I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill is in the normal standard form to which the House has been accustomed in previous years. I do not think there is any specific point to which I need refer but if any Deputy wishes me to do that I will do so.
Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1954—All Stages.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply a certain sum out of the Central Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, to appropriate to the proper supply services and purposes the sums granted by the Central Fund Act, 1954, and this Act, and to make certain provision in relation to borrowing. —(Minister for Finance).
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Mr. Lemass:
We have no objection to the passing of this Bill through all stages to-day, but as this is the last stage of the financial discussions there are a few observations I would like to make. First of all, I would like to make it quite clear, so far as I am concerned, that I did not accuse the Taoiseach of basing his election campaign on his promise to reduce prices from taxation—quite the contrary. In every speech I made, and particularly during the two speeches I made from Radio Eireann, I endeavoured to point out to the electorate that the Taoiseach was carefully avoiding committing himself to the promises that the back benchers of his Party and the constituency representatives of his Party were making. There was not a Deputy opposite who does not know that in his constituency specific promises were made that if there was a change of Government there would be an immediate reduction in taxes and prices generally. The point that I tried to put before the electorate was that while these promises were being made on the basis of individual candidates and Party representatives calling to private houses, the Taoiseach, Mr. Costello, was carefully avoiding committing himself in the same way.
I described that as a shabby trick upon the people. Now that the trick has been demonstrated in the Taoiseach's speech here to-day to be precisely what we described it, it is all the shabbier on that account. Here, this afternoon, the Taoiseach has formally repudiated every promise made by every candidate of Fine Gael and the Labour Party during the election. Every undertaking given by every representative of these Parties to the people of this country for the reduction of taxation and prices has been formally and finally repudiated here this evening by the Taoiseach. That is the significance of the Taoiseach's speech here and it is just as well that its significance should be appreciated not merely by the members of this House but by the public generally.
The Taoiseach has refused to answer certain questions of mine regarding the possible effects on trade of certain recent ministerial statements. He seemed to be blaming me because the Minister for Agriculture went out and made a speech last week-end. I did not send him out. Presumably his colleagues in the Government knew he was going out and presumably they knew what he was going to say—or did they? The Minister for Agriculture went out and indicated that his policy was to secure the removal of certain taxes, tariffs and quotas. Is that Government policy? The Taoiseach got annoyed because I asked him that question. Am I not entitled to ask the Government what its policy is or to ask the Taoiseach to explain the policy of the Government? Is the policy of the Government to do what the Minister for Agriculture suggested last week, to remove all taxes, tariffs and quotas on what he described as the raw materials of agriculture? If the Taoiseach does not know the policy of the Government and consequently cannot answer that question here to-day, if there has to be some reconciling of differences within the Cabinet on that issue, let us be told that but do let us have a statement from the Government on that position within a week or a fortnight before too much damage is done.
I want to know what is the expectation of the Government regarding the price of tea. There is not a Deputy opposite who does not know that every tea retailer is at the present time on a quota from his wholesaler and that he cannot get tea on order. There is a general expectation that the price of tea may go up and a consequent disposition on the part of the wholesalers and retailers to hold on to stocks. Any uncertainty in that regard can be removed by a definite statement by the Government.
Why did you not remove the doubt before you left office? It was there when you left.
Mr. Lemass:
I told the House that the stocks of tea that were available at last year's prices would last until September.
Ánd what was going to happen then?
Mr. Lemass:
I did not know what was going to happen then. I also explained that what would happen then would depend on the price of tea in the markets in June.(Interruptions.) What is Deputy Morrissey trying to say? Is the Deputy trying to blackmail me into silence? Is that the purpose of that intervention? He need not think I am going to be prevented from doing my duty.
Deputy Lemass should be allowed to speak without interruption.
Mr. Lemass:
The Deputy has all the instincts of a blackmailer. I am not going to be prevented from doing my duty as a representative of the people. Is the Government objecting to being asked a question? Is that the purpose of that intervention?(Interruptions.)
Deputy Morrissey should cease interrupting.
