Deputy Dunne made an application to me this morning to raise a certain matter. I have considered the application made to me by Deputy Dunne and it seems to me that the matter referred to in that application can be suitably discussed on the ordinary Adjournment motion. It is understood, of course, that sufficient time will be afforded to the Minister to reply.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Budget Leakages.
I want to thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity of drawing the attention of the House and of the country to what is nothing less than a public scandal. "Vanity and all is vanity," is at the root of what I am going to discuss here this evening. We will find that the overweening vanity of the gentleman whom we have now inflicted upon us as the pseudo Minister for Finance——
The Minister for Finance in this State.
I am in your hands, but I do suggest that if Deputy Dunne regards this as a serious matter he ought to deal with it seriously and not indulge in this rodomontade.
I realise, of course, that the Minister is starting to squirm. I was going to say, before I was interrupted by the Minister, that there is a tradition about the presentation of Budgets in this and in every other democratic country, and that the contents of the Minister's Budget brief are regarded everywhere by everybody—as I say, wherever democracy prevails—as being a top secret and the concern only of the Minister and, possibly at the very final stage, of the Cabinet of which he is a member. We have had inflicted upon us, as I have said, the most brutal Budget in the history of this country.
We are not discussing the Budget. The Deputy will come to what he asked to raise.
What do we find, and what is the position in regard to this tradition of secrecy to which I have referred in so far as the present Minister is concerned? The Minister began to read to the elected representatives of the people of the country in this House his Budget statement—that bleak, dreary document—at 4 o'clock or thereabouts on last Wednesday afternoon. On the 31st March, which was last Monday, two days before we had any inkling of the disaster that was about to fall upon us in the shape of the Budget, this Minister came in here and told us what the Budget contained. The contents, in part at least, of that Budget were the property of certain citizens outside this House. I am going to prove that beyond all doubt.
Any Deputy who likes, when he leaves here this evening, can walk down Westmoreland Street and look into the photograph display window of the Irish Times. He will see there the Minister for Finance posing prettily for a photograph, this monument of orthodoxy as he was described in this morning's Irish Times. If he looks a little closer, and if his eyesight is normal, he will read part of the Minister's Budget speech in the display window of the Irish Times. That picture or photograph was taken on last Monday, two days before the Minister deigned to reveal to the House what he had in store for the country. That photograph showed the following words:
"... imported by Tea Importers Limited is almost double the present retail price of 2/8 per lb., but it is possible that, with the abolition of rationing and the return of competitive selling, a variety of grades of tea at different prices will eventually appear in the shops."
Now, anybody can read that this evening in the Irish Times window. It is part of the Budget—page 44 of the Minister's Budget speech—revealed to the photographer and to all who cared to look at that photograph two days before we heard about it in this House. That is not all. In order that you may identify the picture—this reproduction of an important and significant part has been cut off here—you will see it in the window.
On the same occasion the Minister posed for another picture. In this one, he is a trifle more determined. The man in this picture, obviously, was going to put the Irish people through their paces, the man with the firm jaw. But this picture, taken on the same occasion and at the same time, also reveals a display of the Budget two days before, as I say, the people of Ireland, or the representatives of the people of Ireland gathered here, knew anything about what it contained. These words appear in this picture:
"... nearest to the 1st July next, butter and sugar at their real cost except that, in the case of butter imports, butter imports in cold storage will continue to be subsidised. The prices of bread and flour... to meet the greater part of the real cost ... are adjusted ... rationing of all foodstuffs. The effect of this will be ... flour at 4/8 a stone ... butter, flour and tea ..."
That was two days before we knew anything about it.
Does that appear in the Minister's statement?
It is in this document.
Does it appear in the Minister's statement that was read to the House?
I think so. I will make sure. I will keep Deputies here until I make sure.
You cannot.
As I was saying——
Has the Deputy a photograph of the Minister's hard neck?
