who are in receipt of allowances from the State. We will get to that later on. The first question is how did the Government come to the decision that it was only in relation to this one particular item that we must compensate the old age pensioner? Was it not an acknowledgment of the bungling and the gambling that took place in this whole business?
It was a gamble, no doubt. It might have turned out otherwise. It might have been that the price of tea in the general market might have been reduced, and, as a result of that reduction, tea consumers in this country would have been put into the position that they would be compelled to accept tea of an inferior quality over a number of years so that the Minister's loss in this particular gamble might be made good to Tea Importers, Limited. No matter what way we take it, whether you are on the swings or the roundabouts, you cannot lose. That was the gamble taken, and that is the gamble for which we are asked to pass this Bill, so as first to pacify the members of the Labour Party and then to suggest to those people in receipt of old age pensions and others that we are conferring on them a great benefit.
There is no benefit being conferred on these people. If we want to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living that affects them just as every other section of the community, we should live up to our responsibilities. I do not want to delay the passing of this Bill for one moment, but let us take just one meal. Let us take the old age pensioner's breakfast. I am sure that, as a member of the Labour Party and as Minister, the Minister will agree with me that the old age pensioner who is capable of eating a rasher in the morning is entitled to that. What do we find? Over the past 12 months, that one item in the old age pensioner's breakfast costs him no less than 8d. or 1/- a lb. more. He may like a sausage of any variety. We find that those sausages are going to cost him from 6d. to 8d. a lb. more. He may like jam or marmalade, or he may be one of those people who would like just a plate of porridge in the morning. That plate of porridge will cost him 2d. each morning more than it did 12 months ago.