After the barrage of interruptions to which the Taoiseach was subjected.
Mr. Lemass:
The Minister for Agriculture went out and made a statement on Government policy on prices and taxation. Was that a statement on Government policy or was it not? Is that a fair question? Was he talking on Government policy on that occasion? If it was not Government policy a single sentence will remove any uncertainty that he may have created.
If it was Government policy let us get the specific statement on what commodities he was talking about when he spoke of removing taxes, tariffs, and quotas. If I cannot get a reply to that statement now, a reply should be given and must be given within a reasonable time to the people. The people are going to look for a reply—or does the Government think they can get away with it?
We are not going to be bullied.
Mr. Lemass:
I asked a week ago for a statement on policy regarding tea. Again the Minister dealing with that debate evaded the question. What is the reason for this evasion? Does not every Deputy in the House know that the Government has to come to some decision in regard to tea in the near future, a decision either to subsidise the price or make some arrangement which will enable the higher cost of replacing present stocks to be met by Tea Importers, Limited? Is the present position in which tea imports are canalised through Tea Importers, Limited, likely to be continued? I am asked these questions myself. I am sure every other Deputy sitting behind the Government is being asked similar questions and I am wondering if certain Deputies are asking these questions in the Minister's private office and what replies they are getting. Is it fair that individual Government Deputies should know the Government's mind on these matters which affect the interest of the trade while this information should be kept from the public as a whole? Is that what Deputy Morrissey is trying to evade?
Do not talk to me about distributing information and how you did it.
Mr. Lemass:
The Deputy is always trying to make suggestions of that kind. He was three years in office as Minister and he was challenged day after day to produce something to prove the allegations he had made——
And so I did.
Mr. Lemass:
——and he never did it. He ran away.
The motor cars industry must be going to be good, as I see you are a director in it.
Mr. Lemass:
In all moderation, I ask any Deputy opposite to say if I, a Deputy in this House representing the people and a spokesman for the time being of the Opposition Party, ask the Government to explain the precise significance of a statement made by a member of the Government a few days ago which appears to imply a vital change affecting the interests of many people in this country—firms and traders and workers employed, is there any reason why the existing uncertainty regarding that should not be cleared up by a Government statement? If we cannot get it now when can we get it? I will be satisfied with that information for the time being.
The speech we have just listened to is, in my opinion, the most regrettable speech made in this House for many a long day. Deputy Lemass is going to create a panic in the tea market to-morrow.
Mr. Lemass:
Why?
Because people with money will start buying up supplies and hoarding.
Mr. Lemass:
Does the Deputy know that prices are going up?
Because you have told them of the change in the tea market.
Mr. Lemass:
Does the Deputy know that prices are going up? I do not know.
On a point of order, may I point out that a few moments ago when an orderly question was asked of Deputy Lemass, there was a yell from the Fianna Fáil Benches? Now, when it is not a matter of an orderly question, there is a yell of interruptions from them again.
Deputy Byrne.
The speech made by Deputy Lemass just now is a tip to everybody who has a £10 note to spare, to go to their tea shops to-morrow and buy in £10 worth of tea, if they want to hoard it because of the fear of high prices. There will be no high prices until they start hoarding. That happened once before when one of your crowd made a similar statement. That is what you are doing now. The price of tea, as a result of hoarding, will go up and the working-class people will suffer.(Interruptions.)
Order!
Your speech will create a scarcity, if this Government does not do something to prevent people from buying more than their ordinary supplies. I hope the Government will move quickly so as to prevent a panic on the tea market and to prevent hoarding by people who have money and who can go out to-morrow morning and buy all they want. That is what happened in days gone by, when people heard whiskey was going up and tried to forestall the market. The Deputy is doing all the damage he can to the country. (Interruptions). The ex-Minister must give the Government a chance to prove its worth. His Party promised that they would not stand in their way but for the last week you are going on with a lot of nonsense, as if you were talking to a crowd of schoolboys, promising them this and promising them that. That is the way you are doing damage to the country.
The Deputy will please use the third person.