You will have to invent a new camera for that. As I was saying, this action on the part of the Minister for Finance is attributable, in my view, primarily to his vanity. Are we, as Dáil Éireann, as the people sent here and charged with the responsibility of looking after the affairs of this country in such a way as we can, to accept the position that the Minister for Finance who was proved yesterday to be incompetent by Deputy Morrissey in the figures given in the Budget which had no relation to the actual figures in question, and who now permits his vanity, his desire to appear in the papers as the great man, the strong iron Chancellor when the Budget was coming up, are we to permit a Minister for Finance to abuse every right and privilege which is common to every Deputy of this House in the matter of what the Budget contains? I remember reading within recent years — it is the only similar occurrence I can remember—where the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, some minutes before he began to read his Budget speech, jocosely dropped a few words to a life-long friend, who happened to be a reporter, indicating generally what the Budget contained. Parliamentary procedure demanded that the Chancellor should resign, and resign he did because, as he said himself, he felt in honour bound to do so. He had been slightly negligent.
What is that compared with the negligence displayed by the Minister for Finance in this case? Are we not completely at the mercy of an irresponsible individual? Would any Deputy, similarly placed and preparing a Budget of any kind, let alone a criminal imposition such as this has proved to be, have been so careless and so regardless of his duty to the people as to cast aside——
Surely, Sir, the point is not as to how careless the Minister may have been but whether the matter complained of happened?
That is the question. That is the net point— whether this thing happened or not.
And what the significance of it was if it happened.
The Deputy is making that point.
Already we have the admission that it happened.
No, Sir. I must not allow the Deputy to anticipate or to distort what I may say. I said if it happened.
Having regard to the nature and the gravity of the allegations being made, might I suggest that the attendance of the head of the Government be sought in the House?
The Minister for Finance is responsible. I have decided that the matter can be suitably discussed on this motion. I am waiting for Deputy Dunne to make his case and allow the Minister to present his side.
We have the head of the Government here. Deputy Cowan is present.
You do not treat me with the respect due to my position at times.
I hope Deputy Dunne will remember to give sufficient time to the Minister to reply.
I will, Sir. I will be interested to know how the Minister will wriggle out of this. Captain Cowan is back in the place where he was the other night. Some of the gentlemen on the Government side whose political existence depends upon their following the Minister for Finance into the lobby questioned me as to the quotation—indeed, it may have been your good self, Sir—contained in this document which I have here. Page 44 of this Odyssey down the Via Dolorosa for the Irish people will tell the story.
I was saying that in other Parliaments in other countries there is a sacrosanct procedure in relation to Budgets. It is one which everybody must accept as being very necessary. There has been here, without any doubt, no matter how it may be qualified, a most gross and flagrant violation of that procedure. In my view there is only one step that it behoves the Minister to take—it is the step that was taken on much more slender grounds in Britain quite recently. I am sure it was taken at other times in other countries when it happened, but it very rarely happened. That step is to resign, if the Minister has any sense of shame in him.
Would not you like that?
Would I like that?
Would not you like that?
Would not the Irish people love it? Would not the Irish people be delighted if it happened, even if we put Deputy Blaney in his place?
God forbid they should ever put you in the Minister's place.
That is the obvious step, as I say, Sir, unless, of course—and it can quite conceivably happen—the Minister's sensitivity—I believe he had at one time a degree of sensitivity which he expressed through the muse —has become completely atrophied. He should in decency resign and take himself from the Cabinet and not embarrass his Taoiseach and his fellow Ministers any longer.
Let him take himself out of the country.
In taking that step he would earn for himself the gratitude of the vast majority of the Irish people who are so sickened in their souls by his callous indifference to their sufferings as a result of this Budget which he brought in that they would be glad to see the end of him no matter how it came.
I want to charge the Minister with wilful negligence and with disregard of his duties in his high office. On behalf of the many people who brought this matter to my attention, the thousands of passers-by who walked down Westmoreland Street and saw it and who are aware of the fact that this was something which should not have happened, I say that this is a public scandal and can only be remedied by the Minister decently resigning and leaving the position which he now holds to one more fitted to serve this country.
Before the Minister replies, might I direct his attention to the fact that it may be possible for us to have photographs of the dance hall proprietors' cheque?
The Deputy will restrain himself.
A great deal has been said because certain words, which were stated in this House, appear in a photograph and an attempt has been made by Deputy Dunne to confuse a descriptive passage in the speech which I read with what are known as Budget secrets. Now, Sir, in the speech which I read to this House there appear many passages the precise drift and meaning of which had already been disclosed to the public.
The question of the subsidies has arisen on many occasions and any alteration in the subsidies was not going to put any money into any person's pocket. The Deputy has tried to make an analogy between the allegations which he has made against me, the negligence which he accuses me of, and something that took place in Great Britain. In Great Britain on both occasions the disclosures which were made led to certain operations being undertaken on the London Stock Exchange and elsewhere and in the London commodity markets as a result of which considerable sums of money changed hands.
In my speech—I quite admit this—I did refer to the effect of the alteration in the subsidies. It is true that I allowed a photographer to take a photograph of me in my office. It is of no consequence in that connection whether I did that out of vanity or whether, yielding to the very strong importunities of the Press, I allowed this photograph to be taken. Unlike Deputy Dunne, I do not regard myself as photogenic. I do not think photographs flatter me. I think that in the flesh I am very much better than when I appear on paper. Therefore I do not hanker after being photographed. Any Press photographers will know that it is with some difficulty that they get me. I realise that they have difficult work, that their livelihood depends on it and, therefore, I will endeavour to facilitate them.
It did happen in connection with this photograph that I was pressed very strongly and I said I could not do it. Eventually, on Monday morning, when I was engaged in drafting some parts of my speech, a photographer found his way into my office and took the photograph. While he was taking that photograph there were on the table the passages which Deputy Dunne has referred to. They related mainly to the fact that if tea were unsubsidised it would cost twice as much as it does today. If certain changes were made in the subsidy on flour, certain effects would ensue. As everybody knows, these effects will not come about until 1st July and the information contained in that passage of my manuscript could be of financial benefit to no person and could not be abused.
Since the question of Budget leakages has been referred to, I will have to refer to a very serious matter, in which connection I have been guilty, perhaps, of some indiscretion. It has been customary for Ministers for Finance in introducing the Budget to facilitate members of the Opposition. The Minister for Finance has customarily extended to certain Deputies the courtesy of giving them a copy of his Budget speech immediately he rises. The number of such copies given normally in the past has been generally very limited because the speech contains matter which is highly confidential. The full text of the speech contains matter which is highly confidential and must be treated as highly confidential until the Minister has actually detailed it to the House.
On the occasion of this year's Budget I found that if the number of copies usually distributed was not exceeded certain former Ministers would not receive copies. Accordingly, departing from the usual custom, I directed that an advance copy of the speech should be given to each ex-Minister, including Deputy Blowick, Deputy Morrissey, Deputy MacBride, Deputy Everett and others. I regret to say that in this instance there was a Budget leakage and my confidence and my courtesy were abused. One at least of the ex-Ministers proceeded to broadcast to all around him the true Budget secrets, the real Budget secrets, the proposals in the Budget which are confidential and should be kept secret, and the changes, if any, in the tax structure which the Minister proposes. It is on the basis of information in relation to these that an improper use might be made of confidential matter, and on this occasion——
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
This is a red herring.
——to which I refer there were certain Deputies in this House who received a copy of my speech by my courtesy, on the assumption that they would treat it confidentially, and who broadcast it all around, and that information might have leaked out and been made improper use of.
(Interruptions.)
No information was given.
On a point of order. I was informed of the Budget secrets outside this House, ten minutes before the Minister came to them, by a Fine Gael Deputy.
I submit that the Minister is not answering the charge made by Deputy Dunne. He is getting completely away from it.
Deputy Cogan made a categorical statement that he was informed outside this House ten minutes before the Minister made his Budget statement of its secrets.
Ten minutes before he finished.
Has the Minister concluded?
I want to say again that I regret that I should have left myself open to this misrepresentation on the part of Deputy Dunne; I regret it very much. It was, if you like, careless, but there was no harm done.
A Deputy
By accident!
I should have covered that document which contained, as Deputy Dunne had to admit, merely a statement to this effect: that if tea were not subsidised it would cost 5/4 instead of 2/8. Everybody knows that, as everybody knows also what the deficit in our balance of payments would be, as everybody knows from the White Paper published what our expenditure was to be and what our probable revenue was to be. These things were all in the Budget statement, but nobody can possibly describe them as Budget secrets. Everybody knows that flour was subsidised and anybody who wanted to make a calculation could form a very shrewd idea as to what would happen to the price of the loaf or the price of flour if, by any chance, the subsidies were modified. These are not Budget secrets. They are the ordinary information given across this House in reply to a parliamentary question. Deputy Dunne has found a mare's nest, but let Deputy Blowick answer to the House as to why he abused my confidence and the Budget secrecy.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 8th April.