He is making it clear that he is referring to Deputy Lemass.
The rules of order must be observed.
Unfortunately, Sir, you were not here when the speech was made by Deputy Lemass about tea prices. He asked could the Government give any guarantee that tea prices will not go up but tea prices may go up to-morrow morning as a result of his speech.
What about the price of the loaf?
I hope the Government will move quickly to see that there is no hoarding of tea in this country and that there is a plentiful supply to satisfy everybody.
I want to intervene, just for one moment, to talk about a time when Deputy Lemass did not do his damnedest to make the price of tea come down. I refer to a time about a year and a half or two years ago when on the instructions of Deputy Lemass——
I do not think that arises now. We are dealing with the Appropriation Bill.
On a point of order. Deputy Lemass, before you, Sir, resumed the Chair, was allowed for about ten minutes to deal with the price of tea.
One infraction of the rules of order does not justify a second infraction.
On a point of order. Deputy Lemass dealt with the question of the price of tea for quite a considerable time.
Deputy Barry is going back to something that happened 18 months ago.
Is Deputy Barry not entitled to rebut what Deputy Lemass said?
He is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill.
Will that limitation be put on every other Deputy in the House?
It applies not only to the Deputy but to every other Deputy.
Can I deal with the point now?
The Deputy will deal with the Bill.
If I may deal with the danger that was mentioned by Deputy Lemass of tea prices being increased, I should like to say that in the past, the group that import tea into this country were allowed to purchase 2,000,000 lb. of tea on the London market at 1/2½ a lb., and that tea was permitted to be sold to the trade at 3/2½ a lb.
Mr. Lemass:
Nonsense.
He is in the trade and you are not.
Mr. Lemass:
Yes, but I know the facts and the Minister knows them.
He permitted tea, which was imported at 1/2½ per lb. to be sold at 3/2½. I wrote many letters to the Press at the time, in connection with the matter. I do not know what the profits were devoted to.
Deputy Lemass came in here at the beginning of this session and he told us at the outset of his remarks that Deputy Costello had made all sorts of promises before the election. Then when I proved to him that, on the contrary, Deputy Costello made no promises and that Deputy Lemass and his colleagues had told the people that Deputy Costello was not promising anything, he changed his tune and he said that all the Deputies on this side of the House had been making promises during the election campaign of immediate reductions but although he brought in piles of newspapers, he was able to produce only one quotation to that effect.
Mr. Lemass:
I got a whole pile sent to me since.
There was only one that he was able to pick out of the whole pile which dealt with the question of an immediate reduction. The Deputy has had recourse to the old game of setting up ninepins for the purpose of knocking them down and suggesting that the ninepins which he has knocked down were those of his opponents. The Deputy knows that he is just engaged in a species of shadow boxing. I do not know in what circles the Deputy is moving at the present moment when he talks about the uncertainty and the anxiety in business circles. I have some contact with business circles and I meet people in business circles in Dublin almost every day. I can say that, far from there being any doubt or anxiety—and I am referring not only to people who are supporters of the Government—amongst the business community, there is an air of peace and calmness amongst them. Even businessmen who are strong supporters of Fianna Fáil agree and admit that there is an air of calmness around business dealings at the present moment.
An air of calmness!
The Deputy got his answer in North Galway. He was very cocksure before the election that Fianna Fáil would get a second seat but the people told him where he got off.
We did not lose anything.
The Deputy was very cocksure that he was going to win a second seat for Fianna Fáil but he has got his answer. The people of North Galway have assessed him at his correct value. Deputy Lemass knows very well that what he is trying is a political tactic. Personally, I think it is a foolish political tactic because I think the people appreciate his true motives and are condemning the Deputy for it. He is attempting the political tactic of firing off, day after day, machine-gun questions at this Government before they have got an opportunity of settling down, in the hope that some member of the Government may say something around which the Deputy will be able to hang his hat at a later stage. He is just trying to bounce something across the House. The Deputy ought to know that we are not going to be taken in, or to fall for that type of tactic.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.